New Hampshire Primary Thread (polls close at 6-7 CT)

[DINGO Joe]

NH Dem primary exit polls showed 2016 Dem primary vote was (Clinton 50%,Sanders 30%, Neither 18%).  I get the fact that Clinton ultimately winning the 2016 Dem nomination would bias these results but Sanders blew out Clinton in 2016 60-38. What happen to the Sanders 2016 NH base ?  It seems a bunch of them did not even bother coming out to vote in the Dem primary. 

You have a link to that?  Maybe those who voted Bernie in 2016 and were voting for someone else this time didn't want to admit they voted Bernie in 2016.  Very unlikely that they stayed home.

[RI]

NH Dem primary exit polls showed 2016 Dem primary vote was (Clinton 50%,Sanders 30%, Neither 18%).  I get the fact that Clinton ultimately winning the 2016 Dem nomination would bias these results but Sanders blew out Clinton in 2016 60-38. What happen to the Sanders 2016 NH base ?  It seems a bunch of them did not even bother coming out to vote in the Dem primary. 

You have a link to that?  Maybe those who voted Bernie in 2016 and were voting for someone else this time didn't want to admit they voted Bernie in 2016.  Very unlikely that they stayed home.

Exit polls showed the exact same thing in Iowa. A lot of 2016 Bernie voters have left the party entirely.

[Adam Griffin]

NH Dem primary exit polls showed 2016 Dem primary vote was (Clinton 50%,Sanders 30%, Neither 18%).  I get the fact that Clinton ultimately winning the 2016 Dem nomination would bias these results but Sanders blew out Clinton in 2016 60-38. What happen to the Sanders 2016 NH base ?  It seems a bunch of them did not even bother coming out to vote in the Dem primary. 

With record turnout apparent, there's only one conclusion: these exit polls are garbage when it comes to gauging 2016 primary vote (as was apparently the case in IA, where supposedly Sanders '16 voters were <30%). I get that there has probably been a good share who are no longer Democrats, but even that doesn't come close to explaining these discrepancies.

[Gass3268]

So if we divide the current vote into factions...

Joe + Pete + Amy (Moderates): 53%

Bernie + Warren (Progressives): 35%

If it wasn't for the split in the moderate vote, Bernie wouldn't even be competitive.

This is a ridiculous & nonsensical analysis given that a majority of voters in exit polls expressed support for Medicare for all & free college.

I agree that the analysis isn’t a great one, however many people can express support for M4A without actually agreeing with Bernies path to getting there. That explains the drop in support that happens in polling when you mention M4A eliminating private health insurance. Additionally, even if one may support Bernie’s approach to M4A, it does not mean that they support him. My mother, for example, supports Bernie’s M4A, but not his plan for the Green New Deal, Federal jobs guarantee, student loan cancellation, or  free college. She supports the concepts behind all these policies, but not the extreme amount of spending that they require. That’s why she supports Biden. She’s not a super informed voter either, but the “free everything” approach is a big turn off for her.

Yeah, my biggest issue with Bernie's healthcare plan has nothing that he supports universal healthcare (something I've supported for about 15 years or so).  Instead, it's that it completely eliminates private health insurance without giving folks who can afford it and prefer it to public healthcare the option to choose for themselves.  I think everyone (especially the wealthy) should have to pay higher taxes to fund a public option regardless of whether they choose private or public healthcare.  

However, the idea of depriving folks who can afford a higher quality private healthcare plan of the right to choose that over a government plan is a non-starter for me and the only reason it doesn't make me a diehard #NeverBernie voter in the primary season is because there's no way he'd ever be able to get such a thing through Congress.  If a hypothetical President Sanders tried to do so, I'd certainly call and write every Democratic representative from my state to express my opposition to the proposal, as well as seriously consider donating to anyone with a real shot at successfully primarying any congressional Democrat who voted for it.  

Side note: Pete's line about how the meaning of M4A has changed is actually pretty spot on.  It used to be that people used it as a stand in for universal healthcare and recognized that there were tons of ways to potentially achieve that goal.  However, now many folks thing M4A means "eliminate all private healthcare and replace it with a mandatory government program" (i.e. the average person's perception of Bernie's healthcare plan).  As such, there's nothing inconsistent about having supported M4A four years ago and opposing what it has come to mean.  In fact, many Democrats have done just that.

My views on M4A almost verbatim.

[DINGO Joe]

That is my question though.  Bernie went from 152000 votes in 2016 to 76000 this year.  Who got the other 76000 votes?

