How Obama Could Pass A Single Payer Bill: John Marty, Democratic candidate for Governor of Minnesota

[Better Believe It]

Single Payer Solution for Obama
by Minnesota Senator John Marty
February 2, 2010

John Marty is a state Senator from Minnesota, who is currently a Democratic candidate for governor. John currently chairs the Minnesota Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee. He is author of the Minnesota Health Plan, a bold single-payer health plan that would cover all Minnesotans for all their medical needs, including mental health and chemical dependency. He has been successful in gaining the support of one-third of the state's legislature as co-authors.

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

"If anyone...has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know."
-- President Obama, State of the Union

An open letter in response to President Obama's State of the Union request for a better approach to health care reform:

January 27, 2010

Dear President Obama,

During your State of the Union address, you explained why you are fighting for health care reform, expressed frustration at the lack of success, and invited others to suggest a better approach.

I'm taking you up on that invitation and offer a bold suggestion:

Take a look at our Minnesota Health Plan -- a proposal that covers everyone, saves money, and creates a logical health care system to replace the dysfunctional non-system which currently exists. It is a proposal that would provide health care to everyone, not merely health insurance for many. Our MN Health Plan (mnhealthplan.org) could be readily adapted as a nation-wide plan. It would meet each of the five requirements you mentioned in your State of the Union request:

Bring Down Premiums. Most Americans would see a big reduction in premiums because the plan would be significantly cheaper than our current health care non-system. Because the premiums for the MHP would be based on ability to pay, everyone's premiums would be affordable. Some would pay more, but overall, costs would go down. Most people would save money, while getting the care they need and deserve. The total costs for the plan would be less than we now are paying for premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and taxes for medical programs.

Bring Down the Deficit. By keeping people healthier and by delivering quality health care efficiently, it would save hundreds of billions of dollars for the federal government, and even more for states. For example, by covering chemical dependency treatment and providing comprehensive mental health services, it would cut crime and human service costs (such as out-of-home placement of children), some of the biggest and fastest growing expenses facing state and local governments.

Cover the Uninsured. It would cover the uninsured and the under-insured. In fact it would cover everyone -- 100% of the public.

Strengthen Medicare for Seniors (and everyone else). It would cover prescription drugs -- with no "doughnut hole." It would cover long term care, in-home care, dental, eye care, physical therapy, and medical supplies -- it would cover all medical needs. And, they would have their choice of doctor, hospital, clinic, dentist -- complete freedom to choose their medical providers.

Stop Insurance Company Abuses. There would be no "pre-existing conditions" to worry about, no underwriting, no denials of coverage, no "out of network" problems. I like to use the analogy of police and fire protection. When you return home to find a burglary in process and call 911, the police dispatcher does not ask if you qualify. They do not ask if you have police insurance. They do not ask whether your policy covers home burglary. They don't ask if you have pre-existing conditions that would disqualify you. They don't waste time and money having you fill out forms so your insurance company can be billed. The police response does not depend on your insurance status. Everyone is treated equally. It's the American way. It is time to treat health care the same way.

As a 23 year member of the Minnesota Senate, let me comment briefly on the politics of this proposal:

The MHP is a single payer proposal. You have acknowledged that single payer is the only way to cover everyone. Seven years ago you said that single payer health care is "what I'd like to see. But... we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." Now that we have taken back the White House and the Congress, it is time to act.

I recognize, as you do, that you do not have the votes to pass truly universal health care at this time. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries contribute so much to members of Congress -- they control the debate -- so health care for everyone isn't even on the table.

This, however, is your opportunity for leadership. If you propose and fight for health care for all, as FDR did with Social Security in 1935, the voters would respond. If you don't win this year, ask the American people to elect candidates who will stand with you. Make it the issue of the campaign: Health Care for All vs. Health Insurance for Some. Instead of losing Democratic members of Congress this year -- as Massachusetts illustrates -- you would gain votes and could actually pass the bill next year.

Dr. Martin Luther King stated, "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."

Almost a half century later, we still have not addressed the injustice in health care that Dr. King described as the most inhumane. Ignoring this injustice is immoral and it is economically unsustainable. People are hurting, some are literally dying, businesses are folding, and it is crushing our national economy.

Please, restore the Hope that you raised in all of us, bring back the inspiration that made the American people so excited by your inauguration. I urge you to step back, reconsider, introduce a health care plan that is truly universal, and fight for it.

Justice requires no less.

Respectfully,

John Marty

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/02-3

[yurbud]

1. can this guy run for president?

[wolfgangmo]

50. He could, but not yet.

He is a great state senator. I met with him about 2 years ago while pushing to pass a bill in the MN legislature and he was very helpful. He's a good man and one of many good populist progressive candidates for governor.

In a straw poll recently he was in the top 3 in the state in the race to replace Good'n Pawlenty.

[gkhouston]

2. K&R. Minnesota DUers -- what has your experience been with healthcare? n/t

[dflprincess]

47. The same as everyone else

this bill is not law yet.

