Throughout her career, Senator Amy Klobuchar has always stuck to political “small ball,” refusing to use her carefully hoarded political capital to fight for the proposals that will take patience to enact, but will make the biggest difference for struggling Americans. The Star Tribune explains:
But as Klobuchar pursues the pragmatic politics of constituent service and bipartisan dealmaking, she faces some frustration on the left, particularly among gay activists and environmentalists who see her playing it safe in the middle of the road.
“There are big, fundamental system change issues we have to address,” said Steve Morse of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, which has battled Klobuchar over climate change legislation and her support for a new Stillwater bridge over the St. Croix River. “Dealing with swimming pools is good and important to families, but it doesn’t change the big drivers of our society.”
So, last night it was hardly surprising to see Klobuchar taking cheap shots at Senator Elizabeth Warren over Warren’s championing of for Medicare for All, which will obviously be challenging to pass in the near term.
“The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is whether it can actually get done.”
Bam! Klobuchar is likely high-fiving her (ducking) staffers this morning. She’s in the news! She’s finally relevant!
But from a progressive standpoint, here’s the fatal flaw with Klobuchar’s lifelong approach to leadership. Once upon a time, the following things were all considered by moderates like Klobuchar to be “pipe dreams not plans,” or things that Klobuchar would not deem worthy of a fight because, in their day, they didn’t immediately have the votes to pass: Medicare, civil rights, voting rights, minimum wage increases, and marriage equality, to name just a few.
Those things just happen to be some of the crowning policy achievements of the modern Democratic Party, and they never would have been enacted if progressives with political courage hadn’t fought for them at a stage when the votes weren’t there.
Senator Klobuchar’s biggest problem isn’t that she has a sordid record of being immature and cruel to staff, as disturbing as that is to those of us who believe that character is revealed by how you act when no one is watching. Klobuchar’s even bigger problem is that she will never be the kind of courageous leader who fights the most consequential fights for ordinary families, when the fight is not yet politically advantageous to her in the short-term.
As for Medicare-for-All, 247 independent economists recently are on the record countering Klobuchar’s criticism that Senator Warren’s approach will cost too much. Those economists find that Medicare-for-All will cost Americans less than the current corporate-driven system protected by Klobuchar, not more.
In the letter, the economists underline the savings of the multi-payer insurance system in the United States, especially compared to other countries. “Public financing for health is not a matter of raising new money for health care,” the letter states, “but of reducing total health care outlays and distributing payments more equitably and efficiently.”
Economic analyses by the Mercatus Center and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, for example, have projected the Medicare for All would reduce total national health care costs by hundreds of billions of dollars each year while simultaneously guaranteeing safe, therapeutic health care for every person in the United States.
Senator Klobuchar is smart and does her homework, so she understands this truth. She also understands that if the votes aren’t immediately there for Medicare-for-All, Democrats will adjust, and try to enact Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It or Obamacare improvements until the votes for Medicare-for-All do exist. She knows that’s how legislative strategy works.
But Klobuchar, hovering at just 2% in an average of national polls, is obviously desperate. So last evening, she went with a self-serving cheap shot over the truth, and advocated the easy policy path over the more impactful policy path. To Minnesota progressives, that sure sounds familiar, which may explain why she is running in fourth place in her home state.
Democratic presidential candidates have been having a white hot debate about whether to support Medicare-for-All, which would move people onto Medicare and eliminate private health insurance plans, or a Medicare buy-in option, which would allow Americans to choose between government-run Medicare and corporate-run health plans.
Substantively, Medicare-For-All is Best
Substantively, Medicare-for-All makes more sense. Going to a government-run single payer system would be the fastest and most effective way to cover all Americans, reduce administrative overhead, stop excessive profiteering, reduce medical costs, make the American economy more competitive, incentivize better health care best practices, and produce better outcomes.
Compared to health systems used by other developed nations that are to varying degrees more like Medicare-for-all would be, the current U.S. system is worst.
Yes, a large tax increase would be needed to finance Medicare-for-All, and Democrats should be honest about that. At the same time, Americans would no longer be paying premiums, deductibles and copays. Many Americans who have subsidized employer-based coverage should see higher pay as employers are freed of that enormous expense. Because of these kinds of issues, 200 independent economists recently signed a letter stating that Americans would be paying less overall with a single government-run system than they pay under the current system, not more.
Politically, Medicare Buy-In Option Is Best
Politically, however, a Medicare buy-in option makes much more sense. Because many Americans get extremely nervous about not having the option to stick with their familiar private health plan, about 75% of Americans support a Medicare buy-in option compared to about 56% who support Medicare-for-All. Given how difficult it will be to defeat Trump in 2020 and pass something in the Senate in 2021 and beyond, political marketability and sustainability is no small consideration.
Harris’s Hybrid
After initially indicating support for Medicare-for-All, Senator Kamala Harris yesterday proposed a thoughtful hybrid approach. While Harris still calls her proposal “Medicare-for-All,” it’s more accurate to call it “Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It,” since it allows Americans to choose private plans that are required to have the same benefits as Medicare. After a 10-year phase-in to limit transition-related bumps, all Americans would have the kind of coverage Medicare currently offers, with some coverage upgrades.
This approach would achieve much, but not all, of the substantive benefit of Medicare-for-All, and it has enormous political advantages over Medicare-for-All. Importantly, when Trump and the corporate insurance interests attack “government-run health care that takes away your insurance coverage,” those critics can be disarmed with very simple and compelling rebuttals: “If you don’t like it, you don’t have to choose it.” “If it’s as bad as they claim, no one will choose it.”
Those simple, powerful rebuttals, which can only be used with a buy-in option, de-fang the “they’re taking away your health insurance” bite.
Progressive critics like Sanders are criticizing the Harris plan as too “moderate.” It certainly is moderate compared to the Sanders Medicare-for-All plan. But when compared to ACA repeal/Trumpcare, where 20 million lose their coverage and all Americans would lose popular and effective ACA protections, the Harris proposal represents huge progress. Also, the Harris plan offers an important quantum leap forward from the current ACA-driven system.
