Obama blocks single-payer at the state level

[defendandprotect]

Had noted a comment about the fact that the new legislation does not "safeguard" the

states like CA and PA who want to try single payer from lawsuits --

Didn't know the full background on it --

but this info is picked up from another website . . .

A lot of people have been busting their asses to to help make PA a single payer, public health care state with very satisfying results so far.

In the state Senate 18 out of 20 Democrats and 11 out of 30 Republicans have come together to push for single-payer--a strong bipartisan effort. It looks like this is the only way America will get decent health care--state by state. Other states that have single-payer efforts in their legislatures are California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Ohio and Washington.

Unfortunately the insurance companies have a weapon that they can use to block single-payer at the state level--something called the ERISA act, which can be used to override any state benefit plan. In order to aid the passage of single payer by states, Dennis Kucinich passed the Kucinich Amendment which states:

QUOTE
Under the Kucinich Amendment a state's application for a waiver from ERISA is granted automatically if the state has signed into law a single payer plan. With the amendment, for the first time, the state single payer health care option is shielded from an ERISA-based legal attack. Now that the underlying bill has been passed, as amended, by the full committee, we must make sure that Congress knows that we want the provision kept in the bill at final passage!
http://forum.kucinich.us/index.php?topic=876.0;wap2

However, Nancy Pelosi acting on Obama's instructions has stripped the Kucinich amendment from HR 3200.

What I find incongruous is that these so-called leaders express resignation at not being able to implement single payer and public option for supposed lack of Congressional support, but when someone else tries to do it without them, they immediately shut them down. Isn't this a dead giveaway that their whole public stance is a transparent charade? It seems like they are making more of an effort to STOP people from getting decent health care than to give them any help to get it.

[Odin2005]

1. So much for "Change".

[DJ13]

2. I still have change

About .23 cents left.

[Political Heretic]

3. Chains you can believe in.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[d_b]

22. nice

[readmoreoften]

34. There ya go....

Good one.

[kenny blankenship]

4. Vile

if true.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Where is this quote....cause I couldn't find it at the link......

"However, Nancy Pelosi acting on Obama's instructions has stripped the Kucinich amendment from HR 3200. "

Cause I'd like to take more than your word.

Thanks!

[defendandprotect]

14. "Kucinich Amendment Dropped From Health Care Bill" . . .

Kucinich Amendment Dropped From House Health Care Bill
Democracy Under Assault: Pelosi Bill Strips Right of States to Adopt Single ... Stripped of the Kucinich amendment, H.R. 3200 would prevent the adoption of state or ...
www.bradblog.com/?p=7490 - 231k - Cached

[OhioChick]

7. What a Letdown. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

8. Do you have a source? Your link is from blog entries from 2009.

Thanks in advance.

[FrenchieCat]

9. This thread can be studied for the difference between the

reactionaries and those who actually read and then think.

[defendandprotect]

15. "Pelosi Bill Strips Right of States to Adopt Single Payer" . . .

Kucinich Amendment Dropped From House Health Care Bill
Democracy Under Assault: Pelosi Bill Strips Right of States to Adopt Single ... Stripped of the Kucinich amendment, H.R. 3200 would prevent the adoption of state or ...
www.bradblog.com/?p=7490 - 231k - Cached

[upi402]

48. thank you for that n/t

[EFerrari]

10. That doesn't even sound possible. I think more information is needed

to sort this out.

[tammywammy]

11. His amendment was removed back in November by the committee

More information is definitely needed, linking to a message board thread from 2009 doesn't qualify as sourced information to me.

[EFerrari]

12. Multiple sources would be a good idea at this point, with no disrespect intended

to the OP. :hi:

[defendandprotect]

16. Huffington Post/Washington Independent . . .

Kucinich Amendment Dropped From House Health Care Bill
Democracy Under Assault: Pelosi Bill Strips Right of States to Adopt Single ... Stripped of the Kucinich amendment, H.R. 3200 would prevent the adoption of state or ...
www.bradblog.com/?p=7490 - 231k - Cached


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/dennis-kucinich-wants-his_n_340593.html


Meanwhile, I had no idea this had happened -- only heard it about it from the Amy Goodman/

Democracy Now! interview with Kucinich the other day . . .

