« New ACLU 'Tortured Logic' Video On Accountability: Made For Eric Holder | synchronicity's Blog | "Fox 'Lies R Us' 'News?' With An Agenda" Is Actually Liberal... »
What If The 'House' Passed A Single Payer Health Care Bill?
Right now it appears that meaningful health care reform may be derailed in the Senate.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stated that the House will fight for a meaningful public option.
The House is also going to be voting on HR 676, the single payer health care bill.
I just wrote to my congressman and asked that he support a strategy of getting behind this bill and fighting to pass it.
My thoughts are not that the Senate will pass single payer legislation (though I wish that they would) but that if the House passed single payer legislation, then the compromise between the Senate and House might end up being some sort of meaningful public option. I am hoping that representatives will see the wisdom in this strategy and go for it.
I recommend that they frame health care reform as a 'crucial' part of our economic recovery. And thanks to a commenter on this post, I am adding the suggestion that they call single payer 'medicare available to all'. On that note I suggest that they mention how it will add many healthy and young people to the pool. AND I suggest that they get unified about how to pay for it. If they can figure out how to pay for single payer, the public option should be an easier sell.
Sending mere public option legislation to conference will mean that it will have to be compromised to the Senate bill and this would likely weaken it. While it is a long shot... it is a strategy that might help us get real health care reform. If nothing else a strong showing in the vote for the single payer bill in the House might influence what ends up in the senate bill.
I am going to write to all of the representatives that I know are supportive of single payer health care reform and suggest this strategy. Then I'll write the rest as well. I've got time, right, before they get back in session.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has stated that the House will fight for a meaningful public option.
The House is also going to be voting on HR 676, the single payer health care bill.
I just wrote to my congressman and asked that he support a strategy of getting behind this bill and fighting to pass it.
My thoughts are not that the Senate will pass single payer legislation (though I wish that they would) but that if the House passed single payer legislation, then the compromise between the Senate and House might end up being some sort of meaningful public option. I am hoping that representatives will see the wisdom in this strategy and go for it.
I recommend that they frame health care reform as a 'crucial' part of our economic recovery. And thanks to a commenter on this post, I am adding the suggestion that they call single payer 'medicare available to all'. On that note I suggest that they mention how it will add many healthy and young people to the pool. AND I suggest that they get unified about how to pay for it. If they can figure out how to pay for single payer, the public option should be an easier sell.
Sending mere public option legislation to conference will mean that it will have to be compromised to the Senate bill and this would likely weaken it. While it is a long shot... it is a strategy that might help us get real health care reform. If nothing else a strong showing in the vote for the single payer bill in the House might influence what ends up in the senate bill.
I am going to write to all of the representatives that I know are supportive of single payer health care reform and suggest this strategy. Then I'll write the rest as well. I've got time, right, before they get back in session.
Advertisement
Thanks from the heart for being and staying involved, Synch!
August 17, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It IS a good idea. Rec'd.
August 17, 2009 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the negotiating process. I do know that corporate money is the 800lb gorilla in the room. But this would certainly keep issue right up in everyone's face. It would force more posturing and extract ever more bizzare retorts from the right. It might even boost the courage some of the chickenshits.
And it might stand a much better chance if they called it Medicare for All instead of single-payer.
August 17, 2009 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
No harm in suggesting that they frame it as 'medicare available to all' when they talk about it.
August 17, 2009 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Just as O'Donnell said on MSBNC; what's wrong with removing the phrase "65 years and over" from Medicare and giving it to everyone? How is it tyranny or socialism to give health care to young people but it's killing grandma to even touch Medicare?
August 18, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are just a devious little dolphin, aren't you? I like it! Rec'd
August 17, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who? Moi?;)
August 17, 2009 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great ideas Sync. I just emailed Senator Merkley and included them. Representatives next. Never give up! I had a hope-lapse yesterday when I heard the news, but today I'm back. It's a long way to December when the President will sign the bill, or not. Thanks :~)
August 17, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. I'm gonna do it too! Love the take of medicare for all! Brilliant.
Thanks Synch - as usual, Rec'd (with great enthusiasm)!
August 17, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
tpmgary had a good idea; a new rallying cry:
DOWN WITH THE PRIVATE OPTION!
I like it!
August 18, 2009 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sync, that is a fine examination of the political process as far as I am concerned.
And Pelosi knows her power. She must give the Blue Dogs a voice, but that does not mean that she should not push em to the limit. ha
August 18, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more I think about this the more I am certain that one big problem is how it's being presented.
In stead of presenting in terms that maybe antagonistic or even confusing to some (most ?) people. Put it as a business proposition.
In stead of calling is "single payer" call it a "health maintenance contract" like a maintenance contract you have on your car. Where you just bring yourself in to the "shop" and get fixed whatever needs to be fixed.
No muss, no fuss. It's all prepaid ahead of time.
C
August 18, 2009 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like an "extended health warranty?" ;^)
August 18, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep...like that. And for the Dr.s and Hospitals as well. Much less paperwork and to be able to take some time with each patient.
I used to work for a place that did 90% of it's business was maintenance contracts. On TVs, radio, stereos etc. It was the best place I had ever worked because I did not have the pressure of having to check it the customer wanted to pay xxx amount to get their thing repaired. I just concentrated on doing to job and doing it right.
A nice relaxed atmosphere and the pay was very good as well.
The repair ticket was also a lot simpler since I did not have to justify everything down to the last detail.
C
August 18, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yez, a national warranty on laborers, and everyone else. We will "run" better if we take care of the little problems before they become big ones.
August 18, 2009 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the post, synch. I've always been an advocate of single payer.
So too are most people who are walking around these town halls, though they don't quite realize it. The ones who rally against government-run health programs, but love Medicare.
I just came across this video at DailyKos. Bunch of people got together, call themselves "billionaires for wealthcare, not healthcare, and they went to a town hall and rallied against any government involvement in health care as a joke to see how people would respond.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHVwrCzRUX0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edailykos%2Ecom%2Fstory%2F2009%2F8%2F18%2F768893%2F%2DBillionaires%2DFor%2DWealthcare&feature=player_embedded#t=70
August 18, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
August 18, 2009 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the further we push this to the left, the further the compromise will be too the left. It's how the Right has managed to get everything right of center. They demand far right.
Rec'd, Sis!
August 18, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You pay for Medicare-for-all by clawing back some of that $24 trillion we have handed over willy-nilly to the Banksters. And, oh, by the way, getting the F out of Iraq and Afghanistan will also more than pay for it.
August 18, 2009 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Better yet, slip in a little amendment to some random appropriations bill that says "any references to age restrictions in the Medicare Act are hereby deleted"
August 18, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I was reading the rumor that the Repubs were going to force a floor vote on HR676 in order to embarrass the Dems, I wondered, "Wha?" I think on the possibility that HR676 would win a floor vote, and I try to imagine a Repub rep then thinking "wasn't that clever of us?"
Of course, I also wonder how the minority party can force any floor action in the House. But if all this is true, I fervently hope that the Repubs shove HR676 down the Dems' throats. That sure would serve us right, yessir!
I plan on writing to my surprisingly progressive Blue Dog rep, and beg him to vote "yes" if HR 676 hits the floor.
Oh, how I want to see the look on Boehner's face when...
August 18, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink