Abdul El-Sayed Is Running On A Bernie-Like Platform. Will Bernie Voters Turn Out For Him In The Gubernatorial Primary?

Blue America's thing has always been House races. Occasionally we stray a little and support people running for Senate, state legislatures and governor-- but not that often. This cycle, for example, we found 4 candidates-- at least so far-- running for governor who are right up our ally. It's never a thing about backing a Democrat because a Republican would be worse. That's almost always the case and no one needs Blue America to tell them about lesser of two evils. You never see someone like Gavin Newsom or Gina Raymond or Colleen Hanabusa on our list of endorsees. We've tried explaining over the last few months why we have been happy to endorse Michigan progressive Abdul El-Sayed. And this week, he gave us-- and hopefully-- lots of Michigan voters another reason for backing his bid. "Democratic gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed," wrote Jonathan Oosting in the Detroit News, "wants to make Michigan the first state in the nation with its own Medicare-for-all government health insurance system under a proposal he unveiled Wednesday."

Abdul explained to Michiganders that "Michiganders today are trapped in a broken health insurance system that leaves too many families suffering from high costs and lack of affordable coverage. Nearly 600,000 Michiganders still lack health insurance coverage, even after the expansion of Medicaid thanks to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)... Michicare is a plan for Medicare for All for the state of Michigan, providing publicly financed health insurance to all Michigan residents under age 65. Michicare would cover a comprehensive set of benefits based on the essential health benefits outlined by the Affordable Care Act, and every Michigander would choose a primary care provider to help direct their care. Michicare would eliminate co-pays and deductibles for medically necessary services, so you would not pay out-of-pocket fees when you are seeking needed care. Michicare would decrease overall healthcare costs in Michigan by moving to a streamlined system with lower administrative costs and fairer prices. Instead of deductibles, out-of-pocket costs, and premiums paid to private insurers, Michicare would be publicly financed through a combination of a payroll tax and a business tax. Private insurance companies would still be permitted to offer supplemental health insurance, but Michicare would provide comprehensive benefits to all Michiganders, diminishing the need for private coverage. Michicare is an ambitious and realistic plan to secure truly universal healthcare in Michigan."

His campaign website explains in great depth why Michigan needs Medicare-For-All, what the system would do (including how it deals with prescription drugs and, unlike Medicare, with vision and dental issues) and how it would be paid for.

El-Sayed is a doctor and the former director of the Detroit health department and his plan will result in significant health care savings for families and employers. Needless to say, conservatives oppose it and are already screaming like stuck pigs, screwing the same bullshit about it that they spewed when Social Security and Medicare were first proposed-- and fought by Republicans. "Government monopoly" is their mantra. James Hohman of the reactionary Mackinac Center for Public Policy emphasized the cynical right-wing talking points: "I can’t imagine a lot of voters will be happy to pay higher taxes in order to pay for wealthy people’s health care costs." Yeah, sure... that's what Medicare-For-All is all about. And, of course, Establishment Democrats, like Whitmer oppose single-payer as well-- even if they're afraid to say so out loud, just avoiding a substantive discussion of the idea and hoping voters don't notice. Whitmer's campaign is getting lots of money from executives from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, the state's largest private health insurer. So... sshhhhhh.

“This is an opportunity to stand up for health and human rights, to give health care to 600,000 Michiganders who have been locked out of the system," El-Sayed told The Detroit News ahead of a mid-day press conference.

The plan would “do away with things like co-pays, deductibles and premiums, which are tools the insurance companies use to extract value out of the health care system,” he said.

The plan also potentially could cost billions of dollars to implement and administer for state government. El-Sayed declined to share any cost or proposed tax revenue projections beyond what he estimates could be $5,000 a year in health care-related savings for an average Michigan family.

Single-payer health care-- or government-subsidized health care-- is an increasingly popular idea among Democrats, especially the progressive wing of the party. El-Sayed’s detailed proposal might help him stand out in his primary race against Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer of East Lansing and Ann Arbor entrepreneur Shri Thanedar.

Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who won Michigan’s 2016 presidential primary over eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, is a leading advocate for a federal Medicare-for-All type program.

El-Sayed’s state version would cover all Michigan residents, until the age of 65, when traditional Medicare coverage kicks in, according to his campaign. But it would continue to provide additional prescription drug, vision and dental coverage for seniors.

To pay for it, El-Sayed is proposing a new 2 percent tax on gross receipts for businesses with fewer than 50 employees and a 2.25 percent tax for businesses with more than 50 employees. But first $2 million in receipts would be tax exempt, meaning about 75 percent of all Michigan businesses would not be subject to the tax, he said.

The Shelby Township Democrat also wants to move to a graduated income tax. His plan calls for raising the state's 4.25 percent personal income tax to 5 percent for the lowest earners and up to 8 percent for the state’s wealthiest residents. The increase would be administered through a payroll tax deducted from employee wages.

Moving to a graduated income tax would require voter approval for an amendment to the Michigan Constitution. Other elements of the plan could require sign off by the state Legislature, currently controlled by Republicans, or GOP President Donald Trump’s administration.

Despite the potential road blocks, El-Sayed said he’s confident it's "possible" the plan could be law and noted fall elections could dramatically reshape political power in Lansing.

“We’ve got an opportunity here to put policy ahead of politics, to present a plan that Michiganders want and that will save Michiganders money,” he said. “We’ll worry about the political reality after that.”

El-Sayed's "Michicare" coverage would be based on required essential health benefits outlined in the federal Affordable Care Act insurance law, including outpatient, emergency and hospital care, maternity and newborn care, reproductive health, mental and substance abuse care, prescription drugs and rehabilitative services.

Michigan residents could still choose to purchase private health insurance to supplement the Michicare program, and business could also offer supplemental health insurance to their employees if desired.

