Sanders and other progressives begin a push for single payer

This move is interesting to me. I read elsewhere that one of the progressive groups was shouting that “Now is the time to push for single payer now that we have the momentum!”

And I think “momentum” isn’t actually a thing. For starters, the Ryan plan went down for a whole lot of reasons, mainly because the Republican party actually has some members in it who still cling to reality by the fingertips, and they weren’t willing to completely repeal the ACA. Of course, the Freedumb Caucus would settle for nothing less. It was obviously division within the GOP itself that doomed the bill. It had nothing to do with the Democrats, though arguably the pressure put on by “the resistance” may have prevented the Republicans in less insane parts of the country to refuse to go beyond the pale in destroying the ACA.

And if the Republicans can’t get their signature reason for existence accomplished when they control both houses of congress and the White House, how the hell are progressives supposed to pass single payer with the tepid support of an incompetent, sellout Democrat party that’s in the minority?

And doesn’t he risk losing and balancing out the embarrassing defeat the Reps just suffered, and further convincing the public that government can’t do anything right?

But I suppose if it is handled correctly, and he can control the message (which Sanders is actually pretty good at, now that I think about it – he doesn’t get diverted), maybe he can build up enough public support that people start to see Republicans as the problem, and send some out in 2018.

I will say this: Sanders has clicked and dragged the Overton Window’s left frame to the left. Things that could not even be talked about two years ago are now within the frame of “reasonable.” That’s not nothing. Say what you will about Sanders, he is now the most popular politician in the country, and he has opened up the game even though he hasn’t “won” anything yet.

Sidenote: Cory Booker, who got trashed for opposing Sanders’ Pharma amendment in January, has now co-signed another piece of legislation with Sanders to allow import of Canadian pharmaceuticals. Booker has been dragged to the left on this issue by pressure from the grassroots. There is some “safety” rules included in the new legislation that allow Booker a fig leaf to cover his earlier opposition to this which he will now doubt use as a defense when he runs for president in 2020, but…whatever. He moved to the left. Even that POS Schumer has moved to the left rhetorically.

I was watching a tv when Trump was yapping about the defeat of trumpcare
and i was thinking that this is the first time I’ve really thought to myself….even his supporters are gonna see through him on this one. His ‘schtick’ just wasnt very convincing on this one.

Governing is starting to create cracks in his teflon.

w
v

On the Single Payer issue. I wish the Dems, including Sanders, would read Tony Judt’s book, Ill Fares the Land and use it to make their case.

Ill Fares the Land

I’d go much further, but it’s an excellent argument for public sector goods and services in key industries. Judt focuses on things like railroads to talk about how natural monopolies, which are also social goods, should be held by the public sector, not the private, and insurance is a slam dunk along those lines. I keep hearing Republicans spout off about how important it is for us to have more competition, without them doing anything to explain why this could possibly help patients — it can’t. Any competition between for-profit insurance companies, if it results in reduced premiums, must also result in reduced coverage, higher deductibles, more denial of patient claims, etc. etc. if those companies want to make any money.

That’s just math. There’s no way around that. Unlike selling an Iphone, a for-profit insurance company can’t cut costs down a supply chain by automating everything and/or shipping manufacturing overseas. All it’s doing is paying claims or denying them. When it pays those claims, it loses money. When it doesn’t, it makes its profits. There just isn’t any way for it to “innovate” — to use a euphemism for hurting workers, consumers and the environment — to both lower prices and keep quality relatively stable.

Public, non-profit insurance is just slam-dunk obvious. There is no other way to reduce costs and actually direct payments toward patients themselves, instead of corporations.

Single-Payer Myths; Single-Payer Facts

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/singlepayer_myths_singlepayer_facts.php

Facts about National Health Insurance (NHI) You Might Not Know

The health care delivery system remains private. As opposed to a national health service, where the government employs doctors, in a national health insurance system, the government is billed, but doctors remain in private
practice.

A national health insurance program could save approximately $150 billion on paperwork alone. Because of the administrative complexities in our current system, over 25% of every health care dollar goes to marketing, billing,
utilization review, and other forms of waste. A single-payer system could reduce administrative costs greatly.

Most businesses would save money. Because a single-payer system is more efficient than our current system, health care costs are less, and therefore, businesses save money. In Canada, the three major auto manufacturers (Ford, GM, and Daimler-Chrysler) have all publicly endorsed Canada’s single-payer health system from a business and financial standpoint. In the United States, Ford pays more for its workers health insurance than it does for the steel to make its cars.

Under NHI, your insurance doesn’t depend on your job. Whether you’re a student, professor, or working part-time raising children, you’re provided with care. Not only does this lead to a healthier population, but it’s also beneficial from an economic standpoint: workers are less-tied to their
employers, and those that dislike their current positions can find new work
(where they would be happier and most likely more productive and efficient).

Myths about National Health Insurance (NHI)

The government would dictate how physicians practice medicine.
In countries with a national health insurance system, physicians are rarely questioned about their medical practices (and usually only in cases of expected fraud). Compare it to today’s system, where doctors routinely have to ask an insurance company permission to perform procedures, prescribe certain medications, or run certain tests to help their patients.

Waits for services would be extremely long.
Again, in countries with NHI, urgent care is always provided immediately. Other countries do experience some waits for elective procedures (like cataract removal), but maintaining the US’s same level of health expenditures (twice as much as the next-highest country), waits would be much shorter or even non-existent.

People will overutilize the system.
Most estimates do indicate that there would be some increased utilization of the system (mostly from the 42 million people that are currently uninsured and therefore not receiving adequate health care), however the staggering savings from a single-payer system would easily compensate for this. (And remember, doctors still control most health care utilization. Patients don’t receive prescriptions or tests because they want them; they receive them because their doctors have deemed them appropriate.)

Government programs are wasteful and inefficient.
Some are better than others, just as some businesses are better than others. Just to name a few of the most successful and helpful: the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, and Social Security. Even consider Medicare, the government program for the elderly; its overhead is approximately 3%, while in private insurance companies, overhead and profits add up to 15-25%.

Thanks, ZN. Good articles.

In reality, the American obsession, the addiction, the insistence on “free market” orthodoxy literally kills tens of thousands of Americans each year. This is not hyperbole.

There is almost no case, across all industries, wherein a private, for-profit entity can perform better for consumers than a non-profit, public entity. It’s virtually impossible. Overhead and the profit motive rule that out. Yet we’ve been fed a constant diet of lies about all of this, for generations now, and it’s a part of the woodwork. We’ve been brainwashed into believing that the public sector is necessarily inefficient and wasteful.

In reality, it’s the private sector at fault, and those who outsource and privatize public goods and services. Naturally, “government” is woefully inefficient if it privatizes anything. The fundamental problem with the ACA is that it outsourced to the private sector what should have remained all non-profit and public.

Never, ever put a “government” stamp on something the private sector controls. You’re guaranteed to get the blame.