Millions are being pushed off the Medicaid rolls, undoing the biggest health care coverage expansion since Obamacare.
Sen. Ron Wyden, chair of the committee that oversees Medicaid, likened some states’ attempts to stop people from losing coverage to “waving at somebody as their car goes by, and going, well, we contacted you.”
the discussion should be about getting more folks covered
The discussion first needs to be substantially increasing Democratic numbers in both houses of Congress.
Obviously nothing will change for the better without a Democratic majority in the House. A nominal majority requires at least 4 more Democratic seats. There are far fewer Blue Dogs and conservative Dems than there were 15 years ago, but I would imagine a maximal ACA successor would require at least 30 new members to make sure assholes like Gottheimer don’t gum up the works.
The filibuster rules in the Senate basically mandate at least 60 senators to pass anything of consequence. Yes, it’s a Senatorial rule; yes, it can be removed with a straight majority. As it stands right now, two senators are on record as opposing filibuster repeal, and there are probably a few others who are still attached to the rules of the Senate as currently constituted. A fight over the filibuster now would fail, and time spent in the next Congress fighting to abolish the filibuster is time lost for legislating. So assume a minimum of 60 Democratic senators to be able to operate free of Republican obstruction. Again, if you want a maximal bill, you need more than 60 senators, to get around problem children like Manchin and Sinema* and other conservative Dems.
We’re obviously in the realm of LBJ after the 1964 landslide here, which helps to explain why progressive victories are so hard-fought and far between. People forget that a big reason LBJ was able to enact the Great Society is because he was backed by 288 Democrats in the House and 66 Democrats in the Senate. By comparison, Obama had 60 Democrats in the Senate for about six to nine months, which is how the ACA was able to pass but was also why the ACA wasn’t better than it was.
If we want better outcomes, we need more (and better) Democrats.
*It’s very possible that neither of them will be in the new Senate. It’s also possible that on some issues they are stalking horses for other senators who prefer to let them draw the heat.
I basically agree. As mentioned below, there are several issues, health care among them, that are winners at the ballot box if dems get the messaging right and are willing to go to the mat over principle.
I hate that we’re at this point, but I feel like reproductive rights is the wedge issue that has the best potential to break open state and federal legislatures for Democrats. The other issues you cited poll well, but haven’t historically translated into reliable votes. Reproductive rights are much more salient. It makes me hopeful for the next few cycles but I worry that if and when a Democratic Congress is able to safeguard abortion rights once again people will fall back into old patterns. Eternal vigilance is the price to pay for a truly civilized society.
I agree again, and just posted up an article about that very thing.
I do think health care can be this way too, though. It just has to be explained in a manner that is personal to Joe and Jill public. Stop talking about taking away private insurance, cause that will just scare them, and start talking about how they are already one serious illness and a faceless algorithm away from bankruptcy, which is scary, but in an accurate way.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
The discussion first needs to be substantially increasing Democratic numbers in both houses of Congress.
Obviously nothing will change for the better without a Democratic majority in the House. A nominal majority requires at least 4 more Democratic seats. There are far fewer Blue Dogs and conservative Dems than there were 15 years ago, but I would imagine a maximal ACA successor would require at least 30 new members to make sure assholes like Gottheimer don’t gum up the works.
The filibuster rules in the Senate basically mandate at least 60 senators to pass anything of consequence. Yes, it’s a Senatorial rule; yes, it can be removed with a straight majority. As it stands right now, two senators are on record as opposing filibuster repeal, and there are probably a few others who are still attached to the rules of the Senate as currently constituted. A fight over the filibuster now would fail, and time spent in the next Congress fighting to abolish the filibuster is time lost for legislating. So assume a minimum of 60 Democratic senators to be able to operate free of Republican obstruction. Again, if you want a maximal bill, you need more than 60 senators, to get around problem children like Manchin and Sinema* and other conservative Dems.
We’re obviously in the realm of LBJ after the 1964 landslide here, which helps to explain why progressive victories are so hard-fought and far between. People forget that a big reason LBJ was able to enact the Great Society is because he was backed by 288 Democrats in the House and 66 Democrats in the Senate. By comparison, Obama had 60 Democrats in the Senate for about six to nine months, which is how the ACA was able to pass but was also why the ACA wasn’t better than it was.
If we want better outcomes, we need more (and better) Democrats.
*It’s very possible that neither of them will be in the new Senate. It’s also possible that on some issues they are stalking horses for other senators who prefer to let them draw the heat.
I basically agree. As mentioned below, there are several issues, health care among them, that are winners at the ballot box if dems get the messaging right and are willing to go to the mat over principle.
I hate that we’re at this point, but I feel like reproductive rights is the wedge issue that has the best potential to break open state and federal legislatures for Democrats. The other issues you cited poll well, but haven’t historically translated into reliable votes. Reproductive rights are much more salient. It makes me hopeful for the next few cycles but I worry that if and when a Democratic Congress is able to safeguard abortion rights once again people will fall back into old patterns. Eternal vigilance is the price to pay for a truly civilized society.
I agree again, and just posted up an article about that very thing.
I do think health care can be this way too, though. It just has to be explained in a manner that is personal to Joe and Jill public. Stop talking about taking away private insurance, cause that will just scare them, and start talking about how they are already one serious illness and a faceless algorithm away from bankruptcy, which is scary, but in an accurate way.