Home | About | Donate

Democrats Don't Just Support Medicare for All, 84% in New Poll Want Party Leaders to Make It "Extremely Important Priority"


Democrats Don't Just Support Medicare for All, 84% in New Poll Want Party Leaders to Make It "Extremely Important Priority"

Jon Queally, staff writer

'Are you listening?'

That was the question posed by healthcare justice advocates to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi—and potential Democratic presidential candidates as well—after another new poll showed overwhelming support for Medicare for All by Democratic Party voters.


“Last week, Democrat Terry McAuliffe, the former governor of Virginia who says he is contemplating a run for president, warned the party away from bold solutions like Medicare for All, saying voters are not ready for policies that he characterized, without evidence, of being “unrealistic.”

First off, please Mr. McAuliffe, run for president. Go on stage and show the country how utterly cut off from most people’s existence you are, go on stage and play the dinosaur you are for all to see. You will be gone within weeks.

But beyond that, what great logic. It seems to basically say, well, Americans want to continue to pay more than anyone for healthcare, they want to continue to have the most inefficient system in the world. They want to continue to be burdened by this complex monster of a system instead of just going to the hospital and seeing your doctor when you feel the need. They want to continue to watch 45,000 people a year die from not having access to care, job lock, and bankruptcies. These people have no solutions, nothing on policy, and so those that do, they have no real alternatives or responses to them. So, instead of offering any solutions, they argue that something like single payer is impossible and they attack people personally. Very handy when you have dick to offer on policy. No vision, no alternatives, no coherent messaging, no imagination, no willingness to fight. Vote McAuliffe 2020! Catchy, yeah?

People can critique Sanders, for good reason at times, but let’s give him his credit for pushing this into the conversation. Yes, there were lots of people working on this issue for years, but it was given a huge shot in the arm because of 2016, and it has had an impact on popular opinion and the mass consciousness of people. We have moved on now to the elites trying their best to water it down and to make it as shitty as possible. In this rotten system, a sign of progress.


There seem to an awful lot of policy changes in the works. HR1 has language about voter/voting reform. Haven’ heard a word since.
Without this every election is in jeopardy. Which would mean all hopes to get legislation passed are just pipe dreams.


Nancy and the Dems need to seize the moment. Bold action is not only desired, it is necessary.


A year from now Iowa will figuratively look like Antietam with candidates like McAuliffe taken out of the battle during the first round.


Unless and until direct call outs of corporate Ds from fellow Ds occur, this will be a nothing burger.


Some nations have far better national health care than other nations. For example, Luxembourg’s system is set up so that the doctor does approximately zero paperwork. The patients come in. She/he/ze writes down every procedure that was done. The government sends the doctor a check for everything that was done. That’s it as far as the doctor is concerned. Almost 100% of the doctor’s time is spent on medicine and almost 0% on paperwork – isn’t that the way it should be? Finally, the government directly bills the patients for anything on the “optional” medical list.

Britain has five homeopathic hospitals, and they seem to keep total national health costs down and the quality of health up.

We could create a controlled market economy in medical R&D. This would cut out the one million percent markups that we’re getting now, and would still produce a parade of miracle drugs. It turns out that what we need are more actual researchers, not more billionaire drug company owners.

Under the Republican “don’t get sick” plan we had the financially worst health care system of any nation on earth. Under Obamacare we got perhaps 10% better, but we’re still the worst on earth. I have a low opinion of a USA “Medicare for All”, but I understand how it can seem like a miracle cure compared to our past and current systems.


Warren has a great idea on creating a government owned enterprise to create generic drugs, basically at cost (I would presume). I would extend that to other realms. I also think that we have to tackle “intellectual property”, how it is treated at the WTO, within so called “trade deals”, and have to deal with the federal role in R & D for drugs. If a drug was developed with massive state help (NIH funding, grants or subsidies of various kinds, etc.), then maybe the government should own that drug and should and have the knowledge be a public good, a collective property that any maker can produce, including a government owned enterprise. There has been, in the neoliberal era not only an enclosure of natural resources and land, but also knowledge itself. Private interests have been given their shot, they aren’t up to the task in many different areas.


Again, and again: It is not simply Medicare For All but Expanded, Improved Medicare For All what we know as HR 676. NO co-pays, NO deductibles, covers eye and dental and everyone pays into it according to their income. The wealthy, naturally, pay more and why they oppose it.


My brother in law, an establishment Democrat, thinks AOC is too young and inexperienced, and “moving too fast” so she’ll be crushed by the old guard. This might be the typical reaction from most older Democrats whose priorities are established by the MSM and Rachel Maddow.

Are progressives fooling ourselves to think the older conservative Democrats will be willing to risk such changes to the old but familiar rot?




