Why Haven't Washington Senators Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray Backed Medicare for All Yet?


Ahh yes. The only possible reason to hesitate to jump in with 100% support of a huge, complicated, expensive proposal to restructure the entire countries healthcare payment system is because of some campaign funds from pharmaceutical companies. The thing just came out. I'm happy my senators want to have time to study it and go over the details before going all in.

This shit is HARD to get right. I support a single-payer healthcare system but this proposal needs some vetting and peer review before I'm going to go to bat for it.
Yeah the problem with your poll numbers is that they are a complete utter fiction.Start asking dipshits about how they feel about their taxes going up, 'government takeover of healthcare', losing their employer provided coverage, then we'll see about your 'overwhelming support'.
The rallying cry of "Medicare for All" seems to be Democrats' attempt to declare, "Hey, we can be just as stupid as the Republicans were with 'Repeal and Replace.'"

I was hoping that the Affordable Care Act could serve as a highly imperfect but humane foundation upon which to build. Now I'm afraid we're going to be stuck with our current crazy system of employer-sponsored health insurance for another generation because we can't figure out how to replace it.

+1 for @1.
I think Patty Murray is busy working out a deal with the GOP to stabilize the ACA premiums mess, so is a bit pre-occupied at the moment. It might have a shot at passing.
The thing to remember is that "health care markets" will always leave some people out in the cold. Always. When "health care insurance" is a for-profit enterprise, there will always be people whom it is not "profitable" to cover. The "market" will always fail some people... with pre-existing conditions, with terminal cancer, with congenital diseases. Should we throw these people aside, in the name of profits? Is that who we are as Americans?

Everyone knows how the for-profit car insurance industry will screw people over, always trying to weasel out of their stated 'coverage'. How would that not be different with for-profit health insurance? Indeed, it is the same. So with insurance co. weaselling, and a portion of the population who will never be covered by them... this is known as a "market failure".

We need to form a "risk pool", which includes 100% of the population. Balance the risk over everyone --just like it is an American value to help each other out-- and everyone will be covered for reasonable rates. Taxes may go up, but healthcare costs will go down. Single-payer will allow the government to control healthcare costs, because they will have the clout to demand healthcare services do not get over-charged.

Already the US has the most expensive healthcare in the world, and our longevity is falling. That doesn't make sense. We're already paying too much, we're already wasting our hard-earned money. Stop the waste. We have plenty of examples to look at around the world. This isn't re-inventing the wheel.

Single-payer is the only way to go. "Markets" will always fail us.

Whether Medicare For All is the proper route (something it was largely intended for), or the best way is to extend the ACA to squash the for-profit jackals in the "health insurance industry" and give automatic coverage-to-all and single-payer.... I don't care.

But get the capitalists out of healthcare. Why should anyone profit from providing healthcare insurance? Would you rather have a for-profit "market" for policing? Or a "fire-fighter market" where the middlemen reap profits? No, of course not. That's insane. Why would not the government also provide universal financing for healthcare too?
"For Cantwell, that means cobbling together a bunch of little plans that still rely on a private healthcare system."

Medicare for all also relies on a private healthcare system. I think it's important to understand the different between government-provided health insurance (e.g. Canada's system and Medicare for All) and government-provided healthcare (e.g. England's system).
Because they DGAF about this pointless window dressing.
What a peculiar take.

As noted in this post,poll support drops precipitously once costs and drawbacks are mentioned. Does RIch Smith have a secret strategy for enacting MFA without bringing it up for debate?

As Jonathan Chait notes, MFA faces an enormous obstacle in the form of transitioning out of employer-paid (and union-bargained)insurance coverage.

As @6 notes, MFA also relies on a private healthcare system ... and it's unclear whether it preserves a private health insurance system (as do several other nations' universal coverage systems).

And as noted in multiple analyses across the political spectrum today, all 16 Senate co-sponsors are also mentioned as potential presidential candidates in 2020 ... while a referendum on MFA could quash the opportunity for control of the House and Senate in 2018 and 2020.

But the only explanations Rich Smith can imagine are dark conspiracies with pharma bagmen.
Seconding all of these comments. Nice job with the (fairly) reasoned comments, Stranger readers! Or nice job filtering, Stranger comments editor.
It's simple. Our Senators value Insurance and Pharmaceutical Companies(and their cash contributions) over their constituents.

It's a vaguely defined plan with no details on how to pay for it.

Even if your in favor of this as the end-goal it's ridiculous to demand that people support this proposal until those details get clarified.
They both received over $1mil from big pharma PACs in 2016. The reason they won't support this is simple: they've been bought.
If you've left a message here, I expect that you have left a message either by phone or email with Sen's Cantwell and Murray also, to urge them to take the right position and support this bill.

If not, get off your butts!
nrutas @12 -- Both of your accusations are not just false, but false by orders of magnitude!!!

Please look it up.
Medicare for All not only guarantees universal health aa a human right it is also much less expensive to administer. We already have the infrastructure. Every state has agencies that employ loads of health administration professional who work for the states and the federal government. Evidenced base health care is enshrined in this country which would make top notched health care the rule rather than dependent on health insurance. This would raise the nations health status and bring us closer to the other countries who also guarantee health care as a human right. It would also dramatically lower health care costs because it could negotiate lower prices for health products and spread the health risks to covers a huge population.
There's always the hand-wringing over how we will pay for things. Why no worries - or thoughts at all, apparently - about cost when we are bombing the shit out of other countries? I've got an idea: let's use the $ we have in abundance for doing harm and use it for good.