Of 193 House Democrats, see which 72 have co-sponsored the #MedicareForAll act.

[FDRsGhost]

The fight begins and I truly hope this comes to the forefront.
Justice Democrats are petitioning the others who haven't signed on to the bill yet and this is a great time to stand up andbegin the fight for single payer! There's 16 co-sponsors of the bill from California alone. Wow...

Link to tweet

[Vinca]

1. I'm surprised my Congresswoman's name isn't there. Off to email her . . .

[Achilleaze]

2. Now is the time

Bring this forward now, advocate with passion and intelligence.
Clarify a vision forward.

Show the sharp contrast with the poorly thought-out, responsibility-dodging, fat-cat enriching, Trumplican NoCare that just hit the FAIL Zone..

Shout out the differences in personal and community health outcome from the electronic heavens.

[JudyM]

33. It's true. This is the time to get it rolling. People are paying attention. Offer a better

alternative.

[mopinko]

3. dear moc, be like them. vote for something just to make twitler's

hair catch on fire.
go ahead. let's be like them just this once. whether you are prepared for it or not. just lay down a marker for this fucker.
make him veto it.

[BumRushDaShow]

4. Good to see my rep. on the list

PA-2 (Dwight Evans).

[DinahMoeHum]

5. Same here. . .

NY-16 (Eliot Engel)

[NBachers]

6. I just emailed my rep Nancy Pelosi and asked her to co-sponsor. Let's keep this thread alive.

As Justice Democrats keeps revising their total, we can keep targeting those reps who need encouragement.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

31. Nancy Pelosi is the one who took it off the table ...

When they were going to negotiate ObamaCare, unfortunately.

[Demsrule86]

80. It was taken off the table because there were not enough votes for it in the Senate after Kennedy

died and Brown was elected. Sometimes you have to make realistic policy and get what you can...Nancy Pelosi is a hero; she sacrificed her majority so people could have healthcare and literally live. And let me tell you, you won't get single payer anytime soon either. Our time would be better spent emailing on not letting Trump destroy Obamacare, Gorsuch, the Russian investigation and things that will actually matter in the near future. The last time we tried a big omnibus single payer bill...Clinton...the country was not on board and we lost the House and the Senate and still didn't get jackshit except for Hillary managing to get Chip for kids.. I don't think it could make it through today even with Congress and the presidency...but a public option could and lowering the medicare age would work also...so rather than divide and conquer Democrats to support something that will not happen for sure under Trump and probably not under Democrats ....how about working for the midterms and the next presidential election so we have a fighting chance to enact progressive policy.

[wallyworld2]

7. The list of republican co-sponcers for

H.R.1275 - World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017
115th Congress (2017-2018)

All Bill Information (Except Text) for H.R.1275 - World's Greatest Healthcare Plan of 2017115th Congress (2017-2018)

Cosponsors (0)

No cosponsors.

[pangaia]

8. My rep is Chris Collins, perhaps the biggest lying shit of them all.

[synergie]

67. Grab your friends and family and go join the groups that are resisting

holding and attending Town Halls, so that you can tell him to his face what you think of asshattery.

You guys have a greater responsibility to get in their faces. Those of us with Dem reps and Senators don't get to have as much fun unless we're adding to the numbers of the adjacent districts that didn't turn up to keep a Repub out of office.

[pangaia]

68. Don't worry. We have Indivisible 27th NY

I call his offices almost every day... so many issues to call about.. plus demos, occasional marchette ---little marches. :&gt )))

[synergie]

96. If you've got sane people representing neighboring districts, invite your neighbors :-)

Your guy is particularly vile.

[pangaia]

98. We do and his sure is !!

[bluescribbler]

9. My Rep is there.

Katherine Clark, 5th MA.

[ehrnst]

10. Not a fan of this group. Scorched earth for any Democrat that refuses to conform

to their manifesto, no matter how effective they have been for progressive issues over their career.

Anyone even slightly more centrist is considered a heretic.

This is how we eat our own.

[Ms. Toad]

11. The OP is about a bill, co-sponsored by 72 democrats -

not the group that happened to tweet about it.

