Pelosi declines to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders' single-payer healthcare bill

[George II]

Source: Los Angeles Times

SEPT. 12, 2017, 8:43 A.M.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) declined Tuesday to endorse Sen. Bernie Sanders' single-payer healthcare bill, saying her immediate goal is to protect the Affordable Care Act from President Trump's efforts to dismantle it.

Pelosi made it clear that her distance from the bill, which Sanders expects to unveil with top progressives this week, creating something of a litmus test for Democrats, had little to do with its contents. Rather she is working on more incremental gains to preserve and expand coverage for as many Americans as possible, despite Republican opposition to Obamacare, she said.

"Right now, I’m protecting the Affordable Care Act," Pelosi told a small group of reporters at a meeting Tuesday in her Capitol Hill office. "None of these other things, whether it’s Bernie’s [bill], can really prevail unless we have the Affordable Care Act protected."

Sanders, the Vermont independent, is drawing support from top Democrats, including with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and others often mentioned as possible presidential contenders.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-pelosi-declines-to-endorse-bernie-1505230000-htmlstory.html

---

This makes sense to me. It's more important put effort into keeping something alive that's working than to spend a lot of energy on something that may not even get out of committee.

The ACA is the law of the land, and we should be working tirelessly to keep it the law of the land.

[pnwmom]

1. Yes. AND because one way of getting single-payer would be to shore up the ACA

and add a "public option." When enough people had chosen that, then there would be even more support for single payer.

[DBoon]

2. definitely

I see the single payer measure as a way to gain support for the concept, not something that must pass now.

[iluvtennis]

27. But right now it's a distraction. We need to be tactical like Pelosi is doing. We can do strategic

single payer later after ACA is fully protected

[rgbecker]

44. I think Pelosi could do two things at once and chew gum.

Why not work for both these plans.....or does she depend on Insurance company money and support?

Just wondering.

[tecelote]

45. +1

[George II]

59. Why muddy the waters now? Democrats should be fighting against the constant onslaught...

...against the ACA by republicans.

There's a time and a place for everything. This isn't the time and the House isn't the place.

[adigal]

47. This is why we never make progress - I think Pelosi is protecting the insurance companies

I like a lot of what she does, but my impression is that she is a corporate gal through and through.

[rainy]

76. You are right! Our best hope

for the future is to get money out of politics!

[pnwmom]

100. No, she's protecting the ACA, which can be the foundation for single-payer if it doesn't

get demolished.

[George II]

3. That actually is the best way, and was also the original intention when the ACA became law...

....pass the legislation and then modify it as we go along to make it better.

[KPN]

10. Original intention? Do you have a source that actually

dates to when it was passed or before?

[George II]

12. I think that was well documented.

[KPN]

15. Maybe well supposed, but documented?

Not that I ever saw. What was documented was "let's be realistic". That didn't imply a plan to move to single payer down the road. In fact, wasn't that in itself a source of friction?

[JonLP24]

43. I look at this Medicare for All as trying to "make it better"

The Affordable Care Act was a critically important step towards the goal of universal health care. Thanks to the ACA, more than 17 million Americans have gained health insurance. Millions of low-income Americans have coverage through expanded eligibility for Medicaid that now exists in 31 states. Young adults can stay on their parents’ health plans until they’re 26. All Americans can benefit from increased protections against lifetime coverage limits and exclusion from coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Bernie was on the U.S. Senate committee that helped write the ACA.

But as we move forward, we must build upon the success of the ACA to achieve the goal of universal health care. Twenty-nine million Americans today still do not have health insurance and millions more are underinsured and cannot afford the high copayments and deductibles charged by private health insurance companies that put profits before people.


https://live-berniesanders-com.pantheonsite.io/issues/medicare-for-all/

This will be my last post in this thread as I don't want to get sucked into a flame war defending a proposal that is backed by all my favorite Senators.

[ehrnst]

4. The ACA took us down the road a long way towards Universal Health Care Coverage

Expanding it gradually is the most realistic way to do that.

[sheshe2]

11. Exactly!

Thank you!

[Autumn]

97. When do you think the ACA will be shored up and the "public option" added ?

[drray23]

104. indeed. i was about to post that too.

Not only would it move us in the right direction, it would also solve the issue of having parts of the country with no insurance providers. Its one of the major talking points that the gop uses to bash the ACA.