Basically, Nader introduced the subject saying that there were no "safeguards" for states

that wanted to try single payer from insurance companies lawsuits --

[EFerrari]

17. Thank you for those links.

Maybe I'm just too muddled by now, but doesn't that sound like an infringement on the states? Can the Federal government do that? I know they can try and likely will.

[defendandprotect]

19. How about Florida 2000? Are you kidding?

Notice that the mythical corporate "personhood" has reduced the rest of the

citizenry to peonage -- !!!

[EFerrari]

24. Well, that's a good point. I was thinking it was more like trying to block

marriage rights in the particular states.

[defendandprotect]

30. Homosexual marriage would be the same thing -- DOMA . . .

[bvar22]

40. No. It was not removed by the committee.

The Kucinich Amendment PASSED in committee.
It was stripped from the bill by Nancy Pelosi behind closed doors.
Thats a fact.
"At the request of the White House" is more difficult to document, though I DID hear DK in a "live" interview say that the White House was responsible.

[tammywammy]

41. Thanks for the correction. n/t

[aquart]

44. So he caved AND lost his amendment?

Thank God he didn't become President. This man ...can't.

[bvar22]

84. Dennis hasn't "caved" nearly as many times as Obama over the last year.

When Kucinich "caved", it was to the Centrist Democrats.
The many times Obama caved, it was to the Republicans.

[Donnachaidh]

69. have you noticed the pattern too?

The really VILE acts of shoring up the backroom deals with the corporations by blocking and stripping *outs* for the states are done so as not to leave a real obvious trail?

So much for *TRANSPARENCY*.

Elmer Gantry would be proud of the antics of this bunch of snake oil representatives.

[defendandprotect]

70. Thank you!! Kucinich also made clear in the Goodman interview ...

that after the election Obama could have made real change in health care --

but chose to go in a different direction!

[defendandprotect]

18. More info --

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/dennis-kucinich-wants-his_n_340593.html


I do a lot of reading at DU and I may have missed this story --

I was especially interested because I know that CA -- Kuehl - had been working for

years to get single payer health care going there --

I admire her!

So I was surprised to first hear about this on the Amy Goodman/Democracy Now! interview --

Anyway, it was the first I'd heard about it -- sad . . . disgusting!

[EFerrari]

21. I totally missed this wrinkle, too. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

23. So in otherwords, you don't have any real sources that back up

this November action.

Guess this is good as any other to try to make folks pissed again.

Meanwhile currently as of right now, Dennis Kucinich is voting for the Health Care Bill,
and seems to respect President Barack Obama.

[defendandprotect]

27. Huffington Post and Kucinich, himself, are not "sources" . . .????

Dennis Kucinich Wants His Single-Payer Provision Reinstated ...
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) was none too happy when House leaders stripped his single-payer provision from their $894 billion health reform proposal. ...
huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/30/ dennis-kucinich-wants-his_n... - 267k - Cached


Dennis, if you listened to the Amy Goodman/Democracy Now! interview is backing

the health care deform . . . evidently to save the president's ass . . .

What he came away from the meetings with, evidently still echoing in his ears ...

was that "we could not permit the Obama presidency to be delegitimatized" . . !!!


:rofl: :rofl:


How ironic -- and we all thought it was about doing something for the people!!

Meanwhile, had Obama moved to MEDICARE FOR ALL in responding to the majority of

the public which wants it -- over 77% now -- he would have set up the Dem Party for

the next 40 years -- and set up his own reelection.


Also keep in mind the disdain we held Cheney in when he made private deals with energy

industry!! Evidently, when Obama does the same thing with the insurance companies and

Big Pharma -- promising them "THERE WILL BE NO GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM" --

rather than holding him in equal disdain, the "D" after his name provides holy ground?