Another way to eat our own is to reject the messagesend we need to because you don't like the messenger.

[ehrnst]

15. It was a tweet from that org, and I gave my opinion of the org.

It was a call to an action from that organization, and I don't like many of the things they have said and done.

Is that clearer?

[MaeScott]

18. Eye on the prize, we all got to work together and single payer is something all

Can get on board with.

[ehrnst]

22. When I see some studies on why it failed in Vermont, I might be more likely to "get on board."

Otherwise, I'll defer to policy analysts that state the most likely way to get universal coverage is a gradual expansion of the ACA.

Even Medicare isn't true single payer. The experiment in Vermont went way, way beyond what Medicare does, and until there are far more details in this particular "Medicare for All," no, I won't get behind it any more than I would the Republican plan.

Most European countries have a mixture of funding mechanisms. And even Canada didn't have a federal funding mechanism until all the provinces independently went single payer over decades..

Until we learn from the Vermont failure, that's not going to happen.

[FDRsGhost]

29. It failed because

big pharma money, and pretty much that.

The ACA is good BUT it doesn't cover everyone and as we'cve seen the costs are hurting a lot of people. We need a system where idiot CEO's aren't allowed to charge $10k a pill and people in red states aren't dying due to Medicaid not being expanded.

[ehrnst]

34. Do you have some sources to back up why you think it was "just big pharma money?"

Studies? Analysis?

[FDRsGhost]

40. Catch!

https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/the-long-and-unfinished-struggle-single-payer-health-care-in-vermont/

Just a quick search.

[ehrnst]

41. Catch? Not sure what that's about, but some further research indicates other factors

Good research requires that one not simply stop at the first Google result that supports your question... Believe me, I was hoping Vermont would be a success, because Canada went federal with their single payer program only after all the provinces separately established their own single payer systems.

As for Vermont:

The costs were too high for the residents to bear.

But reality hit last month. Governor Peter Shumlin released a financial report that showed the cost of the program would nearly double the size of the state’s budget in the first year alone and require large tax increases for residents and businesses. Shumlin, a Democrat and long-time single-payer advocate, said he would not seek funding for the law, effectively tabling the program called Green Mountain Care.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/25/costs-derail-vermont-single-payer-health-plan/VTAEZFGpWvTen0QFahW0pO/story.html

One reason that the costs were too high was that they started with a very comprehensive or "platinum" plan, rather than the sparer plan that Medicare actually is. Medicare does not cover dental, Rx, hearing, optical. One purchases supplemental private plans for those.

The Vermont plan insisted on not merely gold-plated health insurance for all Vermonters, but platinum-plated health insurance. As a point of comparison, the Bronze-level plans on the Obamacare exchanges have an actuarial value of 60 percent: meaning, for every dollar in health costs that a policyholder incurs, the insurance company will plan to pay 60 percent, and the patient will pay 40 percent in the form of co-pays, deductibles, and the like. Silver plans, used as the benchmark for Obamacare’s subsidies, have an actuarial value of 70 percent; Gold plans, 80 percent; Platinum plans, 90 percent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/12/21/6-reasons-why-vermonts-single-payer-health-plan-was-doomed-from-the-start/#846c40d4850a


Single payer or nothing has become dogma for many on the left. We need to stop calling people who point out the very real obstacles to it (other than "big pharma" and "big lobbyists&quot as heretics or not being true progressives.

For the time being, many Democrats, who control the Legislature, are rallying around Shumlin, who has held out hope that a single-payer system could be implemented one day in the future.

“He would have damaged the whole cause of universal health care if he had proceeded with a plan that didn’t work,” said state Senator Claire Ayer, a Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. “It costs too much and could create difficulties. It was just completely unsustainable.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/01/25/costs-derail-vermont-single-payer-health-plan/VTAEZFGpWvTen0QFahW0pO/story.html

It is far easier to create a single payer system from scratch - or build on the single payer systems already in place than it to derail a very complicate system based in private insurance to create one. The best we could hope for is a gradual change over decades, as they did in Canada, and that would require buy in from the GOP, which will not happen in foreseeable future.

