In a recent poll from the health insurance industry, only 8% of Americans actually want the United States Senate to pass the terrible Trumpcare bill, also known as the Affordable Health Care Act, that the House passed a few weeks ago.
Shouldn't that be "every human in America"?
"What about the other Democrats in the House who aren't yet on record as supporting Medicare for All? What are they waiting on? And what about the Democrats in the Senate?"
Follow the money.
That's who they represent.
Not us Citizens, who do "...most of the working and paying and living and dying." (George Bailey)
Shaun, I love your passion, but let's face facts:
The opposition party has a solid majority in the house. So even if every Democrat voted for the Conyers bill, it, it wouldn't go anywhere.
The for profit health care industry has billions to lose and billions to spend lobbying to make such legislation go away.
(why do you think, as you write, "For the third year in a row, a similar Medicare for All bill has passed the New York State Assembly.")
You ask: "what about the other Democrats in the House who aren't yet on record as supporting Medicare for All? What are they waiting on?"
They are waiting on organized big money to signal their okay, that's what they are awaiting. We have the best government money can buy and sitting atop of it a know-nothing leader who doesn't care for anything except his own ego.
The constant refrain of the corporate Dems . .
Lets give up without a fight.
Yeah, baby! MFA! MFA! MFA! Sincerely.
Let's get a move on, Dems. Listen to the people you're supposed to represent, not the corpses.
I'd like to see how much money the Democrats who are holding out their support for Medicare for All are receiving from the health insurance and prescription drug industries and lobbies.
As a journalist, you should check this out.
Also, you should look at the contributions of those who claim to support "health care for all" (a meaningless general phrase). That is a predictor of how they will actually behave as Single Payer is watered down in committee, etc., so only a name will be left for sycophants and hypocrites to claim "victory."
This is the Democratic wing of the Duopoly Party we're talking about. As many other commenters here have pointed out: FOLLOW THE MONEY!
So what are you suggesting?
I'm not suggesting anything. I made a clear statement.
But the current situation is untenable and immoral. If not medicare for all (national health, health care for all, etc), what? We can't just throw up our hands.
I am not throwing up my hands. I'm am just stating directly that the Dems are no solution for anything, but maintaining the status quo. Once you understand that simple proposition that has been proven multiple times over the last four or five decades, a whole world of organizing around possibilities for life. Oh...nevermind.
Another thing they may be waiting on is their constituents. On the most recent Pod Save America (yes, kind of annoying partisan talk, but occasionally interesting) they argued that in districts with richer suburbanites (such as the special election being held soon in Georgia), it may not be prudent for Democrats to push for Medicare for all (which is a position that the hosts of the show agreed with) if it means losing the election. Of course I'm sure many voters are pro Single Payer even in that district and will be annoyed to hear their representative is ignoring them, but probably not enough to scare Ossoff into changing his mind by threatening to vote third party.
I'm starting to think the quickest path to Medicare for all is though a state or two going first and demonstrating the benefits.
The "Clinton Country" DINO Dems - Schumer, Gillibrand and Sean Maloney of NY will not sign-on to support single payer and will not make any statements why they will not! Clearly they are in thrall to the Clinton-Obama corporate wing and count campaign contribution bribes and the for-profit "health care" charade obscenity above the citizens of NY and all of America!
NY DINO Dems - the best money can buy!
See Mass. and soon CA, that I know of.
Born into Albany Political Machine
Interned for Rep Sen Al D'Amato
Corporate Tobacco Lawyer
Hand Picked to complete Hillary's Senate term
What's not to love?
RESPONSE TO "POET":
"let's face facts: The opposition party has a solid majority in the house. So even if every Democrat voted for the Conyers bill, it, it wouldn't go anywhere."
Too narrow a frame for thinking about politics, Poet. Pluses of greater Democratic support include:
mainstreaming single payer, thus educating more Democrats about it;
thereby engaging and mobilizing more Democrats - especially many who stay home because they are alienated by the right liberal Democratic party - in support of single payer - which we can hopefully predict will follow education;
educating a range of right wing constituents about single payer, thereby: a) increasing support by some right wing groups for single payer as they learn about it; b) increasing the degree to which right wingers who support it prioritize it as an issue; and, thereby, c) potentially undercutting support for right wing politicians and right wing solutions - in other words, splitting off parts of the right wing.
The democrats have only one priority, that is resuscitating Obama's legacy (if one can call it that), namely Obamacare aka the Affordable Care Act -- which is anything but.
If the democrats actually cared about anything other than winning their next election and wanted the hoi polloi to have healthcare they'd have it by now.
"The "Clinton Country" DINO Dems...will not sign-on to support single payer...Clearly they are in thrall to the Clinton-Obama corporate wing..."
Well, they are in thrall, Emphyrio.
But progressive Democratic wins, greater electoral support for single payer and the increasing schism between right liberal and progressive Democrats can put right liberals in the increasingly difficult - even untenable - position of undemocratically defying the will of a majority of their electorate - a majority of citizens, even.
The right liberal wing might still to refuse to support single payer...
...but with a real risk of losing....
...and also - and I think this is key - without controlling the discussion surrounding single payer where it or its supporters could be ridiculed as extreme - out of step with Democrats or the electorate; without controlling discussions that posed single payer supporters as the 'uncompromising' ones.
Answer is to do it on the state level. Use Medicaid as the "base" from which to build. Average cost of Medicaid coverage for children and non-senior adults works out to about $300 a month. Also Medicaid meets the standards of coverage as set by the Affordable Care Act. Medicare does not. Medicare has "limits" on coverage. Medicaid doesn't. With Medicare you can exhaust your assets from a long term illness.
Use the Medicare website to see for yourself the limits placed upon hospital days. Medicaid doesn't have these. Medicaid covers long term care. Medicare does not. Medicare uses the "Part D" program where people can exhaust their drug benefits and fall into the "donut hole" (diabetics often have this happen). Medicaid doesn't have anything like Medicare Part D.
Sorry, but I believe the majority of Americans IF informed/educated on the facts - not hysteria and BS supposition - will/do support a non-profit universal single-payer health care system that does not victimize them.
The fear you espouse and right-wing vulture capitalist blather you repeat is destructive and a tool of the corporate right and complicit DINO Dem corporate tools.
It's rubbish to believe that Dems must (contimue to) move to the right to accommodate ignorance and malleable minds - that is NOT leadership, it is serving the greed and arrogance of the 1%......................the Clinton-Obama wing is complicit to R'Con and corporate domination, not in the interests of the 99%.............Sanders leads where the majority follow - timid complicit tools may one day come around.........