[EFerrari]

32. Did you read the thread? The poster is catching up with this bit of things.

If you have more information, that would be helpful.

[Better Believe It]

13. Pelosi said today she won't allow a seperate vote, "not on single payer, not on anything"

Pelosi would only say that with the knowledge and support of President Obama.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said leaders are closing in on the votes to pass the bill and probably won't need to give Stupak a vote on his language. "That's the likely outcome," he said.

Asked by reporters if she would allow a separate vote on abortion restrictions, Pelosi, D-Calif., seemed to rule it out. "Not on abortion, not on public option, not on single payer, not on anything," she responded. Pelosi met Saturday with three undecided lawmakers who are part of Stupak's group. Eight Democrats joined him Friday co-sponsoring a resolution to "correct" the Senate bill by inserting stronger language.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/19/health-care-whip-count-li_n_505709.html

[drm604]

20. ERISA would not necessarily block the PA plan, according to some.

From here: http://discuss.epluribusmedia.net/content/single-payer-move-pa

I am Jerry Policoff, the author of the original piece at Op Ed News. I was planning to cross post this at Kos tomorrow, but I am glad Rossi beat me to it. The original is almost 2,000 words with lots of links, so if you are very interested you might want to follow Rossi's link and read the original.

Regarding the ERISA questions, We believe our bill does not violate ERISA and would withstand a challenge, but we can use an ERISA waiver because a lawsuit would slow us down and cost a lot of money to defend.

ERISA forbids states from forcing employers to provide health benefits or from pubishing employers who fail to provide healthcare. Our single-payer plan relieves employers from any responsibility for providing healthcare and assesses all employers a payroll tax to help pay for a Medicare-type system that administers healthcare for everyone. In the process it saves most employers a lot of money.

So ERISA may not ultimately block a bill. It may, however, give insurance companies a way to drag it through the courts and slow things down.

Here's a good place to read about the PA effort: http://www.healthcare4allpa.org/

[defendandprotect]

28. As it was put ... "bill provides no safeguards to protect states from lawsuits ...

states like CA and PA which want to try Single Payer -- "

And there are evidently a long list of states interested.

As I've said, I'm interested in this because of following Kuehl in CA . . .

she's been long working on this --

And, if this was ever posted here at DU I missed it!

[drm604]

37. It provides no protection from lawsuits but...

that doesn't mean that states would necessarily lose those lawsuits.

There were concerns That ERISA would block the Massachusetts plan (Google Massachusetts ERISA) because the plan included an employer surcharge. That obviously didn't happen. Massachusetts has its plan and it wasn't successfully blocked by ERISA.

I know that MA has a lousy plan and that it's very different from what's being proposed in my state (PA) but, as I understand it, the ERISA concerns were based on the same factors as the ERISA concerns for PA.

The ERISA concerns for PA are based on the fact that the PA plan would include an employer surcharge. That's the same reason concerns were voiced about ERISA in MA - the employer surcharge, and ERISA did not block the MA plan.

I should add that I am not a lawyer so my analysis may be off, but there are people much more knowledgeable than me who believe that the PA plan would likely survive an ERISA challenge.

[defendandprotect]

43. As I said I was totally unaware of this whole issue . . .

Ralph Nader made those comments in the interview with Kucinich

on the Amy Goodman/DemocracyNow! program which I posted a thread on...

Certainly, lawsuits by big corporations are used as harassment these days ...

and they are better armed with legal aid/lawyers than our government is at this point!!!

Let the harassment begin!

Obviously, Obama and Pelosi want to block any end run around their blocking of single payer!!

[Zomby Woof]

25. Bullshit

Gavin Newsom was on Bill Maher last night, explaining San Francisco's coverage program, and how localities and states will still have the ability to do what they want for health care.