Importantly, the Harris proposal offers Americans a consumer-driven path to the future. When given a choice, it’s very likely that most Americans will choose the cheaper and better Medicare option over corporate care. Corporate care won’t be competitive with Medicare, because of its higher overhead and the need to make profits. But giving all Americans the ability to comparison shop and vote with their feet is key, so that Medicare-for-All eventually comes to American by popular mandate, rather than government mandate. Taking that consumer-driven approach ultimately will make Medicare-for-All more politically durable.
Though I don’t know all the details yet, I like the general balance Senator Harris has struck. Obama’s former chief Medicare/Medicaid administrator Andy Slavitt said it well:
“Sen. Harris’s plan balances idealism and pragmatism. It says in effect: We have a mandate to get everyone affordable health care and put people over profits — but we don’t need to tear down the things people have and they like in order to do it.”
That’s what Democrats need: Idealism to stay true to their progressive values and excite lightly voting Democratic constituencies such as young people and people of color and pragmatism to smooth over political and logistical challenges and win over critically important moderate swing voters.
On the first night of the first round of
debates among Democratic presidential aspirants, Julián Castro, who was
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Obama administration, had a
spotlight-grabbing moment when he upbraided fellow Texan Beto O’Rourke for not
supporting his plan to end criminal penalties for undocumented immigrants
crossing our southern border from Mexico.
On the second night, when a different 10 hopefuls
fanned across NBC’s Wheel of Fortune stage, the impact of Castro’s
attack was obvious. Aked if they backed Castro’s plan, nine candidates raised
their hands. All 10 said they would back federal health subsidies for
undocumented immigrants, an idea President Barack Obama nixed a decade earlier.
The candidates’ stampede to out “left” each
other reached its most bizarre point when Castro volunteered that his universal
healthcare plan would cover abortions, including abortions for trans women. At
least this would not be a benefit that would significantly affect the deficit.
Since those nights, one of the hottest topics
among the commentariat has been whether Democrats are going to blow their
opportunity to dethrone President Trump by catering to their most progressive
constituents.
Writing in The Atlantic, Peter Beinart asked, “Will the Democratic Party go too far?”
“I’ll vote for almost any Democrat, but lurching left won’t beat Trump,” read the headline on a USA Today editorial by Tom Nichols, a national security professor at the Naval War College and a self-identified “Never Trump”-er.
“Democratic candidates veer left, leaving
behind successful midterm strategy,” read the headline on a Washington Post analysis
piece by Michael Scherer, one of its national correspondents.
Hogwash, say others,
among them Keith A. Spencer, writing in Salon.com about “hard evidence” that supposedly
proves a centrist Democrat will belly flop in 2020.
Other op-ed’s have warned
Democrats to beware of Republican trolls trying to trick them into pursuing
foolish moderation.
So, what are Democrats to
do?
Well, what if they
borrowed a phrase from “A Clockwork Chartreuse,” Loudon Wainwright III’s
tongue-in-cheek paean to an anarchist: “Let’s burn down McDonald’s/Let’s go
whole hog.”
Here are few things Democratic candidates can advocate at the next round of debates – July 30 and 31, CNN — if they really, really want to test the notion that the way to deny Donald Trump a second term is not moderation but a triple jump to the left. In no particular order:
Claiming “originalist” interpretation, ban private
ownership of all firearms designed after 1789, the year the U.S. Constitution
was ratified.
Ban bacon and big-ass pick-up trucks.
Remove slave owners’ heads from Mt. Rushmore.
Outlaw Mountain Dew.
Expand national park acreage to include Texas.
Along with abolishing private health insurance and
replacing it with Medicare for All, reimburse patients for parking at hospital
ramps.
Mandatory kale consumption.
Stop construction of Trump’s wall; commence
construction of automated “people mover” walkways.
Change national anthem to Neil Diamond’s
immigrant-friendly “(Coming to) America.”
Abolish apple pie as the national dessert. I’m thinking rhubarb.
Note: Noel Holston is a freelance writer who lives in Athens, Georgia. He’s a contributing essayist to Medium.com, TVWorthWatching.com, and other websites. He previously wrote about television and radio at Newsday (200-2005) and, as a crosstown counterpart to the Pioneer Press’s Brian Lambert, at the Star Tribune (1986-2000). He’s the author of “Life After Deaf: My Misadventures in Hearing Loss and Recovery,” which is scheduled for publication fall of 2019 by Skyhorse.
Among political reporters and pundits, the fashionable take on Democratic presidential candidates is that they’re recklessly veering too far to the left, consequently putting their chances of defeating Donald Trump at risk. That critique is all the rage.
“But the Democrats are in danger of marching so far left that they go over a cliff. That’s not just my view. Mainstream reporters, who tend to be less sensitive to liberal positions that match their personal views, are openly acknowledging and debating the dramatic shift. It was even on the front page of The New York Times.”
“The Democratic debates this past week provided the clearest evidence yet that many of the leading presidential candidates are breaking with the incremental politics of the Clinton and Obama eras, and are embracing sweeping liberal policy changes on some of the most charged public issues in American life, even at the risk of political backlash. But with moderate Democrats repeatedly drowned out or on the defensive in the debates, the sprint to the left has deeply unnerved establishment Democrats, who have largely picked the party nominees in recent decades.”
“That sound you heard in Miami on Wednesday evening? El partido demócrata dando un fuerte giro a la izquierda. The screech of a Democratic Party swerving hard to the left. As the first 2020 Democratic debate wrapped here, there was a palpable sense that the 10 contenders on stage were reflecting the sentiments of the most liberal corners of the party.”
Yes, Democrats are more liberal than they have been in my lifetime. Yes, it’s possible that they could eventually go too far. But I disagree with the punditosphere that Democrats have hit that point.
Why Moving Left?
The explanation of aghast pundits has been that Democrats are supporting progressive policies for two primary reasons:
Echo Chamber Parrots. First, they argue that Democrats are more liberal because they spend too much time in self-reinforcing “echo chambers” — social media and cable news channels where like-minded ideologues radicalize each other and get isolated from opposing viewpoints. Pundits say candidates spend too little time in the habitat of “real people,” which they usually identify as Mayberry-esque Main Street cafes.
Liberal Bidding War. Also, pundits explain that Democrats are now more liberal because they’re desperately trying to out-liberal each other to court ultra-liberal primary and caucus voters.
