Reply #31: It's the other aspects of the plans that hold (some, small) promise

[MH1]

and in those aspects, from what I see, their plans are similar. But Obama has a better demonstrated understanding of tech issues and I trust him more to preside over cost reduction measures that leverage new technology. I fear that Clinton will be too busy protecting corporate interests to do what is necessary on the tech front to really lower costs.

I was thinking last night, that the reason they aren't offering single payer plans is because there are A LOT of things that can be done to reduce costs and improve efficiencies, and that legislators who are shy of supporting single payer will always trot out these other problems and say "fix these and everything will be fine." Well since we all agree that some of those things are problems, let's go ahead and fix the things we agree on. THEN when it doesn't resolve the real issue, the opponents of single payer will no longer be able to use those other issues as a fig leaf, and we can have a real discussion about whether health care should be handled as a money-making enterprise or a social good.

In other words "tinkering around the edges" may be a necessary first step.

I realize that's not a very persuasive argument to supporters of single payer - and I'm not saying it's a strong argument - but I think it's a rationale and benefit of the Obama/Clinton approach that is too little recognized.