While Americans claim they prefer smaller government, they prefer a bigger government that provides more health care services according to a new poll by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Only 37 percent of Americans would prefer a smaller government that provided fewer health services, while a majority, 52 percent, said they would prefer a larger government that provided more health services.

The only thing worse than Washington being foolishly swept up in unnecessary deficit hysteria when our political leaders should be focused on jobs, is that all these so called “deficit hawks” entirely ignore the actual best solutions to shrink our long term deficit. That is why it is encouraging to see more regular exposure of the fact that adopting Medicare for All is the best way to address our long term deficit concerns.

Think that Medicare for all is something that has to be done all at once nationally? Thank again, Libby MT. has it, and so could the rest of the nation, if HR 676 could be passed.

The oft confused Sen. Lieberman gets taken to the woodshed by Nobel winner Paul Krugman. It turns out that the best way to hold down costs is not to cut Medicare but expand it.

I, along with much of FDL, am often painted by both the media and the Obama administration as on the outer-left-wing of political thought—a group of progressive extremists well outside the mainstream.

The reality is both far more boring and sad. Recent polling has caused me to go issue by issue to examine public support for the reforms I care most about. I found almost all of them have extremely broad popular support with the American people. In the traditional sense of the word, my brand of radical progressivism is boringly centrist.

Now that federal judge Henry Hudson has just struck down the individual mandate in the new health care law, the case will likely end up before the Supreme Court. While I suspect, in the end, the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision will be upheld, this individual mandate is not critical. There are many alternative ways to deal with the potential issue of individuals who might try to save money by delaying the purchase of insurance until they get sick that would meet the requirements set forth in Judge Hudson’s ruling.

Massachusetts is considered one of the most liberal states in the country. It has already adopted a private insurance-based, near-universal health insurance system under Republican Governor Mitt Romney. Given that, it should come as no surprise that, in a large swath of the state, voters signaled their willingness to adopt a universal single-payer health care system, similar to “Medicare for all.”

Massachusetts allows for citizens to place non-binding, local “public policy questions” on the ballot. In precincts containing around 10 percent of the state’s population, the Massachusetts Campaign for Health Care Justice put on the ballot a question asking voters whether or not to instruct their local representative to “support legislation establishing health care as a human right regardless of age, state of health, or employment status, by creating a single-payer health insurance system like Medicare that is comprehensive, cost effective, and publicly provided to all residents of Massachusetts?” As of today, in the precincts reporting 62 percent voted yes.

Since the big victory for Prop C in Missouri, I’ve seen several “progressives” rush to defend the individual mandate that requires individuals to buy private insurance. I find such action indefensible for individuals who call themselves progressives. At most, progressives should think of the individual mandate to buy poorly regulated private health insurance as a highly suboptimal solution to expanding coverage. The mandate is neither good politics nor good policy. Defending it strikes me as nothing more than a reflective defense of the Democratic party masquerading as progressivism.

If your progressive Democratic member of Congress decides to support the corporatist agenda and vote for a health care bill that makes the insurance companies say “we won,” they probably need to be challenged.

If you’d like to volunteer to be a part the effort to recruit a “Medicare for All” candidate in your district, sign up here.

I’ve been casting around for suggestions from people I trust about what kind of a platform we should ask Medicare for All candidates to agree upon. We want to avoid the problem we have right now — people like Charles Rangel who are cosponsors of H.R. 676 until it doesn’t matter. I’m sure the $1.4 million he’s taken from insurance interests has nothing to do with it.

Here are the initial suggestions. Please add yours in the comments.