Is Nancy Pelosi Opposed to Medicare For All?

Oh dear:

Top Nancy Pelosi Aide Privately Tells Insurance Executives Not to Worry About Democrats Pushing “Medicare for All”

That’s from Ryan Grim at the Intercept, and it’s kinda sorta accurate. It’s based on a PowerPoint deck used for a presentation to Blue Cross Blue Shield executives, but let’s skip the opening slides on prescription drug costs, breast re-excision rates, and different-day elective upper and lower endoscopy rates. Here’s the slide on universal health care:

This is followed by some slides about ACA, Medicare, boomer retirement, and the opioid epidemic. There are a couple of reasons that none of it bothers me too much. First, it’s a presentation that sets out Democratic priorities for the next two years. We’re obviously not getting Medicare for All while Trump is in office, so it hardly matters if Pelosi’s people are downplaying it.

Second, and more important, this just goes to show the enormous malleability of the term “Medicare for All.” It can mean:

  • Literally, expanding Medicare to cover everyone.
  • Universal coverage of any kind.
  • Single-payer universal coverage.

Personally, I’m in favor of universal coverage and I don’t care much how we get there. Maybe we slowly expand the age limits for Medicare. Maybe we have a revolution and nationalize the entire American health care system. Maybe we keep expanding Obamacare until we get to 100 percent coverage. Maybe we expand both Obamacare and Medicare until they mush together and cover everyone. Maybe we adopt a German-style multi-payer system.

Some of these are inherently more efficient than others. Some of them are more politically feasible in the US given where we’re starting from. The politics is messy no matter how you approach it, and the key thing is to focus like a laser on universal coverage—as Democrats have—and not worry too much about how the sausage gets made. It looks to me like that’s what Pelosi is doing, and in the meantime she figures that there’s no point in pissing off the insurance industry to no purpose. That’s politics.


Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.

We Recommend


Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.


Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.


We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.