It is destructive to any progress to expend our energy on something that is nearly impossible.

Edited to add: LBJ was able, in part, to get Medicare and Medicaid passed by lying about the implementation cost that had actually been calculated. That was before the CBO, so there is no way to do that now.

[synergie]

97. The intent of this group is division, it doesn't see to be about working together.

I don't like these divisive tactics, and I loathe the tea party, any group of former (and perhaps not so) CONS proudly trying to be the Tea Party on the left is not a welcome sight and it's not helpful in working together.

[Cal Carpenter]

12. Considering the thread is about a piece of legislation

co-sponsored by more than a third of the Democratic members of Congress, your post is bordering on meaningless word salad. What group? Eat our own what? Can you elaborate? Do you oppose the idea behind this piece of legislation? Just curious.

[ehrnst]

16. The OP contains a veiled threat to any Democratic rep that dissents, as is most of their messaging.

I consider the source in any messaging.

Before I would consider supporting it as a replacement to the ACA, I would look to learn from why it failed in Vermont. Not seeing that in this thread or in the OP.

Is that less of a "borderline meaningless word salad" for you?

Your characterization of my post might be considered by some to be borderline abuse.

Is that clearer?

[Cal Carpenter]

19. I don't understand how

encouraging people to ask their congresspeople to support a bill for single payer is a threat. Particularly from a less-powerful minority.

Is that really what you are calling a threat? I'm still not sure I understand what you mean since you didn't address my questions, but it sounds to me like you think democracy (along with single payer) is a really bad idea...

(eta - I wrote this reply before you edited and added most of what is in yours, but I'm done with this exchange so if it doesn't make sense that's why. Anti-democratic attitudes and some belief that we shouldn't have healthcare in this country that is comparable to our peers? Using the name of some organization who happens to mention it as an excuse to be intellectually dishonest and write off the substance of the issue? Not worth my time.)

[ehrnst]

23. Have you taken a look at the website of the org that sent this tweet?

"We want to recruit hundreds of Justice Democrats to run a unified campaign to replace every establishment Congressperson in 2018."

It appears they consider every Democrat that dissents from their checklist as "corporate," no matter their service.

I remember Planned Parenthood and John Lewis being dismissed as "establishment" in the primaries, along with the Black Congressional Caucus.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it sounds to me like you think that democracy (along with single payer) is a really bad idea." but it sounds to me like you think any questioning of what failed in Vermont is some how an affront to Democracy itself, and indicates you think dissent from the checklist is heresy. Also attacking a straw man.

You think that's democracy? I would call that intellectually dishonest....

[Turn CO Blue]

13. Not even one from Colorado? What?

[ehrnst]

35. Colorado voted against Coloradocare in November.

That's probably why their reps don't think that it would be what their constituents want.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

14. HR 676 is the bill that Kucinich introduced years back, right?

If so, I read all 30 pages. It's simple and understandable. This would be a big win for the American people. And after the epic fail of the GOP bill, this could be politically doable now. Hell, even coal miners want it - people who've soured on Trump.

[NCTraveler]

17. Kucinich is a bad hombre.

At least that's what I was told by someone here.

I love how popular this has become. It's because of those who have been intelligently fighting for it for a long time.

[mvd]

21. Well this time people are actually correct about his weirdness - he's been pro-Trump on things

Big shock to me when I heard. At least Kaptur is supporting what Kucinich started fighting for.

[NCTraveler]

27. Kucinich has been promoting this...

As recently as last week. But... But... he said he liked a Trump speech. Lol Must mean he went to the dark side.



Literally promoting single payer a week ago.

[mvd]

28. It's been more than about one speech, but happy..

that he still has some of his old sanity. My DU avatar was once a Kucinich avatar.

[ehrnst]

24. The problem is, our health care delivery system is neither simple nor easily understandable.

Even Medicare. Which is not actually single payer - it's a combination.

I won't get behind a replacement for the ACA - which took years to implement and is still being tweaked, until there is a thorough detailing of what will and will not be included.

As I've written earlier, even Canada didn't have a federal single payer system until all the provinces established their own independent systems, which took decades. Vermont's failed example needs to be considered and learned from before any other state, perhaps other than California, will attempt it. Colorado tried in 2016, and failed to get the support.