I think many older Democrats are simply more cautious. Many lived through the Reagan Revolution, 12 solid years of Republican control of the White House, and the Gingrich Revolution. It does not mean they aren’t supportive of progressive measures, but they’ll likely want to see more than assertions about how much money will be saved.

That’s why, I think, we can be happy John Yarmuth is following through on his preelection Medicare for All examination commitment:

This is a first step, but an important one nonetheless. Facts will be on the Congressional table, where they need to be.


I have friends and family like that. People grew up in a different era, and things are changing quicker than people can adjust. I think that, if you deal with this system for so long, you become accustomed to accepting peanuts, and excuses for not really being a counterweight against the rightwing current. There was a trajectory that Reagan set us on, you can argue that Carter did too, and it hasn’t stopped, although it is for many reasons reaching a dead end. When the Democrats under Clinton solidified their support of neoliberal policies, turnout did collapse, there were no real alternatives being offered, and those changes have clearly made things worse for the environment, our democracy, working people and the poor, as well as our infrastructure. Turnout in 1996 was the lowest turnout in 70 or so years. The general response to people with this system was actually to increasingly not see it as being worth it, and not bothering to vote. They saw nothing being offered that made it worth it to them. But things have gotten progressively worse, and we have this horrible environmental crisis. As a result, radical changes aren’t really an option at this point. Either we make radical changes as quickly as possible, or it all comes down. And this would be the case without the environmental crisis because of how the elites have set up the international economic system. That too isn’t sustainable on any level. We have had decades in which we weren’t allowed to imagine a different world, and this one has gotten progressively worse. So, I would suggest focusing on objective factors forcing themselves on us, and then ask what “solutions” those to AOC’s right are offering are actual solutions. When they say something like Medicare for all isn’t possible, ask on what level. It is popular, and would save the country massive amounts of money, would save lives. So, what makes it impossible, other than corruption of those in charge of this system? They forgot to dream, and they profit off the system as is, so let’s see them for what they are (enemies of a different kind) and treat them accordingly.


Yep, HR 676 is better and I haven’t heard anything from Sanders on this. Anyone have a link where he addresses the differences between S. 1804 and HR 676?


I’d hate to leave things up to the older conservative Democrats that impeded progress on health care, especially those who take corporate “donations” from healthcare businesses.


Might be cool to watch CSPAN coverage of hearings when they start but I don’t think any have been scheduled out, nor am I positive on how you track that sort of thing.

The official page on the bill is:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/ (doesn’t even have the text of the bill yet)

Some background at https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/30/18118158/house-democrats-anti-corruption-bill-hr-1-pelosi

As you probably know, there is no chance in hell for this bill to pass before Jan 2021 (or longer if Trump remains president which I sure hope doesn’t happen).


Like your post but elites in the Medical Industrial Complex haven’t forgotten how to dream: Congressman T. Ryan (D) from Ohio ( who tried to usurp Pelosi to the right ) is on videotape as saying, " I want to be a millionaire, you should want to be millionaires, we should all want to be millionaires…" is dreaming big time, for his own self-aggrandizement.
Such maudlin and pure pandering to average Ohioans, coming from someone who wants to be the Democratic version of J. Boehner, is a hoodwinking disqualifier from the get go. We need to primary Congress critters like Ryan, not promote them and their empty rhetoric.
Someone’s dreams give the rest of us long-term nightmares.


Unfortunately, Democrats don’t live in the rural white trash states where votes count.
It is ironic that the reason the votes of “current” Democrats in urban states don’t count as much as the votes of “current” Republicans in white trash states is because the pro-slavery Democrats of yore wanted it that way.
The United States is like a stack of smelly pancakes, where each layer is more rotten than the next.


Good point. I guess dream for a better world, not personal enrichment and more power. Like, Tommy Douglas in Canada and his fellow social democrats had a dream about a single payer system. It didn’t exist in Canada, but it existed in the minds of many people. They instituted it in one province, thanks to a left of center third party and social movements, and the Liberals took it national. Some imagined a public pension system, but it didn’t exist here. Before it existed as a program, it existed in the minds of its proponents. So, that type of imagining. Many of these people envision more riches and power for themselves, and it says a lot about this system and the two parties that so many of those people win primaries and then elections.


Ricky, it is not what percentage of Democrats want something that counts, but what percentage of “voters” in the “states that matter in the Electoral College” want.
One Democratic vote in California, with 40 million people, counts the same as one Republican vote in North Dakota, with less than 750,000 people.
This means that a Republican vote in North Dakota is worth over 60 (yes, SIXTY) times more than a Democratic vote in California.
Because of this extreme bias in favor of Republicans, you can’t use statistics “within” the Democratic party to decide on Party strategy. Pelosi understands this, but she doesn’t talk about it not to offend the White Trumpian Trash, whom she hopes to lure back.