Marty also had a very good commentary in the Minneapolis Star Tribune a couple months ago titled "Pragmatism Makes Bad Policy"

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/78561822.html?elr=KArksc8P <img src=

If 21st-century progressives had led the 19th century's abolition movement, we'd still have slavery. But we'd have limited slaves to 40-hour workweeks, and we'd be proud of the progress we'd made….

…This timidity can be explained by decades of defeat at the hands of right-wing politicians like Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove, which caused many progressives to retreat from a politics of principle to a supposed politics of pragmatism -- which is not only lacking in courage, but also has proven highly ineffective.

..But with the current politics of misguided pragmatism, some progressives calculate what is politically acceptable, and then determine what they will stand for. For example, using this "pragmatism," President Obama decided to push for health insurance for more instead of health care for all.

One cannot totally fault the president for failing to push for comprehensive reform. He shied away from principle-based reform because he knows that members of Congress working on health reform take big campaign contributions from the health insurance lobby and other powerful interests. He knows that they are afraid of nasty campaign attacks and believe they need the big money to win reelection….

…It's time for progressives to have the courage of our convictions. If we claim to believe in universal health care, we need to fight for it. The Minnesota Health Plan -- which covers everyone for all their medical needs, and costs less than we are spending now -- is on the table. Those who are not willing to take on the powerful insurance lobby, ought to be honest and admit that reelection and other priorities matter more.

Refusing to fight for what's right because it is "not politically realistic" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Likewise, dismissing it as something that will take decades to pass means leaving the problem to the next generation.

[wolfgangmo]

51. The MN experience is pretty much the same as everyones.

And speaking as a minnesotan I would like to apologies for HMO's. MN, along with Kaiser Wilhelm, er, Permanente were responsible for giving the medical gift that keeps on denying to America.

[jwirr]

68. Yes, and as a person who lived in the community where it all started

the HMO we had for over 50 years was a non-profit HMO. It may no longer be working but it worked for us long before Bill Clinton. As to my experience with Health Care. Several of my family have what is called MNCare. This is the government run health care program for those who cannot get affordable health care from the private sector. It is very similar to Medicaid and Medicare. The cost is by income scale and my family does not pay more than $50 a month. All Minnesotans do not qualify because we have usually not appropriated enough money for all.

My daughter is severely disabled and is on Medicare/Medicaid who contract with private insurance companies (as does MNCare) for coverage. I do not like this as well as when it was straight out Medicaid/Medicare. We are getting pushed around by insurance companies that continually want to raise the premium more than M/M is willing to pay. As to what is covered all these programs cover almost everything with some things having to be pre-approved. We also pay copays up to $20 a month.

I cannot complain about our health care because this state has helped me save my daughter's life and given her the best possible life she could hope for.

As to buying insurance yourself or being covered by a business, I cannot answer that.

[Better Believe It]

3. Senator Marty Video on Healthcare

Minnesota State Senator John Marty


You can see a youtube video of Senator Marty speaking on health care at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsWyfs3edzM&feature=player_embedded

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. k and r #5

[liberal_at_heart]

5. Now that's a democrat I could support

[wolfgangmo]

52. That's a democrat I do support.

Where's that checkbook? I need to write another check.

[slipslidingaway]

6. #5 - again n/t

[geardaddy]

7. I'm caucusing for him tonight.

:thumbsup:

[quiet.american]

8. I'm glad to see he understands the votes are not there for this, as it stands now.

Yes, Marty makes perfect sense with his arguments for single payer.

Yet, he asks the president to take a huge gamble -- to essentially stop forward momentum on the healthcare reform that's on the table now, start all over and advocate only for single-payer, and hope that voters of the kind that delivered Scott Brown the Clown a victory in MA will actually deliver a mid-term result where Democrats do not lose seats in the mid-terms, but actually gain them based on the president's advocacy of single-payer -- which we know the GOP echo chamber will go batpoop crazy characterizing as the end of civilization, next stop, re-education camps.

Big gamble.

[Better Believe It]

9. The alternative is to pass the Private Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act

[quiet.american]

12. Which also contains policy for states to create their own single-payer programs

Plus the Bernie Sanders amendment that gives billions in aid to states to create community health centers and that also provides debt forgiveness to medical students who choose primary care, gives the public access to two national plans (same as Congress gets) to be administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); etc., etc., -- you probably know the rest.

[Better Believe It]

18. The Senate bill can only be passed by the House in its original form, excluding the amendments.

That's the current understanding on the hill.

The Senate would first have to pass their original bill, once again, without amendments.

Than the House would have to vote on the Senate bill without amendments and also a Senate reconciliation bill that would include as of yet unspecified amendments.