These are both very real occupational hazards for politicians, and valid contributory factors for the shift to the left. I don’t disagree with them, but they’re not the only explanations.
Democrats Are Listening To Americans
Many reporters and pundits are missing or under-emphasizing another explanation that is at least as important,:
Listening To Americans. Democrats are moving left because they are actually listening to Americans.
Democrats are not just marching in lockstep with Rachel Maddow, Moveon.org, Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, and Bernie Sanders. They’re not just trying to one-up each other. They’re also reading the survey research.
The American Prospect recently compiled a long list of recent survey polls showing overwhelming majorities of Americans embracing a broad range of progressive attitudes and policies, excerpted below. Remember, the following is dozens of independent statistically significant surveys speaking, not the liberal American Prospect magazine speaking:
The Economy
82 percent of Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.
78 percent of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement on the financial industry.
Inequality
82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.
66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.
72 percent of Americans say it is “extremely” or “very” important, and 23 percent say it is “somewhat important,” to reduce poverty.
59 percent of registered voters—and 51 percent of Republicans—favor raising the maximum amount that low-wage workers can make and still be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, from $14,820 to $18,000.
Taxes
76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.
60 percent of registered voters believe corporations pay too little in taxes.
87 percent of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.
67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.
Minimum Wage
54 percent of registered voters favored a $15 minimum wage.
63 percent of registered voters think the minimum wage should be adjusted each year by the rate of inflation.
Workers’ Rights
74 percent of registered voters—including 71 percent of Republicans—support requiring employers to offer paid parental and medical leave.
78 percent of likely voters favor establishing a national fund that offers all workers 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.
Health Care
60 percent of Americans believe “it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
60 percent of registered voters favor “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.”
64 percent of registered voters favor their state accepting the Obamacare plan for expanding Medicaid in their state.
Education
63 percent of registered voters—including 47 percent of Republicans—of Americans favor making four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free.
59 percent of Americans favor free early-childhood education.
Climate Change and the Environment
76 percent of voters are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about climate change.
68 percent of voters think it is possible to protect the environment and protect jobs.
59 percent of voters say more needs to be done to address climate change.
Gun Safety
84 percent of Americans support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
77 percent of gun owners support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
Criminal Justice
60 percent of Americans believe the recent killings of black men by police are part of a broader pattern of how police treat black Americans (compared with 39 percent who believe they are isolated incidents).
Immigration
68 percent of Americans—including 48 percent of Republicans—believe the country’s openness to people from around the world “is essential to who we are as a nation.” Just 29 percent say that “if America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation.”
65 percent of Americans—including 42 percent of Republicans—say immigrants strengthen the country “because of their hard work and talents.” Just 26 percent say immigrants are a burden “because they take our jobs, housing and health care.”
64 percent of Americans think an increasing number of people from different races, ethnic groups, and nationalities makes the country a better place to live. Only 5 percent say it makes the United States a worse place to live, and 29 percent say it makes no difference.
76 percent of registered voters—including 69 percent of Republicans—support allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children (Dreamers) to stay in the country. Only 15 percent think they should be removed or deported from the country.
Abortion and Women’s Health
58 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
68 percent of Americans—including 54 percent of Republicans—support the requirement for private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control.
Same-Sex Marriage
62 percent of Americans—including 70 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans—support same-sex marriage.
For people who suffered through eras when the NRA, the Catholic Church, the health insurance lobby, the Moral Majority, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, and trickle downers like Reagan, Gingrich and Bush dominated politics and policymaking, these findings are pretty stunning.
Make no mistake, America has changed. A solid majority of Americans now are supportive of left-leaning policies, whether or not they self-identify as “liberal.” In a representative democracy, public opinion is supposed to have a powerful impact on candidates and policymakers, and it is.
“Scaring the Independents”
“Harumph,” say the grizzled veteran pundits and reporters. Hubris-laden Democrats are going to scare away the Independent voters and be responsible for four more years of Trump.
That’s certainly a danger, and an important thing to monitor in coming months. But remember, all of those polls listed above have a representative number of Independent voters in their samples, and breakouts show that on most issues a solid majority of Independents also are backing very progressive policy positions.
In addition, when you look at how Independent voters are currently leaning, they are leaning in the Democrat’s direction by a net nine-point margin.
Obviously, these polls are just a snapshot in time, so Democrats could still lose Independent voters after they are exposed to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of attacks. However, it’s worth noting that, after watching Democrats being lambasted for embracing progressive positions in recent years, Independents are still leaning fairly decisively blue.
Expanding the Electorate
Finally, let’s not forget that it will be easier for Democratic candidates to win if they can expand the electorate. That is, Democrats need to make the overall size of their electorate larger than it has been in past presidential election by motivating and activating the parts of their coalition that have traditionally voted in relatively low numbers, such as low-income people, people of color and young people. Even just a few percentage points improvement with those groups could impact the outcome of the 2020 elections up and down the ballot.
Positions in the “mushy middle” — ACA stabilization tweaks, incremental tax reform, inflation adjustments only to the minimum wage, semi-punitive immigration law changes, Pell Grant adjustments, etc. — probably won’t particularly motivate and activate these important voters.
Bolder progressive policies — Medicare-for All, Medicare buy-in option, repealing Bush and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy to fund help for struggling families, increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour, family medical leave benefits, bold immigration law changes, higher education loan forgiveness — might.
Short-term Needs. So even if supporting progressive policies were causing Democrats to lose amongst Independent voters — and remember, so far the data seems to indicate that they aren’t — there is an argument for Democratic candidates to take those progressive stands anyway, in order to keep young people, poor people, and people of color from sitting out election day in large numbers, or backing a left-leaning third party candidate.
Long-term Needs. Appealing to those lightly voting groups with progressive policies is also important for the long-term future of the Democratic Party, not just the 2020 election. That’s because people of color are the fastest growing portions of the population, and today’s young people obviously will be voting for many years. Making those groups into committed members of the Democratic coalition would pay long-term dividends.
More Room To Grow. Still, some maintain that voter turnout is going to be so large in 2020, due to the polarizing nature of President Trump, that the size of the electorate will be maxed out without having to motivate lightly voting groups with progressive policies.