This kind of shit doesn't help your case against the bill. Cherrypicking outdated blog entries is not smart, but it's doing a wonderful job of stirring the pot.

[EFerrari]

36. With respect, Gavin is not known for his legislative acumen.

And, I don't believe this poster is trying to cherrypick anything but trying to figure out what the next step is. For people who are invested in single payer, the next step is to go to the state level.

They did strip out Dennis's amendment. Whether that will work to block state's SP programs remains to be seen.

[Luminous Animal]

65. Gavin conveniently leaves out

that Healthy San Francisco is not an insurance program and was carefully written to be not an insurance program to avoid an ERISA challenge. Even so, the program was challenged vis-a-vis ERISA and it resulted in a costly legal fight for the city. Ultimately, the liberal 9th Circuit Court agreed that Healthy San Francisco does not violate ERISA given that it is not an insurance program but rather, a government run health care delivery system. That is, it merely funds access to clinics and hospitals for those who cannot afford or are denied insurance.

[defendandprotect]

71. SF was sued under ERISA and "costly legal fight for the city." --

program was challenged vis-a-vis ERISA and it resulted in a costly legal fight for the city.

THAT's exactly what Nader was talking about -- "no safeguards" in this bill for those who want to try

single payer. Single payer would not be insurance, it would be administered by the government.

But, this is a form of harassment by the insurance companies who knew what the SF situation was

but attacked anyway!

And, Pelosi is aiding and abetting those attacking any other options other than corrupt insurance

companies and their junk insurance policies!!

[Karmadillo]

26. Obama: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program."

http://www.alternet.org/health/139959

[defendandprotect]

29. What was it Pelosi said: "He was in favor of a lot of things during the campaign . ..

which he's no longer for!"

Something close to that . . . month or so ago?

[Karmadillo]

55. You're right. I looked up the link. I guess the ends justify the lies.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31180.html

<edit>

Pelosi emerged from a meeting with her leadership team and committee chairs in the Capitol to face an aggressive throng of reporters who immediately hit her with C-SPAN’s request that she permit closed-door final talks on the bill to be televised.

A reporter reminded the San Francisco Democrat that in 2008, then-candidate Obama opined that all such negotiations be open to C-SPAN cameras.

“There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail,” quipped Pelosi, who has no intention of making the deliberations public.

People familiar with Pelosi's thinking wasted little time in explaining precisely what she meant by a “number of things” — saying it reflected weeks of simmering tension on health care between two Democratic power players who have functioned largely in lock step during Obama’s first year in office.

more...

[defendandprotect]

73. Thank you . . . and it just struck me that Pelosi is working directly against CA citizens' interests

with having stripped the bill of Kucinich's amendment!!!

Her own state!!

Cliche . . . but I really don't know how these people sleep at night!!!

:)

[Karmadillo]

78. They don't sleep. They have to keep swimming or they drown.

:)

I like sharks, so I guess I shouldn't make that comparison.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. "Nancy Pelosi acting on Obama's instructions has stripped the Kucinich amendment from HR 3200"

Please provide some evidence of communication between Obama and Pelosi where he instructed her to block single-payer at the state level.

A link would be nice.

[defendandprotect]

81. See here . . . "stripped from the bill by Nancy Pelosi behind closed doors"--

The Kucinich Amendment PASSED in committee.
It was stripped from the bill by Nancy Pelosi behind closed doors.
Thats a fact.
"At the request of the White House" is more difficult to document, though I DID hear DK in a "live" interview say that the White House was responsible.





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7967808&mesg_id=7968392

[G_j]

33. see! they told us Kucinich never accomplishes anything!

:sarcasm:

[Aramchek]

35. what a load of pig crap!

[NYC_SKP]

38. LINKS from 2009? WTF.... huh?.... and....unbelievable....14 RECS??? Do You People Even READ???

Would you please read a post, check a link, verify there is anything of substance?

Please?