[quiet.american]

20. Well and good if that's the case as to how it comes to be passed - here's my point though --

Marty asks Obama to take the gamble that with Democrats being very close to passing this legislation -- which also meets the president's criteria for healthcare reform -- Marty asks Obama to scrap it and completely start over with single-payer, which would really give the GOP something to feast off and make up every kind of outrageous claim over, could we combat that? -- yes, some of it, but we know how that goes -- then throw in everyone from the president to the Democratic Congress having to convince swing and Independent voters that single-payer healthcare reform is the way to go, with the road shows and talking head interviews and white papers and all the media ramp-up that entails -- and all during an election year, with roughly ten months to go. What we would also have in full view during an election year are all the inevitable internicine fights between Democratic lawmakers over single-payer, not only at the national level, but also the local level, with a most likely result of fracturing the Democratic Party during the mid-terms.

But, let's say we do increase our majorities during the mid-terms. What's to guarantee that the same 11 or 12 teeth-knashing senate "ConservaDems" who frothed at the mouth over a public option would actually vote for single-payer (they won't), putting us back in the same place again -- the same place of being short of the votes needed to pass single-payer. In order to avoid this, we would need to gain, I would think, about 12-15 Democratic Senate seats during the mid-term elections. Could it happen? Anything's possible, but to me, it's like saying, if I could just win the lotto, everything would fall into place.

And I don't really say that to be facetious. The problem with single-payer is how to make the math work to get it passed now (with now meaning this year).


edited for typos

[Better Believe It]

22. How will passing a health insurance industry sponsored bill opposed by the public help Democrats?

[quiet.american]

23. Real world results vs. misinformation will have an impact for the better.

If you no longer have to "pray to die" as a couple of Harry Reid's constituents wrote in to him, because your son who is seriously ill can now get insurance at a reasonable cost and you no longer have to agonize over what his lack of healthcare is doing to him and his family -- will you hate Democrats, or actually vote for them?

If you're a new mother, and the hospital now sends you a visiting nurse in the first days after you arrive home with your new baby (funds are in the bill for this), will you hate Democrats, or actually vote for them?

If your hospital stay is covered by the insurance company whereas it wasn't before (essential benefits package) why would you have an unfavorable view of Democrats?

If you have a heart attack and survive only by the grace of modern medicine, when you find out the costs for your treatment topped $50,000, but your maximum out-of-pocket is $5,000, could you send a little love the Democrats' way? (And yes, $5,000 is a lot for most people, but it's much more manageable than having to sell your house and go into bankruptcy).

[Better Believe It]

24. If this passes Medicare for All is dead for generations. How many people will die because of that?

[quiet.american]

25. More people will live w/passage of this bill, than without it.

Medicare-for-All out of the gate is not the only possible option that could help people. It cannot be denied there are items in the Senate bill that will improve healthcare for people and save lives, and Obama himself admitted there are things that were "snuck" into the Senate bill that are now being scrubbed to make the bill stronger.

And let's face it, politically, the Senate bill has a thousand percent more chance of being signed into law this year than single-payer. Given that there is a significant number of conservative Democrats, and zero number of liberal Republicans, observing this whole thing from the outside makes me conclude single-payer does not have the Senate support needed to pass, and really, that's the bottom line as to why it's not on the table. Even if Dems gain seats in the mid-terms, the number of seats needed to pass single-payer is a significant hurdle -- yes, it could happen, but... it's a huge gamble it will happen.

And quite honestly, I'd have to look twice at a candidate who is seriously offering this up right now as a viable solution. If he's running for governor, he must be politically savvy enough to know that while this may score him points on paper, doing this now would not work in the real world. If Obama took up Marty's suggestion hook, line and sinker today, the only thing that would be accomplished is the creation of division within the ranks during an election year, and a record of failed Dem attempts to pass either the Senate and House bills, or single-payer. When I think about how many seats would need to be gained to overcome the ConservaDems, it's a leap of faith for Marty to declare the votes would be there for single-payer. Thinking that the Democratic President and Congress are going to scrap everything and start all over with single-payer at this point in time is a pipe dream. And the question remains -- how do you get the ConservaDems to vote for it? Not all of them can be swept out this year by Democratic primary challengers, who then go on to win against their (R-Clown) opponents. It's another huge gamble to think that's going to happen.

Right now, the legislation that Dems are trying to pass meets Obama's criteria for reform *and* most importantly, has a political chance of passing this year. That's the hurdle single-payer advocates need to clear. How do you get the ConservaDems to vote for it.

[Better Believe It]

26. So if we don't support the health insurance industry they will kill us!

And how many people will die if the for-profit health insurance industry and big Pharma are allowed to run our health care system into the ground?

You seem to be saying the health insurance industry and big pharma are holding us hostage and that if we don't cave in to their demands by passing their legislation many of us will needlessly die!

Well, isn't that a big wonderful selling point!

If they adopt your talking point, the insurance industry could run TV commercials claiming that passing their health insurance bill "is a matter of life or death". Do you think that would help them turn around public opinion? I don't think so. I believe the general public is smarter than that.

Do you think really think we should just surrender and hand over total control of this government and its institutions to Wall Street and corporate America because some of us will die if we don't?