But when you look at the dramatically lower than average turnout figures for loyal Democratic constituencies in 2018, when their turnout levels were actually very high compared to 2014, it’s clear there is still much room for growth with these groups. For instance, 36% of young people voted in 2018, compared to 53% of the total population. Again, even an increase of a point or two in some of these categories could be decisive.
Who’s Out of Touch?
So yes, Democrats have indeed moved left in recent years. That much is obvious. But given this consistent stream of survey research from a wide variety of sources, I can’t agree with those who conclude that Democratic candidates are the ones who are “out of touch” with the pulse of the American people.
During last night’s Part I of the Democratic Presidential debate, moderators and candidates acted as if candidates must make a choice between advocating for Medicare-for-All and a Medicare buy-in option. It was one of the few areas of division among the progressive candidates
Why? Progressives should be simultaneously advocating for both policies.
Stop Bashing Buy-In Option
Medicare-for-All advocates like Sanders and Warren need to stop taking cheap shots at a Medicare buy-in option.
The reality is, without a filibuster-proof Senate majority, Medicare-for-All simply can’t pass for a while. Therefore, progressives need a Plan B that helps as many Americans as possible, shows that Democrats can deliver on their health care rhetoric, and advances the cause of Medicare-for-All.
It helps more Americans in the short-run by bringing much more price competition to the marketplace and ensuring every American has at least one comprehensive coverage option available to them, even in poorly served areas.
Beyond helping Americans in the short-term, a buy-in option also advances the cause of Medicare-for-All. Americans have been brainwashed by decades of conservatives’ vilifying of “government run health care,” but a buy-in option will give younger generations of Americans first-hand evidence showing that Medicare is not to be feared. It will show millions of Americans that Medicare is cheaper and better than conservatives’ vaunted corporate health plans.
And that will help disarm conservatives’ red-faced criticisms of “government run health care” and Medicare-for-All.
Stop Bashing
Medicare-for-All
At the same time, champions of a Medicare buy-in option like Biden and Buttigieg need to stop railing on a Medicare-for-All.
Even though Medicare-for-All can’t pass right away, progressives need to keep explaining what the world’s other developed nations figured out a long time ago, that a single payer government-run is the only real solution for any nation that hopes to control costs, cover everyone, and improve health outcomes.
For far too long, progressives have been afraid to educate Americans about why a single-payer system is needed. When fearful progressives sensor themselves from explaining why Medicare-for-All is needed, they leave the stage to conservative and corporate demagogues relentlessly spreading myths about the evils of “government-run health care.”
And when progressives leave the stage to conservative demagogues — surprise, surprise – progressives lose the debate.
Start Pushing Both
What would it sound like to advocate these two positions simultaneously? It could sound something like this:
Ultimately, we must cover everyone, control skyrocketing costs, and improve health outcomes. And you know what? Ultimately, the only way to do that is Medicare-for-All.
In America, Medicare has proven effective and is popular with those who use it. In developed nations around the world using government-run systems like Medicare, everyone is covered, costs are much lower and health outcomes are much better.
So Medicare-for-All must to be our ultimate goal. We have to keep our eyes on that prize. We need it as soon as possible.
At the same time, the Republican-controlled Senate won’t pass Medicare-for-All. That’s reality folks.
Given that reality, what can Democrats do right now to both help the American people and pave the way for Medicare-for-All in the long-run? A Medicare buy-in option. A buy-in option has lots of public support among Republican voters, so it has a much better chance of passing the Senate than Medicare-for-All.
Let Americans choose between corporate care and Medicare. If they want to keep their private health insurance, they can. But given them another option.
President Trump is afraid to give Americans make that choice. I’m not. He knows Americans will like Medicare better, and doesn’t want to give them that option. I’m not afraid, because I know that a Medicare plan that isn’t required to profit off of patients will be cheaper and better that corporate care. So let Americans choose.
Enacting a buy-in option now will show more Americans that they have nothing to fear from Medicare coverage. And that will help us move the American people towards embracing Medicare-for-All.
Pols and pundits keep framing this issue as if it must be a battle to the death for progressives. But Medicare-for-All versus a Medicare Buy-in Option is a false choice. Progressives should be advocating for both, and stop savaging each other on the issue.
Democratic presidential candidates are lining up in support of Medicare-for-All, and I’m glad they’re making that case to Americans. Around the world, single payer systems like Medicare-for-All are delivering better and cheaper health care than Americans are getting, and we need to adopt such a system as soon as possible. As William Hsiao, Ph.D., professor of economics at the Harvard School of Public Health puts it:
“You can have universal coverage and good quality health care, while still managing to control costs. But you have to have a single-payer system to do it.”
But for reasons I’ll explain below, I don’t believe Medicare-for-All can pass in 2020, even if Democrats control Congress and the White House. So, we need to extend a meaningful bridge to Medicare-for-All.
So what could Democrats pass to make Medicare-for-All possible in the relatively near future?
The 74-Year Battle
Before we get to that, let’s back up to reflect on how we got here. In 1945, Harry Truman wanted what we today would call Medicare-for-All. For 20 years, it went nowhere. What was dubbed “socialized medicine” by Ronald Reagan and other Republicans just didn’t prove to be politically feasible.
In 1965, Lyndon Johnson had a partial breakthrough. He passed Medicare for 65 and older, but it wasn’t as comprehensive as today’s Medicare. As support for Medicare grew, improvements were made. In 1972, Republican Richard Nixon agreed to expand coverage. In the Reagan years, home health care, hospice services, and a limited prescription drug benefit were added. In the George H.W. Bush era, the prescription drug benefit was expanded.
The historical lesson: Health care reform in a nation dominated by powerful private health insurance companies has been supremely arduous, and therefore incremental. This is true even though Medicare has proven popular and efficient.
Medicare-for-All Next?
Unfortunately, three-quarters of a century after Truman started advocating for Medicare for All, the debate still is treacherous. In 2019, the Medicare expansion debate boils down to essentially this: Should progressives push for 1) publicly financed, mandated Medicare-for-All; 2) voluntary, consumer-financed Medicare buy-in option; or 3) a publicly financed, mandated “Medicare at 50.”
