HR 676 !!! - Let's put Single Payer into the conversation:

[annabanana]

Last edited Fri Jul 28, 2017, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Single Payer:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

No FAX machine? Want to put paper in your CongressCritter's office? Free Faxes here:
https://faxzero.com/fax_congress.php

[Gabi Hayes]

1. Time for a better marketing name

Via L O'Donnell

"MEDICARE for all!"

[annabanana]

2. Call it Sammy! I don't care. We just need to get the discussion OUT there.

Fix the rural exchanges with a Public Option, for starters.

[Gabi Hayes]

3. Agree in a way, but sadly, KGOP is light years

ahead in marketing (read propaganda)

Single payer = socialism to many, and already stigmatized

Medicare is not, except for lunatics and cynical manipulators

It's one of the few govt programs with almost universal approval

We may not live to see it, but if we survive as a Nation, it will be, like the rising ocean, ineluctable

The future is now!

[Gabi Hayes]

4. Heh. Didn't read the body

I'd like to know who was behind not putting
that in originally

I'm sure it was some DINOs, but would like to hear the story

[nolabels]

5. How about one less word, maybe 'PUBLIC HEALTHCARE'

More encompassing and keeping the root word 'medi' out. Many times these days I am finding other information just as important to whatever the medical establishment has to say. Instead of top down telling us what health is how about a collective cognizance that can compare notes and any other information for informed paths of living one's life

The medical establishment is necessary but should never be the final arbitrator on how to live a healthful life

People need to take their own life in hand and own it, no one can do a better job for oneself than oneself

Maybe 'HEALTHCARE UNIVERSAL'

no appeasements, just a straight forward on what it is. Sloganeers just live for the day when they can use the power of words to change the perception of how things are

[ehrnst]

6. How about "Universal Health Care Coverage"

Because that leaves many more options than Single Payer.

Vermont's failure will work against Single Payer, so we need other options - like most of Europe has.

[leftstreet]

16. No. Sounds like for-profit insurance

We've all been duped too many times with the term 'universal'

Public Healthcare is the best term

[ehrnst]

24. It's the correct term. And "Public" will be hammered

away at as "government" by the GOP.

Remember - we couldn't even get a public option on the ACA.

Universal coverage doesn't specify what funding mechanisms are behind it.

It's what the rest of the world, and the world health organization calls it. If we're going to talk about what the rest of the developed world has, we need to be correct on what we call it.

[leftstreet]

30. No one cares what the rest of the world has

The recent protests by GOPers at GOPer reps should tell the Democrats a lot

Times have changed
People want public healthcare

[stevenleser]

31. Sure they do and you see that argument here all the time. "The rest of the developed world has..."

Anyone arguing about what should be the solution should have a keen awareness of what is happening in the rest of the world and what produces successful outcomes. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

The #1 system is France which has a dual tiered system. Anyone wanting to discuss and architect an ideal solution would have to take that into account.

[ehrnst]

32. +1000 (nt)

[ehrnst]

7. Medicare isn't single payer.

Most universal health care coverage in the developed world is acheived through Multi-payer mechanisms.

One of the problems with Vermont was that it included way, way more than Medicare. The fact that the residents were going to have to pay a tax increase of over 150% to sustain it will be dragged out at every opportunity for those arguing against federal single payer.

We are painting ourselves into a corner with insisting on only one way to universal health care coverage.

Universal health care coverage is the goal - affordable, accessible, good quality health care, no matter the funding strategy.

[Trial_By_Fire]

9. I believe that 'single payer' means...

...that only one entity (e.g. the US Health Security Administration) pays the bills.
And that's a good thing.

[ehrnst]

11. No. Single Payer means one entity paying all basic health care

Medicare recipients require supplemental private insurance coverage (that is regulated) to cover prescription medications, vision services and dental.

It would be more accurate to describe the health care coverage our military gets as single payer, and truly socialized health care.

[Trial_By_Fire]

12. No, the VA is not 'single payer' - it is true socialized medicine...

One is not required to buy supplemental insurance.

Maybe what you are trying to say is that Medicare needs to be strengthened and
provide better coverage. I hear that a huge majority love Medicare even as is.

[stevenleser]

15. The two of you are talking past each other to an extent. There are a couple of points though

1 - It's important that people understand the difference between Single Payer and ideas like a Dual (or multi-) payer system like France has and like most Medicare recipients employ.

2 - In 99% of both systems, a public government funded option provides the lions share of paying health costs. However, in a Dual or Multi payer system, there is supplemental private insurance that layers on top of the government system that provides a higher level of service for those desiring to have it and have the means. Or in some cases, like with Medicare, the supplemental private insurance covers a number of health costs that the government provided coverage does not address at all.

3 - It is important to know the difference and be up front about what it means because if it is to be employed here, people will be upset if promised one thing and another is delivered. Medicare by itself without supplemental private insurance has a LOT of gaps. Erhnst mentioned a few, "Medicare recipients require supplemental private insurance coverage (that is regulated) to cover prescription medications, vision services and dental." And that isnt all. Just as one example, Medicare does not cover an annual physical like most people are familiar with. It covers what is called an "Annual wellness visit" or "AWV" which does not include bloodwork or other labs and is pretty close to useless. https://www.cms.gov/Outreach-and-Education/Medicare-Learning-Network-MLN/MLNProducts/downloads/AWV_chart_ICN905706.pdf

So things like bills that tout/provide "Medicare for all" are not single payer and will require purchase of private supplementary insurance to get the kind of coverage people expect.

We have seen from the ACA what will happen if Republicans get the chance to demagogue something.

[Bradshaw3]

93. Familiar with Daivd Jolly's idea?

Yes he is a repub but he mentioned the other day about creating a high risk pool that includes older people and others, and then you could still have private insurance for those with less risk - and lower premiums and costs for the insurance industry. I am not an expert on health care but couldn't we keep the ACA with this sort of idea, using the exchanges for those who are healthier and want lower premiums while moving out the higher risk groups into Medicare? Take out the mandates and it still might work, with the quid pro quo in a deal with the repubs being that that you keep the ACA and create a Medicare pool for the most needy and those over 55.

[ehrnst]

17. What I am trying to say is that "Medicare for all" and "Single Payer" are not the same thing.

Words matter, their definitions matter. And once you start calling something either one of those names (which are not interchangeable) you had better not deviate at all. Remember all the uproar after Obama made the gaffe of "you can keep your doctor?" The GOP is still feeding off that in their campaign against the ACA.

Yes, Medicare needs to be strengthened, and provide better coverage before any talk of "Medicare for all" (whatever that means at the moment) being implemented.

