Do you believe we can get Medicare For All through Congress in 2021-2024?

[highplainsdem]

Let's assume that our party ends up nominating a candidate who supports Medicare For All (that candidate would most likely be Sanders or Warren), and that nominee wins the general election.

Let's assume that enacting Medicare For All becomes the #1 priority for that administration, to be tackled right away.

Do you believe we'll have enough votes in both the House and the Senate to pass Medicare For All?

I am not including an option for DUers who don't believe a candidate in favor of Medicare For All could win the GE, because I'm curious about whether you believe we could get the bill through Congress.

Obama favored a public option, after all, and we didn't have the votes for that.

34 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	YES. If we can get that nominee to the White House, we'll be able to enact the bill.
	5 (15%)
	NO. The votes wouldn't be there.
	26 (76%)
	MAYBE LATER. We wouldn't have the votes immediately but with the WH bully pulpit could gain support.
	0 (0%)
	OTHER. (Please explain.)
	3 (9%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[brewens]

1. I may be missing it, but I don't think I've even heard a detailed MFA proposal.

The one thing that bugs me is I keep hearing the 30 plus trillion figure thrown around like that will be extra taxes on top of everything else.

What happens to all the money employers pay for medical insurance? They don't just get to pocket all that while the employees make it all up with higher taxes. Either they fund much of the new plan or we need assurances that they have to increase pay accordingly.

[George II]

5. Nope, you didn't miss it. No one has actually done the tough job of working out the details...

...just an outline, bullet points, a bunch of "we have tos".

[wyldwolf]

37. but the basis of the plans are...

magic wands, glitter, and fairy dust.

[bottomofthehill]

2. For the same reason the Republicans could not kill Obama Care

You need 60 votes in the US Senate and we are not even close to that number

[Amimnoch]

33. Actually, precedent has been set to go nuclear.

Republicans went for majority only vote to repeal the ACA, and it was John McCain’s famous thumbs down that saved it when they went for the “skinny repeal”. 2 times they tried for a cloture vote measure and failed, and then went Nuclear and lost 49 yea to 51 nay thanks to McCain.

[4now]

3. Absolutely not - and we may lose what we already have

[Bettie]

48. Based on the case working its way through the courts now

we're probably GOING to lose what we already have, at least for those who don't have insurance through their employers.

Frankly, I don't think we should go into this as if we've already lost.

Begging to start negotiating at the very least we might possibly accept is weak and defeatist.

Ask for it all. At least you're starting from a position where there is room to negotiate.

[Indygram]

4. Beto O'Rourke has the right idea with Medicare for America, read text of plan here

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2452/text

[highplainsdem]

7. No time now. Does his plan get rid of private insurance? By MFA I mean the plans that are

single payer, without private insurance, because from what I've read that's considered the pure type of Medicare For All plan.

Then we have plans that are Medicare For All Who Want It, which are basically public option plans, and I'm not including those in this poll.

[Indygram]

9. No, Medicare for America KEEPS private employer and union based insurance

It is sort of midway between Medicare for All and ACA with a public option. Beto would pay for it by taking the corporate tax cut Trump gave to 28% from 21% (not all the way back up) and would tax capital gains the same as other income is taxed so the wealthy actually pay their share too. The link actually shows the full text of H.R.2452 - Medicare for America Act of 2019
It's a great "meet in the middle" option that could unite both sides of the health care debate the party is having.

[highplainsdem]

13. Sounds interesting, but it isn't what I mean by Medicare For All. Polls have shown there's

a huge difference in support when people are asked whether they favor Medicare for all who want it (which is basically the public option), or Medicare for everyone with no private insurance allowed -- that's the "pure" version of Medicare For All.

Since we have two candidates in the top 4 who favor Medicare For All, and one of them could end up the nominee, I'm curious about how many DUers believe we could get MFA through Congress.

[Indygram]

17. Yep, I voted no, because it would not pass

but I think Medicare for America could, which is a good compromise. A big part of Beto's appeal is that he can sell more progressive policies to very moderate and conservative leaning voters. He is able to explain things plainly and nothing is more appealing to the masses than someone who presents things in a simple way.

