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
108 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I am beginning to hate the word "pragmatic." (Original Post) Punkingal Jan 2016 OP
Pragmatic means submit to republicans during every negotiation. JRLeft Jan 2016 #1
Yes it does. It admits defeat right out of the gate. Punkingal Jan 2016 #3
"Pragmatic" is dog-whistle code for "Status Quo" Ferd Berfel Jan 2016 #52
it's another dog-whistle for "making tough choices' Karma13612 Jan 2016 #81
So Obama was Pragmatic when he put Social Secutiry on teh chopping block? Ferd Berfel Jan 2016 #82
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
Yes. We must not fight a Republican House Deny and Shred Jan 2016 #79
And how will you get the gop to go along with this vision? hrmjustin Jan 2016 #2
Do they fucking own us? Punkingal Jan 2016 #6
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
Your debating skills leave me in utter awe! hrmjustin Jan 2016 #15
Your parroting the same old lines is awe-inspiring by contrast. Punkingal Jan 2016 #17
No my point is Sanders has shown no desire for party building. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #19
Long since been proven false sonofspy777 Jan 2016 #38
Yes - this was proven false a couple of weeks back. yet some here keep repeating it over and over kath Jan 2016 #75
Then WE need to raise it...the rank and file progressives... JimDandy Jan 2016 #57
Thank you! Punkingal Jan 2016 #58
If you have weak ideas, you need a lot of money to convince people their great ideas. aikoaiko Jan 2016 #37
The Party that fights him at every step? tazkcmo Jan 2016 #102
That is a nice excuse you are making but it is just an excuse. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #104
Your opnion. tazkcmo Jan 2016 #105
What poll shows me wrong? hrmjustin Jan 2016 #106
You don't START with a compromise, you start with the ideal situation, jkbRN Jan 2016 #10
Ok but if they control the house they won't vote for Sanders bill. hrmjustin Jan 2016 #12
Work on a primary challenger for all of them, get the house back, jkbRN Jan 2016 #16
Then why did Sanders fail to raise money for the party? hrmjustin Jan 2016 #18
Sanders, as the only career politician running on our side, NCTraveler Jan 2016 #70
Ummmnnnhhhhh.,.,Can't do anythiong,. No how no way. We're all Doomed! Armstead Jan 2016 #78
The thing is gollygee Jan 2016 #98
If pragmatism is starting off with a compromise jkbRN Jan 2016 #4
It's not a compromise Cassiopeia Jan 2016 #8
Its just a huge compromise (I agree with you) jkbRN Jan 2016 #13
No, it's capitulation. nt haikugal Jan 2016 #29
+1 Punkingal Jan 2016 #34
If pragmatic means letting Repugs pull us further and further right TDale313 Jan 2016 #5
The people using that word Cassiopeia Jan 2016 #7
Oldie but goodie whatchamacallit Jan 2016 #14
I suppose I should laugh, but it's not funny, it's tragic. Punkingal Jan 2016 #20
Ideologues always do hate pragmatism. So much easier to fantasize and throw stones. KittyWampus Jan 2016 #21
Fantasize and throw stones? What exactly do you mean? Punkingal Jan 2016 #22
I think you're confusing with "idealist" with "ideologue." Either way, it's inaccurate. senz Jan 2016 #24
Mo Dowd refers to Hillary as "expedient." senz Jan 2016 #23
That bitter woman can go and rot. Beacool Jan 2016 #39
Is that the bus you're throwing her under? Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #77
I've always found pragmatic to be code for selling out. Skwmom Jan 2016 #25
Bingo! Punkingal Jan 2016 #26
+1000 GoneFishin Jan 2016 #30
Pragmatiic is the word you hear Kelvin Mace Jan 2016 #27
We have to have a candidate who is viable Gothmog Jan 2016 #28
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
Good answer! Punkingal Jan 2016 #40
How is Sanders going to win? Gothmog Jan 2016 #45
Voters who believe...in their power, and that they deserve something better. Punkingal Jan 2016 #47
