HomeUncategorizedOne of Warren’s M4A Writers Does Not Support M4A? and OT 11/03
newest oldest most voted
Notify of


These three polls are remarkably similar. Actually not bad numbers for Bernie— he’s either stable or rising a little. Changes from last poll for each:

ABC—Last poll early September (first number registered voters/second number for all voters)
Biden (-1) (same)
Warren (+5) (+4)
Bernie (-2) (same)
Buttigieg (+5) (+3)
Harris (-5) (-5)

NBC—Last poll mid September
Biden (-4)
Warren (-2)
Bernie (+5)
Buttigieg (-1)
Harris (-1)

Fox—Last poll early October
Biden (-1)
Warren (-1)
Bernie (+2)
Buttigieg (+3)
Harris (-2)


The top three candidates are far ahead of the rest of the pack in the 2020 Democratic presidential field, according to three national polls released Sunday.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll showed former Vice President Joe Biden at 28 percent among Democrats and Democratic-leaning registered voters, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 23 percent and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders at 17 percent. Those three are the only candidates with double-digit support. (Among all voters, the numbers are Biden at 27 percent, Warren at 21, and Sanders at 19.)

An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll offered similar results, with Biden at 27 percent, Warren at 23 and Sanders at 19. A Fox News poll had the best news for Biden, showing him at 31 percent, Warren at 21 and Sanders at 19.

The three polls were released exactly one year before Election Day 2020.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., sits in fourth place in all three polls, with his current support ranging from 6 to 9 percent.

California Sen. Kamala Harris, who was polling in double digits during the summer, was in fifth place in two polls and sixth (behind Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar) in one of them.




Sen. Bernie Sanders, often credited for bringing Medicare for All to the forefront of the 2020 presidential race, defended his way of funding the plan up the against the newly-released outline from his progressive opponent, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, calling his way “far more progressive” and saying that Warren’s plan could have a “very negative impact” on job creation.

“The function of health care is to provide health care to all people, not to make $100 billion in profits for the insurance companies and the drug companies. So, Elizabeth Warren and I agree on that. We do disagree on how you fund it. I think the approach that (I) have, in fact, will be much more progressive in terms of protecting the financial well being of middle income families,” Sanders, I-Vt., told ABC News’ Rachel Scott on the campaign trail in Iowa.

The two candidates spoke on the phone about her plan after it was released, Sanders said.

Before announcing her own way to fund Medicare for All, Warren frequently said she’s “with Bernie” on the plan and emphasized that she fully supports it as the best way to get health care coverage to all Americans. But Warren’s newly-released plan has provided one of the clearest differences between her and Sanders, two of the most progressive candidates in the race.

Sanders has said his plan would be funded by a tax hike, including a hike on middle class Americans, and analysts estimate it would cost upwards of $30 trillion over 10 years — while Warren’s plan pledges no middle class tax increases and estimates a cost of $20.5 trillion over 10 years.

Of his own plan to fund Medicare for All, Sanders said, “It would raise taxes on the middle class, but it would substantially reduce the cost of health care for the average American. Because we’re doing away with all premiums, copayments, deductibles and out of pocket expenses. So for the overwhelming majority of the American people, they would save and save substantially on their health care bills.”

Sanders also told ABC News he thinks Warren’s plan could have a “very negative impact” on creating jobs because of the funds it would draw from employers. Warren’s plan calls for nearly $9 trillion from employers who would pay the government a slightly smaller percentage of what they currently pay to supply their employees with health insurance.

Warren’s plan calls it an “employer Medicare contribution.”

“I think that that would probably have a very negative impact on creating those jobs, or providing wages, increased wages and benefits for those workers,” Sanders told ABC News. “So I think we have a better way, which is a 7.5% payroll tax, which is far more I think progressive, because it’ll not impact employers of low wage workers but hit significantly employers of upper income people.”


This comment to the above article is interesting.

I found this statement from The Physicians for a National health program very interesting. For those of you who don’t know, the PNHP represents a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. They have over 20 000 members.

In response to Warren, they praised her commitment to medicareforall. But they said this:

“As a guiding principle, PNHP urges progressive taxes to fund singlepayer, medicare for all since since this method of financing would help alleviate inequality, which is a major social determinant of health.

There are several other organizations who campaign for single payer : Physicians for a National Health, Campaign Guaranteed Health Care. Health Care-Now. Health reform groups which include – National Nurses United, the American Public Health Association, the American Medical Student Association, Health Access, and Move on.

Progressive organizations that lean left on a range of policy issues and endorse single payer as part of their health policy portfolio include the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and public citizen.

All these organizations,health reform groups have one common goal, medicare for all. They have one common enemy,the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future which represents 28 members across insurance companies, pharma, businesses, hospitals. It is a mismatch in terms of power, leverage and resources. You will not defeat these powerful lobbyist without coherence. Sander’s bill acknowledged that there would be various routes to financing single payer, he has stated his preferences but he also knows that much of it will depended on congress. Warren has made it her stance to adopt a purist approach, in that any middle class tax increase is unacceptable. The PNHP will not criticize her plan, but they have made their preferences known subtly.

The balance of power of the identities of the groups and the resources they command is already unfavorable to single payer reform. Adding a new unnecessary division on how we finance it will ultimately add fuel to the fire. Having spoken to several people who lead some of organizations who have been fighting for single payer for decades, many are disappointed that Warren has chosen this path.


Just the label for Yang


Businessman Andrew Yang said he supports “Medicare for All” but would keep the option of private insurance, in stark contrast to Sen. Bernie Sanders’ original “Medicare for All” plan that essentially eliminates private insurers.

The Democratic presidential candidate said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday that his version of Medicare for All could “exist to complement the current existing private insurance market,” and that his campaign would unveil a “more detailed roll-out of the full plan in the days to come.”

Yang’s campaign website currently lists Medicare for All as one of his three main policies, but does not outline in detail how he would implement his health care plan if elected president.

Medicare for All, which has been spearheaded by Sanders, has emerged as a key fault line for 2020 Democratic candidates. Though it has become a catchphrase among Democrats — several candidates who are senators signed on to the bill as cosponsors — there is no universal agreement on how best to overhaul the American health care system.

“If you look at it, what does it say? Medicare for All, which means that you have a Medicare program that everyone can be enrolled in. It does not say Medicare for All, and all private insurance is hereby illegal,” Yang said.

Sanders’ Medicare for All bill, in contrast to Yang’s vision, would essentially eliminate private insurers.

“So you’re adopting the label, but not the bill,” Bash said.

“That’s correct,” Yang responded.