The problem is not that Single Payer *won't* pass, it's that it *might* pass

[jgraz]

Which is why this Congress and this administration will never allow a vote on Single Payer.

Medicare for All is simple, easy to explain and absolutely impossible to refute with any rational argument. An honest, good-faith Single Payer bill would have a hard time *not* passing Congress, unless some Dems wanted to go on the record as voting against the clear interests of their constituencies. If we'd actually had an extended debate on the subject, you'd have seen an outpouring of support from the progressive base that would make the 9/12 protests look like a .. um.. tea party.

Right now, with a new, popular president and a peaking of the disgust with Republicans and health insurance companies, we had a rare opportunity to enact something truly transformative for this country. That's why everyone in D.C. has worked so hard to keep this debate "off the table."


At this point it's probably too late to get real healthcare reform, but we should not forget this lesson. Next year, when Obama and Geithner and Summers put forward their weak, Wall-Street-coddling, guaranteed-to-crash-again financial reform, we need to be prepared. We need to have alternative legislation ready and we need to demand an honest debate and an up-or-down vote.

No more of this "it won't pass Congress" B.S. Even a losing vote on real reform is a win, as it will determine -- clearly and on-the-record -- who's with us and who's against us.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Bingo!!!!!!

[glitch]

26. +brazillion. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

2. I disagree.

It would never get a majority of Senators (50 +1). There are enough conservatidems to keep it from passing because they serve conservative states where the electorate would kick them out if they did. I don't think it would be a slam dunk even in the house. The Health Insurance industry gives out way to much money to way to many people for it to pass.

It is not that the Americn people don't want it. But there are enough conservatrives or compromised members to keep it from passing.

The only way to single payer is to sneak up on it with a public option that can be modified over time.

[blindpig]

3. Do it anyway

Make them show themselves the enemies of the American people.

k&r

[jgraz]

4. Exactly. The "we can never win" canard lets the corporatists keep hiding.

It's time we started exposing these bastards.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. As I recall, Kucinich and Anthony Weiner did try to get such an ammendment and failed.

There is not will in the house and the Senate to do such a thing.

I think they should, but I am realistic enough to know that it won't happen because neither the House or the Senate will pass such a bill.

[jgraz]

8. It was stripped by the Dem leadership

There was never a vote on it. We need to demand on-the-record votes on these issues. NO MORE HIDING.

[slipslidingaway]

15. The Kucinich amendment was voted on in comittee and passed....

Weiner withdrew his amendment in committee because he was promised a debate and vote on the House floor instead.

After the Kucinich amendment the Dems stripped it from the final bill...real nice.

:mad:

And the debate, score on the Weiner amendment appears to be MIA.

If you want to talk about failure, look to the Dem leadership who are ignoring many in the country.


The Kucinich amendment...I forget the final numbers, several Republicans voted for the amendment...maybe just to piss off the Dems.

Ayes won!!! In edit - voice vote - there could be a recorded vote later.
Edited on Fri Jul-17-09 01:17 AM by slipslidingaway

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6086014&mesg_id=6086094

[slipslidingaway]

27. Kucinich tried and succeeded, til the Dem leaders in the House stripped the...

amendment from the final bill.

here are the votes for the Kucinich amendment in committee...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/slipslidingaway/171

"Democrats
* George Miller, Chairman (CA-07) N
* Dale E. Kildee (MI-05) N
* Donald M. Payne (NJ-10) PASS, Y
* Robert E. Andrews (NJ-01) N
* Robert C. Scott (VA-03) --, Y
* Lynn C. Woolsey (CA-06) Y
* Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15) N
* Carolyn McCarthy (NY-04) N
* John F. Tierney (MA-06) --, --, Y
* Dennis J. Kucinich (OH-10) Y
* David Wu (OR-01) PASS, PASS
* Rush D. Holt (NJ-12) Y
* Susan A. Davis (CA-53) PASS, N
* Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07) Y
* Timothy H. Bishop (NY-01) N
* Joe Sestak (PA-07) N
* Dave Loebsack (IA-02) Y
* Mazie Hirono (HI-02) PASS, N
* Jason Altmire (PA-04) N
* Phil Hare (IL-17) N
* Yvette Clarke (NY-11) --, --
* Joe Courtney (CT-02) N
* Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) --, Y
* Marcia Fudge (OH-11) Y
* Jared Polis (CO-2) PASS, Y
* Paul Tonko (NY-21) --, --, Y
* Pedro Pierluisi (PR) --, --
* Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (Northern Mariana Islands) N
* Dina Titus (NV-3) N
* Judy Chu PASS, PASS,


UPDATE: final vote tally was 27, 19, 2. We picked up Wu (who switched his pass vote) and Clarke (who showed up late but has been consistent in her support)..."

[JackRiddler]

33. Look at all those Democrats voting against it in committee...

no wonder they don't want a floor vote. It will expose how many of "our" own bastards are in the pocket of the insurance company lobbyists.

[blindpig]

In that case

The Senate and the House are the enemies of the American people.

That is realism.

[blindpig]

42. In that case

The Senate and the House are the enemies of the American people.

That is realism.

[Jkid]

5. And risking more people dying because of being uninsured or underinsured

There's a risk that these Blue Dogs will keep the weak public option as it is, designed to fail, so they can prove that the "free-market" works

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Yes, a weak public option is not even the best public option.

But it may be the only thing that will pass with this congress.

A weak public option can be improved over time. If no public option at all appears in the bill, nothing will have changed at all.

[jgraz]

9. Once again, if you accept defeat before you start, you'll always lose.

And that's what happened this time. We lost.

[Ozymanithrax]

10. But this is not before we start.

It is the eighth month, at least, into the debate. Amendments for this have been offered and defeated. It is not going to happen. Hell, it wasn't going to happen in April, or even January.

All or nothing thinking often gets us nothing.

Incremental change can and does work for us.

It is easier to polish a turd than wish a diamond out of thin air. A turd serves as fertilizer that something better can grow from.

[jgraz]

11. No, this amendment has not been "offered and defeated"

It's been stripped out without comment or debate. Do you see the difference?

[slipslidingaway]

21. Incremental change is what was said in the 60's when they did HC for seniors. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

22. And they passed it, and it is still there, one of hte most successful programs in history.

And it has improved over the years.

Schip was incremental change, which has improved.

[slipslidingaway]

23. I mean that was the first step to a national plan, 45 years later they still want ...

to keep the for profit companies in the mix.

[Libertas1776]

12. Glad you made this into its own post

You're 100% right. The powers that be will never allow single payer, Medicare for all, or what have you to pass because they know it will be popular. That is exactly the same reason why they don't say boo about Medicare because it would be political suicide to do so. That is why Raygun had to lie and say he was never against Medicare during the '80 election, even though he was vehemently opposed to it when it was proposed 20 years prior.

[jgraz]

13. Somehow, we need to elect real leaders instead of stealth corporatists

One way to do it is to demand votes on these issues.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Big K&R - they are afraid the people might demand a national plan...

for everyone. In surveys and polls going back to at least the late 1980's, over half the people said they wanted a national system, but the Dems came up with a different plan under Clinton and now under Obama.

As Conyers said in a speech back in September, Clinton called SP supporters to the WH and asked them to not push for their preferred plan, they acquiesced. This time Obama and the Dem leadership just ignored them from the start...Conyers was not even invited to the WH summit, he received a last minute invitation.

:(

Links to poll...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6847370&mesg_id=6851408

65% want a universal health care system for everyone...
so what the hell happened ... they switched the message and sold us on the idea of a public option, a uniquely American solution.


Uniquely American Solution - What is it ? Why is it being pushed?
Posted by slipslidingaway in General Discussion
Wed Aug 12th 2009, 07:12 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6289091&mesg_id=6289091

Is the goal of the "uniquely American solution" to keep the private health care companies in business and protect their profits? It is not just the Democrats that are using the phrase, Karen Ignagni of AHIP wrote an article in April.

snip>>

"...Similar strong support for Medicare for All was found the last time health reform was on the top of the nation’s agenda, during the Clinton administration. In 1993, a citizen jury sat for 8 hours a day for five days in Washington, DC before making their choice among the then-leading options for health reform: managed competition (supported by Clinton), medical savings accounts, and single payer. Single payer received 17 out of 24 votes (70 percent). There were 5 votes for Clinton’s plan, and none for medical savings accounts. Focus groups conducted that year by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake reported the same strong support for single payer. “After conducting extensive focus groups on health care, pollster Celinda Lake discovered that the more people are told about the Canadian system, “the higher the support goes.” In contrast, according to Lake, working Americans found the managed competition idea “laughable.” (“It’s Time for a Real Debate on National Health Insurance”)

So, how come Democratic pollster Celinda Lake now claims Americans won’t support single payer, and instead favor a plan that is a variant of managed competition? Because her latest research was brazenly biased. Kip Sullivan explains how and why..."

[jgraz]

16. Yep, the fix was in from the start

Of course, anyone who noticed was met with cries of "PONY!" and "CHESS!" and "BETTER THAN BUSH!!!!"

[slipslidingaway]

19. Came across this not too long ago, fix was in by late 2007 at a minimum...

Posted on January 2, 2008
Where are we on reform? Part 2 (Hacker)

Health Reform Lessons from the Past
Jacob Hacker, PhD
National Conference on the Un and Underinsured
December 12, 2007 (Day 3)

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/january/where_are_we_on_refo.php

"...Comment:
By Don McCanne, MD

The final Quote of the Day for 2007 discussed the disconnect between a new poll indicating strong support (65%) for “a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers,” and a rapidly growing movement within the progressive community to support a model based on allowing you to keep the insurance you have.