[highplainsdem]

19. I like Beto, as I've said here before. I can see how appealing he is.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/128721840

I didn't vote in this poll myself because I can't quite make up my mind between NO and MAYBE LATER. My first guess was NO, but I added the MAYBE LATER option because if a candidate campaigning on Medicare For All can get to the White House, with the electorate aware that MFA means no private insurance, there really might be enough popular support to get the bill enacted eventually, though it would probably take some time to get enough more-progressive lawmakers voted into the House and Senate. Might take a couple of blue wave elections.

[George II]

6. Which "Medicare for All" are you referring to? As far as I can tell, "Medicare for All"....

....is just a slogan for a vague, undefined proposal.

Are you talking about the Medicare for All first proposed by John Dingell Sr. in 1943? Or the one proposed by Ted Kennedy in 2006? Or the various proposals by several candidates this year, none of which are the same?

[highplainsdem]

8. I'm talking about a single payer plan getting rid of private health insurance. Basically, the

Sanders plan, which Warren has suggested she's essentially in agreement with.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/02/warren-health-care-2020-1630660


I''m not talking about plans that use Medicare For All terminology but are basically adding a public option to Mediare or the ACA while allowing people to keep private insurance if they want it.

[George II]

12. Even if we had a 70-30 majority in the Senate (or should I say 70-29-1?), NO plan that gets rid...

....of private insurance will ever pass. It won't even get out of committee.

[highplainsdem]

14. That's my best guess, too, but since I've encountered Sanders and Warren supporters (especially

Sanders supporters) who do believe that if their candidate becomes the nominee, their policies will become overwhelmingly popular, I wanted to see how many in this forum agree.

[TheFarseer]

10. Not really BUT

You start at MFA and you can compromise on a public opinion. If you start at expanding Obamacare, you compromise at we won’t gut Medicaid. That’s how you negotiate. I can’t believe this needs to be explained.

[theaocp]

27. I'm guessing that NOT TRYING and wondering what Republicans will settle for

is sacrosanct around here. Negotiations are hard and why are you attacking Obama?

[BeyondGeography]

35. Perfect

[BeyondGeography]

36. Why put a gun to the heads of insurance companies

When reasoning with them has worked so well?

[loyalsister]

38. I think it would have been a better strategy

When Obama started. He was very optimistic in being able to negotiate with the GOP. Our next president should not be as generous.

[Hoyt]

53. Problem is, a candidate running on pure Medicare for everyone wouldn't get elected in 2020.

[PETRUS]

11. We are living in "interesting times."

There are plenty of reasons I say that, but the person who holds of the office of President could suffice as "exhibit A" in terms of evidence. The mood of the country is quite agitated, and things can turn very quickly - not saying they will, but they could.

[myohmy2]

24. and...

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."

"What you think you create, what you feel you attract, what you imagine you become."

...let everyone become MFA supporters and let's reject all those negative vibes...

...

[hurl]

15. Doesn't matter for Presidential Race

I voted no, but I really don't care in the context of the Presenential race. The President doesn't control this debate. It can be solved only in Congress, so what the President pushes doesn't matter much to me as long as it is generally the right diretion toward universal coverage. I think our candidates should not spend much time on this other than to support coverage for everybody and direct Congress to work out the details.

[TreasonousBastard]

16. I voted no for the same reason...

None of their plans have that snowball's chance of ever even reaching the floor.

[myohmy2]

18. we'll...

...find a way...

...keep the faith...

...MFA!!

[Cha]

20. The votes won't be there and

it's not a winner. I want to win.. I like Biden's plan for the WIN!

[OnDoutside]

32. +1 Biden is way ahead on this. I hope Harris has a quick reset to

Jump over in his direction too asap.

[Hoyt]

54. I was disappointed in Harris' plan. All it does is extend the transition.

While I think MFA is the best system ultimately, way too many aren’t convinced and won’t be for years.

