A [Massachusetts] official may have gone off-script last week, but what he had to say is an important contribution to the state’s ongoing debate over reining in health care costs.
Terry Dougherty, director of MassHealth, the state’s Medicaid program, was addressing a budget hearing in Boston Friday, State House News Service reports. He noted a little-known fact that runs counter to the widespread assumption that government is more wasteful than the private sector.
MassHealth, which insures nearly 1.3 million Massachusetts residents, spends just 1.5 percent of its $10 billion budget on administration, Dougherty said, while private insurers spend about 9.5 percent of their revenue on administration.
“I like the market, but the more and more I stay in it, the more and more I think that maybe a single payer would be better,” Dougherty said. Under a single payer system – like MassHealth or Medicare – the government pays health care providers directly, instead of an insurance company.
Unlike private insurance companies, Dougherty said later, at MassHealth “We don’t build big buildings. We don’t have high salaries. We don’t have a lot of marketing, which makes, to some extent, some of the things that we do easier and less costly than some things that happen in the marketplace. Overall, my point is, we have individuals who work in state government in MassHealth … who are just as smart, just as tactile, just as creative as people who work in the private sector, but they work for a lot less money.” Source: The Milford Daily News
During an interview with Susan Martin of the St. Petersburg Times, Charles Krauthammer was asked about health care reform:
Susan Martin: Besides being a commentator, you are a medical doctor who criticized health care reform as a “2,000-page bill that will generate tens of thousands of pages of regulations.” Isn’t that a great argument for the simplicity of Canadian-style universal health care? Charles Krauthammer: It is. But it seems to me there are two choices. We have the best medical care in world but it is the most expensive and we waste a lot. What you need to do is reduce the complexity and inefficiency. If we can’t get it right, we’re eventually going to a single-payer system. At least it doesn’t have this incredible, absurd complexity of ObamaCare. It’s the worst of the worst. It has the complexity of our (present) system and doesn’t give the universal coverage of single payer.
Dr. McCanne from Physicians for a National Healthcare Program points out, in response to Krauthammer's remark:
It’s not that we don’t understand the efficiency and effectiveness of single payer; we clearly do. The opposition has been primarily from those who, on an ideological basis, oppose any role of government in health care, other than as a safety net for the indigent. But even their icon of liberty, Friedrich Hayek, stated in his classic, The Road to Serfdom, “Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.”
The logic for single payer is there, and there is no longer any reason to perpetuate the ideological divide. The conservatives need to revisit Friedrich Hayek, and the liberals need to review again the tenets of social justice, perhaps beginning with Article 25 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Once we get our respective camps in order, we should find that we have a common meeting ground.
From Washington Post's Ezra Klein:
Peter Shumlin, the newly elected governor of Vermont, has a plan for health-care reform: Rather than repeal it, he wants to supercharge it. His state will set up an exchange, and then, as soon as possible, apply for a waiver that allows it to turn the program into a single-payer system. You can read a summary of the plan here (Word file). I spoke with Shumlin this morning, and a lightly edited transcript of our conversation follows.
Ezra Klein: The report (PDF) prepared by Dr. William Hsiao offered three options for Vermont: single payer, a strong public option and a form of private-public single payer. My understanding is that you're backing the third option. What separates it from a traditional single-payer system?
Peter Shumlin: Single payer means something different to everyone. The way I define it is that health care is a right and not a privilege. It follows the individual and not the employer. And it’s publicly financed. The only difference between single-payer one and single-payer three in Hsiao's report is that in single-payer three, the actual adjudication of payment is contracted to an existing insurance entity. So the state doesn't have to set up a new bureaucracy to run it. His modeling suggests that’d be more economical. It's a minute difference.
EK: And why go to a single-payer system at all?
PS: In Vermont, this is all about cost containment. There are 625,000 people in Vermont. We were spending $2.5 billion on health care a decade ago. Now we’re above $5 billion. And we project we’ll be spending a billion dollars more in 2014. This is where everyone has failed in health-care reform. And this will go after three of our main drivers of costs.
