Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Millennials like socialism — until they get jobs. Or until a pollster tells them that it would mean tax increases but doesn’t tell them, for example, that the tax increases would replace healthcare insurance premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses. And doesn’t tell them that “more government services” means something other than, say, trash collection twice a week instead of once a week.

Okay, so the title of a Washington Post op-ed piece today by research fellow and director of polling at the Cato Institute Emily Ekins is “Millennials like socialism — until they get jobs.”  She knows that this is do because a recent Reason-Rupe poll—that’s libertarian magazine Reason, and some polling organization they hired—found that:

When tax rates are not explicit, millennials say they’d prefer larger government offering more services (54 percent) to smaller government offering fewer services (43 percent). However when larger government offering more services is described as requiring high taxes, support flips and 57 percent of millennials opt for smaller government with fewer services and low taxes, while 41 percent prefer large government.

Ah, yes; the ole, reliable, generic smaller-government-with-fewer-services-vs.-larger-government-with-more-services polling gimmick. Because of course everyone absolutely definitely, completely understands what the generic “services” are.  Like, say, trash pickup twice a week rather than once a week?

The survey was, by this writer’s undoubtedly accurate account, prompted by a recent Gallup survey that, to quote Ekins, found that an astounding 69 percent of millennials say they’d be willing to vote for a ‘socialist’ candidate for president — among their parents’ generation, only a third would do so.”  Spilling the beans about the motive for the Reason survey, she continues, “Indeed, national polls and exit polls reveal about 70 to 80 percent of young Democrats are casting their ballots for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a ‘democratic socialist’.”

Uh-oh.  And that was before Bloomberg released a poll yesterday showing Sanders’s support with a 1-point lead over Clinton nationally, with almost no undecideds: Sanders has 49% to Clinton’s 48%.

Ekins writes:

Millennials are the only age group in America in which a majority views socialism favorably. A national Reason-Rupe survey found that 53 percent of Americans under 30 have a favorable view of socialism compared with less than a third of those over 30. …

Yet millennials tend to reject the actual definition of socialism — government ownership of the means of production, or government running businesses. Only 32 percent of millennials favor “an economy managed by the government,” while, similar to older generations, 64 percent prefer a free-market economy. And as millennials age and begin to earn more, their socialistic ideals seem to slip away.

I dunno.  Ekins continues:

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (37) | |

The ACTUAL Likely Reason That Clinton Won Ohio by 15 Points: Blue-Collar Whites Voted in Large Numbers for Kasich Against Trump. (This matters. Maybe a lot.)

Okay, so Paul Krugman blogged yesterday that the Clinton campaign’s numbers guru, Joel Benenson, claims that Clinton lopsidedly won the Ohio primary because:

Ohioans took a hard look at Senator Sanders’ claims, and rejected them. Despite his attempt to portray Hillary as an ardent free­trader, Hillary voted against the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the only multi­national trade agreement that ever came before her in the U.S. Senate.

Krugman mocks it, saying:

The rules of the game require, of course, both that he be totally positive about his candidate and that he profess a certainty about the meaning of every victory that I’m fairly sure he does not, in fact, possess. The truth is that nobody can be sure exactly why Ohio was so different from Michigan. … I very much doubt that many Ohioans knew about Clinton’s anti­CAFTA vote, or even what CAFTA was.

Clinton voted against CAFTA.  Krugman goes on to say that he was surprised back then when he read it to learn that CAFTA wasn’t a true trade agreement at all in the usual sense; it dealt mostly with intellectual property rights, especially with pharmaceutical companies’ patents. Like TPP.  He concludes by characterizing Clinton as a senator as cautious about trade deals and in selective opposition to them.

Tags: , , , , Comments (11) | |

The Key to Defeating Trump in the General Election Is in a Single Sentence of His in Last Night’s Debate: Angry Americans want big tax cuts for the wealthy

People come [to Trump campaign events] with tremendous passion and love for their country. … When they see what’s going on in this country, they have anger that’s unbelievable. They have anger. They love this country. They don’t like seeing bad trade deals. They don’t like seeing higher taxes. They don’t like seeing a loss of their jobs. … And I see it. There’s some anger. There’s also great love for the country. It’s a beautiful thing in many respects. But I certainly do not condone that at all.

