Democrat To Offer A ‘Lifeline’ For Single-Payer Health Care

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/25/490429/mcdermott-universal-care-romney/

Democrat To Offer A ‘Lifeline’ For Single-Payer Health Care

By Igor Volsky on May 25, 2012 at 3:30 pm


Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) will soon introduce legislation that would allow states to use federal funds they’re receiving through Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs to build a universal single-payer system. Advocates are describing the bill as a “lifeline” for advocates:

It would create a mechanism for states to request federal funds after establishing their own health insurance programs…. It would, for the first time, create a system under which a Medicare-for-all program could be rolled out on a state-by-state basis. In California’s case, it would make coverage available to the roughly 7 million people now lacking health insurance.

“This is a huge deal,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica advocacy group. “This is a lifeline for people who want to create a Medicare system at the state level.”

The bill could warm the hearts of liberals who expressed frustration with the Affordable Care Act’s more moderate approach of building on the existing health care system and should also satisfy GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has sought to differentiate his 2006 health reform from Obamacare by rejecting a federal prescription for reform and promising to “pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens.”

The ACA creates state flexibility by granting waivers to states that meet certain coverage standards and a bipartisan group of lawmakers has offered legislation expanding the provision by allowing states with innovative health care solutions to opt out of certain provisions beginning in 2014. Romney, meanwhile, has pledged to build on the ACA’s flexibility and grant states to the ability to opt out of the law entirely.

McDermott’s measure would go even further and encourage states to repurpose federal funds to build a universal single-payer health system of their own. If Republicans are truly interested in states rights, they will back it in mass.

[limpyhobbler]

1. I like this.

[oldhippydude]

2. was not Vermont leading the way on this approach?

[valerief]

4. Yeah, Bernie's state is single payer. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. If a 10th Amendment argument disarms the RW I say go for it

They can't complain if we adopt/co-op their arguments. If that gets a foot in the door and the programs are successful then a state-by-state approach be better than nothing -- I s'pose.

[glinda]

3. As long as BlueCrossBS doesn't get ahold of it.

[eridani]

5. The state by state approach is the only thing that will work at this time

At least until red states stop electing jackasses.

[Snotcicles]

9. I think thats how it came about in Canada. nt

[dotymed]

36. The problem(s) I have seen with the state controlled

federal funding for health care is that the red states use that money to make health care very sub-par for their neediest citizens. It is a travesty. In TN., they (the uninsured) depend on the local health dept. The health dept.'s hands are so tied by regulations that it is almost like not having health care. The Dr.'s are not allowed to do much besides giving vaccines and referring patients to for profit Dr.'s and hospitals. You have to be critical, with only certain types of cancer (for instance), before you qualify for temporary medicaid.
No dental care at all.
The Dr.'s are not allowed to prescribe any narcotic pain medicine, no matter what.
If you're poor; suffer and die...

[jwirr]

40. The red states have been defunding everything they can get their hands on. How much of this

are the people of these states going to allow before they see what is happening. More than likely under this bill these states will just opt out and continue with the federal program as it is. Medicaid is already governed by states so it is Medicare that will be a problem for them. All states administer Medicaid.

[eridani]

50. Yes, officeholders in red states want them to be hellholes

No reason why other states have to follow that example.

[Scurrilous]

6. K & R

[gleannfia]

7. Good plan

Minnesota has a strong Single Payer plan working its way through the State Senate. I was pissed that Obama didn't go for universal but now I see that an incremental approach like Canada had will be most successful.

[jwirr]

41. We have had this in the works for a long time. If it passes the Senate how likely is it to pass the

House? Of course if we all do our jobs in November that will not be a problem.

[2banon]

8. A shred of hope...

to only be dashed by an almost completely corrupt congress, bought and paid for by Big Pharm, Insurance Companies...

This is not going to get through unfortnately...

But good on McDermott for trying..

[99Forever]

10. There ya have it.

And they wonder why we become cynics.