Even then, expansion needs to be gradual. The suggestion of allowing people to buy in at 55 as a first step to see how that functions is as far as we're going to be able to go at this point - just in terms of cost, and impact on the health care infrastructure.

Then, after a few years, once that is established, and working well, then we expand SCHIP to cover any kids under 18 that are not covered.

[stevenleser]

19. Yep, I agree 100%. nt

[Bradshaw3]

91. This makes a lot of sense

I saw Bernie speak the other day for dropping the Medicare age to 55 as a first step. So even a Democratic Socialist is for that.

[ehrnst]

99. It was part of HRC's plan. (nt)

[R B Garr]

96. Excellent again! First things first.

Alienating people over some distant possibilities is counter productive.

[lapucelle]

83. Medicareforall.org has detailed information on HR 676

John Conyers has introduced this bill every year since 2003. It currently has 115 co-sponsors.

This link will take you to the coverage goals.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Know

Here's some good general information and the bill in its entirety.
http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676

[ehrnst]

100. Yep. It's a conversation starter.

It's even less passable now than it was in 2009, due to the majority of GOP in house and senate.

And we've seen what happens to any Democratic plan that gets implemented once the GOP gets back into office.

Incremental expansion to the ACA is the most realistic way forward to universal health care coverage.

Social Security covers vastly more than it did 82 years ago. It certainly wouldn't have passed if it did.

[ehrnst]

38. If you don't want to preach to the choir: Patriotcare, Americare... (nt)

[marylandblue]

51. +1000 Americare!

[stage left]

89. Americare

sounds great. I like it.

[KentuckyWoman]

109. I like that.. Americare.

[YCHDT]

111. Yeap

[Purveyor]

81. This is what I spout. Most understand it and sees it work for their elderly family

members, the system is already established which usually makes it a easy sell by the time I'm finished "spouting".

[rurallib]

8. Amen! And strike while the iron is hot

The August recess would be a great time for Democrats to promote MEDICARE FOR ALL!

[Gabi Hayes]

10. U R G Ne US (A!). It's all about the marketing:

[nolabels]

52. Marketing is a badgered word but in reality it is something we couldn't live without

Perhaps keeping the title of 'Medicare' might make the most sense strategically. Almost all seniors are on it so bad-mouthing it will actually be a taboo since it has been working so well.

Billionaire Republicans hate government that works

[Gabi Hayes]

54. Exactly: from Edward bernays to Fred Koch to James Buchanan

to Gingrich to Rove to trump

Democracy in Chains:

It seems inevitable the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” will pop into your head while reading Duke University historian Nancy MacLean’s disquieting Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America. After all, the phrase made famous by Hillary Clinton in the 1990s popped into MacLean’s head a few times while she researched and wrote her book.

It would seem an apt description, given the covert undermining of American democratic foundations and institutions by the extreme libertarian movement MacLean documents in Democracy in Chains. But as pernicious as the movement is, it “is not a conspiracy,” she said in an interview. “A conspiracy involves illegality, and this movement, while it operates by stealth, is generally careful to stay within the rules that exist.”

She uses “fifth column assault” instead. She acknowledged “fifth column” also is “a phrase with a fraught history.” But the academics, operatives, ideologues, and billionaires of the radical right “have a fundamental hostility to our form of government as it existed over the 20th century,” and seek to vanquish it from within.

Democracy in Chains expands on Jane Mayer’s reporting in Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. Where Mayer follows the radical right’s money trail, MacLean examines its intellectual origins—“the master plan behind it,” as she writes in her book’s introduction. Her findings will leave you deeply concerned for our democracy and civic life.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/features/nancy-maclean/

[nolabels]

112. Thank you, that's a cool book

I found it and picked it up on amazon audible. I had some spare credits to use. It's about ten hours of listening and it sounds very interesting

[Gabi Hayes]

113. Been trying to spread the word

It should be a seminal fundament in the clear, wide understanding of just how pernicious their influence has become

Without knowledge, how can we stop these
sociopathic monsters

That's what they are....

Thanks for getting the book

I've called some radio stations, trying to get the author on

[Demsrule86]

48. No it is not...the first job is to save the ACA...for God's sake people...lets deal with our reality

[davsand]

13. Medicare is a term people recognize and like.

Clearly, enacting it for the entire population will take a bit of tweaking, but the current design of Medicare can work--we already KNOW that from a few decades of experience. We also know that Medicare does not limit access to docs--there is no rationing of care or any specific doctor requirement. Mostly, and probably the most significant point in favor of Medicare, is that for the most part, people don't hate it. I have YET to hear grandpas or grandmas beg for their old insurance back.

Yes, there will be a few contrary people who--paid shills or not--will say Medicare sucks, but make sure you watch what they argue about. They are arguing some variation of Medicare is bad because__(some anecdotal argument here___) never because of any actual issue with delivery of care. That's a huge difference than the system we have now.

Ask yourself, have you ever heard anybody say they don't use their Medicare or that they are sorry they have it??


Laura

[ehrnst]

21. Way, way, way more than a "bit of tweaking."

No, we don't know from a few decades of experience how upending 17% of the GDP works will go - and that really can't be done in under 20 years without severe negative consequences to the healthcare delivery system, especially for rural residents.

http://khn.org/news/democrats-unite-but-what-happened-to-medicare-for-all/


It's not that simple. It sounds simple to people who don't understand the health care system in this country. And no, those who say that there are far more obstacles to single payer than simply "putting everyone on Medicare" aren't always paid shills. Many are politically neutral health care policy experts with no ties to the insurance or healthcare industries.

One of the bigger mistakes that Obama made in getting people on board with the ACA was saying, "You can keep your doctor," when NOBODY is guaranteed that they can keep their doctor - your employer might change plans, your physician might drop out of your network. I did a headdesk when he said that - and misrepresenting something as Medicare because people like Medicare is as big a mistake.

Single payer or medicare for all or bust should not become dogma. Universal health care is the goal - and it doesn't have to follow either a single payer or medicare model.

One thing that HRC talked about in her plan in 2008 was that they made the mistake in 1993 by repeating "cover the uninsured" without addressing the fears of those that had insurance. I think that's why Obama made the mistake he did, he didn't learn the right lesson.

We have to tailor the message to the people who have insurance - which is the majority - because the GOP will talk only about what they will lose. One of the big differences between our current system and the system that was in place in the earlier part of the 20th century in Europe is that their population was just happy to be able to see a physician at all. Health care was also far less expensive - no chemo, no triple bypasses, etc. They were different than the US population today - who wants to keep their own doctor, doesn't want to see a nurse practitioner, wants to have rx coverage, etc. I loved my health care in the UK, even thought the local clinic looked more like a DMV than a clinic here. I was just glad to have any coverage. The majority of the US is used to something much more upscale.