[tammywammy]

39. This is DU

You're asking waaaaay too much. ;)

[quiet.american]

42. Sanders & Wyden put it in the Senate bill: "SEC. 1332. WAIVER FOR STATE INNOVATION"

As another DU'er pointed out, too, there are also improvements in the Senate version -- for one, Kucinich's bill provided for States to merely seek federal funding, where the Sanders-Wyden language instructs that federal funding actually be provided.

(I couldn't find anything in the reconciliation version that changes this, so the language must be remaining as is -starts on Page 212 of the Senate bill):

SEC. 1332. WAIVER FOR STATE INNOVATION.
(a) APPLICATION.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may apply to the Secretary for the waiver of all or any requirements described in paragraph (2) with respect to health insurance coverage within that State for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017. Such application shall—
(A) be filed at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require;
(B) contain such information as the Secretary may require, including—
(i) a comprehensive description of the State legislation and program to implement a plan meeting the requirements for a waiver under this section; and
(ii) a 10-year budget plan for such plan that is budget neutral for the Federal
Government; and
(C) provide an assurance that the State has enacted the law described in subsection (b)(2).
(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The requirements described in this paragraph with respect to health insurance coverage within the State for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, are as follows:
(A) Part I of subtitle D.
(B) Part II of subtitle D.
(C) Section 1402.
(D) Sections 36B, 4980H, and 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(3) PASS THROUGH OF FUNDING.—With respect to a State waiver under paragraph (1), under which, due to the structure of the State plan, individuals and small employers in the State would not qualify for the premium tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, or small business credits under sections 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or under part I of subtitle E for which they would otherwise be eligible, the Secretary shall provide for an alternative means by which the aggregate amount of such credits or reductions that would have been paid on behalf of participants in the Exchanges established under this title had the State not received such waiver, shall be paid to the State for purposes of implementing the State plan under the waiver. Such amount shall be determined annually by the Secretary, taking into consideration the experience of other States with respect to participation in an Exchange and credits and reductions provided under such provisions to residents of the other States.
(4) WAIVER CONSIDERATION AND TRANSPARENCY.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—An application for a waiver under this section shall be considered by the Secretary in accordance with the regulations described in subparagraph (B).
(B) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall promulgate regulations relating to waivers under this section that provide—
(i) a process for public notice and comment at the State level, including public hearings, sufficient to ensure a meaningful level of public input;
(ii) a process for the submission of an application that ensures the disclosure of—
(I) the provisions of law that the State involved seeks to waive; and
(II) the specific plans of the State to ensure that the waiver will be in compliance with subsection (b);
(iii) a process for providing public notice and comment after the application is received by the Secretary, that is sufficient to ensure a meaningful level of public input and that does not impose requirements that are in addition to, or duplicative of, requirements imposed under the Administrative Procedures Act, or requirements that are unreasonable or unnecessarily burdensome with respect to State compliance;
(iv) a process for the submission to the Secretary of periodic reports by the State concerning the implementation of the program under the waiver; and
(v) a process for the periodic evaluation by the Secretary of the program under the waiver.
(C) REPORT.—The Secretary shall annually report to Congress concerning actions taken by the Secretary with respect to applications for waivers under this section.
(5) COORDINATED WAIVER PROCESS.—The Secretary shall develop a process for coordinating and consolidating the State waiver processes applicable under the provisions of this section, and the existing waiver processes applicable under titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act, and any other Federal law relating to the provision of health care items or services. Such process shall permit a State to submit a single application for a waiver under any or all of such provisions.

[defendandprotect]

75. Well, in the Goodman interview with Kucinich . ..

Nader says this bill has "no safeguards against lawsuits for the states who want to

try single payer, i.e., PA and CA" -- those were the two he mentioned.

Maybe someone will ask Pelosi --

We won't know until we see a bill with safeguards in it!

Meanwhile, IMO, every state should have the option of going single payer -- and have

the state administrate it.

But I'm also keeping in mind that DLC Pelosi hasn't been much help re wars nor actual

reform of health care!!