[freshwest]

43. He needs more people in Congress to help. He can't do it alone, but he never gives up...

[NorthCarolina]

11. I believe Kucinich tried to insert such legislation into the

health insurance reform legislation.

[MadHound]

12. Foolishness,

A state by state approach will simply not work, it doesn't address the facts of modern life, ie that we're a mobile society. Furthermore, state by state means that about two thirds of the states will opt out of this. Nice if you life in MA, but not so nice if you live in MO.

This is a polite fig leaf that the Dems are tossing out, knowing full well that they fucked up health care reform, and squandered one of the best chances we will have for real progress in a long while.

[magical thyme]

14. Foolishness my ass. It worked in Canada; it could work here

Vermont led the way on this, and kicked down door #1. This kicks down door #2. When people in the states that reject it sees how it works in other states, they will demand it.

We're not as mobile a society as we used to be. A lot of people are trapped where they are right now, and have been since the real estate market crashed.

Sometimes (most of the time) incrementally is the only way to get what you want. Often incrementally is the *best* way to get what you need, because it enables you to see what does and doesn't work elsewhere and craft a better solution.

[whathehell]

17. Thank you....I believe California is trying to join Vermont on this.

Am I right, Californians?

[Merlot]

28. Yes you're right. It was put to vote twice and arnie vetoed it

at some point it's going to be put to vote again, we'll see what Jerry Brown does with it.

arnie has enough f*cking money to personally insure the whole state, but he is ok with letting people die from lack of health care.

[whathehell]

33. Thanks...I figured Arnie would be against it

thought Brown might be in favor.

I lived in San Francisco many years ago,

and am considering going back; the health care

issue, of course, would be a factor.

[truedelphi]

29. It keeps being shot down.

Industry has the money to "convince" whomever will listen that it will not work.

During the last go around, the bill for Single Payer almost squeaked by, but in the end two Dems got their pretty little arms twisted (or maybe their pocket books were filled?) The state legislators in California are pathetic, as far as so many of them being bought and paid for by the Monied Crowd.

The California Nurses Association has done a great deal of work on the issue. I do hope that at some point soon, that work pays off.

[whathehell]

32. Wow...Thanks for the information. Is Governor Brown behind it ?

I remember him as being a huge progressive, but now I get mixed impressions.

[truedelphi]

34. A lady named Sheila Kuehl has done much of the foot work

And the bill that she nurtured got through the Assembly, back in both 2006 and 2008, but then was shot down by Ahnold vetoing it.

And then this last time, these two Democrats sold out (inside the Assembly.)

I don't know if Brown is for Single Payer or not. I do like a lot of the appointments he has made. And right now, the state is hurting economically - I don't know if budget-wise it could happen or not.

[whathehell]

37. Thanks for that info, Truedelphi

How lousy is it when we have these "sell-out" Dems..The Repukes almost are MUCH more

unified. Blue Dogs should be voted out.

I understand what you're saying, though, regarding the budget...Is Brown still a progressive,

would you say.

[marions ghost]

38. Good points!

yes, get some pilot projects going and then people in other states want it.

[CreekDog]

19. That's how the Canadian system was created, province by province

The federal government (in Canada) offered provinces matching money if they provided health care --in a nutshell.

[Doctor_J]

24. well, if w'ere truly a mobile society, then someone trapped in a right-wing

hellhole like MO can move to a civilized state like MA

[Fawke Em]

47. The problem is that we're not as mobile as the media claims.

It's hard for anyone, particularly women, who are over, say 45, to get hired anywhere, much less in a state where they don't know anyone.

I'd like to move out of Tennessee, but I can barely get call-backs for better jobs here, much less in a state where I don't have references anyone knows.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

26. It would work well state-by-state!

People who live in states with non available can lobby their state legis.

[TBF]

27. It's not ideal, but if New York and California made it work -

that's potentially an awful lot of people (considering NYC and LA) who could get health care.

It's a baby step to be sure, but I wouldn't dismiss it because it will help some. And then we keep working for more.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

52. If SP lowers government expenses why wouldn't red states come around

or go blue?

