You can go back and listen to that episode if you haven\u2019t yet<\/a>, where she also talked about getting infected with Covid after being crammed in a room for hours with maskless Republicans.<\/span><\/p>\nYet as the feds continue their insurrection roundup, there are still more than 30 million people uninsured in America, and millions more underinsured \u2014 a crisis at any time, but particularly so in the midst of a pandemic and extreme economic precarity. <\/span><\/p>\nSometime later in February, Jayapal will be re-introducing the Medicare for All legislation she first put forward in 2019, and the nurses\u2019 union is launching a nationwide effort to pressure Democrats to co-sponsor it. The nurses had their first strategy call of the year recently, with over 1,000 activists laying out the plan for the year. They\u2019ll be targeting Democratic members of Congress who are the largest recipients of cash from the health care industry and are standing in the way of reform. At the same time, they\u2019ll be releasing a list of the 10 to 20 Democrats on the fence who can be nudged with a little pressure. They\u2019re also organizing in every congressional district.<\/span><\/p>\nIn the meantime, the pandemic is opening up opportunities to immediately expand public health care to millions who need it. <\/span><\/p>\nFor more on that, we\u2019re joined by the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, congresswoman who represents Seattle, Washington. <\/span><\/p>\nCongresswoman Jayapal, welcome back to Deconstructed.<\/span><\/p>\nRep. Pramila Jayapal: <\/b>Thank you so much. It\u2019s great to be with you. <\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>So two years ago, back in January 2019, after the midterm blue wave, Democrats had just taken over Congress, Pelosi is running for another term as speaker. What was the Congressional Progressive Caucus thinking? What was the strategy going into those negotiations two years ago, over the rules package over committee assignments, over votes for leadership? What were your priorities? And how did you go about trying to achieve them, then?<\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>Well, our number one priority was to actually change the composition of key committees that have a lot of authority around budgetary implications, and also progressive policies that are very important to us. <\/span><\/p>\nAnd so what we realized in doing our assessment is that progressives are really underrepresented on those key committees, like Appropriations, and E&C, and others. And so we went into Pelosi and the negotiations and said: \u201cWe want, as a top priority for progressives, to make sure that we have at least 40 percent representation, which is the representation of progressives in the Democratic Caucus.\u201d And she agreed to that, which was a big step forward. And we were actually able to get progressives on key committees. <\/span><\/p>\nNow, we learned some things out of that. We learned that we should be very specific about who we want on those committees, and make sure that those people were really tied into the progressive agenda.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>Mhmm. To unpack that, I think what you\u2019re referring to is that, for decades, the Congressional Progressive Caucus was you just kind of signed up to be in it. And so you had a lot of people in it who were also in some of the more right-wing ideological caucuses. And so what you\u2019re saying is that in a few cases, she met that target by saying, \u201cOK, well, here\u2019s somebody from the CPC.\u201d And you\u2019re like, \u201cOh, that\u2019s not exactly what we meant.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nPJ:<\/b> [Laughs.] Yeah, that\u2019s right. And we actually had some people maybe even sign up for the Progressive Caucus right before that happened. So that led us to really consider the rules and reforms package that we passed this year, and also our own CPC reforms package this year in terms of what we wanted to prioritize. <\/span><\/p>\nWe did also ask for elimination of PAYGO. But I will say that it came very late in the game; we hadn\u2019t done the work ahead of time. <\/span><\/p>\nRG:<\/b> Almost on the day of the vote, or the day before the vote?<\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>Pretty much. Pretty much. People in the progressive movement sort of elevated that as a priority the day of the vote. And it was too late, you know? With these negotiations, you really have to do a lot of work ahead of time. And so we decided that we would prioritize PAYGO reform and MTR reform, that\u2019s the motion to recommit, which has also really been used against us multiple times to try to weaken legislation on the floor and essentially cause us to bargain against ourselves. <\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>Right, and for people who don\u2019t live this, motion to recommit for years has been the opportunity for the minority party to get a vote on the House floor in opposition to whatever the majority is putting on. And it\u2019s really, basically always used for mischief.<\/span><\/p>\nPJ:<\/b> Yeah. <\/span><\/p>\nRG:<\/b> Like, just trying to force the other party to take some uncomfortable votes. There\u2019s really no purpose beyond that.