The average Michigan family making $48,432 a year would save almost $5,000 a year on insurance, out-of-pocket health costs and auto insurance, which could get cheaper if unlimited medical benefits are not required, according to the El-Sayed campaign.

Even though Wasserman Schultz had rigged the system so that Hillary received 73 electoral votes to Bernie's 65, the voters in the Michigan primary wanted Bernie-- by a margin of 595,222 (49.8%) to 575,795 (48.3%). Had they gotten their way, had the Democratic establishment not shoved a status quo candidate down their throats, Bernie would be president now, not Trump. Take Kalamazoo County. Not only did Bernie beat Hillary 20,146 to 12,593 but he beat Trump as well (8,655). Same in Eaton County, where Bernie beat Hillary 7,007 to 5,560, where Trump took 5,386 votes on the same day. Same in Grand Traverse County-- Bernie 8,091, Hillary 4,140, Trump 5,891. Same in Ingham-- Bernie 22,909, Hillary 18,287, Trump 8,056. Kent Country saw Bernie roll up the votes as well-- 43,375 to Hillary's 25,899 and Trump's 22,742. We could go on and on. But you get the point.

The new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll-- released yesterday-- shows that 22% of voters nationally (32% among Democrats), picked health care as the issue that will be most important in determining how they vote in November, above the economy and jobs at 19%, guns at 13%, taxes and spending at 11% and immigration at 10%.If El-Sayeed can appeal to these voters in the August 7th Democratic primary, he'll be Michigan's next governor-- and Michigan will be the first state with a viable Medicare-For-All healthcare system.

Colluding With The Republicans To Help Wall Street Will Hurt Right Of Center Senate Democrats, Not Help Them

One strategy for conservative Democratic senators in Trump states to win reelection is to show voters back home how bipartisan they are. I wonder if touting the Wall-street friendly dismantling of Dodd-Frank is a good idea for Democrats. Republicans aren't going to vote for them; they have their own candidates. Perhaps some independents will. But how many Democrats will be discouraged by those tactics to not turn out in November? We'll find out in North Dakota, Indiana and Montana, where 3 endangered Democratic senators are running away from core Democratic values and embracing mainstream conservatism. Last Thursday Trump signed a bill Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly and Jon Tester had attached their name to as co-authors (though it was actually written by bank lobbyists).

Tester: "One-size-fits-all rules from Washington have been strangling Montana’s Main Street economy and threatening our rural way of life. When the extremes on both sides of the aisle tried to derail our efforts, we bucked partisan politics and instead found common ground."

Extremes? Who would that be? Elizabeth Warren and Bernie? I'm sure the 3 right-wing senators are aware that Bernie won the 2016 primaries in their states against the status quo candidate all three of them supported (Hillary).

• North Dakota:
• Bernie- 64.2%
• Hillary- 25.6%

• Indiana:
• Bernie- 52.5%
• Hillary- 47.5%

• Montana:
• Bernie- 51.1%
• Hillary- 44.6%

I can't imagine that any-- or many-- of these Bernie voters are going to vote for the Republican Senate challengers in November. After all, the Democratic incumbents are certainly the lesser of two evils. But I wonder how many of these Democrats are just fed up with voting for lesser evils and will just not turn out at all.

There are 56 counties in Montana. Bernie won 34 of them. 3 small ones were exactly tied. Only 5 have over 80,000 people:

• Yellowstone- 50.2% Hillary
• Missoula- 60.4% Bernie
• Gallatin- 57.0% Bernie
• Flathead- 55.5% Bernie
• Cascade- 52.7%

Is Tester going to explain to these people that Bernie is "extreme?" For wanting to keep banks from blowing up the economy again?

[W]hether the law will turn into electoral gold remains to be seen.

The banking industry remains deeply unpopular, and liberal activists have assailed the new law as a giveaway to the financial industry.

“There’s nobody that is going to be motivated to support someone because they’re proving their bipartisanship by giving banks what they want,” said a former Democratic strategist now leading a liberal nonprofit.

Trump made slashing Obama regulations a pillar of his 2016 campaign, and he pledged to “dismantle” Dodd-Frank shortly after his election. He hailed the new law as delivering on that promise.

“This is truly a great day for Americans, and a great day for workers and small businesses across the nation,” Trump said at the Thursday signing.

Heitkamp, Tester and Donnelly were key forces behind the successful loosening of the Dodd-Frank rules. The trio, along with Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), anchored the Democratic side of the negotiations.

...Heitkamp, Tester and Donnelly have also dismissed suggestions that they pushed to loosen the banking rules to protect their right flank in the midterm elections. While Heitkamp has avoided Trump’s wrath so far, the president has held rallies in Tester and Donnelly’s states in support of their Republican opponents.

“This election has nothing to do with this,” Tester said during a March press conference on the bill. “This has everything to do with access to capital and making sure rural America remains strong moving forward. If this bill didn't do that, I wouldn't support it."

While praise from Trump is toxic for Democrats in liberal strongholds, it could provide a boost to moderates from states where Trump is popular.

Praise from Trump? Was Sylvan Lane smoking crack when he wrote that? And where were his editors? Smoking crack with him? Trump isn't going to be praising Tester, Donnelly or Heitkamp before the election. This morning the NY Times reported that Trump "is planning to focus his midterm campaigning this summer on red states with competitive Senate races where he has a deep reservoir of support and can bring a message devised to stoke partisan outrage. The strategy is intended to take advantage of his star power among core Republican supporters while minimizing his exposure in states with competitive congressional races where his polarizing presence could help motivate Democrats as well as independents and moderate Republicans." Perhaps they should be hoping they get praise from Bernie.

It remains to be seen whether scaling back rules on banks will help the Democratic candidates win Republican votes, but polling indicates it could work.