[Weekend Warrior]

14. Single payer was introduced and voted on yesterday by a Republican.

Now we are going to start promoting Republican sham legislation.

https://www.congress.gov/search?q={%22source%22:%22legislation%22,%22congress%22:115,%22type%22:%22bills%22,%22chamber%22:%22House%22}

[ehrnst]

18. I think that's a trap we're going to fall right into

It's going to make it possible for them to say that Dems voted against the ACA.

And any Dem that doesn't vote for it will be called a CORPORATE SHILL!!! by the left.

[Weekend Warrior]

20. That was my point.

The legislation linked in the op is from a Republican as well.

Edit: Looks like you edited during my response. Sorry if my response doesn't line up well.

[ehrnst]

22. No worries - realized I needed to edit. (nt)

[R B Garr]

95. Exactly, that's the kind of game that is being played.

This is the same type of shenanigans they used in California about single payer when the elected Democrat was forced to call out the incomplete legislation. It is very divisive and disengenuous.

[annabanana]

23. that link is to everything done in the house...What was the number?

[Weekend Warrior]

27. Sorry about that.

It's senate amendment 340.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/floor_activity/07_27_2017_Senate_Floor.htm

Here is some info on the vote.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00173

[lapucelle]

86. Every member of the senate Democratic caucus voted "present".

And every Republican (including Senator Daines who introduced the amendment) voted "no".

Here's what Daines's hometown newspaper said concerning his epic fail/political stunt:

The bill is familiar to lawmakers because it is the same legislation brought years ago by Democrat Rep. John Conyers, of Michigan.

It's been around since 2003 and would provide universal access by extending Medicare coverage to all Americans. Money to pay for it would come from a combination of taxes including a payroll tax on employers and employees and more taxes on the wealthy.

Every Republican is on record for having voted against a "medicare for all" measure; not a single Democratic caucus member is.

Welcome to the big leagues, Senator Daines.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=115&session=1&vote=00173

http://helenair.com/news/politics/state/daines-introduces-single-payer-amendment-which-he-s-long-opposed/article_1c98e51d-63fe-54e8-91a2-f9e76915c63b.html

[lapucelle]

84. Here is Rep. Conyers reaction to his bill being appropriated:

Washington, D.C. (27 July 2017) – Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (MI-13) today released the following statement on Republican Senator Steve Daines using Rep. Conyers’ H.R. 676, Medicare for All legislation as a pawn in his scheme to force a vote on Senate Democrats:

“The process by which the Senate is considering changes to our nation’s healthcare plan is a sham, and Senate Democrats are right not to take part in it. We’ve said all along that Republicans should be holding hearings, soliciting input from the public, and carefully weighing analysis from the Congressional Budget Office. My proposal is no different. In fact, Medicare for All is far more popular than the status quo or anything Republicans have put forward, with about 60% of Americans in support, so it’s even more deserving of hearings and a CBO score.

“Poll after poll shows that Americans agree that we have a collective obligation to guarantee healthcare coverage to everyone through a government financed healthcare system. A majority of my Democratic colleagues in the House are cosponsors of my Medicare for All bill. Republicans are right: thanks to its overwhelming popularity, Medicare for All has become the alternative to Trumpcare. So let’s have a real debate, including hearings, independent analysis, and input from doctors, patients, and hospitals. What we shouldn’t be doing is holding disingenuous 11th-hour votes on any ideas that haven’t be subjected to the normal legislative process.”

Pelosi and Schumer did a masterful job of leading their respective caucuses to speak with one voice.

https://conyers.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/conyers-statement-senator-daines-using-medicare-all-pawn

[DeminPennswoods]

25. We need to seperate healthcare from health insurance

They are not the same.

Americans should be guaranteed healthcare that puts the patient's interests first and foremost at all times. When you have a profit motive anywhere in the system, that doesn't happen.

[stevenleser]

29. I don't think we should have preconditions that are unrelated to outcomes

France has the best health outcomes of any country in the world and they are not single payer. They have private supplemental insurance that around 80% of the country opts to purchase. So for around 80% of the populace they have a Dual Payer system with private health insurance paying some of the costs.

Medicare is essentially a dual or multitiered system as well, so anyone touting Medicare for all is also not touting a single payer system.

[ehrnst]

34. Yes! We have to acknowledge that medical care costs money - a lot.

And making health care affordable and accessible is the goal.

If France gets there via private market partnership with government, it's worth exploring, especiallly in the U.S. where there is a culture of hating government.

[DeminPennswoods]

41. Before he went over to the dark side, Kucinich

made a great point that there's more than enough money being spent on healthcare, but because of health insurance, it's spent inefficiently.

I'm not anti private health insurance, but I am, from experience, against the profit motive having a role in healthcare decisions. My mom has an excellent medicare advantage plan, yet in the past couple of years, she wasn't able to get the care she really needed because of her insurance company's cost considerations. Her best interest took a backseat to profit, euphemisticly called "not medically necessary".

[forthemiddle]

44. Are you sure it was the private insurance?

Obviously you have the first hand knowledge of the decision, but in my years of medical billing experience, the only time I have seen a Medicare secondary, or Medicare Advantage deny a claim was when It was a Medicare coverage denial.
In other words it was Medicare that said it was not medically necessary, not the insurance plan.

Medicare has ALOT it doesn't cover, contrary to what the public thinks. The reason most people don't realize it is because unless the doctor has the patient sign a waiver claiming responsibility before the service is performed, the doctor can't bill the patient.

Also, not pertinent in your Mothers case, but I wonder how many Medicare for All proponents realize how much it doesn't cover? Such as prenatal care. For the majority of Medicare population now, this obviously isn't an issue, but if Medicare expands to all, it will add billions of dollars to the budget each year, for this care only.

[ehrnst]

45. The "Medicare for all" that was being put forward by Sanders

Didn't look like Medicare as much as it did a platinum plan.

Vermont single payer tanked in part because it was so comprehensive.

And Medicare would cost way more if it did cover prenatal, maternity and Rx.

[forthemiddle]

49. I agree

So many here are so enthralled with the idea of Medicare for All that they don't see the downfalls. I see every single day the stuff it doesn't cover, and the hoops that the coders have to negotiate in order to get even the normal care covered that I can't be in favor of it.
As you stated, if Medicare is expanded to more comprehensive coverage the costs will be unbelievable.
They also forget that right now the Medicare premiums are subsidized. And that's outpatient care only! Members don't pay anything for inpatient care at all (Medicare Part A). There was a DU member at one point that did some digging and found out that the unsubsidized premium would be closer to $600.00 a month per person. And that's for the uncomperhensive care like prenatal, Rx, etc. that's $2400.00 a month for a family of 4!

