Who won the Sanders-Clinton healthcare debate?

[henster]

She's basically arguing for continuity in a change election. This is why she's not really inspiring anyone.

[Ebsy]

She's basically arguing for continuity in a change election. This is why she's not really inspiring anyone.

You keep saying this, but I'm skeptical. Polling seems to show that currently, Democratic voters prefer experience over someone promising change.

[This account no longer in use.]

Just putting this here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/18/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-we-now-have-driven-costs-down-tgo-/

*runs away*

[Lief 🗽]

Just putting this here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/18/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-we-now-have-driven-costs-down-tgo-/

*runs away*

It was obvious what she meant (we have driven the increases in costs down down remarkably), just a mistake on her part. At least she's not peddling a healthcare plan that is funded by unicorns and fairy dust.

[Holmes]

Mmm. Probably Sanders but it was a weak exchange on both sides.

Andrea Mitchell: "You’ve released a very detailed plan."
Bernie Sanders: “It’s not all that detailed…”

This. And him dismissing the fact that Vermont couldn't implement it was pretty weak. This was his chance to say "here's why a state-by-state approach can't work, and a federal approach will", but instead he just said "ask the governor why it didn't work" like he doesn't care. These points probably won't get much play though.

[Adam Griffin]

The people on this board, of all people, should have the common sense to understand just what the next one to two decades is going to look like in terms of the "difficulty of [xxxx] being passed" argument. A lot of people are pointing to the fact that a public option couldn't be injected into the healthcare law when it was actually politically relevant and popular, so how is it going to be passed now? Likewise, people are pointing out that Sanders' ideas are wholly unpopular with the current government, and therefore, how is it going to be passed now?

What everybody making these arguments seems to not mention is that it is going to be downright impossible to pass anything that any Democrat proposes, unless it is a wholly-owned idea of the GOP (and even then, look at examples like ACA). We have 100-year lows in the House and in state chambers across the country. Reapportionment has killed us for a generation, possibly. The Senate at best will probably tie after the 2016 election. Do people think that because Clinton talks about reaching across the aisle (like Obama did and does) that she is going to get a better reception? The person who arguably draws more lightning and anger than any other public official in the country?

Nothing, legislatively-speaking, is going to get done by anybody - for a decade at least. Those who say specifically that Sanders ideas are silly because they'll never get passed need to be saying the same thing about Clinton's ideas. Whether there's a lot of daylight in between the two or not is rather irrelevant; they're both in the same hemisphere of politics. That means any of those ideas are non-starters for the GOP congress and state legislatures. Vote for who you like and where your ideology falls: it's all that is really going to matter from the perspective of Democratic legislation for the next decade.

[Torie]

The problem with Sanders plan is that it assumes GIGANTIC cost savings simply from taking private insurers out of the picture. And sure, there's some "wasted money" there, from things like advertising and profits and executive salaries. But it's hardly a huge cost driver in our system. If you want prices like you've got in Europe, then you need HUGE cuts in payments to hospitals and doctors. You don't need Medicare for all, you need Medicaid for all. And that means bankrupting tons of rural hospitals, tons of doctors quitting because their salaries are going to be decimated, and it means a significantly lower standard of care than a lot of middle-class and upper-middle class people are used to.

Alternatively, you can not go after these massive cost savings, but then you'll either need much higher taxes than Bernie is calling for OR gigantic deficits.

Yeah, there is really no money out there by nixing insurance companies. There is some money in making it illegal for drug companies to price discriminate against US customers as compared to foreign ones. That is why the US basically subsidizes drug research for the planet. It's financed by the higher prices US customers pay. The other source of savings, is by going full throttle, the pedal to the metal, towards an HMO system, where there is no financial incentive to over-treat patients. Medicare is moving that way, but it needs to go all the way. If those two things are done, US medical care will still be more expensive (because it has lower wait times and better service than most single payer systems in Europe), but the gap will substantially narrow. That is the way out of the box, to the extent one can get out of the box, for a product that due to medical technology, is now a very expensive one relatively speaking, and due to the aging population.

I dislike single payer because it cuts off options. I want to be able to fire my doctor, and if necessary, pay more for better service. The idea that you either get mediocre service, with very limited options, and the only alternative is to go elsewhere and pay for it all, while you pay nothing for the mediocre service, leaves me cold. Just give medical subsidies for medical insurance for an HMO service provider product, on a means tested basis. That to me is what is sensible and fiscally realistic.

That's my two cents on the matter.

[Ebsy]

The people on this board, of all people, should have the common sense to understand just what the next one to two decades is going to look like in terms of the "difficulty of [xxxx] being passed" argument. A lot of people are pointing to the fact that a public option couldn't be injected into the healthcare law when it was actually politically relevant and popular, so how is it going to be passed now? Likewise, people are pointing out that Sanders' ideas are wholly unpopular with the current government, and therefore, how is it going to be passed now?

What everybody making these arguments seems to not mention is that it is going to be downright impossible to pass anything that any Democrat proposes, unless it is a wholly-owned idea of the GOP (and even then, look at examples like ACA). We have 100-year lows in the House and in state chambers across the country. Reapportionment has killed us for a generation, possibly. The Senate at best will probably tie after the 2016 election. Do people think that because Clinton talks about reaching across the aisle (like Obama did and does) that she is going to get a better reception? The person who arguably draws more lightning and anger than any other public official in the country?

Nothing, legislatively-speaking, is going to get done by anybody - for a decade at least. Those who say specifically that Sanders ideas are silly because they'll never get passed need to be saying the same thing about Clinton's ideas. Whether there's a lot of daylight in between the two or not is rather irrelevant; they're both in the same hemisphere of politics. That means any of those ideas are non-starters for the GOP congress and state legislatures. Vote for who you like and where your ideology falls: it's all that is really going to matter from the perspective of Democratic legislation for the next decade.

I'm interested in you actually defending his healthcare plan, which to me look like a vertiable dumpster fire.

[Frodo]

The far left (and the far right, but they're hopeless anyway...) is being criminally irresponsible.  The economy (and healthcare sector in particular) has just undergone a wrenching transformation with Obamacare, and are still adjusting to this new reality -does it really make sense to ditch Obamacare (as painful as it was to pass it) and start anew from scratch just to suit your ideological pretensions?  The best (though not inspirational) option is to improve on what's already there.