Close to 70 percent of Republicans polled by Gallup in November said there is too much federal regulation of businesses, compared to 20 percent of Democrats.

A July study from Pew also showed a 13-point gap in the share of Republicans (46 percent) and Democrats (33 percent) who said banks and financial institutions have a positive impact on the U.S.

The American Bankers Association (ABA), a top U.S. bank lobbying group, has sought to aid Democrats who’ve supported efforts to roll back Dodd-Frank. The group spent $100,000 on TV ads in Montana featuring bankers praising Tester for his work on loosening bank rules.

“The release of these positive television ads represents another step in ABA’s advocacy for our members,” said ABA press secretary Ian McKendry. “We will be supporting candidates in both parties who have advocated for policies that will help banks better serve their customers and communities.”

But other campaign veterans doubt that the senators’ support for the law will be a difference-maker in November.

Stuart Roy, a GOP strategist and former aide to Senate Majority Leader Cocaine Mitch (R-KY), said “endangered Democrats will find this vote as helpful as a parachute that opens after the second bounce.”

“Voters barely remember big legislation,” Roy said, calling the bill “not even a fraction” of the importance of the main issues driving voters to the polls.

Roy also said Democrats could risk suppressing their base by touting efforts to scrap regulations.

A February poll commissioned by Americans for Financial Reform, a nonprofit supporting tough bank laws, found that only 17 percent of voters support loosening regulations on the biggest firms impacted by the bipartisan bill.

The survey, conducted by left-leaning Public Policy Polling, also found that 59 percent of voters support Dodd-Frank, and only 25 percent believe it went too far in regulating banks.

The former Democratic strategist said Democratic support for the Dodd-Frank bill is mainly useful as a way to keep financial sector super PACs and bank lobbyists from supporting their Republican opponents.

“It allows them to try to keep industry from donating to their opponent,” the strategist said. “But in terms of winning voters, it’s a losing issue for everybody.”

This kind of blatant anti-populism is going to cost Heitkamp, Donnelly and Tester dearly in November. They should have followed Manchin, who was smart enough to vote for the grassroots on this one. And I bet Democrats and independents agree with Elizabeth Warren on this one, not Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly or Jon Tester... or Donald Trump.

Related-- very related: Despite the DCCC urging Democratic candidates to keep at arm's length from Medicare-for-All, it's the candidates who are ignoring their bad advice who are doing the best. The DCCC is incapable of learning that lesson though, even if they weep bitterly as their shit candidates-- like Jay Hulings (TX), Brad Ashford (NE) and Jim Gray (KY) are flushed down the electoral toilet. Jake Johnson for Common Dreams:

With Medicare for All reaching record levels of support among both members of Congress and the American public—where support for single-payer is spreading "like wildfire"-- policy platforms demanding that the U.S. ditch its wasteful and deeply immoral for-profit system in favor of guaranteed healthcare for every American are also proving to be winners in Democratic primary fights across the country.

In red and blue states alike, candidates backing Medicare for All have emerged victorious in Democratic primary battles where, in some cases, their opponents had the backing of the party establishment.

...Further demonstrating the American public's hunger for a system that guarantees healthcare as a right regardless of one's ability to pay, a town hall hosted by Sanders and other Medicare for All advocates earlier this year drew 1.6 million viewers despite a complete blackout by the corporate media.

"It ain't gonna be on CBS. It ain't gonna be on NBC. What astounds me is we already have a pretty good majority of the American people who already believe in universal healthcare, believe that it is the government's responsibility to make sure that health care is a right," Sanders said. "And we have reached that stage with media not talking about the issue at all."

"Together we will successfully move the United States to a Medicare-for-All, single-payer healthcare system and guarantee healthcare to all," Sanders concluded.

Will Single Payer Turn Texas Blue?

Rick doesn't have the most money, but he has the best issue for Tuesday

The media tended to cover Kara Eastman's startling-- at least to them-- win of DCCC/Blue Dog Ben Ashbrook in Omaha last week as a win for Medicare-for-All versus a status quo approach. And there is no doubt that that was a part of the equation that, despite the DCCC, catapulted Kara into the Democratic Party nomination. But it wasn't just their two respective approaches to health care. Heath care is very important, but the progressive gestalt was more important for Kara, as it has been for winning candidates all around the country.

The DCCC has warned their collection of crappy status quo candidates to talk in general terms about "universal heath care" and "improving" Obamacare but to avoid anything specific about Medicare for All or single payer other than-- if they must-- bringing the concepts up as "options." The leaders of the DCCC-- whether members or staffers-- don't believe in single payer and they don't think general election voters want it. The DCCC is way too conservative for anything that changey and foward and progressive.

Yesterday Politico noted that Democratic candidates in Texas-- at least some-- are counting on single payer to get them over the hump... at least in contested primary runoffs Tuesday. True progressives in the races think it will take them all the way to Congress in November. "Democrats hoping to wrest congressional seats away from diehard repeal-and-replace Republicans are campaigning on an unlikely issue for Texas-- single-payer health care. Across the country, many Democrats are trying to minimize internal battles on health care. But Democrats in this deep red state have also watched closely races where single-payer advocates have upset centrist primary opponents. And some believe that moving left on health care will mobilize new voters in primaries-- and offer a shot at winning come November." The Texas primaries were first and the DCCC saw many iff their crappy conservative candidates miss even making it into the runoffs, like Jay Hulings in TX-23.

More than half the 22 Democratic House candidates competing in the Texas primary runoff next Tuesday openly tout their support for single-payer health care. On the Senate side, Democrat Beto O'Rourke, who handily won his March primary, will face Sen. Ted Cruz. Cruz built his reputation on shutting down down the government in a failed bid to stop Obamacare in 2013. O'Rourke says he supports strengthening the Affordable Care Act now but starting on a path to an eventual single-payer health system.