First, Vermont spends 8 cents on every dollar on administrative costs, just chasing the money around. That’s a huge waste of money. Second, we’ll use technology to conquer waste. You'll get a Vermont medical card, and everyone’s medical records will be on that card, so you’ll go into a doctor’s office and they’ll know what the last doctor did to you. That helps avoid duplication of services. And the last piece, the most challenging, is remaking the payment system so providers are paid for making you healthy, not for doing the most procedures.
EK: Single-payer systems often lose on the ballot and in the legislature. No state has successfully managed to pass one into law, much less implement it. And the objection that usually stands in the way of these projects is that I'm happy with my health-care insurance, and I don't trust the government to create something new and put me into it. How do you answer that?
PS: I suspect I’m the only politician in America who won an election in this last cycle with TV ads saying I was going to try to pass the first single-payer system in America. This election was a confirmation of my judgment that Vermonters are tired of enriching pharmaceutical companies and insurers and medical equipment makers at the expense of their family members. The reality in Vermont is that there are not very many Vermonters who are happy with the current system. We’re losing our rural providers. Our small hospitals are struggling. And Vermonters are lowering their coverage and paying more and more for it.
EK: How will the funding work? Right now, a lot of money comes from employers. What happens to their share?
PS: Where health care has failed is in designing a cost containment mechanism that works. That’s the really hard part of our job. So I’m asking us to spend the next 12 months designing the tools for cost containment. Once we do, we'll figure out how to structure the way we pay for it.
EK: One of the things you asked of Dr. Hsiao was to preserve provider incomes. How can you do that while cutting costs? At some point, doesn't lower spending also mean fewer doctors or hospitals or lower incomes?
PS: The reason Vermont has the opportunity to be the lab for a different kind of change is that we don’t have a lot of high-paid physicians in Vermont. We have a lot of low-paid physicians. We have rural providers who’re making less than they did when they graduated from medical school. Our cost driver is not that we have a lot of physicians running around in Mercedes-Benzes. It’s waste in the system.
EK: How will this interact with other systems? Let's say I have Kaiser Permanente. I come to Vermont and break my leg. What happens?
PS: Nothing different than what happens right now. You’d go to one of our providers' offices, and they’d bill Kaiser for that one. No different than if you break a leg in France or Switzerland. Radical as this seems to Americans, the rest of the world has figured this out and gotten it right. We keep getting it wrong, and we’re paying for it.
From Ezra Klein: The legal theory currently in vogue in conservative circles holds that the Constitution's vision of "a central government with limited power" -- to use Judge Vinson's phrase -- permits the government to establish a single-payer health-care system that every American pays into through payroll taxes and that wipes out the private insurance industry but forbids the government from administering a regulated market in which individuals purchase private insurance plans and pay a penalty if they can afford coverage but choose to delay buying it until they're sick.
There's a chance conservatives will come to seriously regret this stratagem. I think it's vanishingly unlikely that the Supreme Court will side with Judge Vinson and strike down the whole of the law. But in the event that it did somehow undermine the whole of the law and restore the status quo ex ante, Democrats would start organizing around a solution based off of Medicare, Medicaid, and the budget reconciliation process -- as that would sidestep both legal attacks and the supermajority requirement.
The resulting policy isn't too hard to imagine. Think something like opening Medicare to all Americans over age 45, raising Medicaid up to 300 percent of the poverty line, opening S-CHIP to all children, and paying for the necessary subsidies and spending with a surtax on the wealthy (which is how the House originally wanted to fund health-care reform). That won't get us quite to universal health care, but it'll get us pretty close. And it'll be a big step towards squeezing out private insurers, particularly if Medicaid and Medicare are given more power to control their costs.
Great piece from Single Payer Action: All throughout the Arab world, the despots are on the run.
Fueled by Facebook and Twitter, the Arab street is aflame.
In the United States, instead of fueling the resistance, social media is like a hypnotic drug.
A young Arab in Tunisia gets slapped around – the story goes – by a police officer.
He lights himself on fire.
And the whole Arab world is engaged.
Here in the United States, we get slapped around daily by the corporate elite.
And we take it sitting down in front of our computers.
Case in point.
