Democratic party voters want single player healthcare, but Democratic party leaders do not.

[mhatrw]

So who exactly is it that Democratic party leaders represent?

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I want to start with

Adding Medicare to the exchange. I don't want to jump to single payer. We can get there with taking that first step. And those who have company "subsidized" health insurance (we still have 7K taken out annually from paycheck) should be able to complete a form just as we do for State and Fed income tax collection that says -

I check the box for you to send my 7K to Fed Gov to purchase Medicare. That way my relationship with my employer regarding my health insurance is similar to my relationship with them and my home owners insurance.


You pay me for now - but if I leave nothing changes with my health insurance.

I'd rather be with 40 million people on a Citizens Medicare Plan than 150K people on an employers plan. There is strength in numbers to beat up vendors. Look at the ski industry in America in the 1990's (I worked for a snowmaking company then). Intrawest was buying up ski areas to become a Corporation which got them better prices on everything from toilet paper to cables for lifts.

There were smaller areas that joined together to create purchasing consortiums.

What better consortium than something we are already paying into?

We already pay into Medicare - Fed Gov has key data from us - they just need to set up an A/R system, compliance, a few plans and issue cards. They already have A/P and accounting methods nailed down and can work with NIH on the types of plans needed.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

12. Public Option

[JustAnotherGen]

13. Exactly

And it would possibly kill the insurance companies way of doing business. They won't be able to compete.

[Andy823]

19. Excellent point

We can't start over, but building on the ACA, as you have suggested, can work to make the change to a universal health care system in the future.

As long as republicans have control of the house, it will be hard to change anything, but it would be much easier to do it the way you have suggested, than to try and change it overnight. No matter who wins the nomination, republicans will fight them at every turn to keep things from changing for the better in this country, it's just the way the they are.

[JustAnotherGen]

20. I agree

I've been hesistant to point out the

No matter who wins the nomination, republicans will fight them at every turn to keep things from changing for the better in this country, it's just the way the they are.

Argument in regards to just about everything and idea on the table in this election - but it is there.

[MeNMyVolt]

23. Excellent post.

[RandiFan1290]

2. They only represent the Lieberman wing of the party.

[Recursion]

3. Arithmetic, for one

Democratic party leaders have been burned (see what I did there?) by benefits that people want but don't want to pay for before.

[mhatrw]

4. Everybody has to pay more for healthcare now.

So how in the hell does this make sense?

[Recursion]

5. Because a subsidized ACA plan is probably cheaper than an 8.9% payroll levy

Europe does this by charging a 20% sales tax, which is much more regressive than our income tax system.

[mhatrw]

6. We SPEND more than they do on healthcare. A LOT MORE.

And by they, I mean every other country on Earth.

So how again is it "probably cheaper" to do it our way?

[Recursion]

7. "Their way" includes limiting doctors to about $90K per year

And, until we're willing to do that, we won't have affordable healthcare.

[mhatrw]

9. Let's limit CEOs to the same while we are at it.

Your one note attempts at wonkistry are boring. Yes, many doctors will make less. So will all the profiteering corporations. And everyone else will benefit as they do in every other first world nation on earth.

[Recursion]

10. Sure, I'm fine with that, but it won't do much

CEO pay is a red herring when you look at the dollar amounts involved. (Except to the extent that it involves incentives, and then it's not even remotely a red herring, oddly...)

[tk2kewl]

18. Our current arithmetic sucks!

Do Canada and Europe use some sort of alien math?

Give us a break with the bullshit excuses for why it can't be done. And stop insulting people with Republican "free stuff" meme. It'ss not becoming for someone who claims to be a Democrat.

[Recursion]

22. No, but their doctors make half of what ours do, and they have a 20% income tax

Those things go together.

[Chathamization]

8. Democratic voters need to start electing people who share their beliefs. Not sure why it always

seems like elected officials are a lot more conservative than the base, even in solid blue states. There's no good reason why there isn't a strong push for single-payer at the state level. The only state pushing for it now seems to be Colorado, and that's by a ballot initiative, not coming from the legislature.

[gyroscope]

11. Party leaders are paid off by big pharma and the insurance lobby

they represent their paymasters.

the corrupt political system is rotten to the core.

[kydo]

14. I don't think that statement is exactly correct. Let me explain.

It's called republicans.

When the ACA was passed, the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Not having a single player health care system passed then was all politics. Be it republican road blocks or Democratic in-fighting.

What Sander's fans forget about getting a single player health care system is that the President can't just enact it. If that was possible Obama would have done that, 7 years ago. But because it involves money, a single player health care system must be passed by Congress and the Senate.

So when I hear some candidates, pundits, and regular people, say a single player health care system is not really a possibility at this time. I take it to mean good luck getting Congress and the Senate to pass it.

If you want a single player health care system vote for better representatives in Congress and the Senate. It will never get done if only the President and the people want it. Look at Gitmo, its still there despite all the effort Obama put into shutting it down.

You really think the republicans will vote for a single player health care system? Hell they keep trying to repeal the ACA every chance they get, what 50, 60 times now?

For the record I would like a single player health care system. But I am not casting my vote for President based on a single player health care system. Now for Congress critters and Senators, both on the state and federal level... You betcha I look for candidates that support my views on issues like health care, gun control and all that.

[mhatrw]

15. Who even so much as PROPOSED it? And who has jumped up to shoot it down

the minute someone with a voice PROPOSED it?

[kydo]

16. The answer to both is Congress

There have been representatives and senators that advocated for the single player/public option. Sadly there were more that opposed it. The compromise was the ACA.

[mhatrw]

17. Pelosi, Clinton and the rest of the Democratic party "leadership" are shooting down the

idea as we speak. Why are they shooting down an idea that is supported by and would greatly benefit their constituents?

[kydo]

21. Clinton was one of the first supporters for a "public option."

Worked her little tail off back in the 90's to get us one, remember? When she was first lady her hubby President Clinton put her in charge of laying the ground work for a Universal Health care plan, but alas republicans shot it down called it socialism.

Now I do agree with you about Pelosi. When the ground work for the ACA was being laid she was not in favor of a public option. She also wasn't in favor of charging the W admin with war crimes. But I don't live in her district so I can't vote to replace her. I live in FL.

So far as I remember Mrs Clinton wasn't in Congress when the ACA was being worked on.

Her stance against attempting a single player health care system at this time as nothing to do with not supporting it. It's called being realistic. Hell if she had had her way we would have had universal health care back in the 90's and all this would have been a mute point right now.


If you want universal/public option/single player health care pick better reps in Congress. A President has tons of power but there are limits to that power. Sadly universal health care is one of those limits. It falls on Congress to do that.