“One of the things that exists for us is a large, very large number of people who are progressive who are not participating in the ballot box,” said Wendy Davis, a Texas Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2014. “I’ve heard the analogy before that we aren’t trying to get people to convert from Catholicism to Baptism, but trying to get people who are Baptist to come to church.”

Pulling up Texas' entrenched Republican roots is a tough task for Democrats, and the state is unlikely to lean left anytime soon. Still, the state's Democrats face a very different political climate in 2018. For starters, GOP attacks on the Affordable Care Act resonate less with voters.

“The Republican Party in Texas took a position that was more extreme than others, vilifying anything associated with the term Obamacare,” said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston. “It’s less and less effective, every year that passes from the Obama administration.”

For the first time in 25 years, Democratic candidates are running in every congressional race in Texas. Many of them, like Democrats across the country, have made health care their central campaign issue.

But Democrats in Texas believe that talking about health care gives them an even greater advantage. The state has the highest uninsured rate in the country. Its Republican attorney general is once again suing to overturn Obamacare.

And while the state remains one of 19 that hasn't expanded Medicaid, 95 percent of Democratic primary voters in March replied yes to a non-binding proposition asking if everyone in Texas should have a right to health care.

“Health care is one of our number one issues this election,” said Tariq Thowfeek, communications director for the Texas Democratic Party. “Our platform is far more progressive” than the national Democratic party's, he said.

Still, the issue of whether to support single-payer vs. the less provocative goal of expanding existing ACA protections has become divisive in the handful of races where Democrats believe they have a shot at flipping Republican seats.

That includes the 7th Congressional District, just west of Houston, which backed Hillary Clinton for president over Donald Trump. It has been represented by Republican Rep. John Culberson since 2001 and is home to many health care workers at the Texas Medical Center.

Primary voters winnowed the crowded Democratic field to Laura Moser, who embraces single-payer health care, and Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, who supports building on ACA coverage gains. They will face off again on Tuesday.

Fletcher, an attorney, believes that single-payer is too extreme a position for voters in the district.

“This is a traditionally Republican district that doesn’t think government is the solution to everything,” Fletcher said.

The DCCC published opposition research on Moser ahead of the March primary, arguing that she carries too much baggage to win the general election-- and in the process drawing national attention for its attack on the more liberal candidate. Moser, described on her website as a "working mom turned progressive activist turned candidate," promised that if she prevails on Tuesday she won’t back away from single-payer.

“I hate it when Democrats use Republican talking points,” she said. “Obviously we aren’t going to wake up tomorrow with single-payer, but we have to stake out our position unapologetically.”

Elsewhere in Texas the divide is more muddled.

In the 21st Congressional District, where Republican Rep. Lamar Smith is retiring after more than three decades, the Democratic primary runoff pits progressive Mary Street Wilson against the more centrist Joseph Kopser, an Army veteran and former Republican favored by the national Democrats.

Kopser told Politico that he would support a single-payer health system if he had to vote on a bill. But he doesn’t talk about it on the campaign trail. Nor does he tout specific ideas like “Medicare-for-all” that could alienate conservative voters in the district, which stretches from Austin to San Antonio and west into the Texas Hill Country.

On the other hand, Wilson-- a pastor and former math teacher whose first-place March finish was among the biggest primary surprises in the state-- has been touting her support for a Medicare-for-all bill, believing it will appeal to older voters who dominate the district.

“I’m not just a bleeding-heart liberal saying everyone should have health care,” said Wilson. “I believe it’s a practical solution.”

But the polling power of single-payer is unclear. More than half the Democratic challengers who won the first round of primary voting outright include single-payer health care in their campaign platforms. None of the nine Democratic incumbents do. (Democrats currently hold 11 seats in the Texas delegation to the GOP's 24, with last month's resignation of Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold leaving one vacancy.)

In the general election campaign, Republicans are sure to argue that support for single-payer amounts to a tax hike-- anathema to conservative Texans.

Even in blue California, single-payer has stalled in the state Legislature amid cost projections and worries about new taxes.

Still, a fire has been lit in Texas. Talk of single-payer health care won’t die down even if progressive candidates lose, said Jim Hightower, head of Our Revolution Texas, which is building on Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential campaign message. Hightower is kicking off a 12-city tour this summer aimed at rallying support to introduce a Medicare-for-All bill in the 2019 state legislative session.

Many of the single payer supporters in Texas' run-offs Tuesday can be found by clicking on the ActBlue Turning Texas Blue thermometer on the right. If Single payer doesn't turn Texas blue... will Trump manage to do it himself? Well, not himself... with the whole fabulous team he's somehow managed to assemble:

Jason Westin And The Children’s Health Insurance Program

Last year Blue America looked carefully at the race in the west Houston congressional district held by Paul Ryan rubber stamp John Culberson. The district, which went from a pretty red area with a PVI of R+13 in 2015 voted 48.5% to 47.1% for Clinton (after giving Romney a 59.9-38.6% win over Obama) and now has a more manageable R+7 PVI. There's more than one good candidate running for the nomination to take on Culberson but the best candidate with the best chance of beating Culberson in the general election is award-winning cancer researcher and doctor Jason Westin. Blue America endorsed him. Today we asked him to give us his perspective on the GOP sabotage of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Technically, Paul Ryan and his rubber stamps like Culberson have allowed the funding for the crucial program-- crucial for millions of children and their families-- to expire in September. Now states-- Connecticut and Colorado were the first two-- are starting to inform families there is no more money left for treatment. A new Congressional Budget Office report shows it would be effectively cost-free to fund the program for the next decade and Ryan has still done nothing. By the end of February half the states in the country will have no more money for the program unless Congress acts.