[WeekendWarrior]

45. Why are you posting something from LAST YEAR?

Sounds like troll behavior to me.

[upi402]

46. past pull dated? n/t

[johnaries]

47. Irrelevent. HR3200 is dead. Let's talk about the current bill. nt

[Lorien]

51. Single payer is "irrelevant"?

Sorry, but it's something that we WILL have to talk about. Like it or not, it will be one of the few things that can save this Nation from financial ruin. Denial and the current catastrophe won't change that.

[laughingliberal]

74. I think they have the bill they want.

I fully expect all talk of continuing to work for improvements to vanish once this is passed.

[defendandprotect]

76. We are talking about the "current bill" -- and a safeguard for states that want single payer . . .

Quite relevant!!

[suffragette]

49. From what I've been reading the waiver date of 2017 on Sec.1332 is more the problem

I think it would have been best to have the ERISA Act in the bill, so it would be addressed directly and there would be no ambiguity possible.
Have to admit I'm still trying to fully understand this as well and have just been reading about this aspect more the last week or so.

PHNP has a rundown of what Sec 1332 will and won't do and they posit it could still allow for states to adopt single payer, but that the date on it of 2017 could be a major stumbling block. Much more there than what I've pasted.

http://ns1.pnhp.org/news/2010/march/state-single-payer-waiver-provisions-in-the-senate-healthcare-bill-legislative-langu

WAIVERS FOR STATE INNOVATION – SEC. 1332 OF THE SENATE BILL
We need to change the date the waivers under Sec 1332 of the Senate bill are available from 2017 to 2014 because making them unavailable until 3 years after states have to start the exchanges all but renders the provision meaningless.
WHAT THIS PROVISION DOES:

This provision would allow states to propose to HHS an alternative system for delivering affordable, quality health care insurance to state residents.
Before submitting a plan, the state must go through a thorough notice and comment process to ensure that its citizens supported the plan, and its legislature would have to pass a law authorizing the plan.
This provision would allow states to receive waivers from certain components of the new law (exchange-related requirements only), only if the HHS Secretary finds that the under the state's alternative plan:
at least as many state residents would get health insurance coverage;
the coverage would be at least as comprehensive as the Essential Health Benefits under Sec 1302 – to be certified by the CMS Actuary; and
the coverage would be at least as affordable – in terms of both premiums and cost-sharing.
WHAT THIS PROVISION DOES NOT DO:

It would NOT allow states to offer lower quality or less affordable coverage to its residents than would be available in the exchange - and it would NOT allow states to cover fewer people than would be covered.
This provision does NOT amend or address ERISA.
This provision does NOT allow waivers of the insurance market reforms in the bill, such as the bans on pre-existing condition discrimination.
It does NOT expand existing waiver authority under any existing federal health program (Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP, etc.), but it would require the Secretary to create a coordinated waiver process so that a state could submit a single application for waivers under this section and under any other federal health law for which waiver authority already exists.


http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#ERISA
What about ERISA? Doesn’t it stand in the way of states implementing universal health care plans?

No. ERISA (the Employees Retirement Income Security Act) prevents a state from requiring that a self-insured employer provide certain benefits to their employees. However, a single-payer plan would not mandate the composition of employer benefit plans - it would replace them with a new system that would essentially be “Medicare for all.” The state would require employers to pay a payroll tax into the health care trust fund, which is clearly legal.

[drm604]

53. It does seem like the 2017 date is the real problem.

ERISA probably isn't the problem a lot of people think it is, but from your post it does look like that date is a problem. States that want to implement single payer in 2017 may first have to go to all the trouble and expense of setting up exchanges for 3 years.

I'm curious about how all of this would affect Massachusetts. They already have a system, will they have to replace it with an exchange?

