Home | About | Donate

New Analysis Shows Why Democrats Are Wrong to Fear Bold Embrace of Medicare for All

#1

New Analysis Shows Why Democrats Are Wrong to Fear Bold Embrace of Medicare for All

Julia Conley, staff writer

On the same day a new poll showed an overwhelming majority of Americans think the nation's healthcare system is "in state of crisis," a new analysis shows that Democrats should listen to those Amerocans—and end their reluctance to run on the promise of a bold solution like Medicare for All while propping up the for-profit system.

3 Likes

#2

The article misses the point.

The Democrats opposed to Medicare for all are not opposed because they think taking this stance will diminish their support from the Voter.

They take this stance because Corporate dollars into their campaigns will dry up and will lower their chances of getting a high paying consultancy job with the health care industry after politics.

They have known for YEARS that the electorate supports “medicare for all”

33 Likes

#3

Sick of hearing about who’s fault it is for Not having Single Payer. It’s not a political issue whatsoever. We have a For Profit System that is Corrupt to the bone. Get rid of it and put something in place that gives Anericans proper affordable heath care!

10 Likes

#4

No they shouldn’t! But unfortunately they do!

7 Likes

#5

And what does Nancy want??? A powerful woman with a big hammer usually gets what she wants. Oh, let’s “improve O-Care”. Yep, the New and Improved. Down goes the gavel.

1 Like

#6

Don’t need to read past the “staff writer” label to know it is disingenuous D-party apologetic garbage.

3 Likes

#7

“Even Bernie Sanders has felt the need to to deviate from the Medicare For All bill that has been in the Congress more than a decade now, and introduce his own which makes space for private insurers. It’s a marked retreat from his previous advocacy of simply lowering the Medicare age to include everybody, but such is the price for being included in the Democratic party hierarchy, and being permitted to run in Democratic primaries as a presidential candidate.”

5 Likes

#9

I don’t know what we would do without Canadians such as yourself. You did catch that the Libertine Rand Paul is coming your way later in the month for a hernia operation?

2 Likes

#10

Her is some recent information from VT PNHP:

I want to share a few snippets:

From the national director of the labor Campaign for Single Payer, Mark Dudzik:

> Jayapal’s staff has been engaging in extensive consultations with a small group of national single payer advocacy groups with a presence on Capital Hill: NNU, Public Citizen, Center for Popular Democracy, Social Security Works, PNHP and my organization, the Labor Campaign for Single Payer. We have all seen, and had an opportunity to comment on, extensive drafts and redrafts of the new bill. Her office has also spent considerable time listening to the concerns of advocates from constituencies that have often been marginalized in Medicare for All policy discussions including the disability community, defenders of women’s reproductive health and LQBTQ rights, critics of racial disparities in healthcare and proponents for rural and underserved communities and for affordable pharmaceuticals. These groups have all made contributions that will result not only in a stronger bill but will also lay the foundations for a broader coalition unified in the fight for healthcare justice. Congresswoman Jayapal has also worked to include key congressional supporters and the Congressional Progressive Caucus in the drafting process. The main reason why she has not released drafts of the bill to the general public is that she is committed to give the current and potential co-sponsors a chance to review it before that occurs and feels that it would be unfair for them to first hear about it in the blogosphere. I have to say that, in my 15 years in DC, I have never seen a more inclusive and consultative bill writing process. In addition, Jayapal is deeply aware of the importance of the social movements who will create the political momentum necessary to win Medicare for All. I can think of no better champion for our cause in the 116th Congress Congress.

All of this takes time and the process has also been disrupted by staffing changes in a number of congressional offices, the necessity of bringing some of the new members up to speed and the government shutdown crisis. It may be two to three weeks before a final bill is ready to be dropped. This means that, in all likelihood, the opportunity to file it as HR 676 will have passed and the new bill will have a new (and higher) number. But, when it is submitted, it will be a bill that Jayapal is confident will be ready for prime time, will incorporate the concerns of key stakeholders and will command substantial support in the new Congress. There are already commitments for hearings in the Rules and Budget Committees and we all are working to demand hearings in the key committees of jurisdiction: Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means. The goal here, from my perspective, is to set the terms of debate over the future of healthcare before it is co-opted and diluted by the various ACA/Public Option/Incrementalist proposals coming from the corporate Democrats so that we can enter the 2020 election cycle with Medicare for All as a litmus test.

From someone who has been particularly outspoken in concerns about changes to HR 676, who was read some of the draft summary of the bill:

If this summary is correct, those of us who don’t like Bernie’s bill but do like HR 676 are going to be happy with the new bill. The only possible exception is the change in the ban on for-profits. HR 676 currently has it, the new bill does not. The new bill will substitute a provision banning inclusion of money in budgets to reward profit. I’m ambivalent about how for-profits are handled, so for me the absence of the ban is not a big deal. As long as profit is not rewarded in budgets, and we can see the day when stockholders will either be bought out or will flee the hospital and nursing home sector, I’m ok.