Please take a look at Dr. Westin's guest post below. The Take Back Texas ActBlue thermometer on the right is a simple way you can contribute to Jason's grassroots campaign. You'll find him-- and other progressives-- running in Texas this year. Even $5 and $10 contributions add up and help beat back the corporate flood of money that has kept characters like Culberson in office and serving the interests of the corporations and wealthy families who have subsidized his political career for years. Jason is running a grassroots campaign. Last cycle, Culberson spent $1,193,411 to defeat a conservative oily Democrat, James Cargas, who is running again and who spent just $62,159. This cycle a very different race is shaping up and, besides Culberson, 4 Democrats have already raised over $100,000. Dr. Westin has raised $261,590 compared to Culberson's $640,744. In a wave election, challengers don't need to raise as much as the incumbent but they do need enough money to effectively get out their message. Please consider tapping on that thermometer and doing what you can.




Medicaid Work Requirement And CHIP
-by Dr. Jason Westin

Why are Mr. Trump the GOP allowing states to require a job to receive Medicaid? Because they are "all in" that healthcare is a privilege-- there is no other explanation. They are wrong. I learned in my first days in medical school that Healthcare is a human right.

Almost 20 years ago during medical school, I volunteered at and eventually helped lead the Equal Access Clinic, a student run center to give care to those who had no access. Most were hard working people who knew they were sick, but could not afford care. Those who did not work were unable due to mental or physical illness. There were no people seeing us because they were lazy or trying to "game the system." They came to us for help, because they knew if they didn't get care, eventually they'd get really sick and end up in the ER or worse. They were constantly fearful of what would happen next, and if they'd be able to support their family.

When we helped them with blood pressure or diabetes meds, they were so grateful, I can still see their smiles almost 20 years later. The medications we gave them were helpful, but the true reason for their gratitude was being seen by another human being as worthy, that someone cared. They walked around everyday knowing they were a ticking time bomb and that no one would help them-- and that takes a real toll on how you perceive your own worth. It hardens people-- it makes them withdraw. When we reached out and said "you matter to me," they could barely contain their joy.

The idea that people who need Medicaid are freeloaders is a common misconception. The majority of Medicaid recipients work but don't have healthcare benefits or earn so little that they still qualify.

For the few on Medicaid who aren't working, almost all have a valid reason. Those who don't have a reason listed are only 3%, not of the total, but of the 40% who aren't working. That's right-- we're talking about 1.2% of Medicaid recipients.

This is the target of this rule change, 1.2%. Seriously. If that's all they are targeting, why make a big deal of this? Because the consequences will be widespread. Studies show Medicaid expansion actually reduced the number of unemployed. By making it harder to get access, this will backfire and result in more people falling through the cracks. Their approach is backward, and is clearly aimed at reducing the size of Medicaid not by helping people get to work, but by deeming them ineligible.

How could this play out? An example: A 45 year old mother of three has bad asthma. She needs medication to avoid a crisis and so she can work. If she loses her job, she wouldn't qualify for Medicaid as she would be hard pressed to prove she isn't able bodied, she just had a job! Thus, she and her family would be stuck in a spiral. Too well to be "ill or disabled," but too sick to actually work. This is what "health care is a privilege" can do.

Another example of "health care is a privilege" is the debate over the Children's Health Insurance Plan, or CHIP. I'm running for Congress against the vulnerable John Culberson in TX-07. Mr. Culberson has a lot of dangerous opinions, but it surprised even me to learn that he refuses to support insurance for 9 million poor children. Does he want them to work?

It comes down to this: Does America believe healthcare is a right or a privilege? Are we ok with allowing preventable deaths and kids to go without care? I'm not. I'm running for Congress to fight back for people like my patients.

How can we do that? I believe that a single payer system like Medicare for all is the best way for us to fulfill that healthcare as a human right. The system we have now has been cobbled together with no clear organization, like building a car by designing one part at a time. It’s not a surprise that some parts just don’t work well with the others. When there is no overall strategy, you’re just making the best of a bad situation. The Affordable Care Act tried to improve some of the parts that were most in need of repairs, but it wasn’t able to guarantee coverage, and now without the individual mandate it’s weakened further still. The Gallup poll asked "do you think it is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage?" For the past three years, the majority said that it is the responsibility of the government-- and that position keeps gaining strength. In 2017, 56% said yes vs. 42% that said no. This is clear: The American people are increasingly coming to support my core belief: Healthcare is a human right, and that the only way we can fulfill this obligation is with a single payer system like Medicare for all.

These attacks by Trump and his enablers in Congress on earned benefits like Medicaid and on innocent children with CHIP show what they believe: healthcare is a privilege. Candidate Trump said he wouldn’t let people "die on the streets" if elected-- and Ted Cruz mocked him for that position. Sadly but not surprisingly, after the election Mr. Trump has seemingly moved away from this pledge. We can do better than their heartless approach, and by electing people who know these issues first hand, we will.

I’ve gotten so mad about this attack on our care that I’ve decided to do something about it. I’m running for Congress to fight back for people like my patients. I’m in a flappable district running against a Trump Rubber Stamp named John Culberson. I can actually win, and make a real difference for our healthcare system. But many have asked-- don't we need you to fight cancer? Wouldn't we be wasting your talents in DC? I can do so much more for my patients, for healthcare, in Congress than in the clinic. When I take care of a patient, they receive benefit, but it doesn't help anyone else. When I write a clinical trial, if it succeeds I can help thousands of people by developing a new treatment. In Congress, I could help millions.

Derek Cressman For State Senate-- Guest Post

Derek Cressman, a veteran of the voting rights movement best known for his work to overturn Citizens United with Common Cause, is challenging incumbent Democratic state senator Richard Pan. Only three senate Democrats have a higher ranking by the California Chamber of Commerce than Pan, one of the most conservative Dems in the California legislature. Those three, Cathleen Galgiani, Steve Glazer, and Richard Roth, come from districts more conservative than Pan’s deep blue Senate District 6, which has more Bernie voters than Republicans. This arguably makes Pan the Democrat most out of sync with his district in the entire California legislature. Pan, a physician who was elected with massive financial support from the California Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry, is one of just three faux-Democrats in the Senate who have not supported single-payer healthcare.

