FDR Explains It All for You

Sanders Pushing to Expand Medicare by Lowering Eligibility Age

"It's the right thing to do. It's massively impactful. It's popular."

Sen. Bernie Sanders during an interview  in D.C, on  Dec. 16, 2020. (Photo: Caroline Brehman/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is reportedly pressuring Democratic lawmakers to use the forthcoming multi-trillion dollar infrastructure package to significantly expand Medicare by lowering the eligibility age from 65 to either 55 or 60—an idea President Joe Biden floated on the campaign trail last April.

Sanders, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, also wants to extend Medicare's coverage to often-expensive services such as dental work, glasses and eye surgeries, and hearing aids, according to Politico.

"We have to look at the structural long-term problems facing our people," Sanders told the outlet in an interview Friday. "We're talking about physical infrastructure, affordable housing. We're talking about transforming our energy system to deal with climate change. We're talking about human infrastructure."

"In the rescue plan, we were able to take a major step forward in lowering child poverty—very important," Sanders added. "Now I want to deal with issues facing seniors as well."

The Vermont senator is aiming to include his Medicare proposal, which has not yet been finalized, in an infrastructure-focused spending package that the White House and congressional Democrats are currently discussing. The legislation will likely have to go through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process given Republican opposition to the nascent plan.

A leading congressional supporter of the far more sweeping proposal to expand Medicare to everyone in the U.S., the Vermont senator said his plan to make the program more generous in the near-term could be funded partially by allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices, an idea Sanders believes would bring in around $450 billion in revenue over the next decade.

Earlier this week, as Common Dreams reported, Sanders and dozens of his congressional allies introduced The Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Act (pdf), which would lift a clause prohibiting the Health and Human Services Department from negotiating lower prescription drug prices on behalf of Medicare Part D beneficiaries.

Surveys have shown that the idea of lowering the Medicare eligibility age—which has been at 65 or older since the program's inception in 1965—is popular with the American public. A GoHealth survey from last October found that 70% of respondents not on Medicare at the time and 58% of Medicare beneficiaries supported the idea.

Additionally, according to an analysis by the healthcare consulting firm Avalere, lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60 could extend the program's coverage to as many as 23 million people.

"It's the right thing to do," Sanders adviser Faiz Shakir tweeted Friday. "It's massively impactful. It's popular."

Published on Friday, March 26, 2021 by Common Dreams. Jake Johnson, staff writer.

"We are only as safe as the least insured person in America." -- Sen. Bernie Sanders

Sen. Bernie Sanders delivered a speech on Friday addressing "the lessons the nation can learn" from the coronavirus outbreak, which has intensified progressive demands for Medicare for All, paid sick leave, and other policies that would provide health and economic security for all.

Sanders, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, noted that America's for-profit healthcare system has left tens of millions of people in the U.S. uninsured or underinsured in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, highlighting the need for a system that covers everyone as a right.

"If this isn't a red flag for the current dysfunctional and wasteful healthcare system, frankly I don't know what is," Sanders said of COVID-19. "We are only as safe as the least insured person in America."

"This crisis should be a moment in which people ask fundamental questions about the dysfunctionality of our current healthcare system," the Vermont senator added.

In addition to demanding a Medicare for All, single-payer healthcare system, Sanders called for the immediate expansion of unemployment benefits and paid sick leave to help workers and others affected by the coronavirus.

The government's response should "pay attention to the most vulnerable people in this country," Sanders said, not just the wealthy and large corporations.

Watch Sanders' full speech:
 

Read the rushed transcript of Sanders' remarks below:

Good afternoon everyone, thank you for being here. In the midst of a major healthcare and economic crisis currently facing our country, I’d like to take a few minutes to talk about the lessons we can learn long-term about what we are experiencing today.

As I discussed yesterday, our country is facing, as everybody knows, a medical and economic crisis, the likes of which we have not seen for generations. And we must prepare for this response in an unprecedented way, making certain that our government responds effectively, and protects the interests of all our people regardless of their income, or where they live. In other words, this is not just about giving tax breaks to large corporations, but about remembering the people today who don’t have much money, who are nervous about their economic futures and healthcare prospects.

Needless to say we must massively increase the availability of test kits for the coronavirus and the speed at which the tests are processed. We need to anticipate significant increases in hospital admissions, which means that we will need more ICU units and ventilators, we will need more doctors, nurses, and medical personnel of all kinds - and we must make sure that these frontline personnel are well protected from the diseases they are treating. I have talked to nurses recently who worry very much about whether they are getting the kind of knowledge and equipment they need so that they do not get sick.

We need to significantly improve our communications and collaboration with other countries to ensure that we are learning everything that we can about the successes and failures of other countries as they deal with this crisis. And furthermore, we must be honest with the American people and communicate as effectively and directly as we can with all of the scientific information that we can provide.

Further, and most importantly, our response to this entire crisis must be guided by the decisions of doctors, scientists, and researchers, not politicians.

But as we struggle with this crisis, it is also important that we learn the lessons of how we got to where we are today, and what we must do in the future so that we are better prepared for similar crises that may come.

Poll after poll already shows us that the American people understand that we must do what every other major country on earth does, and that is to guarantee healthcare to all of our people as a human right, not a privilege. As we begin to see the failures and vulnerabilities of the current healthcare system, my guess is that those numbers and the demand for universal healthcare will only go up.

The American people are asking: how is it possible that we spend twice as much per capita as the people of Canada and other major countries, while 87 million of us are uninsured or underinsured.