[DeminPennswoods]

61. The total healthcare expediture money is there, it's

just not allocated to individual care as first priority.

[forthemiddle]

62. I may agree with you

But how do you convince the union government worker to give up their coverage which has been negotiated over the years so we can allocate it to everyone?
In concept, the idea of universal healthcare is utopian, but in reality the biggest fight back will be from those that already have superior insurance. You know the teachers and other governments union workers.

[DeminPennswoods]

92. Civil servants

I'm retired civil service and I'd be more than happy to give up my FEHB and put my current contribution in, if it meant a national healthcare system.

[ehrnst]

65. So tell us how that money will be re-allocated.

That is 17% of the total GDP.

That's huge.

Please explain how this will be done, and what effect it will have on the current health care delivery.

[DeminPennswoods]

94. How about out of insurance premiums, insurance admin salaries,

hospital admin salaries and into patient care?

Look at all the administrative staff that we have now. My mom's recent health problem involved medical billing coder, case manager to haggle with insurer and visa versa, post-hospital admin and case manager and RN and a part-time staff doctor. Of the people who dealth with her, approximately 2 provided actual medical care.

[ehrnst]

97. That's a small part of the total. But HOW do you re-allocate that? You stated where from and who to.

Do you cap hospital admin salaries legislatively? Or do you simply fire a bunch of people - especially in the insurance admin? What would their severance package involve? How quickly could you eliminate a large number of positions?

What happens to all the people who need immediate health care in the meantime? Especially in rural hospitals?

This article lays it out the issues very well: http://khn.org/news/democrats-unite-but-what-happened-to-medicare-for-all/

How would the economy be affected from those people losing their jobs, even if you gave rehired some of them lower salaries as a public employees doing even more duties.


I'm not dismissing your and your mother's experience. However, are all of those people you mention simply pointless - such as the post hospital case manager? Would you have been upset if there were fewer people involved, and you had to wait days longer for answers and care?

There have been real issues in recent years with lack of post hospitalization follow-up, ESPECIALLY for Medicare and Medicaid patients, and the ACA put incentives in place for hospitals to lower the number of people who were re-hospitalized shortly after being released. Post release case managers were part of that response.

I'm not defending the current system - it certainly has it's redundancies. What I am saying is that it is an enormous system that has been baked into our economy for over 50 years. Such a massive change will involve disruption to the economy, and that can't happen quickly.

As we have seen, it's much much harder to undo a large part of our economy than it is to build it in from the start - which would have been the Truman administration.

I would love all cars and homes to convert to fuel cell technology - that would certainly reduce our carbon footprint. Requiring it to happen in less than 30 years would be impossible.

There is this concept of the wicked problem. We expect that every problem can have a clear solution, like it does in science class.

There are some problems which sprout new tentacles in direct response to efforts to solve one part of them, and there is no solution that doesn't create more negative aspects. Health care costs on this country is one of those problems.

Saying that there is some simple solution to health care costs is not only wrong, it will create many more problems than if we address it as a very complicated issue that will have losers no matter what we do. I understand that isn't a very "hopeful" message, and I'm sure I'll be slammed for "not even TRYING!!!" and probably called a "corporate shill" for "trying to spread propaganda."


Vermont did not address all of the issues, and their plan failed. In California, they realized that their legislation was incomplete, and they did not want to make the same mistake as Vermont, and kill any hope of federal health care reform in that direction.

Now those who had the foresight to do that are being excoriated and demonized. This is our own circular firing squad.

Canada didn't go single payer federally until all the provinces had done so independently, which took nearly 20 years, then they got a very liberal federal government in. They didn't have to do what we have to do - upend 17% of their GDP, and they have 1/10th of the population to cover.


I lived in the UK and had great health care. I wish I could get what they have here in the states. I know that it's no more likely than us having the passenger train system there - for partially the same reasons. They started the infrastructure 80 years ago, and the economy grew up around it.

[DeminPennswoods]

101. I don't have all, or even many, of the answers

Last edited Sun Jul 30, 2017, 03:36 PM - Edit history (1)

I do know the system we have now doesn't work very well and needs to be changed. My guess would be there would be fewer admin jobs and more primary care ones. Admins who have medical degress would transition back to care.

IMHO, the regulations that are causing all the decision-making issues and driving admin costs came about to ensure people are getting the right care for them. Of course that's helped cause the Rube Goldbergian healthcare system we have today. Get the rules right and many of the regulations/requirements can go away.

I think we have examples (Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic) where salaried doctors give the best patient-centered care. The Cleveland Clinic is even entering the NE Ohio ACA market.

There's no doubt changes to employment opportunities will come, though, just like they did when the steel mills closed in my area.

[ehrnst]

102. Those questions all have to be answered.

Vermont did not answer enough of them prior to implementing single payer, and Single Payer failed.

Continuing to avoid discussing what happened in Vermont makes it even stronger ammunition against any other public option. Simply saying "It's going to save us money in the long run" without addressing what will happen in the short run will also allow the GOP to jump in with their own scenario.

"There's no doubt changes to employment opportunities will come, though, just like they did when the steel mills closed in my area."

This particular industry isn't in just one area of the country - it is all over the country. If you think that people whose livelihood will be affected by the end of private health insurance won't fight this, unless they know exactly what will happen to them, you are naive.

Such a huge upheaval in our economy - especially one that directly affects health care - can't be done quickly.

Salaried doctors would indeed make a difference, and that can happen no matter what the payment mechanism is.

"Getting the rules right" is another phrase that sounds great but is too ambiguous to mean anything in terms of correcting the system. Sounds really easy, but if it was, it would have been done. You are proposing creating regulations to make other regulations go away, and the question is - which ones?

Healthcare spending, like legislation, looks much, much simpler than it is. Unfortunately, many people are falling into the trap of listening to slogans, and thinking that there are simple solutions.

[DeminPennswoods]

106. Offer your idea(s) then.

I was a federal civil servant when Al Gore did his ReGo effort. He got input from all walks of the federal civil service and ended up with a pretty good plan to make us better and more efficient. I think the same can be done if Congress is willing to gather similar input. Healthcare workers from all the associated fields know what's not working and/or a waste of time and resources.

[ehrnst]

110. Gradual expansion of the ACA is what health policy experts say is most realistic.

Let people buy into Medicare at 55.

Then expand SCHIP to cover all uninsured children up to age 18, not just those that qualify for medicaid.

After there is general comfort and familiarity with that, expand the SCHIP up to age 21.

That should take us through the next 10-15 years.