This greater-Sacramento region district sent two Democrats to the November general election in 2014 and the prospects are good for that again in 2018, setting up a showdown between a progressive Dem and one who relies upon corporate money in a real test for the new leadership of the California Democratic Party. State Democrats will decide early next year whether to endorse a candidate who will champion the party’s platform of single-payer healthcare, or stick with an old boys’ network that circles the wagons around incumbents who undermine the party’s principles. Read Derek’s guest post below and check out his website at www.DerekCressman.com. You can donate to his campaign by tapping on the legislative elections thermometer on the right.


California Democrats Must Stand for Single-Payer Healthcare
-by Derek Cressman

Democrats in California have the power to enact a “Medicare for All” style of healthcare reform that would eliminate wasteful profiteering by private health insurance firms and provide basic healthcare to every Californian. Unlike at the federal level, where Senator Kamala Harris has joined Bernie Sanders and others to stake out a righteous policy position by co-sponsoring federal legislation only to be blocked by Republicans, our state legislature, which has a two-thirds democratic majority, could actually make it happen.

First off, it’s the right thing to do. If your house is threatened by wildfires, firefighters arrive within minutes with an implicit message that they are from the government and they are here to help. Even stingy conservatives are happy to pay for this important public service with our tax dollars because it’s the most efficient way to protect everyone. Yet if you are struck with a heart attack or cancer, you get help only if you can produce an insurance card and shell out big money for co-pays and deductibles. As the most prosperous society in history, California can and should meet our moral obligation to care for one another in the most cost-efficient way possible—government provided health insurance for everyone. Private health insurance companies add little value to our economy but exact huge costs with wasteful profiteering and outrageous CEO salaries. We know government provided insurance works from Medicare and Medi-Cal. In fact, the government is already providing funds for 71% of healthcare costs in California. It would be better, and ultimately cheaper, to bring that up to 100%.

Secondly, it’s imperative that Democrats strengthen trust with voters by standing firm on our beliefs. The California Democratic Party platform calls for “legislation to create and implement a publicly funded (single-payer), privately delivered, fiscally tractable, affordable, comprehensive, secure, high-quality, efficient, and sustainable healthcare system for all Californians.” But our overwhelmingly Democratic legislature has refused to enact this principle. When parties say one thing and do another, people stop believing in them. The rise in independent voters, the perils of the #DemExit movement and attraction among some voters to the Green Party can all be traced to the Democrats unwillingness to fight for what we say we believe in. At the federal level, a lack of trust in all institutions, including government, has paved the way for the politics of demagoguery and scapegoating. We need to combat that by showing voters that political parties stand for something and aren’t just posturing to keep their cronies in power.

Finally, California needs to come to grips with the new reality that we cannot count on the federal government to look out for our best interests for the foreseeable future. Even if we manage to rid ourselves of the Trump regime, we face a federal system that is rigged against the majority of people through a US Senate that overrepresents conservative voters in low population red states, a US House that is gerrymandered to such an extent that it cannot offer fair elections, an electoral college that denies sovereignty to a majority of US voters, and a Supreme Court that has been captured by a right wing cabal intent on cementing power for the one percent. While we must fight like hell to resist this federal onslaught even with the deck stacked against us, Californians need to forge our own future on healthcare as we are doing with global warming, marijuana, and justice for immigrants. We can no longer make excuses that we cannot provide single-payer coverage for our fellow Californians because the federal government won’t let us do it. We must find a way to do it ourselves by passing it at the state level and calling the congressional Republicans’ bluff on federalisms, state flexibility and block grants.

I became a candidate for the California Senate to give Sacramento-area voters and the new leaders of the California Democratic Party a choice between an entrenched incumbent who has undermined the Democratic Party’s principles around heath care and a Democrat who will fight for the party’s platform. How the California Democratic Party responds to this choice will tell us a lot about the party’s ability to hold on to progressive and independent voters in the years ahead.

What Keeps Drug Prices So High In America-- A Bipartisan Culture Of Corruption In DC

I wonder if anyone from the DCCC or DSCC will try to figure out the implications

A new poll CBS released this morning shows that only 20% of respondents said they approved of the latest Republican legislation aimed at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. Probably in response to badmouthing of Medicare-For-All by Blue Dogs and New Dems-- conservative senators Chris Murphy (CT) and Tammy Duckworth (IL), both former House New Dems, have been publicly negative in recent days-- Our Revolution president Nina Turner said yesterday that "Anyone who does not believe Medicare-For-All can be done needs to get out of the way of those who know it will be done. Duckworth and Murphy are Hillary leftovers who believe if they berate Trump every now and then, people will be fooled into thinking there's something remotely "progressive" about them. There isn't.

Last week a Harvard poll commissioned by Politico showed Democrats overwhelmingly backing Bernie's universal/single-payer approach (Medicare-for All). Among Democrats 80% already back Medicare-For-All (15% oppose), while among independents 67% are on board and 38% oppose. Even among Republicans, 44% are in favor (48% oppose).

Conservatives, mostly Republicans but with help from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, have always built plums into healthcare legislation for the pharmaceutical industry with bribes so many conservatives on both sides of the aisle. The public is sick of it and 89% of Democrats, 87% of independents and even a startling 88% of Republicans say that favor the federal government negotiating with pharmaceutical companies to lower the prices of prescription drugs for seniors on Medicare.

