is to build on the ACA. And it all goes back to numbers. We just wont have the numbers to get anything close to single payer through congress.
Sanders has said that his overall goal would be single payer, but there is no mechanism for doing that which has a chance to pass without a change in congress. So to make any progress, Sanders would have to build on the ACA, and he has no working plans to do that. So what would we have? Him vetoing the repeated attempts to torpedo the ACA, and no plans in play to take the pressure off of people who desperately need care? Clinton will make gains where possible with plans she has in place, and that, for me, is a big deal. Even if it doesn't change as much as we would like as fast as we would like.
I know the overall idea is that there would be a huge sweep of Dems into congress with a Sanders win, but it isn't likely. Experts are saying we do have a chance to take control of the Senate, but still wouldn't have a bullet proof majority, and that we would need to pick up 30 seats to do the same in the House of Representatives. And from my reading, most say that won't happen because there are only 10ish Republican seats that could be reliably considered competitive.
I read a wishing and hoping piece from last year at Politico that says we could take the house, but their premise was that Trump or Carson would be the nominee and would turn off enough voters to cause a switch. Carson is a non-starter and Trump is killing his own campaign. And I really didn't buy their premise to start with. It's here if you want to read it:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/how-democrats-could-win-the-house-213318
I have serious health issues myself, and friends who need health care but can't afford the office visit, so I understand people's frustration with anything that isn't what we SHOULD be providing. But in my view, the best shot of helping people the quickest, is to build on what we have and to work downticket to remake congress as fast as we can.