Deserving something better is not the same as winning an election Gothmog Jan 2016 #49
We can disagree...I don't think Hillary is viable. Punkingal Jan 2016 #51
Only if you believe that the Kochs will not run $300 million of negative ads against Sanders Gothmog Jan 2016 #53
buy into the $15 trillion lie if you want. Punkingal Jan 2016 #55
That number is a good number Gothmog Jan 2016 #63
I wouldn't need to if people would look at things instead of accepting whatever they are told. Sad. Punkingal Jan 2016 #64
add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt antigop Jan 2016 #46
How high is this counter now? Gothmog Jan 2016 #48
just keep repeating the "Bernie is unelectable" meme. nt antigop Jan 2016 #65
I keeping asking a question that is not being answered Gothmog Jan 2016 #68
Why don't you check out the national head to head match-ups with Bernie and the Republicans? Punkingal Jan 2016 #69
Because according to Nate Silver these numbers are worthless Gothmog Jan 2016 #71
Matchups have no predictive power on who will win the general election, but they may JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #76
Read the original Eaton article that Nate cites Gothmog Jan 2016 #84
I don't believe Enten makes a single comment about comparative analysis, only about predictions JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #86
Feel free to ignore the polls and the facts Gothmog Jan 2016 #90
Your post is excessively rude. I wasn't advocating ignoring polls or facts. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #91
add +1 to the "Bernie is unelectable" meme counter. nt antigop Jan 2016 #73
Talk to DWS. Say "hi" and tell her "thanks" for her moment of candor re: Bernie. nt antigop Jan 2016 #74
and, gee, if there were only a way to find out. Hehehe. nt antigop Jan 2016 #66
How is Hillary viable? Still In Wisconsin Jan 2016 #56
Do you have any doubt that she can raise sufficient funds to compete? Gothmog Jan 2016 #62
Funds are necessary for competing but not necessarily sufficient for victory Fumesucker Jan 2016 #87
Third Wayers have been using the word for years as a way to describe their Zorra Jan 2016 #31
Yep... haikugal Jan 2016 #33
Pragmatism boils down to doing what works HereSince1628 Jan 2016 #35
+100000000 CharlotteVale Jan 2016 #43
Straight up useless! Ed Suspicious Jan 2016 #80
These days, "pragmatic" is most often used as a euphemism for "disappointing" demwing Jan 2016 #36
Pragmatic Democrats = Surrender Monkeys 99Forever Jan 2016 #41
beginning? PowerToThePeople Jan 2016 #42
"Pragmatic" is just another way of saying "sell out." CharlotteVale Jan 2016 #44
Yup. The rightward drift continues farleftlib Jan 2016 #50
Name me one major election a Democrat has won by moving to the right... Still In Wisconsin Jan 2016 #54
I'm fine with pragmatic LWolf Jan 2016 #59
Your definition is fine...I'm afraid the Clinton people don't define it that way. Punkingal Jan 2016 #60
It's one of the many terms LWolf Jan 2016 #72
It's defeatism. earthside Jan 2016 #61
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
Here’s One Big Problem With The Bernie Sanders Plan For Health Care Utopia Gothmog Jan 2016 #92
Hillary has no vision. Punkingal Jan 2016 #93
Vision is nothing without being pragmatic KingFlorez Jan 2016 #94
And being pragmatic is nothing without vision. Now, with the bromides dispensed with... Romulox Jan 2016 #95
Bernie Sanders's fiction-filled campaign Gothmog Jan 2016 #96
This is an opinion piece. Punkingal Jan 2016 #97
Where are the supposed cost savings? Gothmog Jan 2016 #99
Well I don't believe that. Punkingal Jan 2016 #100
pragmatic = cowardly. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2016 #101
Bingo...they are cowards, all of them, including Pelosi. Punkingal Jan 2016 #107
Why some Dems think people prefer ""Pragmatism"... when is not done Honestly? Yupy Jan 2016 #103
How do you feel about "sensible woodchuck?" merrily Jan 2016 #108

Karma13612

(4,552 posts)
81. it's another dog-whistle for "making tough choices'
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:20 PM
Jan 2016

like privatizing social security or killing medicare as we know it.

always willing to cut social safety nets and strengthen the MIC

Ferd Berfel

(3,687 posts)
82. So Obama was Pragmatic when he put Social Secutiry on teh chopping block?
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:22 PM
Jan 2016

HE's being pragmatic now selling us out with TPP?

Karma13612

(4,552 posts)
85. yes. and he compromises instead of fighting from a much higher starting point.
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:32 PM
Jan 2016

why are you bringing up Obama?

we are talking about Hillary and Bernie.

Obama has been a great President, but he has given in much too quickly on some things.

Ferd Berfel

(3,687 posts)
88. We were talking about Pragmatism. HIllary will be a continuation of Obama's Pragmatism.
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 11:03 PM
Jan 2016

Putting SS on the block is not Pragmatic. It's suicidal and evil. I'm concerned that she will do the same and it will be easy for her.

Deny and Shred

(1,061 posts)
79. Yes. We must not fight a Republican House
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:18 PM
Jan 2016

That fight might be difficult. Difficult isn't pragmatic. Better to swim downstream and take donations. Be pragmatic.

Passing TPP, staying put on ACA, ignoring Wall Street malfeasance, extending corporate tax loopholes, bailing banks out when necessary, kowtowing to any foreign policy adventure the Pentagon or Bibi can think up, and hoping to manage to procure a social issue victory or two that you can trumpet is the best for which pragmatic can hope.

Then pragmatically get clobered in the midterms - again - in 2018 because 75% of the electorate feels like they were sold out and didn't bother to go to the polls.

Then run Chelsea in 2024, beacuse she is the pragmatic choice.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
6. Do they fucking own us?
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 07:37 PM
Jan 2016

Why not fight them? That is why they are in charge...no one wants to fight anymore, just roll over.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
19. No my point is Sanders has shown no desire for party building.
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 07:48 PM
Jan 2016

Candidates raise money for the party for senate and house candidates. If he wants to take the house and senate to get things done we need money to do it.

That was my point.

kath

(10,565 posts)
75. Yes - this was proven false a couple of weeks back. yet some here keep repeating it over and over
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:50 PM
Jan 2016

and over and over and over...

JimDandy

(7,318 posts)
57. Then WE need to raise it...the rank and file progressives...
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 06:04 PM
Jan 2016

and get back our Democratic Party from the third way corporatists/DINOs who have had a hold on for at least 25 years.

aikoaiko

(34,169 posts)
37. If you have weak ideas, you need a lot of money to convince people their great ideas.
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 10:10 PM
Jan 2016

Sometimes good ideas can inspire.

The party and fellow Democrats are doing ok.

If Hillary loses, Bill and Hill can continue to raise money doing their show.

tazkcmo

(7,300 posts)
102. The Party that fights him at every step?
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 10:52 AM
Jan 2016

That party? Or the party that runs on liberal ideas only to negotiate them away in return for Third Way policies? Or the Party that supports "regime change" without a thought to the power vacuum that results? Or the party that refused to prosecute war criminals? Or the party that appointed the very criminals responsible for the 2008 meltdown to key government positions? Or...oh forget it. You've got yours, screw the rest of us.

 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
104. That is a nice excuse you are making but it is just an excuse.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 10:54 AM
Jan 2016

If he want to be our nominee then he needs to do party building activities.

tazkcmo

(7,300 posts)
105. Your opnion.
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 11:00 AM
Jan 2016

And like other body parts, everyone has them and most stink. Polls show you to be wrong. Also, I've never considered a candidate's fund raising for the Democratic Party as a reason for my support. It's about their policies and integrity and that's why HRC trikes out.

jkbRN

(850 posts)
10. You don't START with a compromise, you start with the ideal situation,
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 07:39 PM
Jan 2016

That is the main reason I support Bernie. He does not and will not ever start with a compromise, because he knows by doing that your position can only be dragged further right by the republicans. Whereas, if you start with the most ideal situation, and when having to debate with republicans your compromise will look like what HRC started with.

jkbRN

(850 posts)
16. Work on a primary challenger for all of them, get the house back,
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 07:43 PM
Jan 2016

And pass it!

