By John Sparks
This morning, in spite of strong support from health care advocates like Public Citizen, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) agreed to withdraw his single-payer health care amendment from consideration as the House approaches a floor vote on the major health care package supported by the Democratic leadership and President Obama.
This news may not surprise many who believed single-payer to be dead on arrival in today’s healthcare reform debate. But even political insiders were stunned by the resurrection of the possibility of a single-payer vote. Over the past week, activists across the country and the coalition of pro-single-payer organizations in Washington got behind Weiner’s campaign to offer an amendment and forced the leadership to seriously reconsider a floor vote.
Weiner acknowledged that last-minute developments caused him to make the difficult decision to withdraw the proposal. The chief reasons stemmed from pressure on the leadership from some members to include other amendments, such as further restrictions on coverage for abortion and undocumented immigrants. Also, it appears that some House members with tough re-election campaigns ahead feared that a forced vote on single payer would hurt them as they try to balance constituent pressures for various reform approaches. But ultimately, the greatest concern was that a vote on a single-payer amendment might undermine the carefully cobbled support for the compromise reform bill.
But wait, there is still another single-payer possibility in play.
An amendment by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) to allow states to set up their own single-payer systems could still make it into the health care package. The amendment was approved in an earlier committee version of the health care bill, but was stripped out of the final compromise going to the floor. Public Citizen and other organizations continue to support restoration of the Kucinich to the final bill.
Today, Public Citizen President Robert Weissman wrote to Speaker Pelosi:
States, however, may wish to choose a different course, and to implement single payer. There is no legitimate reason why they should be denied the opportunity to adopt good public health and good fiscal policy. The Kucinich amendment aims to provide the opportunity, by waiving certain ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] requirements that impede state single-payer action. We strongly urge you include the Kucinich amendment in the manager’s amendment.
Also, we’ll stand behind Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) when he offers his single-payer proposal in the Senate.
But with regard to Weiner’s fight for Medicare-for-all, Speaker Pelosi had this to say:
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.
We couldn’t agree more.
John Sparks is a health care lobbyist for Public Citizen.
Kucinich is right on track with this amendment. Single payer at the federal level doesn’t work, because of too much corporate influence and little flexibility in coverage options.
Allowing states to experiment with what works for them is a good idea.
By the way, I was hoping you’d have an action here for support of this ….
I believe that the only way to get fairness in the health delivery system is through a single payor bill.
Single payor would get rid of the leaches on society, namely big health care insurance and big pharma. It could deliver care to vertually all residents of the USA. Our physicans would not only be helped through medical school but could make a decent livelihood as primary care practice.
I believe that our health care would be improved substantially. The addition of Dental Care would also improve the general health of our population
Paul Savoie 72 years old with adequate health car but concerned about my fellows.
o s!
I cannot believe it!
What will all the other states do, without a state plan!
Do Obama and Pelosi (and all the rest who are disregarding the directions given by their constituents) have any moral fiber, or what is going on?
This toatlly stumps me. Where do we go from here? What do we do when the governing body actions are so out of sinc with “We, the People”? Haven’t we given a mandate that is clear enough?
Lately, I’m feeling more and more disenchanted with our Capitalistic form of government. I think a Democracy is what I want, but it doesn’ seem to be what we’ve got.
wdwgfh? Any ideas? lsr
Lillian what are you talking about?
The Wiener Amendment would only garner about 1/2 of the House Dem vote because all the small state reps would have voted it down, claiming it would hurt their rural constituents.
T.R Reid has said and Dennis Kuninich has also said that the only way to get Single Payer Nationwide is to show that it could be done -
California for the 3rd time will bring a Single Payer Law to The Governator’s deck, he’s vetoed it twice before. But with 2010 being a election year, he might sign it to help moderate Meg Whitman in her race for the GOP seat.
If not we can get Jerry Brown to make it one of his campaign promises and delay voting it in, once he’s in office.
I just think that it would be the most practical from a grass roots point of view.
It’s easy to just chalk up the resistance to being bought and payed for but I do not think that is the whole reason.
There is still a lot of resistance among Democrats as well as republicans from various states to anything that looks like Washington intrusion on their turf. The States rights thing is still very strong in a number areas.
Also making a case that is strong on a state level might be easier. A selling point as it were.
Just a thought.
Unless insurance covers every citizen and resident, the gap between the sick and health or the poor and the rich, then the critical economic crisis can’t be solved.
Any types of insurance coverage for citizens and residents is OK if they serve for all!
A Japanese physical therapist who has over 28 year experience keeps an opinion below, living in MA:
Unless every citizen or resident is covered at least by health insurance, the gap between the sick and the Health, and so that between the poor and the rich, increase in these economic recession. In Western Europe, Nordic, or Japan where health insurance is mainly national, services cover every resident and cost-effective.
In Japan, for example, under 8 % of GDP is enough to distribute services depending on the clients’ need. Do you know how many % of GDP we spend, and for the limited number of patients and clients in the U.S.?