Home | About | Donate

With Support Surging, Progressives Push Pelosi on Single-Payer


With Support Surging, Progressives Push Pelosi on Single-Payer

Andrea Germanos, staff writer

Seizing upon the now record high support for a Medicare-for-all bill, advocates for such a system are pushing House Minority Leader Nancy Peolosi (D-Calif.) to throw her weight behind the legislation.


Nancy Pelosi has been my "representative" for 30 years, literally. I've never voted for her and worked for several Green Party candidates running against her. But it's given me a chance to think about where she's coming from.

As I see it, Nancy Pelosi represents the "pragmatic" wing of the Democratic Party. Their overarching goal is winning, and principles mustn't get in the way, except the principle that what's best for the Democratic Party is best for the country. To the extent she backs anything, it's because she thinks she can win, not because it's right. Ergo, the Affordable Care Act, which Pelosi can take a lot of credit for getting passed.

The problem to me is that the ACA fails because it fails to build on an absolutely essential principle, namely that access to good quality health care without bankrupcy should be a right. If it's a right, then it's universal -- everyone should have it. Covering x% of the uninsured is unacceptable if x < 100.

If you base a reform on principle, then it's harder to oppose, because opposing it means opposing the principle behind it. The ACA doesn't have the same kind of backing as Social Security, say, because it's not universal. Single payer would.

The top Democrats should be asking themselves how their candidate could have lost to a man that the majority of Americans dislike. Rather than blaming the Russians or the FBI, they should ask why Hillary Clinton failed to inspire people. I believe a big part of it was she didn't really stand for anything, she wasn't running based on any priniciples or strongly held beliefs (that I could see, anyway). We were supposed to "swallow the HIll pill" and assume she'd do the right thing once she got into office.

So I expect getting Nancy Pelosi to back single payer will be a hard sell -- not just because she has "skin in the game" with the ACA, but also because she seems incapable of seeing that there are important principles beyond winning.


Pelosi is a big part of an experiment that failed. It's time for her to go.


Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, January, 2007 to January 2011. January 2009 to January 2011 where was Nancy Pelosi on Single-Payer, again. AWOL!


As were nearly all the Democrats.


Wow you nailed it. Spot on.
While pelosi may be the choice of the DNC
She simply will not support on principle, only if it is a win

It's one of those times that if you can't lead then get the hell out of the way

People want substance not equivocation


And the only way to guarantee that principal is to eliminate the insurance companies and implement a Medicare-for-All system. Healthcare as a right will never be a reality unless the PROFIT motive is removed from the system. Insurance companies are FOR-PROFIT systems. Government Medicare is NOT.
If, as you say, you have been voting for the Green Party, then you should be aware that the main difference between the the Green Party and the Democratic Party is that the Greens don't rely on corporate donations. They rely on small donors, as Sanders did. That makes them beholden to us. Look at Pelosi's funders and you'll find a lot of money came from the healthcare providers and insurance. That is why she votes as she does. Not because she's 'waiting until she can win'. Someone with principals FIGHTS for those principals. They don't sit around with their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.


Watch the following documentaries and get inspired to fight for single payer where you live:



"According to The New York Times, the former president will be able to “cash a $400,000 check from Wall Street — the same amount as his yearly salary during his time in the White House — when he delivers a speech in September at a health care conference run by Cantor Fitzgerald, a trading and investment firm.”


"It's one of those times that if you can't lead then get the hell out of the way"

Principled or not, her party needs to tell her that she is a public servant.

If she cannot represent majority will - in good faith - fine.

And, in that case, the progressive Democratic electorate should demand that the DNC kick her superannuated butt through the nearest available Capitol building window if they want its vote.


Dear Senator / Congressperson __________________________________,

I am asking you to publicly post online your FIVE STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS for Obamacare, with explanations of exactly how each improvement makes our health insurance and care system less damaging to the health and finances of ALL Americans.

