Single-Payer Advocates Must Seize This Opening

[Better Believe It]

Single-Payer Advocates Must Seize This Opening
by John Nichols
July 27, 2009

Obama and Pelosi are still pushing the notion that they can get some version of their public-private stew cooked up before the year is done -- although not, it is now clear, before the president and the Congress take the extended summer vacations that will kill whatever sense of official urgency might have existed.

Here is the truth they tend to avoid mentioning: A robust public plan, with the quality and flexibility that is required to make it appealing to all Americans, would wipe out its insurance-industry competitors in short order. Why would anyone opt for more of the profiteering, restrictions and actual denials of needed treatment -- especially for people with pre-existing conditions -- that the insurance industry uses to make money rather than provide Americans with the medical care they require? And why would any employer choose to subsidize the stock value of health-care conglomerates when it is possible to opt for the better care and controlled costs of a public plan?

The corporate special interests and their willing accomplices within the ranks of the Democratic party are capitalizing on the confusion about the scope and character of proposed reforms. In so doing, they are creating a circumstance where the push for real reform can and will be thwarted unless there is a major pushback from real reformers.

That pushback can and should take the form of a renewed effort to promote the right repair: a single-payer program.

There has already been some progress in this regard. The recent 25-19 vote by the House Committee on Education and Labor for an amendment allowing states to create single-payer health care systems if they so choose was an example of this.

A bigger test could come this week, as the House Energy and Commerce Committee considers Congressman Anthony Weiner's proposal to replace the convoluted public-private scheme that is outlined in the Obama/House leadership bill with the easily-understood and efficient single-payer plan contained in HR 676 that has been endorsed by 86 members of Congress.

The stalwart single-payer backers at Progressive Democrats for America are organizing on behalf of the Weiner amendment, urging targeted calls to members of the committee.

The website www.democrats.com is maintaining a whip count, which includes phone numbers of members who are being targeted. Heading the list of those expected to cast "yes" votes for single-payer is Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisconsin, and Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, who has long been in the forefront of the real reformers in the House.

Please read the complete article at

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/27-5

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[bkkyosemite]

2. Signed the petition at www.democrats. com

[bvar22]

3. K&R

For the most important post of today.

Signed the petition.

Americans should NOT be forced to settle for LESS than the rest of the civilized World where Health Care is a RIGHT.

YES WE CAN!

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Speaking for bvar, his post states the rest of civilized world considers it a right.

"Americans should NOT be forced to settle for LESS than the rest of the civilized World where Health Care is a RIGHT."

Regarding our Constitution, the Preamble implies that it should be a right as this would most definitely be promoting the general welfare and the Ninth Amendment states that Rights spelled out specifically in the Constitution doesn't mean there can be no others retained by the people, should we pass a Constitutional Amendment outlawing for profit health insurance and requiring the government to provide universal single payer health coverage for every American from the cradle to the grave, that would then be a Right.

Per Websters Dictionary, the definition of welfare; the state of being or doing well; the condition of health, prosperity, and happiness; well being.

[chaska]

4. Accept no substitute. The public option (read up on it) is a bad joke, worth less than nothing...

We have to go for the whole enchilada. Or forget about it altogether. Nothing IS better than what they're proposing.

[SpartanDem]

9. Ending pre-existing conditions, limiting out of pocket cost that's worthless

you're right it's better to do nothing for millions of American if doesn't meet some rigid idealogical test. Sure a lot countries achieve universal coverage with mandatory insurance, but this wouldn't meet this stupid ideological test you and other have that single payer is the only acceptable to way achieve universal coverage.

[chaska]

14. Friend, you're dreamin'.

And my stance is not an ideological one. I've studied the issue. This plan so far only is a giveaway to the insurance industry that only kicks the real problem down the road. Read up on the public option. It won't happen for at least 4 years if at all. And then it will be so weak that it will not impact the private insurance industry in any positive way (from a consumer perspective).

[Doremus]

38. "Rigid ideological test"????

You need to read up, and I don't mean RW or DLC lie-filled talking points.

Basically, '09 Senate Healthcare reform is to REAL reform as


The Clean Air Act was to clean air
No Child Left Behind was to good education
The Iraq war was to "they hate us for our freedoms"
Cheney's Energy Task Force was to lower oil prices

etc., etc. etc.


This is our ONE shot at finally getting something right. To those of us who realize what exactly is at stake, it's disconcerting to see that so many can be mollified by a few small crumbs tossed their way while the billionaire's club devours the lion's share as usual. <shakes head>

[Cleita]

5. Why did Waxman end the committee meeting before a vote for the

single payer ammendment? www.democrats.com I thought he was for it?

[Freddie Stubbs]

8. When did Waxman publicly state that he was in in favor of it?

:shrug:

[Cleita]

11. He has spoken about it in the past on various talk programs.

He wasn't negative about it at all.

[Qutzupalotl]

6. People are unrec-ing this thread.

Fuck you, whoever you are.

[Kingofalldems]

12. I know one of them. That is all I can say.

BTW, I just recc'd.

[bkkyosemite]

18. how do you rec and un rec please?

[Qutzupalotl]

23. Go to the OP (or view all)

and under the first post there's a gray bar starting with the word "Alert". To the right, you'll see the words Recommend, then the vote total, then Unrecommend. Click on rec or unrec and your vote will register.

[bkkyosemite]

24. Thank you

:-)

[Better Believe It]

25. Don't unrecommend any post. I won't. That's undemocratic

[Engineer4Obama]

26. Yeah unrec is undemocratic

Think about it whats more democratic than voting with only one option?

[Better Believe It]

41. Why removing posts from the front page or greatest page is undemocratic and is censorship

I thought this was rather obvious and didn't require an actual explanation, however, here it goes.

When you "vote" to remove a post from the front page or the "greatest" page what else can you call it, target marketing?

DU'ers who recommend a post for "the greatest" are not trying to exclude, censor or remove a post from any location on DU. DU'ers who don't agree with the "greatest" or "front page" post or who just don't like the poster, are free to criticize the post or even put the poster on ignore!

The unrecommend feature is a whole different kettle of fish. The difference between putting a post in a prominent location on a website and removing the post from that location should be very clear.

The unrecommend feature enables people to remove, bump down or even prevent posts from even appearing on the "greatest page" and the front "home page" with a simple click of the mouse!

The clear objective of such clicks is to reduce the number of views (hits) of posts that they don't agree with. Or some posters just don't like a particular poster so they remove it from a prominent location on DU! That's censorship, even if a few posters try to pretty it up by claiming it's a democratic form of exclusion, a peoples censorhip!

Again, the undemocratic consequence of the "unrecommend" feature is to reduce the number of DU'ers who notice and are likely to read the post. And that's why some political cliques and more conservative people love it! In the case of DU administrators, it looks like the "law of unintended consequences" has struck again.

It's a simple as that.

The purpose of "the Greatest Page" was not to record "votes" in support of or in opposition to certain political views or posters some DU'ers don't like.

Democratic Underground clearly stated: "The Greatest Page lists threads which have been nominated by the members of DU as the most noteworthy." It was not intended as a means of casting "votes" for or against including posts on the "greatest page" or the homepage on Democratic Underground.

In any case, if this "greatest page", "front page" removal mechanism remains in place, I hope that the information showing the total number of recommends and unrecommends for posts is displayed for all DU'ers to see, not just administrators/moderators.

[Better Believe It]

16. Probably conservative Dems who oppose single payer and a strong public option

They now have a weapon to censor on DU and they have been using it effectively to keep news they don't like off the front page and greatest page where more people will see it.

[Qutzupalotl]

22. Kick

Just to spite the unrec bastards.

