What Do You Do About Democratic Candidates Who Oppose Medicare?

From 1905, when it was first introduced, to 1965 when a Democratic landslide the year before than finally allowed it to pass, Medicare had been opposed by conservatives-- of both parties. In its last few years before passage, Wilbur Mills (D-AR), the completely conservative Democrat sexual predator and alcoholic who chaired the then all-powerful House Ways and Means Committee prevented Medicare from being voted on. The Democratic landslide of 1964 broke the grip on Congress of the alliance between the GOP and the right-wing (mostly) southern Democrats.

Democrats gained a net of 37 new seats, bringing their already strong majority to 295-140. But it wasn't just the number of Democrats, it was the quality and progressive nature of Democrats that allowed passage of Medicare-- albeit a flawed compromised version that conservatives had turned it into (no one under 65, no dental, no medicine, no vision, etc). Four conservative Democrats were defeated by Republicans in Alabama as were 2 in Georgia, which may have made some establishment Democrats sad but is part of the reason Medicare passed. Right-wing Republican Patrick Martin was defeated by liberal John Tunney in Riverside, California. San Franciscans elected Medicare champion Phillip Burton to his first term. Of Iowa's 6 anti-Medicare Republicans, five were swept out of office by Democrats who backed it. Of the 6 new Democrats elected that year in Michigan all were Medicare supporters. In New York 7 Republican anti-Medicare congressmen were defeated by 7 pro-Medicare Democrats. In Robert Taft, Jr., a fanatic anti-Medicare freak from Ohio, retired from the House (to run a losing race for senator) and was replaced by Democrat Robert Sweeney, who backed Medicare. Memphis, Tennessee Democrats defeated racist dog Clifford Davis in the primary, replacing him with pro-Medicare Democrat George Grider. In Washington state, 4 anti-Medicare Republicans were replaced by 4 pro-Medicare Democrats, including future Speaker Tom Foley and future Senator Brock Adams.

Sorry for the tangent, but I do want to say that if not for conservatives-- Republicans and Democrats both-- the U.S. would have had Medicare decades sooner than 1965 and it would have had far more in common with the Medicare-For-All bills that were written by Bernie in the Senate and Pramila Jayapal in the House than with the Medicare today. It would have covered everyone for starters. And it would have covered medicine, treatment for eyes and ears, teeth and mental conditions.

When rotgut shitbags like Michael Bennet-- an appointed U.S. Senator with a consistent rating of "F" from ProgressivePunch-- say, as he always does, "One sure way of losing a Senate race in Colorado would be to be for Medicare for All," his is the voice of Wilbur Mills and other conservatives who opposed Medicare for 60 years. His is the voice of conservatives who opposed the American Revolution, the emancipation of the slaves, giving people who were neither male, wealthy, or white the right to vote, the voice of people who opposed Civil Rights and desegregation, public education, anti-trust laws, environmental protection, consumer protection, the 8-hour work week, Social Security, unemployment insurance, gay equality... All the things conservatives fought against... those were the Michael Bennet's of our past and today it should come as no surprise that these conservatives oppose Medicare-for-All and call it socialism. Needless to say, Bennet wants more douche bags like himself in the Senate, which is why he has endorsed John Frackenlooper, who also opposes Medicare-for-All.

It's a funny thing about Frackenlooper. During one of the debates, when he was still running his nonsensical presidential run-- with his mighty average 0.3% support-- he was trying to make the case that he is progressive by bragging that marijuana legalization happened while he was governor of Colorado. That's true; tidied. He somehow neglected to mention that he fought legalization all the way. Even after Amendment 64 passed in 2012, Frackenlooper called it reckless and then sulked for two years.

Not the same as Medicare-for-All... but not unrelated either

Last month, the Colorado Sun compared all of the state's Senate candidates vying to take on right-wing Republican Cory Gardner, in regard to Medicare for All. Frackenlooper, they pointed out, has cautioned that supporting Medicare-for-All "gives Republicans a lane of attack to label Democrats socialist. He said the party 'might as well FedEx the election to Donald Trump' if they don’t heed his warning." I can imagine him warning that the Sons of Liberty were a bunch of extremists and siding with Jospeh Galloway to advocate not breaking with Britain. He probably would have moved to Britain with Galloway and other loyalists who felt the demands for independence were too extreme. That's who Frackenlooper is and has always been-- cowardly, visor-free, conservative garbage.

In Colorado’s Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, at least two candidates support a single-payer government plan that covers everyone through Medicare, including the best-known candidate in the race, Andrew Romanoff.

“A lot of folks find when they change jobs, quit their jobs, when they get fired or their employer goes out of business, they lose their coverage,” said Romanoff, former speaker of the Colorado House. “So if we are serious about guaranteeing health care to all Americans, making sure that’s not just a paper promise but real access to health care, then I think we’ve got to rethink the way that the system works. It’s a false promise to tell folks that their coverage is secure under an existing system.”