[DINGO Joe]

NH Dem primary exit polls showed 2016 Dem primary vote was (Clinton 50%,Sanders 30%, Neither 18%).  I get the fact that Clinton ultimately winning the 2016 Dem nomination would bias these results but Sanders blew out Clinton in 2016 60-38. What happen to the Sanders 2016 NH base ?  It seems a bunch of them did not even bother coming out to vote in the Dem primary. 

You have a link to that?  Maybe those who voted Bernie in 2016 and were voting for someone else this time didn't want to admit they voted Bernie in 2016.  Very unlikely that they stayed home.

Exit polls showed the exact same thing in Iowa. A lot of 2016 Bernie voters have left the party entirely.

So turnout increased 20%, but half the Bernie voters from 2016 left the party?  I ain't buying that.

[StateBoiler]

NH Dem primary exit polls showed 2016 Dem primary vote was (Clinton 50%,Sanders 30%, Neither 18%).  I get the fact that Clinton ultimately winning the 2016 Dem nomination would bias these results but Sanders blew out Clinton in 2016 60-38. What happen to the Sanders 2016 NH base ?  It seems a bunch of them did not even bother coming out to vote in the Dem primary. 

You have a link to that?  Maybe those who voted Bernie in 2016 and were voting for someone else this time didn't want to admit they voted Bernie in 2016.  Very unlikely that they stayed home.

538 in their live blog last night showed the same thing.

They pointed out that in the "supported neither" category, Tulsi Gabbard performed relatively strong.

[Oryxslayer]

So, so far, out of two states Sanders was supposed to win, he's come second in one, but sort of, but not really, but actually; and won the other with an underwhelming margin to say the least. Even if being the only candidate to compete for every state (Biden hasn't yet, Klobuchar and Buttigieg almost certainly won't) means he ends up with a plurality of delegates, surely his path to the nomination is incredibly narrow, if it even still exists?

The takeaway right now is that 538's model has 'Nobody getting 50%+1 delegates' at 33% outcome right now. I tend to think that vastly understates the potential. If this was the GOP side with WTA, then Sanders would 100% be the prospective nominee. Things however are proportional over here. The rules can easily sustain 3-4 serious candidates going all the way, especially if 2 of those are Bloomberg and Bernie.

Already I'm seeing some Bernie people saying that he who gets the most delegates should be the nominee. People are waking up and recognizing that we could go forward with most states getting cut 35-30-25 or 30-25-20-20 depending on the number of survivors.

[YE]

So if we divide the current vote into factions...

Joe + Pete + Amy (Moderates): 53%

Bernie + Warren (Progressives): 35%

If it wasn't for the split in the moderate vote, Bernie wouldn't even be competitive.

This is a ridiculous & nonsensical analysis given that a majority of voters in exit polls expressed support for Medicare for all & free college.

I agree that the analysis isn’t a great one, however many people can express support for M4A without actually agreeing with Bernies path to getting there. That explains the drop in support that happens in polling when you mention M4A eliminating private health insurance. Additionally, even if one may support Bernie’s approach to M4A, it does not mean that they support him. My mother, for example, supports Bernie’s M4A, but not his plan for the Green New Deal, Federal jobs guarantee, student loan cancellation, or  free college. She supports the concepts behind all these policies, but not the extreme amount of spending that they require. That’s why she supports Biden. She’s not a super informed voter either, but the “free everything” approach is a big turn off for her.

Yeah, my biggest issue with Bernie's healthcare plan has nothing that he supports universal healthcare (something I've supported for about 15 years or so).  Instead, it's that it completely eliminates private health insurance without giving folks who can afford it and prefer it to public healthcare the option to choose for themselves.  I think everyone (especially the wealthy) should have to pay higher taxes to fund a public option regardless of whether they choose private or public healthcare.  

However, the idea of depriving folks who can afford a higher quality private healthcare plan of the right to choose that over a government plan is a non-starter for me and the only reason it doesn't make me a diehard #NeverBernie voter in the primary season is because there's no way he'd ever be able to get such a thing through Congress.  If a hypothetical President Sanders tried to do so, I'd certainly call and write every Democratic representative from my state to express my opposition to the proposal, as well as seriously consider donating to anyone with a real shot at successfully primarying any congressional Democrat who voted for it.  

Side note: Pete's line about how the meaning of M4A has changed is actually pretty spot on.  It used to be that people used it as a stand in for universal healthcare and recognized that there were tons of ways to potentially achieve that goal.  However, now many folks thing M4A means "eliminate all private healthcare and replace it with a mandatory government program" (i.e. the average person's perception of Bernie's healthcare plan).  As such, there's nothing inconsistent about having supported M4A four years ago and opposing what it has come to mean.  In fact, many Democrats have done just that.

My views on M4A almost verbatim.

Ditto under the condition that enrolling in a government run health plan would have little out of pocket costs. I don't want a two tiered health care system with a government plan becoming more of a high risk pool than it already is.

[YE]

So, so far, out of two states Sanders was supposed to win, he's come second in one, but sort of, but not really, but actually; and won the other with an underwhelming margin to say the least. Even if being the only candidate to compete for every state (Biden hasn't yet, Klobuchar and Buttigieg almost certainly won't) means he ends up with a plurality of delegates, surely his path to the nomination is incredibly narrow, if it even still exists?

The takeaway right now is that 538's model has 'Nobody getting 50%+1 delegates' at 33% outcome right now. I tend to think that vastly understating the potential. If this was the GOP side with WTA, then Sanders would 100% be the prospective nominee. Things however are proportional over here. The rules can easily sustain 3-4 serious candidates going all the way, especially if 2 of those are Bloomberg and Bernie.

Already I'm seeing some Bernie people saying that he who gets the most delegates should be the nominee. People are waking up and recognizing that we could go forward with most states getting cut 35-30-25 or 30-25-20-20 depending on the number of survivors.

Who actually wants a contested convention though? Could that lead to a rally behind Bernie affect at a certain point in the primary, probably somewhere between the end of March and late April?

[eric82oslo]

So if we divide the current vote into factions...

Joe + Pete + Amy (Moderates): 53%

Bernie + Warren (Progressives): 35%

If it wasn't for the split in the moderate vote, Bernie wouldn't even be competitive.

This is a ridiculous & nonsensical analysis given that a majority of voters in exit polls expressed support for Medicare for all & free college.

Lots of liberal voters voted for Amy and Pete, some even voted for Biden.

[BP🌹]

However, the idea of depriving folks who can afford a higher quality private healthcare plan of the right to choose that over a government plan is a non-starter for me and the only reason it doesn't make me a diehard #NeverBernie voter in the primary season is because there's no way he'd ever be able to get such a thing through Congress.  If a hypothetical President Sanders tried to do so, I'd certainly call and write every Democratic representative from my state to express my opposition to the proposal, as well as seriously consider donating to anyone with a real shot at successfully primarying any congressional Democrat who voted for it.

If there's a better plan than one with no deductibles nor copays and even covers dental and visual care, I'm curious as to what it is.

[Beet]

So if we divide the current vote into factions...

Joe + Pete + Amy (Moderates): 53%

Bernie + Warren (Progressives): 35%

If it wasn't for the split in the moderate vote, Bernie wouldn't even be competitive.

This is a ridiculous & nonsensical analysis given that a majority of voters in exit polls expressed support for Medicare for all & free college.

I agree that the analysis isn’t a great one, however many people can express support for M4A without actually agreeing with Bernies path to getting there. That explains the drop in support that happens in polling when you mention M4A eliminating private health insurance. Additionally, even if one may support Bernie’s approach to M4A, it does not mean that they support him. My mother, for example, supports Bernie’s M4A, but not his plan for the Green New Deal, Federal jobs guarantee, student loan cancellation, or  free college. She supports the concepts behind all these policies, but not the extreme amount of spending that they require. That’s why she supports Biden. She’s not a super informed voter either, but the “free everything” approach is a big turn off for her.

Yeah, my biggest issue with Bernie's healthcare plan has nothing that he supports universal healthcare (something I've supported for about 15 years or so).  Instead, it's that it completely eliminates private health insurance without giving folks who can afford it and prefer it to public healthcare the option to choose for themselves. I think everyone (especially the wealthy) should have to pay higher taxes to fund a public option regardless of whether they choose private or public healthcare.  

However, the idea of depriving folks who can afford a higher quality private healthcare plan of the right to choose that over a government plan is a non-starter for me and the only reason it doesn't make me a diehard #NeverBernie voter in the primary season is because there's no way he'd ever be able to get such a thing through Congress.  If a hypothetical President Sanders tried to do so, I'd certainly call and write every Democratic representative from my state to express my opposition to the proposal, as well as seriously consider donating to anyone with a real shot at successfully primarying any congressional Democrat who voted for it.  