I can see why their reps might not be careening toward supporting a national plan, since their constituents voted it down soundly last fall.

[mvd]

20. Thanks for this!

I could call my Repuke Congressman Costello, but I doubt it would do any good. He supported the Trumpcare monstrosity.

[ehrnst]

25. Since Colorado voted against Coloradocare in November

I doubt we will see their reps co-sponsor a national version.

Their constituents have spoken on the subject.

[FDRsGhost]

30. It failed in Colorado

where I live because big money came rolling in from the likes of the Koch's and pharma industry. Also many Democrats here lined up against it, including our senators, Governor, state speaker and state senators. Many progressive org's said that single payer was on appropriate on a national scale and not local.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/colorado-single-payer-vote_us_581cdf8be4b0d9ce6fbbf369

[ehrnst]

36. So how do you propose to overcome that at the national level?

And last through various administrations of both parties?

[FDRsGhost]

38. There's different ways

but we the money has to get out, many reps get a lot of cash from big pharma and that's something which has to stop. It's sad that some don't want what is best for people because it would hurt lining their own pockets. Those who are against this need to have a swift talking to. I don't understand how some of my reps here could possibly be against this and it's pretty scary.

Look up Coloradans for Coloradans, an ad-hoc group which raised over $1M USD in the first 5 months of 2016 and was formed to fight single payer here and is funded almost entirely by the health care industry here, Anthem, Cigna, etc.

[ehrnst]

42. How do you propose the big pharma cash not going to Reps, while Citizens United stands?

Coloradans for Coloradans could not buy the influence it needed.

I'm not justifying it in any way, shape or form, but shaping public opinion is force to be reckoned with, and was not done so successfully at the state level in Colorado.

Notwithstanding.... single payer is not the only way to universal health care coverage, as many developed nations in Europe have shown.

Doing it at the federal level first is not the only way to do it, as Canada showed.

Insisting on both of those things may not be the way to go to get universal health care coverage, and making Federal Single Payer support a litmus test for a citizen or a politician being "progressive" is wrong headed.

I would support installing hydrogen fuel cells on every business and residence in the US. Will I try to tank any politician that doesn't support that as a "corporate shill for big oil/gas/coal?" No. That would be shooting the environmental cause in the foot, making perfect the enemy of better. Working towards subsidies for solar panels for businesses might be a great first step, and far more doable.

As long as we make one single way towards universal health care coverage progressive dogma, without really looking at what it will take and what the obstacles are, we will indeed cut very effective action on covering more people now.

I look at it like this - if you pay a low income families' heating bill for a month, yes, you are "supporting big coal" and yes, in the long run, putting money toward solar panels would be cheaper and better for the environment. But that family will freeze in the meantime. The ACA was a step towards getting people coverage, imperfect as it is, and was far more doable politically and financially than Single Payer.

I wish Obama had started with Single payer on the table, and then worked toward the ACA. We would probably have a public option.

[Demsrule86]

44. Welcome...how nice that one of your earliest posts is against some Democrats.

We don't need to make Dems take sides on something that can't happen now especially if they are in states the GOP won in 16. This could hurt us in 18. I think most Dems are for this...but it is a big tent party...if we lose our shot in 18 it will be because we took our eye off the important thing...getting a majority of Dems elected to Congress and stopping Trump in his tracks. This post does not help that effort.

[FDRsGhost]

45. Huh? Where was one of my posts against Dems?

Not tracking.

So because something can't happen now (as you say) the fight shouldn't begin? I disagree a lot with that premise. We've been battling for health care for almost 100 years. It's long enough and the fight for single payer isn't going to happen over night and will take time. The sooner our reps jump on the bandwagon, the better.

This post DOES help that effort. We can't be only the party of anti-Trump, it won't work and we found out in the general it also didn't work. We need to stand for the people and we need to bring fresh ideas to the folk especially on an issue like this which most people agree with https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/16/most-americans-want-to-replace-obamacare-with-a-single-payer-system-including-a-lot-of-republicans/ This in turn encourages people to get out and vote in midterms which traditionally have low turn out

[Demsrule86]

51. You divide Democrats into groups of those who support what you believe and those

who don't . It is a litmus test or a purity test ...take your pick and it serves no useful purpose other than to divide. This comment in particular was very unhelpful.