The other candidate is Stephany Rose Spaulding, who says that health care should focus on taking care of people and not making money for private insurance companies. “I would make the public option so great that people would find no need for private insurance,” the Baptist pastor and University of Colorado-Colorado Springs professor said.

The stance aligns the two with the policy’s champion in the Democratic presidential primary, Bernie Sanders. The Vermont senator supports a plan that would essentially get rid of private insurance in favor of government coverage for doctor appointments, prescriptions and more. His rival, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, agrees with the idea, as do four other candidates, though they leave room for private insurance.

Romanoff’s plan differs from Sanders’ model in a key way. He thinks people should be able to supplement their Medicare coverage with private insurance if they wish, mirroring how the government-run health care system works today. That, he believes, would allow people to have more choice in their care but also protect them from losing care all together.

“I wish a public option had been added to the Affordable Care Act when this debate began 10 years ago,” he said. “I think a public option would be an improvement on the status quo. I just don’t want to lose sight of the end goal here, which is to get to a place of health care for all.”

Gardner is using Sanders’ embrace of Democratic socialism and Medicare for All as fodder for attack against the crowded field of Democrats seeking to unseat him. It’s a key part of his campaign.

“Socialized medicine means less choice, higher taxes and longer wait times and more government control,” Gardner said during the Western Conservative Summit in downtown Denver last month. “It means losing the health care that you have at your job and having it replaced with government-run healthcare. It’s so free that it’s unavailable. … We know that Democrats’ Medicare for All will actually result in Medicare for none.”

Romanoff and Spaulding reject Gardner’s argument and brush off Bennet’s argument.

“Is this argument going to make it easier for the insurance industry and the drug companies to bankroll Cory Gardner’s campaign and beat up on any Democrat that dares to take them on? Then the answer to that question is yes,” Romanoff said. “But there are more people who are committed to getting a place of universal health care then there are insurance companies and drug companies intent on killing the plan.”

Spaulding said people who call Democrats socialist for supporting Medicare for All are “just trying to trigger people’s emotions.”

“I would say to Bennet that more than 70% of Americans are advocating for a health care system that everyone can have access to,” she said. “So I don’t think we are alienating anyone.”

And then came all the dummy candidates, careerists who just want the job but are clueless and without strong values or principles and are examples of what's wrong with the American political class.

...Others in the Democratic field running to unseat Gardner support a government-run health insurance option that could operate alongside the Affordable Care Act but would allow people to keep their private provider.

“I think a public option is very much wanted across America,” said Alice Madden, a former Colorado House Majority leader. “My view is, it’s about choice. I think if it’s done well in 10 years, maybe private insurance does go away because everyone sees this is the way to go. But if someone is fearful and it totally flips them out (to lose their private insurance) why would you make them do that?”

As for why she thinks Medicare for All is the wrong way to go, Madden says: “I don’t know if it’s necessary and would maybe end up wasting some taxpayers dollars where you don’t need to.”

Dan Baer, an Obama-era diplomat, calls his version of the public-option plan “Medicare for All who need it” or “Medicare for All who want it.”

“I think it makes sense to start with targeting the people who don’t have care right now or people who don’t have access to affordable care,” Baer said.

  ...John Walsh, Colorado’s former U.S. Attorney, and state Sen. Angela Williams also are generally on the same page as their Democratic rivals when it comes to endorsing a public option.

“I think that we have before us a system that could work and should work if we repair it,” Walsh said of the Affordable Care Act.

Williams said she’s “not ready to take away people’s choices, but we want to ensure that people who don’t have healthcare coverage-- that we take care of them with an option.”

She doesn’t foresee the divide on health care becoming a serious divide in the large field. “I think that there are a lot of talented people running in the Senate race, and I believe that we’re all going to be as cordial as possible in running this race,” she said. “Because divisiveness, we might disagree on our views, on issues, but Colorado doesn’t like negative campaigning.”

Baer echoed that sentiment. “I’m proud to be part of the party that is trying to solve a problem that is facing too many Americans,” he said. “And I think we are having a healthy policy discussion.”

I asked a candidate from a different race-- in a fairly red district-- why his e-mails weren't mentioning Medicare-for-All, just GOP/DCCC-type messaging about "access." I asked him if there was a strategy, since I know he is absolutely in favor of Medicare-for-All. Here's what he wrote to me:

No. There’s no strategy. This week has been a bit of a rough one here on my campaign internally. The guy that has been helping me, set me up with this digital marketing firm and turns out that both of them are pretty moderate and want me to run more moderately and think that’s the path to win. This [the e-mail I was complaining to him about] came from their advice-- it was set up a while ago before I publicly endorsed Jayapal’s bill-- so I missed circling back to it and didn’t realize it was still in the queue to go out.

