madoff was extremely slick, and the government certainly weren't the only ones he kept bamboozled for a long time. i'm sure you could come up with a number of much more pertinent examples of government agencies that generally do a poorer job than their private sector counterparts. just off the top of my head, department of motor vehicles comes to mind...

About that ". . just as capable of providing amazing service to people . ." part.

I'm reminded of the SEC, the gov't watchdog agency that was warned multiple times over several years that Madoff was running a Ponzi. Their level of service was sustaantially less than "amazing".

By hiring enough qualified people to staff the agency that would be created to cover healthcare and having departments that cover all aspects of it! If a business can do it, why wouldn’t the government be able to do it just as well?

What are governments and businesses made up of??? People. Government agencies are just as capable of providing amazing service to people as the best companies are.

I think you're wrong about that, Russ.

How is it possible for the government to run a healthcare system for everyone, covering everything?

Did somebody mention a superhero? :)

Do you think Warren and Sanders can do it without private insurance?

CAN it be done without private insurance? God, yes! Insurance only plays a part in healthcare because we have allowed them to.

Will it be done without private insurance? No, not at first, at least. The Democrats will not just destroy our healthcare system without something in place to replace it. Like I said, they aren’t the GOP!

Frankly I don't know how he lives with himself.

Heh.

You outline some of the biggest problems in moving toward a single-payer government run healthcare system from where the system is now, though the ACA moved the system forward quite a bit.

I am still of the opinion that the US is in the best position on the planet to devise a gold standard healthcare system that would set an example for the rest of the world, including my own. But, I firmly believe that the incremental approach is the best, all things considered = politically and economically speaking.

… the main obstacle is a widespread feeling of apathy and inefficacy.

Something has to be done about that, and fast.

I do believe that all procedures will be covered by our system to some degree, but that elective and non-essential procedures will have costs that will be paid for by the patient if they want it. I do think there might still be a market for private insurance that could market elective procedures that are not fully covered by our healthcare system.

That is, more or less, the Canadian system.

Do you think Warren and Sanders can do it without private insurance? I don't think so and that is why I believe they are not being honest with the American people. And, in my mind, they are disqualified for that reason.

These candidates don't have to give every detail, of course - but, they do have to explain how 'no private insurance' can work. I don't think they know how it will work, in broad terms, or we would have heard about by now.

One thing that the Democratic candidate will desperately need to bring to our government is a full staff of qualified advisers, experts, and assistants to restore the damaged agencies that Trump has targeted for destruction.

"Absolutely, positively, unequivocally!"

I respect Biden, but he does not wear a cape or have superpowers.

Nobody on the planet knows that better than I do.

There is this divided powers thing-y about the USA Governmental System. Changing the Prez doesn't necessarily change the Senate or Congress or The Courts. The US system was engineered to be perpetually constipated.

Which is precisely why who Americans choose to be POTUS is so very, very extremely important this time around. It all reminds of Hercules and the Augeab Stables ...

Could be a great enterprise, or the world's biggest circle-jerk. Depends who we put in there. Biden's got both the contacts and experience to do it right.

How about setting a positive up-wing example for the rest for the media by addressing One Demand?

Addressing how One Demand is not a non-profit? How it has no board of directors or community oversight?.

How One Demand has no plan for getting people signed up to participate or getting candidates to agree to be One Demand candidates?

How One Demand has no empirical data demonstrating its’ effectiveness at financing political campaigns?

I do not think they would come in and just destroy the healthcare system until they have something in place to replace it... they aren’t the GOP acting out of hatred!

I do believe that all procedures will be covered by our system to some degree, but that elective and non-essential procedures will have costs that will be paid for by the patient if they want it. I do think there might still be a market for private insurance that could market elective procedures that are not fully covered by our healthcare system.

Warren, better than any politician I have ever seen, gives you the most comprehensive plans for the programs she hopes to implement, but even she cannot provide us with every detail as Congress will have to have input on it before it can be passed.