"Those who are against this need to have a swift talking to. I don't understand how some of my reps here could possibly be against this and it's pretty scary."

[FDRsGhost]

52. That isn't dividing anything

Is it division when Democrats debate in caucuses inside the senate too?
My statement stands, we need to be out front on this. There's absolutely no reason not to be.

[Demsrule86]

55. Calling out Democratic representatives by name over something that can't happen is dividing us.

Single payer will not go through as long as Bush is president.

[FDRsGhost]

60. Sorry, disagree & when did you stop fighting?

As I already stated, taking the fight to the streets with single payer draws in new people into the party, this is a GOOD thing. It doesn't matter if it passes or not it shows people we are willing to stand up fight for what's right.

As long as Bush is president? lol

[George II]

62. Freudian slip? He's so bad that you saw a bad president and automatically called him bush?

I do that sometimes, and it's been only nine weeks. I think trump will overcome bush's presidency as the absolute worst.

[George II]

63. Yeah, I agree. Like the ol refrain in 2001 "if you're not with us you're against us".

[ehrnst]

88. I don't see this as something that will get out the vote.

Even after the HUGE womens' march in Los Angeles, only 12% turned out for the mayoral election.

And it did get Colorado voters out - just not the ones that wanted single payer.

Besides, non-partisan health health policy analysts have presented the reasons why the U.S. is very different than other developed countries in their establishing of their universal health coverage - most of which are not single payer. I won't support it, because I think it's not feasible. It's become the "Defund Planned Parenthood!!" dogma for the left. It seems like anyone here who dares to suggest that single payer might not be the answer to universal coverage gets the same treatment as someone in the GOP who even suggests that the data shows that defunding Planned Parenthood might not be the way to reduce abortions. It's considered heresy.

That's what's going to harm us.

[synergie]

59. And what would those ways be?

It's pretty scary that people are merely waving their hands vaguely rather than addressing policy concerns or answering the question of HOW this will be done, and WHY it failed in areas where it was attempted.

Catch phrases are not answers, they're not policies.

[Starry Messenger]

26. Mine signed on over a month ago, even though she's the kind of establishment dem

that Justice Democrats hates with a passion. She was one of the first to endorse Hillary. But hey, she's just another neoliberal sellout who deserves to be primaried, amirite?

[ehrnst]

37. Oh noes!!!! Heretic!

But seriously, yes, sounds like she's going to get a challenge from this group, if it can distinguish itself from the Nader experiment.

[JudyM]

32. Welcome to DU, FDRsGhost! This is good info.

My Dem congresscritter's not on there, going to call his office Monday.

[FDRsGhost]

39. Thank you very much!

[Demsrule86]

43. Please stop-lets not divide the Dem party this way...Medicare for all will not happen until

we win power back...and I have to tell you...I don't know if outside our party how many people really want it...it would raise taxes considerably. I believe single payer is the way to go, but let's work on getting elected and not give people a reason not to vote for us.

[FDRsGhost]

46. Most want single payer. No white flags!

We need to fight! Most want single payer https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/16/most-americans-want-to-replace-obamacare-with-a-single-payer-system-including-a-lot-of-republicans/

[Demsrule86]

49. You see that is untrue...we want single payer.

It has not been sold to the country yet. The ACA is helping and when we get back in power rather than have knock down drag out fight, we either do Medicare for over 50/55 which also helps the ACA markets or we introduce a public option. I see no reason to do it your way.

[FDRsGhost]

53. Why didn't the ACA have a public option?

You know the answer. Under the ACA, people suffer. This wouldn't happen under M4A.