— Donald Trump, during last night’s debate

Back last fall when Ben Carson was surging and according to the polls had overtaken Trump in Iowa, the Koch brothers’ main super PAC saw an opening to end the Trump phenomenon once and for all: It announced plans to buy, I think it was, $1 million in ad time on Iowa and New Hampshire airwaves.

Trump, up to that point, had been campaigning as sort of a fiscal progressive, suggesting (among other things) that he supports a more progressive tax code and maybe even universal healthcare insurance.  Uh-oh; he definitely had to be stopped by a Koch brothers’ super PAC ad campaign.

Unless, of course, he adopted Koch brothers fiscal-policy positions and continued his climate-change-is-a-hoax thing. The latter would be easy, of course, but the former required the hire of a mainstream-wingy Republican fiscal-policy consultant who could, and did, chose a mainstream-wingy Republican fiscal-policy candidate’s already published trickle-straight-down-to-the-sewer-system fiscal policy platform and just double the tax cuts for the wealthy.  Take that, Jeb!

It worked. At least to my knowledge, the ad buy never materialized. Carson collapsed in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks, Trump’s campaign regained steam—and never looked back.  Until two weeks ago or so, anyway, when comments he made about not wanting people to die in the street for lack of access to medical care raised questions about whether he – he – he supports Obamacare and its Medicaid expansion.

Not to worry.  That mainstream-wingy Republican fiscal-policy consultant was still under contract with the Trump campaign and could quickly rattle off the points on the Movement Conservative list of heathcare-insurance-reform clichés for Trump to post on his campaign’s website as his healthcare-reform proposal.  There was increasing healthcare savings accounts.  There was allowing insurance companies to sell policies nationally.

And of course there was the end-Medicaid-by-giving-the-money-to-the-states-to-use-for-anything-they-wished-even-maybe-Medicaid-which-of-course-Republican-controlled-states-won’t-use-it-for proposal.

And you, Tea Partiers, were starting to worry that Trump doesn’t really want to kill Obamacare and Medicaid!  Fear no longer. It’s safe to vote for him.  Whew.

That was a relief, of course, for Establishment wingers, too.  But, dang.  It’s not enough.  Some of them are pretty worried that although that fiscal policy proposal is still there on his website, Trump never actually talks about it.  Instead he’s always just playing to the white blue-collar folks who’ve been financially devastated by the free-trade treaties.  And by other policies that have had the effect of favoring the well-off, to the detriment of, well, these Trump supporters.  And this guy Bernie Sanders keeps detailing the statistics about wealth and income distribution over the last thirty-five years.  He won’t shut up about it.

Big problem.  Especially since this week it became time for Trump to try to unite the Republican establishment behind him.  Not easy for someone who’s one positive contribution to the political climate is to expose Republican establishment financial-elite proxies as not really so in sync with the Republican blue-collar base after all.

The answer? Ah. Higher taxes! The perfect fiscal dog whistle to the Koch folks and their ilk.

So … the people who come to Trump rallies?  They have anger.  They love this country. They don’t like seeing bad trade deals.  And they don’t like seeing higher taxes on the wealthy.  Because, see, the angry people who come to Trump rallies and who don’t like seeing bad trade deals are wealthy.  Just ask them.

Interesting, isn’t it, that now that Trump has all but wrapped up the nomination and wants the party establishment’s support, his first olive branch is assuring them that he really does support massive tax cuts for the wealthy?

____

UPDATE: An exchange between reader Warren and me today in the Comments thread:

Warren

March 12, 2016 2:43 pm

I missed the part where Trump said “for the wealthy”.

Or are you saying that only the wealthy pay taxes, so it is implied?

 

Me

March 12, 2016 7:06 pm

You missed the part where Trump said “for the wealthy”, Warren? Guess you didn’t read Trump’s tax proposals or any of the articles summarizing them. You should.

The link is to an Oct. 2 blog post by Paul Krugman.  Trump had released his tax plan earlier that day.

Then:

Warren

March 12, 2016 8:53 pm

So is it “a single sentence in his in last night’s debate” or isn’t it?

Did he say “for the wealthy” in that sentence, or didn’t he?

