The Democratic Party now is, for all intents and purposes, the party of single-payer health insurance.

Big mistake.

Democrats are committing themselves to years more of treacherous health care debate, at a time when there are more pressing issues to confront. They are emulating Donald Trump’s penchant for quick-fix, bumper-sticker solutions that prove to be, in his own words, more “complicated” once in power. And instead of maintaining a candid relationship with its ideological base in order to temper expectations, the party establishment is indulging it, risking bitter disappointment in the future.

. . .

If Bernie Sanders wants to follow Medicare as his model, then the Sanders plan could easily earn another moniker: Benefits for Billionaires. An analysis released by the Congressional Budget Office in August demonstrates how Medicare currently provides significant financial benefits to seniors at all income levels, including the wealthy. The CBO found that at every income level, seniors received more in Medicare benefits than they paid in Medicare taxes. Men in the highest income quintile—the top 20% of income—received a net lifetime benefit from Medicare of nearly $50,000, even after taking into account the Medicare taxes and premiums they paid.

. . .

As ObamaCare continues to collapse, options for quality, affordable health care move further out of reach for many Americans. This week, Senator Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., and other Senate Democrats plan to offer their solution: a complete Washington takeover of America’s health care system.

A majority of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives have signed on as co-sponsors of their own “single-payer” legislation. This idea is good for whipping up the far-left base – and bad for everyone else. It will deliver worse care, inevitably leading to rationing. It also will be outrageously expensive for everyone.

. . .

“Single-payer” is a broadly popular slogan that papers over intraparty disagreements and wrenching policy choices. A recent survey by Kaiser found that initial support for single-payer dropped by about a third when supporters were told of criticisms that it might increase their taxes, give the government “too much control” over health care or eliminate the ACA. Each of those critiques would probably be made prominently by Republican opponents of the policy.

. . .

This brief describes alternative forms of subsidized reinsurance and the mechanisms by which they spread risk and reduce premiums. For a given amount of funding, a particular program’s efficacy will depend on how it affects insurers’ risk and the risk margins built into premiums, incentives for selecting or avoiding risks, incentives for coordinating and managing care, and the costs and complexity of administration. These effects warrant careful consideration by policymakers as they consider measures to achieve stability in the individual market in the long term.

. . .

How do you define “single payer”? A common theme is to give government a dominant role in the pricing and possibly delivery of services—supporters often assert that some measure of cost would be reduced. The Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center says that Bernie Sanders’ previous proposal in 2016 would have increased federal costs by $32 trillion over the next decade. Even Democrats would have a hard time getting support for this unprecedented expansion of federal spending. In spite of the superficial allure of Medicare for all, Democrats are not eager to upend the health system that President Obama created.

. . .

A recent poll demonstrates the strong bipartisan support for quick action to protect coverage choices and affordability. According to the poll conducted in August, 76% of all registered voters support bipartisan legislation to help make insurance markets more stable, to ensure coverage choices and to keep premiums in check; this includes 78% of Democrats, 73% of independent and 76% of Republicans.

. . .

Lawmakers and policy experts are honing in on a small handful of policies — mostly, different forms of federal funding and regulatory flexibility — as the Senate tries its hand at a bipartisan Affordable Care Act fix.

The first of several Senate HELP Committee hearings on the individual market included topics such as funding the cost-sharing subsidies, and expanding regulatory waivers for states. A handful of other policy ideas, including direct government payments to help offset the costs of expensive patients, were also discussed.

. . .

A bipartisan group of senators has palpable momentum but little time to make good on a bid to shore up Obamacare insurance markets, even as conservative Republicans press a parallel attempt to make good on their promise to repeal the health care law.

The stabilization effort, led by Republican Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and Democrat Patty Murray (Wash.), could yield the first bipartisan Obamacare bill since the law was passed seven years ago. It could also provide some measure of certainty for insurance companies that have until Sept. 27 to make final decisions about whether to participate in Obamacare markets next year.

. . .

A bipartisan group of governors is trying to jump-start efforts to strengthen private insurance under the Affordable Care Act, urging Congress to take prompt steps to stabilize marketplaces created by law while giving states more freedom from its rules.

In a blueprint issued Thursday, the eight governors ask House and Senate leaders of both parties to take several steps to reverse the rising rates and dwindling choices facing many of the 10 million Americans who buy health plans on their own through ACA marketplaces.

Specifically, the state leaders say Congress should devote money for at least two years toward “cost-sharing subsidies” that the 2010 health-care law promises to pay ACA insurers to offset deductibles and other out-of-pocket expenses for lower-income customers.

. . .