[underthematrix]

5. Miss Nancy be like "first things first" I agree with her that

we first protect the bird in hand before we reach for the one in the tree.

[George II]

8. I like that way of putting it, thanks.

[sheshe2]

19. I like this!

[thesquanderer]

6. The compromise would be...

...to make buying into medicare (or something similar) an option for those choosing plans through the ACA. IOW, the "public option." That way it doesn't have to be either-or. Here's one such proposal already in the works for people 50+, which would be a start...

http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/courtney_larson_propose_medicare_buy-in/

[pnwmom]

9. I agree. That could be a way of doing it. Unfortunately, some people on both sides have been

teaching us to hate the word "compromise" -- which is how progressive things used to get done.

If we go all out for single payer, and end up with a public option, will we those people twist that success into a "failure"?

[Snackshack]

78. Shelby Foote

In the Ken Burns documentary "Civil War" made that same point about compromise.
It's the reason America is what it is today even with the lack of it so far in this millennium.

[mdbl]

81. compromise isn't a word in repuglican politics

So I don't see that being a good strategy.

[pnwmom]

82. How do you think we'd ever pass single payer then? n/t

[mdbl]

83. with the current house, senate and white house, you won't

but if you push for something really big, you might keep what you got. The compromise strategy is to water it down even more to complete ineffectiveness.

[pnwmom]

85. You don't get "really big" things simply by wishing for them.

Medicare didn't spring up, perfectly formed, in its first version. It was improved over the years -- just as the ACA could be improved, by first adding a public option -- and then LATER by moving to single payer.

[mdbl]

86. Did you have a republican house senate and white house during that time?

[pnwmom]

89. How do you think that single payer could possibly pass with a Republican House and Senate?

[mdbl]

90. As I said two posts ago, it won't

but if you have the public buy into the garbage about compromise, you lose what you have. If you push for something that would benefit more people even more, you might just get a few more on your side to pressure the repugs to leave what's there. That's the best you can hope for. Anything else you do, you lose.

[pnwmom]

91. No, if you have the public buy into the idea that the only acceptable plan is single payer,

then when we do finally achieve something -- like a public option -- the public will be angry that we promised something bigger and failed.

Over-promising isn't a great strategy.

[mdbl]

105. Well, the strategy you advocate has been going on for a long time now to no avail

I would like to see a different strategy.

[pnwmom]

106. No, it's not been to no avail. We have the ACA now and it was a big advance for millions of people.

Maybe you have good employers insurance. Only someone who doesn't have ACA insurance, including the Medicaid expansion, can say that previous efforts were to "no avail."

Obama and the Dems accomplished a great deal despite united opposition.

[mdbl]

107. I haven't argued with you that the ACA wasn't a big advance

it happened when Dems had all 3 branches of govt. What are you talking about?

[pnwmom]

108. You just said that the Dems strategy was to no avail. What did you mean by that?

It has gotten us the ACA so far, which was a significant accomplishment.

[mdbl]

109. The Dems strategy wasn't originally the ACA, it was the Heritage Foundation's strategy

Last edited Thu Sep 14, 2017, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

and ever since the Dems started to push it, the conservatives have pushed back even harder to have no healthcare. In the first two years of Obama's first term, he had a majority in the house and senate, which is the ONLY reason they were able to pass the ACA. I am still of the opinion that we could have gotten something much better during that time. Just as now, you don't go to the negotiating table trying to take away what little you have won. This seems to have been the Dems strategy since 2010. It hasn't won them many seats in the government.

[pnwmom]

110. Why do you say "you" instead of "we"? This is a site for Democrats, not people who denigrate them

and what they have achieved.

You can think whatever you want, but you are wrong about what we could have accomplished in Obama's first two years. When Ted Kennedy died, we lost the 60 vote majority in the Senate that we needed to overcome the filibuster and pass the ACA with a public option.Our only choice when he died was to take the more conservative of the two bills -- the one Kennedy voted YES for before he died -- and have the House pass it AS IS, with no changes. That's why we were stuck with a bill without the public option. The plan had been for the House to pass a more progressive bill, and then for the public option to be approved in Committee. Kennedy's death changed all that.

Obama and Democrats in Congress accepted reality. It's time you did, too.

[mdbl]

111. "you was a typo and it was corrected"

As far as the rest of your last post, no one is contradicting what happened in the past - it's just time to try a different tact. Either way it happens, I hope it gets better not worse, but history has proven that compromise always worsens a good idea when dealing with repuglicans.

[mdbl]

84. The real threat to the ACA is the squeeze it's putting on a certain income group

The rates have skyrocketed for the group just above the subsidy lines, to the point where it's really not affordable. If that's not addressed soon, the push to get rid of the ACA will only strengthen.

[underthematrix]

18. Do you know how much Medicare cost?

When I had Ocare Me and hubby paid a combined 150 a month including medication. With medicare I pay 104 + 150 + 22. My husband pays 195+75. Together we pay 276+270 = 546 a month. This is 27% of our combined income.

I think Medicare for all is a little trickier than it seems.

[George II]

22. Right now my wife and I each pay $120 per month (deducted from Social Security) and....

...we have supplemental insurance that costs about $25 a month for each of us.

So we each pay about $150 per month, a total of $250 for both of us.

[thesquanderer]

46. If you were paying $150/month under ACA...

...you were presumably getting a subsidy for having income below a certain threshold. With Medicare, if your income is below a certain threshold, you would essentially get a similar kind of subsidy through Medicaid. If you're paying 27% of your income for Medicare, I'd be surprised if you could not get something of that back via Medicaid. Have you checked into that?

[underthematrix]

71. Nope I don't receive Medicaid. I ONLY receive MEDICARE and I'm

not eligible for a Medicaid subsidy under Medicare

Any yes under Ocare me and hubby did receive a subsidy.

[Blackjackdavey]

67. medicare is not adequate

This is right. It is much trickier as medicare is wholly inadequate on its own as it stands. Without even getting started on the part D provisions, it just doesn't cover an adequate range of services. As one immediate example, millions of people would lose access to behavioral health care. I'm eagerly waiting to see the plan but just giving everyone medicare would open new gaps.

[area51]

79. You bring up an interesting point,

both with the cost of Medicare and of course, that it doesn't cover enough. The folks at PNHP have put a lot of thought into this.

[wryter2000]

38. That's pretty much what Howard Dean said

Give people a public option, and they'll chose it. The insurance companies know they can't compete with a government program that runs efficiently and doesn't have to make a profit.

Probably some people will insist the gubmint can't do things right and stay with the private companies, but everyone else will sign up for the public option.

[ehrnst]

7. I think that many Dems fear that not endorsing Single Payer will put them in the position

that Republicans were in when they were voting to repeal and replace Obamacare every other week.

Whether or not they thought it was a good idea, not voting for it would be used to primary them.

[bettyellen]

63. Yeah, I think that they need to see how the proposal fares

So people who are really behind it will understand the difficulties in the process.

[BigmanPigman]

13. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA) is having a conference call tonight

to help organize and defend healthcare. It is called the "Courage Campaign". I signed up and will see if I can ask her about this.

[sheshe2]

14. I agree with Nancy's decision.

Let's fix what we have first.

[chwaliszewski]

24. I'll take it one step further...

let's win the House and Senate back so we have the people in place to do this.

[sheshe2]

26. That goes without saying....

I 100% agree with this statement!

[JonLP24]

41. And work on impeachment if the House & Senate is taken back

Hopefully impeachment will be on the table this time around and Trump - Pence get impeached then nancy Pelosi can become President. Capital n doesn't work.

[CousinIT]

16. Her reasoning makes sense. I don't think we'll ever get to single payer w/o the ACA

So shoring it up first and foremost makes sense.

[leftofcool]

17. Good for Nancy. We have to protect what we have

[Skidmore]

29. it makes no sense to do

an all or nothing crap shoot when the GOP hold the executive and Congress. Too much to lose, placing too many vulnerable people at risk with nothing to fall back on. Remember Trump is busy dismantling govt by EOs while Ryan and McConnell chip away at it too.

[NurseJackie]

20. Because she's a smart leader.

"Right now, I’m protecting the Affordable Care Act," Pelosi told a small group of reporters at a meeting Tuesday in her Capitol Hill office. "None of these other things, whether it’s Bernie’s [bill], can really prevail unless we have the Affordable Care Act protected."

She's correct, you know.

[JHan]

21. Sensible approach .. which will be excoriated ...

Bracing myself for the next ridiculous round of "Pelosi Must Go!"

[left-of-center2012]

23. From the link ...

“Sanders, the Vermont independent, is drawing support from top Democrats, including with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and others often mentioned as possible presidential contenders.

Pelosi, though, downplayed the bill as a gauge to measure progressive bona fides.

"I don’t think it’s a litmus test," Pelosi said. "To support the idea that it captures is that we want to have everybody, as many people as possible, covered.
And I think that’s something that we all embrace."

Pelosi defended her position at a time when some progressives are taking aim at her leadership,
noting that she has backed a single-payer system since before she entered Congress (but not now?).

[George II]

30. What are you saying, that she's not sincere in what she said?

[left-of-center2012]

32. I'm quoting the article n/t

[PdxSean]

31. Pelosi has proven herself to be politically savvy.

We wouldn't have Obamacare without Pelosi. Few Democrats can hold a candle to her proven experience and legislative accomplishments. THAT is why republicans relentlessly attack her. The idea that single payer is being offered when Republicans control all three branches begs a similar question: Why the urgency to push a wedge issue when Democrats are at a weak point politically?

[left-of-center2012]

33. I thank God everyday for our Democratic leaders

[TryLogic]

51. Wedge issue? Between Dems and fearful conservatives, perhaps.

[Gothmog]

25. K&R

[orangecrush]

28. were Hillary President

We would be well on the way to single payer.

Nancy is right, we are basically fighting for our lives at this point.

[Eliot Rosewater]

34. Were Hillary president, folks like you and me wouldnt go to bed

dreading the next day, which I assume most of us do.

Now that the Russian spy agency has admitted on their TV that they stole the election, I would think we could do something. But no fucking way.

[orangecrush]

92. You are correct

It's getting worse on a daily basis.

[progressoid]

35. With a GOP house and Senate?

I think we'd be neck deep in obstruction and bogus investigations.

[AllyCat]

37. We would not be. She did not want single-payer

[QC]

57. She said it would "never, ever come to pass." n/t

[AllyCat]

66. Especially if no one asks for it. The people want it.

They elect or try to elect leaders who will do their will.

[George II]

60. Yet.

[alarimer]

69. No, we wouldn't

The same way we didn't after the ACA passed. It was assumed that the deal was done and only a few brought it up. Hillary would have represented the status quo.

[AllyCat]

36. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time

No reason we cannot do both. Hit it on several fronts.

[Lucky Luciano]

39. Yes. nt

[bahrbearian]

98. If she signed on she would have some clout on saving the ACA

"If you don't want to fix the ACA, we will push Single payer" thats something she should say. Well, walking and chewing gum.

[NBachers]

40. I'm glad to see that voices of reason and sensibility prevail on this thread.

For the most part, anyway.

[SunSeeker]

42. This single payer bill has zero chance of passage; it only serves to divide Dems.

It is a gift to Republicans.

[George II]

50. "HRC is out selling books"? First, "HRC", Hillary Clinton, is a private citizen. Second....

....she's not the first to be "out selling books". And you call Democrats who support our most recent Presidential candidate "cultists"?

Thanks for you input.

[Cary]

53. So nice of you to call me a cultist.

[JHan]

54. Oh yeah , here we go, the "corporate dems" canard.

[TryLogic]

49. Hopefull this has to do with timing primarily. But I'm not sure what to expect from her.

[George II]

52. Inasmuch as the ACA is under constant assault by republicans, I doubt very much....

....that it's timing.

[murielm99]

55. Good for you, Nancy.

I support your decision and your leadership position.

[Ccarmona]

56. Pelosi's Position

Is the equivalent of Scott Pruitt saying the now is not the time to discuss climate change while we're going through the largest hurricanes ever in the Atlantic basin; or the NRA saying discussing gun control after a mass shooting is the wrong time.

[George II]

58. No it isn't. And I wouldn't utter Nancy Pelosi's name in a sentence with Pruitt and the NRA.

[Ccarmona]

61. So

When is the right time to discuss single payer, if not right now? When is the right time to discuss climate change, if not right now? When is the right time to discuss gun control, if not right now?
15 Senators have signed on to Bernie Sanders legislation and over 100 members of the House.

From a Pew Poll on 6/23/17

"Among Democrats, 52% now say health insurance should be provided through a single national insurance system run by the government, while fewer (31%) say it should be provided through a mix of private companies and government programs. The share of Democrats supporting a single national program to provide health insurance has increased 9 percentage points since January and 19 points since 2014.

Nearly two-thirds of liberal Democrats (64%) now support a single-payer health insurance system, up 13 percentage points since January. Conservative and moderate Democrats remain about evenly divided: 38% prefer that health insurance continue to be provided by a mix of private insurance companies and government programs, while 42% favor a single-payer approach."

[George II]

62. Unless 67% of the House and the Senate say that, it won't happen. trump will veto it.

Best to work to maintain (and one day improve) the ACA which only needs 50% support.

[Ccarmona]

64. You Didn't Answer My Question

And why 67%, are you suggesting that this has to be an Amendment to the Constitution in order to get Medicare for all?

[George II]

65. Article I, Section 7.

[alarimer]

68. It is about health care as a RIGHT.

It is expanding the conversation. There are many possible avenues to universal health care, but framing it as a right, not a privilege is the beginning. The ACA does not and will not get universal health care and it is still too expensive. The goal is for everyone to be in the same risk,meaning the same exact plan, whether that is Medicare or Medicaid and use the power of the government to control costs.

Health care should be a right, in the same way that education is. We want an educated populace, the same way we want a healthy one. If people have ready access to doctors, their conditions get treated much earlier and less expensively.

[QC]

70. Didn't you say that you're on Medicare? n/t

[George II]

72. Yes. Why do you ask? Even though I'm covered by Medicare, the ACA is important...

....to millions of people. I'm not one of those "I got mine, they can worry about theirs" kind of person.

[QC]

73. What has been your experience with it? n/t

[George II]

74. Again, why do you ask?

[Puppyjive]

75. She is not progressive

I voted for Bernie because he endorses single payer healthcare. I am tired of profit driven healthcare. It is not accessible, it is not affordable, and it is not fair. It is confusing to seniors, allows insurance companies to make medical decisions, and keeps us working in jobs that we hate. I am tired of seeing my heathcare dollars on billion dollar stadiums so that athletes can collect multi-million dollar salaries. I will not vote for another candidate who does not endorse single payer health care. We need it from cradle to grave, medicare for all. Get with the program Democrats. If you can't lead, then get off the bus. Sick and tired of the same old shit.

[Kimchijeon]

80. I agree with you wholeheartedly

I too, am sick and tired of the same old shit. Enough is enough!

[Snackshack]

77. Yes...

"Incremental" gains...

Small changes every 20-30yrs. Surely that is the best method.

Very glad President Obama did not have that POV or there would have been no ACA. Having said that President Obama should not have scrapped the public option as soon as he did.

[Hoyt]

87. When Clinton-care failed in early 1990s, it was almost 20 years before anyone would touch

healthcare again.

I don't think Sanders' bill is going to do much, but who knows. When he gets some Republicans to sign on, we'll be getting somewhere. Anyone want to guess when that might be?

ACA with a Public Option makes more sense to me, considering the political climate. If the Public Option is as good as we think, won't take long to end up with what is essentially single payer.

But to even protect the ACA, we have to win some new seats in Congress in 2018.

[George II]

93. As I pointed out somewhere else, it's going to take 67%

of all Senators and representatives to be in favor of it for us to get it. That's not going to happen.

"But to even protect the ACA, we have to win some new seats in Congress in 2018." - that is what we should be doing now, not fighting a futile fight that's not going anywhere for now.

[Mike Nelson]

88. I guess this means...

...Pelosi is not running for President in 2020.

[harun]

94. The two are not exclusionary. Pelosi is protecting rank and file House Dem's that take

health care dollars. She doesn't want to take that income out of their campaigns.

Strong backing of Single Payer is how you negotiate from a position of strength, with leverage. If the only thing you work on is a few small parts of the ACA you have no stick to beat them over the head with if the carrots don't work.

A position I don't blame Pelosi for though. I know she would work to get Single Payer if and when she could.

[George II]

95. There are NO "rank and file House Dems that take health care dollars"! That would be illegal.

[harun]

96. This is Murica Baby!

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?ind=H04++

Of course they take the money.

[PassingFair]

99. This is why we lose. nt

[GaryCnf]

101. Who needs Pelosi

We got John Conyers

[DiverDave]

102. This is such bullshit

Sweep it all away and give us Medicare for all
Pretty simple.

[lunamagica]

103. K&R.