Many progressives, myself included, point to the polls showing strong support for Medicare-for-All, and say now is the time to push for it.
Indeed, progressives should continue to make the case for making Medicare-for-All the goal. At the same time, we have to recognize that in the current political environment, Medicare-for-All has much less popular support than a Medicare buy-in option. A January 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll finds that 56% of Americans support Medicare-for-All, while 77% support a Medicare buy-in option. So when conservatives and insurance companies start attacking, the buy-in option would be much more politically bullet-proof than Medicare-for-All.
Moreover, as the debate heats up Medicare-for-All and Medicare-at-50 will be vulnerable to two of the most deadly attacks in all of American politics. First, opponents will say they’re “massively expensive.” Second, they will say consumers would be “forced to give up your current coverage.”
We shouldn’t discount the political power of those two critiques. When it comes to taxpayer expense and mandated change, American voters have historically been very easily spooked. Those two attacks, which would be greatly amplified via hundreds of millions of dollars worth of the most intensive political and special interest propaganda the nation has ever seen, will be very effective at eroding support.
Therefore, today’s poll numbers for Medicare-for-All and Medicare-at-50 will not hold up, and when they shrink, congressional votes will disappear.
Advantages Of A Medicare Buy-In Bridge
A Medicare buy-in option, however, is much more politically durable, and not just because it has 21 points more support in the KFF survey than Medicare-for-All.
Not Expensive. First, a Medicare buy-in option wouldn’t have a big taxpayer price tag like Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50, because consumers under age 65 would be paying premiums, not taxpayers.
Not A Mandate. Second, a buy-in option wouldn’t force any consumer to give up their current coverage, which they would need to do with either Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50. Under the buy-in option, consumers who want to continue to pay more to keep their private coverage could still choose to do so.
The fact that a Medicare buy-in option is voluntary and self-financing would largely disarm the most potent political attacks that have been working since 1945.
A Bridge To Medicare-for-All. But make no mistake, passing a Medicare buy-in option would constitute dramatic progress that would make Medicare for All much more likely in the future. Let me count the ways:
More Affordable for Millions. Because Medicare has much lower overhead than private health insurance, it would give millions of Americans more affordable coverage than they have today. By the way, if private insurance somehow turns out to be cheaper and/or better than the Medicare option, as conservatives have long claimed, consumers obviously will choose it. If that happens, Republicans will be proven correct. So let patients decide, not politicians. Conservatives should have nothing to fear from giving this option to consumers.
Aid Cost Control. A Medicare buy-in option would give Medicare a bigger pool of consumers, which would give Medicare officials much more leverage to negotiate cost control with hospitals, doctors, device makers and pharmaceutical companies. “Medicare-for-more” would not be as effective at leveraging lower costs as “Medicare-for-All” will be, but it will bring important progress.
Deepen Medicare Support. As more Americans voluntarily switch from private insurance to the cheaper Medicare buy-in option without experiencing worse service and coverage, it will show Americans that this “government-run health care” is not the horrific bogeyman Republicans have made it out to be.
Broaden Generational Support. Finally, while Medicare currently mostly only has senior citizen champions, newly converted believers in Medicare would be in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and early 60s. This would dramatically strengthen the Medicare-for-All base of support.
So, a Medicare buy-in option would be much more politically feasible than Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50, and it is the next logical span of the bridge to Medicare-for-All to add. Progressives shouldn’t be hesitant to build it.
As the next iteration of Trumpcare/Ryancare is finalized by warring conservatives, it’s fair to demand that Democrats share their post-Obama vision for health care.
Yes, Democrats need to be fighting efforts to repeal and replace the increasingly popular Obamacare/Affordable Care Act (ACA) system with Trumpcare/Ryancare. Though the ACA is the spurned love child of the Heritage Foundation, Orin Hatch, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, it’s much more humane than Trumpcare/Ryancare, which would cause at least 24 million Americans to lose their Obamacare health coverage, and many more if states choose to further weaken protections.
But for the long haul, Democrats need to set their sights higher than Obamacare. They must become full-throated champions for allowing Americans the option of buying into the Medicare system. Here are five reasons why:
Reason #1. Medicare is popular “government run health care.” For decades, Republicans have robotically vilified “government run health care” and “socialized medicine,” presuming that Americans agree with them that government will screw up anything it undertakes. And Democratic politicians have cowered in fear.
However, Medicare is a notable exception to that rule. While the private sector-centric Trumpcare/Ryancare has 17% approval and Obamacare has 55% approval, Medicare has the approval of 60% of all Americans, and 75% Americans who have actual experience using Medicare. It’s not an easy thing for a health plan to become popular, so Medicare’s relative popularity is political gold. Democrats need to tap into it.
Reason #2. Medicare is better equipped to control medical and overhead costs than private plans. Medicare has a single administrative system, while dozens of health insurance corporations have dozens of separate and duplicative administrative bureaucracies. That decentralized approach to administration is expensive.
Also, for-profit health insurance corporations have to build profits and higher salaries into their premium costs. For instance, the insurance corporation United Health Care, to cite just one of dozens of examples, pays it’s top executive $33,400,000. That’s 135 times more than the not-for-profit Medicare system pays its top executive, about $247,000.
Medicare also is large enough that it has a great deal of negotiating leverage. It could have even more if Congress empowered Medicare to more effectively negotiate pharmaceutical prices.
Because of all of that, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities finds:
Medicare has been the leader in reforming the health care payment system to improve efficiency and has outperformed private health insurance in holding down the growth of health costs… Since 1987, Medicare spending per enrollee has grown by 5.7 percent a year, on average, compared with 7.0 percent for private health insurance.
So, if Democrats want to better control health care costs to help the economy and struggling Americans, the Medicare model offers the best hope for doing that, not the corporate-centric model that we currently are using.
Reason #3. A Medicare-for-All option is very politically viable. Most Democratic politicians understand that a Medicare-for-All option makes good sense policy wise, but shrug it off as politically infeasible. They’re dead wrong.
By a more than a 5-to-1 margin, Americans support having a Medicare-for-All option. An overwhelming 71% support it, while only 13% oppose it. If you won’t try to sell a proven progressive idea that is supported by a 5-to-1 margin, you have no business being in progressive politics.
