The Establishment Is Conservative. Conservatives Oppose Fundamental Change-- Let's Take Pelosi And Pallone For Example

Pelosi and Pallone-- allies of the Sickness Industry... betrayers of Democratic voters

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) was alarmed by the oral arguments in the latest attempt by Trump and the Republicans to kill Obamacare in a Texas court. Two of the judges seemed determined to throw the entire ACA out. Cantwell wrote to her supports that "The GOP is making yet another insidious attack on the health care of millions of Americans. Brought by Republican attorneys general, this case isn't about helping Americans-- it's a clearly partisan and political attempt to strip health care from millions of Americans... Republicans tried to overturn the Affordable Care Act by legislation [but] voters in 2018 elected a pro-health care Democratic majority in the U.S. House... The message that Americans are sending on health care is unmistakably clear: No more partisan attacks on affordable health care. But Republicans just keep trying-- and this time, they could really succeed." There are more than a few conservative Democrats-- many Blue Dogs and New Dems-- who opposed the ACA and will be quietly happy to see it go down.

Take that in the context of a new study published in the American Journal of Medicine, showing that 42% of new cancer patients (under 50 years of age-- so not Medicare insured patients) lose their entire life savings in two years because of treatment and that 62% of cancer patients are in debt because of their treatment. In the U.S., the total medical costs for cancer are $80 billion.

Yesterday Politico-Pro published a piece by Heather Caygle, about how Frank Pallone and Nancy Pelosi are working to sideline the left, working especially hard to kill Medicare-for-All and the Green New Deal. Pallone is chair of the most powerful committee in Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee and he is one of Congress' most corrupt members, although that isn't something Caygle and Politico concern themselves with.

"Frank actually understands we're the majority makers and appreciates what we bring to the table," said Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR), a member of the moderate [not moderate-- right-wing] Blue Dog Coalition who sits on the Energy and Commerce panel. "That's very different from 10 years ago when a lot of Blue Dogs were viewed as pariahs."

Pelosi has spoken openly about protecting the vulnerable [right-of-center] Democrats who helped deliver the House last year. And Pallone is essentially the speaker's enforcer at the committee, which is the first real stop for any potential action on progressive priorities like "Medicare for All" and the Green New Deal, H. Res. 109 (116).

The partnership is a remarkable turnaround for two onetime opponents. In 2014, Rep. Anna Eshoo, a longtime liberal ally of the then-House minority leader, was running against the more centrist Pallone for a top committee post. Despite a public whipping effort from Pelosi, Eshoo [even more of a shill of Big PhMA than Pallone at the time] fell short. It was a rare defeat in a bitter race that showed the limits of Pelosi's influence.

The new Pallone-Pelosi alliance will be all the more crucial as the speaker works to corral her fractious House majority, which is increasingly split between a pack of outspoken progressive millennials and a group of more than two dozen freshman moderates.

Pelosi praised Pallone's "invaluable" leadership in a statement, adding, "From health care and prescription drug costs to climate and net neutrality, Chairman Pallone has forged consensus in committee and across our caucus to pass bold legislation through the House."

Pallone described himself as a "pragmatic progressive" during an interview in his Capitol Hill office and said he and Pelosi are now in lockstep.

"For the most part, we agree," Pallone said of Pelosi. "And I'm not sure that we disagree with a lot of what those on the left would like to see, but I think that we just realized that we don't have the votes."

The 30-year lawmaker, who himself boasts a largely liberal voting record, dismissed the idea that he might feel pressure from the left. [Currently 3 Democrats, Russ Cirincone, John Hsu, Javahn Walker have announced primary challengers to Pallone.] Indeed, Pallone has repeatedly fended off progressive demands-- dismissing a special climate panel as "not necessary," taking on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a closed-door meeting, and rejecting a liberal push to forgo contributions from fossil fuel companies.

Democratic leaders have purposefully slow-walked the progressive plans pushed by Ocasio-Cortez and others. The subject of Medicare for All has received hearings in three committees-- but not the Energy and Commerce panel, which also oversees health policy.

And the Green New Deal, which Pelosi dismissively called the "green dream" earlier this year, is just one of several proposals being considered by a special climate change committee that has no legislative power. Pallone's panel is taking up a major infrastructure package that addresses climate change, but it's more modest than the Green New Deal. The House also passed legislation in May demanding President Donald Trump keep the U.S. in the Paris climate pact, H.R. 9 (116), after the measure cleared Pallone's committee.

"Frank is a fair person, a good leader, he gets consensus," said Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell, who has served in the New Jersey delegation with Pallone for more than two decades. "But he's not going to be forced by public opinion to move in that direction or to move in this direction."

