Update - Medicare for all 115 Co-sponsors in the House

[Shadows]

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) introduced HR-676 (Medicare for all)

Some Co-sponsors -

Raul Grijalva
James Clyburn
Elijah Cummings
Keith Ellison
Tim Ryan
Marcy Kaptur
John Lewis
Peter Welch
Pramila Jayapal
Ro Khanna
Jamie Raskin
Barbara Lee

States of Co-sponsors -
CA - 15
NY - 9
Illinois - 5
Ohio - 4
PA - 4
MA - 3

Didn't know it already had the support of 70 people in the House & growing considering ACA is still not fully repealed. Bar Bernie, it looked like no1 was interested in Medicare for all among the Dem base

(Everyone wants that progressive rub off before 2018 elections it seems)

[Virginiá]

That's and great and all, but

[insert rain clouds]

Something like from Democrats as the minority party isn't that surprising, given the events of the past 6 years, and the further liberalization of the party. What would be surprising is if this got enough to support to pass the House during a period of unified Democratic control with 60+ Democratic Senators.

Otherwise it's really just meaningless imo. What would be surprising would be many dozens of Republican co-sponsors as well.

[mvd10]

That's and great and all, but

[insert rain clouds]

Something like from Democrats as the minority party isn't that surprising, given the events of the past 6 years, and the further liberalization of the party. What would be surprising is if this got enough to support to pass the House during a period of unified Democratic control with 60+ Democratic Senators.

Otherwise it's really just meaningless imo. What would be surprising would be many dozens of Republican co-sponsors as well.

It might look meaningless, but look at what happened to Ryan's Path to Prosperity roadmap. In early 2010 everyone though he was crazy, but 1 year later the vast majority of house Republicans voted for his budget and in 2012 it basically was the unofficial Republican platform. If someone like Rubio or Jeb had won most of the Ryan budget probably already would have been passed.

[GlobeSoc]

A sign of the Democrats moving left

[Hindsight was 2020]

That's and great and all, but

[insert rain clouds]

Something like from Democrats as the minority party isn't that surprising, given the events of the past 6 years, and the further liberalization of the party. What would be surprising is if this got enough to support to pass the House during a period of unified Democratic control with 60+ Democratic Senators.

Otherwise it's really just meaningless imo. What would be surprising would be many dozens of Republican co-sponsors as well.

But it does have a importance this is an early sign the dems might embrace "Medicare for all" as the 2018 "contract with America"

[Gass3268]

A sign of the Democrats moving left

This has been introduced for the past few terms.

[Shadows]

That's and great and all, but

[insert rain clouds]

Something like from Democrats as the minority party isn't that surprising, given the events of the past 6 years, and the further liberalization of the party. What would be surprising is if this got enough to support to pass the House during a period of unified Democratic control with 60+ Democratic Senators.

Otherwise it's really just meaningless imo. What would be surprising would be many dozens of Republican co-sponsors as well.

Virginia, It takes time & a lot of effort to build something meaningful (esp something as hard as Medicare for all). 59 was the best number for HR676 recently & now it is already 70 & many of the earlier Cosponsors in 2015 like Maxime Waters are in the house & are yet to add their name. This number will increase & if it becomes 110-120 from 59, will be a big win. You regroup & try again harder.

0 Republicans will support this - You had 0 Republican Senators voting for ACA (modified Heritage foundation & Romneycare inspired plan), you think they will vote for Medicare for all? If Reagan was filming commercials about socialized medicine killing seniors when LBJ pushed Medicare, this will be an open war !

If you have to fight this war vs the GOP, Dems have to have 60 Senators, the House & a Dem Presidency & everyone has to first unite for the plan.

[7,052,770]

Does it have premiums, deductibles, and co-pays? If not, it's Medicaid for All, not Medicare, and that deceit alone is enough to vote no. Call it what it really is.

