If The DCCC Would Stop Recruiting Jeff Van Drew-Types, Medicare-For-All Would Win Many More Congressional Seats For Democrats

Data for Progress, Sean McElwee's outfit, has been doing an especially important-- even magnificent-- job this cycle. On Friday McElwee took on-- with data-- the most pernicious predators playing in the 2020 Democratic primary, the Partnership for America's Health Care Future, a multimillion-dollar cooperative designed to overwhelm not just the swelling Medicare for All movement, but every single Democratic proposal that would significantly expand the government's role in health care. A dark money insurance industry front group, filled with establishment dreck from the dredges of the Democratic Party, the Partnership for America's Health Care Future was created by lobbyist scum from hospital, health insurance, and pharmaceutical corporations committed to preventing anything that would lead to single payer healthcare or any kind of expansion of Medicare. The group feeds talking points to anti-health care candidates, especially Status Quo Joe and Mayo Pete while helping to finance their campaigns.

"Throughout the primary," wrote McElwee, "pundits and commentators have said that Medicare for All would be an albatross for Democrats in 2020. However, the polling evidence suggests a far more nuanced picture. Over the last several months, Data for Progress has been working to test Medicare for All in a wide range of electoral environments, using a range of different vendors and our analysis of the evidence suggests that Medicare for All will remain on net positive even after facing rightwing push-back."

In a randomized trial, the Democrat running on Medicare for All performed between 4 and 10 points better than a Democrat running on improving the ACA. In all cases, the Medicare for All Democrat easily defeated Trump.

Even after a partisan frame, it is unlikely that Medicare for All will see net opposition from voters, consistent with the fact that even after several months of negative ads and critical media coverage, the policy still has net positive support.

Democrats had strong net-positive trust on both the “expanding healthcare” (50 percent to 37 percent) and on Medicare for All (49 percent to 35 percent).

What Data For Progress' research concluded is that "a wide range of polling data as well as the electoral record of the 2018 midterms suggest that Medicare for All does not threaten the Democratic Party’s electoral chances. Even when voters are presented with arguments for and against Medicare for All, they support the policy. A hypothetical Democratic candidate running on Medicare for All leads Trump, even with three separate Trump arguments tested." The thermometer on the right leads to Blue America candidates who are campaigning on a platform that includes Medicare-for-All. Mark Gamba is the progressive mayor of Milwaukie, Oregon and he's running for a congressional seat currently held by anti-health care Blue Dog Kurt Schrader. "Statistical electoral advantages aside, the right thing, the moral thing to do is to continue to talk to folks about the possibility of Medicare for All," Mark told us. "People are needlessly suffering, going broke, becoming homeless and dying because of our corporately driven 'health care for profit system.' Yes we have outstanding doctors, nurses and hospitals, but there are gatekeepers in the insurance companies whose job it is to tell you NO! No, you may not have that test. No, your policy doesn't cover that treatment. No we don't cover that drug until you've met your $10,000 deductible. Never mind what your doctor recommends. They have all kinds of valid sounding reasons, but the real reason is that in order for them to maximize profits, they need to give you less health care." He was just getting started:

In every other industrialized nation in the world, that is not the way health care works. Health Care systems in the rest of the world are designed to give you health care, not maximize profits. Did you know that before Richard Nixon, hospitals were not allowed to make a profit? They were simply there to provide medical care and break even.

The important thing to remember is that when there are massive profits on the line, there will be congress people willing to do whatever it takes to maintain the current system for their campaign donors. Many of those congress people are also millionaires themselves, and their personal, ongoing wealth is tied to these industries. Take for example my opponent, Kurt Schrader who is a pharmaceutical fortune heir. He is well practiced at writing, or at least attaching his name to bills written either for or by the pharmaceutical industry. We pay as much as 10x what people in other countries pay for the same drugs! Congress has allowed and/or caused that to be the case. Piece by piece, little by little, the system has been gamed to make sure that the industry wrings every penny out of a person whose life depends on a particular drug. I'll give you perfect example: H.R. 938, the “Bringing Low-cost Options and Competition while Keeping Incentives for New Generics (BLOCKING) Act of 2019,” introduced by Representatives Kurt Schrader and Buddy Carter. This bill sounds like a good idea right?  Allow more generics to come to market sooner! The reality is, that the reason the current process is there, is that every time the first generic of a particular drug comes to market, there is a massive lawsuit and the only way the generic manufacturer can hope to make back their legal fees is if they have a grace period that will allow them to cover those costs. If Schrader's bill passes-- fewer generics will come to market and they will come to market much later, because no one will be willing to be the first company in, because they will lose money. As I said, a perfect example of the kind of sneaky, good sounding bill designed to maximize profits of the drug companies that are radically overcharging for their product.

It's time to remove the millionaires with deep ties to greedy corporations and replace them with proven champions for the people.

Eva Putzova is also a Medicare-for-All evangelist running against an anti-health care Blue Dog, former Republican legislator Tom O'Halleran. She's been campaigning all over her massive district, which stretches from suburbs south of Phoenix and north of Tucson to include nearly the whole eastern part of the state and most of the northern part of the state, as well as Flagstaff and smaller cities like Winslow, Tuba City, Winkelman, Sedona and... the Grand Canyon, as well as the Navajo Nation. "Voters I speak with in my district," Eva told us, "understand the benefits of an expanded Medicare-for-All healthcare plan. They know it is the answer to the ill health and early death of the 30 million Americans who are still uninsured as well as the hundreds of thousands who declare bankruptcy each year due to the inability to pay their hospital bills. Expanded Medicare-for-All is both a long overdue reform and popular among voters at the same time. It is only the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies and the politicians they bribe with campaign contributions that stand in the way of finally achieving it."

