Don't Let The DCCC's Crooked Candidates Fool You About Medicare-For-All

So... as we discussed over the weekend, the DCCC and the Beltway consultants are telling their client candidates in tough primaries to just lie about healthcare. They tell the conservatives they back that the words "Medicare for all" don't really mean anything and that it's OK to use them as long as they don't get tied down in a pledge to sign onto John Conyers' H.R. 676, the actual very specific Medicare-For-All bill. Yesterday I sent a very simple e-mail to all the Blue America-endorsed House candidates, the candidates we're in the process of vetting and a few other random Democratic candidates. This is the entire e-mail:

Subject line: can you answer a yes or no question for me?

Will you sign on to John Conyers' H.R. 676, Medicare For All, when you take your seat in Congress in 2019?

All I want is a yes or a no, although if you want to include any explanation besides that, feel free. I'm writing a post about it. Thanks

The only difference between most of them was the number of exclamation points included after the "yes." Here were the responses that came in:

• Dotty Nygard (CA-10)- "Yes"

• Stephen Jaffe (CA-12) "Yes and Yes"

• Ricardo Franco (CA-22)- "Yes! The serious issue of healthcare in our nation requires bold solutions. I would be happy to support the bill which would lower healthcare costs and expand coverage.

• Wendy Reed (CA-23)- "YES !!!!!"

• Katie Hill (CA-25)- "Just answered this in my FB live town hall.

"Not in its current form. My main issues:

"1) Reimbursement rates: HR676 requires a Fee for Service pay model, in which this Act requires not only “a uniform national standard” but to “be compensated at a rate...regardless of geographic region.” Meaning a doctor in California will have to see many, many more patients to make a living compared to a doctor in the Midwest.

"2) Transition time: it allows for only 1 year of time to implement. Having been very involved as the ACA was implemented over 4 years, I know 1 year is totally unreasonable, and 10 is a lot closer to what it would take.

"3) It literally outlaws insurance companies, and forces private companies to turn into nonprofits. It will be taken to court immediately, and almost certainly be struck down, throwing out everything that's valuable with it.

"Anyway, from implementing the ACA to countless other federal programs, I know all too well that the devil is in the details... and there are a lot of details here that need to be ironed out.

"Bottom line for me: to move to Medicare for All, we have to absolutely do it in a way that won't prove republicans right. We can't screw up royally and have this become the next Obamacare issue that republicans right for years and get power back because of it. We have to do it right.

"But, I would like to work on a version that makes necessary changes and would allow us to completely transform our healthcare system in an effective way. In its current form, HR676 doesn't do that."

• Sam Jammal (CA-39)- "Yes. It's a no brainer. Medicare works. We should first preserve it from Republican attacks, but also expand it so everyone has access."

• Kia Hamadanchy (CA-45)- "Yes will definitely cosponsor as an original on whatever day it's introduced in 2019"

• Katie Porter (CA-45)- "Yes, I would! I've seen far too often during my work as a consumer advocate how a major illness like cancer, a sick child or an accident can literally bankrupt a family that was on sound financial footing just months before. So here’s what I believe: health care is a human right. No one should have to go bankrupt to care for a sick loved one, and families shouldn’t have to constantly worry that a major illness will ruin their finances. That's why I support Medicare for All, because every American should have access to health care-- regardless of their income."

• Dave Min (CA-45)- "I believe healthcare is a basic human right, and that we need a system in which all Americans have affordable and high quality insurance coverage. However, at this time, and in its current form, I will not commit to signing on to H.R. 676, as there are too many open questions I have about it, and I don't want to simply sign a blank check. Just this weekend, I was talking with constituents about H.R. 676, and I continue to hear concerns about this bill’s transition, cost, quality of care, and its potential dilution of Medicare. I support a CBO analysis (and other independent analysis) of H.R. 676, to see if it brings us responsibly toward our goal of universal affordable insurance coverage.

"In the near term, I favor allowing people under the age of 65 to have the option to buy into Medicare or some other public option at an affordable price, extending Medicare to those 55 and older, fully funding Medicaid, and expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. I believe these measures would get us closer to our goal of universal affordable coverage, while also providing significant data on the efficacy of expanded Medicare and potentially creating a clear pathway to single payer if that is the direction this country (and my district) wants to take at that point.

