Here's Bernie Horn:
Single-payer is the cheapest and simplest approach. So why aren’t Obama and the Democrats pushing it?
Some say it’s because the Democrats don’t want to offend the for-profit health care industry—that Democrats in Congress have taken too many campaign contributions from insurers. As Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues:
Single-payer is simply considered not realistic for a politician. The medical industrial complex just won’t permit it.- Advertisement -
Well, it’s certainly true that health care executives, lobbyists, and their hundreds of thousands of employees don’t want to be put out of work. They would all fight their hardest against single-payer. But that’s really not the main reason why Democrats are avoiding such legislation.
Whoa there, Bernie! Numerous members of Congress, including Senator Max Baucus are on record admitting openly to the explanation you've just dismissed. And you've done worse than dismiss it. You've tried to turn health insurance into an economic stimilus program. This is what weapons makers do with their destructive proposals, and I'm sorry to see your poor attempt to imitate them. The fact is that switching to single-payer would NET us 2.6 million jobs. I know that you actually care about jobs and wouldn't have used this crazy excuse if you had known the facts. But that shows the value of knowing the facts as well as the value of being honest rather than searching for justifications of a predetermined outcome (I mean unless you work for a private health insurance company).
Some say it’s because we can’t convince moderate members of Congress to vote for single-payer legislation within the next few months. Darcy Burner, executive director of the Progressive Caucus Foundation, published an important diary on Daily Kos urging progressives to stop “attacking progressives [who are] fighting for a public option” because:
There are not 218 votes for single payer in the House. Single-payer cannot happen in this environment right now, regardless of how passionately its advocates want it.
Darcy, the Progressive Caucus, and everyone on Capitol Hill know this is so. But again, that’s really not the main reason why Democrats focused on a hybrid plan a few years ago.
"We don't have the votes"? "We don't have the votes?" You're going to stand behind that, Bernie? We never have the votes for anything until we win them. Activist groups that try to change Congress operate differently from astroturf groups that try to change activists. We push for what we want, and then we compromise when we have to. Go ask your union buddies how many negotiating sessions they've opened by demanding the least they would settle for. It doesn't work. If you think a public option could be created in a way that did more good than harm, you ought to be pushing for single-payer with that fall-back position available. And if you wanted to show your good will, you would be insisting that any final compromise include provisions to free states to create single-payer at the state level if they choose.
The main reason is—American voters are scared to death of single-payer.
Even though I’m sitting in a quiet room writing this, I can hear some of you objecting loudly! Friends, we are on the same side. We all know that health care should be recognized as a human right. We all know it is a national shame that more than 50 million Americans are uninsured, and 25 million more are underinsured. We all know that even Americans with insurance are struggling with soaring health care costs, and that insurance and drug companies are putting profits before people. We all know that we need to change the system.- Advertisement -
But we progressives are not the ones who need to be convinced. In any great national political debate, there are partisans on our side and partisans against us. To achieve victory, we have to persuade people in the middle—and they don’t know what we know about health care.
Consider three central facts: