Facebook logoTwitter logoYouTube logo

Medicare for All Co-Sponsors Returned to Congress by Big Margins

From PDA

As AFL-CIO President Rich Trumka has said, this election was about jobs. This election was also about health care and the progressive change that was promised but not delivered. The voters punished the corporate Democrats who helped block legislation to help working people, the unemployed, and those without health care.

The Republicans promised jobs. We won’t be satisfied until they deliver. Let’s start with extending unemployment benefits, Child Nutrition programs, and tax cuts for working families, and blocking cuts to social security in the lame duck Congress that starts November 14th.

Of the 88 co-sponsors of HR 676, the Medicare for All bill in the 103rd Congress, 81 ran for another term in Congress. One ran for Governor of Hawaii. 79 of the 81 were re-elected to Congress by large margins. The candidate for Governor also won. Hawaii and Vermont now have Governors who support single payer health care.

The Blue Dog Democrats, like Jason Altmire, who worked in committee to water down the healthcare bill and block the public option lost over half of their seats. 28 of 54 Blue Dogs were defeated. 4th CD Congressman Altmire who worked in committee to gut the health care bill and then voted against it was re-elected by a margin of less than 2%.

All of the Democrats who voted against extending unemployment benefits for victims of the recession caused by the criminal bankers were defeated.

Of the 69 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) 66 were re-elected to Congress. Progressive Democrats of America works closely with the Congressional Progressive Caucus on legislation and elections.

Here is the list of co-sponsors of HR 676 Medicare for All and their election returns.

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1]—Elected Gov. with 58.2%

Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43]—10/7/2009Won with 65.5%

Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2] –Won with 61.7%

Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31]—Won with 84.1%

Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28]—Won 69.7%

Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. [GA-2]—Won with 51.4%

Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1]—Won—was uncontested

Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3]—Won with 62.7%

Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8]—Won uncontested

Rep Christensen, Donna M. [VI] –Re-elected

Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32]—Won with 71.2%

Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11]—Won with 90.3%

Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1]—Won with 73.5%

Rep Cleaver, Emanuel [MO-5]—Won with 53.1%

Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9]—Won with 74%

Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12]—Won with 59.8%

Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7]—Won with 75%

Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7]—Won with 81.4%

Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]—Retired & did not run.

Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6]—Won with 57.2%

Rep Doyle, Michael F. [PA-14]—Won with 68.8%

Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4]—Won with 83.6%

Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5]—Won with 67.8%

Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17]—Won with 70.7%

Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17]—Won with 66.3%

Rep Fattah, Chaka [PA-2]—Won with 89.3%

Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51]—Won with 59.7%

Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]—Won with 53.9%

Rep Fudge, Marcia L. [OH-11]—Won with 82.5%

Rep Green, Al [TX-9]—Won with 75.7%

Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]—Won with 48.8% in 4 way race

Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4]—Won with 77.3%

Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17]—Lost with 43%

Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23]—Won with 79.1%

Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22]—Won with 52.4%

Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2]—Won with 72.2%

Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]—Won with 52.9%

Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15]—Won with 66.5%

Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] Won with 80.5%

Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]—Won with 70.2%

Rep Johnson, Henry C. “Hank,” Jr. [GA-4] –Won with 74.6%

Rep Kaptur, Marcy [OH-9]—Won with 59%

Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1]—Did not run.

Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5]—Won with 53%

Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13] –Lost in primary

Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10]—Won with 52.8%

Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9]—Won with 83.4%

Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] Won with 73.7%

Rep Loebsack, David [IA-2]—Won with 51%

Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] Won with 67.1%

Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3]—Won with 56.8%

Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14]—Won with 74.9%

Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7]—Won with 65.9%

Rep Massa, Eric J. J. [NY-29]—Massa resigned prior to election

Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]—Won with 81.5%

Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]—Won with 56.5%

Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6]—Won with 84.9%

Rep Miller, George [CA-7]—Won with 67.3%

Rep Moore, Gwen [WI-4]—Won with 69.1%

Rep Murtha, John P. [PA-12]—Deceased

Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8]—Won with 75%

Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] Won with 74%

Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes [DC]—Re-elected

Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1]—Won with 60.1%

Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4]—Won with 65.5%

Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10]—Won with 85.4%

Rep Pingree, Chellie [ME-1]—Won with 56.8%

Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2]—won with 57.3%

Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3]—Won with 55.1%

Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] Won with 77.4%

Rep Rush, Bobby L. [IL-1]—Won with 80.2%

Rep Ryan, Tim [OH-17]—Won with 53.7%

Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9]—Won with 66.2%

Rep Scott, Robert C. “Bobby” [VA-3]— Won with 70.1%

Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16]—Won with 95.4%

Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2]—Won with 61.8%

Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6]—Won with 56.9%

Rep Tonko, Paul D. [NY-21]—Won with 59.3%

Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10]—Won with 91%

Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]—Won with 92.9%

Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35]—Won with 79.4%

Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33]—Did not run. The Dem who replaced her won 86.3%

Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] Won with 58.5%

Rep Welch, Peter [VT]—Won with 64.5%

Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19]—Resigned, replaced by Dem

Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6]—Won with 65.2%

Rep Yarmuth, John A. [KY-3]—Won with 54.5%

Rep Meek, Kendrick B. [FL-17]—3/24/2009 (withdrawn—10/21/2009) Meek withdrew his name from HR 676 and ran for the Senate seat.

John Conyers, Jr. MI-14 and sponsor of HR 676 won re-election with 76.7% of the vote.

Comments

10 Responses to “Medicare for All Co-Sponsors Returned to Congress by Big Margins”
  1. Linda Tomlin says:

    I don’t understand the logic, vote out blue dog democrats and replace them with Republicans who have told us up front what their plans are, the same that has voted against extending unemployment, the ones that want to keep the tax breaks for the rich, the ones that want to do away with social security and cut the pay of those drawing now and do I need to go on and on, you must know something I don’t know.

  2. Robert Gough says:

    Yes, the 2010 national election was a major house-cleaning for the Democrats, for sure, and most of those who remained were from some of the “safer” districts for progressives. Many of the Blue Dogs who lost didn’t carry the Independents who make up the swing vote in their presently RED districts. And by this 2010 election, we have also given the Republican’ts the power to redistrict our states for the next ten years, which they will surely do in a partisan way. But their slicing and dicing will include many of the Independents who stand just as ready to fire the current batch of politicos in 2012 if they aren’t happy with their performance. The task for Progressive Democrats, starting Nov 15th while they still control the 111th Congress, is to position themselves and their party strategically on the issues that matter to the independents, such as the Public Option via an extension of Medicare to more and more Americans. The 111th Congress can start by passing a deficit reducting tax-cut bill that provides relief to the Middle Class, while taxing all those new millionaires and billionaires who have so handsomely profited from our economic system in general and from the bank bailouts in particular!! Who knows, maybe even some anti-deficit Tea Party folks might help on that one.

  3. 3 cosponsors were replaced with possible or likely supporters
    …….. CA-33, MA-10, RI-1
    1 cosponsor was replaced by another single-payer advocate
    …….. HI-1

  4. The number of cosponsors will drop by at least 2-4, possibly 6.
    2 were replaced by Republicans
    ………. IL-17, NY-29
    2 were replaced by seated replacements who did not become cosponsors
    and who documented no health care position
    ………. FL-19, PA-12
    2 were replaced by Democrats who documented no health care position
    ………. FL-17, MI-13

  5. libhomo says:

    Democrats tend to do better in parts of the country where the party has, at least historically, been the most different from the GOP. There’s a good reason for the Democrats to do more to differentiate themselves from the Republicans.

  6. Although I have not yet worked on trying to combine the following report with mine, there is likely elements of my posts (above) and elements of the following report that just might combine into a decent summary of the “bottom-line” of the 2010 election results …

    http://pnhp.org/blog/2010/11/12/some-bright-spots-for-single-payer-in-midterm-elections/#comments

    Keep smiling. We are going to do this. Bob

    We will show our card and get care.
    http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Vision

  7. Theresa Franklin says:

    Medicare for all is an excellent idea. It will strengthen medicare as more healthy people will be paying in . And the decision for private insurance or Medicare should be private . So a universal health care should be implimented as hospitals will not know how any patient is financed . This will save money for medicare and insurance and help to prevent fraud.
    Now that takes the money incentive out , where healthcare professionals should focus on the most cost effective way to get people back to health or offer comfort to those in a terminal process.
    This will protect wealthy individuals from being taken advantage of .

  8. Theresa Franklin says:

    Correction, a universal healthcare card should be implimented so that hospitals and doctors once again focus on the healing arts.

  9. Mark Freedman says:

    The Government at all levels pays for more than half of healthcare. Medicare for all would free States from much of the Medicaid costs, Medicare already is a large chunk, add to that all government employees, retirees and their families and the incremental cost for Medicare for all is minimal. It matters not to whom I pay. It matters how much I pay. Reducing the three big areas of, Insurance company overhead costs (which include Doctor, hospital and pharmacy time dealing with obstructionist rules), overuse of follow-up visits to specialists who game the system, overuse of newer and more expensive prescription drugs. Add to this the ability to negotiate prices comparable to Europe and Canada for the exact same drugs and devices, and we will cut healthcare costs by $2-3 thousand per family per year. Everyone has a baseline care of Medicare, and can add additional supplemental insurance as needed or desired. It is a no brainer unless you are in the pocket of an insurance company.

  10. Victoria says:

    I don’t understand why getting medicare for all is so difficult, given the overarching profit motive in this country. You would think folks would realize that we will become a second rate country, since we can’t compete with more sensible countries as far as healthcare costs. Our products may be excellent, but they will cost more since businesses must fund such high insurance costs.