It’s amusing that you think reforming America’s shit-tastic health-care system is some sort of lunatic fringe notion, given that every other industrialized democracy did it a long time ago. The rest of the world rightly views the US health care system as an absurdity and the continuation of the status quo as the real lunacy.
Your argument hinges on turning "California should have single payer" into "reform America's healthcare system", which are two different propositions. I've argued that believing that California will transition to single payer in the short or medium term is a ridiculous notion promoted by people who aren't being remotely serious about what that would require, and I stand by that.
You're also factually incorrect about the type of health care systems used by many industrialized countries. They provide coverage a variety of ways, not all of which are single payer, and some of which are quite similar to Obamacare.
I have absolutely zero-faith the modern Democratic party can fix American healthcare. As this article states, there are no serious wonks that can get through the primary shitshow. Since 2014 they've fucked up public transportation, education, the housing market, green energy and now they leave those wreckages unfixed behind them to focus on ruining grocery stores. Healthcare is a more complex beast than any of those things.
I once supported the idea of a more centralized, publicly funded healthcare system. Then I moved to the UK and observed how utterly poorly its government-run, lavishly funded, bureaucratically bloated, single payer healthcare system functions and went, oh, that’s not all it’s cracked up to be either.
Like April, I’ve observed far-left Democrats run my beloved home state of California into the ground, and now I feel like an exile because I can’t afford to move back there. I have far less faith in its government than I do in a free market to direct the running of its healthcare industry, let alone a single bodega.
I think Jeff is saying Porter and Steyer’s proposals for a state run single payer healthcare plan are ludicrous. And given the parlous conditions of California’s finances, I don’t think he’s wrong. One time budget fixes aside, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office currently projects California’s budget gap at $18b-$22b.
Yes, they have to close the ~$20 billion gap, will struggle to do so, and single payer was recently estimated at costing $392 billion*, which is more than California's entire budget. The people talking about single payer are clowns.
Shazbot: Yes, America had a shot at reform in the 1930's but the American Medical Association (AMA) fought it. Doctors wanted to make as much money as they could in a free market. Sigh.....
Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope there? I get the feeling doctors' lives are made miserable and their incomes strangled by intrusion from HMO's and haggling by insurance companies. Maybe there's an argument to be made for simplicity and certainty that could come from a single payer system.
Your last sentence is a little harsh. You see "opportunistic liar," I see
"pragmatist." I see no problem with this reality. No one can see into the soul of any person to see what their "intent" was. I fully intended to provide every 6th grader with a chocolate 🍨 at every daily lunch serving as class treasurer. Then I got elected and had to govern in the real world.....
Re money fungibility, the same logic applies to spending cuts.
Paraphrasing Jonah Goldberg: Whenever we entertain spending cuts, the first dollar cut always seems to be earmarked for the screw that secures a 2 x 4 that holds up a bridge for a kindergarten parade.
It’s merely the latest manifestation of a perennial problem with politics: those most suited to exercise power responsibly do not seek it, but those least suited pursue it ardently.
"Better honest or smart" seems to be a long-solved problem, morally speaking, in favor of honesty. Whether that means "honest" is better for a particular constituency in a particular election, I don't know.
I guess in a way the person willing to pretend to believe goofy things is better, as that suggests that if we can make it electorally advantageous to pretend to believe good things, they will. Which is basically the animating principle of democracy in the first place.
It's better for them as individuals if they aren't pretending (integrity and moral fiber and all that being inherent goods), but it can be better for everyone else for them not to actually hold their proclaimed beliefs. I think an individual election could push either way, but as a whole, it's better for true believers to be the standard so we don't have to hope that the person we elected wises up and was just kidding. That hope has recently worked out very poorly for the US farmer (and, presumably, a lot of other people).
Indeed. My point is simply that over-relying on 2 risks stumbling into a 3. In this case, *thinking* that Trump is a thoroughgoing huckster obscures his few genuine and harmful political beliefs.
Jeff, thanks for that Clarke and Dawe sketch! Hilarious!
A classic!
Love a Clarke and Dawe reference, Australian (and NZ) legends! Irreplaceable.
Most Americans won't get that reference but it really was the right reference.