Ronald Flanagan is a Vietnam Vet in Thornton, Colorado.
Ronald and his wife Frances have health insurance from Ceridian Cobra Services.
Their month premium – $328.69.
Frances went on line to pay their monthly premium.
By accident, she types in $328.67.
Two cents short.
Guess what our pals at Ceridian did?
Exactly.
Dropped the policy.
It came at a bad time for the Flanagans.
And a good time for Ceridian.
Ron has been fighting multiple myeloma – a cancer of the bone marrow – since September 2008.
“The nurses were just getting ready to do the biopsy when my wife popped into the office and told them, ‘Stop. We don’t have any insurance,’” Ron told ABC News 7 in Denver.
“And that’s when they let me know that we no longer had insurance on account of the two cents, and they canceled us,” Frances said. “Since then, I’ve been depressed. I haven’t been able to hardly do anything. As you can see, we still have our Christmas decorations up. So it’s been hard on me.”
Because of the two-cent mistake, Ceridian Cobra Services will not pay for the procedure.
We know that Ron is not alone.
We know that 45,000 Americans die every year due to lack of health insurance.
We know a person in our community in West Virginia who was diagnosed recently with a life threatening illness.
This person was six months away from being eligible for Medicare.
This person had no health insurance.
So, this person waited until reaching Medicare eligibility – 65 – before beginning treatment.
Apparently there are thousands of Americans between 60 and 65 in this dilemma.
They wait.
And many of them die as a result.
Earlier this month, we called a community meeting at the Earth Dog Cafe in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia to talk about the corporate control over our lives.
To discuss – among other things – getting rid of the health insurance corporations.
And replacing them with a single payer system.
Everybody in.
Nobody out.
About 75 people showed up on a Wednesday night.
It wasn’t Facebook or Twitter that brought people out.
It was about 100 phone calls.
Talking person to person about Americans dying from lack of health insurance.
Talking person to person about $700 million dollars a day being spent on wars that the majority of Americans don’t want.
Talking person to person about the need for community action.
To stand up against the corporate slapdown of the American people.
We agreed to meet regularly – at least once every month.
Person to person.
Face to face.
Together.
From PNHP's Official Blog:
"Although advocates of the pure single payer model will find some problems with this report on a reform proposal for Vermont, there is very good news in this analysis. The report emphatically confirms the superiority of the single payer model in ensuring that everyone is included while containing health care costs." Full report – William Hsiao, Steven Kappel and Jonathan Gruber (138 page PDF):
Read William Hsiao's statement and PNHP's analysis here.
Way to go Vermont!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 18, 2011
10:18 AM
MONTPELIER, VT - January 18 - Flanking Gov. Peter Shumlin at a Statehouse press conference, the Vermont congressional delegation today announced federal legislation to let states in 2014 provide better health care at less cost.
A provision by U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in the new federal health care law allows states to propose pilot programs in 2017. Now Vermont's congressional delegates – Sen. Patrick Leahy (D), Sanders, and Rep. Peter Welch (D) – have drafted a bill to authorize federal waivers three years sooner. Sanders will introduce the bill in the Senate for himself and Leahy, and Welch will introduce the bill in the House.
Sanders said, “At a time when 50 million Americans lack health insurance and when the cost of health care continues to soar, it is my strong hope that Vermont will lead the nation in a new direction through a Medicare-for-all single-payer approach. The goal is clear: quality, cost-effective health care for all Vermonters. This is essential not only for the wellbeing of all Vermonters but for job creation. We must do all we can to lower the crushing costs of health care that are now devastating Vermont businesses and their employees. I look forward to working with Sen. Leahy and Rep. Welch to get the appropriate waivers and flexibility for us to go forward toward a single-payer system.”
Welch said, “When Vermont innovates, the nation often follows our lead. Providing Vermont and other states with the flexibility to build upon health care reform will result in better care and greater access at a lower cost. Allowing us to become a laboratory for innovation and excellence will help Vermonters, while once again allowing us to lead the way.”