Thinking about it (and I should add that IANAL) I wonder if there isn't a way around the exchange provision. I don't know the exact requirements for the exchange but could a state somehow set up a single payer system that would qualify under the exchange requirements? Maybe there could be alternatives to the single payer system that would be available until 2017. Almost no one would take advantage of the alternatives, since the single payer system would be "free" but they could be available.

Would the exchange requirements prevent something like that? If not that, then could the state offer a paid (and maybe subsidized) state run system under their exchange that would become a "free" single payer system in 2017?

[suffragette]

56. The best way would probably be to have clearcut language

that allows states to implement single payer once their legislature has passed it and explicitly waives ERISA.

I had to look up IANAL and I am not a lawyer either.

I don't know, maybe there will be ways around it. I think that's what has caused concern about insurance companies using ERISA to block it. That the cadres of insurance lawyers will find a way to use it to prevent or "get around" initiatives to start single payer at the state level. The concern expressed about this possibility (and the exclusion of specific language) is valid since you have a ton of skilled and highly paid attorneys who are probably at work on finding those loopholes already. Ironic that those lawyers are funded by the money people pay to ensure health care, which is instead used to block it.
And even lawsuits that don't succeed would take precious time and resources away from starting a better process for people.

I imagine people who have studied it more are working on the ideas you've put forward in case they need to go in that direction, but it would be much better, IMHO, to have it be clear and viable from the start. And this date looks like a significant hurdle. Hope it gets addressed.

[drm604]

57. I agree wholeheartedly that it would be much better to have language

that clearly allows states to do it without any challenge and eliminates the 2017 stuff. However, it doesn't seem like that's going to be the case so we need to find ways to withstand the challenges.

I think you and I agree on these issues. :hi:

[suffragette]

60. We're both looking for the silver lining

I think we agree, too. looked up your profile and we even joined around the same time.

Given where we are (and it's not where I'd choose to be), I think our best bet is for someone or ones to emulate Tommy Douglas and start single payer at the state level and then have the other states follow.

I wish WA state (after all, we have single payer in our party platform) were in the lead on this, but it looks like we're waiting for Vermont, California or your fine state of Pennsylvania to be the ground breakers and see what challenges would need to be overcome.

Absolutely agree we'll need to find ways to withstand the inevitable challenges. Together, I think we can do this.


:hi:

[drm604]

61. Maybe The Keystone State can be the keystone for single payer.

The Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia so it seems appropriate that PA could be the starting place for a new independence movement. A movement for independence from the ironically named "Independence Blue Cross" (and others).

That's not to detract from WA. If you guys (or any other state) could manage to do it first I'm all for it.

Maybe that's what we need. A friendly competition to see who's state can be the first!

By the way, I have family in your state and I love the Pacific Northwest.

[suffragette]

62. Symbolic and appropriate

I like that thinking.
Of course, if Vermont or California got there first, that would be fine, too. At this point, we just need to ensure some state can be the first so that more can follow.

I've only been to your state once and it was such a brief drive through, it really doesn't even count. I didn't get to see anything, unfortunately.
If you ever come out to visit your family and are around Seattle, I'd be happy to treat for coffee.

[drm604]

63. My Uncle and cousins and their families are in the Spokane area

which I believe is pretty far from Seattle.

I've been in Seattle twice, very briefly. I landed at Seatac, caught a taxi to the bus station, and then a bus to Vancouver, BC, then vice versa on the way home. That is my total experience with Seattle, but I love the Vancouver area and I imagine that the climate and countryside are very similar.

I should add that I appreciate the invitation for coffee and hope that I can take you up on it one day.

[suffragette]

64. Spokane is on the other side of the Cascade mountains

Very different in climate, both weather and political.

Glad you enjoyed your visit here. I love Vancouver - just wish I could get up there more. Yes, we are similar here in Seattle, more similar in many ways then we are to the eastside of the mountains where Spokane is.

I hope we can sip coffee and chat as well.

[drm604]

66. I got to live in Vancouver for five weeks for work back in '96.

I did not want to come home. I went back to visit for a week in '98. Watching some of the Olympic coverage brought back memories.