These are the criminals currently in Congress who have worked the hardest to make sure Big Pharma was protected from this reasonable step over the years. First the 10 worst in the Senate:

• Orrin Hatch (R-UT)- $2,767,140
• Richard Burr (R-NC)- $1,513,262
• John McCain (R-AZ)- $1,224,519
• Mitch McConnell (R-KY)- $1,102,122
• Roy Blunt (R-MO)- $1,003,106
• Patty Murray (D-WA)- $915,797
• Chuck Schumer (D-NY)- $898,566
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)- $883,582
• Rob Portman (R-OH)- $874,120
• Bob Menendez (D-NJ)- $858,325

And here are the 10 most corrupt in the House, who have conspired with the drug companies to keep the prices of prescription drugs unreasonably high in return for big campaign contributions:

• Anna Eshoo (D-CA)- $1,513,561
• Fred Upton (R-MI)- $1,408,006
• Frank Pallone (D-NJ)- $1,153,155
• Paul Ryan (R-WI)- $1,133,183
• Kevin McCathy (R-CA)- $1,020,625
• Erik Paulsen (R-MN)- $1,019,329
• John Shimkus (R-IL)- $996,215
• Joe Barton (R-TX)- $973,038
• Steny Hoyer (D-MD)- $954,872
• Greg Walden (R-OR)- $897,095

Since 1990 the pharmaceutical companies have paid out $202,456,697 in direct bribes to congressional candidates-- $114,826,226 to corrupt Republicans and $86,403,775 to corrupt Democrats. So far this cycle only 4 corrupt House members-- Greg Walden, Paul Ryan, Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Kevin McCarthy-- and 3 Senators-- Orrin Hatch, Bob Casey (D-PA) and John Barrasso (R-WY)-- have been able to shake down the drug companies for 6 figure bribes. But we have a long way to go 'til the end of the cycle. Last cycle Ryan took the biggest bribes to protect drug prices: $395,174; his hatchet man, Kevin McCarthy got $323,650.

GOP plans to pass TrumpCare appear to have been foiled Sunday when Susan Collins (R-ME) announced on Jake Tapper's show that she is following Rand Paul (R-KY) and John McCain (R-AZ) into the NO camp. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski is a probable NO as well, giving the anti-TrumpCare forces a little breathing room if Randy Paul worms out of his commitment to oppose it. (Ironically, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee also indicated they would vote NO, for the same reason as Rand Paul... the bill isn't harsh enough.)

One of the bill's sponsors, Lindsey Graham (R-SC), was on ABC's This Week yesterday and he told the viewers that he thinks "we’re going to get the votes next week." He insisted that he and radical right lunatic Ron Johnson (R-WI), "who are both on the Senate Budget Committee, would try to force Republicans to continue Obamacare repeal attempts with reconciliation next year.

'We're not going to vote for a budget resolution that doesn't allow the health care debate to continue,' he said." Neither Graham nor Johnson are up for reelection next year, but they have likely killed the reelection chances of Dean Heller (R-NV) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

Can Progressives Win House Seats Where Bernie Showed More Support Than Trump, But Where Trump Beat Hillary? Meet Neill Mohammad (IL-16)

Illinois' 16th congressional district-- which includes Dixon, Reagan's birthplace-- starts up at the Wisconsin border just below Beloit and goes into the eastern part of Rockford, swings south and east into the Chicago exurbs below Joliet and then east to the Indiana border and then south towards Bloomington and Peoria. It's a red district but it celebrated the hometown boy good will to give Obama a narrow win in 2008. Romney beat him in 2012 though, 53-45%, and last year it was Trump country. He beat Hillary 55.5% to 38.3%. She was the wrong candidate for the district. In the primary Bernie beat her in every single one of the district's 14 counties-- and it is her home state-- and on primary day Bernie also beat Trump-- 93,397 to 89,599.

• Boone- Bernie- 2,773; Trump- 3,816
• Bureau- Bernie- 1,852; Trump- 2,185
• DeKalb- Bernie- 8,315; Trump- 5,139
• Ford- Bernie- 438; Trump- 1,244
• Grundy- Bernie- 3,095; Trump- 3,625
• Iroquois- Bernie-875 ; Trump- 2,836
• LaSalle- Bernie- 6,739 ; Trump- 6,950
• Lee- Bernie- 1,958; Trump- 2,153
• Livingston- Bernie- 971; Trump- 2,846
• Ogle- Bernie- 2,642; Trump- 4,029
• Putnam- Bernie- 504; Trump- 415
• Stark- Bernie- 215; Trump- 397
• Will- Bernie- 46,305; Trump- 38,507
• Winnebago- Bernie- 16,715; Trump- 15,457

If the Democrats nominate another incremental centrist like Hillary, they'll continue losing districts like IL-16. But the self-serving Democratic Establishment which lives, like the self-serving Republican Establishment, first and foremost for corruption. They would rather nominate another dismal Hillary-type than allow a progressive to claim the nomination and beat Trump.

The congressman from IL-16 is mainstream conservative Adam Kinzinger, who is pretty popular. Kinzinger was reelected without an opponent. Two years earlier he beat his Democratic opponent 70.6% to 29.4% and the first time he ran, in 2014, he took the seat 61.8% to 38.2%. Nevertheless, this cycle, sensing an anti-Trump/anti-Ryan tsunami, there are already 4 Democrats vying for the nomination to take on Kinzinger-- "ex"-Republican Christopher Minelli (gun nut and anti single player conservative), Nathan Arroyave (progressive), Sara Dady (progressive) and Neill Mohammad (progressive). Neill, born and raised in DeKalb, a product of that city's public schools and a political science graduate from the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, works as a health care management consultant.


A Candidate Can Be For Single Payer And Universal Healthcare And Still Be Skeptical About H.R. 676
-by Neill Mohammad

Health care is a personal issue for me.

