Bloomberg, Sanders, and Universal Health Care

Mike Bloomberg and Bernie Sanders (Fox)

Looks like the two top contenders (at the moment) for the Democratic nomination for President are both Jewish.  From NPR: 

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has opened up a double-digit lead in the Democratic nominating contest, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

Sanders has 31% support nationally, up 9 points since December, the last time the poll asked about Democratic voters' preferences.

His next closest contender has 19%. But that second-place rival is former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  

Think about the implications of that. Is there any greater proof than that how little being Jewish matters to the American people - whether they are right wing arch conservative Republicans or left leaning arch liberal Democrats?

It was not all that long ago that a former President, Harry Truman, did not allow journalist David Susskind to enter his home for a scheduled interview because he was Jewish and it would upset his  antisemitic wife. Now there are so many indicators of our acceptance that it’s mind boggling! (I am not going to rehash all the evidence of that. But it is overwhelming to say the least.)

As people who frequent this blog know, I am not all that excited about the possibility of the next President being Jewish. At least not either of these two. Because despite their protestations to the contrary, their Judaism means as much to them as it does to a gorilla. Which is not all that much - as evidenced by their marrying out of their faith and raising their children in the other faith.

But this post is not about that. It is about the likelihood of either of them becoming President because of their progressive (socialist) agenda.

I don’t think the American people will elect a socialist like Bernie Sanders even as he now places the word ‘Democratic’ in front of it.  Most Americans don’t know the difference between Socialism and Communism (an extreme form of socialism) and they are not going to vote for someone with either of those labels.

That leaves Bloomberg. He is in second place without having uttered a word to the American people -  outside of his very slick and efficient ads – bombarding the airwaves all over the country. The ads look so good that I might even be tempted to vote for the guy. 

Except that I wouldn’t. Frankly, I am not a fan of anyone that wants to control what kind of food I can eat or drink. As he tried to do in New York City when he was mayor. Making it illegal to buy a large soft drink at a restaurant  is a violation of the rights enshrined in our constitutional democracy.

Bloomberg’s intentions may have been good. He wanted to do something about the rise in obesity that many nutrition experts say sugary soft drinks contribute to in significant number. But why should the rest of us pay the ‘price’ for the lack of self control in others?!

Having good intentions is not enough. Communism has good intentions too. We all know how ‘successful’ that was when it was tried.

But not all forms of socialism are bad. Especially two of the most successful social programs in American history – Social Security and Medicare.

Which brings me back to Bernie Sanders. He wants to implement a ‘Medicare for all’ program. Meaning that all Americans will have all of their healthcare needs taken care of by the federal government by expanding Medicare coverage to all Americans. A healthcare system similar to what Canada has.

It might surprise people to know that even though I identify as leaning strongly conservative on most issues, I don’t think this is such a bad idea. At least in theory.

Sanders is right.The insurance industry does make obscene profits. Not that there is anything wrong obscene profits in a free market economy like ours. If you know how to make a few billion dollars, go for it! As long as no one gets hurt in the process. That is what America is all about.

So why would I want to stop the insurance industry from making those profits?  Because people are getting hurt. Making obscene amounts of money off of someone’s health issues is disgusting. 

The stories about people using their life savings to pay for medical procedures not covered by insurance is well documented. Most people cannot afford the extremely high  premiums insurance companies charge for their ‘Cadillac’ coverage. The deductibles for mot people are therefore often huge and the amounts paid out for claims have a dollar limit. 

And even minimal coverage like that has prohibitive premiums well over twelve thousand dollars per year if not a lot more. Saving accounts have been wiped out - while insurance companies are among the most profitable industries in America. (Did you ever notice that many of the huge skyscrapers in big cities have an insurance company as part of their name/?)

Health is not a luxury. It should not bear those kinds of costs. Why not eliminate the middle man? If insurance companies had never existed - paying directly to a health care provider would surely have been cheaper than it is now with the middle man taking his cut.

But the genie is out of the bottle. In large part because of those middle men - it would be impossible to go back to a time where it was financially beneficial to do that. So how would universal health care change things? Would the cost be as high as the naysayers say it would – raising taxes to prohibitive levels?

Taxes would surely go up. No question about that. But as Sanders points out, premiums would be eliminated. The overall cost of health care would go down (or at least stay the same) because profits for middle man would be eliminated. At the same time there would probably be a lot better coverage for all.  

This is Sanders’ argument. Even though most of the rest of the Democratic candidates say that the cost of universal coverage would be too high - and would ‘break the bank’ of the American economy – it is nevertheless  hard to dispute his logic.  

So yes, in this case, I believe that just like social security - socializing the healthcare industry would be another good exception to the free market economy that I otherwise so strongly support.

The problem - as always - is in the details. I haven’t run the actual numbers. It may not actually be economically feasible to raise taxes only to a level that would be less than the insurance premiums now being paid by most Americans.

The government is not known for its wisdom in spending our money. There is a lot of government waste and a bloated bureaucracy that will surely waste a taxpayer money trying to implement Medicare for all. Efficiency is a word that does not seem to exist in the bureaucratic lexicon of government service. I would therefore be very hesitant to implement it. But it theory at least, I don’t think his idea is such a bad one.