Leahy said, “While some in Washington are trying to turn the clock back on health reform, Vermont instead is moving forward. This state waiver bill will give Vermont and other states the choice to go above and beyond what the federal health care law does by devising their own reforms. Vermont has always been a leader in health care quality and access, and this bill will give our state the flexibility we want to offer Vermonters the best care and coverage while controlling costs.”
Shumlin said The Affordable Care Act “will bring Vermont critical money to make our health care system work better and to cover some of the uninsured. We want to do it better and faster than the federal law contemplates. We want to control costs and cover everyone. I am so pleased that our congressional delegation supports us in this effort, and I thank them for introducing this important legislation. This is just the beginning of this process, and there are other waivers we will need to get it done. If we work together, I am convinced we can persuade the federal government they should not stand in our way."
This press conference came one day before a report is to be delivered to the state Legislature by William Hsiao, the Harvard University economist, outlining health care options for Vermont that could require a federal waiver to be implemented.
The new national health law will provide insurance for 32 million more Americans and make other significant strides, but Leahy, Sanders and Welch said Congress and the Obama administration should let states make additional improvements.
Under their bill, states would be able to seek U.S. Health and Human Services Department approval to implement pilot health care systems beginning in 2014. To qualify, state plans would have to be at least as comprehensive and affordable as the federal model and cover at least as many people. States could not offer lower quality or less affordable coverage. A single-payer system like Vermont is considering or any other state initiative could not cause the federal government to incur more costs.
The waiver provision also requires HHS to create a coordinated process so states in a single application also could seek waivers already available under Medicare, Medicaid, and the children’s health insurance program.
A fact sheet on the new "State Leadership in Healthcare Act" is available here.
Source: Common Dreams
"Rather than waste time on debating how much reform insurance companies will permit - - if any - - -it is time to change the debate" - Kucinich Kicks off Health Care Debate with Renewed Call for Single-Payer
Source
A Little Good News: "As Peter Shumlin was officially sworn in as governor of Vermont, there was and is great hope that at least in one state we may see passage and implementation of a truly universal, single-payer healthcare system."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
November 6, 2009
Press Release
Pelosi Statement on Congressman Anthony Weiner’s Single Payer Alternative
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today on Congressman Anthony Weiner’s single payer alternative:
"Within the next few days, the House will vote on the most comprehensive health care legislation in our history. Our bill will provide affordability to the middle class, security to our seniors, and responsibility to our children by not adding a dime to the deficit. While our bill contains unprecedented reforms, including an end to discrimination for pre-existing conditions and a prohibition on raising rates or dropping coverage if you become ill, our bill cannot include provisions some strongly advocated. The single payer alternative is one of those provisions that could not be included in H.R. 3962, but which has generated support within the Congress and throughout the country.
"Congressman Anthony Weiner has been a forceful and articulate advocate for the single payer approach and our legislation. His decision not to offer a single payer amendment during consideration of H.R. 3962 is a correct one, and helps advance the passage of important health reforms by this Congress. While single payer, like other popular proposals, is not included in the consensus bill we will vote on this week, Congressman Weiner has been a tireless and effective advocate for progress on health care, and his work has been a vital part of achieving health care reform."
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Chairman Henry A. Waxman
November 6, 2009
Chairman Waxman's Statement on Rep. Weiner's Single-Payer Amendment
Today Chairman Henry A. Waxman released a statement in response to Rep. Anthony Weiner's decision not to offer a single-payer amendment to the House Democratic health care legislation.
"Rep. Anthony Weiner has been one of the most tireless and effective advocates for health care reform. His decision not to offer his amendment on the floor was a difficult one for him, and for supporters of the measure. I believe Rep. Weiner's choice will be enormously helpful in passing the health care reform package. His step is a correct and courageous one. I thank Rep. Weiner for it, and look forward to working with him closely. Rep. Weiner deserves a great deal of credit for helping to make quality, affordable health care more available to millions of Americans."
Comment by Ida Hellander, M.D., Executive Director, Physicians for a National Health Program:
Next steps and interpretation -
1) The fact that single payer got so far along in the House is a testament to the strength of our single payer movement. The huge number of calls by single payer advocates in support of single payer and the Weiner amendment in recent days have been noted by several members of Congress.
