In what way is Medicare for all a leftist thing? Universal healthcare is popular all around the world, even in right-wing parties and I think most Americans support the idea?

Even with with the incentive of a big pay day the US health care system hasn't been very innovative.  Like I said before the last great health care innovation that came out of the US was the polio vaccine and that was funded by the public.  On top of all that the US health care system is largely controlled by big pharma and big pharma isn't very innovative they only want to come up with treatments instead of cures.  Since having someone taking treatments for their rest of their lives instead of being cured is a lot more profitable. 

Nope. The Spectrum has been well-mapped. A country may shift its position on the Spectrum, but the Spectrum itself doesn’t shift its position. 

They need to use it to keep fooling voters into electing them.

That doesn't make sense, What you call centre may just be on the Right or Left of centre in some countries own political spectrum, as the US is generally seen a Right leaning country their center is more to the right of most other Western countries, are you proposing some kind of definition for what is centre worldwide or just US?  

For example here in Australia, what the US calls centre would generally be seen as hard Right politics, US centre is relative to US own political experience, and Australia's own centre is relative to our own political experience  

Okay name me a few then.  Also there is nothing paranoid about my statement about big pharma that is how they operate.  Also big pharma is more powerful in the US then anywhere else in the world.  The US and some other minor country are the only two countries in the world where they are allowed to air TV ads for prescription medications on  TV.

Your second statement is not true at all and is in fact paranoia as pointed out by NightlyPoe ... 

For instance, Gilead Sciences has brought the drug Sofosbuvir which outright cures Hepatitis C with a high efficacy (90-100%) in conjunction with the usage of Velpatasvir which is also a proprietary product of Gilead Sciences as well ... 

Pharmaceutical companies have no financial incentive to with hold a cure solely because of competitive pressure otherwise when Gilead would've potentially lost up to $10B+ of revenue in their lifetimes had they've not brought the cure since others like Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Merck would've happily taken up the mantle and profit off developing the omnipotent drugs themselves ... 

Biopharmaceutical companies don't intend to rent seek, they intend to provide value but you and the others fail to see that. The US has lead in the development of monoclonal antibodies but now they've furthered their heights even farther in exploring biologics by using state of the art adeno-associated virus vectors ... 

American medical innovation has shown that late stage cancer doesn't have to be a death sentence and I have hope that they can also show that Alzheimer's doesn't have to be either regardless of the price tag ... 

Again there is nothing paranoid about my statement and its 100% true since big pharma isn't as powerful and influential anywhere else on the planet besides the US. 

It goes both ways. People with money come to the US for healthcare. Whether is be due to the long waits or quality. This isn't a debate, its reality.

Meanwhile people do leave the US for cheaper care.

Your statement pretty much is paranoia ... 

Big pharma is influential in the US simply because they conduct the highest amount of clinical trials compared to ANY continent by virtue ... 

More importantly with biologics on the rise, treatments are becoming more permanent than ever before with gene therapy. Late last year, a biologic containing an AAV vector was approved by the FDA to cure Leber's congenital amaurosis which causes blindness ... 

You don't appreciate what big pharma does because you're too blindsided to not understand that they bring miracles ... 

Price controlling medicine like Europe or other common wealth countries is not a sustainable path for drug development and never will be. Advocates of that stance are too ignorant to not see that it is mainly the US who keeps funding their fragile little bubble ... 

We're waiting when ungrateful Europe will actually start contributing to big pharma in a significant capacity since they are run like charities currently or they could just end up being humiliated by the biggest third world country (China) in drug development ... (personally, I'm more eager to see Europe's social democrat backed price controls to fail then fall behind the likes of China ) 

Massive irony to Europe that they'd be losing in biopharmaceutical research to nation that's constantly accused of "technology transfer" but I guess if they cannot pay for innovation they do not deserve to reap the fruits of it ...