<\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>That\u2019s right. Historically, the motion to recommit is basically a tool for the minority party to have a final opportunity \u2014 not consistent along the way \u2014 but this is the final opportunity to weigh in on legislation outside of what is the regular amendment process. But the modern motion to recommit has gone so far from that original intent. <\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>[Chuckles] Mhmm. <\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>And now, it is essentially a surprise policy proposal. Members see the text of a motion to recommit literally 10 minutes before we vote on it, and it undermines the spirit of regular order and thoughtful legislating. And really, it\u2019s just minimal, superficial, gotcha debate. <\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>Right. <\/span><\/p>\nPJ:<\/b> And usually, it\u2019s used as a partisan ploy to offer poison-pill legislative changes, often related to immigration, criminal justice reform, bad things that then can be used on a TV spot. <\/span><\/p>\nThe Republicans, historically, because it was procedural, they always voted against a Democratic motion to recommit when Democrats were in the minority. Democrats, unfortunately, did not do that. We did not hold together. And we often had some of our conservative Democrats voting with Republicans on those motions to recommit. So it was no longer procedural; it was really terrible and often targeting communities of color.<\/span><\/p>\nRG:<\/b> Right. <\/span><\/p>\nSo you wrote in your memoir that the surprise PAYGO fight of two years ago \u2014 that kind of blew up over the course of a day \u2014 actually ended up having some positive repercussions for Medicare for All. Can you explain a little bit about how that came about?<\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>Yes, it seemed like a strange opportunity, but one of the things I\u2019ve learned in politics is you got to take every opportunity you can find. And so when the PAYGO issue suddenly blew up, we had the opportunity to say to the speaker that if we did not get a significant progressive win into commitment from her that we would not be able to support the rules package. And that win was getting her to actually approve of and allow it to happen, because that\u2019s how these things go, hearings on Medicare for All. That was the first time in the history of Congress that we\u2019ve had hearings on Medicare for All. There was no actual legislative proposal, like the bill that I introduced in 2019, a 140- plus page piece of legislation; before that it had just been a 17-page resolution for Medicare for All, and we turned it into actual legislation of how this would work. The speaker agreed to that and we were able to, for the first time in the history of the House of Representatives, have hearings in key committees: the Rules Committee, the Ways and Means Committee, and the Energy and Commerce Committee on Medicare for All, with our hearings, the powerful testimony of Adi Barkan and of Don Berwick, the former administrator for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who came and actually testified about why this was important. And we were able to bat back, frankly, so much of the Republican criticism, and build momentum for our organizing effort across the country.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>What was the effect of those hearings internally? <\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>Well, it was really great, because we have, I think brought on many Democrats who were nervous, frankly, about signing on to a piece of legislation that\u2019s 140 pages that has a lot of detail in it. It\u2019s a lot easier to get Democrats to sign \u2014 or anyone \u2014 to sign onto a resolution that\u2019s 17 pages then it is something that has detail that you have to commit to.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>Now there were some pundits and left-wing media personalities ahead of this vote who were urging you guys \u2014 urging the CPC \u2014 to use the vote for speaker as leverage to extract a floor vote on Medicare for All. Why didn\u2019t the CPC end up taking that particular route?<\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>Well, I\u2019m sympathetic obviously, as the lead sponsor of the bill, to people who are frustrated that we have not moved to a single-payer system yet. But the reality is that this is a very slim margin. The vote for speaker was between Kevin McCarthy and Nancy Pelosi, and throwing the entire chamber into chaos would have been very detrimental for the Electoral College vote and everything else. <\/span><\/p>\nBut more importantly, from my perspective, again as the lead sponsor of the bill, who\u2019s done so much to try to build momentum and get sponsorship and move the bill forward in the legislative process, I didn\u2019t think it was a smart idea. I mean, for us to force a vote on Medicare for All before we are sure that we have the support, I think is a bad strategy. I think that if you are going to argue that the thing that we get from the vote is we find out who\u2019s for Medicare for All and who isn\u2019t, and then we try to primary the people that aren\u2019t \u2014 the reality is, you already know that. <\/span><\/p>\nI mean, the people who are for Medicare for All have signed on to the bill. The people who are not for Medicare for All have not signed on to the bill. So I don\u2019t know what we get by saying, \u201cwe\u2019re going to force a vote,\u201d have the vote go down, and for the people who think that it\u2019s going to pass, I can guarantee you from everything I\u2019ve seen in Congress, that it would not pass. We could do a lot to try to get more people to vote for it than are signed onto it. But it still wouldn\u2019t pass. We just don\u2019t have the majorities we need. And I think at this point with a president, a Democratic president, who has clearly staked out his ground not for Medicare for All, I think we\u2019ve still got work to do as a movement to actually be able to pass these things through.