[quiet.american]

27. No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Not at all.

Here's what I'm saying:

All of the advocating for single-payer I've read has one thing in common -- it ignores the actual reforms written into the current legislation and also ignores all of the benefits of the bill. Even the excellent items put in by the senator who was *the* single-payer icon around here for a few months, Bernie Sanders, are ignored. There is no actual discussion of the bills. There is only fiercely expressed hatred for corporations, which I'm not arguing don't deserve it.

There is no real "plan A" for getting single-payer passed, and there's no "plan B" if it doesn't pass.

There is zero willingness to actually talk about the bills -- it's single-payer or nothing else in this world could possibly work. I happen to think single-payer *and* the current bills can work, but my view is, how do you get single-payer passed, and once it's passed, what do you do about the massive insurance company layoffs that are sure to happen, and how do you counter the GOP echo-chamber that would make single-payer sound like people should lock themselves in their homes or flee the country immediately, amongst other things.

I'd like to see some brilliant ideas on those topics, and I don't say that as a joke. If I'd read a brilliant idea on how to overcome those hurdles, I'd be the first to admit it.

I've been looking over how other countries construct their healthcare systems, since I keep seeing references to that. I was surprised to see that the healthcare system in the Netherlands sounds quite familiar. In 2006, they reformed over to a compulsory system where their citizens have to purchase health insurance through for-profit companies, with premiums limited to 8%-11% of their income if I remember correctly. That's very near to what the House and Senate are proposing, and the Dutch don't seem to perceive themselves as shackled and enslaved for having to do so. There are real differences in structure, yes, but a lot of it sounds an awful lot like what the House and Senate are passing through now.

What I'm most interested in is what can actually be done now regarding healthcare reform, not what we would like to see done most.

[Better Believe It]

29. "There is zero willingness to actually talk about the bills" What? Are you serious?

There has been an enormous amount of discussion on Democratic Underground regarding ALL of the healthcare proposals and on all of the issues you addressed in your post for many months now. Hundreds of original and reprint articles and tens of thousands of DU member posts have appeared on Democratic Underground regarding these bills. That isn't enough???

The only explanation that makes sense regarding your claim that DU'ers are unwilling to discuss the healthcare bills is that you somehow managed to miss them on DU!

Here's one recent post about a resolution presented by the CPC at a recent Washington state District Democratic club:


WHEREAS the Senate health care bill eliminates the public option and retains a mandate to buy insurance from the very private companies which are responsible for our current health care financing mess, though (with few exceptions) it does not require plans to adopt insurance reforms or quality standards, and;

WHEREAS the Senate bill establishes state health care exchanges only, making it very likely that this reform will fail at the hands of hostile governors, and;

WHEREAS the Senate bill repeals the anti-trust exemption proposed in the House bill, leaving enforcement of insurance regulations to the states, which suffer from a lack of resources to go after offenders resulting in inconsistent enforcement and in allowing insurance companies to engage in anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, and;

WHEREAS the Senate bill replaces the House bill millionaires’ tax with a 40% excise tax on group health coverage over certain amounts (the so-called “Cadillac” plans, which in reality offer coverage that is still inferior to the coverage that is the norm for everybody else in the industrialized world), and which will still apply to millions of families who do not have union-negotiated plans, and;

WHEREAS 61% of the population favors the millionaires’ tax and only 29% favor the excise tax (1), making this a huge political liability for Democrats, and;

WHEREAS the Senate bill permanently grandfathers existing employer plans offering any level of coverage and has limited employer mandates compared to those proposed by the House, thereby making it easy for many large employers (particularly the ones paying poor wages such as WalMart) to shirk their responsibilities because these responsibilities vary depending on a worker's family income and on whether they are employed full-time or part-time; and

WHEREAS the Senate bill’s Nelson Amendment, though better than the House Stupak amendment, is still opposed by feminists and reproductive rights organizations like NOW and NARAL, which are important Democratic Party-affiliated issue groups, and;

WHEREAS the Senate bill prevents states from using exemptions to it in order to implement innovations such as single payer and establishment of state public options until 2017, and;

WHEREAS the Senate bill sets a minimum standard of 60% actuarial value (meaning that policy holders must pay 40% of expenses out of pocket), which is the same sort of catastrophic insurance which is currently responsible for driving so many people into medical bankruptcy, and;

WHEREAS the Senate bill’s Ensign Amendment (2) effectively eliminates the prohibition of differential premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, and;

WHEREAS both the House Bill and the Senate bill retain unconscionable age rating, which violates the basic principle of risk sharing, which does not exist in any other industrialized county, and which will impose serious financial hardship on people aged 50-64, and;