...Jacob Hacker has described very accurately the politics of health care reform. He has suggested an approach that, on surface, would appear to lead to affordable coverage for everyone, while passing the crucial test of political feasibility. His political message is very sound - in fact, so sound that the leading Democratic candidates have adopted his suggestions. He has stressed the importance of coalition building well in advance of the installation of a new government one year from now.

So what coalition activities are we seeing within the progressive community? Many respected, influential leaders state that it is time to set aside the policy debate and proceed with a political strategy that will achieve our reform goals. There is one major problem with this approach: most of the difficult policy issues have yet to be addressed. But several of these coalition leaders have told the policy community quite bluntly that the policy debate is over, and all of the activities now must be about unity. We are commanded to unify behind health care reform that promises that you can keep the insurance you have or have the option to buy into a public program.

That’s it. That’s the policy behind which we are to unify. For the sake of unity, we are not to talk about the inability of the private insurance industry to provide us with affordable health plans that are comprehensive enough to meet our health care needs. We are not to talk about a public insurance program that must provide a premium that is competitive with private plans insuring the healthy, when the public plan is weighted down with high-cost patients (adverse selection).

....Those who insist on unity behind political means while suppressing clarity about policy ends will not be successful in coalition building, and clearly that is not Jacob Hacker’s intent. Those of us who insist on clarity about policy ends will be there to be certain that efforts to compromise on means will be an honest, transparent, and fully informed process."


****Contrast that with Dr. McCanne's statement in early January 2007 when the Jacob Hacker plan was first revealed, when SP advocates thought they would have a seat at the table.

So sometime between January 2007 and the end of 2007 the fix was in ...someone decided it would be too dangerous to allow not for profit advocates a seat in the discussions.

:(

Here is what Dr. McCanne of PNHP said in January 2007...

This is good link, it goes through a year of the public option as it was marketed to the campaigns ... and then they sold it to us.

page 10
http://www.ourfuture.org/files/documents/evolution-of-the-healthcare-debate.pdf

“Jacob Hacker’s proposal is a very welcome addition at a time that all options should be on the table. It is such a compelling model that it may shove all others off of the table - except single payer - then we can get down to a serious discussion about reform that really works.”

[slipslidingaway]

20. Many have said SP advocates want it their way or no way, but that is not true...

they wanted to be in the discussions as was promised during the campaign.

[Cleita]

17. Exactly, so this is why they won't even allow it to be debated in any

meaningful way. It would win hands down because the workability of the plan has been proven not only in other countries but with our Medicare program.

[jgraz]

18. The idea is too dangerous

If it was a dumb idea, you can bet that they'd debate it from now until next year. Unless it was really, really dumb -- then it would have "bipartisan" support.

[Odin2005]

24. And you know this how?

[jgraz]

25. I'm having a secret affair with Michelle Obama.

[LSK]

28. I dont get it, why is Obama and Pelosi scared it will actually pass???

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

29. Not only will it not pass, it won't even come close to passing.

I doubt even a majority of the Democratic caucus will vote for it. I almost wish they would allow a vote on it so people like you can be proven wrong once and for all.

[jgraz]

35. And you'd be doing a little touchdown dance if it failed, wouldn't you?

There seem to be a lot of people on this board who are invested in the corporatist mentality. I almost wish they would allow a vote on it so "people like you" can be identified and kicked out of Congress.

[debbierlus]

30. Damn - I accidentally unrecommened when I wanted to recommend

Plus 1

Sorry!

[dionysus]

31. no, it wouldn't. how do you not understand; blue dogs + lieberdouche = no single payer

i don't know how you guys can't understand this. yes, single payer would be the best plan, but no, there is nowhere near enough votes for it.

[jgraz]

34. No vote == cowards hiding.

We can lose 30 votes in the House and still pass the bill. We can pass a bill with 50 Senators (+ Biden). None of this hiding behind the filibuster bullshit.

There's no excuse to not have a real debate and a roll call vote on this.

[dionysus]

37. how do you get around cloture is my question

[jgraz]

38. Reconciliation

Cloture isn't written into the Constitution. There are any number of means for the Senate majority to force through legislation -- just like the Pukes did under *.

[dionysus]

39. from what i read certain parts of the bill aren't eligible for cloturwe, only some of the measures.

[jgraz]

41. I haven't seen that. But there's no reason a 60-strong caucus should have to worry about cloture

If you can't get cloture on this vote, you don't really have a 60-strong caucus, do you?

[jgraz]

40. And threaten to kick any Dem who filibusters out of the caucus

And mean it.

[noiretextatique]

32. i agree....it would be great to have a vote so the democratic cowards

and republicons would be on record opposing the will of the majority of people in this country.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

36. K&R