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
 

ehrnst

(32,640 posts)
27. I know exactly why Sanders chose it. Medicare is popular. That's good marketing. Good politics.
Fri Sep 22, 2017, 06:06 PM
Sep 2017

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, it’s 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 it’s the government’s “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. Conyers’s House bill would move almost everyone in the country into Medicare within a single year. We don’t 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 that’s laid out the transitional issues about how to get from here to there. We’ve 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 right’s 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/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

K&R Gothmog Sep 2017 #1
K AND R FOR EXPOSURE AND DEBATE DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2017 #2
We should never talk about it. theaocp Sep 2017 #3
I didn't see that at all from the post ehrnst Sep 2017 #5
It is the wrong time now. Save the ACA. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #20
K&R sheshe2 Sep 2017 #4
Truth. nt LexVegas Sep 2017 #6
I wish everyone would call it Medicare For All, as it's named n/t leftstreet Sep 2017 #7
That is the name of a specific bill, not the term for the system. ehrnst Sep 2017 #9
It's what Sanders and the co-sponsors call it leftstreet Sep 2017 #26
I know exactly why Sanders chose it. Medicare is popular. That's good marketing. Good politics. ehrnst Sep 2017 #27
No matter what you call it... Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #12
It's what Sanders and the co-sponsors call it n/t leftstreet Sep 2017 #25
Honestly, I am very angry with all of them. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #28
The article uses correct terminology, as would be applied to any such bill. ehrnst Sep 2017 #32
Thank You Me. Sep 2017 #8
It is very (very) hard to take away benefits once they are established, Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #10
But that's not a post that will get applause. ehrnst Sep 2017 #13
I'd make a very lousy populist demagogue. Expecting Rain Sep 2017 #15
Why do you hate progress? ehrnst Sep 2017 #16
nonsense. you don't decide that. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #21
I agree. brer cat Sep 2017 #17
True. And the "Medicare for All" bill as proposed is different than Medicare as it is. ehrnst Sep 2017 #24
K&R Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #11
The ACA is the farthest down the road we have ever been to UHC. ehrnst Sep 2017 #14
Home now...can type better...hubs had last interview today...and they knew he had an offer so Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #29
Just heard pundit say debate bad idea. On cell Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #18
Good article, ehrnst. brer cat Sep 2017 #19
The ACA is/was market oriented. kentuck Sep 2017 #22
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
And where did campaigning on a popular idea at the time get the rethugs? LostOne4Ever Sep 2017 #34
They campaigned to get rid of something...they found a common enemy. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #37
K&R Gothmog Sep 2017 #35
A lot of stupid people are still opposed to one big government plan. A Public Option Hoyt Sep 2017 #36
That is a good idea...let people buy into Medicare. Demsrule86 Sep 2017 #38
This is playing right into Republican hands CherokeeFiddle Sep 2017 #39
No one is stopping discussion of Single Payer & we should NOT be censoring health policy experts ehrnst Sep 2017 #40
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How single payer helps Re...»Reply #27