Medicare For Kumbay'all

What if the Democratic establishment could take the wind out of the sails of the left wing insurgency by…giving in to progressives on their most morally resonant and popular issue?

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

• The moral and political advantages of Medicare for All as an abstract concept, and how health care had become the motive force driving the growth of the Sanders movement;

• Why no plan to open up Medicare to all beneficiaries has ever become law, and who’s principally responsible;

• How the Bernie Sanders plan came into existence, and what it would take to get a version of it enacted without accidentally blowing up the health care system.

Then, even if this is a good idea on the merits, would it serve the political purpose of dialing down the factional war? Do progressive insurgents want single payer health care or do they want the issue to run on? Do they want policy wins or do they want to take over the Democratic Party? Is another truce, like the one Joe Biden forged in 2020 with Sanders and his allies possible? And would it hold even if a consensus left-center agenda didn’t drive Democrats back into full control of government?

Answers are available in full to listeners—just upgrade your subscription and pipe full episodes directly to your favorite podcast app via your own private feed.

---

---

Further reading:

• WE HAVE A YOUTUBE PAGE NOW! You can watch this episode in full there, and we’ll be rolling out new subscription options over the coming weeks. Hit like, subscribe, and all the other buttons.

• Brian’s original case: Why the Democratic establishment should surrender to the left on Medicare for all.

• Matt’s blueprint for a center-left counterinsurgency.

• Greg Casar: “In the past, there were some progressives, including people I’ve been friends with for a long time who used to say, I’d rather see you lose righteously than win politically and strategically. And I’ve learned to respectfully disagree with those people. We can’t afford to lose anymore because the cost of losing is just so high.”