Everyone who won't partake in it, needs a serious challenger, and those elections have been completely ignored by DWS. I'm sure Bernie would work very hard to win the house back if he were elected. He talks about it all the time.

 

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)
70. Sanders, as the only career politician running on our side,
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:09 PM
Jan 2016

Hasn't been doing that for decades?

gollygee

(22,336 posts)
98. The thing is
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 10:37 AM
Jan 2016

The Republicans have not been at all pragmatic. They've been idealists, and it's been working for them. They've swung the government way to the right. Is it crazy to think that fighting as an idealist on the other side could swing the government back?

TDale313

(7,820 posts)
5. If pragmatic means letting Repugs pull us further and further right
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 07:36 PM
Jan 2016

While essentially getting nothing in return and letting them continue to frame the debate, (which has been the pattern) and just accepting the status quo cause change is too hard, then yeah, fuck this shit.

Skwmom

(12,685 posts)
25. I've always found pragmatic to be code for selling out.
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 08:09 PM
Jan 2016

Last edited Mon Jan 18, 2016, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

It's how people rationalize the wrong thing. I'm just being pragmatic....

haikugal

(6,476 posts)
32. Exactly, that's why I'm so happy to have a real liberal to vote for. He works for us not against us.
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 08:32 PM
Jan 2016

Gothmog

(145,130 posts)
49. Deserving something better is not the same as winning an election
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 05:37 PM
Jan 2016

My major issue in this race is to make sure that the Democrats control the direction of the SCOTUS for the next generation and I am not comfortable that Sanders is viable

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
51. We can disagree...I don't think Hillary is viable.
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 05:44 PM
Jan 2016

But do you realize that if all of you who buy the Bernie is not electable stuff voted for him, that would be a moot point?

Gothmog

(145,130 posts)
53. Only if you believe that the Kochs will not run $300 million of negative ads against Sanders
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 05:51 PM
Jan 2016

Sanders would lack the financial resources to compete and is very vulnerable to attacks. Heck, Sanders Medicare for All proposal has a $15+ trillion price tag that would kill Sanders in the general election.

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
64. I wouldn't need to if people would look at things instead of accepting whatever they are told. Sad.
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 06:52 PM
Jan 2016

Gothmog

(145,130 posts)
68. I keeping asking a question that is not being answered
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:52 PM
Jan 2016

I am not the only Democrat asking this question and the refusal to answer this question means that I and others are free to continue believing that Sanders is not viable and that we need to vote for Hillary Clinton.

The dismissal of the concerns of a large number of Democratic voters is not a good way to win elections

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)
69. Why don't you check out the national head to head match-ups with Bernie and the Republicans?
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:04 PM
Jan 2016

Bernie wins.

Gothmog

(145,130 posts)
71. Because according to Nate Silver these numbers are worthless
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:17 PM
Jan 2016

Hypothetical match up polls are worthless in part because the margin of error for these polls are so high and in part because the candidate has not been vetted. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-is-really-unpopular-with-general-election-voters/


Head-to-head polls of hypothetical general election matchups have almost no predictive power at this stage of the campaign, but for what it’s worth, Trump tends to fare relatively poorly in those too. On average,2 in polls since Nov. 1, Trump trails Clinton by 5 percentage points, while Clinton and Marco Rubio are tied.

See also http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.

Sanders supporters have to rely on these worthless polls because it is clear that Sanders is not viable in a general election where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may spend an additional billion dollars.