[suffragette]

67. Lucky you

You probably know it better than I do, since I've just visited now and then over the years.
After I visited the last time, a friend teased me about being a nerd (she's alike) since I waxed poetic about visiting Stanley park (saw a swan on its nest there, 1st time I've seen one's nest), the anthropological museum and some small jazz clubs. Yeah, I am that nerd. Off for errands now. Back soon. Working on a state single payer thread, but it'll probably take me awhile.

[defendandprotect]

82. Guess by 2017, the insurance companies would feel better about competition . . . !!!

Capitalism isn't about competition, it's about killing the competition -- !!

[defendandprotect]

77. Even more confusing . .. meanwhile, insurance companies have used ERISA for harassment

lawsuits to stop single payer .... SF being one example of this costly harassment.

Amazing that the Founders got so much into the single page Constitution -- including

the exclusion from full rights of women, Native Americans, African Americans . . .

and we have 2500 pages of confusion on health care!!

Sometimes it looks more like they are trying to confuse and misinform --

[suffragette]

85. I hope PNHP as it right and we can push past ERISA

Even better if we can get the date changed so we can try sooner rather than later.

I'm sure the insurance companies will now refocus efforts on states working to effect that change. Anything to obstruct and subvert single payer.
Discouraging as it is, we have to keep pushing - together.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[earth mom]

52. WTF?!

:wtf:

:grr:

[Trillo]

54. Yes

"when someone else tries to do it without them, they immediately shut them down. Isn't this a dead giveaway that their whole public stance is a transparent charade?"

[ProSense]

58. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi made

a good move.

[defendandprotect]

79. Reread what you've posted . . .

AMY GOODMAN: Congressman Kucinich, President Obama says that the Senate bill does include single-payer language. He was talking about a provision by Senator Bernie Sanders which would allow states to use federal money to set up a single-payer system years down the road. What do you think of that?


REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: Well, it provides for a waiver; it doesn’t grant the waiver. And it takes effect 2017. But by then, we’ll already have a system in place that will be very difficult to move out of. And it doesn’t cure the attack that insurance companies can make on state plans using the Employee—the ERISA Act. And so, my amendment that was passed in committee would have protected states from illegal challenge by insurance companies. The Sanders amendment doesn’t do that, so you still have the problem that, no matter what reforms are enacted, can be knocked out. I mean, I talked to the President personally about this. I’ve met with the President three times on this bill. The White House knows my position.

Then, you inject . . .

His provision simply offers a waiver and no other support for states. And here is the reason Pelosi likely pulled it:

The "his" being discussed is Bernie Sanders, not Kucinich . . .

Or did Pelosi also "pull" Sander's provision???

And, Kucinich makes quite clear here that the Sander's amendment provides no "safeguard" against

the insurance companies continuing to use ERISA for harassment lawsuits.

And, as others here are pointing out sets a huge bump in the road with the date of 2017!


Clear up that part of your post and I'll read the rest of it --

[SlingBlade]

59. K & R

[NYC_SKP]

68. K and WTF.

nt.

:P

[tigereye]

72. what, our state wants SIngle Payer?

I guess I've been asleep all this time. That's pretty wild.

[defendandprotect]

80. I think a lot of states would go in that direction, it's what citizens wants . . .

and obviously NOT what insurance companies want and Pelosi is trying to keep the

issue at bay to help them, though her own state CA wants to try it . . .

at least that's how I'm seeing it.

There's a State Rep. in California I've always admired -- Sheila Kuehl? -- don't know

if I have the first name right. And she's been working on this for years.

Just a side note, she used to be "Zelda"? on Dobbie Gillis show long, long time ago!

She was a lesbian and kinda got thrown out of Hollywood. So I've kinda been interested

in her work -- like her enormously.

[tigereye]

86. wow, thanks for the info!

[Tomorrows Dream]

83. Is that true?

Hadn't seen that.