 

Me

Beverly Mann

March 12, 2016 10:39 pm

I said the KEY to defeating Trump in the general election is in a single sentence of his in Thursday’s debate. In a debate performance in which he was saying he wanted to unite the party, he dog-whistled the Kochs, the other donors, and the rest of the Republican establishment that, as president, he would attend to their needs: big tax cuts for the wealthy.

Angry Americans don’t want big tax cuts for the wealthy. But the Republican donors and the rest of the Republican establishment do, and the only one they’re angry with right now is Trump. He announced to them on Thursday that he wants to change that.

The key to defeating him in the general election is to simply point that out. Trump’s tax plan says what it says. It’s just that the only ones who know what it says, other than Paul Krugman and a few other journalists and progressive economists, are the people it was targeted to: the Republican establishment, to keep them at bay.

He was reminding the Republican establishment of his tax plan.

Added 3/12 at 7:44 pm and 10:50 p.m.

Tags: , , , , Comments (43) | |

John Cornyn Adopts Trump-Like Fascism Techniques. Good Job, Donald! [Updated.]

Dan Crawford sent me links to these two articles about Senate Judiciary Committee enforcer John Cornyn’s threat on Tuesday that he and his compadres will destroy the reputation of anyone nominated by Obama for Scalia’s seat.  I responded to him after reading the articles:

You know, Dan, this is so palpably, stunningly offensive that Sanders and Clinton need to tell the public about it.  It’s really just jaw-dropping. It’s just … I don’t know; I can’t even think of a perfect adjective.  Scary, maybe?

Beverly

Sanders, especially, should mention this on the campaign trail as a way to illustrate the lengths that the people who want the federal courts—most prominently but by no means only, the Supreme Court—to continue to serve as a fully owned subsidiary of Koch Industries and the legal arm of the Republican Party, albeit with the full force of the United States government’s powers.

Cornyn is a former Texas state supreme court justice and Texas attorney general.  I’m betting that his professional history isn’t pretty, so he’s perfect to have his Fascism routine turned back on him. As in, turnabout is fair play.  Exposing his record as a state supreme court justice and a state attorney general to national examination may, given what some of the specifics are likely to be, ensure his seat as a Texas senator for as long as he wants it.  But it also may well help in making the remainder of his tenure as a senator, beginning next January, be as a member of the Senate minority.

And I don’t mean that I expect him to become a Democrat.

Thug-like threats and actions aren’t likely to appeal to a majority of voters.  As Trump’s general-election and favorability poll numbers indicate.

In other words: Citizens united against Citizens United!  And so very much more.  Hoist this politician by his own piñata.

_____

UPDATE: The New York Times today has an editorial on this, writing:

On Monday, John Cornyn, the senior Republican senator from Texas, warned President Obama that if he dares to name a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court, the nominee “will bear some resemblance to a piñata.”

Violent imagery has been commonplace in political statements for a long time, but even so, it is disgraceful for a senator to play the thug, threatening harm to someone simply for appearing before Congress to answer questions about professional accomplishments and constitutional philosophy

The editorial is titled “Republican Threats and the Supreme Court”.

Senator, may we not drop this? … Senator. You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Added 3/11 at 8:42 a.m

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , Comments (5) | |

Oh, but Janell Ross, you promised to cite EXAMPLES of racist comments by Bernie Sanders. If you can’t actually deliver on that promise, then maybe a retraction of the racism allegation against him is in order? Just sayin’.

Folks, you really just have to read this for yourselves.  Excerpting from it or summarizing it can’t possibly do it justice.

Which is what it deserves.

Suffice it to say that I’m not eager to engage in a debate of this sort, and I agree that some comments by Sanders supporters about the devotion to the Clintons that so many middle-aged and elderly African-Americans have is condescending and in some instances downright demeaning.  As for me, I’m pretty sure that everyone is entitled to vote for whichever candidate he or she prefers. As an obsessive Sanders supporter myself, I think everyone should vote for Sanders.  But that’s just my opinion; everyone else is entitled to hold another one.

And there really is no question that, as Ross says, if Clinton wins the nomination it will be African-Americans who are responsible for it.