Side note: Pete's line about how the meaning of M4A has changed is actually pretty spot on.  It used to be that people used it as a stand in for universal healthcare and recognized that there were tons of ways to potentially achieve that goal.  However, now many folks thing M4A means "eliminate all private healthcare and replace it with a mandatory government program" (i.e. the average person's perception of Bernie's healthcare plan).  As such, there's nothing inconsistent about having supported M4A four years ago and opposing what it has come to mean.  In fact, many Democrats have done just that.

My views on M4A almost verbatim.

Ditto under the condition that enrolling in a government run health plan would have little out of pocket costs. I don't want a two tiered health care system with a government plan becoming more of a high risk pool than it already is.

I've made clear I'm no fan of Bernie, but the problem with keeping a "higher quality" private health insurance is that, in my mind, it would eventually result in a 2-tiered system, a "better" private system and an "inferior" public system. The public system would eventually acquire the stigma of inferiority and poverty and more and more people would try to escape from it. That would further decrease its quality in a negative spiral. Eventually there is the risk of ghettoization.

If there were only a public system that everyone had to use, then the political pressure to keep up the quality of this public system would be intense, and would be coming from upper middle class people. That is what you need.

That being said, I completely agree that Bernie has no chance of getting any of this into law, which is part of why I don't support him.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

It was a pretty weak win for Bernie last night. His supporters will claim a big victory, but the fact is, he underperformed his polling numbers and his vote share dropped substantially from 2016. On top of it, the "moderate" wing of the party did much better than the "progressives."

51% of voters also said Sanders is too liberal.

[jaichind]

NH Dem primary exit polls showed 2016 Dem primary vote was (Clinton 50%,Sanders 30%, Neither 18%).  I get the fact that Clinton ultimately winning the 2016 Dem nomination would bias these results but Sanders blew out Clinton in 2016 60-38. What happen to the Sanders 2016 NH base ?  It seems a bunch of them did not even bother coming out to vote in the Dem primary. 

You have a link to that?  Maybe those who voted Bernie in 2016 and were voting for someone else this time didn't want to admit they voted Bernie in 2016.  Very unlikely that they stayed home.

Look at  https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/state/new-hampshire under exit polls tab

[jaichind]

NH Dem primary exit polls showed 2016 Dem primary vote was (Clinton 50%,Sanders 30%, Neither 18%).  I get the fact that Clinton ultimately winning the 2016 Dem nomination would bias these results but Sanders blew out Clinton in 2016 60-38. What happen to the Sanders 2016 NH base ?  It seems a bunch of them did not even bother coming out to vote in the Dem primary. 

You have a link to that?  Maybe those who voted Bernie in 2016 and were voting for someone else this time didn't want to admit they voted Bernie in 2016.  Very unlikely that they stayed home.

Exit polls showed the exact same thing in Iowa. A lot of 2016 Bernie voters have left the party entirely.

There is a big difference.  In 2016 Sanders and Clinton mostly likely evenly split the popular vote while in 2016 NH it was 60-38.  In 2020 IA Dem caucus entrance polls it was for 2016 caucus vote (Clinton 54 Sanders 31 neither 15).  2020 NH Dem exit poll with  (Clinton 50,Sanders 30, Neither 18) seems much more negative for Sanders in terms of non-appearance of the 2016 NH Sanders vote.

[Tender Branson]

It seems the NYT page is now the most up-to-date ?

9 towns still missing and probably a few thousand overseas ballots (or did they have to arrive until yesterday to be counted) ?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So if we divide the current vote into factions...

Joe + Pete + Amy (Moderates): 53%

Bernie + Warren (Progressives): 35%

If it wasn't for the split in the moderate vote, Bernie wouldn't even be competitive.

This is a ridiculous & nonsensical analysis given that a majority of voters in exit polls expressed support for Medicare for all & free college.

I agree that the analysis isn’t a great one, however many people can express support for M4A without actually agreeing with Bernies path to getting there. That explains the drop in support that happens in polling when you mention M4A eliminating private health insurance. Additionally, even if one may support Bernie’s approach to M4A, it does not mean that they support him. My mother, for example, supports Bernie’s M4A, but not his plan for the Green New Deal, Federal jobs guarantee, student loan cancellation, or  free college. She supports the concepts behind all these policies, but not the extreme amount of spending that they require. That’s why she supports Biden. She’s not a super informed voter either, but the “free everything” approach is a big turn off for her.