[OnDoutside]

58. True, I just think she jumped the gun to mark Warren joining Sanders on MFA. It was an error

that she has been trying to back away from since.

[oasis]

21. Maybe MFA will be feasible in a few years. In 2020 it's a hard sell.

In reaching for the moon, we risk getting a reduction in what we have now.

Wake up folks.

[LuvLoogie]

22. The question remains, can we take and hold congress until the Supreme Court shakes out?

Until we fill courts with those who hold the rights of flesh and blood citizens over paper citizens?

Does our side have enough of an attention span? Are there enough serious young to counter the teen and twenty-year-old racist jackweasels being raised by the deplorables?

Can we stop waiting for inspiration until our actions are born of desperation?

We have to undo and repair the damage, shore up the legislative firewall. That we allowed this bigoted nihilist to befoul our capitol is on us.

What we want is to breathe again.

[Gothmog]

23. There is no way to pass this bill in the real world

[elocs]

26. Ahhh, but many people don't live in the real world. n/t

[Skya Rhen]

45. x 100,000,000,000,000,000,000

[elocs]

25. Frankly I think it is dishonest to go on about Medicare for All

when nobody says a word about how it would ever be passed into law, giving people false hope that they will see it happen when it has no chance in the foreseeable future.

So will the Democratic platform be Medicare for All with no Plan B at all?

[JI7]

28. Why isn't it passing right now ? Aren't some of the people who are for it members of Congress ?

and that's where the bills are passed first.

[Skya Rhen]

46. True...

[Amimnoch]

29. *Other*

I don’t see any path at all in the 2020 congress. At best, if we get the POTUS VP for the tie breaker, we may have the Senate majority by48+2/50 split and the VP being the tie-breaker.

2022 however has a map that has the potential to get a more comfortable majority back in the Senate. If we follow the tRumpulbicons lead and force it to vote for a majority, it is possible. Would really depend on who those senators we gain are, and how much support MFA will have within their own constituency.

If It can pass the 2022 Senate and there’s public appetite for it, and we keep the house numbers we have now through then, it could pass.

There’s a lot of “if’s” there.

No matter what, we have got to get the case for this sold to the people of:
Ohio - Important for 2020 POTUS election, and critical for Senate 2022.
Pennsylvania - Critical for 2020 POTUS election, and Senate 2022
Wisconsin - Critical for 2020POTUS and Senate in 2022

All 3 of those states have Republican incumbents coming up in the Senate for 2022.

Need those Senators to be Democrats, and we need those Senators to pass any MFA measure... which means.. we need to sell it to the constituency in those states.

[True Blue American]

30. Not at this time

If Democrats can gain control fix the problems the Republicans have refused to fix,repair their damage, then slowly push into Single Payer.

[OnDoutside]

31. No, not a hope. What IS eminently doable is

Fixing the issues in the ACA

Adding a public option

Providing free access to the public option to those whose income is too low.

If Democrats are aggressive in pushing and demanding this, I think you'd even get Republican support provided Dems also win the Senate in 2020. Republicans have been so badly beaten on healthcare, and I believe it will be worse for them in 2020, they'll be begging to get beyond it as fast as they can.

MFA is impossible to structurally implement in the 4, 8 or even the 10 years Harris is proposing. Warren and Sanders are talking tosh to suggest that they could do it in 4 years. The net effect of trying to do so would be to breath new life into the republican healthcare bullshit.

Fixing the ACA and adding the public option is doable, easily explained, while killing the Republicans. MFA is not a hill to die on when a Trump win would mean the strangulation of the ACA

[blm]

34. Other: With single-payer as the goal we can make advances towards it.

Why wouldn’t we even try to advance?

[Gothmog]

39. Fighting over the details of their healthcare proposals won't help them beat Donald Trump

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

40. This plan requires one to take away private insurance which will be a killer issue

This issue would kill sanders or Warren in they are the nominee

Link to tweet

[Hortensis]

41. Other: We'll choose to keep and add to the ACA.

80% of Democrats, and a fair number of Republicans already really like the ACA, in place and proven, and want to repair the damage and add what was supposed to be there from the beginning and more.

That deluded "no to incremental change" argument hasn't worked on people with the sense to realize how crazy trashing the ACA and starting all over from scratch would be -- with an ideologically the same, for-profit program, passed and implemented over several years!

Speaking of toxic influences, who first served up that "incremental" Kool-Aid to induce Sanders' supporters to support repeal anyway? Was it even from the left or was it agents of the ACA's RW billionaire opponents?

[Gothmog]

42. American politics could use a healthy dose of pragmatism

Link to tweet

Most Americans aren’t philosophers, thank goodness, but we are a nation of pragmatists. And so, despite the snap to her zinger, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) was out of the mainstream when she shrugged off criticism during the second round of Democratic debates by saying: “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”

Democrats should be demanding more answers, not fewer. Will Medicare-for-all cost key union votes in critical Midwestern states, as Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) argued during the debates? Does a free-tuition promise at state colleges and universities benefit middle- and upper-class families more than families in need? Is Warren’s proposed tax on the assets of wealthy Americans likely to pass constitutional muster, and what strategies are billionaires likely to employ to avoid it? In light of those answers, will it really pay for all that she has promised?

Do Americans support decriminalizing illegal border crossings? Do Americans oppose lawful deportations? Do Americans agree that the federal government should guarantee a job for every person? Pragmatic questions such as these are highly relevant in a representative democracy, where politics is the art of the possible.

What I don’t understand is why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States simply to ignore questions about real-world realities and promise fights without explaining how to win them. Reality is not going to bend to a new shape come 2021 just because a President Sanders shouts at it or a President Warren fights with it.

[highplainsdem]

44. kick

[Voltaire2]

47. Do you believe we can get gun control through Congress?

Probably not. Guess we better not try.

[highplainsdem]

49. kick

[Celerity]

50. No, & neither will the public option, the votes aren't there in the Senate, nor the House for either

Furthermore, if we do not win back the Senate, nothing's getting through that isn't centre right or worse on any topic of legislation.

Until Moscow Mitch or another Rethug is no longer the Majority leader, it will be a shitshow. Zero chance we will see a Democratic POTUS-nominated SCOTUS candidate approved. Moscow and his successor will sit on it for 8 years if they have to.

There are 12 potential R to D flippable states (some are a stretch, like TX and KY)

ONE of the 12 (AZ) has the best (in terms of highest chance of winning) potential candidate running as of my typing this. Let that sink in.

[rampartc]

51. in a desperate bid to get 1 bipartisan republican to vote aye

the bill will become "medicare for job creators" and will barely pass with no republican votes.

[empedocles]

52. Dems really don't need to publicize this kind of thing now or anytime in the near future

[SouthernProgressive]

55. This really highlights some of the extremist thoughts out there.

Excellent poll question with expected results.

[TCJ70]

56. OTHER: Probably not...but we should start there.

That way we end up as far along as possible. If that’s a public option, that’s great, too!

If we start at the compromise, we will always end up losing. That’s because there isn’t another side to go up against in negotiation who are participating in good faith.

I’d be interested to know how people who are against MfA or for Biden’s plan think he’ll get it through? It’s easy to look at the end goal and say “no way”...but for some reason the “moderates” never have to explain how they’ll get shit done.

[NYMinute]

57. It is just a slogan to pander for votes

No actual plan exists

[IronLionZion]

59. DU has changed a lot over the years

a few years back DUers were not bothered if there were votes in the House or Senate, they just wanted to punish every Dem who wasn't for MFA and cheered as red state moderates lost their seats to tea party extremists and we lost the House and Senate.

Even suggesting we try to make the ACA work after it passed, was considered treason around here. Anyone defending Obama and Biden back then were taken out to the woodshed.

This place felt like "bury Democrats 6 ft Underground" rather than Democratic Underground. It's amazing how Trump has swung the pendulum so hard right that DUers want to start from a deeply compromised position and then negotiate something Republicans would like but will still block anyway.