[Hermit For Peace]

Does it have premiums, deductibles, and co-pays? If not, it's Medicaid for All, not Medicare, and that deceit alone is enough to vote no. Call it what it really is.

Medicare has all those.

[Crumpets]

That's and great and all, but

[insert rain clouds]

Something like from Democrats as the minority party isn't that surprising, given the events of the past 6 years, and the further liberalization of the party. What would be surprising is if this got enough to support to pass the House during a period of unified Democratic control with 60+ Democratic Senators.

Otherwise it's really just meaningless imo. What would be surprising would be many dozens of Republican co-sponsors as well.

So true. Everyone loves to introduce legislation like this to show off their progressive/conservative credentials and pat each other on the back despite the fact that there is no chance whatsoever that it actually helps a single person unless you can make it something that at least a couple people on the other side can support. There's a word for that - grandstanding. Another good word might be circlejerk.

[Crumpets]

That's and great and all, but

[insert rain clouds]

Something like from Democrats as the minority party isn't that surprising, given the events of the past 6 years, and the further liberalization of the party. What would be surprising is if this got enough to support to pass the House during a period of unified Democratic control with 60+ Democratic Senators.

Otherwise it's really just meaningless imo. What would be surprising would be many dozens of Republican co-sponsors as well.

Virginia, It takes time & a lot of effort to build something meaningful (esp something as hard as Medicare for all). 59 was the best number for HR676 recently & now it is already 70 & many of the earlier Cosponsors in 2015 like Maxime Waters are in the house & are yet to add their name. This number will increase & if it becomes 110-120 from 59, will be a big win. You regroup & try again harder.

0 Republicans will support this - You had 0 Republican Senators voting for ACA (modified Heritage foundation & Romneycare inspired plan), you think they will vote for Medicare for all? If Reagan was filming commercials about socialized medicine killing seniors when LBJ pushed Medicare, this will be an open war !

If you have to fight this war vs the GOP, Dems have to have 60 Senators, the House & a Dem Presidency & everyone has to first unite for the plan.

Your last two paragraphs go against your first paragraph. Who cares how many cosponsors it has if they're all in the minority party? This is the kind of issue that requires years of electoral and political preparation to achieve. By doing it without that, they are essentially admitting that this is all for show/their own egos rather than actually trying to make anyone's life better.

[7,052,770]

Does it have premiums, deductibles, and co-pays? If not, it's Medicaid for All, not Medicare, and that deceit alone is enough to vote no. Call it what it really is.

Medicare has all those.

Yep. And so should anything labeled "Medicare for All"

[Shadows]

That's and great and all, but

[insert rain clouds]

Something like from Democrats as the minority party isn't that surprising, given the events of the past 6 years, and the further liberalization of the party. What would be surprising is if this got enough to support to pass the House during a period of unified Democratic control with 60+ Democratic Senators.

Otherwise it's really just meaningless imo. What would be surprising would be many dozens of Republican co-sponsors as well.

Virginia, It takes time & a lot of effort to build something meaningful (esp something as hard as Medicare for all). 59 was the best number for HR676 recently & now it is already 70 & many of the earlier Cosponsors in 2015 like Maxime Waters are in the house & are yet to add their name. This number will increase & if it becomes 110-120 from 59, will be a big win. You regroup & try again harder.

0 Republicans will support this - You had 0 Republican Senators voting for ACA (modified Heritage foundation & Romneycare inspired plan), you think they will vote for Medicare for all? If Reagan was filming commercials about socialized medicine killing seniors when LBJ pushed Medicare, this will be an open war !

If you have to fight this war vs the GOP, Dems have to have 60 Senators, the House & a Dem Presidency & everyone has to first unite for the plan.

Your last two paragraphs go against your first paragraph. Who cares how many cosponsors it has if they're all in the minority party? This is the kind of issue that requires years of electoral and political preparation to achieve. By doing it without that, they are essentially admitting that this is all for show/their own egos rather than actually trying to make anyone's life better.

