John Conyers introduced a Medicare for All bill in January

[Trumpocalypse]

Last edited Sat Sep 16, 2017, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

and got over 100 House Dems to co-sponsor. Why does no one mention this and why does Conyers not get any credit?

[GulfCoast66]

1. Because he is boring? And a Democrat.

Someone will be along long shortly to tell us why it is so much better when Bernie introduces the plan.

[demmiblue]

2. People have.

This is revisionist history.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. Not just a few times BUT A TON! Nt

[demmiblue]

13. Yep, all it takes is a simple site search.

I am glad that Conyers and Sanders have formed a united front:

Health care and jobs will be the focus of Conyers, Sanders town hall in Detroit

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2017/08/22/john-conyers-bernie-sanders-townhall-detroit/590697001/

[lapucelle]

51. I hope that the bill introduced this week

is a senate version of Conyers' HR 676. We won't know until the bill is itself is posted on the congress.gov website.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

Conyers has introduced his bill in every session of Congress since 2003. The organization Medicare for All has been fighting for the Conyers bill since 2007.

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

84. Perfect example of uniting around a common cause; rehashing 2016 only distracts from the task @hand.

[Trumpocalypse]

22. Not a ton.

Just two threads all this year.

[Trumpocalypse]

16. Not revisionist history

Just asking a question.

[demmiblue]

18. Sure. n/t

[Trumpocalypse]

23. Sorry

that you're so threatened by a simple question.

[pangaia]

31. It seems to me to be a bit rhetorical. I cold be wrong.

But I have at least known some of what Conyers has done in the past

[Trumpocalypse]

40. I only read about it yesterday

when doing a search about Sanders' bill. I was surprised there was so little discussion of it here.

[Susan Calvin]

61. I think you are putting it mildly.

[pangaia]

69. Hey, how have u been?

Yeah, i tried to be careful, and still...🙄

You aren't anywhere near Houston r u?

[Susan Calvin]

74. Yes, I am,

But I am OK.

Thanks for asking.

[virtualobserver]

3. Because Conyers is not a national figure.....

Bernie only achieved this because he ran for President.

[Blue_true]

58. Do you have any idea of how weird what you posted sounds.

Actually, very strange.

You say John Conyers is not a national figure? Where have you been.

[virtualobserver]

64. I know who Conyers is because I follow politics. He is a Washington figure, not a national one.

A tiny percentage of the nation knows who he is.

[Blue_true]

67. BTW, John Conyers ran for President.

Does that make him a national figure by your rather circumspect standards?

[virtualobserver]

73. running for President certainly does not......no more than it made Jim Gilmore or Lincoln Chafee one

No one would have noticed that Bernie introduced this bill if he hadn't run for President with some success.

[Demsrule86]

4. I am so sick of hearing about single payer bills when the ACA is likely to be repealed

and in my opinion, the latest single payer bill played a role. We will have nothing.

[virtualobserver]

7. if Republicans repeal the ACA....

they will be crushed by the Dems in 2018. If they don't they will look like failures. This single payer bill has no effect on Republican attempts to repeal. Republicans are losing the battle over healthcare.

[Demsrule86]

8. I don't know that is true...and even if we crush them...we still don't have the votes until 20

at the earliest.

[virtualobserver]

10. I can't prove that we will have the votes....but I think that we will.

It will require that Democrats nationalize the election on key issues.

[Demsrule86]

14. Maybe we will and maybe we won't...but betting thousands of lives that we will

seems reckless. Also between now and 20, people will die. And we would need a super majority... the polling on single payer is soft from what I can see. We need to save the ACA before we do anything else...dooming innocent people to die a horrible death for any ideology is unconscionable when there is an acceptable alternative.

[virtualobserver]

26. We can do nothing until the 2018 election

the fate of millions of Americans will lie in the hands of the Republicans until then.

Until then it is simply a battle of ideas, and if you are trying to get the Republicans to "compromise"
by staying with the ACA unchanged, proposing far more than that is the way to go.

Not going for universal coverage also dooms innocent people to die a horrible death, just a different group of people.

[Blue_true]

60. That is too rational.

Try some wild shit that has no political chance, you will get robust cheers from some.

[SHRED]

29. They will continue sabotaging the ACA

Death by a thousand cuts.
That's what they are doing now.

[virtualobserver]

30. they will, and must be held accountable for that

[Nanjeanne]

5. I'm so glad Rep Conyers doesn't feel as slighted as some others do.

Link to tweet

[Voltaire2]

20. of course.

[Susan Calvin]

27. Nice. Thanks! nt

[Lucky Luciano]

33. No kidding. So ridiculous. nt

[Autumn]

6. Comgress, Senate. I for one and glad both men.are doing this.

YMMV

[MineralMan]

9. Because he is not an independent Senator from Vermont?

I don't know. What I do know is that none of those bills will even reach committee consideration. In order to enact any single-payer or Medicare for All system, we will need strong Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and Democratic President. It will be up to us to help make that happen in 2018 and 2020. If we do not do that, we will not get that.

[Blue_true]

63. You are being too logical.

Some would rather spend time throwing out blue sky stuff and attacking Democrats that point out real life issues with what they propose. The mechanics of winning solid, ironclad power to make what they want happen bores the shit out of them, so they run to the next street protest.

[Iggo]

12. Well, this certainly is an interesting new wedge.

I gotta tell you, I did not see it coming.

[Trumpocalypse]

15. Not a wedge

Just a question. Don't be so defensive.

[Susan Calvin]

28. Sure. nt

[Trumpocalypse]

42. What does that mean?

You accusing me of lying?

[Susan Calvin]

46. Whoa. Stepping up the game, are we?

I personally don't see much purpose except divisiveness, but only you know your motives, of course.

Edited to add:

I mean, seriously, you don't think people here know who Conyers is and what he's done? Maybe not - only you know what is in your own mind.

As for the wider world, no they don't, so much. Unfortunately. But you were talking about here, I believe.

[tymorial]

55. You certainly implied he/she (don't know) was lying

Being called on it is not "stepping up the game.". You respond by doubling down. Who is stepping up?

[Susan Calvin]

57. I said it sure is a wedge, whether meant or not.

And I stand by that.

Only the poster can state motive, or, for that matter, whether they perceived it as a wedge.

But I do.

Edited to add that I'm not the first "sure" on this thread. The first was called "threatened by a simple question." Which is what I meant by "stepping up the game."

[Trumpocalypse]

90. But it shouldn't be a wedge.

I still don't understand why some are taking it that way.

[Trumpocalypse]

89. Do a site search

There are only 2 threads about Conyers bill. I only found out about the other day so I was curious why it got so little attention here. It's wasn't meant to be divisive. It is a shame that some took it that way but that says more about them than about me.

[Iggo]

36. The word is "observant."

[Susan Calvin]

47. Heh.

[Voltaire2]

19. Its not new. It is one of many such idiocies.

This particular lameness has been repeated, but it is too lame to be on the front burner.

[pnwmom]

50. The question is why Bernie chose to drop his plan on the day it had already been announced

that the Rethugs were putting forward the Cassidy/Graham bill -- and working to pass it in the next 2 weeks.

When all our focus should be on Cassidy/Graham -- and saving the ACA, Medicaid, and Medicare -- Bernie wants us all to talk about single payer.

[Susan Calvin]

52. I for one can walk and chew gum. nt

[lapucelle]

86. I found this bewildering as well,

especially since Sanders has postponed unveiling his proposal several times, going back to March. This week's press events were a distraction from the more pressing business at hand.

[Demsrule86]

17. Two bills for single payer but not one to save the ACA...or fix it.

[brooklynite]

21. Fundamentally because that's all he does...

Every year he introduces the same Bill, and then makes no effort to get it passed.

In fairness, Bernie Sanders doesn't either, but he's a newer face of the issue.

[Donkees]

24. Here's his video thread from Sept 13 ...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029589875

Link to tweet

[Trumpocalypse]

93. Thanks! nt

[JI7]

25. It's mostly symbolic and has no chance of passing

[Susan Calvin]

53. This is true, about chances of passing at this time.

But it's not just symbolic, unless by that you mean holding up a banner for people to rally around. Can't get ideas into law if they are not out there.

[UTUSN]

32. Is there "not" missing from "why does Conyers (NOT) get any credit?" - Will Rec if so and added!1

[Trumpocalypse]

41. Good catch nt

[UTUSN]

44. Duly Rec"d nt

[tritsofme]

34. Sanders is national celebrity, Conyers is a virtual unknown.

It is no more complicated than that.

When Sanders does something, even advocate for a doomed bill, it is more notable than when Conyers does the same thing.

[DFW]

35. It may be more noted, but it certainly isn't more notable

Conyers has been representing Detroit in Congress since 1965. Just because he never thought it necessary to toot his own horn as loudly as Sanders has, that certainly doesn't make him less notable.

[R B Garr]

37. Thank you. Conyers' hasn't used it as a wedge or litmus test against Democrats,

and some are all too eager to promote it for that reason alone. You can tell because if you ask about the costs, you are labeled a conservative or other such divisive smears.

[Susan Calvin]

48. Exactly. nt

[lapucelle]

59. "Conyers is a virtual unknown..."

Co-founder of the Congressional Black Caucus in 1969.
Member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus since its founding in 1991.
Sponsor of the bill that made MLK Day a federal holiday.
Ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
Dean of the House of Representatives.
Congressman for over 50 years.

Proud Democrat.

[Susan Calvin]

62. Really. Thanks. nt

[DFW]

83. You have to wonder

Virtual unknown to WHOM?

My brother interned for him at the House of Representatives when he was about 16 (he's now 63). His staff always referred to him as "JC." JC is about unknown to anyone who knows about the U.S. Congress as the Beatles are to anyone who knows about 20th century music.

[lapucelle]

85. Conyers introduced the MLK Day bill in every session

of Congress for 10 years. He has been employing the same tactic with HR 676, the Medicare for All bill.

[Blue_true]

65. John Conyers is an unknown? LOL. nt

[tritsofme]

71. What do you suppose his national name recognition is?

I would be surprised if it was a statistically significant number.

This is not a knock on Conyers, just an observation as to why the Sanders proposal got much more press than Conyers.

[Susan Calvin]

78. Exactly.

Sad but true state of affairs.

[JCanete]

38. He should, and we should mention it here more often. 100 cosponsors is no joke. Of course

nobody mentions it in the MSM, nor did the MSM really mention Sanders bill or his cosponsors, because the MSM is not interested in promoting progressive ideas, ever.

Look, Sanders popularity has just brought a lot of people into the fold, and either introduced them to these ideas(not because they weren't out there and haven't been out there for decades but because nobody covers them and people don't hear about them) or reinvigorated their convictions to fight for these things, particularly while there is some newfound visibility. That visibility has given impetus to some of our 2020 presidential hopefuls/possibles signing on. That also means something and it is a step further than the support Conyers got, at least as it goes to visibility and big names being on record.

The biggest reasons these sorts of pushes don't get much traction here is because typically, promoting the very best liberal ideas seems to be anathema to keeping our establishment oriented democrats in positions of influence. There's little interest in using these efforts to pressure our congresspeople and senators to take a stand one way or another(because no no no no no, that might hurt them), which might as well be saying progressive ideas aren't worth fighting for. Its always better to just be fighting and attriting against conservative regression, rather than getting the GOP to fight and attrit against liberal progress.

Because jee wiz, we know that if we touch these third rails we may subject ourselves to a circular firing squad(I'm really packing in the mixed metaphors), showing our democratic leadership in a light that is if not outright unflattering in the eyes of their more left leaning constituents, certainly grayer. They'd rather let us believe that yes of course, they would fight for these things if they ever gained traction, than to have to make a statement showing their actual positions when push comes to shove.

That isn't to denigrate their actual positions, or to suggest that that means their support or lack-thereof is cynically motivated. But I hate not knowing where my politicians actually stand. I hate having to have faith based on very little that they will be there to fight for these things when the opportunity knocks. But as I said, people, Democratic voters, posters here, are implicitly aware that bringing these issues into the limelight might make our reps uncomfortable.

[Susan Calvin]

49. Yep. Thanks. nt

[msongs]

39. he is neither a self serving blow hard or in it for the publicity? nt

[Susan Calvin]

56. Well, I must say I do think Bernie

Is absolutely, in part, in it for publicity for the ideas. And I thank him.

[KPN]

80. Did you really just say that

Bernie is a self-serving blowhard and just looking for publicity?

[Nevernose]

43. Hmmm. What else was going on in January, politically?

I think there was some political news dominating the headlines for a few weeks around then, but I just can't put my finger on it...

But surely there's some kind of controversy or conspiracy to be had, right?

[Weekend Warrior]

45. Conyers wasn't doing it for personal political gain. Nt

[Susan Calvin]

54. Neither is Bernie. nt

[Blue_true]

66. Well, I will wait before arriving at that conclusion.

I can't believe that some on DU are uninformed enough to call Representative John Conyers.

[Susan Calvin]

76. I completely understand getting all the info.

Please do. I shall as well

[NurseJackie]

68. No comment.

[Susan Calvin]

75. I remember you. nt.

[NurseJackie]

88. I forget you. Sorry. nt.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

70. I give JC a ton of credit, along with Bernie. Nice goin!!

[riderinthestorm]

72. +1 Props all around. nt

[Susan Calvin]

77. Yesssss!

[Susan Calvin]

79. Just my humble opinion...

But as of the time I type this, I think this thread is a great example of politely shutting down a troll. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[Trumpocalypse]

92. You're calling me a troll?

Just for asking a simple question about something that I found out about a few days ago. That is just sad.

[Susan Calvin]

96. Perhaps not, sorry.

There's a lot of background here that's behind the reactions, including mine.

I should just drop it, and after posting this I shall.

If I misinterpreted, apologies.

Over and out.

[RandySF]

82. Cults of Personality

Trump on the right and Bernie on the left.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

87. I'm sure you can point us to the, no doubt, numerous threads you've posted giving JC accolades...

... starting in January. Yes?

[Trumpocalypse]

91. I only found out about it two days ago

and was curious why there was no discussion here.

[RandiFan1290]

94. LOL

[Trumpocalypse]

95. And what's so funny about that?

[MuseRider]

97. I doubt there is anyone here

who is not very grateful for Mr. Conyers. He and Bernie worked together when Bernie was in the House. Conyers has been in many conversations over the years here on DU, perhaps not for this at that time. In fact, the announcement of ANYTHING in January was often covered over by the fact that we had a new president who was breaking us apart as fast as he could sign a paper.

[Autumn]

98. Now you did it. You just pointed out that Conyers and Sanders are BOTH destroying the ACA!!!!!

*


Could be January was a busy news month, with a new toddler throwing temper tantrums in the Whte House 24/7? **


*

** Fact