Medicare for All: Political Kryptonite

Giving away my age, I will admit that I like Medicare.  The coverage is far better than when I had private health care insurance and the premiums are considerably lower even when paying extra for supplemental and prescription drug coverage.  It also demonstrates how a public option for those who want it - something Pete Buttigieg is pushing in his campaign - could at last force serious competition on private health insurance companies which typically give would be subscribers arrays of plans that are near impossible to compare side by side but all of which are expensive and leave individuals choosing their preferred form of poison.  Medicare for those who want it also avoids potential political suicide for Democrats - something seemingly totally lost on Bernie Sanders and largely lost on Elizabeth Warren - why potentially paving the way toward a more expansive form of public option down the road.  Sometimes consistent evolution is far better than an overnight revolution.   Now, more Democrats seem to be waking to the reality that Sanders' and Warren's Medicare for all mantra could be pushing Democrats toward defeat in 2020 - something that I view as nothing less than a national catastrophe and the possible end of America's political system as we have known it.  A piece in the New York Times looks at this potential and why moderation is perhaps the best way to win in 2020.  Here are highlights:

Prominent Democratic leaders are sounding increasingly vocal alarms to try to halt political momentum for “Medicare for all,” opting to risk alienating liberals and deepening the divide in the party rather than enter an election year with a sweeping health care proposal that many see as a liability for candidates up and down the ballot.

From Michigan to Georgia, North Dakota to Texas, Democratic elected officials, strategists and pollsters are warning that the party’s commitment to the Obama-era Affordable Care Act — widely seen as critical to electoral gains in 2018 and 2019 — could slip away as a political advantage in 2020 if Republicans seize on Medicare for all and try to paint Democrats as socialists on health care.

“When you say Medicare for all, it’s a risk. It makes people feel afraid,” said Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island, . . . “We won in Kentucky and Louisiana, barely, in part, because we won on health care. I don’t think we can afford to lose on health care.”

While Democrats won the House in 2018 by decrying Republican efforts to undercut popular provisions in the Affordable Care Act, the Democratic presidential primary race has turned in large part on whether to replace that law with a more expansive, single-payer system, financed by higher taxes and linked to an end to private health insurance.

[M]oderate leaders in the [presidential nomination] race, like Joseph R. Biden Jr., the former vice president, and Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Ind., support adding a public health care option to the current law. While the primary race is fluid and unpredictable, Medicare for all has steadily driven much of the Democratic discussion of health care.

A determination to shift those conversations is now spurring top Democratic officials to speak out more forcefully against Medicare for all, playing to the anxieties of Democrats who fear their party could once more lose crucial Electoral College battlegrounds like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to Mr. Trump if they push for a nationwide overhaul of health care coverage and benefits.

Warnings are being issued at all levels of the Democratic Party, from union members who fear losing hard-won benefits, to candidates running in swing districts, all the way up to former President Barack Obama, who offered a pointed warning about the risks of overreach at a gathering of donors in Washington, D.C., this month.

Many are gravely concerned about the impact that having a presidential nominee who backs Medicare for all at the top of the ticket would have on the most vulnerable Democratic candidates.

[A]s the race moves closer and closer to the start of primary voting, other polling indicates that voters in key battleground states have grown more skeptical of implementing Medicare for all. A survey released this month by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Cook Political Report found that nearly two-thirds of swing voters in Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin rated a Medicare for all plan that would eliminate private insurance as a “bad idea.”

Internal polling conducted by the Democratic Governors Association in October found that Gov. John Bel Edwards of Louisiana tested 15 points higher on health care than his Republican challenger. Their polling found similar results in Kentucky, where Andy Beshear, the Democratic candidate and now governor-elect, polled 12 points higher than Gov. Matt Bevin, a Republican.

Even if Ms. Warren or Mr. Sanders fail to win the nomination, some Democrats from battleground and conservative states worry that the party has already damaged its brand heading into the general election.

“The politics are horrible for the Democratic Party, that’s my judgment,” said Ms. Heitkamp, who lost her seat representing North Dakota last year and is now heading up an effort to win rural voters. “We’re making the issue about our plan rather than what the president has or has not done.”

“Democrats need to start talking about the contrast with Trump on this,” said Mr. Brown, who has not endorsed a candidate in the primary race. “The conversation should not be Democrats fighting over the path to universal coverage.”

Congressional candidates are frequently asked whether they agree with the policy; candidates in all 10 of the most competitive Senate races have said they do not support it, preferring to keep their health care message focused on expanding Medicaid, protecting the Affordable Care Act and slamming repeal efforts by Republicans.

Other allies of Mr. Biden have begun speaking in increasingly apocalyptic terms about how a presidential nominee perceived as too far to the left — thanks to positions on issues like health care — would impact other candidates in competitive races.

“We’ve got to find ways that we can build on the success of the Affordable Care Act and ensure that everyone has coverage that works for them,” said Representative Chris Pappas, a New Hampshire Democrat elected last year. “Most of us who were recently elected to Congress, those who helped flip the majority in the House, really have a practical point of view of what’s actually going to deliver relief to families in our districts.”

Sadly, Sanders' and Warren's cult like followers appear blind to the reality that their candidates are pushing a plan too radical for a majority of voters at this point in time.  Winning in 2020 has to be the priority.  Without winning, no improvements can be made to the current system and, if Republicans retain control, continued efforts to destroy what has already been accomplished will increase. 