But if Sanders has made racist comments, it appears that about half of younger African-American voters missed it, because they’re voting for Sanders. So if Ross knows of actual instances of direct or implicit racist comments by Sanders, she might want to apprise younger blacks of these.  She’s a blogger for the Washington Post, so she has a high-profile forum to do that.

So do that, Ms. Ross.  Do that. Unless of course you can’t.

 

Tags: , , , Comments (5) | |

Hillary Clinton Admits That She’s an Idiot. Seriously.

In 2012, President Obama campaigned as a champion of the auto industry by taking credit for the auto bailout and repeatedly hitting his opponent, Mitt Romney, for opposing it. Some think the strategy helped Obama win reelection.

Four years later, Hillary Clinton appears to be using the same playbook — only this time she’s doing it in the Democratic primary. In Sunday’s Democratic debate in Flint, Mich., Clinton underscored her support for that bailout and — somewhat disingenuously — suggested that Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) didn’t support it.

“I voted to save the auto industry,” she said. “He voted against the money that ended up saving the auto industry. I think that is a pretty big difference.”

What Clinton said is technically true, but it glosses over a lot of important nuance, including the fact that Sanders is actually on the record as supporting the auto bailout. He even voted for it.

Clinton clearly figures the auto bailout may prove to a big factor going into Tuesday’s primary in Michigan and the one next week in Ohio, where both candidates are hoping to do well and where the auto industry is big. So it seems like she’s willing to take the gamble that fact checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday — but that voters won’t.

The Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders clash over the auto bailout, explained, Amber Phillips, reporting on Sunday’s debate, Mar. 7

Phillips then details the procedural background of the auto bailout:

As the magnitude of the 2008 financial crisis swept the nation in the waning days of his presidency, President George W. Bush announced he was injecting $17 billion in taxpayer money to auto giants Chrysler and General Motors, which warned they needed an immediate influx of cash to stay afloat.

Bush was pulling money out of the $700 billion financial rescue program that Congress had approved two months earlier, most of which was intended for and eventually went to prop up Wall Street banks and insurance companies.

Bush didn’t want to use that money for the auto industry; he had hoped Congress would approve a separate bailout for GM and Chrysler. Democrats in Congress tried to, but in December 2008, Senate Republicans blocked a $14 billion plan over a disagreement about its terms.

Republicans weren’t opposed to the aid, so much as they wanted the auto industry to make big cuts in pay and benefits by 2009; Democrats wanted to give the auto industry a few more years to cut its debts. The end result was that Congress didn’t set up a separate bailout for the auto industry, and Bush was forced to draw on the Wall Street bailout to prop up the automakers.

Phillips continues:

Clinton and Sanders were both in the Senate at the time, and contrary to what Clinton implied Sunday, both supported the idea of an auto bailout.

Sanders argued that letting the auto industry go under was too big of a risk for middle-class workers — it could lower wages across all sectors of the economy and have a ripple effect on states like Vermont that were fairly far removed from the auto industry. He was quoted by Vermont Public Radio at the time as saying:

The problem is if you don’t act in the midst of a growing recession, what does it mean to create a situation where millions of more people become unemployed? And that could spread, and I have serious concerns about that. I think it would be a terrible idea to add millions more to the unemployment rolls.

But Sanders was vehemently against the larger $700 billion bailout to prop up the banks. (As evidenced by his presidential campaign, Sanders is no fan of Wall Street.) So he voted against the bank bailout.

The bank bailout was so big it had to be doled out in portions. In January 2009, Senate Republicans tried to block the Treasury Department from releasing the second half of the money, some of which was designated for the auto industry. Sanders, based on his opposition to the Wall Street bailout, voted against releasing that money as well.

That vote gave Clinton the opening she needed to hit Sanders as anti-auto bailout on Sunday. “If everybody had voted the way he did, I believe the auto industry would have collapsed, taking 4 million jobs with it,” she said.[My boldface.]

Phillips sums up:

Clinton is technically correct that Sanders voted against releasing the money that went to the auto bailout, but Sanders can also correctly argue that he supported the auto bailout when it wasn’t tied to the Wall Street one.

I’ll add this: Taking Clinton at her word, she believes that if everybody had voted the way he did, the auto industry would have collapsed, taking 4 million jobs with it.  The operative words in the sentence in which she said this are: “I believe that”.