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>There was a sense among some people that that this moment was the moment that progressives in Congress had to use their leverage and with this gone there\u2019s no more leverage left. What\u2019s your analysis of that position? And what leverage does the CPC have going forward?<\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>Well, we have a lot of leverage, because it\u2019s a slim majority. At the same time, what I always tell people is: Remember that if we have a lot of leverage, so do others. So anytime you have a slim majority, and I served in the minority in a state senate, where all the power went to the middle, or the most conservative Democrats and the most liberal Republicans. Because if you\u2019re a progressive, if you want to say, \u201cWell, I\u2019m going to withhold five votes\u201d \u2014 or 10 votes, or whatever it is \u2014 \u201cfor this bill,\u201d then if the bill suffers a defeat, the way that it\u2019s countered by the rest of the chamber is to make it more conservative, and to actually get five Republicans to vote for the bill. <\/span><\/p>\nSo I think people just have to understand we\u2019ve got to do this carefully, and thoughtfully, and well in advance. Things that come up at the last minute are generally very difficult to get through unless you\u2019ve already been negotiating. <\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>And when it comes to your leverage, it seems like what you\u2019re saying is that you would need to find bills that the House leadership can\u2019t move to the right and pick up Republican support. So that that would have to be something that is so toxic to Republicans, that there\u2019s no amount of moving it to the right that could help. And one of those, I guess, would be anything involving the Affordable Care Act. <\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>That\u2019s right. <\/span><\/p>\nRG:<\/b> The Republicans, just politically, they can\u2019t touch anything close to Obamacare, unless it\u2019s a full on repeal of Obamacare. And so there do seem to be some fixes coming in the House to Obamacare. And I saw Ro Khanna say on Twitter that that might be an opportunity for you guys to have some leverage, because there\u2019s no way Pelosi can go to Republicans and say, \u201cLook, I\u2019m trying to fix Obamacare. But the progressives are demanding this, that, and the other thing, and so I need some Republican votes to help me get these Obamacare fixes across the finish line.\u201d I assume she\u2019d be laughed out of McCarthy\u2019s office for that. Is that the kind of direction that you\u2019re looking at?<\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>That is exactly right. And if you look at the legislative agenda that the Progressive Caucus just rolled out, what you will see if you look at the health care section for our priorities are the things that we can do with Democrats that won\u2019t get Republican support in overall health care legislation, but why not pass a bill, a piece of legislation, that drops the Medicare age to 50? Because in the context of the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans likely would not support it, but that would not be popular for seniors. So it would be very popular with seniors, obviously, overall. And so I think that these are the strategies that we have to think about. <\/span><\/p>\nAnd we have to be very careful. Progressive Caucus has played both ways on the NDAA, that\u2019s the National Defense Authorization Act. Many of our most progressive members have never voted for an NDAA. Two years ago, we thought we would try a slightly different strategy, where we would work with the chair of the Armed Services Committee, Adam Smith, to get many progressive amendments into the House version of the NDAA, and then hope that they survived in the Senate version. And so a few of us voted for the NDAA to see if that strategy would work; I\u2019m a great believer that you got to figure out what\u2019s going to actually move your priorities. <\/span><\/p>\nIt did not work. You know, we got them into the House version, and then they all \u2014 not all, family leave still ended up staying, in which was a big victory, but most of the things that we really were fighting for \u2014 got stripped out of the final version that passed the Senate and the House. That\u2019s an example where Republicans are always going to end up voting for the NDAA at the end of the day. And it\u2019s a tough vote for a progressive to take when the top-line number doesn\u2019t change on military authorization. <\/span><\/p>\nSo you\u2019re exactly right to differentiate between something like the Affordable Care Act, or potentially even a $15 minimum wage, things that Republicans have said, \u201cNo way, we\u2019re not going to do this,\u201d versus for example, perhaps a transportation infrastructure package, or other things like that. H.R.1 is another example where we\u2019re likely not going to get any Republicans on, and so we were able to push last time around for really progressive additions to H.R.1, and we\u2019re going to get a few more this time as well when that bill is introduced in late January.