Clinton calls single payer "too expensive" despite many examples of its efficiency in the real world, highlighting the difference between "pragmatism" and working for real change. With us behind him, Sanders can advance causes that establishment Democrats have written off, because he also has a plan for campaign finance reform. Dealing with corruption in the system is the key to achieving the entire progressive agenda.

::::::::

It's dismaying to see Hillary Clinton still repeating the discredited idea that a single payer health care system would be too expensive. Although we already know it provides comprehensive and universal health care at a fraction of the cost of American's non-system everywhere it has been tried, some of her supporters continue to find various justifications for opposing what polls show 85% of Democrats say they want. There has never been a better example of the self-defeating nature of establishment thinking in the Democratic Party. Attitudes about Clinton are so fixed that you have to wonder, if the primary were a referendum on single payer, would Democrats actually reject it?

Of course, the election is about much more than that. Sanders has opened and closed the last two debates with well-honed arguments that taking on the corrupting influence of Wall Street would be his first priority. What he has not said in his comments about single payer is that concern for their Wall Street patrons was the reason Democrats took it off the table at the beginning of the health care reform debate in 2009. Their excuse was that it was "unrealistic." Instead, they offered a bait-and-switch in the form of the Public Option. It was billed as a step to single payer because everyone would choose cheap, comprehensive Medicare-type over the spotty coverage of overpriced private insurance. However, Senator Schumer quickly ended that vain hope when he made a deal to handicap the Public Option so it could not compete with private insurance.

Those who understand the economics of single payer know that the "reform" debate was primarily aimed at bailing out the Wall Street-owned medical insurance industry that was in the process of pricing itself out of existence. This is the "death spiral" of insurance costs: Increasing costs drive people from the market, requiring further increases to maintain shareholder profits and industry executive bonuses, resulting in more people unable to afford insurance. Unchecked, this would soon have led to a situation where average Americans would be paying 50% or more just for insurance premiums. Obviously, this is unsustainable. Enter corporate Democrats, with a "reform" that guarantees millions more customers for the insurance industry, subsidized by taxes that go directly into the pockets of Wall Street investors.

Many rank-and-file Democrats failed to ask themselves what the suppression of the debate about single payer said about the chances of eventually electing a Democratic majority that would put the interests of people over profit. The answer is that the Democratic leadership, being dependent on Wall Street to control the White House, is insufficiently willing to challenge the corruption of the system. Until we find leaders in the party who will, there is no reason to expect anything to change.

Reforming campaign finance would make achieving single payer and accomplishing the rest of the progressive agenda possible. The alternative is abandoning hope of getting what we need in exchange for what we can get, in the name of "pragmatism." In using this as a selling point for her candidacy, Clinton is apparently arguing that truly representative democracy is a naïve notion. Elect her, she says, and she will use her experience navigating the existing corrupt system to fight for small, incremental victories that do not challenge the corporate takeover of American government and the economy.

Clinton claims that her experience will enable her to guide us gradually in the general direction of where we need to go. It would be very interesting to hear how she plans to do this in the face of a hostile Congress that is likely to continue to be dominated by Republicans who have a visceral hatred for her. Would Democratic chances be any worse with a "socialist" who has explained that all he means by the term is someone who will fight for all Americans, rather than compromise principle on the altar of expediency?

Sanders cannot pass single payer by himself, but neither can Clinton honestly promise to deliver any meaningful reforms of the Byzantine, unaffordable and woefully inadequate system of Obamacare. It will take a mass movement of Americans demanding their government put their interests over corporate profit to get real health care reform.

This article originally appeared on the website of Soldiers For Peace International. It may be reproduced unedited, with attribution and a link to the original source, 48 hours after publication here.

Authors Website: http://www.soldiersforpeaceinternational.org

Authors Bio:

I am a former Army and VA psychiatrist who ran for the US Senate in 2010 on a campaign based on a pledge to introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and regulate campaign finance.

A constitutional amendment banning corporate campaign expenditures and limiting or abolishing individual donations spent to influence elections is an essential step to getting back on the path to democracy.

I am convinced that the only way to do this is to make support for such an amendment a campaign issue. That way, we can easily see who wants to get in Congress to represent We the People and who want to serve our interests over those of corporations who currently control the US government.

I believe that it is possible to end war, address climate change and provide health care to all if we can prove that democracy is possible. Unless we can awaken enough Americans to the fact that their government is pursuing an agenda of corporate imperialism that will enslave them along with the rest of the world if not reclaimed by We the People, we will leave our children with a legacy of pain for which we cannot be forgiven.

Ultimately, endless war is a symptom of a disease that will destroy human civilization if not eradicated. There is no "us" vs "them." Our fates are intertwined. None of us gets out alive. The question is, how will we have lived?