HRC had that in her plan - along with adding a public option to the ACA.

I'm only repeating what people who have the data and expertise in the field suggest - as was HRC.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-not-obamacare-anymore-its-our-national-health-care-system/2017/07/28/1a6583fe-73d3-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html

[DeminPennswoods]

59. No, not completely sure

It all seems to come down to how the hospital/doctor/case mgr write the coverage request up. To me, that's the silly part and why I've come to believe in socialized medicine. People just shouldn't have to jump through all these hoops to get the care they need.

[lapucelle]

87. You are absolutely right; however

under our current system, in the US health care costs more (in per capita annual spending) than in any other country. AND we get poorer outcomes.

Bob Somerby has been writing about this for years. Here are his latest statistics:

ADJUSTED FOR PERFECTION*: Per capita spending, health care, 2015
United States: $6616
Canada: $4608
France: $4407
United Kingdom: $4003
Finland $3984

* Perfection = eliminating all "unnecessary services, high prices, inefficient delivery, excess administration and fraud".

http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2017/04/health-matters-same-old-30-percent.html

[ehrnst]

33. The payment system is a part of health care. You have to have a pool of payers

in order to make it possible for individuals in that pool to get treatment when they need it.

You need the pool of payers to have more healthy people than chronically sick people, because medical care requires lots of training, and lots technology, and that is expensive.

Whatever you call it, tax. insurance, etc. - pooling of payments has to be there in order to determine the quality and quantity of care.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. That isnt single payer bill, is it?

H.R.626 - Access to Inpatient Rehabilitation Therapy Act of 2017
115th Congress (2017-2018) | Get alerts

BILLHide Overview icon-hide
Sponsor: Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-5] (Introduced 01/24/2017)
Committees: House - Ways and Means
Latest Action: 02/02/2017 Referred to the Subcommittee on Health. (All Actions)

Surely not from a repub

[Jim Lane]

37. Good catch. See my correction in #35. (n/t)

[Wellstone ruled]

28. Health Care USA.

[Jim Lane]

35. Bill number and link in OP are wrong

Conyers's bill for single payer is 676, not 626. (If you scrawl a "7" it can look like a "2" and I'm guessing that happened somewhere along the way.)

Correct link is the same but with the number changed:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676 (Title: "H.R.676 - Expanded & Improved Medicare For All Act" )

Before you lobby your Congressmember, check out the current list of cosponsors. The majority of the Democrats in the House are already on board. That page will tell you whether to convey thanks or a request for action.

[annabanana]

40. thanks.. fixed

[Demsrule86]

36. No, it is a bad idea.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Jimmy Carter and AL Gore recently spoke out in favour of single payer universal health care.

A majority of Americans are also behind it so now is definitely the time to have this conversation in congress and in full view of the public.

I'm tired of people telling our legislators to keep their powder dry. What the hell are we saving it for?

[ehrnst]

43. That depends on how Americans hear opposing arguments

SUPPORT FOR SINGLE-PAYER IS MALLEABLE WHEN GIVEN OPPOSING ARGUMENTS

While a slim majority favors the idea of a national health plan at the outset, a prolonged national debate over making such a dramatic change to the U.S. health care system would likely result in the public being exposed to multiple messages for and against such a plan. The poll finds the public’s attitudes on single-payer are quite malleable, and some people could be convinced to change their position after hearing typical pro and con arguments that might come up in a national debate.

For example, when those who initially say they favor a single-payer or Medicare-for-all plan are asked how they would feel if they heard that such a plan would give the government too much control over health care, about four in ten (21 percent of the public overall) say they would change their mind and would now oppose the plan, pushing total opposition up to 62 percent.

Similarly, when this group is told such a plan would require many Americans to pay more in taxes or that it would eliminate or replace the Affordable Care Act, total opposition increases to 60 percent and 53 percent, respectively.

http://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/data-note-modestly-strong-but-malleable-support-for-single-payer-health-care/

Also - I haven't heard a "keeping our powder dry" argument against a full out single payer or bust legislative effort. Coming so soon on the heels of the Vermont single payer failure, there needs to be a very clear indication that legislators have learned from that failure, because until then I don't think anyone will be willing to risk a repeat of that on the national level (that's not "keeping powder dry" that's just common sense). And no, the answer 'big pharma and or big insurance killed it" isn't going to enlighten us about how to make it work next time. Unfortunately, Sanders refuses to talk about it at all, and that indicates he either can't or won't learn from it in the bill he is putting forward.

BTW -Sanders has also said that there is no way that a Single Payer bill would pass right now, but he's going to support bringing the bill to the floor anyway. I don't see how that's different from the scores of Obamacare repeal bills presented during Obama's administration.


https://www.vox.com/2017/7/24/15915406/bernie-sanders-medicare-single-payer

[beam me up scottie]

56. I don't base my opinions on what others think, especially the American public.

Who've been on the wrong side of history more often than not when it comes to things like basic human rights. I also don't trust politicians who wait for a majority of the population to support something before getting behind it.

And you can save your strawman arguments for someone who's unfamiliar with the tactic, this isn't about Bernie, it's about a basic human right.

If you want to to convince me that the majority of Democratic congressmen were wrong to cosponsor the latest Medicare for All legislation you should probably address what I actually posted instead of using logical fallacies.

[ehrnst]

63. I'm giving you data on what the public actually thinks

You can deny it or consider it.

Think about your response, and ask yourself if it's based in fact or dogma.

[beam me up scottie]

69. It's not denial, I simply don't care what the public thinks about human rights.

Some things shouldn't be left up to majority rule and in my not-so-humble opinion single payer universal health care is one of those things. And Democrats in Congress agree with me.

Eventually the public will come around and realize that they deserve it too but I don't have to wait for them to catch up. I support single payer universal health care now just like I've supported it for decades, so you're probably not going to change my mind in this thread.

[ehrnst]

76. It appears that you don't care what the data show, and what health policy experts say.

Which is not really different than ignoring what climate scientists say on global warming.

YOU stated that "a majority of Americans" are behind single payer, yet now you say "you don't care" what the public thinks....when shown that public opinion isn't what you thought it was....


Sounds like facts don't influence your opinion, just as those who think that Planned Parenthood is the reason women have abortions, and that man-made climate change is a myth that those who hate capitalism have invented remain "constant" to their bias when given evidence.

[beam me up scottie]

82. A majority thinks the government should provide health care for its citizens

Public support for ‘single payer’ health coverage grows, driven by Democrats

A majority of Americans say it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. And a growing share now supports a “single payer” approach to health insurance, according to a new national survey by Pew Research Center.

Currently, 60% say the federal government is responsible for ensuring health care coverage for all Americans, while 39% say this is not the government’s responsibility. These views are unchanged from January, but the share saying health coverage is a government responsibility remains at its highest level in nearly a decade.

Among those who see a government responsibility to provide health coverage for all, more now say it should be provided through a single health insurance system run by the government, rather than through a mix of private companies and government programs. Overall, 33% of the public now favors such a “single payer” approach to health insurance, up 5 percentage points since January and 12 points since 2014. Democrats – especially liberal Democrats – are much more supportive of this approach than they were even at the start of this year.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/

Again, I'm not influenced by public opinion. I don't care what libertarians and conservatives think about abortion or other civil rights and I don't care how they feel about a basic human right like health care. Eventually they may come around too, if not - meh.

I support Medicare for all and I stand with our representatives in Washington who agree with me that now is the time to debate it. You can disagree with us all you like but it's not going to change my mind.

[Demsrule86]

47. No they are not 'behind it'. Most still get healthcare from work and this will never pass...

probably not even with Dems in charge. I would not go to Al Gore or Jimmy Carter for political advice...good men but bad politicians.

[beam me up scottie]

55. So I should trust Republican political instincts instead?

How about I trust the majority of house Democrats (100+) who also support single payer universal health care? They seem to know what they're doing unlike the folks who want to keep for-profit healthcare because they're happy with their employer plans. This 'I've got mine' attitude is a little too libertarian for me, whether it comes to civil rights or health care. I don't trust pepole who think progress is a bad word, I also don't trust people who keep telling me that we shouldn't even try because it's just too hard.

So no offense but I'll stick with Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and the other Democrats who support single payer universal health care and you can keep trying to convince others it's not worth fighting for.

Good luck with that.

[ehrnst]

64. How about sticking with actual politically neutral experts on health policy?

When right wingers stick with their position that closing down Planned Parenthood will eliminate or greatly reduce abortions, they are ignoring the data, and sticking with the dogma.

I thought that we were the party of facts and data over dogma.

[beam me up scottie]

67. You mean like physicians?

Physicians explain why America needs single-payer universal health care
The Guardian

A group of more than 2,000 physicians is calling for the establishment of a universal government-run health system in the US, in a paper in the American Journal of Public Health.

According to the proposal released Thursday, the Affordable Care Act did not go far enough in removing barriers to healthcare access. The physicians’ bold plan calls for implementing a single-payer system similar to Canada’s, called the National Health Program, that would guarantee all residents healthcare.

The new single-payer system would be funded mostly by existing US government funding. The physicians point out that the US government already pays for two-thirds of all healthcare spending in the US, and a single-payer system would cut down on administrative costs, so a transition to a single-payer system would not require significant additional spending.

“Our patients can’t afford care and don’t have access to the care they need, while the system is ever more wasteful, throwing away money on bureaucratic expenses and absurd prices from the drug companies,” said David Himmelstein, a professor in the CUNY School of Public Health at Hunter College and lecturer on medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Himmelstein, one of the authors of the plan, said the proposal is meant as a rallying cry for physicians and other healthcare professionals around the cause of a single-payer model. According to the paper, even with the passage of the Affordable Care Act many patients “face rising co-payments and deductibles that compromise access to care and leave them vulnerable to ruinous medical bills.” Despite the current high healthcare spending levels in the US, healthcare outcomes are worse than in comparable well-funded countries.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/obamacare-isnt-enough-physicians-explain-why-america-needs-single-payer-universal-health-care/

Wanting everyone to have a basic human right like single payer universal health care isn't based on facts so much as compassion. Much like other human rights it takes a while to convince the public that it's the right thing to do. I like to be ahead of the curve.

And since a majority of congressmen recently cosponsored the Medicare for All act it seems like it's mostly libertarians and conservatives who want to keep the profit in health care, along with people who are happy with their employer paid plan. But then they've all got theirs so why should they worry about the rest of us?

[ehrnst]

70. I mean like health policy experts

Physicians are to health policy as meteorologists are to climate scientists.

If you think that physicians are the final word on health policy, then you are also giving these physicians that same credibility:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/851264

Universal health care coverage can be achieved in other ways than single payer - as most of the developed world has shown.

Dogma like "SINGLE PAYER IS THE ONLY WAY THAT PEOPLE WILL GET JUSTICE" that collides with facts and data will tank actual progress to get there. Just as "climate change is a liberal lie" dogma gets the right nowhere.

No, it's not just libertarians and conservatives that have weighed in against the practicality of Single Payer or NOTHING!!!!

http://www.kff.org/health-reform/perspective/behind-the-challenges-to-universal-health-coverage/

And I am neither a conservative nor a libertarian - just someone who thinks that fact matter more than dogma. If you equate anyone and everyone that brings up the very real obstacles that SINGLE PAYER OR NOTHING presents, then you are propagating dogma.

That sort of dualistic, black/white thinking will get us nowhere.

[beam me up scottie]

71. Yeah, still not interested in straw men.

That's the beauty of a big tent, I can side with the majority of our congressmen on Medicare for All and you can disagree with us.

Is there a reason I'm not allowed to do that? I'm not really sure why this is such a controversial stance. I stand with our Dems in Congress who finally agree with an opinion I've held for decades.

[ehrnst]

72. Straw man because you don't understand what I'm saying?

No one is saying you are "not allowed" to disagree. Talk about a straw man...

And some opinions - especially those of politicians - are less informed than others.

[beam me up scottie]

75. You keep bringing up other people's opinions as if they're more worthy of consideration.

You get to cite your "experts" and agree with them and I get to believe this is still a matter of basic human rights and agree with people who see it that way.

I agree with Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and the majority of our current house Dems and I certainly don't think they're less informed than you are. Perhaps they support Medicare for All because it's the right thing to do, not because it's economically advantageous.

[ehrnst]

77. Um... you were the one who stated that "a majority of Americans" wanted Single Payer....

See post #39 if you have forgotten that you did....

I simply showed you that public opinion was very malleable when they heard other arguments against it.

Which is it? Public opinion is the driver, or is it something that needs to be ignored when it doesn't mesh with what you think?

[Demsrule86]

73. No, you do what you can now...you won't get single payer and if you try ...then the GOP will attack

it non-stop...show some idea of timing...try to get a public option to cover those who don't have ACA coverage in their states...next see if we can lower the age of Medicare which is a program the GOP can't demonize sufficiently. Now at the moment, we may only get 'fixes' to stabilize the market...have to win elections in 18 and 20....run on saving healthcare and other issues it truly does depend on where you are running...there is no message that can work in all states. We need a 50 state solution...do not try to run on single payer.

[beam me up scottie]

80. Tell that to Dems in Congress - a majority cosponsored the bill and I agree with them.

I also agree with them that we can walk and chew gum at the same time, we can fight for the ACA and push single payer.

You're more than welcome to disagree with us but if you'll forgive the Big Lebowski reference: that's just like your opinion, man.

[Demsrule86]

98. And McConnell is already using it to hurt the Democrats. Stupid when it has no shot of passing.

[RhodeIslandOne]

42. "Huffff......European health care! Harrrumpf!"

Turtle sounded like such a fucking bumpkin when he said that last night.

[Demsrule86]

46. Again no and no and no.

It is not the time. It will never happen with the GOP in power. Fix the ACA and try to introduce a public option and later lowering of medicare age. You could damage healthcare by introducing this now...the GOP already tried and will continue to use the issue against us.

[ck4829]

50. We need to do something to get away from healthcare in the US being used for social control

rather than for the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses and injuries.

We need to stop this.

[pangaia]

53. Call it HEALTHY HUMANS

[beam me up scottie]

57. SOCIALISM!!1!

Why do you hate America?

[pangaia]

58. YIKES, man.... WARN ME!!!!

I almost fell out of my chair...!!!!


LOL..

[beam me up scottie]

60. Sorry about that. Here, take this, it will make you feel better:

[ehrnst]

66. Well, the GOP managed to convince a huge number that Obama was socialist.

And he. along with the ACA, was anything but.

We're not the people who need to be convinced.

The vast majority of Americans who have health care, and will be easily convinced that they will pay more to cover those who are 'lazy' are.

[beam me up scottie]

68. So why are you trying to convince me that I shouldn't support single payer health care?

I'm on the right side of history here, as are the majority of our congresscritters.

I don't care who calls me a socialist, when it comes to human rights I'm impervious to right wing smears.

[ehrnst]

74. I'm saying that health policy experts say it's not as simple as you say it is.

And accusing anyone who says that as being "libertarians" "conservatives" or "shills for big insurance" is dogma, and incorrect.

I never called you a "socialist" and never said anything about "the right side of history."

Did you find a sale on straw men?

Or are you confusing me with someone else? The sheer amount of defensiveness that you greet facts that don't confirm your bias should give you pause.

[beam me up scottie]

78. When did I say it was simple? No one thinks this is simple or easy.

So you can put that straw man right back where he came from.

Same with the rest of the straw family "big pharma, shills for big insurance" etc, I'm not interested in arguing things I never said so stop inventing them.

One more time: when it comes to Medicare for All I agree with our Democrats in congress and you don't. That doesn't make me wrong, it just means you disagree.

We're done here.

You have a nice day.

[ehrnst]

79. You seem to think that because a "majority of Democratic Reps" and "the Public"

"finally agree with you" that now is the time.

And yes, you did say this: "I don't trust pepole who think progress is a bad word, I also don't trust people who keep telling me that we shouldn't even try because it's just too hard. "

So yes, you did sort of disagree with people on how "easy" or "hard."it would be. Ya think? Look, I get that in the heat of the moment, you just lash out and contradict the person who pointed out the problem in what you actually said, but you should at least search the thread to review what you actually said.

And I showed you that health policy experts state that it's not the only way to get to universal health care coverage, and even Bernie says that it's not possible now. (read the links I posted before you reply...) Also there's this: "[Sanders has] said many times over the last six months that we need to move toward a Medicare-for-all system, but in the short-term we should improve the ACA with a public option and by lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 55."

Even Bernie got over being angry with Planned Parenthood and dismissing them as "an establishment" organization, as his speaking at one of their rallies in June showed. So evolution even among experts is possible.

I will defer to politically neutral health policy experts on universal health care coverage, like I do climate scientists on climate change, and public health experts on the role Planned Parenthood has on reducing abortions.

That doesn't make me wrong, it just means you disagree.


You have a nice day.

[beam me up scottie]

85. Why do you keep bringing up Bernie? This isn't just his fight.

I get that it's easier to dismiss Medicare for All by associating it with Bernie but it's silly to pretend he's the only one who supports it when so many other well informed and respected legislators also agree with him.

Like John Conyers who keeps doggedly introducing the bill year after year, or the many many Democrats in Congress who recently signed it:

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/HR676

Funny how no one here seemed to oppose Medicare for All every other year it was introduced. Why is it suddenly verboten to consider this bill? Why the need to shout down anyone who supports it and pretend they're naive for doing so? I find all of the recent anger about single payer a little strange.

If your 'experts' disagree they can bring up their concerns during hearings, why shut it down before they can even make their case? Why not let our lawmakers figure it out?

I stand with John Conyers and the 103 other representatives who cosponsored his bill.

[ehrnst]

88. Oh - I guess you weren't done.

Well, last I heard Bernie was given all due for Single Payer being on the table. Look for yourself:

https://www.google.com/search?q=single+payer+bill+2017&oq=single+payer+bill+2017&gs_l=psy-ab.12...6567.6567.0.8102.1.1.0.0.0.0.71.71.1.1.0.foo%2Cewh%3D0%2Cnso-enksa%3D0%2Cnso-enfk%3D0...0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0.jCqHdV-lQ3k

So now you are saying that because many politicians are behind it, it's valid.

Since you brought it up:

"Funny how no one seemed to oppose Medicare for All every other year it was introduced."

Can you show me the overwhelming support that it got?

http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Monitor#overallstatus

"Why is it suddenly verboten to consider this bill?"

Um...haven't you been saying that "a majority of Dems support it?"

"Why the need to shout down anyone who supports it and pretend they're naive for doing so?

I simply refuted many of the claims you made as to why it's "popular" (but you don't care what the public thinks)

When you shouted, "Doctors want it!" I refuted that all doctors do, and pointed out that they are not health care policy analysts, who are the ones who have the expertise in health policy.

"I find all of the anger about single payer a little strange." The anger seems to be concentrated in your posts, especially when you are calmly shown the contradictions or lack of information on the topic.

"I stand with John Conyers and the 103 other representatives who cosponsored his bill."

I stand with neutral health policy analysts who have analyzed the data, and whose jobs don't depend on pleasing constituents, just as I stand with the CBO over the GOP when the CBO states the numbers of people who will lose health care coverage on the GOP bill....

I think the anger on the topic comes from you, because someone is refuting your statements. Don't project that on me.

I get enough of that when I quote the CBO findings to conservative family members who are all on board with Repeal and Replace.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Read the bill for yourself and see who consigned it, that's why I provided a link.

Here's a helpful article that may clear up what I meant when I said a majority of Dems in Congress support it:

Why So Many Democrats Are Embracing Single-Payer Health Care
Vocal support for universal coverage is on the rise among Democrats in Congress, though the party is far from united on the issue.