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>Right. And that\u2019s the election reform and public financing, matching financing for campaigns, for people who aren\u2019t following that. <\/span><\/p>\nSo, on Medicare for All, what is the plan going forward? How Xavier Becerra is likely to be HHS secretary. He has supported in the past allowing waivers for states to create single-payer plans, state by state. Is that the route that the movement is going to invest its energy in or what is the strategic path forward if a floor vote isn\u2019t going to get you there?<\/span><\/p>\nPJ:<\/b> Well, I think there\u2019s two parallel paths. <\/span><\/p>\nSo we will reintroduce Medicare for All, my bill, probably the first week of February. And our hope is to really put pressure on so that we get at least as many co-sponsors as we had last time, hopefully by introduction day, but, if not, soon after that. And we will continue to press for more hearings, which is really the path to laying the legislative Congressional Record for these things, these big policies don\u2019t happen without that. So in Energy and Commerce, in Ways and Means, in Budget, because the Congressional Budget Office just did a great report on Medicare for All and the cost of Medicare for All. And John Yarmuth, the chair of the Budget Committee, is a supporter of Medicare for All. And so we hope to continue to lay that groundwork and continue to push.I don\u2019t think anything is out of the question. I just don\u2019t want to have a vote until I know that it can actually pass. And so we will continue down that route, just as fiercely as we have before. <\/span><\/p>\nAt the same time. If you look at what I was able to negotiate with Don Berwick and Abdul El-Sayed, the three of us were the Bernie-appointed people on the Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force on Health Care, I was the co-chair, that is a really good roadmap to where we want to go. We weren\u2019t able to get everything into that, but we got some significant victories and wins. <\/span><\/p>\nAnd then related to that, yes, we\u2019ve already requested a meeting with Xavier Becerra, we\u2019re so excited that he\u2019s going to be the new secretary, he certainly understands the importance of a single-payer system, and we hope we can work with him to really get us there and lay the foundations for what will be the most essential piece of providing health care to everyone by moving to just the single-payer system, no private health insurance, everyone able to get the same care, expansive care, that is needed. <\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>And last question, I think one reason that you saw so much energy online, around this fight over the speaker vote and what path to take Medicare for All in comes down to a couple things, and one of it is that the primary is over, the campaigns are over. And so energy that people used to put into phone banking, and knocking on doors doesn\u2019t have a channel anymore, and kind of the movement for Medicare for All wasn\u2019t giving people kind of an obvious way, at the moment, to express their anger. Like, who do we call? Who do we come after to move this forward? So over the next two years, for people who are angry, for people who want to see change happen faster than it\u2019s happening, what can they do on a day-to-day basis?<\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>Yeah, it\u2019s such a great question. And we worked really closely with the main organizing groups who are all on the same page with me about the strategy here. National Nurses United already has a signature petition campaign that people can go to get Congressional members on board. There\u2019s a whole campaign that Public Citizen has run that they\u2019re going to re-energize again around getting localities and states to pass single-payer resolutions, Medicare for All resolutions. <\/span><\/p>\nAnd there will be moments where we will really need people to weigh in loudly and get some of these things that we\u2019re fighting for into legislation in whatever way we can. I think all of those things will ramp up. And I know this is a really tough time for people. As the lead sponsor of the bill, I\u2019ve done so much work on just trying to establish what we need to establish in order to move what would likely be the most major piece of legislation since Medicare and Social Security into being. That is not an overnight fight; it hasn\u2019t been an overnight fight. The only reason we\u2019ve made the gains we\u2019ve made is because people have kept their energy up and do feel passionately about it. But we just also have to recognize that you have to have the support and you can\u2019t play into the hands of Republicans and others who want to defeat Medicare for All just so that we have a symbolic victory that doesn\u2019t actually move the ball forward. And I think that was the only consideration here is what is really going to move the ball forward and get health care to every single person in this country, no exceptions \u2014 everybody in, nobody out.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>Congresswoman Jayapal, thank you so much for joining us.<\/span><\/p>\nPJ: <\/b>Thank you, Ryan.<\/span><\/p>\n[Musical interlude.]