I suggest that we do take her at her word, which is that she believes that the Democratic-controlled House and the Democratic-controlled Senate, together with an outgoing Republican president who supported the auto bailout and an about-to-be-inaugurated Democratic president who did too, would not have separated the finance-industry bailout from the auto industry bailout, and instead would have allowed the industry to collapse.  Which makes her about as in touch with reality as Donald Trump is.

The alternative is what Phillips says; that:

Clinton clearly figures the auto bailout may prove to a big factor going into Tuesday’s primary in Michigan and the one next week in Ohio, where both candidates are hoping to do well and where the auto industry is big. So it seems like she’s willing to take the gamble that fact checkers may call her out for her tactic Sunday — but that voters won’t.

In other words, the alternative is that Clinton is a sleaze bucket who is willing to demean voters by incessantly misrepresenting facts about things that are really important to them.  And that it hasn’t occurred to her that this is exactly the kind of thing that has gained her a reputation among Democrats and millennials as dishonest.  She is dishonest and has run her campaign against Sanders as a taunt that she can get away with sleights of hand that amount to brazen misrepresentations because she’s, well, Hillary Clinton.  And a woman.

Fielder’s choice, folks.  But establishment Democrats need to reckon with her decision to employ an army of campaign consultants who feed her gimmicks, sleight-of-hand falsehoods, and comments that taken at face value suggest that she is an idiot.  She falls back on this stuff whenever new polls are about to be released showing Sanders gaining again, which is why today’s poll didn’t surprise me.

She also said in that debate—she reiterated it; she’d said it before recently—that she thinks Donald Trump, the billionaire who  likely will be the Republican nominee, accepts large speaking fees from the finance industry and pharmaceutical companies. Which is the only way to make any sense of her absurd claim that she need not release the transcripts of her highly-paid speeches to finance-industry folks and other major players in the lobbying-campaign-donations industrial complex.  If Clinton is Trump’s opponent, then under the terms that she herself has set for releasing the transcripts of her paid speeches to these industry folks, her refusal next fall to release them will play a large role in the campaign.  But so, now, in the primaries, should the cascade of manipulative and ridiculous statements that she spouts.

 

Tags: , , , , , Comments (47) | |

Forget ‘Women and Children’. Women ARE Children. Right?

Okay, y’all know about the controversy: At Sunday night’s debate in Flint, Clinton interrupted Sanders, repeatedly, and tried to talk over him.  And at one point Sanders said to her, “Excuse me. I’m talking,” and, then, when Clinton again interrupted him, said “Wait a minute. Wait. Could I finish? You’ll have your turn, all right?”

Oh, the horror. At least according to an army of political journalists.  Most of whom work for the Washington Post.

Clinton is A WOMAN CANDIDATE.  And she’s running to become the first WOMAN NOMINEE OF A MAJOR POLITCAL PARTY FOR PRESIDENT.  Ergo, commentaries titled “What Bernie Sanders still doesn’t get about arguing with Hillary Clinton,” in which Janell Ross mentioned that Clinton’s campaign was equating Sanders’ comments to the infamous conduct by Rep. Rick Lazio, Clinton’s 2000 Republican senate-campaign opponent, and who seems to agree with that.  And ‘Excuse me, I’m talking’: Bernie Sanders shuts down Hillary Clinton, repeatedly,” the title of a blog post by Peter W. Stevenson, also a Fix-er.  And this from The Fix blog leader writer Chris Cillizza in his post-debate Winners and Losers take on Sunday night:

Losers

Bernie Sanders: The senator from Vermont had effectively walked a fine line in the previous six debates when it came to attacking Clinton without coming across as bullying or condescending. He tripped and fell while trying to execute that delicate dance on Sunday night. Sanders’s “excuse me, I’m talking” rebuttal to Clinton hinted at the fact that he was losing his temper with her. His “Can I finish, please?” retort ensured that his tone and his approach to someone trying to become the first female presidential nominee in either party would be THE story of the night.

Well, it was THE story, I guess, among journalists and others who never forget that Clinton is running as a WOMAN but who don’t consider in these writings that she’s campaigning on a platform of equal treatment for women.  Equal pay for equal work.  Break down glass ceilings and other barriers.