No one should rely on hypo match up type polls in selecting a nominee at this stage of the race.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
76. Matchups have no predictive power on who will win the general election, but they may
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 09:58 PM
Jan 2016

Matchups have no predictive power on who will win the general election, but they may have predictive power when comparing primary candidates. Obviously, this is unknowable.

Nate Silver didn't address whether head to head matchup comparisons for determining relative strengths are meaningful

Gothmog

(145,130 posts)
84. Read the original Eaton article that Nate cites
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:30 PM
Jan 2016

Match up type polls are worthless because of (a) the high margin of error and (b) the lack of vetting of the candidates. Sanders and his supporters keep claiming that he has not been given any media attention which also means that the media has not bothered to vet Sanders. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/harrys-guide-to-2016-election-polls/

Ignore hypothetical matchups in primary season – they also measure nothing. General election polls before and during the primary season have a very wide margin of error. That’s especially the case for candidates who aren’t even in the race and therefore haven’t been treated to the onslaught of skeptical media coverage usually associated with being the candidate.


Again, what part of these polls measure nothing is not clear?

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
86. I don't believe Enten makes a single comment about comparative analysis, only about predictions
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:38 PM
Jan 2016

As such, your supposition is unproved. However, you may be right. As I said, whether the comparison has any predictive power is unknowable. Perhaps that means on its face that we should ignore such analysis. This gets rather deep into philosophical weeds, so I'll leave it at that.

Have a great evening.

Gothmog

(145,130 posts)
90. Feel free to ignore the polls and the facts
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 02:03 AM
Jan 2016

That worked really well for Karl Rove and Mitt Romney in 2012 when Silver got every state right

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
91. Your post is excessively rude. I wasn't advocating ignoring polls or facts.
Tue Jan 19, 2016, 02:17 AM
Jan 2016

I also never said Enten was wrong.

Your post disappoints me in the level of discourse on DU.

 

Still In Wisconsin

(4,450 posts)
56. How is Hillary viable?
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 06:00 PM
Jan 2016

The right hates her, the left hates her, young/first time voters are "meh," the 10% in the center seems kinda OK with her but not exactly excited.

The main reason people will have for voting for her is that she's not Trump/Rubio/Cruz. Not being someone is not usually a winning strategy.

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
87. Funds are necessary for competing but not necessarily sufficient for victory
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:41 PM
Jan 2016

Victory unfortunately requires votes.

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
31. Third Wayers have been using the word for years as a way to describe their
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 08:31 PM
Jan 2016

useless pro-oligarch conservatism.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
35. Pragmatism boils down to doing what works
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 09:55 PM
Jan 2016

Yes, third way pragmatism works rather better for the oligarchs than for common folks.

But another thing that pragmatism does is invoke 'the ends justify the means' mindset. It unfetters it's practioners from all manner of guiding principles. It justifies triangulation. It justifies flip-flopping. It justifies outright lying. IF these things bring about victory they have been pragmatic and good.

 

demwing

(16,916 posts)
36. These days, "pragmatic" is most often used as a euphemism for "disappointing"
Sat Jan 16, 2016, 10:03 PM
Jan 2016

try swapping the words next time you hear "pragmatic" being used by a pol...

 

farleftlib

(2,125 posts)
50. Yup. The rightward drift continues
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 05:40 PM
Jan 2016

but just a wee bit more slowly than if we had an actual "R" in office. We don't need a "magic wand" just a candidate who isn't owned by special interests.

 

Still In Wisconsin

(4,450 posts)
54. Name me one major election a Democrat has won by moving to the right...
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 05:57 PM
Jan 2016

I can't think of any. This strategy usually ends the same way: with a concession speech and a Republican victor praising his opponent for a "spirited campaign."

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
59. I'm fine with pragmatic
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 06:09 PM
Jan 2016

if it means rolling up our sleeves, getting to work, and cleaning up our mess one square foot at a time, moving steadily forward, not moving back, and not expecting a magic djinn to pop in and do it for us.