<\/span><\/p>\nRG:<\/b> If the legislative push for Medicare for All is going to have any chance, it\u2019ll depend heavily on pressure from the outside. National Nurses United has been pushing Medicare for All since it was formed as a union. I\u2019m joined now by their lead Medicare for All organizer, Jasmine Ruddy.<\/span><\/p>\nJasmine, welcome to the show.<\/span><\/p>\nJasmine Ruddy: <\/b>Thanks so much for having me.<\/span><\/p>\nRG:<\/b> So we wanted to have you on to talk about the path forward for Medicare for All, over the next year or two. What does NNU see as the strategic path forward?<\/span><\/p>\nJR:<\/b> For us, I think it\u2019s two things. <\/span><\/p>\nFirst, we see Congress, particularly the House, being really key to the strategy over the next year or two. This has been the strategy that we\u2019ve been focused on for the last two years. And I think it\u2019s the place where we can continue to build a lot of power and make a lot of gains over the next two years for the Medicare for All movement. There\u2019s a lot of organizing work to do in Congress, because while we have record support for Medicare for All among the Democratic Party base, and we have a huge number of cosponsors, 118 last time who are supportive, we also have a majority of the Democratic Caucus who is still not supportive of Medicare for All.<\/span><\/p>\nRG:<\/b> Mmm.<\/span><\/p>\nJR: <\/b>I think second is continuing to organize the movement, organize a mass, grassroots, militant, activated movement for Medicare for All.<\/span><\/p>\nI think what\u2019s really great about this moment that we\u2019re in is that there\u2019s record-high support among the public when polled for Medicare for All, but we\u2019re not yet at a moment where that\u2019s quite the same as an organized, activated movement of people demanding Medicare for All. <\/span><\/p>\nSo I think a lot of the work that\u2019s left to do is to translate a lot of that public support that exists, but it\u2019s fairly passive into an activated movement of people who are coming together and demanding health care for all.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>So can you tell us a little bit about who the National Nurses are? Because about 13 years ago, I think it was, I remember I covered a John Conyers event where he was introducing his bill at the time, H.R. 676, which was the single-payer bill that people rallied around. And, at the time, he said he was very, very proud to have the support of the California Nurses Association. <\/span><\/p>\nJR:<\/b> Yeah. <\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>Which is now National Nurses United. <\/span><\/p>\nJR:<\/b> That\u2019s right.<\/span><\/p>\nRG:<\/b> How did California Nurses become NNU, and what has NNU\u2019s role been in the Medicare for All fight over the last decade or so?<\/span><\/p>\nJR: <\/b>Sure. Yeah. NNU, National Nurses United, was founded in 2009, and is a sort of combination of the California Nurses Association, which is still our largest affiliate or chapter to this day, along with a number of other state nurses\u2019 associations. And today, we\u2019re proud to be the largest union of registered nurses in the country. The nurses at NNU have been fighting for single-payer, for Medicare for All, since the early 90s, really, in California.<\/span><\/p>\nRG:<\/b> And what is California\u2019s role in the strategy going forward? Xavier Becerra is on record supporting a waiver for states to create their own single-payer system. How much energy do the nurses plan to put into the Medicare for All movement plan to put into creating single-payer in California?<\/span><\/p>\nJR:<\/b> Yeah, that\u2019s a great question. <\/span><\/p>\nI mean, we were certainly really encouraged to see that Xavier Becerra has been appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services, or nominated, I should say. Because for any state like California, to be able to do single-payer on their own requires the waiver \u2014 the sort of blessing, permission \u2014 from HHS and from the president. So it\u2019s great because Becerra is a supporter of Medicare for All. I think there\u2019s a clear path for the Biden administration to grant that waiver. And for states like California to lead the way. I think that\u2019s going to be an essential part of the work over the next two years.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>So Pramila Jayapal has suggested that in the meantime there are some immediate things that could be done, such as decoupling health care from job by enrolling anybody who\u2019s unemployed into Medicare, by allowing anybody who\u2019s up to 25 or so to enroll in Medicare, by reducing the age down to, say, 50 to be eligible. Are these ideas that legislators have come up with in coordination with NNU and other organizations pushing for this? Are these things that you guys are championing this term?<\/span><\/p>\nJR: <\/b>We are really excited to see a number of these different proposals that are sort of being considered. I will say, at the end of the day, our union fiercely champions and will fight for Medicare for All, ultimately. But I do think that we see anything that contributes to the social insurance model of more people being covered \u2014 so, you know, expanding the eligibility age of Medicare down to age 50, is a great example. And we don\u2019t support Medicare Advantage or privatized Medicare, but true coverage and health care for more Americans we see as a stepping stone, as something that contributes to genuinely getting more people in the country health care. And we see that as a win.