Tag Archives: Healthcare

HR-676: Medicare for All has 100 co-sponsors. Over 51% of Democratic House Caucus now supports it.

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%.

CONGRESS YEARS CO-SPONSORS
108TH 2003-2004 38
109TH 2005-2006 78
110TH 2007-2008 93
111TH 2009-2010 87
112TH 2011-2012 77
113TH 2013-2014 63
114TH 2015-2016 62
115TH 2017-2018 100

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.

New Yorker: Health care and the public’s resistance to change.

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.

Health Care Reform which puts the consumer and results first.

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.