If "pragmatic" is spun to mean giving up hope and giving up ground, as it often is here at DU and in the larger world, then hell, no. Let's not be pragmatic.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
72. It's one of the many terms
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 08:39 PM
Jan 2016

the neo-liberals have "evolved" to mean something new that benefits their agenda.

earthside

(6,960 posts)
61. It's defeatism.
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 06:22 PM
Jan 2016

From the Hillarians' comments on this thread ... there are going to be Repuglican majorities in the U.S. House and Senate forever.

I am disheartened to see the Hillary Clinton candidacy becoming a platform for little more than 1960s mainstream Republicanism. It shows how far right the country has gone, how extreme right the Repuglican Party has become ... but sadly how the Democratic Party establishment has drifted right.

Last night's debate showed it: while Sanders was visionary and energetic, Clinton was status quo and "pragmatic".

'Pragmatic' in a political sense like this means conceding to reactionary and Repuglican forces from the get-go.

Remember Harry Truman's warning: "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

Ed Suspicious

(8,879 posts)
83. How fitting with Hillary invoking the name of Truman and tying it to the ACA. Something about
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 10:22 PM
Jan 2016

Truman's dream would have been the ACA or something to that effect.

EndElectoral

(4,213 posts)
67. There's a superiority with pragmatism, which says I'm the grown up, the realist.
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:43 PM
Jan 2016

Anyone not being a pragmatist is simply a stupid child and unrealistic dreamer.

Thank you Martin Luther King for never being a pragmatist, but having your dream and acting on it.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
89. The way HRC is using the term, "pragmatic" means "Settling for less than nothing".
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 11:17 PM
Jan 2016

It means giving up without a fight.

Gothmog

(145,130 posts)
92. Here’s One Big Problem With The Bernie Sanders Plan For Health Care Utopia
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 03:36 PM
Jan 2016

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. It’s 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.

That’d 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 wouldn’t 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 plan’s 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, he’d have to overcome even greater resistance than Obamacare’s 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 didn’t 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 doesn’t 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 isn’t a contest between a candidate who can deliver health care nirvana and one who is willing to settle for less. It’s 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.

KingFlorez

(12,689 posts)
94. Vision is nothing without being pragmatic
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 04:58 PM
Jan 2016

You can be as visionary as you want, but if you aren't pragmatic about it you'll get nowhere. One of the reasons Obama defeated Republicans twice is because he was far more pragmatic than they were.

Gothmog

(145,130 posts)
96. Bernie Sanders's fiction-filled campaign
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 10:34 AM
Jan 2016

This is a great editorial from the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

Mr. Sanders’s story continues with fantastical claims about how he would make the European social model work in the United States. He admits that he would have to raise taxes on the middle class in order to pay for his universal, Medicare-for-all health-care plan, and he promises massive savings on health-care costs that would translate into generous benefits for ordinary people, putting them well ahead, on net. But he does not adequately explain where those massive savings would come from. Getting rid of corporate advertising and overhead would only yield so much. Savings would also have to come from slashing payments to doctors and hospitals and denying benefits that people want.

He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.

Meanwhile, when asked how Mr. Sanders would tackle future deficits, as he would already be raising taxes for health-care expansion and the rest of his program, his advisers claimed that more government spending “will result in higher growth, which will improve our fiscal situation.” This resembles Republican arguments that tax cuts will juice the economy and pay for themselves — and is equally fanciful.

The Washington Post is agreeing with Prof. Krugman's analysis

Gothmog

(145,130 posts)
99. Where are the supposed cost savings?
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 10:42 AM
Jan 2016

The GOP promises increased tax revenues due to tax cuts and those revenues are fictional. There are many who believe that Sanders's cost savings are in the same category

merrily

(45,251 posts)
108. How do you feel about "sensible woodchuck?"
Thu Jan 28, 2016, 11:15 AM
Jan 2016

As used by centrists, "pragmatic" seems to mean, just accept whatever is and clap louder.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»I am beginning to hate th...