[John Q. Citizen]

7. We want single payer even if our leaders want insurance company bribes. No more rip off! Enough!

[Cleita]

15. Yes, there is no other workable course it seems.

Everytime they try to fold in the insurance industry, any meaningful legislation falls apart at the seams. I hope some of the obstructionists start seeing the handwriting on the wall, that not getting this right will probably spell the end of their careers. I truly believe it will once all the threads of this badly woven cloth unravel. As the unworkability of the presently proposed legislation becomes apparent, these law makers will meet their Waterloo instead of President Obama. I hope Obama is wise enough not to sanction any of this when the zero hour comes.

[bkkyosemite]

19. ENOUGH!!!

[truedelphi]

21. +1 n/t

[Laelth]

10. k&r n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Better Believe It]

20. Information on who to contact in Congress

Now is the time to phone
your representatives in the House & Senate
and ask them to support Single-Payer HealthCare

Click here to locate your representatives:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt


At his press conference, Thursdy - July 23rd, on healthcare, President Obama made the following truthful statement:

"I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is that, unless you have a single-payer system, in which everybody is automatically covered, then you're probably not going to reach every single individual."



David Swanson provides the following information:

So why won't our elected Democrats in Washington fight for a single-payer system that will cover everyone? Especially when it's the only system that will actually save money by eliminating 30% in utterly wasted overhead from greedy insurance giants?

A dedicated group of 86 Democrats are fighting for single-payer ( H.R. 676 ), and they need our help now.

The battle over single-payer is in the House Energy & Commerce Committee (E&C). The committee was supposed to vote on Rep. Anthony Weiner's single-payer amendment on Monday, but chairman Henry Waxman keeps postponing the vote because it might pass - just like the Kucinich Amendment for a single-payer state option passed on July 17 by a shocking 25-19 bi-partisan majority.

Lean Yes

Diana DeGette CO01 202-225-4431
Jane Harman CA36 202-225-8220
Christopher Murphy CT05 202-225-4476
Frank Pallone NJ06 202-225-4671 @FrankPallone
Bobby Rush IL01 202-225-4372
Peter Welch VT00 202-225-4115

Today we're told the vote could be tomorrow ( Friday ). As a result ot calls in the last week the following have been identified -7 solid yes and 6 more lean yes:
http://www.democrats.com/single-payer-committee-whip

Can you call the 6 lean yes and convince them to become solid yes on Rep. Anthony Weiner's single-payer amendment in the Energy & Commerce Committee?

Won't Say / "Not Enought Votes"

Rick Boucher VA09 202-225-3861
Bruce Braley IA01 202-225-2911
G.K. Butterfield NC01 202-225-3101
Lois Capps CA23 202-225-3601
Kathy Castor FL11 202-225-3376
John Dingell MI15 202-225-4071
Charles Gonzalez TX20 202-225-3236
Gene Green TX29 202-225-1688
Jay Inslee WA01 202-225-6311 @RepInsleeNews
Doris Matsui CA05 202-225-7163
Jerry McNerney CA11 202-225-1947
John Sarbanes MD03 202-225-4016
Bart Stupak MI01 202-225-4735
Betty Sutton OH13 202-225-3401
Henry Waxman (Chair) CA30 202-225-3976

Hill staffers privately tell us your calls are "very helpful." Please post a comment about your calls so we can update our whip list here:
http://www.democrats.com/single-payer-committee-whip

In addition, these 15 Democrats won't say whether they support single-payer, or claim there aren't enough votes for it to pass. But if they all vote for it, it will pass! See if you can convince them.

Also, be sure to send our Single Payer petition to your Representatives, and forward it to everyone you know who needs and deserves better healthcare: http://www.democrats.com/single-payer-petition?cid=ZGVtczQ3NTdkZW1z

http://www.blackcommentator.com/

[bkkyosemite]

30. And tell them if they do not support Single Payer they will be voted out in 10 and 12. And anyone

campaigning for Single Payer you will vote in because enough is enough. It is the people that count not the insurance industry.