Some Suggestions:
1. Merge America’s thousands of employer market health risk pools into a single NATIONAL individual market risk pool on the Obamacare Exchanges, while still requiring employers to continue paying employee health insurance subsidies. This helps to economically spread health risks across the widest number of healthy Americans under age 65.
2. Move the health insurance income tax deduction out of employers’ hands and place it as a line item on everyone’s IRS 1040 /A /EZ tax return so that EVERYONE can FULLY claim that deduction. This will help to merge the employed health risk pool into the individual market risk pool by allowing employees to RETAIN their pre-tax-dollar buying power when choosing high quality national health insurance coverage on the exchanges. This also eliminates for EVERYONE the “Cadillac/Income Tax” on health insurance premiums. (Donald Trump’s position in 2016: “Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions?” ).
3. Require all health insurers to sell on the Obamacare Exchanges a NATIONAL STANDARD health plan with SINGLE NATIONAL provider network to those under age 65 (preferably a Clone of Classic 80/20 Medicare). This helps employers migrate their employees into high quality NATIONAL coverage, with minimal disruption for when employees change jobs, all while greatly simplifying the complicated private health insurance bureaucracy imposed on medical providers.
4. End Obamacare Expanded Medicaid Estate Recovery NATIONWIDE for those age 55 and up. Higher income earners age 55 and up do NOT have to pay back after death their totally free, federally funded Obamacare subsidies. Why should lower income earners be subject to Obamacare Expanded Medicaid Estate Recovery after death, and thus lose the value of what little property they own paying back possibly 10 YEARS WORTH of state purchased but federally funded Obamacare Expanded Medicaid insurance premiums?
5. Force states to bulk purchase MEDICAID coverage for all their citizens willing to buy into large, state based, Medicaid risk pools. This offers a state based public option for those not wanting to buy the lower quality, narrower network, riskier risk pool, and more expensive individual health plans sold on the exchanges.

Thank you. Your constituent: __________________________________


why is Pelosi who has failed as a leader for the damn dems even in a position of leadership at all? shows us just how failed the dam dem party really is. they don't give a damn about us, haven't for a long time now.


There is no, none, road to private sector health care. "For profit" health care is a myth, a lie, a fantasy created by avarice and greed. By very definition health, care and drugs like police, roads, the military, the fire dept. is a monopoly. If you survive a plane crash, get run over by a bus develop leukemia,a fall off your roof, you don't have the choices of shopping for the best pain drug and hospital. How many idiots does it take to dream up a scheme to privatize health care. Do the wealthy have a choice for a face lift or a butt tuck? Sure, let them mount their Lear and go shopping, if they get run over by Uber jay walking on Wall street they can take their chances with public health care like the rest of us.


Why do people in California keep re-electing her? ...just curious.


Correct. January, 2009 to January, 2011 the Democrats had control of the Senate, House, President, and had the power to pass Nationalized Health, and Pharma Care, and how wonderful that would have been; however, the democrats settled for the ACA ( Obama Care ) instead. Enough said about Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and most of the Democrats.


Possibly, because she's the only Dem allowed to run by the DNC? Because her donors like her soo much that they will contribute whatever it takes to assure her re-election? Because the voter will never hear a negative word about her?

edit: Because nobody really cares about her actual record/actions?


Cindy Sheehan an American anti-war activist, whose son Casey was killed in the Iraq War, ran agains't Nancy Pelosi in 2008 for California's 8th Congressional District, interesting enough, one of the issues was single payer health care who Cindy Sheehan whole heartedly supported, and Nancy Pelosi, well, did not support single payer health care in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011...


"Progressives push Pelosi on single payer".
Therein lies the problem; 'Progressives'.

Did you not hear or understand Perez statements on Progressives? They are Not welcome in the 'Party'. Constituents be damned. If you do not agree 100% with all the Party stands for, you are not welcome. Who or what is the 'Party'? There is no 'Party'. There is no longer a 'Party' on either side of the isle. Not in the Federal Gov., not in the State, not in the County, the City or some hick town USA. There are only Donors. Controllers of the system and it's Politicians.

Until the voters wake up and smell the crap emitting from the lips of those we elected to represent us, until the voters fully understand that they are being herded into the corral of one Party or the other to vote for the only candidate available, until......Hell. It's probably already too late. By the time that puppet Trump is run out of office, the elite will have most of what they desire and Pence will both finish the agenda and begin his own blitzkrieg into the new crusades.

Trump was in fact the chosen one. The Dems may have chosen Clinton but the Elite, the donors, the controllers got in a hurry to get things done. Sen. Sanders have something to do with that? Did the rise of disenchantment and progressives make them nervous?

And just FYI, I didn't support or vote for either of the Two worst candidates ever presented to us by their 'Parties'. The only difference between them was the speed to accomplish the agenda, ergo, The Puppet, Trump

Apologies for veering off topic but........................Three States challenged to a recount.........One wouldn't do it.......One couldn't do it.................One ran the ballots through the same machines. What would be found in the other 47 States? Our Elected officials are comfortable with that. Why do I still have nightmares?


I'm guessing she's also pretty covetous about the massive amounts of corporate cash she pulls in. That probably motivates her a tad, too.


She's SF, right? I'm going to go with "rich white professionals" for the win, Alex. :wink:


I would suggest to you that the pragmatism of the Democratic Party excludes any political positions that their wealthy contributors don't like, even at the cost of winning.

This single payer issue a prime example. If the party seriously embraced single payer, not only would they bring most Democrats and people who never vote out in droves, they would win over many Republicans.

Winning is a secondary goal for this "pragmatic" wing of the Party - which is actually the leadership of the Party. If winning was their primary goal, Republicans wouldn't control both houses of Congress and 32 state legislatures.