RSN Fundraising Banner
Ways and Means Committee Chair Doesn't Want Medicare for All Hearing to Mention "Medicare for All"
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=50983"><span class="small">Ryan Grim and Akela Lacy, The Intercept</span></a>   
Friday, 14 June 2019 13:06

Excerpt: "In preparation for Wednesday's hearing on Medicare for All before the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, the panel's chair met privately with Democrats to lay out how he wants it to unfold."

Rep. Richard Neal speaks at a news conference on health care legislation at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., March 26, 2019. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty)
Rep. Richard Neal speaks at a news conference on health care legislation at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., March 26, 2019. (photo: Andrew Harrer/Getty)


Ways and Means Committee Chair Doesn't Want Medicare for All Hearing to Mention "Medicare for All"

By Ryan Grim and Akela Lacy, The Intercept

14 June 19

 

n preparation for Wednesday’s hearing on Medicare for All before the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, the panel’s chair met privately with Democrats to lay out how he wants it to unfold.

Rep. Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat who has been in office since 1989, told the Democrats on the panel that he didn’t want the phrase “Medicare for All” to be used. Instead, he said, the hearing should focus on all the different ways to achieve “universal health care” or “universal health coverage,” which he said was a better term to deploy. Medicare for All, he argued, was wrong on policy and is a political loser, sources present for the meeting, held last Wednesday, told The Intercept.

Neal confirmed that he recommended a shift in emphasis. Asked whether he encouraged members in private to focus tomorrow’s hearing more on “universal health care” than Medicare for All, Neal said the conversation would be more about “universal health care and access,” pointing to his continued support for the Affordable Care Act.

“I think what we’re talking about, we’re talking about universal health care and access,” he told The Intercept. “That’s the emphasis. So we have not ruled anything out or ruled anything in. And we think that continuing to gathering information — I mean, I helped to write the Affordable Care Act, I’m naturally in favor of expanding it, and, you know, 100% of the children in Massachusetts are covered, 97% of the adults. We’ve had a good experience with it.”

The hearing will be held at 10 a.m. on Wednesday in the Longworth House Office Building and will include five witnesses, all of whom are, at a minimum, sympathetic to Medicare for All. That the committee is holding a hearing at all on Medicare for All is a win for the Congressional Progressive Caucus and its co-chair, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and signals momentum for the legislation. A Rules Committee hearing in April marked the first of its kind in history for the push for single-payer, and moving to the bigger stage of Ways and Means, which has jurisdiction over taxation and government revenue, represents a new high-water mark for Medicare for All. Holding hearings is the start of creating the legislative history of a bill and often signals — as it does in this case — that public support for a measure has risen to a significant enough level that Congress is willing to spend its limited attention on the issue.

Jayapal, a lead sponsor of the House Medicare for All bill, and her co-chair Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wisc., won a commitment for a Ways and Means hearing from Nancy Pelosi as the party leader was working to round up votes in her bid for House speaker. But converting that pledge into a hearing required the assent of the committee’s chair, Neal. When Neal came to speak to the CPC on April 30, Jayapal pressed him in person, and he committed there to the hearing. The result is Wednesday’s hearing, but its title, “Pathways to Universal Health Coverage,” hints at the internal tension.

Some of that tension comes from Democrats who are pushing alternatives to Medicare for All, such as Rep. Brian Higgins, D-N.Y., the lead sponsor of a measure to allow people over the age of 50 to buy into Medicare. After Neal consented to the Medicare for All hearing at Jayapal’s request, Higgins pressured him for his own hearing on the Medicare buy-in proposal. (Higgins had declared publicly he would not support Pelosi for speaker in 2018 but relented when she publicly agreed to make the Medicare buy-in legislation a priority and recognized him as the lead sponsor of it.) Instead of doing multiple hearings, Neal told Higgins to include his proposal in the Medicare for All hearing. Neal and one of his staffers both confirmed to The Intercept that the measure was added to tomorrow’s hearing at Higgins’s request. “As a part of the agreement with the speaker, we were sort of abiding by that agreement,” the staffer accompanying Neal on Capitol Hill said.

Higgins said Neal including the buy-in measure in tomorrow’s hearing was “a good acknowledgement of the speaker following through on her commitment to make a good faith effort to get Medicare at 50 on the agenda.” He said it was “fair” to say that Neal had been encouraging people to frame tomorrow’s discussion around pathways to universal health coverage rather than focusing on Medicare for All.

“If we do nothing to try to get a Medicare for All — first of all, there’s not consensus on what ‘Medicare for All’ means,” he said. “Is that Medicare for everybody that wants it? Or is that Medicare for everybody, and it’s compulsory?” Higgins warned against “obliterating” private insurance, which he said lost the party support with the passing of the Affordable Care Act. Higgins supported the ACA at the time but said that while it was “deeply flawed in many, many ways,” its biggest flaw was “that it didn’t have a public option, because you need that countervailing force to private insurance. And I think that if we could accomplish that this year, that would be a major accomplishment.”

But getting rid of private insurance all together would be a mistake, Higgins said. “Do we really wanna create that schism going into 2020 for ourselves but also for the presidential election? The thing that we should be looking at — and we can do this all at the same time — is Medicare at 50 and concurrently working toward a more ambitious Medicare plan for those who want it. I mean, let’s be practical about this stuff.”

Neal is widely known to be skeptical of Medicare for All, and insurance companies and drug makers are among his biggest financial backers. He fended off a progressive primary challenge in 2018 but is likely to face a renewed one in 2020. He was a close ally of former caucus chair Joe Crowley, and privately among his colleagues is hostile to the new progressive energy — and support for single-payer — that swept into the House in 2018.

Speaking last week at a workforce development event at Springfield Technical Community College in Massachusetts, Neal said the two people he turned to most for economic advice were Bob Rubin and Jack Lew, both of whom are former secretaries of the Treasury, according to a source who was at the event. Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs executive and a chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, argued in a May op-ed in the New York Times that the secret to cutting health care costs is to spend more on social programs like “food stamps, free school lunches and public housing.”

Neal actively opposed efforts by the CPC to place progressive members onto the Ways and Means Committee, people involved in that fight told The Intercept. Other chairs of top committees, including Frank Pallone at Energy and Commerce and Maxine Waters at Financial Services, did not object to progressives joining their panel, which has created an ideological imbalance across the committees.

Neal did allow some members of the CPC to join, but generally he only accepted those who are also members or allies of the business-friendly New Democrat Coalition, such as Reps. Jimmy Panetta, Steven Horsford, and Brendan Boyle. Rep. Dan Kildee, D-Mich., was added to the committee and subsequently joined the CPC. Neal also welcomed Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., one of the most conservative Democrats in the caucus, onto the panel, as well as Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., who, like Murphy, is in the right-wing Blue Dog Coalition. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., meanwhile, sought a spot on the Ways and Means committee and was turned away, landing instead on Financial Services and Oversight and Reform.

Jayapal, who does not sit on Ways and Means and was not at the meeting with Neal, said that she is confident the hearing will nevertheless be a boost to the effort. “I wasn’t in the room, but I would just say it is impossible to have a hearing on Medicare for All without saying those words,” she said. “I am confident that our Medicare for All supporters on the committee will talk about the policy and the bill completely. And I am 100% focused on the fact that this is a historic hearing in a major committee of record — something that has never happened before. We appreciate the chairman holding this Medicare for All hearing.”

One member of the panel who heard Neal’s remarks but declined to be named said that Neal’s message was less about trashing Medicare for All and more about making sure to highlight alternative paths to universal health care.

Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., another Democrat on the committee, said he wasn’t at the private meeting but that members have been encouraged to look at all available options. “We talk a little bit about everything, but I don’t think we’ve arrived at any point in terms of it,” he told The Intercept. Asked if Neal was pushing members away from Medicare for All, Davis said, “I’m not sure I’d say he was necessarily the lead on the thinking around that, but certainly in our health meetings we’ve discussed everything.”

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+8 # DongiC 2019-06-14 21:43
Not all Democrats are Progressives and someday this split will have to be dealt with.
the Medicare-for-al l bill demonstrates this rupture. Looks like there will have to be a house cleaning in the not too distant future.
 
 
0 # Rodion Raskolnikov 2019-06-15 06:04
One thing is for sure. Code Pink or some other group will be in the gallery with "Medicare For All" signs as big as they can get into the room.


This is essentially what Obama did. He sculpted the discussion so that universal healthcare was not mentioned or taken off the table.

At least now the lines are being drawn. We know who has to lose this battle.
 
 
+2 # Lgfoot 2019-06-15 21:03
Baucus torpedoed single payer and public option, for the $3million he got from insurance companies.
 
 
+12 # tedrey 2019-06-15 07:15
If Representative Neal wants to support the Affordable Care Act, and thinks that's what the voters want, nobody can stop him from saying so out loud. But if other Reps want to support Madicare for All, and think that's what the public wants to hear, it's bad policy and bad faith for Neal to try to prevent their saying so.
 
 
+4 # economagic 2019-06-15 08:22
I would hope that each of the five witnesses who are said to be "at a minimum, sympathetic to Medicare for All" will take pains to explain to these lackeys for the Protection Racket, including Rubin and Lew, and to the public at large, why there is only one pathway to "universal health care and access." I would hope that they will also explain that "IMPROVED AND EXPANDED Medicare For All" is but a simple shorthand to describe the concept in familiar terms to a public whose knowledge of the subject is mostly false thanks to the Protection Racket and the MSM.
 
 
+7 # elizabethblock 2019-06-15 09:03
2020 is the Democrats' to lose. If they don't get their **** together, lose it they will.
 
 
0 # Texas Aggie 2019-06-15 20:44
Amen!
 
 
+3 # chapdrum 2019-06-15 12:03
Another DINO - the last thing that the party needs.
 
 
+2 # Texas Aggie 2019-06-15 20:53
This may actually work out to our benefit. If there are several competing proposals offered during the hearings, then the bases in fact for each of them will show which is better. That may just end up with Medicare for All coming out on top and no one will be able to say that the other proposals never got a hearing.
 
 
+3 # futhark 2019-06-16 09:08
An unfortunate fact is that legislative hearings for public input are often just window dressing on foregone conclusions. Several years back I was in Sacramento to speak at a legislative hearing on certification of Diebold electronic voting machines. The hearing lasted several hours, during which nearly all those testifying spoke against certification and the danger these machines posed to the democratic process. In the end, the chairperson's summation was to the effect that since the testimony seemed to be, on the whole, in support of certification, he recommended that the committee act accordingly, which they did. I suspect the hearing was bogus from the get-go.
 
 
0 # tedrey 2019-06-17 03:56
This has long been prevalent in both state and federal hearings under both parties, and has become standard operating procedure under the present administration.