Don't Hold Your Breath for Single-Payer

Posted on June 30, 2012 at 11:17 am by Bob Cesca

[My Thursday column from this week. I wrote it before the Supremes upheld the law, but this still applies if Mitt Romney wins and repeals the law.]

Throughout the last four years, whenever healthcare reform has reached critical mass — either when it was in danger of failing or close to passing, big dumb Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson (D-In Name Only) has invariably shoved his bulbous skull into the mix and blurted out something unforgivably stupid. Part of the reason is the aforementioned “big dumb” thing I just wrote, and the other part is that Omaha is the insurance capital of America.

Here’s the senator yesterday:

“Many expect an activist Supreme Court will strike down part or all of health reform,” Nelson said in a prepared statement. “If they strike down the mandate, the Supreme Court will be paving the way to a single-payer system, or back to the old broken health care system — neither of which are good for Nebraskans.”

First things first. The House Progressive Caucus is planning to reintroduce a single-payer law if the ACA dies today. That bill will predictably fail because there aren’t enough votes, and the House is controlled by the Republicans who will rapidly poop all over it.

Next, single-payer would be fantastic for Nebraskans. And Iowans and Virginians and Texans and New Yorkers. Why? Because it would be a wildly affordable and accessible form of providing insurance for everyone. It would be more accountable to the people than a corporate insurance provider. Financially, it would have inimal overhead to maintain (Medicare’s overhead is around 3-cents on the dollar), zero profit tacked onto the premiums — essentially Medicare, but without the “over 65″ part. And as near as I can tell, old people love Medicare so much so that they want government to keep its hands off the program. Doctors, prescription drug companies, medical supply companies and hospitals would remain autonomous (though fairly-regulated as they are now).

The only people who would lose in a single-payer system are greedy whores like Ben Nelson. Everyone else would fight to keep it once they discovered how inexpensive and accessible it was.

The other error in Ben Nelson’s quote is less fun. No. Sorry. Single-payer will not become more likely if the Supreme Court strikes down the law today (as I write this at 5AM EDT, there’s obviously still no decision).

History has proved that every time a healthcare reform effort fails, the next version is more conservative. LBJ’s version was more conservative than Truman’s (LBJ tried to reform the whole system, but settled for just the elderly with the creation of Medicare). Carter’s was more conservative than LBJ’s. Clinton’s was more conservative than Carter’s. And President Obama’s law is more conservative than Clinton’s. It’s not because Democrats are becoming more conservative — though some of them are. It’s because repeated failure has naturally shifted the parameters of the reform ideas closer to what might actually pass. Clearly more liberal reform failed, so, the reasoning goes, there must be greener grass to the right.

That’s not to say the new law is conservative by today’s standards. There are liberal things about it (Medicaid expansion and subsidies) and there are conservative things in there, too — ironically, the individual mandate is a conservative idea created by Republicans including Mitt Romney. Either way, the law is a massive achievement and not only includes significant reforms to the system, but it makes insurance more affordable while providing a superstructure upon which additional reforms can be added, such as a public option program which could eventually lead to single-payer.

I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but none of that will exist if the law disappears today. None of it. Single-payer won’t become more likely. It’ll be an even greater pipe dream. It’ll be even more unattainable. The likely scenario is a far more conservative bill, perhaps offered up by the next Republican president or even President Obama in his second term, but probably not.

I hate to be a Debbie Downer about single-payer, but as much as I like the idea of it, there’s just no way it gets past Ben Nelson’s gigantic head — or Joe Lieberman’s gigantic head, and so forth. This is what some progressives (and Ben Nelson) fail to realize. When the ACA was about to become law, Jane Hamsher and others thought that if they managed to kill the bill, another law — perhaps single-payer — would take over. Okay, sure. 50 years from now. But in the meantime, 45,000 Americans will die every year because they can’t afford insurance. That’s a new 9/11 every month. The stakes are too high to play the idealistic long-game. Like the climate crisis, changing the system is urgent and immediate and the smart money is on this “Obamacare” law because it’s opened the door to more reforms and, yes, that coveted path to single-payer.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in The Daily Banter and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • i_a_c

    Single payer remains a fantasy for now. The idea that the healthcare fairy would enact single payer if ACA were struck down is a fever dream for the “kill the bill” firebaggers.

  • mrbrink

    I think the court actually opened up the power of taxation, undoubtedly, to allow for the constitutionality of single payer, or medicare for all.

  • http://twitter.com/kerryreid Kerry Reid

    Baggers of Fire and Tea are united in one thing: their unshakeable belief that if they simply WANT something badly enough and SCREAM for it often enough (“Bully Pulpit!!!!”), it will come to pass, whip counts be damned!

    They’re like a cross between ADHD toddlers and those moony-eyed idiots who ate up “The Secret” because Oprah assured them that it works. The flip side of course is that this kind of puerile thinking also nearly guarantees that one views the failures of others to achieve what you think SHOULD be their goals as proof that those others are bad. So if the public option didn’t have enough votes to pass in the Senate, then CLEARLY the only logical conclusion to be drawn is that Obama didn’t really WANT it. Because all it takes is saying “I WANT I WANT I WANT I DEMAND!!!”

  • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

    The Canadian health care system used LBJ’s original blueprint (in our country, we stripped it down and it became Medicare) for healthcare reform.
    Cracks me up how many right wingers are screeching about moving to Canada!

  • http://twitter.com/Norbrookc Norbrook

    Back when the ACA was still working its way through Congress, one aspect that I pointed out the “kill the bill” chanters was that each failure in the past had meant a 12 to 16 year gap before the idea would be brought up seriously again. The idea that “killing the bill” or if the Supreme Court had overturned the ACA would immediately lead to a “single payer” bill was just pure fantasy. The idea of healthcare reform would promptly become political poison, and no one would want to bring it up again for a long time. On the other hand, the present law gives a foundation to build on, which we haven’t had.

    • nathkatun7

      Norbrook, as always, you make so much sense! The sad thing about purity progressives is their total lack of understanding of how the U.S. political system works.

      Almost from it’s inception this system has not been very receptive of revolutionary changes. All the changes that we now take for granted have come about as a result of incremental changes. It’s true that during periods of crises like the Civil War and the Great Depression the changes that occurred now appear revolutionary. But even then, many of those changes were not easy. And, they certainly have not been immune from being reversed.

      I think the founders who wrote the Constitution, and wrote about their goal being that of trying to form “a more perfect union” were very wise men. They understood clearly that what they created was not perfect. It required process that has to be worked on all the time in order to make it perfect. Only shortsighted people expect immediate perfection.

  • D_C_Wilson

    Yeah, every time a reform idea fails, they try for something more conservative later. On the other hand, once a program is successfully implemented and become popular, it opens the door for more liberal additions later. In fact, that’s what the GOP fears the most right now: If they don’t kill Obamacare* in its cradle, it will become another “third rail’ in politics like Social Security and Medicare.

    The ACA is the reform we got for this generation. Single payer or a public option will eventually come, but not for at least 15-20 years.

    *I really think democrats need to own that term. Because, when the next round of reform is being debated and republicans will be casting themselves as the protectors of the current plan, people will remember who got us as far as we did and who fought tooth and nail to keep the old system of Die Quickly, So Insurance Execs Can Buy a New Luxury Jet.