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.
“What’s the minimum possible demographic coverage we can give to Medicare to stay in power?”
Thanks for continuing to motivate calls to our congresspeople to have you replaced.
to zero you fucks
Sure pal and magically a few democrats miss the vote due to an AIPAC celebration.
This is actually a pretty big deal, but not for the reasons it seems.
These are concessions - modern concessions - to the opposition (progressives). While there is no meaningful challenge to him currently, it means he views that as a real possibility. Making early concessions like this can undercut a would-be challenger before it begins.
IOW, our voices are being heard, and he is responding, at least a little bit.
FUCK JEFFRIES!
“Enjoy your breadcrumbs peasants”
- Jeffries /probably
Lower it down to conception.
“See guys I’m a progressive! I umm want to lower Medicare age to 50, so we can take care of you young folks.”
The Speaker picks committee spots/leadership and decides what comes to a vote.
Both are too important to trust Jeffries with
This is Hakeem Jeffries telling us who he represents.
“Medicare for All now!” yelled one.
“Why should we trust you?” one shouted, while another called Jeffries a “traitor.”
But unlike his Senate counterpart, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jeffries faces no serious competition in his bid to be elected House Speaker.
“Remember y’all, I grew up in Brooklyn,” he said with a smile.
What a piece of shit.
Never forget: This fuckwit Sinema/Adams/Fetterman-like grifter had a private meeting with Kushner, too.
Why is Ayanna Pressley not considered “serious” competition?
Is the Brooklyn line some kind of threat? Or I guess he’s just saying he’s tough and isn’t bothered.
I think it’s more a “I’m a man of the people / I’m not an elite ” thing. But he’s full of shit.
He should have added “I grew up in Brooklyn in the 70s and 80s, before it was all gentrified and shit”…
Hes trying to act like a tough guy.
Brooklyn ain’t shit, Boogie Down forever.
Fuck Hakim Jefferies, corporate captured piece of shit.
Better; he’s admitting he’s intimidated
Pathetic
Dropping to 50 is dumb, and more likely to fail than the full thing and stop any notion of further adoption of M4A.
Which is why the private insurance backed conservative Democrats in the caucus are pushing for it.
If it’s not outright self-sabotage, then it’s typical timidity of the spineless subset of Dems, unwilling to aim high when given a sweeping mandate.
Edit: I truly cannot believe there are already people engaging in Third Way tropes after we just gained total control of Congress and won in Red Texas and Trump-won Michigan in state-wide races campaigning on Medicare For All, thinking we should sell short expectations and yet again make compromises with Republicans. What the fuck… ?
Worst negotiation tactics I’ve ever seen that it honestly could be construed as sabotage. I highly, highly advise people against this watered-down Third-Way tactic. This is closer to a fall-back if we’re lame ducks. Not when we have literally just seized the momentum out of the gate.
Dropping to 50 is dumb
I’m not so sure of that. I’m a full advocate for M4A and I agree lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 50 won’t do that. However, it may do something else.
There are a significant number of 50-64 year old Americans that are still in the workfore because of the cost of healthcare at these ages is so high and they aren’t eligible for Medicare yet. While many in this group are lower income, a sizable chunk are also middle and upper income. This last group are in well compensated jobs that they may not actually need, but they stick around for employer subsidized healthcare (because ACA subsidies have a much smaller income ceiling/cliff).
If this group of Americans could suddenly quit and still have affordable healthcare, that would open up lots of high paying jobs for the younger generation to advance into. So while this “Medicare for 50+” won’t solve the M4A need, it might seriously increase the income of Americans under 50 years old that need it the most.
I started to write the pros and cons of going down that path, but honestly, I think we can skirt getting in the weeds since we both agree M4A is the way to go and ask why are we compromising at all?
I mean seriously. M4A is already very popular and will only become more so if these new Democrats take this mandate and sell it from their newfound podiums. This is not the time to compromise; this is the strongest Democrats have been in decades and will likely be stronger in 2028. We as advocates especially must continue to purify the party and continue holding accountable our own representatives while continuing to persuade those uninformed on M4A.
People are tired of unfairness, and these incremental steps excluding vast swaths of the working class will only piss people off who are excluded. Plus widening the pool to healthier age groups will actually bring down average cost.
we both agree M4A is the way to go and ask why are we compromising at all?
The question is, will M4A pass? If it won’t then an incremental improvement is better than nothing. We could have had Carbon Cap-and-Trade decades ago, but we went for the full thing, got nothing and already have climate change.
Also again, while we’re discussing this as addressing healthcare, this move may be a move not to directly affect healthcare costs, but rather affordability for all Americans. If “M450+” becomes law, how many of the highest paying jobs will suddenly open up allowing every rung underneath to move up and increase their pay which directly addresses affordability of everything and not just healthcare?
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.
If they don’t fund it by raising taxes on the siper-wealthy, it’s moot.
Can we move to phase 2, make his life a living hell