WHEREAS though the Medicaid expansion and several of the changes to Medicare are useful, there is no necessity at all to tie these changes to mandatory purchase of underinsurance;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 11th LD Democrats ask the reconciliation committee to retain the public option and open it to everyone, and;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we ask the reconciliation committee to adopt the House language requiring that the federal government be directly involved in enforcing strong national regulations of insurers and creating the new exchange, because the federal government is the only entity big enough to ensure that a private insurance industry will follow the law, and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we ask the reconciliation committee to adopt the House bill millionaires’ tax instead of any excise tax, and;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we ask the reconciliation committee to adopt the House language requiring that employers not offering qualified coverage pay an 8% payroll tax on wages for all employees (including full-time, part-time and temporary), and;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we ask the reconciliation committee to adopt the original language of the House bill on abortion previous to the attachment of the Stupak amendment, because it is strictly against our Party platform to unfairly restrict reproductive rights, and;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we ask the reconciliation committee to adopt some version of the Sanders/Kucinich amendments, allowing states to create a single payer systems, and;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we ask the reconciliation committee to require that the minimum actuarial value of insurance plans be at least 80%, requiring the 20% co-pay that is typical of most decent employment-based plans, and;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we ask the reconciliation committee to eliminate the Ensign Amendment and any other weakening of provisions intended to prevent discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions, and;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we ask the reconciliation committee to eliminate age rating entirely, or failing that, to allow anyone over 50 into Medicare, and;

THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that if the reconciliation committee does not offer substantial improvements to the Senate bill, we urge our representatives not to vote for it, and instead to just come up with a more limited bill focused on expanding Medicaid and improving Medicare.

Submitted to the 11th Legislative District Democrats for endorsement at its meeting of January 19, 2010.

[quiet.american]

36. Again, that's not at all what I said.

I didn't say there hasn't been any discussion of the bill on DU by DU'ers -- why would I say that when I've been the object of multiple pile-ons on the subject.

You post a long resolution (long list of demands) from the Washington State District Democratic Club, yet have no direct response to my previous replies as to why passing this legislation might help rather than harm Democrats. That's what I'm talking about. Or to how insisting upon single payer at this stage might harm, rather than help Democrats. Or what would be a conceivable plan to get conservative Democrats to vote for single payer.

Posting a resolution is not discussion.

[Better Believe It]

38. But that is what you wrote! How can anyone take you seriously when you make such a claim?

You asked in your latest post "why passing this legislation might help rather than harm Democrats."

It will harm Democratic candidates because most of the public is opposed to this handout to the insurance and drug industry!

And the opposition is growing.

The public wants Medicare for All, not this insurance industry written legislation.

Check out the public opinion polls if you doubt me and others.

[quiet.american]

40. Let me ask you a question - what did I actually say in my post that you reference?

Who did I actually say does not discuss the actual bills?

I await your response.

[Better Believe It]

41. You wrote:

"There is zero willingness to actually talk about the bills -- it's single-payer or nothing else in this world could possibly work."

Now if you didn't mean posters on Democratic Underground who in the world did you mean?

Are we suppose to guess?

A little more clarity and less vagueness would be appreciated.

And we sure don't want any nit picking now, do we?

[quiet.american]

42. That you skip the first two paragraphs I wrote just proves my point.

I can't help but feel that those who advocate for single-payer are as loathe to acknowledge the real benefits and reform of the current legislation as those on the far right. Post very good things that are in the bill, some of it put in by House and Senate single-payer advocates and there is never any acknowledgement of it whatsoever. It is always, always single-payer only is worthy.

That's my point.

[Better Believe It]

65. You dodged and skipped my question! Once again ....

You wrote: "There is no actual discussion of the bills" and "There is zero willingness to actually talk about the bills."

So who do you think is refusing to discuss the various healthcare bills?

DU'ers?

[wolfgangmo]

54. Granted but...

In my case and in the case of millions of others who can't afford insurance (above the level of income for assistance but below what will be realistic to afford it - in which case lot's of us will just pay our fine to the and pray that Canada invades.

I own a medical clinic (partially) and I am not covered. Thank God I invested when I did and thank God the clinic needed a capable manager. I lost my job and coverage after a car accident 4 years ago. The auto companies denied payment and my medical insurance said that it was the auto insurance companies problem and denied treatment. And so here I am 4 years later in serious daily chronic pain, partially paralyzed, and doing worse every day. I get migraines daily that feel as if a railway spike is being banged into my skull. My hands and arms shake. I get spasms that drop me to the ground. Oh, and as an added bonus the combination of the pain and the pain killers have left me impotent.

What fun.

And to add insult to serious injury, I cannot get a medical policy to save my life. What is truly ironic here is that if I lived a four hour drive north of here (minnesota) in Canada, I would have recieved the treatment, surgery, and care I needed and would be fine today instead of wondering if today is the day I should swallow a gun and end it all. I would still be working at a job I loved and contributing to society. Instead I am looking at the travesty of a health care bill and wondering what the hell happened to the America.

We can no longer claim to be number one in anything except income disparity and national debt. And we seem to be both happy about it and content as long as American Idol and 24 is still on TV.

[wolfgangmo]

53. Isn't that the same bill that also allows interstate sale of insurance?

Thus evicerating any state laws and protections you may have when, and lord knows this rarely happens, an insurance company denies treatment or violates your state's law (which no longer protects you).

