Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

[denem]

March 10, 2010
Talking Points Memo

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

"It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that's it," he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.

Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation's health care crisis.

Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually -- but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance

In other words, when the Democrats held 58 to 60 votes in the Senate, there were 90 votes against single payer.

[daleanime]

1. And that is disgusting.

[apnu]

20. Its ignorance. Plain ignorance. And it is disgusting. (nt)

[ucrdem]

2. It had a chance in Vermont. They demurred. nt

[SunSeeker]

4. States getting it was how Bernie said we would get single payer.

Bernie said Vermont would be the "model for the nation." So much for that plan.

[longship]

3. Do you mean other than in every other major country on the planet?

Or, as I expect, you mean just in the USA, the only major country without universal healthcare.

I thought so.

[BlueMTexpat]

8. I agree that we have

generally effed-up access and inordinately expensive health care costs and that the system needs to improve.

But the USA is certainly not "the only major country without universal healthcare." That is, unless you consider Switzerland and Germany minor countries. Neither has universal healthcare.

[bornskeptic]

11. Switzerland andGermany have universal healthcare, but it's not single payer.

They are more like the ACA, requiring the purchase of insurance from non-governmental insurers. If the ACA does not qualify as universal healthcare, it could with appropriate modifications and adequate funding.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Germany's system is not "like the ACA" at all for the vast majority of Germans.

89% of the population is covered by a public system. That system is not "single-payer" it is "multi-payer" but all the "sickness-funds" are public non-profit entities and the rates are set by the government. The other 11% are in a separate system that is indeed similar to the ACA.

[JRLeft]

17. Switzerland has price caps.

[BlueMTexpat]

21. Perhaps we have different definitions

of "universal healthcare." If you mean that there is healthcare available for all who are eligible, it is indeed universal in that sense. But to be eligible, one must pay a private insurance company for coverage unless one falls below the poverty line.

I think that a lot of people don't know what they are talking about when they make such sweeping generalizations.

I am a permanent resident of Switzerland and concur that the system here is more like the ACA, but with cost controls and employer mandates etc. But if you don't have a job where insurance is provided, or don't purchase private insurance on your own, or are not a Swiss citizen eligible for the Swiss version of Medicaid, then you are simply out of luck. This is also one reason why the Swiss have a very tightly regulated permit system. It is difficult for a non-Swiss, non-EU national to get a permanent residence permit here. I am among the comparatively fortunate non-Swiss non-EU nationals to have one.

Yes, with modifications, improvements, and tweaks, the ACA could certainly be considered universal healthcare, IMO. But that does not seem sufficient for some who want to throw the baby out with the bathwater in some deluded idea that perfection will necessarily follow.

[uponit7771]

5. SP has a better chance now than then because of revolution !! Everyone who doesn't believe that is a

... sell out and a hooker for money (or something close)

[ejbr]

7. +1 n/t

[BlueMTexpat]

9. Please explain how

"revolution" will magically and immediately bring about single payer.

As someone who has spent a great many years helping to write and enforce regulations/procedures that actually implement laws and decisions, I'd really like to know how "revolution" would translate into such.

The devil is very much in the details. I am no sell-out, nor am I a hooker as you imply I must be. I am very much a pragmatist.

[mmonk]

6. Yes so far it's been for dreamers and Canadians.

People have to fight for it.

[denem]

22. A US President is not a Prime Minister

A PM leads the legislature and fronts the executive. In practice a PM is House Majority leader. who does not face a veto nor filibuster in the Upper House. A Canadian or UK PM holds an office of immense power. He or She can drive through change in a way that is not possible for a President of the United States.

If President Sanders can turn around 50 votes in the Senate for Single Payer, the question is how.

[brooklynite]

10. What chance does it have today?

Even if Sanders gets elected, where are the 60 Senate votes to pass it? I've met our new Senate prospects, and none of them -- even -- Russ Feingold -- doesn't bring up Single Payer as an issue voters are talking about.

[hobbit709]

13. "We can't" once again.

[brooklynite]

18. My candidate isn't promising that we can.

[Bettie]

19. Your candidate is saying

that we can't ask for anything more than what we already have. That there is no point in hoping for better because we won't get anything but perhaps, if we're very lucky, slightly larger crumbs from the 1% table.

Honestly, no one with a D after their name will get their agenda through congress with the current crop of "R's" in the House and Senate. So, given that, I'd rather have the guy who really cares about people at the lower echelons of the socioeconomic scale.

Clinton is smart, she's driven, but she's not my first choice, because she's far too beholden to corporate interests.

But, she'd still be better than anyone in the clown car.

It is a primary. We're allowed to have more than one option.

[tk2kewl]

14. But Bernie still fought for it then and still fights for it now. Because it's the right thing to do

And because he doesn't take money from the industries aligned against it.

[stillwaiting]

15. "feel it is the best way to solve the nation's health care crisis"

That would be a majority of AMERICANS that feel that way. Not just progressives.

And, we will need to be successful in a lot of Democratic primaries if we are to purge the Democratic Senate from "pro-business" Democrats that serve multinational corporations over average Americans' interests.

Electing Bernie is Step 1. If/once successful, Step 2 begins immediately after his election by ACTIVELY recruiting progressive Democratic candidates to replace Wall Street's Democrats.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. "It seems like some wimmin keep clammering for the vote...

...but there's no chance in hell that an all male congress and all male state legislatures will ever approve a constitutional amendment to give it to them. Why don't they do something more realistic, like stand behind men who are sympathetic to their issues"?.