'Why I Am Voting No On The Democratic Party Platform': Medicare For All

[appalachiablue]

'Why I Am Voting No on the Democratic Party Platform.' History teaches us that the Democratic Party has sometimes faced an issue so great that it alone should be the yardstick for measuring the wisdom of voting for or against the platform. This is one of those times. And Medicare for All is that issue. By Ro Khanna, Common Dreams, Aug. 13, 2020. ~ Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, where he serves as the First Vice Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.



I will do everything possible to help end the disastrous presidency of Donald Trump, and that means emphatically supporting Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. At the same time, after much deliberation, I am announcing via this article for Common Dreams that I will not be voting for the platform (pdf) that has been put in front of Democratic National Convention delegates for our approval. To be clear: I respect and appreciate the people who worked to put this platform together. I know those who worked on it did so with a strong sense of purpose, wanting to make this a better party. And I recognize that the platform includes many positive planks. Among its breakthroughs is a call for a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour. There's much progress embodied in the platform.

"I will be voting 'No' on the platform because when we say that healthcare is a human right, we must truly mean it—and fight for it." Yet history teaches us that the Democratic Party has sometimes faced an issue so great that it alone should be the yardstick for measuring the wisdom of voting for or against the platform. This is one of those times. In 1948, there was going to be a split in the Democratic Party regardless of the national convention's vote on civil rights. Those who stood up and demanded a plank for civil rights in the platform fundamentally changed our party's direction. Likewise, in 1968, I also believe that I would have stood up and not supported a platform that failed to clearly call for ending the U.S. warfare in Vietnam. In my view, 2020 presents us with another such issue.

I believe that moving away from a profit-based healthcare system is the moral issue of our time. And in the final analysis, because of that belief, I could not vote for a platform that lacks a clear statement supporting Medicare for All. I have heard the arguments made as to why I, or any other delegate, should just get in line and vote for the platform. Two of those arguments resonated, and I would like to address them. "With Trump in the White House," some might say, "we need 100 percent unity, and anything that would chip away at unity is dangerous to undertake—including a no vote on the platform." No doubt, the specter of four more years of Donald Trump is a compelling argument for unity—but the thing is, I see a vote of conscience against the platform as an ultimate show of unity.

A party that cannot embrace honest debate and differences of opinion would be too rigid to learn or to grow wiser. Some may ask: "Why does the left have such a hard time understanding that you don't get 100 percent of what you want, that the truly great gains are made incrementally?" To this I say, nobody understands the realities of incrementalism better than progressives. Harry Truman ran and won on universal healthcare in 1948, and it was part of Democratic Party platforms until 1980. Thirty-six years later, the 2016 platform merely called for lowering the eligibility age for Medicare to 55. The 2020 platform proposes raising the goal to 60...

More, https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/13/why-i-am-voting-no-democratic-party-platform

[lagomorph777]

1. MFA is pretty important and I agree with that.

Not sure I'm comfortable with any division before the election though.

[appalachiablue]

4. Improving the fractured health care system in the US

is paramount, esp. now during the Covid epidemic. It's the most expensive & ineffective among advanced nations.

If not now, when and a major issue going head. The news cycle that's currently listening is another factor, timing.

[lagomorph777]

5. We can debate it vigorously starting in January.

And I will back Khanna's position (at a minimum).

First, we have an election to win. We must look like a well-run machine (the exact opposite of the Trump Disorganization).

[Hoyt]

2. Question is, what's fastest way there -- Public Option with increased subsidies or

go for whole thing and fail.

Typical junk from Common Dreams. We all want universal coverage, but try it their way, and we’ll be sitting here 8 years from now still debating the same crud.

[comradebillyboy]

3. Why not model on the highly regarded French or German healthcare

systems? Is MFA the only way to get universal health care. I think not. Ro can save his purity tests. The results of the primary elections spoke loudly and Bernie and his agenda were soundly rejected.

[Kaiserguy]

10. I'm with you

both nation have good working models that we could copy.

[Aviation91]

6. While I respect Rep. Rhanna...

I do feel the eligibility age for Medicare should be lowered to 60. I'm 60 years old now and could retire at 62 but I have to work until I'm 65 to qualify for Medicare so lowering the eligibility age would be a huge step forward!

[frazzled]

7. Knock yourself out

There are 3,978 other delegates.

In addition, the platform is just a piece of paper, an aspirational document with no force of law. That is evidenced in the article, which notes that universal healthcare was in the platform from 1948-1980, and in those 32 years it didn’t come to pass in Congress. At all.

It was substantially achieved with the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 (and its implementation in 2014), however. Though it has since been critically curtailed.

Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system's most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.[1][2][3][4]

PPACA's major provisions came into force in 2014. By 2016, the uninsured share of the population had roughly halved, with estimates ranging from 20 to 24 million additional people covered.[5][6] The law also enacted a host of delivery system reforms intended to constrain healthcare costs and improve quality. After the law went into effect, increases in overall healthcare spending slowed, including premiums for employer-based insurance plans.

So what’s the point? Universal healthcare was apparently unsuccessful when it was in the platform, and largely successful when it wasn’t.

[Me.]

8. What I Wish Is THat The MFA People Would Spell Out What That Program Actually Means

Because it doesn't mean free healthcare which is what a lot of people think. You're still going to have to pay for it and then add supplemental insurance aka Part B.

[genxlib]

9. This is so frustrating

There is more than one way to get to Universal Coverage.

The platform lays out some pretty aggressive improvements to the existing system that would be miles better than what we have. https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-21-DRAFT-Democratic-Party-Platform.pdf

In fact what is there could be described as voluntary M4A because it offers a public option that anyone could buy into. And flat out gives it to anyone that lacks the means to buy it.

But because it isn't the golden ticket, let's stamp our feet.

I think my frustration can be summed up with this point. He says "I believe that moving away from a profit-based healthcare system is the moral issue of our time.. Well, M4A doesn't do that either. It leaves all the hospitals, doctors, drug companies etc in private hands. It only replaces private insurers. The negotiating power will be great but does not remove the profit motive from the actual providers.

To be clear, I would take M4A in a heartbeat if I thought we could get it. I don't. The proposals in this platform are more reasonable and would get us to Universal more surely than any attempt to get there in one giant leap.

[beastie boy]

11. Oh c'mon! We have had continuous honest debate on M4A for months!

And plenty of differences of opinion being expressed, sometimes in very unpleasant terms. The future promises infinite opportunities for honest debate and expressions of differences of opinions. The party has, and will, embrace all of them. It behooves Mr Khana to examine the outcomes of these honest debates and differences of opinion, and be honest with himself: how in the world can his "no" vote on the Democratic platform possibly be confused for "the ultimate show of unity"? Not only is he choosing the worst possible time, place and venue for the advocacy of his minority view, but he is playing games with his own conscience.

[Nitram]

12. OK, so he's a one-issue voter. But that fails to account for the fact that "Medicare for All" is not

the only, nor necessarily the best, path to affordable health care for all Americans.

[democrattotheend]

13. I can respect his decision

And I feel this is the right way for progressives who want to push the party to be more progressive to go about expressing themselves at the convention. I forgot that the 2020 platform is less ambitious than 2016 on the issue of healthcare. I will be interested to see if others join him. I'm curious in particular what AOC will do - will she join him in voting against it, or has she agreed to vote for it in exchange for getting at least some of what she wanted on environmental issues? I have not read the whole platform, but from what I know there's enough good and disappointing that I could respect a decision by progressives to vote for or against it.