Hey folks, if you thought credit cards were bad before the fed stepped in to stop abuses then just wait until insurance companies are allowed to act just like the banks. Wheeeee. I can hardly wait.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. We shouldn't be afraid to fight just because the votes aren't there

If people were scared away from fighting for what's right because the votes weren't there we wouldn't have women's rights or civil rights or worker's rights. I'm not afraid to fight for single payer even if the votes aren't there and I'm glad to see at least one democratic politician out there who has the courage to lead.

[quiet.american]

13. It's not about that. It's about playing with people's lives, right now.

It has to be acknowledged this bill contains provisions that will help people right now.

Marty asks Obama to table that in the hopes that the mid-terms will bring the results needed to pass single-payer.

Table what we have -- and what happens if we don't gain seats in November? Double fail and people continue to suffer.

Big gamble.

[liberal_at_heart]

14. There will be loopholes for insurance companies to continue to deny coverage

The two bills that are being written right now are for the insurance companies, not for the people. I will not support a bill that is written by the insurance companies.

[quiet.american]

15. On the one hand are loopholes, which is in every policy, on the other, real help.

I happen to stand on getting the "real help" side of things out there to people.

[liberal_at_heart]

16. I don't believe either of these bills will help the people. They will help the insurance companies

And I don't appreciate the implication that those of us who don't support these bills don't care about sick people. I could say the same thing about people who won't stand up and fight for single payer but I won't. We all want to help sick people. I don't believe these bills will help the sick people.

[quiet.american]

17. No implications. I'm just telling you where I stand.

Look, you don't believe the bills will help anyone, but I do. It's as simple as that.

[Better Believe It]

19. Do you really want to permanently force people into the clutches of the insurance industry?

[quiet.american]

21. That's your point of view, but it's not mine. nt

[salib]

67. Like arguing with quicksand, it seems.

The original points Marty made still stand and point out that the greater risk is to simply try to pass the Senate bill (as if that is even possible based upon the conventional wisdom right now).

The big risk is to do too little, force very unpopular items (mandates) upon those who did not support ANYTHING as well as those who expect to see something better.

[many a good man]

11. Get a PO using Reconciliation NOW!

A perfect justification for pushing a public option through using reconciliation:

the American people overwhelmingly want the choice that a Public Option provides but Congress is unable to deliver it. Reconciliation is the only way to break the grip that special interests have over Congress and give the people what every poll tells us they want.

The simplest way to implement a PO is to open up MediCare to anyone who wants to buy into it.

[Yurovsky]

34. Yep, he needs to sit Reid & Pelosi down in the Oval Office...

and say that this is bigger than all of us. And it may be the only opportunity we have for at least another generation. We can do it if we just place the needs of the American people over the needs of our egoes and re-election campaigns.

Pass it, and you'll be etched in history forever. Kick the can down the road, and no one will remember your name (other than Obama's) in 20 years.

[Yurovsky]

35. Yep, he needs to sit Reid & Pelosi down in the Oval Office...

and say that this is bigger than all of us. And it may be the only opportunity we have for at least another generation. We can do it if we just place the needs of the American people over the needs of our egoes and re-election campaigns.

Pass it, and you'll be etched in history forever. Kick the can down the road, and no one will remember your name (other than Obama's) in 20 years.

[Blue Owl]

28. Hmmmm it just... might... work...

:think:

k&r

[slipslidingaway]

30. Kucinich in 2007 ... How do we pass a health care bill to cover everyone...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=311458&mesg_id=311458

2:34 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2OUyZesqRg


"...How then could you see yourself being President and simultaneously be subordinate to these powerful interests...I would be very concerned about electing anyone who didn't believe that the President of the US could not rally the American people in the cause of their own health...that is what I intend to do, to rally the American people...I'm talking about taking America in a direction where we rally the American people to create this not for profit health care system, I think the public support is there for it."

We need to rally the American people to create a not for profit health care system.

[johnaries]

31. If it's so easy, then why did HR 676 fail?

Along with every other single-payer bill in the last 60 years?

Sorry, but this is just grand-standing.

[slipslidingaway]

33. Nobody said it would be easy to challenge the for profit companies...

both Clinton and Obama took SP off the table, even though it has the support of the majority of Americans.

Why???

[wolfgangmo]

56. Why did Clinton and Obama take SP off the table.

My person guess is that they were shown the film of the Kennedy assasignation, the one we haven't seen, the one from the point of view of the grassy knowl, and were then asked, "any questions?"

Then they were handed their "agenda" for the next 4 years and dismissed.

[slipslidingaway]

62. Anyone who runs for President knows the risk, if they do not have the courage to fight...

then maybe the job is not for them. Do not stand there and tell me you are fighting the companies when in reality you make back room deals.

[Better Believe It]

39. Because Democratic Presidents have not fought for Medicare for All since Medicare was passed.

LBJ fought for single payer Medicare and won it in the second year of his first full-term.