While “government-run health care” has been a weak brand for brand for Democrats, they have a clear path for rebranding their agenda. Medicare brand equity is right there waiting for Democrats to take advantage it, if they’ll only open their eyes to the opportunity.
Reason #4. A Medicare-for-All option will expose private health corporations as uncompetitive. Right now, one of the Democrats’ biggest political problems is that too many Americans have been brainwashed by conservatives into believing that the private sector is always more efficient and effective than the public sector. In other areas that don’t involve “public goods,” that is true, but not with health insurance.
The best way to bust that “private is always best” myth is to allow Medicare to sit alongside corporate health plans in the individual marketplace. If American consumers choose Medicare over private plans, because Medicare proves itself to be the cheapest and best option, then the conservatives’ “private is always best” myth finally will be busted.
Reason #5. A Medicare-for-All option can serve as a bridge to the best health care model – a public single payer system. The research is clear that countries who have single payer health care financing have better and cheaper health care than the United States has with it’s substantially private sector based health care system. For example, the nonpartisan, nonprofit Commonwealth Fund finds:
Even though the U.S. is the only country without a publicly financed universal health system (among 13 high-income countries: Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States), it still spends more public dollars on health care than all but two of the other countries. …despite its heavy investment in health care, the U.S. sees poorer results on several key health outcome measures such as life expectancy and the prevalence of chronic conditions.
Obscure research reports like this aren’t proving persuasive to American voters. But when younger Americans are able to see for themselves through their shopping that Medicare is cheaper and better than private health insurance options, Medicare will build a bigger market share. After Medicare earns a larger market share, Americans may ultimately be much more open to shifting from a Medicare-for-all option to a Medicare-for-all single payer system that the United States ultimately needs in order to compete in the global marketplace and become a healthier nation.
It’s not enough for Democrats to only expose the reckless Trumpcare/Ryancare model and defend Obamacare status quo. They must also promote a Medicare-for-All vision for moving America forward. With the current President and Congress, a Medicare-for-All option obviously can’t pass. But aggressively promoting over the coming years will improve the chances that this Congress and President will soon be replaced and that a Medicare-for-All option can be enacted in future years.
America currently has a health reform model that has given it the highest rate of health insurance coverage in history, covering more than 20 million of its most difficult to insure citizens. It has helped those 20 million Americans avoid having their lives ruined by crushing medical bills, or shifting those costs onto other Americans.
And despite years of heavily-financed and relentless attacks on the model, most Americans now have a favorable impression of it.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) system isn’t perfect. Yes liberals, a Medicare for All system would be much more effective and efficient than the current ACA system. Yes conservatives, this ACA needs adjustments, though, to borrow from Mark Twain, the reports of its death spiraliness have been greatly exaggerated.
“You could, I think, relatively simply address the issues that the exchanges have,” said Dan Mendelson, president of Avalere Health, a health consulting firm, noting that other major programs including Medicare have been tweaked repeatedly since their creation.
Now President Trump and the Republicans want to blow up the ACA model — the one that covered the most Americans in history — in favor of a model that will cause an estimated 6 million to10 million Americans to lose their coverage. Their alternative particularly hurts the low-income, rural and elderly. To add insult to injury, it shoehorns in a grotesquely large tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, at a time when we have the worst inequality in incomes since the 1920s. The alternative is vehemently opposed by doctors, nurses, hospitals, seniors, conservatives, and liberals. And Republicans promise to pass it within three weeks, without cost estimates if necessary, after complaining about the ACA being “rammed through” over 13 months.
This is the political and policymaking genius that is Trumpcare.
Will Rogers said, “this country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.” Never has that been more true than now.
Though I’m a solid Hillary Clinton supporter, I don’t particularly relish defending her at water coolers, dinner tables and social media venues. When defending Hillary Clinton to those who hoped for more, I often feel like I do when defending the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to those who hoped for more.
To be clear, neither Hillary nor the ACA were my first choice. Elizabeth Warren and single payer were my first choices.
Neither Hillary nor the ACA are as bold as I’d prefer. They both promise modest incremental change, rather than the more revolutionary change that is needed.
Neither Hillary nor the ACA are, shall we say, untouched by special interests. The ACA is the product of accommodations made to private health insurers, physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, while Clinton is the product of accommodations made to corporations, unions and military leaders.
Also, neither Hillary nor the ACA are easy to understand. Hillary is a wonk’s wonk whose eye-glazing 20-point policy plans don’t exactly sing to lightly engaged voters. Likewise, the ACA has given birth to 20,000 pages of the densest regulations you’ll ever find. (By the way, a primary reason the ACA is so complex is that conservatives and moderates insisted that it accommodate dozens of for-profit insurance companies instead of using the more linear single payer model that has been proven effective and efficient by other industrialized nations. In this way, the need for much of the ACA complexity was created by conservatives, not liberals.)
At the same time, neither Hillary nor the ACA are anywhere near as bad as the caricatures created by their demagogic critics. Hillary is not a serial liar and murderer any more than the ACA led to “Death Panels” and force-fed birth control.
The bottom line is that both Hillary and the ACA, for all their respective flaws, are far superior to the alternatives. The steady, smart, savvy, and decent Clinton is much better than the erratic, ignorant, inept and vile Trump. The current ACA era, with a 9.2% uninsured rate (4.3% in Minnesota, where the ACA is more faithfully implemented than it is in many states) and all preexisting conditions covered is much better than the pre-ACA status quo, with an uninsured rate of 15.7% (9% in Minnesota) and millions denied health coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.
Hillary and the ACA both bring progress, but they are hardly the final word. The fact that I am supporting the ACA in 2016 doesn’t mean I’m going to stop advocating for ACA improvements, a Medicare-for-All option and ultimately a single payer system. The fact that I am supporting Hillary in 2016 doesn’t mean I’m not going to push for more progressive, bold, compelling and independent leaders in the future.
But politics is the art of the possible. Hillary and the ACA are what is possible at this point in the history of our imperfect democracy. As such, I can champion both comfortably, if not entirely enthusiastically.