My mom has suffered from Crohn’s Disease for most of her life. As a kid, that meant a lot of anxious, sleepless nights, worrying about what could happen to her, and if something did, who would care for me and my brother.

But as hard as it was to grow up with a parent with a serious illness, the one thing I never had to worry about was whether my mom was going to be able to get the health care that she needed.

I was stunned when Adam Kinzinger-- our current Congressional representative in Illinois’ 16th District-- voted to take healthcare away from the tens millions of working families who need it to live productive lives, care for their children, and contribute to their communities.

Adam co-sponsored a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act on just his fourth day in office. In his subsequent six years in Congress he voted dozens of times to bring back medical bankruptcy, lifetime benefit caps, and price-gouging for anyone with a preexisting condition. He voted to kill the Medicaid program, which would kick 6 in every 10 seniors living in nursing homes out onto the street.

Despite all that, I’ve been excited and encouraged to see just how far our public discussion on healthcare has come in just the last few years.

Support for universal healthcare isn’t a niche issue anymore. It’s the bare minimum expected of any progressive political candidate.

We all agree why we need a universal system of coverage, like a single-payer insurance program such as “Medicare for All.” Universal coverage will drive down costs and put patients’ well-being ahead of corporate profits.

Universal coverage will, at long last, end the absurd connection between what job we work at and what kind of care we have access to.

Your boss shouldn’t get decide what doctor you get to see. No  woman should have to go without reproductive health care just because the only place in town that happened to be hiring last week was Hobby Lobby.

We all know why we need real changes in the way that we deliver and pay for healthcare. How we get there, though, is still murky.

Many of the activists I talk to on the trail believe that we already have a solution in hand: the United States National Health Care Act, or H.R. 676. H.R. 676 would replace all other forms of health insurance outside of the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Indian Health Service.

While I appreciate Rep. John Conyers’ longstanding leadership on this issue, simply passing H.R. 676 won’t do it in itself. It is a fantastic statement of purpose, but as a roadmap for the future it has serious shortcomings. If we want to realize our dreams of a more humane system of care in this country, we need to be honest in addressing those flaws.

And we need to address them now. Opportunities for meaningful healthcare reform don’t come around very often, and I don’t want to risk jeopardizing the window in front of us with a flawed and incomplete bill. As it stands today, HR 676:

• Does not explain how Medicaid will be merged with the Medicare-for-All system. Medicaid, which insures 70 million Americans-- more than Medicare, covers extremely high-risk patients, many of which receive services which are currently excluded from Medicare. Despite that, Medicaid is an efficient and successful program.


• Outlaws any kind of supplemental coverage outside of a single-payer system, even though supplemental policies feature prominently in many systems with universal coverage, such as France and Canada. The reality is that supplemental insurance is going to be a political necessity to get a universal healthcare bill passed, and supplemental insurance has not posed any threat to the basic quality of care or access in those other countries.


• Maintains traditional Medicare’s “fee for service” model, which we know produces the wrong kind of incentives for reducing costs. It encourages providers to direct patients to unnecessary and redundant scans and other diagnostic tests.


Medicaid is responsible for the care of the sickest and most vulnerable Americans, such as nursing home residents, the severely disabled, and infant children. The lack of detail in the bill means that pushing Medicaid recipients into a different program is risky if we don’t give careful consideration to what change will look like.

Let me explain why.

Unlike Medicare, Medicaid already offers comprehensive health insurance and includes coverage for hearing, vision, and ancillary services like long-term care. Medicaid also has extremely low or zero cost-sharing for most enrollees, unlike traditional Medicare, which has large deductibles and no limit on out-of-pocket expenses.

Many seniors enroll in Medicaid precisely so they can cover the bills the Medicare won’t pay-- things like long-term nursing care.

As former CMS director Andy Slavitt and many scholars have pointed out, Medicaid provides high quality care at a lower cost than commercial employer plans and Medicare. Despite covering these lower reimbursement rates, research from the Kaiser Foundation has shown that people on Medicaid report similar access to care and similar satisfaction rates to those with commercial plans.

Finally, we know that it is straightforward to expand Medicaid to the uninsured with minimal disruption. The program started as a small plan to cover mothers and children on welfare in the 1960s. In the 1980s and 1990s, it expanded to cover the disabled, all parents, as well as many more children. After the 2010 passage of the ACA, it expanded to become universal for all members of households under 138 percent of the poverty line, which granted more than 12 million uninsured Americans access to health care.

All of this was done with relatively little disruption to the group insurance market. That lack of disruption is politically important-- since most people aren’t sick, many Americans remain happy with the commercial insurance they get through their employers. I’ve even talked to voters who, understandably, see Medicare as a potential downgrade versus what they have now.

These challenges are all surmountable, but they are real challenges. That’s why we need to continue to focus the political debate on the ends of healthcare reform-- why health insurance needs to be universal-- even while we continue to work on the right means of getting there.

I support Medicare for All. But I’d also be perfectly happy with Germany’s system, which is built on private insurance programs which are tightly regulated. Or France’s system, which includes private supplementary insurance alongside their government program. I don’t want to rule out any potential solution as long as it fulfills all of the basic expectations of a universal coverage system.

Some Democrats are already acting in that spirit and moving the ball forward. Sen. Brian Schatz has just introduced a bill for a universal Medicaid buy-in, which would address coverage and access issues under the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, Sen. Sherrod Brown and six other Senators have introduced a Medicare buy-in for people over 55. I’d support both of these ideas while expanding federal support for Medicaid further to reach more people-- including households within 200 percent or more of the poverty line.

Like Schatz-- who’s said he’d support Conyers plan, and will likely sign on to Bernie Sanders’ single-payer plan-- I want to build a universal coverage plan that works.

We only get so many chances at real healthcare reform. We have to make the most of this opportunity. We have to get it right.


If you'd like to learn more about Neill and his campaign, this is his official website.