[druidity33]

58. because it was a Kucinich project?

He gets ridiculed from both sides of the aisle despite having better intentions than most of the pack.

Unfortunately the legislation he introduces often fails... just too damn progressive i guess.


:shrug:

[Edweird]

32. K&R

[slipslidingaway]

37. The Courage of Our Convictions - By John Marty

http://www.johnmarty.org/news/courage-our-convictions-twin-cities-daily-planet

"...It's time for progressives to have the courage of our convictions. If we claim to believe in universal health care, we need to fight for it. The MN Health Plan -- which covers everyone for all their medical needs, and costs less than we are spending now --is on the table. Those who are not willing to take on the powerful insurance lobby, ought to be honest and admit that reelection and other priorities matter more.

Refusing to fight for it because it is "not politically realistic" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Likewise, dismissing it as something that will take decades to pass means leaving the problem to the next generation.

Whether the issue is living wages for workers, environmental protection, or LGBT equality, many progressives have lost courage. They fight to raise the minimum wage by fifty cents for every dollar that inflation takes away. Even in victory, we accomplish little.

It is time to move beyond fear and stand up for the principles we say we believe in. Minnesotans deserve nothing less."

[annm4peace]

43. the Big D of the DFL Party in MN won't let Marty be Gov of MN

He is too progressive for the big D of the DFL Party.

I hope progressives from all over the country try to support his campaign cause he'll need it.

I'm in a progressive part of minneapolis and he only received 7 votes out of 66.

This country needs Marty to win Gov of MN.

[DisgustedInMN]

48. Marty got 1 vote out of 10 ..

.. in our precinct, mine. I plan to stand strong for him Feb 13 also.

[FourScore]

44. K&R

[TygrBright]

45. Minnesota DFLers... If y'all can't finally drop all the pissy-footing around and get behind John...

...early and ALL THE WAY, I officially remove all references to my many years in the DFL trenches from my resume.

Finally, FINALLY, you get THE candidate-- the most civilized, intelligent, ethical, caring, experienced, motivated legislator in the state-- a veritable Lutheran Obama-- and you better not blow THIS one on petty in-fighting and factional squabbles about whose-turn-is-it and Cities-versus-burbs-versus-The Range and all the other childish nonsense that has dogged the party since hector was a pup.

The stakes are too high.

I'm sending John another campaign contribution.

adamantly,
Bright

[salguine]

46. Why do I just know that Obama's going "La la la, I can't hear you, la la la..."

[LWolf]

49. Because people have been calling for single payer for years

before he disingenuously asked people to show him "better ideas."

[Mithreal]

66. +1

[thesquanderer]

55. Kucinich amendement question

I'd be content with the amendment Kucinich was trying to get into the plan, that at least would allow states to do this on their own. That amendment was defeated.

Though what confuses me is that Minnesota is trying to do it now anyway. So if they *can* do it now, why was the Kucinich amendment even needed? Am I understanding that, currently states CAN implement a single-payer system if they want, and they will NO LONGER be able to do so if the current health care bill passes, absent an amendment like the one Kucinich was trying to get in there?

[slipslidingaway]

59. The Kucinich SP amendment was not defeated, the administration wanted it stripped...

from the final House bill, and the leaders complied with their wishes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dennis_Kucinich#Kucinich_Amendment

"Kucinich Amendment

In July 2009, the House Education and Labor Committee approved an amendment authored by Kucinich to its version of the Obama health insurance bill by a vote of 27-19, with 14 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting for it.<29> The amendment empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive the federal law that pre-empts state law on employee-related health care, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, in response to state requests.<30> It has been speculated that the amendment's bipartisan support was for its appeal to states' rights in supporting progressive legislation.<29> In the past, states attempting to enact single-payer reforms have been successfully sued and stopped under ERISA.<30> This law's passage may spur a path to a single-payer system for the United States, as newly unbound states would show single-payer's success, just as Saskatchewan did for Canada,<29> However, the Kucinich Amendment was stripped from the merged House bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that it would have violated President Obama's promise that Americans who liked their health insurance could keep it.<31>"



Kucinich Amendment Grants ERISA Waiver for Single Payer States.

http://www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org/id47.html

"...Summary

Some state and local governments that have attempted to expand health care coverage have been successfully challenged in court under the terms of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). ERISA pre-empts states from enacting legislation if it is “related to” employee benefit plans. It reserves that right to the federal government. Section 514 of ERISA states that Title V (Administration and Enforcement) and Title IV (Fiduciary Responsibility) of ERISA “shall supercede any and all State laws insofar as they may… relate to any employee benefit plan.” There is no provision for an administrative waiver of these rules.

The Kucinich amendment to HR 3200, approved by a recorded vote of the House Education and Labor Committee, would remove this barrier for states that have enacted and signed into law a single payer system...."


http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/july/an_erisa_waiverstat.php

Posted on July 22, 2009

"An ERISA waiver/state single-payer amendment introduced by Rep. Kucinich passed the Education and Labor committee, 25-19 (7/17/09)"


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

Fri Jul-17-09

Ayes won!!!