When I started seeing ads and social media chatter about former Republican Governor Gary Johnson running for President, I went to OnTheIssues.org to learn more.
I liked some of what I saw on foreign policy and law enforcement reform, but one line jumped out at me as particularly disturbing. It said Governor Johnson wants to:
“cut the federal budget by 43%.”
Just to be clear, a 43% cut in federal spending would constitute a major conservative revolution. That would bring a much deeper reduction in government services than has been proposed in the past by ultra-conservative firebrands such as Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, or Michele Bachmann.
Still, I realize that a 43% cut has surface appeal. After all, nobody feels a deep affinity for the abstract notion of “the federal government budget.” But budgets are collections of individual programs that deliver individual sets of services and benefits to Americans, so we need to evaluate Johnson’s radical austerity plan on a program-by-program basis.
So, my fellow Americans, which federal services are you willing to cut by 43%, as Gary Johnson proposes.
Cut Infrastructure by 43%? For instance, are the American people willing to cut infrastructure investments by 43%? Do we want to slash investment in roads, bridges, transit, trains, airports, water and sewage systems, and the like? A GBA Strategies survey finds that an overwhelming 71% of Americans want to spend $400 million more on infrastructure, not less. Only 13% oppose such a massive federal government spending increase.
Cut Medicare by 43%? Do the American people want to cut Medicare by 43%? After all, Medicare is a huge and growing part of the federal budget. Americans not only don’t want to cut Medicare, more than three-fourths (77%) of Americans want to fund a new, massively expensive Medicare-for-All option. Only 17% oppose such an expansion of government services and spending.
Cut Social Security by 43%? Maybe Americans want to cut Social Security benefits by 43%? While Social Security represents an enormous slice of the federal pie, the vast majority of Americans not only don’t want to cut Social Security benefits, a whopping 70% want to strengthen them. Only 15% oppose expanding Social Security benefits.
Cut National Defense by 43%? What about a 43% cut in national defense spending? Gallup finds that only 32% of Americans support national defense budget cuts.
Cut Other Programs by 43%? Similarly, the GBA survey finds that an overwhelming majority of Americans want major government spending increases for green energy technology (70% support, 20% oppose), debt-free public higher education (71% support, 19% oppose), and subsidies for high quality child care (53% support, 33% oppose) . There is no public appetite to cut any of those federal programs by 43%, as Governor Johnson proposes.
In other words, only a thin slice of the most deeply ultra-conservative voters support Johnson’s fiscal austerity ideas. Therefore, more moderate voters who are concerned about the nation’s poor, middle class, national security and global competitiveness need to learn about the implications of Johnson’s fiscal proposals before they jump on the Johnson bandwagon.
So you, like me, voted for Senator Bernie Sanders for President. Now maybe you’re considering switching allegiances to the Libertarian presidential candidate, Governor Gary Johnson?
I respect your decision to shop around and do thoughtful research. Here’s something to inform your decision.
(Source for Sanders positions here. Source for Johnson positions here. Source for estimate of Sanders spending increase total here.)
Yes, Governor Johnson would do some very smart and important things, such as scale back the war on drugs and be careful about entering military quagmires. But most of the centerpiece policies championed by Senator Sanders are vehemently opposed by Governor Johnson.
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has already given much to the Democratic Party. But even though his chances of being nominated remain slim, he still has a bit more he could give to his adopted party.
Largely because of Clinton’s dominance when it comes to establishment-oriented super delegates, we’re being told by elite analysts like FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver that Hillary will likely be nominated, even after a likely Sanders win in Wisconsin today and a possible win in Clinton’s home state of New York. Sanders’ exit from the stage couldn’t come soon enough for frustrated supporters of Hillary Clinton, who see Sanders as an annoying speed bump on her trip down Inevitability Lane.
Bernie’s Gifts To Democrats
But the fact is, Sanders’ questioning of Clinton has helped her improve as a candidate. Though still too cautious and programmed, Clinton is a better candidate now than she was before Sanders joined her on stage.
Beyond changing candidate Clinton for the better, Sanders has also changed the Democratic party for the better. This longtime political independent has reminded Democratic partisans that it’s okay to dream of progressive policies that go beyond the cautious incrementalism ushered in during the 1990s by the Clintons and their center-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
With every major western nation operating universal health care systems that are more fair, effective and efficient than today’s complex Rube Goldberg-style Affordable Care Act (ACA) machinery, Sanders reminded Democrats that it’s reasonable to both appreciate the progress being made under the ACA, while continuing to fight for the superior single payer models.
Sanders also reminded Democrats that a college degree is as vital today as a high school degree was at the time the American public education system was created, so we need to keep fighting to update our public education system by offering tuition-free public higher education.
Sanders reminded Democrats that even Republican presidents such as Bush, Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower all required wealthy Americans to pay more to support their country than we do today, so it’s reasonable to ask more of the wealthy again to help rebuild the American dream for the lower- and middle-class.
Sanders reminded Democrats that the party that created a wide array of popular socialist programs that built the great American middle class — New Deal job programs, Social Security, the GI Bill, the Rural Electric Administration, Medicare — doesn’t need to cower in fear every time conservatives label their proposals as “socialism.”
Finally, Sanders shined a light on the corrupting influence that big money has had on America’s corporatized Congress.
Democrats owe the Independent Senator a debt of gratitude. The fact that many to most of Sanders’ proposals could not have passed in the short-term with a Republican-controlled Congress does not mean that progressives shouldn’t advocate for those policies, to improve their viability over the long-term. It’s self-defeating to allow do-nothing congressional conservatives to limit how Democrats use the bullypulpit.
Bernie’s Parting Gift
But where does Sanders go from here? If delegate geeks like Nate Silver are correct that it’s impossible for Sanders to come from behind to win the nomination, should he just pull out of the race, as indignant Clinton supporters have been demanding?
Before Sanders leaves the stage, I’d ask one more favor of him: Expose Trumponomics for what it is. To limit the number of Sanders refugees who are tempted to support Trump over Clinton in November, Sanders should spend the next few weeks exposing the fraud Mr. Trump is attempting to perpetrate on Americans.