But-- they are gone now. Both of them. I’m not going to run as a moderate and I don’t need people pushing me that way. Unfortunately-- I wish this email had been stronger on the healthcare front-- but hopefully I can send out another one soon and clearly lay out my position for Medicare for All. Strike this up as an early mistake.

I’ve brought on another digital marketing firm which I think will fit my campaign much better. And I’m in the midst of bringing on another manager as well-- someone who worked with AOC last cycle.

I’m seeing there’s a bit of a learning curve for a first time candidate. It takes a minute to realize the value of the advice you get at first. But I’m learning.

Axios reported yesterday that Pelosi is about to release a moderate drug-pricing plan that "would direct the federal government to negotiate the price of certain expensive drugs with little or no competition-- and, crucially, that would also become the price in the private market, not just the Medicare drug coverage price... That's awfully close to what Trump has endorsed before, but Democrats aren’t eager to share the issue ahead of 2020... The drug industry is spending record-setting amounts of cash on lobbying, and it's shoveling campaign cash at Republican senators in an effort to remind them that pharma and Republicans have always been friends. 'I think this is a real test of that alliance,' the industry lobbyist said."

The real bill, the one Pelosi will not allow to come to a vote, was written by Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)-- H.R. 1046. It has 126 Democratic cosponsors, over half the caucus, but Pelosi has it bottled up in the two committees she completely controls through her puppets, Energy and Commerce (Frank Pallone) and Ways and Means (Richard Neal).

Remember, in 2018 it was the promise to reduce prescription drug prices that helped Democrats win the midterms, as more than just the "we hate Trump" party. And reducing prescription drug prices was also a Trump promise despite Republican party protestations. It's almost a year since the midterms and Pelosi hasn't moved an inch-- just more political game-playing, which is the only thing she does any more.

Doggett’s bill deals with pharmaceutical companies that don't negotiate in good faith by enablinhg HHS to issue licenses to competitors who would be able to produce the same drug as a generic, effectively eliminating a company’s monopoly on a particular drug. Pelosi's leadership has largely avoid backing Doggett's bill-- no Steny Hoyer (MD), no Ben Ray Luján (NM), no Jim Clyburn (SC), no Hakeem Jeffries (NY), no Cheri Bustos (IL), no Frank Pallone (NJ), no Richard Neal (MA)... And, of course, the Republican-lite Blue Dog/New Dem freshmen all oppose it-- all the regular suspects: Kendra Horn (OK), Sharice Davids (KS), Joe Cunningham (SC), Xochitl Torres Small (NM), Ben McAdams (UT), Chrissy Houlahan (PA), Angie Craig (MN), Jeff Van Drew (NJ), Colin Allred (TX), Mikie Sherrill (NJ), Anthony Brindisi (NY)... Their constituents like being ripped off by drug companies?

Even though Trump kind of likes Pelosi's plan, a corporate shill like George Holding (R-NC) has finally found an issue to oppose Trump on! The progressive Democrat opposing Holding's reelection this cycle, Jason Butler, told me that "Holding is not fighting to lower prescription drug prices for the people of North Carolina and he’s not protecting his people from the predatory practices of big pharma that led to the opioid epidemic. Some wonder why? Well, you don’t need to look any further than his bank account. As of 2018 Holding has received more than $185,000 from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Holding has a long history of putting personal profit before the needs of his people and its time for a leader who will stand up to big pharma and put the needs of the people of NC first."

Shaniyat Chowdhury is the progressive Democrat taking on corrupt New Dem Gregory Meeks in southeast Queens. "It’s not enough," he told us this morning, "to call yourself a Democrat by covering horns with a halo, and pretending you’re fighting for working class people. Gregory Meeks already accepts millions of dollars from the finance, insurance, and real estate lobbyists to keep him in power, but not for working class people like us. He leverages big money in DC for industries that do not care about our well being. Prescription drug prices are an all-time high. In the richest nation in the world, no person should be too poor to live. Big pharma and our government should not determine the price tag for our lives. Immoral incompetency is why things never get done in DC, and is exactly why corrupt incumbents should be challenged."

Kim Williams is also a progressive Democrat running for a seat occupied by a corrupt conservative, in this case, the one occupied by Blue Dog Jim Costa in the Central Valley. She told us today that "This summer, we knocked on thousands of doors and spoke with hundreds of voters in this district. The topic that came up most was healthcare. We've heard story after story about people who are on the brink of homelessness because of medical debt. We also lack care, and I, myself, have to drive two hours to get to my doctor often after waiting weeks to get an appointment. One in four adults live below the poverty line here and two-thirds of our kids are on some form of federal assistance. And if the national average holds true for this district, at least twenty percent of our residents are choosing between medicine and food. Is now really the time to be playing political football? And what is the point of holding on to a majority if you're going to put politics over people's lives? Every crisis families in this district face is directly tied to political neglect, and it's long past time for change."