2) It appears that nobody, particularly the President, expected our single payer option to be alive in the Congress for so long. As you know, they attempted to keep it "off the table" from the very beginning.
3) The President was directly involved in the decision to not hold a vote on the Weiner single payer amendment, and Weiner will be meeting with him later today. Stay tuned.
4) We need to increase pressure on the Congress and the White House for Medicare for All through lobbying, civil disobedience, media outreach, and grassroots organizing. Sen. Sanders will call for a vote on single payer in the Senate - this could come up anytime in the next month. Encourage your Senator to support the Sanders bill and also an amendment he will offer for a state single payer option. The California Nurses Association/NNOC has already started lobbying visits in the Senate in D.C.
5) We have been asked how to tell members to vote on the House bill. Our response is that the bill is "like aspirin for breast cancer."
Note from David Swanson and Action Items below...
It was expected that the Weiner Amendment would get a vote today, but Representative Weiner has withdrawn it:
Washington, DC – Today, Representative Anthony Weiner (D - Brooklyn and Queens), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, released the following statement on his decision to withdraw his single payer amendment to H.R. 3962, the House health care reform bill:
"I have decided not to offer a single payer alternative to the health reform bill at this time. Given how fluid the negotiations are on the final push to get comprehensive health care reform that covers millions of Americans and contains costs through a public option, I became concerned that my amendment might undermine that important goal."
"I am going to continue to press the case for health care reform in every venue I can. And I also will continue to press for a smarter, less-expensive, more-comprehensive alternative to the employer-based health insurance system we have today."
"I've discussed the issue with Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Waxman, and agree with them that the health reform bill is so close it deserves every chance to gain a majority."
### Source
Last Night, Representatives Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers, Sponsors of HR-676, the Single-Payer bill that Weiner's amendment was about, posted statements on several blogs and news sites warning about this vote because they feared it would not get the votes needed in the current political landscape and could harm future reform actions by setting a low benchmark.
Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a single payer bill. As the two principal co-authors of the Conyers single payer bill, we want to offer a strong note of caution about tomorrow's vote.
The bill presented tomorrow will not be HR676. While we are happy to relinquish authorship of a single payer bill to any member who can do better, we do not want a weak bill brought forward in a hostile climate to unwittingly accomplish what would be interpreted as a defeat for single payer.
Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was "taken off the table" for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a "robust public option" as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies. Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?
While state single payer movements are already strong, the national single payer movement is still growing. Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end. Such a result would be seen as proof that Congress need not pay attention to efforts to restore in Conference Committee the right of states to pursue single payer without fear of legal attacks by insurance companies.
We are always grateful for your support. We are now asking you to join us in suggesting to congressional leaders that this is not the right time to call the roll on a stand-alone single payer bill. That time will come. And when it does there will not be any doubt of the outcome. This system of health care injustice will not be able to endure forever. We are pledged to make sure of that.
Sincerely,
Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich
So... we live to fight another day.
Congressman Weiner's office is saying that because of our phone calls, faxes, and demonstrations, Speaker Pelosi is keeping her promise to allow the Weiner single-payer amendment a vote on the floor of the House. I am getting conflicting opinions about whether or not a full floor debate is going to be allowed.
After nearly being shut out of the discussion completely, single-payer Medicare for All will get a vote for the very first time in history - probably tomorrow - Friday, Nov. 6th.
This is the one opportunity for your elected officials to go on record as supporting the only universal, comprehensive, cost-effective solution to the health care crisis. There are currently 87 cosponsors of HR 676, but this vote will make it clear to the movement which elected officials are truly with single-payer, Medicare for All.
 We need you to call today!
Ask your Representative to vote YES for the plan that most American people, nurses, and physicians want and so desperately need: Medicare for All - Rep. Weiner's single-payer amendment.
If you know who your Rep. is, the Congressional Switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. If not, go here to use the tool provided by Healthcare-NOW!--it's easy and toll free.
