So I see a lot of people on Twitter being dumb about this whole thing Jimmy Dore said.
AOC included.
Her responses are cringe as fuck, but that's because the whole premise of both sides of the argument is fucking stupid.
So the issue is:
"Progressives" should withhold their vote for Pelosi unless she brings a floor vote to the house.
Alright, what the ever living hell is that?
Sorry, Jimmy Dore is an idiot.
He could have easily made this a "Stop Pelosi" push, but instead he said they should "support Pelosi if she gets a vote on Medicare for All"?
This has half the people saying "Yes! Do this" and the other half saying "Uhh, that seems dumb?"
Possible fix? Just outright block Pelosi with no conditions.
Take the Medicare for All issue off the table and suddenly the "uhh, that seems dumb?" people warm to the idea.
After all, both positions fail to clearly state that Pelosi under any circumstance is unacceptable in that position.
I'm going to try and contact Cori Bush's staff and talk with them about this idea, I feel like she might bite. If anybody else is a constituent of a "progressive" rep, I suggest you do the same.
David Sirota had some suggestions about more useful things to demand, maybe in addition to a M4A vote https://www.dailyposter.com/p/heres-what-medicare-for-all-supporters
Remove the Medicare for All opponent who chairs the key committee: The current chairman of the Ways and Means Committee — which is one of the key panels overseeing Medicare for All proposals — is Rep. Richard Neal, who has played a singularly destructive role on behalf of his health care industry and Wall Street donors.
Schedule a vote on existing legislation to let states create single-payer health care systems: Rep. Ro Khanna has authored legislation empowering the Health and Human Services Secretary to approve waivers to states that want to create their own Medicare for All programs.
Schedule a vote on a resolution demanding Biden use executive authority to expand Medicare: The American Prospect has reported that thanks to provisions in the Affordable Care Act, President Joe Biden will have the unilateral executive authority to expand Medicare coverage during the pandemic. The House can pass a resolution demanding that he immediately take this action. A resolution like this should be a no-brainer.
Include provisions in year-end spending bills that create a presidential commission charged with crafting a Medicare for All program: President Obama created a commission to cut Social Security. Progressives can flip the script and create a commission charged with evaluating other countries’ universal health care systems, and coming up with proposals to guarantee health care to all Americans. Granted, this is what Congress exists to do — but forcing a Democratic administration to come up with proposals could also advance the cause by forcing the executive branch to take the concept seriously.
I like the idea of letting states using Medicare and whatever federal money to try to start their own single payer systems. California, New York, Vermont, etc could try it out. Successes at the state level would absolutely shift the conversation nationally.
States can't do Medicare for All. This has been a well discussed problem. Tim Faust talked about it when he was on Chapo, and I believe Matt Bruenig did, too. Single payor healthcare systems require having the ability to deficit spend, which, unlike the federal government, most states can't do. Vermont failed at their single payor system in part because of this issue. It has to happen at the federal level. Doing this piecemeal at the state level is essentially guaranteed to fail and completely tank the support for M4A in this country.
Which is why Ro Khanna's legislation has a mix of state and federal funds. Single payer in Canada started out at the provincial level before spreading nationwide
This is a great point that most aren't talking about. A lot of southern states can't do it either cause they are broke and lack the ability to deficit spend. That's always what they tell us when they start cutting back on medicaid and other entitlements. With the pandemic and everything unfolding, we're going to hear more pushes for austerity since all I hear locally is how my state is broke and the states around us.
States coulds just raise payroll taxes to pay for a large part of it though. It would still be cheaper than premiums and deductibles for the vast majority, so that shouldn't be controversial.
California has more people than Canada, so it's not like they don't have negotiating power at the state level in terms of health care and drug prices. Vermont would be in trouble, but most of the bigger population states have plenty of negotiating power.
yeah in Vermont you might see companies close up shop and head to the next state. New York and California probably have more leverage