PERSPECTIVE FROM THE 19^TH HOLE: This is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus use an image from my favorite sport, golf. Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all of my professional positions, including as a Congressional press secretary in Washington, D.C., an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and a private sector lobbyist. This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.

**********

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am writing again on a topic I lobbied for nearly 25 years at the State Capitol in Salem, Oregon – health care. That does not disqualify from writing, but it is appropriate to emphasize what, for me, is a credential.  Second, my blog this time is based, at least in part, on reporting by the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and Gallup polling organization, all closer to the action in Washington, D.C. than I am.  So credit where credit is due.

**********

So, what does a socialist do when more than $32 trillion for free health care for all is not enough?

He – in this case, Bernie Sanders — decides to make his plan for a government-run health system bigger and more expensive.

In the Wall Street Journal, columnist James Freeman writes, “Sanders is the kind of socialist who demands $32.6 trillion from taxpayers to alter their medical care and then misleads them about the imagined benefits. But that description now seems unfair since the 2020 presidential candidate has decided to shove the price tag significantly further north.”

The Associated Press continued:

“Sanders is raising the stakes of the ‘Medicare for All’ debate by expanding his proposal to include long-term care, a move that is forcing other Democrat presidential candidates to take a stand on addressing one of the biggest gaps in the U.S. health care system.”

The original Sanders “Medicare for All” plan would end all private health insurance, as well as government programs like Medicare, and replace them with a new government medical system.

People of any age could qualify if illness, injury or age limit their ability to perform at least one “activity of daily living,” such as bathing or dressing, or one or more “instrumental activities of daily living,” such as managing money or taking prescribed medications. There would be no income or assets tests to qualify, and no co-pays or deductibles.

Of course, by going so far left, Sanders is drawing other Democrat 2020 presidential contenders along with him. All of them want to create the government-run health care system that would break the federal bank in two ways.

First, it would squeeze other spending priorities, including various national security programs. Second, it would just to be too expensive on its own.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports that Sanders also has decided that packaging his government-run health care with an abolition of traditional energy production at a cost that may run about $90 trillion over ten years is not enough.

The new long-term care plan, plus the energy plan, could make Sanders the $100 trillion man in terms of the amount of other people’s money he’s willing to commit to his agenda.

Notice the phrase: “Other people’s money.” Sanders has no limits on how much of that money he wants to spend.

So, how will Sanders’ health care for all for free fare among voters, especially those who don’t spend time attending Sanders’ political rallies?

The Wall Street Journal reports that a Morning Consult poll last month showed declining support for government-run health care.

When Gallup asked people in 2018 to rate the quality of the health care they received, most said it was excellent or good. Many people are consistently satisfied with the access they have and with their doctors.

Further Gallup poll results showed that 54 per cent prefer a health care system based on private insurance, while 40 per cent prefer a government-run system. When the Kaiser Family Foundation asked people about some arguments made for a Medicare for All plan, 60 per cent said they would oppose it if it required most Americans to pay more in taxes.

Finally, WSJ writer Freeman adds that “Some voters may find it endearing that, like other Marxist revolutionaries, Sanders doesn’t seem to particularly care whether a broad democrat consensus favors his policy agenda. But they should understand that he is promising to tax and spend tens of billions of dollars to expand the quantity of government services.

“Whether or not they call themselves capitalists, Democrats at every income level now have a chance to consider what the Sanders agenda will do to the quality of patient care.”

True. For my part, I continue to wish that elected officials interested in public policy, not perceived political advantage, would get around a table – yes, make it a round table – and craft health care policy from the middle.

What we don’t need is more ObamaCare when only Democrats voted for the then-president’s health care plan.

We also don’t need the Republican plan, which is essentially no plan at all, but just an attempt to oppose ObamaCare.

Where is the smart middle in a country that should be able to find a better way to mix government programs and private sector efforts to develop improved health care. We deserve that kind of approach to improve what already is a decent system.

So, by preparing to decide how to vote next year, I advocate telling Sanders and other big government proposers to take a hike.