Posted on 08/08/2015 9:15:31 AM PDT by DannyTN
Donald Trump offered the single best, most original policy idea in the Republican Party debate Thursday night. He also demonstrated by far the greatest understanding of a complicated area of public policy. There, I said it.
People have been avoiding noticing this out of a dual aversion to Trump's brand of demagogic anti-immigrant politics and an excessive sense that deference is owed to the real professional politicians up on the stage.
But while I wouldn't rank Trump as one of the great health wonks of all time, his answer to a question challenging him to defend his past praise of single-payer health-care systems demonstrated a decent knowledge of the subject and an innovative and important health-care idea.
Trump's argument on single-payer
Single-payer health-care systems are ones in which the government acts as the insurance company for everyone. That's how Medicare works in the United States, and it's how the Canadian health-care system (conveniently also called Medicare) works for everyone, not just senior citizens.
"It works in Canada," said Trump, and "it works incredibly well in Scotland." He even went so far as to say that "it could have worked in a different age" in the United States but is not currently suited to our problems.
What Trump is talking about here is path dependency, and it's a reasonable point. It's one thing to set up a National Health Service in the wake of World War II. It's another thing entirely to come 75 years later and completely upend a system that is working pretty well for most people and that enormous institutions have made deep investments in. It's easy to dismiss this message when coming from Trump, but Atul Gawande has written brilliantly about path dependency in health-care reform and my colleague Sarah Kliff's masterful profile of Vermont's failed effort to build a single-payer system further underscores the concerns about path dependency.
Is the idea that a system could work well in one country but not in the US crazy? Not according to leading health wonk Uwe Reinhardt, who, like Trump, is an admirer of some foreign single-payer systems but skeptical of trying to remake the United States in their image.
Trump's great idea: a common market in health insurance
Trump then pivoted from this to a constructive suggestion about reforming health insurance in America, proposing a change that, while big enough to make a difference, is sufficiently non-revolutionary to be plausible.
"What I'd like to see," he said, "is a private system without the artificial lines around every state."
Right now, you see, health insurance is a heavily regulated industry. And it's regulated in slightly different ways by each state government. Consequently, while buyers and sellers of most products (breakfast cereal, cars, appliances, clothing) have one gigantic marketplace to participate in, buyers and sellers of health insurance have a handful of midsize markets (California, Texas, New York) and a few dozen small ones.
"I have a big company with thousands and thousands of employees," Trump observed, but "if I'm negotiating in New York or in New Jersey or in California, I have, like, one bidder. Nobody can bid."
One bidder is an exaggeration, but it's true that the number of players in any given state market tends to be small, and the problem is getting worse. The issue is especially severe in smaller states, where the overall size of the market isn't necessarily big enough to make it worth anyone's while to enter. But it's also a logistical hassle for employers who operate in multiple states, especially because states aren't real economic units. Lots of people live in New Jersey and work in Pennsylvania, or commute from Kansas to Missouri.
The other contenders had no answer to this
Obviously the big question about federalizing insurance regulation is what would the regulations say? This would have been a great issue for other candidates to grill Trump on or offer their own thoughts about. After all, if Trump is as much of a clown as everyone says, surely a serious dialogue about the issues would expose him as an empty suit.
But nobody rose to the challenge. Instead, Rand Paul offered: "News flash — the Republican Party's been fighting against a single-payer system for a decade. So I think you're on the wrong side of this if you're still arguing for a single-payer system."
This is inaccurate history — Republicans have been fighting single-payer for way longer than that — but it also reveals a failure of basic listening skills.
Nobody had any criticisms of Trump's proposal to offer, nor any praise. They just moved on.
Non-Trump policy ideas were awful
Trump's health-care suggestion, though innovative and correct, leaves a lot to be desired in terms of concrete detail.