Sanders Is Only Major Candidate to Sit Out Both LGBT Forums

When it comes to LGBT issues, Bernie Sanders has never left me with a warm and fuzzy feeling. Indeed, the man comes across as perpetually angry and not the empathetic type. Now, Sanders is seemingly avoiding two candidate forums on LGBT issues - the only major candidate to do so.  His claims of "scheduling conflicts" sadly simply do not seem to ring true and one has to wonder why he is snubbing the LGBT community, a reliable segment of the Democrat Party base. Personally, I do not believe Sanders is electable for three reasons: (i) he is too far to the left on issues, (ii) he is too strident and appears unwilling to work with others, and (iii) he is simply not likable. All issues that could prove harmful in the 2020 general election. A piece in The Advocate looks at Sanders' slight to LGBT voters.  Here are highlights:

Progressive presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is the only frontrunner who will miss both events aimed at discussing LGBTQ equality and rights.

The rest of the frontrunners will be on hand Friday for an LGBTQ Presidential Forum, cosponsored by The Advocate in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. And, according to CNN's schedule for the event, all of the heavy-hitters other than Sanders will also attend the Human Rights Campaign/CNN’s LGBTQ Town Hall slated for October 10 in Los Angeles. The senator from Vermont’s team has cited “scheduling conflicts” for both events.

Among those attending the LGBTQ Forum cosponsored by The Advocate and GLAAD are Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Julián Castro, Amy Klobuchar, Tulsi Gabbard, Joe Sestak, and Marianne Williamson. Pose star Angelica Ross will host the event that features columnist Lyz Lenz of eastern Iowa newspaper The Gazette, One Iowa Policy Director Keenan Crow, and Advocate Editor-in-chief Zach Stafford as moderators.

Since taking office, the Trump administration has made over 100 actions to roll back rights and safety for LGBTQ people, including the trans military ban and his administration's support of allowing businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual and gender identity.  

The candidates slated to attend the HRC/CNN Town Hall are Harris, Warren, Biden, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Booker, Tom Steyer, Beto O’Rourke, and Castro.

There have been three major Democratic debates in the past few months but moderators have not posed a single question regarding LGBTQ equality to the candidates.

A recent report highlighted how coverage of LGBTQ issues has "essentially vanished" from mainstream media outlets "after Trump was elected and have remained largely absent from coverage for the past three years."

Is Sanders taking LGBT voters for granted or does he simply not like us? Those are questions Sanders needs to answer.

An Open Letter to the Extremists in the Virginia GOP

With an across the board blow out in the 2013 Virginia statewide elections, one would think that the Virginia GOP might be rethinking its priorities and what issues matter if the party seeks to regain its appeal to the majority of Virginians.  But that would be a wrong assumption given the reality that the base of the Virginia GOP is now controlled by those who can be classified as (i) crazy, (ii) white supremacists, or (iii) religious fanatics who would happily bring back a modernized version of the Spanish Inquisition.  Conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin - hardly one of my favorite writers - has an open letter to the Virginia GOP in the Washington Post that holds few punches.  Rather than listen to such criticisms, I expect the Virginia GOP to double down on its batshitery.  Here are column highlights:

Hello Virginia Republican Party honchos, Bang up job there, coming up with the slate of three losing candidates in this November’s election. And it really is you — and the most ardent Republican operatives, activists and office holders – who did it. Only about 8,000 dyed-in-the-wool conservatives showed up on a weekend in May in Richmond, at least a two-hour drive for the people in the most populous part of the state (Northern Virginia). And, oddly, many Virginians on a Saturday in May were occupied with family, friends and so on. In short, people who have a life generally don’t show up at these things. So, it was a sliver of Virginians who picked the trifecta of losers.

This week, the beloved Rep. Frank Wolf — who, if it were up to those 8,000, probably never would have won 17 elections — announced that he would retire. Let me put it bluntly: If you plan on holding a convention to pick the nominee for this seat in a district populated by moderate Republicans and middle-of-the-road Democrats, you might want to consider closing up shop here in the Commonwealth. You’re just asking for it.

Interestingly, one of the aspirants for Wolf’s seat who’d probably thrill the 8,000 wound up in a wee bit of trouble this week. State Del. Dick Black apparently believes marital rape doesn’t exists.

[D]on’t give me that, “Are we going to let political correctness pick our nominee?” jazz; indifference to modern sensibilities is precisely why those 8,000 conventioneers have such a poor record in picking viable candidates.

One way to prevent a disaster like 2013 is to use a primary, not a closed club of party insiders, to pick the nominee. If you don’t believe me, sit down with former congressman and new Republican Artur Davis. He wrote in an e-mail: . . . .  “We need to stop acting as if we fear the voters who aren’t on our email chains.” Hmm. He’s got a point, no?

If instead you come up with a Saturday-in-Richmond nominee who spews fire and brimstone, I’ll be voting for the Democrat, who will be picked by a primary and, therefore, is unlikely to be obviously incapable of winning. Just saying.

 Blunt and to the point.  Will the Virginia GOP listen?  Not a chance.  The Family Foundation will demand that more lunatics and extremists be nominated, and it will once again get its way.