For instance, Sanders should explain that billionaire Trump may claim that his partial self-financing makes him independent from the uber-wealthy interests, but Trump’s tax plan exposes the truth. According to a Tax Policy Center (TPC) analysis, Trump’s tax plan would give an average tax cut of $1.3 million per year to the richest one-tenth of one percent. Sanders should make sure his audience understands that billionaire Trump plans to further enrich his fellow billionaires.
Sanders should also explain how the businessman’s proposals will destroy the American economy, rather than make America “win so much will be sick of winning.” For instance, look at what Mr. Trump’s plan to lavish the mega-rich with tax breaks would do to the national debt:
“The Tax Policy Center estimates the proposal would reduce federal revenue by $9.5 trillion over its first decade and an additional $15.0 trillion over the subsequent 10 years, before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects.”
Some have suggested that Sanders and Trump compete for the same type of voters, those most frustrated with the status quo. Therefore, before Sanders leaves the stage, he should conduct a seminar for “open to Trump” voters about the fraud Mr. Trump is attempting to perpetrate on them. Doing so could constitute Bernie’s greatest gift of all to the Democratic Party.
When presidential candidate Bernie Sanders explains why Americans shouldn’t fear his “democratic socialism,” he usually points to Scandinavia.
“I think we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn what they have accomplished for their working people. In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what “freedom” means… they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity. Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all — including the children, the elderly and the disabled.”
His opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, who clearly understands American exceptionalism biases, quickly shuts down Sanders’ arguments with a smug shrug: “We are not Denmark.”
By continually citing countries other than America to explain democratic socialism to Americans, Senator Sanders is hurting his case. Instead of pointing to Norway, he should more consistently cite the New Deal.
First, let’s consider the definition of “democratic socialism” offered by Democratic Socialist’s of America:
“Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”
Truth be told, the United States of America is no stranger to this kind of democratic socialism. It was brought to us during some of the most successful and popular presidencies of the past century. Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower enacted a whole series of popular measures that fit under this definition of democratic socialism. At the time their ideas were proposed, they were criticized as infeasible, un-American and socialistic, just as Sanders’ ideas are today.
Therefore, Senator Sanders should be explaining his democratic socialism with American examples that a large majority of Americans already know and love. Sanders might say something like this:
You want to know what democratic socialism is? When the great Republican Teddy Roosevelt dissolved 44 corporations to protect the middle class, and when he protected ordinary Americans from the railroad companies and other big corporations, his critics said “you can’t pass that, because it’s socialism.” But he passed them anyway, because the American people demanded it.
When the enormously popular Franklin Roosevelt used government funding to put Americans to work building community infrastructure, they said “you can’t pass that, because it’s socialism.” When FDR proposed a Social Security system of government-run pensions that lifted millions of American seniors out of poverty, conservatives said “you can’t pass that, because it’s socialism.” But he passed those things anyway, because the people demanded it.
When Harry Truman enacted Medicare, people like Ronald Reagan called that socialism too.
And you know what? When Republican Dwight Eisenhower invested in an enormously expensive interstate highway system and had 90% income tax rates on the ultra-wealthy, they said it again: “You can’t pass that, because that’s socialism.” But he passed those things anyway, because the American people demanded it.
And despite the dire predictions from critics, America’s economy prospered under these policies that were all predicted to be catastrophic for the economy.
So in 2016, when the defeatist “no you can’t” crowd tells Americans “you can’t pass bills to provide higher education and health care to all, because that’s socialism,” I get my inspiration and courage from Teddy, FDR, Give ‘em hell Harry and Ike. Because of them, I know America can overcome the cynics’ name-calling and naysaying to do great things for the middle class now, just as we did then.”
Democratic socialism is already in America, and it is enormously popular. Surveys consistently show that Americans are vehemently opposed to cutting or eliminating democratic socialist programs such as Medicare, Social Security, and the minimum wage.
Americans not only have embraced democratic socialism in the past, they strongly support it for the future. A recent GBA Strategies poll shows that likely 2016 voters overwhelmingly support a whole range of Sanders’ ideas being dismissed as socialist ideas lacking sufficient political support: Allowing governments to negotiate drug prices has 79% support. Medicare buy-in for all has 71% support. A $400 million infrastructure jobs program has 71% support. Debt-free college at all public universities has 71% support. Expanding Social Security benefits has 70% support. Taxing the rich at a 50% rate — the rate under conservative icon Ronald Reagan — has 59% support, and only 25% in opposition. Breaking up the big banks has 55% support, and only 23% in opposition.
This is hardly a portrait of a nation that opposes democratic socialism. Overwhelming support for democratic socialism is already there, ready to fuel a 2016 presidential candidate. But for two reasons, Senator Sanders needs to cite American parallels to explain his approach, not European.
First, citing examples of American policies will help build confidence that bold measures can be enacted over fierce opposition now, just as they were in the days of Teddy, FDR, Truman and Ike. Second, citing American examples will paint Sanders’ democratic socialism label and his policy ideas red, white and blue, rather than just red. It will show that such ideas have been embraced in the past by idolized Republicans and Democrats. It subsequently will normalize democratic socialism.
Americans are in a very nationalistic, ethnocentric and nostalgic mood. So, rather than continually pointing to the Rikstag, Storting, and Folketing to explain democratic socialsm, Sanders needs to point to the faces on Mt. Rushmore.
Democratic presidential candidates are lining up in support of Medicare-for-All, and I’m glad they’re making that case to Americans. Around the 
Before we get to that, let’s back up to reflect on how we 
But for the long haul, Democrats need to set their sights higher than Obamacare. They must become full-throated champions for allowing Americans the option of buying into the Medicare system. Here are five reasons why:
And despite years of heavily-financed and relentless attacks on the model, most Americans now have a
Though I’m a solid Hillary Clinton supporter, I don’t particularly relish defending her at water coolers, dinner tables and social media venues. When defending Hillary Clinton to those who hoped for more, I often feel like I do when defending the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to those who hoped for more.
When I started seeing ads and social media chatter about former Republican Governor Gary Johnson running for President, I went to 
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has already given much to the Democratic Party. But even though his chances of being nominated remain slim, he still has a bit more he could give to his adopted party.
When presidential candidate Bernie Sanders explains why Americans shouldn’t fear his “democratic socialism,” he usually 