One thing that the Democratic candidate will desperately need to bring to our government is a full staff of qualified advisers, experts, and assistants to restore the damaged agencies that Trump has targeted for destruction.

I respect Biden, but he does not wear a cape or have superpowers. There is this divided powers thing-y about the USA Governmental System. Changing the Prez doesn't necessarily change the Senate or Congress or The Courts. The US system was engineered to be perpetually constipated.

EM-2

In theory yes, but it usually isn't very deep or even particularly accurate. At worst, it is pure mythology. US public education is under state and county control and therefore susceptible to meddling from whoever holds the reins.

EM-4

Interesting, I'll have to look into that metaphor.

EM-5 Me too!

EM-6

Frankly I don't know how he lives with himself.

EM-9

At root, US Medicare is just a health insurance program implemented by private industries to governmental standards. Somebody has to pay for it. The working (or not working) poor can't and the wealthy don't want to.

You have to factor in that Health Care is the biggest industry in many communities. It's certainly true where I live. For some unexplained reason, my hospital corporate system is building a clone 10 miles down the road to compete with itself. This goes a long way to explaining why the US health care system pays 2 to 3 times as much for healthcare than other nations getting equivalent medical outcomes.

The us health care industry is a generous donor to whatever political party holds the reins. Again, this explains a lot.

I believe there will always be room for private health insurance but that governments that wish to move toward universal health insurance must ensure that what gets covered is more than basic healthcare. It seems to me that the US is in a very good position to devise the best universal single-payer healthcare insurance in the world that would set the gold standard.

I think the problem with 'Medicare For All' is how the candidates see the path to get there.

Some candidates wish to break the system to fix it. Which will undoubtedly be a very chaotic way to go about it.

Other candidates see building on the Affordable Care Act as a very important step on the road to universal healthcare that would not be so disruptive of everything.

I have not yet heard a full explanation of how exactly the chaotic move to Medicare for All would actually work in the smallest of details. I think Bernie and Elizabeth owe voters this kind of transparency. And, if they don't know how their new system of providing healthcare would actually work, then they need to tell voters this, too.

Anyone who is for Medicare for All is basically advocating for the end of private health insurance... just how quickly they will be phased out is the question. Personally, I cannot understand why anyone would want to continue to rely on getting their basic healthcare package from a middleman that provides no medical services whatsoever! We pay them to make us pay more for healthcare because we have to pay for their involvement! Why does this seem like a good idea to anyone? We have been told that by going in and representing a large base, they are able to secure services at a cheaper rate for us... And we just accept that as being true!

Can't live with him, can't live without him.

Hoping all is well ...

"I'm not on a timetable - I'm on a mission",

when asked if she would retire if a Democrat wins the WH in 2020.

Chris, I'm becoming a real fan of the Speaker!

Perhaps a better way to judge politicians and political issues and what is the best, most effective way forward would be to think about up-wing versus down-wing.

Another description of "up-wing" may be in order.

It's a term used by another of my favourite political analysts, William Bradley, and was derived from an idea that former Senator Gary Hart showed him to characterize political figures using a past-future spectrum instead of the usual right-wing/left-wing classification.

To paraphrase Bradley, this past-future spectrum naturally runs from the up end to the down end of the spectrum, with the futurist, up end characterized by new technology, creative utilizations of existing technology, and new structural forms to pursue enduring values and new visions.

The up-wing leader places a special emphasis on big think/think big future-oriented and enlightened policies in an effort to position a society on the global cutting edge, even in the midst of great challenges and crises that would paralyze a more down-wing political leader.

Additionally, to quote Bradley, "big thinking, big ideas need not be about big items per se. In fact, some of the biggest thinking is about small things, or more accurately, how to bring smaller things into play to solve problems that big things might make worse."

Characterizing the current crop of presidential candidates using the up-wing/down-wing spectrum helps to identify the candidate most capable of outlining a coherent vision for the future and of possessing the courage to carry it out.