2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton, Finally Forced to Confront a Single Payer Advocate in Debate, Can’t Win on Policy, Falls...
Clinton, Finally Forced to Confront a Single Payer Advocate in Debate, Cant Win on Policy, Falls Back on Demagoguery and Distortion
By Lambert Strether of Corrente.
Most of the post-Democratic debate analysis has focused Clintons response to Sanders challenge on her Wall Street ties; a response that was, to put it charitably, confused. There has been little focus on her exchange with Sanders on health care which, from a pure public policy standpoint that is, leaving aside corruption is arguably more important. So, despite DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultzs successful suppression of viewership, the debates really are doing what they are supposed to be doing: Allowing voters to compare and contrast the candidates. Now, we remember from 2014 that Clinton, despite her lofty claims to an evidence-based approach to policy, refused to even mention single payer in two back-to-back major speeches on health care. So lets see how she did in the debate on this topic, when faced with Sanders, a single payer advocate. Spoiler alert: Badly. First Ill take a look at the debate transcript, and then Ill take a quick look at the Sanders plan. Spoiler alert: Not all one might wish.
The Debate
To the transcript! Sanders comes first, so Ill pick his performance apart first. Then Clinton brings the demagoguery. (Recall that the debate location was held at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, the first caucus state in 2016. That will become important in one of Clintons responses to Sanders.)
NANCY CORDES: Back to healthcare by popular demand. First to you, Senator Sanders. You prefer to scrap ObamaCare and move to a single-payer system, essentially Medicare for all. You say you wanna put the private insurance companies out of business. Is it realistic to think that you can pull the plug on a $1 trillion industry?
BERNIE SANDERS: Its not gonna happen tomorrow. And its probably not gonna happen until you have real campaign finance reform and get rid of all these super PACs and the power of the insurance companies and the drug companies. But at the end of the day, Nancy, here is a question. In this great country of ours, with so much intelligence, with so much capabilities, why do we remain the only (UNINTEL) country on earth that does not guarantee healthcare to all people as a right?
A CBS analyst just treated single payer Medicare for All as a not-insane policy proposal. Thats called dragging the Overton Window left (which has been my sole criterion for success from a Sanders campaign).
The health insurance industry is not, following Veblen, an industry; unlike health care, it creates no value; it is wholly parasitic and should not exist. One does not improve a tapeworm; one removes it. Pragmatically, I grant its not possible for anybody to answer Cordess question in those terms on national television, even on a Saturday night in Des Moines, but Sanders doesnt even address it (though Clinton, in another sign of inattention or confusion, doesnt call him on that). Somebody on the Sanders team needs to figure this out, because people will have noticed, and the question will come up again. ..............(more)
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/11/clinton-finally-forced-to-confront-a-single-payer-advocate-in-debate-cant-win-on-policy-falls-back-on-demagoguery-distortion.html
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)PERIOD.
No alternatives. PERIOD.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)A hybrid public private system.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)and while she bitches about taxes and Bernie, she refuses to support a living wage and single payer. She's taking advantage of the stupid in this country who don't understand that this would balance things out.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)And yes, we can afford it.
Darb
(2,807 posts)I just plain do not see a road forward in the Congress. Even with big majorities in the House and Senate it would be a stretch. But maybe you see a way. Please describe that way for me.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Vinca
(50,168 posts)In fact, it appears it is going to be necessary. We need to focus on getting Democrats elected at the state level so when the next census rolls around we can do away with the GOP gerrymandering that has been responsible for 99% of the mess in Washington. People love Medicare and could certainly be convinced to expand it to everyone. I'm afraid once the greedy insurance companies start to bail on Obamacare, we're going to be back where we started. That's why we needed a public option. That was the best pathway to single-payer.