Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: I am beginning to hate the word "pragmatic." [View all]Gothmog
(147,373 posts)92. Here’s One Big Problem With The Bernie Sanders Plan For Health Care Utopia
This plan will not be adopted nationally http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-health-plan_us_569ff110e4b076aadcc50807
The Bernie Sanders health care plan, which the Vermont senator released this week, sounds pretty spectacular at first blush. Its a proposal to create a single-payer system, which means that Sanders would wipe away existing insurance arrangements and replace them with a single government program. Everybody would get insurance, free of co-pays or deductibles.
Thatd be an upgrade in benefits, even for seniors on Medicare. And while people would have to pay higher taxes, Sanders claims most people would come out ahead financially because they wouldnt be paying private insurance premiums anymore. A typical middle-class family would save about $5,000 a year, according to a rough analysis commissioned by Sanders' presidential campaign, while society as a whole would end up saving something like $6 trillion over the next decade.
To help pay for his plans unprecedented benefits, Sanders proposes to extract unprecedented savings from the health care system. Here is where the details get fuzzy and hard to accept at face value, even beyond the usual optimistic assumptions that figure into campaign proposals. Sanders expects a large portion of the savings to come from reductions in administrative waste, because insurance billing would basically end. Another big chunk would come from squeezing the industries that produce health care services and supplies -- and squeezing those industries hard.
That last part should set off alarm bells for anybody who remembers the fight to pass the Affordable Care Act. Two particular episodes from 2009 -- one widely publicized, one barely noticed -- are a reminder of how much power those groups wield in Washington. For Sanders to realize his vision for single-payer health care, hed have to overcome even greater resistance than Obamacares architects faced. And Sanders has offered no reason to think he could do that, which is something Democratic voters might want to keep in mind.
Two lessons from Obamacare
The first and better-known episode from 2009 was the battle over the public option -- a proposal, crafted by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, to create a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers for customers. Hacker and others figured the public option could dictate lower payment rates to suppliers and providers of medical care, just like Medicare does, thereby keeping premiums low and forcing private insurers to match them.
Voters liked the idea, according to polls, and experts had certified that it would save the government money. But it ran into huge opposition -- not just from insurers, who didnt want the competition, but from doctors, makers of drugs and medical devices, and hospitals, all of whom understood the proposal would cut into their revenues....
Bernie's vision vs. Hillary's
No, this grim political reality doesnt mean Sanders or anybody else should stop advocating for single-payer. Progressive achievements like the minimum wage and civil rights began as ideas that the political establishment once dismissed as loopy. And the kind of reform that Sanders envisions would have a lot going for it. Single-payer works quite well abroad and a version of it could work here too -- even if, as Harold Pollack and Matthew Yglesias noted recently at Vox, it would ultimately require compromises and trade-offs that supporters rarely acknowledge.
But voters comparing Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who has proposed bolstering the Affordable Care Act rather than replacing it, should be clear about the choice they face. This isnt a contest between a candidate who can deliver health care nirvana and one who is willing to settle for less. Its a contest between a candidate imagining a world without political or policy constraints, and one grappling with them; between a candidate talking about what he hopes the health care system will look like someday, and one focused on what she can actually achieve now.
Thatd be an upgrade in benefits, even for seniors on Medicare. And while people would have to pay higher taxes, Sanders claims most people would come out ahead financially because they wouldnt be paying private insurance premiums anymore. A typical middle-class family would save about $5,000 a year, according to a rough analysis commissioned by Sanders' presidential campaign, while society as a whole would end up saving something like $6 trillion over the next decade.
To help pay for his plans unprecedented benefits, Sanders proposes to extract unprecedented savings from the health care system. Here is where the details get fuzzy and hard to accept at face value, even beyond the usual optimistic assumptions that figure into campaign proposals. Sanders expects a large portion of the savings to come from reductions in administrative waste, because insurance billing would basically end. Another big chunk would come from squeezing the industries that produce health care services and supplies -- and squeezing those industries hard.
That last part should set off alarm bells for anybody who remembers the fight to pass the Affordable Care Act. Two particular episodes from 2009 -- one widely publicized, one barely noticed -- are a reminder of how much power those groups wield in Washington. For Sanders to realize his vision for single-payer health care, hed have to overcome even greater resistance than Obamacares architects faced. And Sanders has offered no reason to think he could do that, which is something Democratic voters might want to keep in mind.
Two lessons from Obamacare
The first and better-known episode from 2009 was the battle over the public option -- a proposal, crafted by Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker, to create a government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers for customers. Hacker and others figured the public option could dictate lower payment rates to suppliers and providers of medical care, just like Medicare does, thereby keeping premiums low and forcing private insurers to match them.
Voters liked the idea, according to polls, and experts had certified that it would save the government money. But it ran into huge opposition -- not just from insurers, who didnt want the competition, but from doctors, makers of drugs and medical devices, and hospitals, all of whom understood the proposal would cut into their revenues....
Bernie's vision vs. Hillary's
No, this grim political reality doesnt mean Sanders or anybody else should stop advocating for single-payer. Progressive achievements like the minimum wage and civil rights began as ideas that the political establishment once dismissed as loopy. And the kind of reform that Sanders envisions would have a lot going for it. Single-payer works quite well abroad and a version of it could work here too -- even if, as Harold Pollack and Matthew Yglesias noted recently at Vox, it would ultimately require compromises and trade-offs that supporters rarely acknowledge.
But voters comparing Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who has proposed bolstering the Affordable Care Act rather than replacing it, should be clear about the choice they face. This isnt a contest between a candidate who can deliver health care nirvana and one who is willing to settle for less. Its a contest between a candidate imagining a world without political or policy constraints, and one grappling with them; between a candidate talking about what he hopes the health care system will look like someday, and one focused on what she can actually achieve now.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
108 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
yes. and he compromises instead of fighting from a much higher starting point.
Karma13612
Jan 2016
#85
We were talking about Pragmatism. HIllary will be a continuation of Obama's Pragmatism.
Ferd Berfel
Jan 2016
#88
To fight them the party needs money and Sanders refused to raise a dime for the party.
hrmjustin
Jan 2016
#9
Screw that stupid argument. He fights with the truth and people want to hear it.
Punkingal
Jan 2016
#11
Yes - this was proven false a couple of weeks back. yet some here keep repeating it over and over
kath
Jan 2016
#75
If you have weak ideas, you need a lot of money to convince people their great ideas.
aikoaiko
Jan 2016
#37
Ideologues always do hate pragmatism. So much easier to fantasize and throw stones.
KittyWampus
Jan 2016
#21
I think you're confusing with "idealist" with "ideologue." Either way, it's inaccurate.
senz
Jan 2016
#24
Exactly, that's why I'm so happy to have a real liberal to vote for. He works for us not against us.
haikugal
Jan 2016
#32
Only if you believe that the Kochs will not run $300 million of negative ads against Sanders
Gothmog
Jan 2016
#53
I wouldn't need to if people would look at things instead of accepting whatever they are told. Sad.
Punkingal
Jan 2016
#64
Why don't you check out the national head to head match-ups with Bernie and the Republicans?
Punkingal
Jan 2016
#69
Matchups have no predictive power on who will win the general election, but they may
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#76
I don't believe Enten makes a single comment about comparative analysis, only about predictions
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#86
Your post is excessively rude. I wasn't advocating ignoring polls or facts.
JonLeibowitz
Jan 2016
#91
Talk to DWS. Say "hi" and tell her "thanks" for her moment of candor re: Bernie. nt
antigop
Jan 2016
#74
Funds are necessary for competing but not necessarily sufficient for victory
Fumesucker
Jan 2016
#87
Name me one major election a Democrat has won by moving to the right...
Still In Wisconsin
Jan 2016
#54
Your definition is fine...I'm afraid the Clinton people don't define it that way.
Punkingal
Jan 2016
#60
How fitting with Hillary invoking the name of Truman and tying it to the ACA. Something about
Ed Suspicious
Jan 2016
#83
There's a superiority with pragmatism, which says I'm the grown up, the realist.
EndElectoral
Jan 2016
#67
The way HRC is using the term, "pragmatic" means "Settling for less than nothing".
Ken Burch
Jan 2016
#89