Well, at least the glass ceiling that supposedly still exists that would be trying to keep, say, Elizabeth Warren from the White House, had she sought it.  And who, I’m betting, does not consider herself such a delicate flower that she shouldn’t be treated, on the campaign trail or elsewhere, that same a man would be treated in the same circumstances.

And who can actually distinguish between a male campaign opponent who repeatedly physically approaches his female opponent on a debate stage and shoves a document in her face and demands that she sign it, and a male campaign opponent who finally draws the line on a debate stage that his female opponent has repeatedly crossed.

I do not believe that Sanders would not have said exactly the same things to a male opponent.  And I do believe that the criticism is the very height of hypocrisy by a candidate whose primary shtick has been that her election is necessary in the service of equality for women.  And, for that matter, by political commentators or anyone else who professes concern about double standards for women and men

But I also think Clinton came into that debate Sunday night with the very intent to be in-your-face-obnoxious.  And some pundits caught this:

Sanders shot back that if people truly had a problem with the comment that Sanders made, they should look at the speaking time Clinton was given and at the number of times she interrupted the Senator.

“Well, I think that given the fact that during that debate she ended up going on many occasions [over the time allotment] – and when I was speaking she interrupted me. I didn’t interrupt her, despite the fact that she spoke longer.”

Bernie Sanders Responds To Debate Interruptions: Says Clinton Is the Rude One, trofire.com

The actual link is http://trofire.com/2016/03/08/bernie-sanders-responds-to-ridiculous-debate-tone-policing/, so I’m assuming that the original title of the article was “Bernie Sanders responds to ridiculous debate-tone policing”. They shouldn’t have changed the title.

Clinton thinks this type of stuff and her habitual sleight-of-hand misrepresentations of Sanders’ record–a special feature of her debate performance on Sunday–are the path to wrapping up the nomination.  We’ll see about that.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , Comments (8) | |

You read it here first, AB readers. … [Important addendum added.]

I scooped everyone!

____

ADDENDUM: I would note that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will turn 83 on March 15 and that, while clearly still mentally very sharp, does not appear to be in good physical health.  There’s been a lot of speculation that if the Dem nominee, very likely now Hillary Clinton, wins the general election, and the Republicans retain control of the Senate (very unlikely, in my opinion, but probably not in theirs), they will continue to refuse to allow hearings on a Supreme Court nominee to fill Scalia’s seat.

I (strongly) suspect that the Republican idea is that Ginsburg will leave the Court fairly early into the next administration because of physical disability or death, and that the two overtly political cases currently before the Court, whose clear purpose is simply to skew elections to Republicans—and which now are deadlocked 4-4, and which the Court, rather than affirming by deadlock in a non-precedential ruling the lower appellate courts’ ruling not in favor of the Republican Party’s bald political interests, will instead be reargued next term.  Voila! Precedential opinions, by a 4-3 vote, profoundly skewing elections to favor the Republican Party.

The Federalist Society has gamed this out.  Trust me.

Meanwhile, the wingnut “legal foundations” that represent the petitioners in those two cases and that regularly fabricate cases for the Supreme Court to employ by a one-vote margin as their quiet-coup mechanism, will be working overtime (no, I mean even more so than usual) cooking up other cases on the wingy to-do list.

They know that this is not sustainable forever.  But they think it is sustainable long enough for them to accomplish their top priorities.

The Dem presidential candidates should talk about this.  I call this the Republicans’ wing-and-a-prayer strategy.  The Dem candidates, and Obama as well, should call it this, too.

They also should call it this: an attempt to orchestrate a silent coup.  I’ve been wondering whether issues other than the damn culture-wars ones that are at issue in Supreme Court appointments will ever get any attention from the Dem candidates.

I don’t think Clinton has the intellectual capacity to discuss, or the interest in discussing, anything but the culture-wars issues when mentioning the importance of Supreme Court appointments.  And Sanders, unlike Clinton, has no background in law.  But he should get information about both of the current Supreme Court cases I am referring to–Evenwell v. Abbott and Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assoc.–from people who know quite a bit about them.  And then he should discuss these.  These are the very types of things that his candidacy is about.

