If the nightmare of the last six and a half years have taught Democrats anything, it's that if an American Pretzeldent wants to do something completely idiotic, it is better to fight like hell and give him nothing than compromise with him to look "reasonable" and "bipartisan." Half-stupid is still stupid.
Two instances come to mind: the war in Iraq and tax cuts. With the war, Bush wanted Congressional authority to authorize the use of Military force in order to (Democrats stupidly believed) build a strong multinational coalition against Saddam Hussein, and in order to put the weapons inspectors back in, backed up by the threat of military force. Hillary Clinton said this in the debate Sunday night, and also used the concept of "trust," which is the best defense to the vote, because she can say that she learned her lesson: "Never trust a Republican." The vote put Democrats in a bind. They could either give him what he wanted with some weak inffectual concessions in exchange for their support, or they could vote no and risk being called pussies (they were anyway, even if they voted yes).
There is a principle at work here, and the Democratic candidates are failing miserably at it.
The principle is that the Decider can propose any crummy, shit-for-brains idea, and it has to be taken seriously because he or she is the president. If the president is given half of what he wants, it is better for him than nothing at all. The principle definitely worked with tax cuts. Bush proposed surplus-busting, economy-wrecking tax cuts for the rich. He told everyone that these tax cuts would not dip into the surplus, and that they were needed to spur a slowing economy. Instead of saying "What a crappy idea" as many Democrats did, or propose a "surplus dividend" as Progressive Democrats did, many "moderate" Democrats went along part of the way. Bush found enough "moderate" Democrats to go along for the ride, who declared victory by trimming a 1.6 trillion dollar tax cut into a 1.3 trillion dollar tax cut (who knows what the hell the actual cost was).
Unlike Republicans, our side wants to govern effectively, create opportunities for all and form a more perfect Union. We want to use reason and facts to drive public opinion instead of fear, hate, and lies.
So therefore, why our our mainstream, front-running Democratic candidates using the half-a-loaf (or half-ass) approach when it comes to their health care plans?
Edwards, Obama, and Hillary are all proposing health care plans that ostensibly control costs, and either raise taxes slightly by repealing the Bush tax cuts or attempt to find savings in other areas. Edwards says that he is being honest by saying "If we do something we need to pay for it." Yay. Just what people love to hear in political campaigns, eat your vegetables liberalism. Where's the beef? (Mondale asked that, and it got him one state out of 50).
Why do I have to be the one to say "We could easily pay for health care for all Americans if we have a president who will quit blowing American lives and money in Iraq?" That is a hell of a lot better soundbite than what Edwards offered on Sunday. I support Obama, but I thought his health care plan was just as lame as Hillary's and Edwards.'
Only one candidate got a vigorous response for his health care plan from the audience, and that was Dennis Kucinich, for the Medicare for All Act. Only one candidate mentioned the fact that half of all bankruptcies in the United States are related to medical bills, and that getting the profit out of health care will be good for all. Kennedy and Dingell have a Medicare for All Plan, and it would reduce costs dramatically for both employers who currently provide health insurance, and require a miniscule increase in payroll taxes, which might be offset partially by putting all current Medicare and Medicaid recipients into the same system as everyone else.
But what no candidate tackledthe benefit for our economy of switching to a single payer system, the way that Paul Krugman has outline, in an essay from 2006in the New York Review of Books:
We're talking about large cost savings. Indeed, the available evidence suggests that if the United States were to replace its current complex mix of health insurance systems with standardized, universal coverage, the savings would be so large that we could cover all those currently uninsured, yet end up spending less overall. That's what happened in Taiwan, which adopted a single-payer system in 1995: the percentage of the population with health insurance soared from 57 percent to 97 percent, yet health care costs actually grew more slowly than one would have predicted from trends before the change in system.
Krugman looks at the overall system inefficiency of employing a large number of people to exclude a group of people from receiving health care. Those costs are spread to consumers through bankruptcies or to hospitals themselves, and it never make sense. Those costs are also spread to all employers who provide health care for employees and are a net drag on their bottom lines. As should be obvious, the current system is a failure for everyone except health insurance companies and drug companies.
Which brings us back to the candidates. Instead of proposing a Medicare for All plan, they have instead chosen to nibble around the edges of a broken system, and throw good money after bad. All the while, Republicans will call their plan a tax-raising socialized medicine boondoggle, whether or not they propose Medicare for all. If a President proposes Medicare for All, he will come a lot closer to getting close to what he wants than starting off in a compromised position initially. Bush asked for a crazy-ass tax cut, and got most of what he wanted. Why shouldn't a Democrat do the same with an idea that actually makes this country better off?
People like Medicare. People support Medicare. Democrats should support the American people and American business by making Medicare available to all.