Yeah, my biggest issue with Bernie's healthcare plan has nothing that he supports universal healthcare (something I've supported for about 15 years or so).  Instead, it's that it completely eliminates private health insurance without giving folks who can afford it and prefer it to public healthcare the option to choose for themselves.  I think everyone (especially the wealthy) should have to pay higher taxes to fund a public option regardless of whether they choose private or public healthcare.  

However, the idea of depriving folks who can afford a higher quality private healthcare plan of the right to choose that over a government plan is a non-starter for me and the only reason it doesn't make me a diehard #NeverBernie voter in the primary season is because there's no way he'd ever be able to get such a thing through Congress.  If a hypothetical President Sanders tried to do so, I'd certainly call and write every Democratic representative from my state to express my opposition to the proposal, as well as seriously consider donating to anyone with a real shot at successfully primarying any congressional Democrat who voted for it.  

Side note: Pete's line about how the meaning of M4A has changed is actually pretty spot on.  It used to be that people used it as a stand in for universal healthcare and recognized that there were tons of ways to potentially achieve that goal.  However, now many folks thing M4A means "eliminate all private healthcare and replace it with a mandatory government program" (i.e. the average person's perception of Bernie's healthcare plan).  As such, there's nothing inconsistent about having supported M4A four years ago and opposing what it has come to mean.  In fact, many Democrats have done just that.

My views on M4A almost verbatim.

Ditto under the condition that enrolling in a government run health plan would have little out of pocket costs. I don't want a two tiered health care system with a government plan becoming more of a high risk pool than it already is.

Of course, that goes without saying.

So, so far, out of two states Sanders was supposed to win, he's come second in one, but sort of, but not really, but actually; and won the other with an underwhelming margin to say the least. Even if being the only candidate to compete for every state (Biden hasn't yet, Klobuchar and Buttigieg almost certainly won't) means he ends up with a plurality of delegates, surely his path to the nomination is incredibly narrow, if it even still exists?

The takeaway right now is that 538's model has 'Nobody getting 50%+1 delegates' at 33% outcome right now. I tend to think that vastly understating the potential. If this was the GOP side with WTA, then Sanders would 100% be the prospective nominee. Things however are proportional over here. The rules can easily sustain 3-4 serious candidates going all the way, especially if 2 of those are Bloomberg and Bernie.

Already I'm seeing some Bernie people saying that he who gets the most delegates should be the nominee. People are waking up and recognizing that we could go forward with most states getting cut 35-30-25 or 30-25-20-20 depending on the number of survivors.

Who actually wants a contested convention though? Could that lead to a rally behind Bernie affect at a certain point in the primary, probably somewhere between the end of March and late April?

TBH, I think a "rally around the most viable #NotBernie" effect is far more likely.  I think folks on Atlas underestimate how many rank-and-file Democrats like Bernie himself well enough, but are scared absolutely sh!tless by thought of him being President (to say nothing of the party establishment which absolutely despises him).  

I wouldn't be surprised if you started seeing something like Obama endorsing the leading #NotBernie and doing a couple of campaign events for him [it won't be Klobachar] in heavily African-American areas, the DNC leaking its own opposition research files on Bernie en masse, etc, etc.  Right now, folks still hope Bernie will collapse on his own without the sort of onslaught that could lead to some of his supporters sitting things out and as such he's been treated with kid gloves so far relative to what we'd see if the party establishment truly thought he was en route to being the Democratic nominee.  

[jaichind]

NH Dem primary exit polls showed 2016 Dem primary vote was (Clinton 50%,Sanders 30%, Neither 18%).  I get the fact that Clinton ultimately winning the 2016 Dem nomination would bias these results but Sanders blew out Clinton in 2016 60-38. What happen to the Sanders 2016 NH base ?  It seems a bunch of them did not even bother coming out to vote in the Dem primary. 

Considering that 2016 had only two candidates who received more than 1,000 votes in the NH primary and 2020 had nine of them, it's safe to assume that a lot of Bernie's 2016 support went to other candidates like Warren, Tulsi, Yang, and probably even some of the "moderates". Just because you cast a vote for Bernie doesn't mean you're a stereotypical "Berniebro". Back in 2016, Bernie was effectively the only candidate you could vote for if you didn't like Hillary. Nowadays, you have at least a handful of candidates to vote for if you don't like Biden.