Since losing the White House last year, a growing number of Democrats in Congress have embraced the idea of universal, single-payer health care, setting up an inevitable confrontation between the liberal and centrist wings of the party over its future.

Emboldened by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat, and the Republican effort to dismantle former President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law, progressive lawmakers and activists are trying to move single payer into the party mainstream. There are signs the idea is winning traction: For the first time ever, a majority of House Democrats have signed up to support “Medicare for all” single-payer legislation, a threshold crossed in the aftermath of the presidential election. A number of influential Senate Democrats have also expressed support for single payer in the midst of the current Republican health-care push, which is now in doubt as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pushes for an Obamacare repeal vote.

“If you’re serious about real health-care reform, it has got to be on the agenda, and I would hope that as many Democrats as possible support it,” Senator Bernie Sanders said in a recent interview after a rally against the GOP health-care bill in Kentucky, where he promised that “as soon as we defeat this terrible Republican proposal,” he would introduce his own Medicare-for-all legislation. “It’s going to be a tough fight,” Sanders said, “but it is a fight that has to be waged, because it is the only rational solution to the health-care crisis that we face.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/healthcare-congress-bernie-sanders-single-payer-obamacare/533595/

Note the bolded and underlined text.

And what?

whose jobs don't depend on pleasing constituents

It's interesting that you're able to casually dismiss John Conyers' efforts to introduce single payer as simply "pleasing constituents" but I give him much more credit than that.

He's only human of course so you could be right about his motivation but I've never seen any indication that it's a publicity stunt to curry favour. I tend to think when a congressman fights for something year after year against all odds it's a good indication that he's doing it for a reason other than getting reelected.

And as usual, your mileage may vary.

So unless you can come up with a more compelling reason why I shouldn't support this bill and our Democrats in Congress who sponsored it I'm done. I've proven that this is no longer a pipe dream by fringe leftists. It's not perfect but it deserves to be debated in the House and Senate, not dismissed as a stunt. I've got horses to feed and I've spent way too much time defending single payer. Some people will never get behind it for whatever reason, there will always be an excuse to keep the profit in health care and I remain optimistic that we can get it passed anyway.

People who oppose abortion will never support my right to choose and those who oppose civil rights will never get behind any civil rights legislation. Conservatives and libertarians can't be reached but we don't need them to agree with us in order to make progress and give everyone health care. Let them whine.

[ehrnst]

103. I did read the bill.

It's incomplete in terms of policy details, and is meant to be a start of a discussion, and not an actual roadmap. I'm sure that it's been tweaked somewhat over the years, but not in the service of it someday being enacted.

115 supporters isn't enough to get it to pass - and even if it had every single Dem vote, it would not pass, any more than Repeal and Replace had during the Obama administration. I believe that many who have signed on recently are doing so for the same reason that the GOP reps did on repeal and replace - it rallies the base against the other party.

My statement about politicians vs experts was not aimed at Conyers. It was pointing out the different obligations to facts and data that politicians and scientists have.

I've talked to many who think that politicians know as much or more than the medical community about women's health, because those politicians are making statements that confirm their own bias - and many of those politicians actually believe that they do. They don't think of putting obstacles in the way of women is a stunt, either, and simply refuse to listen to actual, non-partisan experts and call them corrupt, and "baby haters."

They, too, wait for a compelling reason why they shouldn't continue to support any politician that promises that once Roe v.Wade is reversed, and Planned Parenthood legislated out of existence, is all it will take to stop abortions. They think some people will never get behind it for whatever reason, and there will always be a profit in "killing babies and selling their body parts" and they remain optimistic that it will happen anyway.



(No, I'm not comparing single payer to anti-choice legislation. I'm pointing out the similarities of the dogmatic thinking of supporters of both, when presented with the idea that they don't have all the facts, and that the facts might not support what they are holding onto as an article of faith, and a litmus test for their representatives.)

[lapucelle]

104. Conyers has introduced this bill every year for the past 15 years,

so he is not new to this fight.

Conyers initially had robust co-sponsorship for the bill; This year's number of 115 co-sponsors represents a majority of the Democratic house caucus. You can follow the ebb and flow of co-sponsorship by looking up HR 376 in the 108th through the 115th Congresses.

Both McDermott and Sanders were co-sponsors of the original bill. (McDermott was an original co-sponsor; Sanders signed on about a year later.) Whether or not either man would be will to get behind the Conyers bill remains to be seen.

McDermott introduced the American Health Security Act (HR 1200) for the first time in 1993; Conyers was a co-sponsor, as was Sanders, and it had a total of 90 co-sponsors. McDermott has introduced that same bill in every Congress since, except for this year.

Sanders introduced a companion bill (S 915) to McDemott's HR 1200 for the first and only time in 112th Congress (2011-2012). There is talk that they will re-introduce the measures after the recess. I think it's a mistake to think that wide-spread Democratic support for medicare for all is something new. I took Schumer's recent remarks as a signal that he looking towards a Senate version of Conyers bill.

Whether or not single payer/medicare for all is the best vehicle for delivering universal health care/health insurance is a valid point for discussion. I don't see any reason why a debate on this should be unwelcome.

I removed the link because it redirects to a different page. To search the legislative history of either HR 376 or HR 1200, go to congress.gov, select "all legislation" and type the bill number into the search box.

[ehrnst]

105. When something becomes dogma, debate becomes unwelcome and often impossible

See also:

"The liberal lie of man-made climate change is just an attempt to undermine capitalism."

"Planned Parenthood makes a fortune encouraging women to get abortions, they are the biggest abortion provider and if we just get rid of them, abortions will stop."

"If it wasn't for globalization, we would still have all the high paying manufacturing jobs we had in the 1950s. Stopping trade will bring them back."

"Illegal immigrants are living off the government, and keeping them out will save us huge amounts of money on public assistance "

"Vaccines are dangerous, and big pharma has paid the medical industry off to keep on pushing them, and hide the injuries."

"Islam is a religion of hate and violence."

[lapucelle]

107. There does seem to be a bandwagon effect

concerning the new magic buzzterm "single payer", and it isn't particularly helpful when some of its more recent proponants conflate and confuse it with universal coverage.

Many people, however, would not have a problem concerning a robust policy debate on the best way to deliver universal health care.

[ehrnst]

108. Yep - I certainly don't have a problem with debate on universal health care coverage or single payer

I just prefer that facts and data lead, and everyone is clear on terminology.

Universal health care coverage is what we all are looking to achieve.

The method is secondary in importance, and single payer should not end the discussion.