Home | About | Donate

To See Who Stands With People Over Lobbyists, Progressive Campaign Pressures Democrats to Quickly Hold Vote on Medicare for All


#1

To See Who Stands With People Over Lobbyists, Progressive Campaign Pressures Democrats to Quickly Hold Vote on Medicare for All

Jake Johnson, staff writer

With a deep-pocketed coalition of industry lobbyists, former Obama and Clinton campaign officials, and establishment Democrats already crafting their talking points and formulating their strategy to undercut Medicare for All, progressive advocacy groups are ramping up pressure on the incoming Democratic House to combat these corporate forces b


#2

Let’s be extra careful, when talking about Medicare for All, to clarify WHICH MfA bill we support. The original HR 676 is still the gold standard, but efforts are well underway (see S 1804 for example, but there are others) to water it down to suit Big Insurance and Big Pharma.

Accept no substitutes!


#3

Exactly. Pramila Jaypal, vice-ranking member of the House Budget Committee, has become the new point person to carry the bill. She has publicly stated that she wants HR 676 (true Single Payer) to brought in to compliance with the watered-down S. 1804 Medicare For All of Bernie Sanders.

When Seattle was in the lead in the Fight for $15 under the leadership of Socialist Alternative Seattle Council Member Kshama Sawant, Jaypal lead a committee of liberal/centrist Dems that helped water down that law.

Clearly she and Bernie are selling a bill of goods as (OB did with the ACA) in order to slow down the fight for Single Payer and erase discussions about healthcare as a human right and a public health system altogether.

This should not be a surprise since Jaypal got her start in the finance industry with a BA from Georgetown U (a chief national security training school) and an MBA from Northwestern University.


#5

Once we kick out the insurance companies, the battle will be much easier. They’re spending much of that money you pay them to buy congress. In other words, our own money is working against us. Some of the biggest companies, State Farm for example, are active members of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which works with congress to enact legislation. They’re anti-union, anti-single payer, and work tirelessly to maximize corporate profits and keep the working man down.


#6

Sad capitalists and their insurance company’s.


#7

“Clearly she and Bernie are selling a bill of goods as (OB did with the ACA) in order to slow down the fight for Single Payer and erase discussions about healthcare as a human right and a public health system altogether.”

Source, please. If you’re going to put Bernie down in such a negative light, you’d better have some evidence to back up your point.


#8

I am starting a campaign here to insist on voting reform, and I believe it has to get as much attention as any other legislative need. Without it we will have less assurance of fair elections, and we now know for certain who commits fraud among the parties.
The necessary politicians for the changes progressive want to have on board, and there won’t be enough of them unless republicans are voted out.
And before people start griping that one party is as bad as the other, I hope voting records on the issues are compared first.


#9

I’ve sourced this many times. You should be able to do your own research. And there’s this: Bernie supported HR 676 when he was in the House, but wrote a much weaker bill when he got to the Senate and was running a permanent presidential campaign. Why wouldn’t he just run a companion of HR 676, which has been out there for years and demonstrated to provide insurance that covers nearly everything at about 2/3 the cost of what we have now. Like Romney/OBCare S. 1804 is a bureaucratic monster that will limit coverage and increase costs/taxes over the current mess.


#10

Thank You for the Heads Up, Mr. Guild!   Now let’s keep track of Who votes for What — assuming that
Big Insurance’s stooge P’Loser even allows a vote on HR676 to come to the floor, of course . . .


#11

Well, she put Jaypal on the lead in the House to come in with a bill that will get enough support to look like it’s M4A, but is really OB/RomneyCare on steroids.


#12

Actually, you are the one that should be researching the differences. Bernie’s Medicare For All is … Medicare. It is what was once called ‘major med’ that covers 80% of health care with co-payments and deductibles, minus prescription, dental or vision coverage. The missing 20% is either paid out of pocket or by purchasing insurance. If one desires prescription drug coverage, pay out of pocket or purchase more insurance. If one desires dental care, pay out of pocket or purchase more insurance. If one desires vision care, pay out of pocket or purchase more insurance.

Now, with no intent to be snarky, I suggest you research Single Payer as envisioned in the ‘best’ bill and compare.


#13

There is a good chance steroids are not covered. It is indeed OBC with lip stick.


#14

Single Payer in my mind does not include insurance corporations, co-payments or deductables.
Prescriptions should also be 100% covered by the single payer, the USA government citizen supplied taxes.


#15

Before anyone votes there needs to be hearings. I don’t believe there is any question that establishment Democrats are concerned that members in contested more conservative areas could be putting their chances for reelection in jeopardy if they vote for Medicare for All or any program where the government pays for everything. I think all Democrats are for universal health care coverage but the pragmatic wing of the party is also concerned about winning elections in districts that are not safe for Democrats.


#16

You just refuse to acknowledge reality. Over 80% of Democrats and 70% of all Americans support Medicare for All. Conservative Democrats should be concerned that voting against Medicare for All will be putting their chances for reelection in jeopardy. You may see the world in triangles, but you don’t seem to be able to see which way the triangles point. Any Democrat that votes against Medicare for All will not be safe come primary time. His or her Democratic replacement will have the support of the district’s voters because Medicare for All is what the people want and are demanding.


#17

lol Studies counterplan introduced by the voice of Cubicle Democrats…:slight_smile:
“I think we should do nothing, 'cause honestly you peasant trash, I got mine. Hey, anyone checking the market ticker today?”


#18

“It’s important to focus on the details. When the pressure for ‘Medicare for all’ becomes so overwhelming that Congress as a whole capitulates & passes something they’ll call ‘Medicare for all’, expect them to try and shove some watered down version of Medicare Advantage down everybody’s throats, with insurance companies still having a big hand in the till, high deductibles, copays and HMO-style limited choice…without continuing pressure, it will still be a long way from Single Payer.”

  • h/t to Pete for posting this on CD in November.

Eternal vigilance is the price of single payer.

  • h/t to Barry Goldwater.

Accept no subterfuges!

  • h/t to GuildF312S, above.

#19

There won’t be ‘Medicare for all’ on an equal basis across the country until the Constitution is amended to explicitly give the Federal Government the power to implement and administer it (also a Constitutional guarantee that the Federal govt. has to provide Universal Health Cover would also be desirable).

But first the people have to get control of the Constitution by being able to vote directly for its amendment. Until then ‘Universal Health Covering’ will be continually thwarted by the legislatures of the various gerrymandered petty fiefdoms that constitute the so-called ‘United States’.


#20

No amendment is necessary. Congress has this power and it is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, to wit:

Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. (emphasis supplied)

In addition, Medicare is clearly constitutional. Expanding it to the entirety of the population raises no Constitutional issues.


#21

AMEN!!   I am even somewhat tempted to rejoin the DamnocRatic Party – at least during Primary season –
if only to vote against P’Loser and her fellow Insurance Company stooges.