[Doctor_J]

53. Because Hate Radio tells them that SP makes them Commies

and they're too stupid to figure out the truth

[cstanleytech]

13. "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly" is the only plan the GOP will support. nt

[patrice]

15. K&R and Shared.

[Beowulf]

16. I wonder how long it will take

for the leaders of some states, especially those in the rust belt, to realize a single payer health care system could be very attractive in bringing new business to their state.

[sulphurdunn]

18. Even if the Democrats

controlled both houses of congress and passed such a bill in the House, the Republicans would filibuster it in the Senate.

[freshwest]

44. Vote their asses out.

[sulphurdunn]

48. I honestly wonder

if the Democrats would pass such a bill even if there were no Republicans in congress.

[freshwest]

49. Why would they not? How closely do you follow races and outcomes?

In all states with a GOP legislature, they cut social services to the bone. That's their policy. Their radio pundits call the Democrats tax and spend bleeding hearts for trying to help the poor.

Whatever goes on in a state, reflects the people of that state, is the policy their representatives in D.C. enact if they have the votes. It's that simple.

The Democrats are the party of social programs their constituents want to have, and GOP are the party of the people who want the government to disappear and privatize everything except for getting into the private sex lives of people.

After decades of working with this process and I might add, unpaid, this has been my experience. The nation is divided 50% vs. 50%, not 1% vs. 99% on all issues. The parties both have platforms made by people in the conventions state by state. Then they fight by the numbers in legislatures.

So check out your local representatives and see what their take on the social contract is. It was not a Democratic majority that passed regressive laws in states nationwide and in D. C. I've seen what strong Democratic majorities in this country vote for and you should tell your own Democratic representatives what you want.

If you live in a red area, they assume you want what they want and they'll do what they've done in all GOP areas. Slash taxes and spending, give the Commons away to their pals, and tell people how to live their sex lives.

[Alcibiades]

20. "they will back it in mass."

It's actually en madde, but of course the "mistake" here is this: "If Republicans are truly interested in states rights..."

In point of fact, they are not interested in ideas and principles, but power, though I suspect the author knows this.

[ancianita]

22. It's actually "en masse."

[Alcibiades]

45. damn d is next to the s

But the point is well taken.

[Waiting For Everyman]

21. Awesome, K&R.

What do we have to lose by trying something that could work? We're headed for a train wreck otherwise anyway.

Good on Rep. Jim McDermott!

[AnnieK401]

46. Good point

Not holding my breath that this would work in the states with Republican Governors, but it's worth trying. Hope it goes through, but not holding my breath on that either.

[maindawg]

23. What could be

If democrats bother to vote this year......HR needs to fix the filibuster rules on the first day of the next session. Otherwise , the rushpublicans will fight for their masters and never allow HCR .

[Rosa Luxemburg]

25. Ooooh yes!

[unkachuck]

30. K&R....n/t

[Edweird]

31. They had doctors and nurses arrested for advocating single payer and fought to maintain the

current system of private insurance. They showed where their allegiances lay - this looks like nothing more than pandering of the worst sort.

[Sherman A1]

35. Hopeful, but

not encouraged. Single Payer should have been the Health Care Reform and we could have been done with it once & for all.

[stlsaxman]

39. lifeline- schmifeline... open MediCare as a buy-in nationwide

and be done with it!

[freshwest]

42. Thanks, Jim, you never disappoint.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

54. Aren't the waivers already being made available as part of ACA

sort of a "lifeline" for single-payer? Frankly, I think that universal SP is going to come from the ground up, not the top-down. Once some states adopt it and if it works out, people in other states will invariably take notice and if they want it too, they'll push their own legislators to give it to them as well. Likewise for all of those Republican "free market" fans, they will have an opportunity to prove the superiority of their *ideas* as well- as long as they can demonstrate that they at least meet the standards set by ACA. All in all, ACA really wasn't that bad of a deal IMHO when you consider things like this.