[bkkyosemite]

35. I called all the numbers and left messages stating we ask that they vote yes on Single Payer

for the people. A no vote is supporting the insurance industry and is against the people that put them into office and pay their wage. So therefore for those legislators who vote no against Single Payer and against the people of this country we will vote them out come election time.

Two lines would not answer at all. Two lines the boxes were full. This was on the list of "Won't say, not enough votes"

Now to the lean yes list.

Please everyone call those numbers and tell them to vote yes or they will be voting against the people.

[mkultra]

27. good luck.

[midnight]

28. Don't compromise on HR 676. There is no legitimate reason to.

[bkkyosemite]

31. Agreed HR 676 or they get the ax

[bluethruandthru]

29. There is no one who loses under the single payer plan.....

except the insurance companies. It's time to tell our elected officials that we expect them to stand up for us and quit worrying about the insurance companies.

[bkkyosemite]

32. or in 2010 & 12 we vote them out for a campaigner who wants to vote for Single Payer period.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bkkyosemite]

44. I am on a single payer health plan called Medicare and it covers cancer just fine. HR 676 is

Medicare for all and dental and vision and prescriptions and chiropratic and mental help and and and in easy to read 27 pages.....read it if you like. try page 3 bottom thru 4 and 5 easy reading.

http://www.pnhp.org/nhibill/nhi_bill_final.pdf

[cleveramerican]

47. your mixing up two different initiatives

the Senate "Public Option" version is the Gov't taking over those who the insurance company won't cover or have priced out.
The HR676 is "single payer" medicare for everyone version thats a much more preferable outcome.


Welcome to DU!!

[andym]

33. When you call, be prepared to answer questions on how to pay for it.

If the congressional representatives call taker is well informed, he or she will ask you how you would like single-payer paid for.

Now there is a study that state that the increased tax revenues due to single payer (medicare for all) will pay for most (but not all) of the cost: http://www.calnurses.org/research/pdfs/ihsp_sp_economic_study_2009.pdf

Still, there needs to be a mechanism to jump-start the process and get the initial funds (for a few years, before the increased revenues come in).

Here are some possibilities:

Possibilities (used by other countries):
VAT= national sales tax (suggested by the study above)
Income tax increases (progressive hopefully)
Employer tax
Co-payments for the wealthy

[annabanana]

34. "corporate special interests" are CREATING confusion

about the scope and character of proposed reforms.

The media's opening line on ANY discussion of health care reform is always that it's "a vast and complicated issue". .

I don't find it all that complicated. The people need healthcare.. the people that control the money and mechanics that could make that happen don't want to surrender a goddamn piece of it for the sake of their souls or anything else.

[bkkyosemite]

36. HR 676

Has 27 easy to read pages. HR676 NOW

[bkkyosemite]

37. Just called and completed both lists. Seems some of them may have pulled the cord out of the

wall as no voice mail. Maybe getting a lot of calls hope so.

[invictus]

39. K&R

[donheld]

42. k & R

[Jakes Progress]

43. The same way that makes villains of honorable men,

the MSM and the blue dogs are making villains of those who are really trying to help us. Even those who need single-payer the most are jumping on the "we'll take anything" wagon and cursing those who are willing to fight for their rights.

Reminds me of the mothers of sons killed by bush's war who shook george's hand and thanked him.

[Orsino]

45. ...before our own openings are seized. Again. n/t

[cleveramerican]

46. The brightest light on the horizon!

thanks for posting this!

sorry to say I am banned at Democrats.com.
its a long story that makes me look bad.

[trocar]

48. Check out for your own state

http://www.healthreform.gov/

The lowest insurance premium increase I found when checking about 10 states was TN at 77% increase since 2000. Yeah, sure I can afford that year after year.

[Better Believe It]

49. Thanks for the link. Very informative