Added 3/3 at 12:15 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , Comments (11) | |

Harry and Louise Now Support Sanders’ Medicare-for-All Plan. With Good Reason.

In the Comments thread today to my post yesterday titled “Clinton Announces When She Will Disclose Her Healthcare Insurance Improvement Plan: She’ll announce it just as soon as the Republican presidential candidates tell us theirs,” reader Urban Legend wrote, as part of a several-paragraph comment:

While a single payer plan is superior in theory — and has been proven in practice — thought should be given to the extreme political danger of offering a program at this time that can and will be painted by Republicans as one that will destroy half a million jobs in many different states. There was more than spite in Joe Lieberman’s objection to the public option. Think Hartford, Connecticut, insurance capital of the country. We would see “Harry and Louise” in spades. (Look it up if you’re too young to remember, and see what happened to Congress in the following election in 1994.)

I responded:

Guys, I’ve pretty much given up on trying to convince Dem baby boomers and silent generationers that it’s no longer the ’80s and ’90s and that the Bernie-is-a-SOCIALIST thing would mean a George McGovern-like trouncing and a Repub sweep in congressional elections. Finally, that argument is no longer being made by the punditry; instead it’s now the reverse: Can Clinton beat Trump, given the public’s now-obvious anti-Koch-brothers-Republican-platform mood.

But I do want to respond to Amateur Socialist’s concerns about Harry and Louise, whom I remember quite well.

The reason for the success of the insurance industry’s anti-Hillarycare ad featuring the young couple Harry and Louise was that the essence of Hillarycare was that it would all-but-force people who had choose-any-doctors-and-hospitals-you-want insurance into HMOs or PPOs that limit the choice of doctors and hospitals to those in a network, sometimes a small network, especially back then, and that sometimes required a referral by a primary care doctor for access to a specialist.

Most people back then had employer-provided insurance that did not have those limitations.  Their insurance was like Medicare—usually like Medicare with a supplemental plan is now.  The problem back then was that there still were tens of millions of people who had no access to insurance, many of them because of preexisting medical conditions, and also that premiums had been skyrocketing. And suddenly many employers were no longer paying the entire premiums.

But of course now, very few employers provide insurance that does not involve healthcare networks.  And very few now pay the full premiums.  And most policies have much larger copayments and much larger deductibles.

These are the really big problems with the ACA’s marketplace plans, too.

And these are the problems that Sanders’ Medicare-for-all proposal would eliminate.  No provider networks, no large copayments, no large deductibles, and affordable premiums.

In other words, Harry and Louise would support the Sanders plan now.

Enough said on that, I would think.

The two paragraphs in Urban Legend’s comment that precede the one I quoted read:

I agree that the Thorpe alleged take-down of Sanders’ single payer proposal is ridiculous. As you say, you can’t expect a candidate to dot every i and cross every t in a broad campaign proposal. The experience of other countries indicates almost certainty that in the long run, everyone would come out ahead with a “Medicare for All” system.

And:

I disagree completely that Clinton has no proposals for healthcare. She has quite specific proposals, including tax credits up to $5000 to reduce co-pays and deductibles (which she says are excessive), efforts to reach 16 million people who are eligible for Medicaid (a single payer plan) but haven’t signed up, and revival of the public option, the primary purpose of which was to make a genuine non-profit, efficient insurance offering available and force insurance costs further downward through direct competition. Whether they are adequate or not is a matter of opinion, but it should not be said that she has no proposals. They are there for everyone with a finger and two seconds to see.

The first of those paragraphs refers to the main point of my post: the sheer silliness of Emory University healthcare economist Kenneth Thorpe’s most recent attempt at a takedown of the Sanders proposal. The second of the paragraphs—well, it’s meaning needs no background.

But it does raise this question: Why has there been no study by mainstream progressive economists about the costs of these proposals of Clintons’, and an explanation of why this would be better than a plan that would, among other things, significantly reduce what are now the very high premiums that employers now pay to private insurers and that employees themselves pay in contributions to the premiums costs and also in copayments and deductibles?

Paul Krugman, maybe?  Nah.

Tags: , , , , , , , , Comments (31) | |