Liam O'Mara is a history professor in Riverside County. His congressman is anti-health care fanatic Ken Calvert. Liam has made sure to emphasize that "Medicare is much cheaper, increases our freedom, and encourages entrepreneurship. This is not the way it's always pitched, but it's all true, and Calvert knows it. He would prefer to keep costs high for the folks of the 42nd, because higher costs mean higher profits. The lack of universal health care pushes up everyone's premium, and affects people with employer-provided coverage, too. Employers are being over-charged, and that money is part of your compensation package. This means Medicare would put cash in the pockets of everyone with plans from work-- it would be the largest middle class pay rise in a generation. It also increases freedom, as Medicare allows you to visit the physician of your choice and covers whatever your physician recommends. We can get more consumer choice and still lower costs. The voters of the 42nd feel their taxes and cost of living are too high already, and that's true. And Calvert's opposition to Medicare will keep those prices high."

Kim Williams, former diplomat in the Obama administration, is running to represent a struggling Central Valley district represented by Blue Dog Jim Costa and also contested by a mirror image supporter of his, local politician Esmeralda Soria. Neither Costa nor Soria supports Medicare-For-All. It's one of the pillars pf Kim's campaign. "The national conversation around Medicare-for-All," she told us "mirrors the discussion here at home. Our Blue Dog incumbent stands, as always, with his rich and powerful backers while the other establishment Dem in the race, Esmeralda Soria, runs from the topic at debates and then whispers support for it after progressive voters tell her what it means. We do not. Our campaign has championed Medicare for All from the beginning and voters understand the difference. They are tired of meaningless promises of more access. Access means nothing if you can not afford it. And for the 47% of the population in my district who need federal assistance to survive, they can not afford it. If you’re not fighting for bold, progressive policies like Medicare for All, you’re not fighting for anything other than the status quo."

Rachel Ventura is for Medicare-for-All-- and her conservative New Dem opponent, Bill Foster, isn't Yesterday she told me she talks to voters "every day at events and on the doors and Medicare-for-All remains very popular. We even took a Twitter poll recently and the results overwhelmingly favored Medicare-for-All. Since some Democratic presidential candidates have started attacking Medicare-for-All and promoting 'Affordable care for a few,' we are getting more questions about the M4A proposal on our literature. The good news is it creates an opportunity to explain the legislation and how it would save people money. Our opponent, Bill Foster, takes money from big Pharma and the for-profit healthcare system. Another thing I heard today while knocking on doors in Burr Ridge, Illinois is that some Democratic voters are upset at the presidential candidates who are attacking the legislation. A nurse said that she is more concerned about the Democrats not getting on board with healthcare which is sorely needed. Even Elizabeth Warren started slipping in the polls after she backed away from Medicare for All. Our race, like many others across the country, is so important, because not only do we need healthcare but winning races like mine will show we can break the status quo without the millions of corporate PAC dollars buying politicians on both sides of the aisle. In the 11th Congressional District, Medicare-for-All remains a popular issue, especially among voters who have a personal healthcare story. Some are heart wrenching. While knocking on doors in Aurora last weekend we ran into a man who was referred by a doctor to have a knee replacement. The insurance company wouldn’t pay for the surgery and first required arthroscopic meniscus repair against the doctor’s wishes. After that surgery didn’t work, he had to go through a second surgery, experiencing twice the pain, twice the recovery time, and twice the cost. He couldn’t believe that an insurance company would force him to get two surgeries. The day is past due that we give the health choices back to patients and doctors and shut down the for profit predatory insurance companies."

Brianna Wu is another progressive Medicare-for-All champion running for another seat occupied by another anti-health care New Dem. I bet you're starting to see a pattern. "Here's the bottom line," she said," we have progressive candidates to thank for bringing Medicare For All to the forefront of our political discourse.  Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want Medicare For All to be enacted, because it makes sense.  No more co-pays, or deductibles, or premiums, which add up to costing middle class families more than any price tag for Medicare For All. And EVERYONE gets covered. A few months ago, the Massachusetts chapter of the AFL-CIO passed a resolution at their state convention, declaring they would not support any presidential candidate who did not support Medicare For All. They get it. They are tired of having to fight for employer-based health insurance that provides security for their rank and file members and their families. They are leading the way for ALL working class families in Massachusetts. And yet, Rep. Stephen Lynch-- the former union president and my opponent-- claims that he is 'not yet convinced' on the benefits of Medicare For All. I'm sure his insurance industry donors agree with him, much to the dismay of his union 'brothers and sisters.' The progressive wave of the Democratic party is the future of the Democratic party. We will make gains in the Congress in 2020, and a progressive agenda that advocates Medicare For All, a Green New Deal, tuition-free public college, and many other initiatives, WILL get us there. Vote for progressive candidates for Congress to codify our party and FINALLY return our party to one that represents the people."

Want to see Congress actually change? Cenk Uygur's the way. He's running for an open seat in the suburbs north of L.A. and the establishment is trying to stop him with a garden variety corporate Democrat who would disappear into the back benches on day one and never be heard from again. And Cenk? "It is an unbelievable testament to the strength of Medicare for All," he said yesterday, "that it is still popular after the healthcare insurance industry, all of the Republican Party, the entire national media and 20 Democratic presidential candidates have argued against it. Maybe if the corporate Democrats stopped arguing against progressive positions it would be even more popular. The problem, as always, is that establishment Democrats like my opponent in CA-25 take insurance industry money and then serve those interests rather than the interest of their voters."