Is it wrong for Bernie to advocate strongly for Single-Payer so soon after ACA? I was taken by this comment by Brainwrap in his diary yesterday.
Brainwrap said:
I’m not saying that I prefer incrementalism, I’m saying that I just don’t see a complete overhaul as being doable, especially so soon after the ACA already caused a major overhaul.
Lemme put it this way: The ACA gave us half a loaf. I think it’ll take another 5 years or so for the dust to settle before we can even try for the other half...but I do think we can make incremental improvements in the meantime.
Brainwrap’s argument here is not against Single-Payer altogether. Rather, the argument is that changing to a Single-Payer system so soon after ACA was installed would be a mistake. But — going for Single-Payer in five years would not be a mistake.
It strikes me that there’s a misunderstanding here - it’s very unlikely we will go for Single-Payer in 2017. The sudden wrenching change incrementalists fear likely will not occur, regardless of Sanders’ advocacy. The only way we would do that is if a very, very good thing happens this November. Let’s look at a few scenarios:
1. Hillary wins the presidency, GOP maintains hold of the House: If this happens, there will be no push for Single-Payer and no incremental improvements. “WE GET NOTHING,” as the man said. The only impact of Bernie’s advocacy of Single-Payer will be that many will have heard the concept & understood it better. That may provide some benefit down the road.
2. Hillary wins the presidency, Dems take both houses of Congress: This is less likely than #1. Again, there will be no wrenching transformation to Single-Payer, because Hillary doesn’t support it. Hopefully there will be incremental improvements. Perhaps we will get “on the road to Single-Payer,” to use the expression. The impact of Bernie’s advocacy of Single-Payer in the campaign will again likely be a greater understanding & acceptance of the concept, which may impact what incremental changes people support. And people may remember Single-Payer down the road as the frustrating weaknesses of the ACA approach become more apparent.
3. Bernie wins the presidency, GOP maintains hold of the House: As in case #1, WE GET NOTHING through the legislative process. There will not be the immediate wrenching shift that the incrementalists fear. Nor with there be the improvements to ACA the incrementalists want. ACA as it stand now will still be the law of the land. We will marinate in that reality a few more years.
But what’s interesting is how Bernie will handle it. This will be a true test of his theory that the way to make fundamental change is to rally the people. Will he rally the people for two years? How will he do that? Will it be effective re winning back Congress in 2018? Based on his success in polling & fundraising, he has ability in this area. I don’t dismiss his chances — I would love to see it. But it will very much be a test.
A good debate question for Bernie right now is, “How will you advance your bold agenda if you win the presidency but the GOP continues to hold Congress?”
4. Bernie wins the presidency, Dems take both houses of Congress: This is the nightmare scenario for incrementalists — there may indeed be wrenching change in the near future. And, granting Brainwrap his due (he certainly knows more about this than I do), it might create some problems for people. One hopes they are short-term.
But really, this is an unlikely event. It only happens if large numbers of people — including people who usually don’t participate — get fired up about Bernie’s message and come out to vote in November. In other words, we win Congress because of Bernie’s promises to fight for Single-Payer, etc.
The question for incrementalists — Is that such a bad thing? We would have won Congress! Yes, we would have won Congress on a promise to make a change you think should be postponed, but think of all the good the D Congress entails.
The nightmare scenario for incrementalists is actually a great thing for America.
Thanks for reading.