The important provisions in the “new” HR 676 (cost containment, provider payment, absence of “value-based payment” gimmicks, eligibility, and benefits) look almost exactly like the existing HR 676 and nothing like Bernie’s bill with one exception (a Medicare buy-in for people between the ages of 18 and 55 during a two-year transition period). Pay-for-performance schemes are explicitly banned.

ramila will release the entire bill for comment some time next week and will hold off introducing the bill until she has received feedback from people who have never seen it.I really hope the bill follows the summary. If that’s the case, then we can say the HMO/ACO- -loophole-no-hospital-budget epidemic that has infected bills in CA, NY, IA, MD and the US Senate has been kept out of the US House of Representatives.

_From David McLanahan, a PNHP member in Seattle: _

I know Pramila Jayapal well and trust her. I’m in her district & have met with her several times over the past couple of years. I’m glad we are getting closer to the point that all of us can see the final draft.

I say keep the pressure on her however! Solidarity!

5 Likes

#11

What kind of space are you talking about? I haven’t read the entire S.1804 text (see https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1804/text), but I searched for private and I see this:

SEC. 107. Prohibition against duplicating coverage.

(a) In general.—Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for—

(1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or

(2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act.

That doesn’t seem like that much space to me. I am aware that there are many people talking about different Medicare proposals and some are quite a bit more of a departure from HR 676 than others. I know I’ve heard proposals where we would keep private insurance in the payment loop but I wasn’t aware S 1804 was one of those. I am sympathetic to those who were annoyed that Bernie didn’t work with someone from the House to make sure his bill doesn’t do any dilution unless it’s damn well discussed as a reasonable compromise with PNHP, Nurses Union, other Single Payer advocates and so on, but I think people often go overboard on just how bad they think Bernie’s bill is. I’m sure if we get the unification of HR 676 and S 1804 that has been predicted there will be much more discussion.

You aren’t confusing for-profit providers with private insurance are you? That is a well-known distinction between the two bills (HR 676 doesn’t allow for it, S 1804 does). I haven’t made up my mind on that - I still lean towards that being OK at least on the initial rollout. Any private insurance in the game outside of a small business of covering elective procedures or comfort costs (like single rooms) that rich people want to pay for is out of the question for me.

0 Likes

#13

I am not as optimistic as Mr. McLanahan is about changes being made to HR676, I hope I’m wrong, but history tells me I’m not. I fear we will never see HR 676 as written again.

I appreciate everything you do to support and push this legislation along, but do have a question. Why haven’t the people of VT called out Bernie on his watered down version? Am I missing something?

3 Likes

#14

Just HOLD ON a moment here.
WE don’t have to explain, teach or CONVINCE Corporate Dems (or Repugs) how Single-Payer WORKS. They damn well know.

We DO have to explain how DEMOCRACY works:
— at least 80% of Dems want Single-Payer. Over 60% of R’s
— as our REPRESENTATIVES, you * M U S T * vote for it!!!


50+1% you A-Holes!!

5 Likes

#15

“Despite the rapidly growing appeal of Medicare for All, many powerful Democratic lawmakers continue to refuse to fight for the plan in Congress, with House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) saying days after the Democrats won control of the House that he prefers to wait for President Donald Trump to propose reforms to the Affordable Care Act.” Steny Hoyer needs to be beaten to a bloody pulp and then asked which type of medical coverage he prefers. If he answers incorrectly, beat him to an even bloodier pulp, until he gets it right!

1 Like

#16

Unfortunately as a congressman he gets well covered. I presume his immediate family does, too.
So, you’ll have to beat to a pulp a parent, cousin, or friend, instead.

0 Likes

#17

Just once I would like to hear the media whores say: " BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF $$$$$$$$$ FOR THE MILITARY, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT"?

6 Likes

#18

I am on medicare. It is the closest system to universal health care and one the US knows how to run. It will take adjustment from our current system that favors high income which is why the health care cartel is one of the biggest supporters financially of the Republican Party and some Democrats too. Once in place and working it is great to no longer have to fear paying for life support in the US and /or bankruptcy.

1 Like

#19

I would like to see a single payer, preferably the fed. gov., designed after medicare and social security as a lifetime insurance. A 100% coverage plan would be the optimum.
I can appreciate the CONSERVATIVE move BC/BS insurance made a year or two ago.
Instead of the choice between self, or self + family, has added the plan self + one-- 85% coverage.
While it appears to be a conservative move, it helps this liberal with a discounted plan. Not much, but in the right direction for once.

0 Likes

#20

Suspira, on what basis do you make that claim?
From what I know of the American culture (and I know it very well), Medicare for all, or anything with the word “all” attached to it, is interpreted as “socialist”, or is open to being attacked as “socialistic”. Once something is attacked as “socialistic”, the average ignorant American voter won’t vote for whatever it is that is supposed to be for “all”.
It is true that in the abstract, a majority of Americans support medicare for all. But that is before it is “explained” to them that Medicare for All is a communist conspiracy. Your compatriots are much more stupid that you realize.

0 Likes

#21

The big problem with the d-party is corruption.

With but few exceptions, they sold their souls to their corporate masters long ago.

Here’s a guarantee: MFA, even in a watered down form, will not have enough d-party votes to pass.

3 Likes

#22

Hello Dara, I am not an expert but am on a mailing list of national concerns being expressed about Bernie’s bill. I can’t tell you anything except that more and more people are growing concerned that the democrats are up to no good on health care insurance and Bernie is becoming a problem for genuine public health care insurance without oligarchs skimming a little at first and then maybe more and more.

This is another of those indications from Black Agenda Report, another source saying the same thing.

1 Like