H.R. 676 now has 100 co-sponsors, the most it has ever seen. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA) was the 100th co-sponsor, he signed on yesterday:
John Conyers (D-MI) has sponsored the Medicare for All bill since 2003. Here he is explaining why:
The current tally of 100 co-sponsors is the most this bill has ever had during Conyers’ relentless effort over 15 years to get it passed. The past high was in the 110th Congress, when the bill had 93 co-sponsors. The Democratic caucus was 233 members then, which meant less than 40% of Democrats supported Medicare For All. Today, we are over 51%.
What can I do to help?
It’s very unlikely that HR 676 will be considered during this Republican controlled Congress. But it is important to get as much of the Democratic caucus behind HR 676 as we can. If your Representative isn’t on the list of co-sponsors, give them a call and ask them why not. While you’re at it, you may want to ask them whether they’ve considered joining the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
James Surowiecki of the New Yorker provides an explanation out of the behavioral economist’s handbook for conflicting polling data on health-care. It’s reminiscent of the polls suggesting most Americans are unhappy with Congress in the abstract, but do claim to like and wish to retain their own congressman/congresswoman. The explanation is along the lines of, the devil you know, or a bird in hand is worth two in the bush.
David Goldhill has a poignant and compelling article in the Atlantic Monthly titled How American Health Care Killed My Father about health-care reform. It deserves reading in it’s entirety.
The potential outcome Goldhill proposes is very similar to that advanced in John Mackey’s Op-Ed in the WSJ, except it’s more convincing, not nearly as strident, and doesn’t have an antagonistic title. Job better done.
Paul Krugman writes in today’s NY Times about the administration’s proposed health-care reform and how the insurance proposals mimic the Swiss system much more closely than they do the French or British.
Jon Stewart takes on Glenn Beck’s inconsistencies. It’s the funniest bit you’ll see this month about the hypocritical posturing that some commentators have engaged in over health-care reform.
The NY Times Prescriptions blog writes on the brouhaha created when Investor’s Business Daily claimed Stephen Hawking (the disabled physicist) would have been uncared for under the British health-care system. Of course, Stephen Hawking is British and he had something to say about the NHS.
Atul Gawande and fellow contributors write about ten hospital systems in the US who consistently deliver better patient outcomes than their peers, and how their experience can help improve the delivery of health-care across the country.
WASHINGTON — What’s in it for me?
The NYT tries to explain how health-care reform might affect Americans and how the administration has presented the effort thus far.