NEXT: After you have called your representative, please call Speaker Pelosi and thank her for allowing this promised vote and ask her to make sure it is allowed a full debate. Ask her to release CBO scoring for this amendment. The public deserves to see how much money Single-Payer would save while providing all citizens with affordable, accessible and sustainable access to health care.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: - Washington, DC, office (202) 225-4965;
- San Francisco office (415) 556-4862
If you have more time, it would not hurt to call Waxman and Miller to also thank them and also make sure they know you expect a full floor debate. As Floor managers, they have influence. You can find their numbers here.
Now, pat yourself on the back - then get back to calling!
ACTION NEEDED TODAY: Democratic House leaders can insert what is called a "Manager’s Amendment" into legislation, even when it is closed to any other amendments. The managers are the majority and minority members who "manage" debate for the bill on each side.
Today, tomorrow, and beyond, we need to call these "managers" and insist that the Kucinich Amendment is restored into the healthcare bill.
The "gang" that holds our future in their hands - the people you need to call NOW - are:
* Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
- Washington, DC, office (202) 225-4965;
- San Francisco office (415) 556-4862
* Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:
- Washington, DC, office Phone - (202) 225-4131 - Fax - (202) 225-4300
- Greenbelt office (301) 474-0119;
- Waldorf office (301) 843-1577
* Rep. Henry Waxman:
- Washington, DC, office (202) 225-3976;
- Los Angeles office (323) 651-1040
* Rep. Charles Rangel:
- Washington, DC, office (202) 225-4365;
- New York office (212) 663-3900
* Rep. George Miller:
- Washington, DC, office (202) 225-2095;
- Concord office (925) 602-1880;
- Richmond office (510) 262-6500;
- Vallejo office (707) 645-1888
NOTE: When talking to Waxman and Pelosi's offices be sure to also tell them you want the vote on the Weiner Amendment she and Waxman promised on July 31st - We also need and have a right to see the CBO scoring on the Weiner Amendment.
The American Medical Student Association (AMSA) urges Speaker Nancy Pelosi to keep her promise and allow a vote on a single payer substitution amendment to the House health care reform bill, to be introduced by Representative Anthony Weiner [D-NY]. Rep. Weiner plans to submit an amendment that would replace much of the House health care reform bill with single payer language modeled upon Representative John Conyers [D-Mich.] HR 676. He withdrew this amendment from committee proceedings in July in response to a promise by Congressional leaders, including the Speaker, that legislators would be given an opportunity to vote on the amendment in a full session of the House.
Now, Speaker Pelosi indicated she may restrict any House floor amendments - a backpedal on her promise. In addition, the merged House bill, unveiled yesterday, removed language from an earlier approved amendment in committee by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), that would facilitate states' ability to enact single-payer within their borders. The Speakers' restriction on amendments removes any chance to reinsert this language that has already seen bipartisan support. Read it all.
Seven Members of Congress have now signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi requesting that Democratic Leadership restore the Kucinich Amendment to the health care reform bill before bringing the bill for a vote.
Added to H.R. 3200 in the Education and Labor Committee, the Kucinich Amendment removes an obstacle for states that seek to enact a statewide single payer health care system.
In addition to Congressman Kucinich (D-OH), Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI), Eric Massa (D-NY), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL) Lynn C. Woolsey (D-CA), Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ) have signed the letter.
The full text of the letter follows:
October 30, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232 The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515-0001
Dear Madam Speaker,
We write to request that the Kucinich amendment that would grant a waiver of the application of ERISA to a state single payer plan be included in the Manager’s amendment to H.R. 3962.
Like many other important reforms included in the underlying bill, the Kucinich amendment is the object of attack by the insurance industry. Unlike other reform measures, Leadership has chosen to strip the Kucinich amendment of the protection it deserves. In view of the power of the insurance industry to divide and conquer good ideas for reforming health insurance in this country, we believe that a simple vote on the floor would be a setback for the amendment and for single payer health care, because it would be exposed to the full brunt of the insurance industry’s attacks.
Progressives are firm and emphatic in their support for the single payer health care. A single payer, Medicare for All health system is the best way to control costs, drive up quality and extend care to all. Allowing states to opt for a single payer plan is a compromise. It is an incremental reform. But it allows the country to move incrementally in the direction that is needed.