It’s amusing that you think reforming America’s shit-tastic health-care system is some sort of lunatic fringe notion, given that every other industrialized democracy did it a long time ago. The rest of the world rightly views the US health care system as an absurdity and the continuation of the status quo as the real lunacy.
Your argument hinges on turning "California should have single payer" into "reform America's healthcare system", which are two different propositions. I've argued that believing that California will transition to single payer in the short or medium term is a ridiculous notion promoted by people who aren't being remotely serious about what that would require, and I stand by that.
You're also factually incorrect about the type of health care systems used by many industrialized countries. They provide coverage a variety of ways, not all of which are single payer, and some of which are quite similar to Obamacare.
I have absolutely zero-faith the modern Democratic party can fix American healthcare. As this article states, there are no serious wonks that can get through the primary shitshow. Since 2014 they've fucked up public transportation, education, the housing market, green energy and now they leave those wreckages unfixed behind them to focus on ruining grocery stores. Healthcare is a more complex beast than any of those things.
I once supported the idea of a more centralized, publicly funded healthcare system. Then I moved to the UK and observed how utterly poorly its government-run, lavishly funded, bureaucratically bloated, single payer healthcare system functions and went, oh, that’s not all it’s cracked up to be either.
Like April, I’ve observed far-left Democrats run my beloved home state of California into the ground, and now I feel like an exile because I can’t afford to move back there. I have far less faith in its government than I do in a free market to direct the running of its healthcare industry, let alone a single bodega.
I think Jeff is saying Porter and Steyer’s proposals for a state run single payer healthcare plan are ludicrous. And given the parlous conditions of California’s finances, I don’t think he’s wrong. One time budget fixes aside, the non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s Office currently projects California’s budget gap at $18b-$22b.
Yes, they have to close the ~$20 billion gap, will struggle to do so, and single payer was recently estimated at costing $392 billion*, which is more than California's entire budget. The people talking about single payer are clowns.
(*source: https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/03/california-governor-single-payer-health-care/)
Shazbot: Yes, America had a shot at reform in the 1930's but the American Medical Association (AMA) fought it. Doctors wanted to make as much money as they could in a free market. Sigh.....
Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope there? I get the feeling doctors' lives are made miserable and their incomes strangled by intrusion from HMO's and haggling by insurance companies. Maybe there's an argument to be made for simplicity and certainty that could come from a single payer system.
Your last sentence is a little harsh. You see "opportunistic liar," I see
"pragmatist." I see no problem with this reality. No one can see into the soul of any person to see what their "intent" was. I fully intended to provide every 6th grader with a chocolate 🍨 at every daily lunch serving as class treasurer. Then I got elected and had to govern in the real world.....
Re money fungibility, the same logic applies to spending cuts.
Paraphrasing Jonah Goldberg: Whenever we entertain spending cuts, the first dollar cut always seems to be earmarked for the screw that secures a 2 x 4 that holds up a bridge for a kindergarten parade.
It’s merely the latest manifestation of a perennial problem with politics: those most suited to exercise power responsibly do not seek it, but those least suited pursue it ardently.
"Better honest or smart" seems to be a long-solved problem, morally speaking, in favor of honesty. Whether that means "honest" is better for a particular constituency in a particular election, I don't know.
I guess in a way the person willing to pretend to believe goofy things is better, as that suggests that if we can make it electorally advantageous to pretend to believe good things, they will. Which is basically the animating principle of democracy in the first place.
Thanks for the Clarke and Dawe shout-out.
It's better for them as individuals if they aren't pretending (integrity and moral fiber and all that being inherent goods), but it can be better for everyone else for them not to actually hold their proclaimed beliefs. I think an individual election could push either way, but as a whole, it's better for true believers to be the standard so we don't have to hope that the person we elected wises up and was just kidding. That hope has recently worked out very poorly for the US farmer (and, presumably, a lot of other people).
I think the hierarchy goes:
1. Good sane people who have firm principles
2. Hucksters who have no beliefs but do whatever they think is popular
3. Passionately committed evil lunatics
Indeed. My point is simply that over-relying on 2 risks stumbling into a 3. In this case, *thinking* that Trump is a thoroughgoing huckster obscures his few genuine and harmful political beliefs.
Totally. But then as individuals we have so little control anyway.