Vermont. There’s your cite. Now I’ll patiently read your explanation for why Vermont doesn’t prove anything.
Moving the overton window on spending may very well move the overton window on taxes. When people aren’t super eager for a policy, they’re less eager to pay for it. Get people on board with needing UHC, and they’re a lot more likely to accept the cost of UHC.
I mean, even libertarians who examine this admit it’s going to cost way less (as we went over earlier in the thread), so it’s a pretty reasonable assumption.
That’s a state name, not a cite (hint – you might actually have to go to some effort if you’re interested in this kind of discussion). There’s a long, long history of expensive political policies that aren’t immediately paid for. Republicans get away with them very frequently. Democrats sometimes do as well. If “Medicare for All” as a slogan wins the Democrats big victories, and control of the WH and Congress, they’ll move heaven and earth to get some policy that they can label as Medicare for All or something close. And they might well succeed. Maybe it will be entirely paid for with tax increases, or maybe just partially, but it could happen.
Political predictions that just say “never can happen” about things like this are completely worthless and not worth dicussing.
It probably will cost a little less in the aggregate. Where it won’t cost less is how you fund it. Assumedly, you’re not going to make any of these groups pay more than they do now and you’ll probably want many of them to pay less:
- Seniors, ie Medicare recipients
- Medicaid recipients
- Union members
- Government employees
- People currently receiving big ACA subsidies
That’s going to mean the rest of the cost will fall heavily on those not in those five groups.
You’ve moved the goalposts though, although in a helpful way. Yes, I agree that they can pass something slightly more socialist than ACA and call it “Medicare”. And like ACA, it will demotivate their base and enrage the Republican base and swing voters. I’m really surprised they want another bite at this apple so soon.
Here’s what I predict will actually happen, and save this one, because I’m confident of this one:
Democrats win Presidency, House, and Senate, although not by huge margins like in 2008, in 2020. A Medicare For All bill is introduced, scored by CBO, and fails to pass. This failure to pass is blamed on “Republican obstruction” although really it will be Republicans+ red state Dems.
Then Democrats will get busy making ACA work better, with incremental but popular legislation that Mark Warner and Jon Manchin will support with enthusiasm.
I love the way you take several days off and start anew with an argument that ignores all the refutations of what you had said earlier, just as if they had never happened. The Republican playbook in a nutshell.
Your prediction in this post obviously counters everything you said earlier. In this individual case, your new opposite happens to look good. (Standard logic: the opposite of a false premise may be true or false or a nonsensical neither.) Of course, a simple reason exists for that: unlike everything you said earlier, you are now talking actual real world politics. Leaping to a utopia is not politics. Stating a desirable goal and working through compromise to achieve a result as close to that goal as practicable is the definition of real-world politics. Conservatives have forgotten this. They want to rule as authoritarians but are thwarted by those few who realize that their party’s stated goals and policies are actively insane. They settle for the worst of both worlds; bad incremental steps that worsen the situation while making the extremists more determined to pass something - anything - extreme.
Fortunately, we still cling to the shreds of a true democracy, in which the other side can prosper by introducing policies that will help instead of hinder. My advice is that you start denouncing the conservative IdiAmin-istrators and start advocating for every far-left policy and candidate in hopes that they start pulling us out of the hellhole you helped dig.
That’s not really how it works. A policy that everyone knows is nonsense but which is popular with those who just think it sounds good is not very useful for anything other than winning an election. Medicare for All has been rightly compared by Vox to Trump’s wall. More a statement of principles than an actual policy proposal. The reason I find this absolutely useless is because Democrats have been in favor of universal health care and have tried to do something about it for the last 25 years, and have favored it off and on for decades before that. This is like Republicans running on “No one making under $100K should pay any federal taxes!” I’m sure that would be quite popular, and also quite unrealistic.
UHC is common and popular around the world – it’s not an unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky dream fantasy policy. And as Trump continues to try and sabotage the ACA, it becomes more and more likely, since Democrats only need control of the WH and Congress for a single session to make it happen, and once it’s in place it will be as hard to dismantle as Social Security.
It can be done, if the middle class is willing to pay a lot more in taxes and the upper middle class in blue states are willing to pay a LOT more in taxes. That’s only the first problem, but if you get over that hump you can probably get unions to give up their gold plated plans. Or just exempt them from the system, which is what they’ll probably do.
All that has to happen is that Democrats get the WH and Congress and pass a bill. Hell, even an update to the ACA with a public option will set us on a pretty clear glide path towards UHC. Maybe it will be paid for at the time, or maybe in an ad-hoc way year after year, but all that they need is control of the government for a session.
A public option can definitely be done, but it’s not a glide path to UHC. As long as there are other options, some consumers will prefer the other options. And there’s nothing wrong with a two tier healh care system.
But your options are still limited by your own base’s unwililngness to pay more in taxes. Democrats are too reliant on yuppies now to go there.
How’d that work out for you last time?
I think he implies clearly that he only expects control of the government for a session. Given that this tends to lead to six years of divided government followed by 4-6 years of GOP dominance, it’s hard for me to take seriously Democratic complaints that Republicans are disastrous for the country. They don’t act like Republicans are disastrous, gladly handing over power after only two years every time they get elected.
Hey, Vox knew exactly what I was thinking today:
So… Raise your hand if paying a 44% payroll tax is a better deal for you.
Weird, right? It’s almost as if lots of American voters are really dumb. If only there was some way to test that theory. Like, say, an election between a distinguished public servant and Donald Trump. Hmm… 
Imagine – trying to enact Democratic policies! I mean, how dare they? As for expectations, I have none. No predictions, barring data-based ones from Nate Silver, are any better than wild guesses, these days.
You have to win with the electorate you have, not the one you wish you had. But I think a better word than dumb, is “selfish”. American voters have been trained to be selfish and politicians have long catered to that selfishness and continue to do so, even the socialist ones. Until you break the American voter of that instinct, you’ll get nowhere.
I don’t have data, but I do have past performance, and first midterms have been brutal to Democrats for four straight elections where they’ve had total control. Republicans haven’t done as badly(although there’s only one such election in most of our lifetimes) and they aren’t projected to do that badly in 2018.
The GOP and Trump just did. They promised huge tax cuts to the rich (and a few to the middle class) with no way to pay for them.
Responsible Republicans used to not promise such things not because they didn’t want to deliver them, but because they knew they couldn’t support the huge increase in the national debt.
Sure, push a expense that can only be paid for by a tax increase is bad. Pushing a cut that can only be paid for by jack up the debt is worse.
What the Republicans have done on taxes is irresponsible, but we’re talking fairly small numbers here compared to what the Democrats want to do, without any idea of how they’ll get the money.