The Kucinich amendment strikes a balance between where we need to go and where we can go in the next week. We urge you to include it in the Manager’s amendment.
California One Care is the focal organization for the Single Payer movement in California. Their plan is as ambitious as it is well planned and will be as visible as it will be instrumental in bringing about to the whole country the ONLY Public Option framework that makes sense.
The main attractions included the outrageous Paula Poundstone and the outstanding California Senator Mark Leno, author of the centerpiece of this 3 year plan Senate Bill 810 (SB 810).
But perhaps THE main attraction was the 32 30 second spots featuring Hollywood celebrities such as Lily Tomlin, Elliott Gould, Ed Begley Jr., Valerie Harper, Ken Howard, Connie Stevens, Laraine Newman, Susan Savage and many more.
The spots which will air starting in February 2010 after SB 810 is passed in Sacramento were produced by the indefatigable Don Schroeder who is the liaison between California One Care and Hollywood. He also presented the 3 year plan to make California be the first state to adopt Single Payer.
Read it all
From the The Milford Daily News
A group of 51 legislators - including two area lawmakers - is trying to push the state's landmark 2006 health care reform law even further by establishing single-payer health care. "Could the reason this bill enjoys so much support by legislators be because only 60-70 percent of our health care dollars are actually spent on health care," Patrick asked of the Joint Committee on Public Health yesterday. "Could it be that legislators deal directly with the discontent of constituents under the current 'revamped'system in Massachusetts?"
Patrick said a single-payer system would control the problem of rising health care premiums, which he said have increased by 130 percent nationally since 1999. Patrick said the problem of rising premiums is even more pronounced in Massachusetts, and have made the state's current health care system unsustainable.
"We have the highest cost for health care, per capita, in the history of the world," Patrick said.
Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, professor of medicine at Harvard University, testified that studies in the New England Journal of Medicine have shown a single-payer system would reduce state health care costs by 15 percent, amounting to $9 billion in savings. Contact Congress in support of the National Single-Payer Amendments Now. Of special importance to the Massachusetts legislation is the Kucinich Amendment to H.R. 3200 on the House, which enables states to enact their own single payer programs without running into problems with ERISA laws.
UPDATE: I neglected to mention that Pennsylvania is also experiencing a push for Single-Payer:
Close to 1500 Pennsylvanians packed the main capitol rotunda recently to call for passage of a bill that could make their state the first in the nation to put a single payer health insurance plan in place. Following the rally, the crowd broke into smaller groups, and many headed for the offices of key legislators to urge support for the two key bills which would bring a single payer plan to the keystone state. House Bill 1660 and its companion Senate Bill 400 have the support of organizations ranging from PNHP and the Progressive Democrats of America to the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, represented at the rally by its president Bill George, to the non partisan League of Women Voters. Governor Ed Rendell has said he would sign single payer legislation if it reaches his desk.
One of the reasons that I am a strong proponent of a single-payer, Medicare-for-all proposal is that it is much less complicated than what we are going to end up with in Congress. A single-payer approach saves hundreds of billions of dollars a year because you don’t end up with thousands of different health insurance programs appealing to all different kinds of people and costing a fortune to administer. I am going to continue the fight for single-payer. I am cautiously optimistic that we may end up with legislation that will allow states to go forward with single-payer if they want to.
From TPMDC
A preliminary analysis from CBO may have sealed the deal. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is preparing to move ahead with a "robust" public option--one that reimburses hospitals and providers at Medicare rates, plus five percent--in the House's health care bill. She is briefing her caucus about the plan's savings tonight, and, pending the approval of a sufficient majority of members, will adopt the measure as part of the complete reform package The bill remains nominally more expensive than the Senate Finance Committee proposal, but would cover 96 percent of all Americans, providing greater bang for each federal dollar spent. And, aides note, the bill that comes to the floor of the Senate will be a hybrid of the Finance and more expensive HELP Committee bills, so the price is expected to rise.
Meanwhile, since the Weiner Amendment for Single Payer will get a vote on the floor, the CBO is in the process of scoring it.
|