I am not talking about 2016 Sanders vote defecting. I get that clearly took place. What I am talking about are the people that showed up for the 2020 Dem NH primary seems to be missing a lot of 2016 NH primary Sanders voters that did not even show up.

[Adam Griffin]

This is getting OT, but let's just make it clear: there is no point in a voluntary "Medicare 4 Some" proposal, because as long as private insurance exists, the public health insurance market will be negotiating from a position of weakness, and will likely still comprise a minority of insured. Healthcare is also the only industry where competition is a bad thing: king/intermoderate some years ago made a very good argument about how "competition" increases healthcare costs due to the pools of insured exploiting one another's bad years cost-wise, raising their prices each year to be just below the worst-performing pool's price point even when they've individually had good years.

You need aggressive price controls as part of any reform package - if you don't have that, then not only would a voluntary system flop due to no tangible reduction in aggregate costs, but the percentage of income we spend as a country will only continue to increase. You can only have aggressive price controls if we're the sole (or at least, the overwhelming) insurer. Remember that the sacred ACA only managed to reduce the annual increase in healthcare costs from 3x the rate of inflation to 2x, and has largely just shifted costs from private to public (subsidies); from premium to deductible. Without a plan to reduce aggregate healthcare costs from 18% of GDP to 11-12% of GDP over a 10-year period, you might as well just continue to let people die in the streets (because that's what will keep happening regardless under any alternative).

Offering somebody a chance to buy into Medicare for $10,000 per year is not a deal that any sane person will take, and no amount of tax credits or dumb workaround subsidies is going to change that.

[2016]

Both Parties can take something positive when it comes to Turnout:

The Democrats passed the 2008 DEM Turnout
The Republicans had a pretty high Turnout as well (150K) despite Trump only facing token Opposition.

When President Obama ran for Re-Election in 2012 the D-Primary Turnout in NH didn't top 60K.

[Adam Griffin]

Both Parties can take something positive when it comes to Turnout:

The Democrats passed the 2008 DEM Turnout
The Republicans had a pretty high Turnout as well (150K) despite Trump only facing token Opposition.

When President Obama ran for Re-Election in 2012 the D-Primary Turnout in NH didn't top 60K.

Yes, in both states thus far, the GOP turnout has been worryingly high given that neither state had state/local primaries on the ballot + no competitive GOP presidential primary. That's the biggest single turnout-related metric that worries me about November.

Same thing I'm seeing in GA thus far with the mail ballots (Dems lead 54-43, but again, no state/local primary). Perhaps the Trump campaign is actively trying to turn out voters as a way to encourage "muscle memory" in the fall.

[Tender Branson]

Funny:

Pete actually was 2nd among non-White primary voters in NH.

[wbrocks67]

Funny:

Pete actually was 2nd among non-White primary voters in NH.

Which is interesting... and maybe he's not as dead with minority voters as is expected

[YE]

This is getting OT, but let's just make it clear: there is no point in a voluntary "Medicare 4 Some" proposal, because as long as private insurance exists, the public health insurance market will be negotiating from a position of weakness, and will likely still comprise a minority of insured. Healthcare is also the only industry where competition is a bad thing: king/intermoderate some years ago made a very good argument about how "competition" increases healthcare costs due to the pools of insured exploiting one another's bad years cost-wise, raising their prices each year to be just below the worst-performing pool's price point even when they've individually had good years.

You need aggressive price controls as part of any reform package - if you don't have that, then not only would a voluntary system flop due to no tangible reduction in aggregate costs, but the percentage of income we spend as a country will only continue to increase. You can only have aggressive price controls if we're the sole (or at least, the overwhelming) insurer. Remember that the sacred ACA only managed to reduce the annual increase in healthcare costs from 3x the rate of inflation to 2x, and has largely just shifted costs from private to public (subsidies); from premium to deductible. Without a plan to reduce aggregate healthcare costs from 18% of GDP to 11-12% of GDP over a 10-year period, you might as well just continue to let people die in the streets (because that's what will keep happening regardless under any alternative).

Offering somebody a chance to buy into Medicare for $10,000 per year is not a deal that any sane person will take, and no amount of tax credits or dumb workaround subsidies is going to change that.

This is basically why the “public option” sucks.

The trick is to find a middle ground between that and full on M4A that Sanders has proposed that is costing support among unions and for political purposes, avoid the talking point about choice and subtraction. The goal is to severely curtail private insurance to the point where we have more or less de fecto single payer.