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>There\u2019s been a lot of heat around the idea of forcing House Democrats to take a vote on the House floor on Medicare for all. Where did the nurses come down on that tactic?<\/span><\/p>\nJR: <\/b>There was a lot of discussion over it over the last few weeks. And, you know, it\u2019s not something that we supported. But I want to say what I was most excited about to see with this from the grassroots base, the energy and the interest in escalation around Medicare for All. <\/span><\/p>\nI think there\u2019s this sort of underlying premise that Covid has made the need for transformational change more clear than ever, and I just couldn\u2019t agree more with that premise. But, you know, we don\u2019t support something that we\u2019re gonna lose, right? I think what\u2019s really important about this fight, in general, as we talk about fighting to win Medicare for All in the United States, is that we\u2019re up against one of the most profitable industries in human history, right? The insurance and pharma corporations have everything to lose. And they\u2019re already spending millions and millions of dollars lobbying against Medicare for All. <\/span><\/p>\nI think a floor vote loss in the House, I think would play just right into their hands. There\u2019s some folks who might say that: \u201cWell, we need to get folks on the record, right?\u201d And I think that may be true, but I think we have a lot more to lose than we do to gain out of something like that. <\/span><\/p>\nAnd I think this is a point that\u2019s been made, but it\u2019s worth repeating: We have a target list. The list of targets that\u2019s sort of widely held among Medicare for All activists in the movement is the list of cosponsors. We had one in the last session, we\u2019re going to have one again in just a few weeks when these bills are reintroduced. It\u2019s the list of Democrats who co-sponsor or who don\u2019t co-sponsor. That\u2019s our list, right? That\u2019s the work that needs to be done is that we need to identify who those people are, call them out, and organize in their districts. And that\u2019s exactly the work that we\u2019re focused on at NNU. That\u2019s the work that needs to happen over the next year, over the next two years. That\u2019s that\u2019s slower, deeper organizing work at the local district level, but I think it\u2019s really critical. At the end of the day, that\u2019s what\u2019s gonna work and there aren\u2019t any shortcuts.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>And the thing about a floor vote is Republicans get to vote on the floor then too, and so, back of the envelope, I would guess that there would be more than 300 votes against Medicare for All. So you\u2019d be looking at something like, low 300s to low 100s or so, but the House position on Medicare for All a lot better. If you had to just guess, if you put Medicare for All on the floor tomorrow, as some people were demanding, out of the 435 members of Congress, how do you think that vote breaks down and gets reported in the press?<\/span><\/p>\nJR:<\/b> Yeah, that\u2019s that\u2019s a great question, and a great point, because while we\u2019ve made so much gain in the last session of Congress \u2014 I mean, we got up to 118 Democrats in the House, which is really great, right? But it\u2019s also a quarter of the House membership in total, right? I mean, we have still over half of just the Democrats in Congress who are still not supportive of Medicare for All, despite the fact that 88 percent of Democratic Party voters say that they support it, despite the fact that it had huge majorities of support in every single exit poll in the Democratic primaries last year. <\/span><\/p>\nSo best-case scenario, I think we would have those 118 members. Worst case, I think we have less than that. And we\u2019re talking about a quarter at best. And so I think, I agree, to your point, we\u2019re not just talking about losing a floor vote narrowly. We\u2019re talking about being pretty destroyed.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>Right, losing by some 200 votes or so.<\/span><\/p>\nJR: <\/b>That\u2019s right.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>So did the organizers of this effort reach out to anyone at NNU? Were you in contact with them over the last couple of weeks?<\/span><\/p>\nJR: <\/b>You know, I wasn\u2019t, but I don\u2019t want to speak if there were any efforts to do so. But I personally wasn\u2019t; I\u2019m not sure about other grassroots organizations that work on this issue. <\/span><\/p>\nIt was something that did take place over the holidays, there certainly wasn\u2019t very long to consider the strategy or the tactic, I should say. And we have a long-term organizing plan, something we\u2019ve been working on really fiercely for the last two years, and that we\u2019re going to keep working on for the next two years. This tactic doesn\u2019t quite fit into the strategy we\u2019re working on. I wholeheartedly hope that every person who their interest was sparked by this issue, they feel let down or they feel energized, I hope people will join us in our campaign. There\u2019s a lot of work to do, but I hope people will join us.<\/span><\/p>\nRG: <\/b>Yeah, what\u2019s the immediate thing that\u2019s next for this fight?<\/span><\/p>\n