"I realize that not everyone agrees with where I am on health care reform, but I want to be honest, consistent, and realistic about my policy priorities. I am tired of politicians making empty promises they can't keep, and then backtracking on those promises once they're in office. I promise to stand up for the general positions I articulate, and therefore I want to be thoughtful before I support any particular positions."

• Harley Rouda (CA-48)- "I am for universal healthcare with a single payer system for all Americans, that still allows interested individuals to purchase private insurance. I am committed to working with a broad-based consortium of healthcare experts, stakeholders, and legislators to do so, and if in the end HR 676 is the best way to accomplish that outcome, then yes."

• Tim Canova (FL-23)- "YES!!!

I will gladly sign on to HR 676!

• Dr. Alina Valdes (FL-25)- "Absolutely!  I have already stated that in various social media venues and at events I have attended.  With the population and longevity in medicine I have had, I have advocated for a one payer system for over 30 years."

• Michael Hepburn (FL-27)- "Yes!"

• Geoffrey Petzel (IL-06)- "Yes."

• David Gill (IL-13)- "This is a very easy one, Howie. Given that I have been a member of Physicians for a National Health Program for 25 years, and that PNHP helped Rep. Conyers write H.R. 676, my answer is: YES, OF COURSE!"

• Victor Swanson (IL-14)- "Yes"

• Dan Canon (IN-09)- "Yes."

• Paul Clements (MI-06)- "Yes ... call time now w/ new volunteer."

• Peter Jacob (NJ-07)- "Yes. We don't need health insurance in America, we need healthcare."

• Alexandria Ocasio (NY-14)- "Yes!"

• Jenny Marshall (NC-05)- "Yes!"

• Tom Guild (OK-05)- "Yes."

• Kerith Strano Taylor (PA-05)- "Yes. With gusto."

• Paul Perry (PA-07)- "Yes"

• Daylin Leach (PA-07)- "YES!!!"

• Mary Ellen Balchunis (PA-07)- "Yes, I saw the benefits of universal care when I was in Sweden on my Fulbright and put my then 6 week old daughter in their healthcare system. Last Thurs., I was in Meehan's office asking his staff (We requested Meehan.) to have him support. Bernie's People's Platform, Medicare for All was the first issue!"

• Derrick Crowe (TX-21)- "Yes."

• Hector Morales (TX-29)- "Yes. Because our elected officials have normalized the notion that poor people should be sentenced to death because they cannot afford the healthcare they need. And all for a quick campaign contribution."

• Dr. Kathie Allen (UT-03)- "Yes unless Bernie has a better proposal, or someone else does by that time. Conyer's bill is only about 15 pages long and I have my doubts that it is comprehensive enough to ease the transition from a profit-driven system to non-profit, universal coverage. It has a 10 year plan to partially 'buy-out' insurance companies, and advocates retraining insurance employees, but there is a lack of detail on how to do some of these things. I support the goal, however."

• Randy Bryce (WI-01) has told me numerous times he plans to sign on as a co-sponsor to H.R. 676 and yesterday he responded to my question with two brand new memes. I especially like the "day one" phrasing:

You may have noticed there's a hot gubernatorial primary raging in Illinois. There are a couple of dynastic billionaires running, a Kennedy and a Pritzker and a trued and tested progressive, state Senator Daniel Biss. Prtitzker will say whatever he has to to get the nomination but he always seems to claim to back progressive issues... just before insisting they have to be enacted federally. I wonder what he thinks he'll be doing as governor. Biss, who has a record in the legislature that shows exactly what he plans to do as governor wants Illinois to be one of the states the show the federal government how to make a Medicare-For-All system work. "We need a single-payer health care system in Illinois that covers everyone," he told Illinois voters. This is what he said after the defeat of the TrumpCare bill in the Senate a few weeks ago: "Today's Senate vote brings us closer than ever to millions of Illinoisans losing their healthcare. Maybe now, Governor Rauner will feel like he has a 'motion to proceed' to get off his duff and actually speak out against Trumpcare. Today, we must do all that we can to protect the ACA. But we also must make sure that the conversation doesn't end there. In the long run, we must expand access to coverage through Medicare for All to ensure that no one is denied the care they need." He can't sign on to Conyers' H.R. 676-- but he will do something even better if he's elected governor of Illinois next year.