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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How single payer helps Republicans change the subject [View all]ehrnst
(32,640 posts)27. I know exactly why Sanders chose it. Medicare is popular. That's good marketing. Good politics.
Sanders named it that. His co-sponsors are going to call it by name, because if they don't, they don't get the press that comes with agreeing with Bernie. And many people will be led to believe that not only is it just an "expansion" of medicare, it would cost the same, which is not the case at all.
Sanders knows what will sell, especially to a public that doesn't know just how complicated health care policy can be. He's been a politician for a long, long time.
At the same time, Medicare-for-All is really smart politics. Medicare is not only popular, its also familiar. Many of us have parents or grandparents who are enrolled in the program. And polls show that a significant majority of Americans now believe that its the governments responsibility to provide health coverage for all.
But from a policy standpoint, Medicare-for-All is probably the hardest way to get there. In fact, a number of experts who tout the benefits of single-payer systems say that the Medicare-for-All proposals currently on the table may be virtually impossible to enact. The timing alone would cause serious shocks to the system. Conyerss House bill would move almost everyone in the country into Medicare within a single year. We dont know exactly what Bernie Sanders will propose in the Senate, but his 2013 American Health Security Act had a two-year transition period. Radically restructuring a sixth of the economy in such short order would be like trying to stop a cruise ship on a dime.
Harold Pollack, a University of Chicago public-health researcher and liberal advocate for universal coverage, says, There has not yet been a detailed single-payer bill thats laid out the transitional issues about how to get from here to there. Weve never actually seen that. Even if you believe everything people say about the cost savings that would result, there are still so many detailed questions about how we should finance this, how we can deal with the shock to the system, and so on.
But from a policy standpoint, Medicare-for-All is probably the hardest way to get there. In fact, a number of experts who tout the benefits of single-payer systems say that the Medicare-for-All proposals currently on the table may be virtually impossible to enact. The timing alone would cause serious shocks to the system. Conyerss House bill would move almost everyone in the country into Medicare within a single year. We dont know exactly what Bernie Sanders will propose in the Senate, but his 2013 American Health Security Act had a two-year transition period. Radically restructuring a sixth of the economy in such short order would be like trying to stop a cruise ship on a dime.
Harold Pollack, a University of Chicago public-health researcher and liberal advocate for universal coverage, says, There has not yet been a detailed single-payer bill thats laid out the transitional issues about how to get from here to there. Weve never actually seen that. Even if you believe everything people say about the cost savings that would result, there are still so many detailed questions about how we should finance this, how we can deal with the shock to the system, and so on.
However, when you lead people to believe that something will deliver what it will not, it can give opponents ammunition that "you lied."
Remember how much trouble President Obama got into when he said that if you like your insurance you can keep it? asks Pollack. For something like 1.6 million people, that promise turned out to be hard to keep. And that created a firestorm. Those 1.6 million people represented less than 1 percent of the non-elderly population, and most of them lost substandard McPlans which left them vulnerable if they got sick. The ACA extended coverage to almost 10 times as many people, but those who lost their policies nonetheless became the centerpiece of the rights assault on the law. Trump and other Republicans are still talking about these victims of Obamacare to this day.
https://www.thenation.com/article/medicare-for-all-isnt-the-solution-for-universal-health-care/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
40 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
I know exactly why Sanders chose it. Medicare is popular. That's good marketing. Good politics.
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#27
True. And the "Medicare for All" bill as proposed is different than Medicare as it is.
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#24
Home now...can type better...hubs had last interview today...and they knew he had an offer so
Demsrule86
Sep 2017
#29
Actually, it's a series of regulations that limits and directs the market in many ways
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#23
It could work with some tweaks and it is all we have and if goes it is all we ever had. There is no
Demsrule86
Sep 2017
#30
The vast majority of countries with universal health care have Public/private hybrids
ehrnst
Sep 2017
#31
Exactly. Germany has a similar system to the ACA...we would need strong price controls on
Demsrule86
Sep 2017
#33