Progressives have mostly chosen to focus on the positive, for example celebrating the fact that Medicare for All received a hearing in any committee even if it was clearly meant as a way for Democratic leaders to placate liberals without forcing moderates to take a tough vote they fear could cost them their seats.

But a recent battle over an emergency spending package to address the border crisis, H.R. 3401 (116), has left liberals fuming after their priorities were ignored in the final deal. Rep. Mark Pocan, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, even warned that his group might retaliate by taking a harder line on top Democratic priorities that come to the floor.

"I just think it's hard to ask our caucus to help deliver votes to pass things," Pocan (D-WI) said. "It's just going to be a lot harder for us to care to help deliver votes."

And Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the other progressive caucus co-chair, said liberals plan to put more pressure on Pallone specifically in the coming months.

"It's very important, absolutely. That's a committee of record on health," Jayapal (D-WA) said of the need for a Medicare for All hearing at Energy and Commerce. "He has not committed to it yet but he's a good chairman. I believe I can work with him to make it happen."

Pallone, meanwhile, has purposefully chosen to focus on the things he thinks can actually pass his committee, survive the House floor and in some cases even be considered by the GOP-controlled Senate.

For the sprawling panel-- which has a say in nearly every major public policy issue-- that includes work on everything from lowering prescription drug prices and shoring up Obamacare to boosting pipeline safety and oversight of a recalled infant rocker.

Pallone has also made a concerted effort to work across the aisle, teaming up with the panel's ranking member, Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) on legislation to curb robocalls and outlaw surprise medical bills.

And Pallone won't rule out the possibility that Democrats may be able to strike a deal with Trump on infrastructure or prescription drugs, two areas where the president has repeatedly suggested bipartisan negotiation only to back away.

"Hope springs eternal," Pallone said. "I do think that on prescription drugs he's pushing Republicans in the Congress, and probably the same on the infrastructure bill. There are definitely Republicans who would like to vote for all of these things."

Walden, for his part, said in a statement that Pallone has "a tough task keeping the socialist left at bay" and that it was "only a matter of time" before the committee held hearings on Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.

Last month the Journal of Medical Anthropology published a relevant piece by Carole Browner, a research professor at UCLA in the Center for Culture and Health, NPI-Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, that I wish members of Congress would read, Moving beyond Neoliberal Models of Health Care. It would give them a better understanding about why progressives are demanding Medicare-For-All. Here are some excerpts, starting with a series of crucial questions Congress needs to answer-- and by Congress, that includes Pallone and Pelosi:

"Why are U.S. health-care costs far higher than elsewhere in the world? And why, if so much more is spent, are such critical outcomes as rates of infant and maternal mortality, life expectancy and treatments for serious diseases not significantly better-- and often markedly worse-- than in other economically comparable countries? Why, moreover, do studies show high rates of patient dissatisfaction, turnover within the nursing and allied health professions and physician burnout? And why, despite recent efforts to ease access to medical care, do 34 million people still have no health insurance, while over 176 million delay in getting needed care-- or put it off completely?"

A new WestHealth-Gallup (2019) survey has reported that 65 million adults said that cost kept them from seeking treatment for a medical problem, while nearly a quarter reduced other routine household spending to pay for health care and/or medicine. As many as 45% of those surveyed said they worried that a major health event could bankrupt them, including one in three families earning at least $180,000 annually. There is just one answer to each of these questions: there is no government-guaranteed right to health care in the U.S. This contrasts with all other high-income countries, and many others not as wealthy, which, through constitutional or legislative action provide their populations with “universal” health care: at least basic medical coverage and insurance against a financial catastrophe triggered by medical problems.

In contrast, the U.S. health-care system is an agglomeration of private corporations whose chief function is to generate profits, and only secondarily to promote health.

Can we still even look to government to solve these kinds of massive societal problems? Unfortunately, there really is no viable alternative. But a government completely defined by establishment conservatives? Not a chance that something positive is going to come out of that, is there? I've lost all faith in Pelosi-- 100% after the concentration-funding episode and her vicious attacks on AOC, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley. And Pallone? He's a crooked machine pol from New Jersey and I'm afraid Pramila is just dreaming if she thinks he's part of the solution to any problems. Maybe the Congressional Progressive Caucus should be planning a strategy right now for post-Pelosi congressional leadership. Otherwise we'll be stuck flatfooted again... with another bag of stinking, rotten shit the way the DCCC election wound up this cycle. There are plenty more in Congress just like Cheri Bustos, just like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, just like Kurt Schrader, just like Josh Gottheimer...

Portrait by Jack Spencer