Vision, amigo. By your logic, HR676 shouldn't be introduced before 2020 when Dems have everything (say) to pass it. Well Democrats had 256 House Seats & 60 Senators & Obama & still couldn't even put a Public Option despite promising it. A landslide victory alone will not guarantee something as difficult as a Medicare for all. It will take multiple & massive pushes for an idea like Medicare for all to catch fire !

Sometimes you do things knowing it will lose, to come back stronger again. When Warren introduced the Social Security Expansion Bill trying to force a vote for everyone, it was never to pass it but to force a lot of Dems to move to the left. That ended up in both Bernie's & Hillary's platform & both committed to expand SS.

Remember the Drug bill, that wasn't even a bill, was a meaningless vote & was sure to lose. That was to shame other Dems to get them to vote next time. It already had 12 GOP votes last time & now has Booker/Casey/Heinrich as Co-sponsors (who voted No) & has a very good chance to pass. It will be very difficult for any Dem to "Vote No" now on that !

[pbrower2a]

Democrats can win nothing until at least 2020; they are playing for 2020.

[Hammy]

Democrats can win nothing until at least 2020; they are playing for 2020.

If they play their cards right, doubtful as that is, they can win the house back in 2018.

[henster]

Ds should rally around public option and Medicare buy in. A strong public option would be self sustaining and wouldn't require massive tax increases that Medicare for all would and wouldn't impact employee sponsored health care. Medicare buy in could be sold as strengthening Medicare's finances and reducing costs for seniors 55-64.

[Shadows]

After backlash from constituents, calls, etc the following people hopped on as Co-sponsors (Increased to 75 odd now). Bernie's Our-Revolution is pushing this. But the primary push is coming from groups like Justice Democrats & Brand New Congress (Seeking to replace so-called a broken Washington) who are giving out phone numbers & asking people to call. These groups want maximum Dems out of 193-194 odd Dems to support this.

If Dems every have to pass such a legislation, then they have to try & build support within this among the caucus

Rep Frederica Wilson (Florida)
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii)
Rep Peter DeFazio (Oregon)

 

[Shadows]

This used to have 120 co-sponsors when it was introduced and ignored by Obama back in 2008

ACA is in force, some people think it will undermine it. After ACA it is struggling to get 50-60 co-sponsors. 120 out of 193 will be a great achievement for 2017 - You come back again in 2018 or 2019 when premiums zoom up !

[Hermit For Peace]

Quality Health care for all is an eventuality. How long can our country hold out, trailing behind the rest of the civilized world regarding taking care of ALL of its citizens? It's greed that keeps us locked in an old dying system and this greed must be addressed and discarded for the good of everyone.

[Shadows]

@RepJohnConyers
We now have 80 cosponsors for HR 676, #MedicareforAll. Thank you all for the support. Our work is not done.

[Rocky Rockefeller]

So?

[Blue3]

Tell me when they have over half the Democrats.

[Shadows]

93 Co-sponsors. 94 people officially supporting it out of 193. Only 3 off from being in the majority of Dems in the house.

Fun Fact - John has introduced this bill in every Congress whether it is a Dem or Republican controlled House.

One key thing is that Brand New Congress & Justice Dems, the group to primary "Corporate Dems" have put in a massive effort to get more people to support this. They are daily putting updates with list of people not supporting in & how to call them.

Now they have taken to individually shame some Blue state leaders. The 1st target is Kurt Schrader (Or-4) & they are publishing his response to constituents & disclosing his donors from big pharma.

Really shows how grass-roots activism & such splinter groups is critical to move the party left on policy !

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

ftr stephen lynch is not a cosponsor, while his primary opponent brianna wu is supporting the bill

[Shadows]

Image of all 99 Dems who don't support HR676 as of now!

More than half of CA & WA Dems don't support it - 2 very liberal states! A significant share of the support is coming from smaller & swing states! Blue state Dems are doing a really bad job in leading for progressive ideas !