When he wasn't fighting with the Fox News talking heads or making air quotes, Bernie Sanders had a lot to say about policy during his town hall this week. Every candidate for president should sit for an hour's worth of these questions.
A town hall interview, even on Fox News, beats those awful debates with 10 people on stage (and 10 more on the undercard). Other than the insults and zingers in the 2016 Republican debates, particularly by one candidate, does anybody remember anything said during those maelstroms?
No, these town halls would seem to be much better in nailing down the candidates' thoughts. The best thing Sen. Sanders said all night was: "Your network does not necessarily have a great deal of respect in my world. But I thought it was important for me to be here and have a serious discussion about serious issues." He was applauded. Deservedly so.
Redistribution of wealth seems to be Bernie Sanders' top concern. We'll see how that plays out. If the Democratic Party actually nominates him, Americans will have not only a choice between different styles in their major party candidates, but a clear choice in policy.
For example, health care insurance.
"Millions of people, every single year, lose their health insurance," Sen. Sanders said at the town hall. "You know why? They get fired, or they quit and they go to another employer. . . . Every year, millions of workers wake up in the morning and their employer has changed the insurance that they have. Maybe they like their doctors. . . . So this is not new. Every year. Now, what we're talking about is stability. That when you have a Medicare for All, it is there now and will be there in the future."
So now, the latest line will be that government-run health care is no different than your employer finding a better deal and changing health insurance companies. What a line. Next he'll be selling snow in Alaska.
Those who champion a single-payer health-care system want to eliminate the competition that comes naturally between private insurance companies. What we need is not less competition, but more. Competition, and then profit, is what drives health-care companies to devise new drugs, which reduce suffering and save lives. No doubt all the research and development is expensive, but aren't we better off with it?
To get more competition, people need to know the price they're paying for drugs and services. It would be hard for Walmart and Target and Amazon to compete successfully if no one knew what prices they were charging. So now there is legislation requiring hospitals post what they charge for various procedures. Unfortunately, those are the charges for people without insurance, and most people in America have insurance.
What we need is a list, a menu, of what each individual would have to pay with their insurance coverage for different procedures and drugs. If Blue Cross offers lower prices after insurance than Aetna, why can't the consumer know this information? That would be true transparency and probably serve more than anything to lower the cost of health care in America.
With a single-payer system like they have in Canada, but not in Australia or England, there would be no incentive for anyone to save extra money for illnesses in their advanced years. Isn't that a worthy thing to do, just like saving money for a house or a car when you're younger?
In Australia, they have government medical care for everyone who wants it. Those who don't want it can buy insurance. By spending more of their own money, they can probably get into see a doctor sooner, get their surgery sooner, and have more options on their health care. Hopefully if we ever go to more socialized medicine, this will be the route America takes, instead of letting government dictate to everyone what services they can or cannot have.
This desire, this American obsession, about choosing our own way in the world, is marrow-deep among most folks in this country. But it seems lost on Bernie Sanders & Co.
Editorial on 04/18/2019