[Demsrule86]

54. Where were you on that fateful day?

Kennedy died and Scott Brown was elected...that is why there was no public option. There was almost medicare for those 55 and older but Lieberman taking revenge on us for primarying him would not go along...we got what we could needing 60 votes before Brown was sworn in...and we could not change one tiny thing in the bill in the house or it would have failed. It was a consensus bill. And Nancy Pelosi got it through the house...many of her members walked the plank for a bill that was not there first choice in terms of benefits and saved the lives of thousands perhaps millions of Americans in the end...that my friend is why I am a Democrat. The best way to get single payer is to begin with a public option when we have the votes...time to break the filibuster in order to do so...it would also make sense to lower the age for medicare to 55. This would help the markets and reduce costs. I do not believe we will get a huge medicare for all bill through congress...it would be the Clinton health bill all over again...let's do this in a smart way that actually works and protects our hard won majority.

[NurseJackie]

64. That's a great response. Thanks.

[Demsrule86]

70. Thank you Nurse...

I will never forget it...we had waited for health care for over 100 years...and it may not be perfect, but by God it has saved lives and helped millions.

[Docreed2003]

77. Excellent post which highlights the complexity of the situation

I've heard some folks compare the ACA to the process of making sausage. There's plenty of parts that went in to making it but it took compromise on the ingredients to make the final product that would be acceptable to all parties involved.

The ACA wasn't and isn't perfect, but it was a huge step towards providing not just affordable care but improvements in care for a huge chuck of our population. It's major flaws were highlighted in the fact states were allowed to opt in or out of expansion, along with the constant undermining by the GOP. What we have is an imperfect bill but one which provides incalculable benefits to every American, not just those who make use of the exchanges.

[Demsrule86]

90. Thanks...you are exactly right and said it better than I did.

[ehrnst]

84. Thank you. When we forget history, we will repeat it. (nt)

[FDRsGhost]

86. Where was I?

Watching this happen....

Whatever happened to the public option?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/03/22/whatever-happened-to-the-public-option/

Remember the public option? It was, for many Democrats, their absolute top priority during the health-care reform debate. But they didn't get it. A handful of conservative Democrats, led by Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, made clear that if there was a public option, they would filibuster the final bill. And so it died.

That's why there was no public option.

A public option may sound good but this pretty much sums it all up right here

Link to tweet

[Demsrule86]

89. After Scott Brown was elected, it was game over.

And I tell you...we will never have single payer by passing a single payer bill...it will be destroyed just as Clinton's was ...special interest and outrage over increased taxes will end this possibility. People think single payer is free...not us...we know the truth...and we know it would be better than any other plan. The American people will not support it after the attacks begin and they learn about the costs...we might get a public option or lower the Medicare age ...that is possible which could lead to single payer or at least help the markets. However, single payer will not pass Congress and be signed into law during Trump's reign as president or even Pence's if we kick orange Cheetos out. I doubt it would pass under a Democratic administration. Thus it is foolish to divide Dems by a something that won't happen in the near future or perhaps ever. Do it the smart way...incrementally, carefully and see what happens...support the states who want to try single payer...where were all these single payer people when Colorado attempted it?

[ehrnst]

92. We have a system that makes it incredibly difficult to create entitlement programs

And the Colorado single payer amendment would have eliminated any funding for abortion, as per state law restricting public funds.

That law would have to be overturned, and that's unlikely in Colorado.

The Hyde Amendment would have to be overturned in order for any federally funded plan to cover abortion, except in the case of the life of the woman being in danger.

That is about as likely as the GOP voting for single payer.

[Demsrule86]

94. You are correct...and did not know about the anti-abortion law passed in Colorado.

Thanks for informing me.

[ehrnst]

85. Yes, and most Coloradans voted against it in their state.

So you are not going to get their reps on board with supporting a national version.

[FDRsGhost]

87. And then we have to change that

Correct? Correct.

I already stated why most people here voted against it. All about the money and the fact is single payer here had little in the way of airtime, the advertising simply wasn't there but it was for the opposition.

If we don't have single payer by 2020, it will probably come up again here and this time it will probably pass.

[ehrnst]

91. There was more to the opposition than "money."

About why Amendment 69 was opposed by some:

"ColoradoCare faced a major obstacle with women’s health groups. Because of a law passed in 1984 that prohibits the state from funding elective abortions, the transfer of health care administration over to the state would likely have prevented women from receiving abortions under ColoradoCare, at least unless the 1984 law was repealed. NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and ProgressNow Colorado opposed Amendment 69 on these grounds."

