HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Progressive House Dems st...

Thu Jul 19, 2018, 07:29 PM

Progressive House Dems start Medicare For All Caucus

https://www.thenation.com/article/house-democrats-bet-big-medicare/

Democrats have to get a lot more comfortable speaking the language that Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) employed Thursday when she said, “Health care cannot be a luxury that’s only available for the wealthy and well-connected—it is a human right.”

Jayapal used those words to announce the formation of the House Medicare for All Caucus. Chaired by Representatives Jayapal, Debbie Dingell (D-MI) and Keith Ellison (D-MN), and strongly supported by key figures such as Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chairs Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and Mark Pocan (D-WI), the caucus will take the lead in arguing for HR 676, a Medicare for All measure sponsored by Ellison.

Ellison’s bill has already attracted 122 House co-sponsors—two-thirds of House Democrats—and the caucus will seek to expand those numbers. But it will do a lot more than that. The development of the caucus raises the profile of the fight for health-care reform not just in Congress but nationally.


So far 70 House DMs have signed on to the Caucus. Not mine in insurance run CT but I’ll keep working on mine. Encourage yours to sign on if they haven’t already.

7 replies, 990 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
Reply Progressive House Dems start Medicare For All Caucus (Original post)
Nanjeanne Jul 2018 OP
Sophia4 Jul 2018 #1
Nanjeanne Jul 2018 #2
Wounded Bear Jul 2018 #3
Nanjeanne Jul 2018 #4
Wounded Bear Jul 2018 #5
Nanjeanne Jul 2018 #6
Blue_true Jul 2018 #7

Response to Nanjeanne (Original post)

Thu Jul 19, 2018, 07:33 PM

1. I've lived in countries with the equivalent of Medicare for all, that is, universal health

 

care coverage. Each country organizes it in its own way, but in every case, in all the countries I lived in, it was far better than our pay for play system.

I personally had to go without health care for years because I could not afford the insurance. Little did I know that I had a medical problem that needed attention I could not afford.

Healthcare for all is absolutely vital to the health of a country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sophia4 (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 19, 2018, 07:52 PM

2. Completely agree. Something for Dems to fight FOR is a great addition to the

arsenal. Against Trump is important. But standing for something ultimately is what people want in their lives. Of course getting any attention from the media will be tough now with Trump and his crime family business inviting Putin to town.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Original post)

Thu Jul 19, 2018, 08:11 PM

3. Sounds great!

One thing I was always thinking might work is to expand it by lower age of eligibility by 5 years every year for a while. Phase it in.

They have to make sure that it gets properly funded, too. Repubs have been dragging their feet on that for years upon years. One of the big problems is that doctors don't make enough to be willing to take new patients.

My guy appears to be on board. Adam Smith WA09.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 19, 2018, 08:30 PM

4. Originally that was a proposed part of the ACA but Joe LIEberman squashed that.

My feeling is that for a program like this to work and be affordable it needs the biggest pool possible. It’s why small states like VT couldn’t do it. CA could possibly but it takes political courage they don’t seem to have. If you just lower age of Medicare by 5 years, you are going to proportionally get sicker people ir potentially sicker people based on age into the pool. And that becomes fiscally difficult. It’s best if it’s open to all and gets a large pool of healthy people as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 19, 2018, 08:37 PM

5. Doesn't make sense...

on average, a 60 YO is healthier than a 65 YO. Younger is healthier.

The first step would be to get everybody over 50 into the program, that way all those "older" folks who can't find work could at least find healthcare. If they have HC, they would more employable by small companies and could find jobs and afford the lower cost Medicare premiums.

The primary savings from switching to Medicare is in admin costs, including CEO level salaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wounded Bear (Reply #5)

Thu Jul 19, 2018, 09:33 PM

6. Well on average a 65 yr old may be sicker than a 60 yr old but a 35 yer old

would be a lot healthier. All in - the bigger pool is just going to be more fiscally possible. It’s the way insurance works. So obviously more in will help.

Yes there is tremendous savings on Admin costs. That is true. But as the spokesperson for Ellison says iabout the formation of this Caucus “Medicare for All means moving to a single-payer system like those in Canada, Australia, and most European countries, not building on our existing, complicated mix of public and private employer-sponsored plans,”

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nanjeanne (Original post)

Thu Jul 19, 2018, 10:37 PM

7. Good idea. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread