House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.) on Friday endorsed efforts to lower the Medicare eligibility age and expand the program, as Democrats try to navigate internal tensions around a progressive push for “Medicare for All.”
During a conference in Denver about the future of the Democratic Party, Jeffries outlined the healthcare legislative priorities Democrats plan to tackle once he takes over as House Speaker in January.
Jeffries said the party must first undo Republican cuts to Medicaid funding and restore the Affordable Care Act’s temporary enhanced premium tax credits that Democrats provided during the COVID-19 pandemic.
While he stopped short of endorsing Medicare for All, Jeffries said Democrats need to go further than merely restoring what Republicans took.
But shouldn’t we be forcing the Republicans here to take that position? In effect, it’s the worst negotiation tactic. It should again be the Republicans coming to the table with “Okay how about to 50?” Never us. I mean look, we’re showing our hand and yielding this much ground right out of the gate and it hasn’t even been a full 2 weeks since we made massive, unprecedented gains – including from trailblazing US state-wide races in the likes of Texas and Michigan, both of whom support Medicare For All.
You’d have me if they proposed this when Republicans had full control and Dems were in the minority. But not now with the winds in our sails.
And anyone in our camp who says this should be immediate targets for Primaries in 2028.
The reality is nothing is going to pass anyway under this President so it’s a moot point. Nothing was stopping Republicans form reversing Medicaid cuts before. Nothing was stopping them from ending the war in Iran. Nothing was stopping them from ending the tariffs they also put in place themselves and before Midterms no less when they had something to lose. Little changes given the fact that President has veto power anyway from here until 2028.
So what these next 2 years are about is distinguishing Democrats and their vision for the future, versus the stagnation of Republicans.
Side note (again I think in the weeds to the bigger picture ) but I’m unconvinced of the “freeing up jobs” argument, which if there, is still the same should we pass M4A anyway. The people who are in this age group but also worried about health insurance are not really in positions of great jobs typically – they’re people like my Aunt; like my grandmother who are working dead-end retail jobs just to get by. The scarce few of those jobs in the 50-64 only suggest what could actually happen if we liberated M4A for everyone. Think of the burst of small-business entrepreneurship that comes with people being free from leaving their jobs in any age group to pursue thriving community-based local businesses that they otherwise cannot risk right now.
It’s just an objectively better policy from the outset, so why shy away from it? Let’s stop letting the ignorant dictate policy and start aiming high right out of the gate with lasting policy that will change this country for the better.
We have our mandate. Now is not the time for milquetoast Third-Way compromise.