[slipslidingaway]

60. The Kucinich SP amendment was not defeated, the administration wanted it stripped...

from the final House bill, and the leaders complied with their wishes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Dennis_Kucinich#Kucinich_Amendment

"Kucinich Amendment

In July 2009, the House Education and Labor Committee approved an amendment authored by Kucinich to its version of the Obama health insurance bill by a vote of 27-19, with 14 Democrats and 13 Republicans voting for it.<29> The amendment empowers the Secretary of Health and Human Services to waive the federal law that pre-empts state law on employee-related health care, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, in response to state requests.<30> It has been speculated that the amendment's bipartisan support was for its appeal to states' rights in supporting progressive legislation.<29> In the past, states attempting to enact single-payer reforms have been successfully sued and stopped under ERISA.<30> This law's passage may spur a path to a single-payer system for the United States, as newly unbound states would show single-payer's success, just as Saskatchewan did for Canada,<29> However, the Kucinich Amendment was stripped from the merged House bill. Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that it would have violated President Obama's promise that Americans who liked their health insurance could keep it.<31>"



Kucinich Amendment Grants ERISA Waiver for Single Payer States.

http://www.centerforpolicyanalysis.org/id47.html

"...Summary

Some state and local governments that have attempted to expand health care coverage have been successfully challenged in court under the terms of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). ERISA pre-empts states from enacting legislation if it is “related to” employee benefit plans. It reserves that right to the federal government. Section 514 of ERISA states that Title V (Administration and Enforcement) and Title IV (Fiduciary Responsibility) of ERISA “shall supercede any and all State laws insofar as they may… relate to any employee benefit plan.” There is no provision for an administrative waiver of these rules.

The Kucinich amendment to HR 3200, approved by a recorded vote of the House Education and Labor Committee, would remove this barrier for states that have enacted and signed into law a single payer system...."


http://www.pnhp.org/news/2009/july/an_erisa_waiverstat.php

Posted on July 22, 2009

"An ERISA waiver/state single-payer amendment introduced by Rep. Kucinich passed the Education and Labor committee, 25-19 (7/17/09)"


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

Fri Jul-17-09

Ayes won!!!

[thesquanderer]

57. Collateral damage?

Can anyone tell me how Minnesota is dealing with the "collateral damage" in their proposed single payer system? I realize that any change to a system will always has winners and losers, but I wonder if there is something in the plan to address what happens to the losers. What happens to the employees and owners and stockholders of the insurance companies that will effectively be legislated out of business? What happens to the economy if ll health insurance stocks suddenly drop to a value of zero?

Before I get flamed, please understand that I'm not arguing against single payer here. I just honestly wonder about "unintended consequences" and whether the plans include some way to address these things. And I know business disappear all the time, no one is crying for the manufacturers of gas lamps, horse buggies, or typewriters. But usually, that's a result of gradual market forces. I don't know if the government has ever before stepped in and legislated an entire business sector into oblivion virtually overnight. I'm sure people must have thought of this, but I haven't come across any discussion of what to expect here or whether the plans address this at all.

[slipslidingaway]

61. Kucinich has spoken about this and nothing will happen overnight ...

I'm sure you'll find this in your search.

What a shame this cannot even be discussed so people would have a better idea of what is proposed.

:(

Here is a link to the Minnesota plan, which is probably different from HR 676.
http://mnhealthplan.org/

[Gregorian]

63. There's more to president than being president. Get more progressives in the Senate, at least.

Someone needs to be slamming this home. We're literally at war with an enemy. The enemy is within our own country. I am not being histrionic. Anyone who has been paying attention knows these clowns will take this country down if they can. Let's not let them.

[FailureToCommunicate]

64. kay-an-ar

[midnight]

69. I love this part the most.....

Stop Insurance Company Abuses. There would be no "pre-existing conditions" to worry about, no underwriting, no denials of coverage, no "out of network" problems. I like to use the analogy of police and fire protection. When you return home to find a burglary in process and call 911, the police dispatcher does not ask if you qualify. They do not ask if you have police insurance. They do not ask whether your policy covers home burglary. They don't ask if you have pre-existing conditions that would disqualify you. They don't waste time and money having you fill out forms so your insurance company can be billed. The police response does not depend on your insurance status. Everyone is treated equally. It's the American way. It is time to treat health care the same way.

As a 23 year member of the Minnesota Senate, let me comment briefly on the politics of this proposal:

The MHP is a single payer proposal. You have acknowledged that single payer is the only way to cover everyone. Seven years ago you said that single payer health care is "what I'd like to see. But... we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." Now that we have taken back the White House and the Congress, it is time to act.

I recognize, as you do, that you do not have the votes to pass truly universal health care at this time. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries contribute so much to members of Congress -- they control the debate -- so health care for everyone isn't even on the table.


Now repeat : IT IS TIME TO ACT.....