So, that wasn't going to be reversed by "more airtime."

[Trumpocalypse]

47. Well said!!! nt

[Demsrule86]

50. Thank you.

[Demsrule86]

48. You won't divide Democrats in the end.

I would also add while every Democrat I know is for single payer. The public is resistant. A public option will be the way single payer is introduced or lowering the medicare age to 50/55. There will be no bill (at least not until we have all power) and that is a good thing because I don't think we could get it through...it would the Clinton healthcare all over again. Those against it would destroy the effort...but a public option and lowering the age gradually will work.

[ehrnst]

57. That is what Hillary was going to do to expand coverage

Let people buy in to Medicare at 55, and reintroduce the public option.

Much, much more doable than flipping healthcare coverage and infrastructure on it's head all at once.

[Demsrule86]

71. It would have worked too...which makes

me very very sad.

[ehrnst]

74. She was criticized for that plan by many, leading to accusations that she represented corporations

and not people.

Practicality, realism and efficacy aparently are the opposite of "inspiring" for some.

[Demsrule86]

79. Yes even now...with the single payer thing...there will never be a single payer bill never

at least if the Dems are smart...there will be a public option and lowering of medicare age not an omnibus bill that will cause chaos and may not be supported by the majority of Americans which would be attacked relentlessly by special interest and Republicans.

[ehrnst]

83. Even if we had the political will to legislate it, which we clearly don't

The negative consequences of it are not being discussed at all among those who are capitalizing on the ACA being upheld in order to repeal it.

Nor is there mention of the many other methods than single payer being used in Europe. "Single Payer" has become dogma, because everyone who has no idea about what is involved in actually implementing it says "It's simple!"

As with every project this huge, "Cheap, fast or good. Pick two."

[louis c]

56. Katherine Clark, Ma. 5th

Can I just say, once again, that in my 50 years of following politics, I have never met an elected official of mine that I agreed with on 100% of the issues, until Katherine Clark was elected as my Congresswoman.

And she's done it again as one of the first co-sponsors.

[synergie]

58. This group is suspect.

They're founded by the TYT, the very group who were exhorting people to "send a message" by writing in candidates who were ineligible and to leave the rest of the ballot blank.

They are literally the left version of the Tea Party, and that's not a good thing.

[NurseJackie]

61. Yes they are, among other things. I have good instincts... just as you do Synergie.

[George II]

65. And by the nature of the communication in the OP, they're divisive and quasi-accusatory...

...i.e., "Justice Democrats are petitioning the others who haven't signed on", re: "what's your problem?"

I like the Tea Party analogy.

[synergie]

66. That's how they describe themselves! They want to get money out of politics

except for the RW money that Cenk is collecting. That guy rants out of both sides of his GI tract.

[ehrnst]

76. Yep. Eating their own. (nt)

[JI7]

69. did do anything to support single payer in colorado last year ?

?

[Demsrule86]

72. They mostly talk.

[JI7]

73. agree. all those who attacked Obama for not getting single payer

suddenly disappeared when it came to Colorado.

[Demsrule86]

82. Yes they did and a successful single payer in any state would

help with influencing the American people. Those who support it ...based on my experience....think it is free. It would not be free and I doubt the support would continue if it even exists with the taxes needed. People just would not understand that we pay more in the long run.

[synergie]

95. They just formed in January.

Their goals are the familiar slogans ranting against "establishment" and "corporatist" et al.

They seem a bit sloppy, adding Democrats (and not Republicans) to their Enemies List, and threatening people for various reasons.

[ehrnst]

75. Prepare to be accused of being "against single payer and against democracy itself!" (nt)

[FSogol]

78. LOL, you Better Believe It!

[George II]

81. How often have you seen a bill that was cosponsored by EVERY member of either party?

These are "cosponsors", not votes.

[mvd]

93. Also I don't care what people say. Single payer is a measuring stick for me

Yes we may need to transition. But in the end, costs will be less as said here:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer