We hope we're wrong, but there is a real chance of Democrats being beaten at their own game before 2020 due to their "incrementalism", or lack of it, between 2008 and 2016. In politics, as in history, standing still is losing ground.
Just to be clear, yes, we're talking about the babbling billionaire e
nfant terrible businessman occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The same billionaire who garnered half the union vote nation-wide and won among $0-$50,000 earners* in the key states by outflanking his Democratic opponent on the left. Don't be surprised to see him follow the same path to glory during his first term, aided by a helpless Democratic Party.
A little background:
In 2004 the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation poll voted
Tommy Douglas "The Greatest Canadian" ever based almost entirely on him
bringing single payer health care to his nation. (Who knew people would be so fond of someone who rescues their lives and life savings whenever illness strikes? Go figure!) What is more, Tommy and his party, the CCF/NDP ("Canadian Commonwealth Party", later the "New Democratic Party"), managed this without ever holding power federally!
 |
| Saskatchewan Premium Tommy Douglas |
In every conceivable way, Donald Trump is the polar opposite of the honest, modest, altruistic Canadian hero. Indeed, it pains us to mention the two names in the same article, let alone the same sentence. In any case, should anyone want to test the stereotype of Canadians being cool and polite, have them insult Tommy Douglas [or go to a hockey game, I suppose] north of the 49th parallel. (Have them top up their dental insurance first, though.)
If The Donald can bring universal public health care ("UPHC") to Americans, as he has promised to do on more than one occasion, Americans will remember him as a saint. True as they were, recent comments about Trump by Democrats in attempting to get elected would get them committed in 2056. Health care will not be a mere right, as Bernie Sanders declares it, it will be a sacred one. Note that there are no individual politicians, let alone political parties, advocating a return to private insurance in Canada [or any other developed nation].
Socialized Medicine?
Why would Donald want to bring "socialized medicine" to American shores?
Well, for starters, it's already being offered to the poor, the elderly, the military and government representatives (e.g. the judiciary, Congress, the White House, et cetera). Trump surrogates will argue: "Why should medical treatment be made available to everyone except those who pay for it? What is 'socialist' about getting what we paid for with our hard earned dollars? This is the opposite of 'socialism'. This is America!" Blah, blah, blah. R[e]ince, spin, repeat.
American enterprises, including his own, on foreign soil will have made abundantly clear to Trump the financial benefits of UPHC to a business. For example, when Detroit was paying ~$6000 per employee for health care insurance, the same members of the same union making the same automobiles in Oshawa were paying ~$800. Is it any wonder why there are more "American" cars manufactured in Ontario than Michigan? Level the UPHC playing field by instituting it in the United States and those jobs could, in theory at least, be repatriated.
The challenge will be to get all the other businesses on board while health care insurances scream like stuck pigs. This leads us to a darker reason for Republicans to relegate private insurance--most notably the mandated private insurance we call "Obamacare"--to the dustbin of history. Health insurance and Trump's subsequent target, Big Pharma (which will no longer be "
politically protected"), are heavy contributors to both parties. However, with unions disappearing and, we assume, Hillary retiring, the Democratic Party will rely more and more on these contributions. Even if the reduction in income were to affect Republicans more in dollar terms, it would end the Democratic Party (which out-earned the GOP by 2-to-1 in 2016) as a financial threat. Worse yet, what Democrat would dare to oppose universal "TrumpCare", even though it might be, in effect, their party's death warrant? If Trump can't convince enough Republicans to pass the legislation he's not the
con man salesman we think he is.
It is difficult enough to parse Trumps utterances into English, let alone policy. Nevertheless, his first instinct might have been, ironically, a two-tiered Mexican system.
"We're going to have insurance for everybody,"
Trump told The Washington Post. "There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can't pay for it, you don't get it. That's not going to happen with us."
He has never objected to premium health insurance as an alternative for the wealthy. We bear in mind that he is, by nature, neither flexible nor intellectual. As such, he seems to favor the exact opposite of the status quo, an approach confusing to the point of being oxymoronic: a private option to a single payer system which isn't a single-payer system:
“It’ll be another plan. But they’ll be beautifully covered. I don’t want single-payer. What I do want is to be able to take care of people,”
he said Saturday.
Inevitably, the numbers (e.g. 58% favor UPHC) are moving him closer to a de facto single payer system with a GOP spin and Trumpian bafflegab. To wit, the Republican plan will certainly not fund abortion or birth control. These will have to be paid by the patient or through donations to an organization like Planned Parenthood. Thus, not "single payer".
Semantics.
Footnotes:
* Vote change from 2012 to 2016 <$50,000/yr
State Democratic Republican Trump Margin
Gain/Loss Gain/Loss of Victory
Florida -259,041 23,567 112,911
Iowa -106,043 -42,883 147,314
Wisconsin -209,687 57,768 22,748
Michigan -84,635 193,933 10,704
Penn. -234,801 289,970 42,292
Ohio -416,496 -81,313 446.841
-------- ------- -------
Totals: -1,310,703 441,043 782,810
