During a secret meeting, a top Pelosi health aide told medical insurers that there was no need to worry about Medicare for All passing

#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/02/05/aca-for-pharma.html

10 Likes
Rep Pramila Jayapal's Medicare For All Act fixes America's dire and broken health-care system; take action to support it now!
#2

This hurts – which coincidentally is a phrase our Democratic leadership is perfectly okay bankrupting families over.

17 Likes
#3

Does anyone think this is her cunning ruse to put the health insurers off-guard?

Me neither.

37 Likes
#4

Let’s be honest. There IS no need to worry because the Democrats couldn’t push Medicare for all through in the current government. One, it wouldn’t pass the Senate. Two, it would get immediately vetoed by Trump if it did and there is even LESS than no chance the Senate would garner enough votes to override the veto.

I rather the democrats spend their time, effort and political clout on things that have slightly better than a snowball’s chance in hell of happening at this point.

25 Likes
#5

Before all the daggers come out, expanding ACA and lowering drug prices would be a step towards medicare for all.

Using the threat of total extinction to lobby for lower costs is a shrewd move, IF it’s part of a long term strategy. IF.

14 Likes
#6

Is that honest? Because what we’re talking about here is an aide promising that even if the conditions are ripe then the Democrats will choose not to push for medicare for all. Pointing out that there is still work to do before it can happen does not get them off the hook for promising to throw the match at the end.

16 Likes
#7

I’d like to wait and see a bit more, because this seems such a precise thing to piss off a lot of leftists and make them turn away from the Democratic party, that I can’t help but wonder if it’s genuine and/or being pushed by people with an ulterior agenda.

9 Likes
#8

+1 Coming from the Intercept, and how their eoc Greenwald loves being a purity troll shitbird. I doubt the accuracy of this reporting.

11 Likes
#9

Well, I am not sure I believe the Dems are constitutionally capable of long term strategizing, but I sort of agree with the rest of your analysis. After 2020, if the electorate is not “adequately suppressed,” I suspect Nancy will not have a choice in the matter. It would not take a huge number of Progressives to be elected to swing the dems away from the corporate teat. I hope this is true, anyway.

15 Likes
#10

This is some very bad journalism from Grim. It’s bad speculation off of a boring slide deck.

13 Likes
#11

Damn that wicked conserva-Dem Pelosi. If only she’d let this through, Mitch McConnell and Trump would pass it in a heartbeat.

And even if they’d have had a problem with it, why didn’t she tell the health insurance companies that will continue to exist and have clients for at least the next two years to go crawl into a hole and wait for death? THINK, NANCY!

Etc. etc.

Anyway, we all clicked and I even commented, so I guess something was accomplished here.

5 Likes
#12

Perfect timing, a little too perfect.

7 Likes
#13

The two-party system has been turned into two parties and two shadow parties. The US needs to embrace preferential voting to deconstruct the contemporary de facto monarchy.

I mean … fuck these people.

11 Likes
#14

Unless I’m missing something here, this story is describing what Primus “said” at a meeting and interpreting what he “said” even though it quotes no one, even on deep background or what have you, who actually attended this meeting. Instead, the reporter got a slide deck, and based on that slide deck, the reporter has apparently divined the entire content, tone, and characterization of what was said at the meeting.

There’s a big disconnect here. Yes, we have an outline of a presentation, but the claim that, for example, there was a quid pro quo suggested to exchange ACA expansion for lower drug prices is nowhere in the slides. The reporter is way far out over his skis.

6 Likes
#15

Ok, but explain to me how Democrats get any bill (much less Medi For All) passed with 60 votes in the Senate, when they have at most 48 votes? They’d have to reform the filibuster (uh, after they win a majority in the Senate.)

5 Likes
#16

Hard same. At this point, I suspect the Intercept will be a full red-hat MAGA site by the time the election hits.

2 Likes
#17

Warmongery Democratic corporate shills gonna shill.

3 Likes
#18

Riiiiiiiight… because a mandatorily “market-based solutions” enriching some of the corporate sectors making the largest campaign spending contributions is the first step towards carefully crafted public health care system.

What was that about a bridge you were trying to sell?

8 Likes
#19

This is misleading. Cory, you know better.

5 Likes
#20

The bullet under single payer that reads “Creates winners and losers” seems odd. Of all of the options on the table it seems least likely to do that. Obviously no system is going to be perfectly fair to everybody (people won’t even agree what fair is), but it seems likely to be the most fair option.

Or is that code for “healthcare giant is worried it would reduce their profits?” I mean they already have that point further down, but I can definitely see it included twice given how much weight it holds on Congress.

7 Likes