But consider the other main policy ideas discussed:
Most journalists seem inclined to give their plaudits to Kasich, who, to his credit, did give an extensive and fluent answer on a public policy question. But it was purely a question about state policy in Ohio! We learned that Kasich feels governors should accept the Medicaid expansion dollars offered under the Affordable Care Act. But as president, would he repeal the Affordable Care Act? Would he enact the further Medicaid cuts enshrined in various House GOP budget proposals?
Nobody knows.
It's time to start taking all these governors and senators seriously
An incredible quantity of pixels have been spent thus far on the question of Donald Trump and whether to take him seriously or how to understand what he represents. The reality is that he is very unlikely to win.
The next Republican nominee is almost certainly going to be Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or Marco Rubio, and if not one of them then one of those other current or former governors and senators up on the stage.
It is true that they are lagging in the polls. But there's more to life than early polls.
It's time for the press to start taking seriously the idea that the next president of the United States may very well be named Bush or Walker rather than Trump. Before that happens, inquiring minds might be interested to know what kinds of policies Bush and Walker have in mind to address national problems other than the plague of lifesaving abortions and retired 68-year-olds that afflict the fevered minds of some of these contenders.
What will the "serious" Republican candidates do to make health care and higher education more affordable? What will they do to raise wages? What will they do to address climate change or cut the poverty rate? How would they handle the insolvency of a major American bank?
Unlike the rest of the field, Trump actually addressed one of these issues, and did so in a plausible way. He seems like a buffoon, a racist, and a misogynist. But he deserves credit for taking an actual stand on policy.
Vox.
Back in 2000, he admitted he was for universal healthcare. His idea of universal healthcare was the federal employees healthcare act-or of some sort definition, and claims that it would include some 650 insurance providers to choose from.
I do not favor it. Since, he has moved away? Dont know. Why? Because of the GD debacle we saw in thee debate. The useless moderators were more interested in swindle sheet journalism than getting him to define his views on the topics!!! GD them!
Let him explain in specific his agenda! Not only him, but all of them. Do any, outside of Trump, have solutions?
Here is an example of a responsible question.
Mr Trump, you have repeated you are for securing the border, we get the wall, but what specifically will you do about the illegals already within the country?
I liked that part also.
But ultimately, thiscarticle wasn’t about that.
“What will the “serious” Republican candidates do...”
Ironically, this article ended up being non-serious.
“Back in 2000, he admitted he was for universal healthcare”
Missing from that statement “FOR EVERYONE ELSE BUT ME AND MY FAMILY’ exactly what the politicians wanted, passed and when confronted, denied it could be undone
I have little respect for Vox, but it is interesting that Trump can persuade one of the contributors on this leftist site basically to endorse a direction opposite of single-payer.
I have little respect for Vox, but it is interesting that Trump can persuade one of the contributors on this leftist site basically to endorse a direction opposite of single-payer.
When a Progressive site like VOX is touting Trump’s healthcare “solution” that should tell you something.
Besides, it’s generally a GOP position that health insurance should be available across state lines.
Trump only suits an autocracy simply because he can only ruffle feathers. He does not have the knack of smoothing them. Look at his marriages and you will see that his personal style does not foster unity over the long haul.
"You're fired!" says it all.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Health_Care.htm
Best get over yourself and sus out the facts.
Vox acts like this is the first time market forces were introduced into the health care system. Conservatives have been saying this for years.
Who had time to present solutions? Trump had almost twice as much time as everyone
Except Bush. Part of that time he was responding to attacks; nevertheless, he had much more facetime
Than the others. Of course, it probably hurt Bush that viewers got to hear more of
His political speak. That’s the very thing we are sick of.
Further, Trump is not the first to propose buying insurance across state lines.
The British newspapers carried his answer to that question only a few weeks back.
Step one may have been the headline, though I'm not sure. It was; Deport Them.
Which other candidate is promoting that?
From what I have seen...on Hannity is, that a wall/fence/whatever-no pun intended, and that all of them would have to go back and that he would speed up the process for the desirable ones to return LEGALLY.
Now I aint got a problem with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.