And obviously, in this crisis, and unbelievably, it means that people who are sick today, people who woke up this morning with symptoms of the coronavirus, are saying, “you know I feel sick but I cannot afford to go to a doctor.” And when somebody is not treated for the virus – somebody who is unable to afford to go to that doctor – that means that that infection can spread to many others, putting us at risk.

So it’s not just a question that in normal times – tragically, unbelievably – that we lose 30,000 people a year because they don't get to doctor on time, but now the lack of healthcare threatens other people as well.

How could it be, that when we spend so much more than what other countries are spending, we have millions of people who may be dealing with the virus but they cannot go to the doctor because they can’t afford it? That is a question that must resonate in every American’s mind.

If this isn’t a red flag for the current dysfunctional and wasteful healthcare system, frankly I don’t know what is.

For the benefit of all of us, we must make sure that every person in this country who needs to seek medical treatment can go to a doctor free of charge regardless of their income. That is obviously what we must do now in the middle of a crisis, but it is what we must do as a nation in the near future.

Here are just a few instances about how absurd and dysfunctional our current healthcare system is.

It has been estimated that a full battery of tests for the coronavirus costs over $1,300. First of all, take a look at that – $1,300 to get the test people need to have to know if they have the virus or not.

In America today, 40% of our people don’t have $400 in the bank to pay for an emergency expense.

We have half of our people living paycheck to paycheck.

If their car breaks down they can't afford to get it fixed, and if somebody tells them it costs $1,300 for the test to determine whether you have the coronavirus if they’re sick, what are they supposed to do? What happens to them?

How can someone without insurance afford to pay $1,331 to get tested when they don’t even have $400 in the bank? What are they supposed to do? What happens to them? Do they go to a payday lender where the average interest rate is over 390%? Do they borrow money from their family? Or do they go without the test? Which every doctor in the world will tell them is a test they should have.

And while the Trump administration says it may cover co-pays to cover the cost of testing for those who have insurance, they will not cover the cost of treatment - which could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

How cruel is that? How absurd is that? To say to people, “we’re sorry you have coronavirus, we covered the cost of the test, but now you’re on your own and it’s going to cost tens of thousands of dollars to get treated.” That is totally absurd.

Clearly what we need to do is to make sure that if someone has the coronavirus that person gets the treatment that they need.

In other words, our current system leaves people uninsured, but even if you have insurance you may not even have the ability to travel to a doctor near you.

Because now we’re talking about a system in which many rural hospitals have closed down and they cannot find a doctor in their communities.

The reality today, and this is an issue we must to deal with, is that we don’t have enough doctors, we don’t have enough hospitals, and we don't have enough clinics in rural communities and inner cities.

Further, we are in a situation when we desperately need affordable prescription drugs, yet we have a pharmaceutical industry that continues to make billions in profits by charging outrageous prices for prescription drugs, sometimes 10x more in this country than in other countries.

In my view, the most cost effective way to reform our dysfunctional and cruel system is to move to a Medicare for All, single-payer healthcare system.

And I think in the midst of this crisis, more and more Americans understand the truth of that.

It is nearly impossible to believe that anyone can still think it’s acceptable to continue with a healthcare system that leaves tens of millions of people uninsured. The cruelty and absurdity of that view is more obvious in the midst of this crisis than it has ever been.

And let’s be clear. Lack of healthcare and affordable medicine does not only threaten the healthcare and well-being of the uninsured. It threatens everyone who comes in contact with them.

In fact, what this crisis is beginning to teach us is that we are only as safe as the least insured person in America.

Further, we are the only major country on earth that does not mandate paid family and medical leave. And we’re seeing how that crisis is impacting where we are today.

As we speak, there are millions of workers -- right now -- who are being told to go to work, yet they may be ill and should be staying home.

But these very same families will face financial ruin if they don’t go to work. These are workers in the restaurant industry, transportation industry, tourism, retail -- in other words the people who interact with the public every single day.

Right now, at a time when half of our people live paycheck to paycheck, and at a time of massive wealth and income inequality, we must directly address the economic desperation facing a huge number of Americans.

So we must finally pass a paid family leave program in the United States to keep this virus from spreading and to keep Americans healthy.

We must do it right now.

People should not be going to work when they are sick, it is unfair to them, it is unfair to the people they are in contact with. And yet, that reality exists, because we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee paid family leave and sick time.

Finally, from a national security perspective, it is incomprehensible that we are dependent on China and other countries for masks, for prescription drugs, for rubber gloves, and for key parts needed to make advanced medical equipment like ventilators.

As a result of globalization and our disastrous trade policies, we have been outsourcing millions of jobs and factories overseas that have gutted our economy. Now we are seeing another tragic and devastating result of those policies, as we find ourselves dependent on other countries to provide the most essential things we need to combat a pandemic and protect the lives of the people in our country.

Now trade is a good thing, but it has to be based on common sense principles. It has to be based on protecting American workers and protecting our national security, making sure we are producing what we need in this country in the event of a national crisis.

Now is the time to begin bringing back production and manufacturing to the United States and enact fair trade policies so that we are never in this position again.

Now here is the bottom line. As we are dealing with this crisis, we need to listen to the scientists, to the researchers, and to the medical professionals, not politicians.

We need to move quickly to prepare for the exponential increase of cases we will be seeing here in our country.

But as we do that, we must begin thinking about how, as a society, we can create a healthcare and economic system that is humane, that is compassionate, and that works for all people, not just the wealthiest.

Now that is an issue that people have had to think about for a long time, but I think in this moment of crisis more and more people understand that we need fundamental changes to our economy, and we need fundamental changes to our healthcare system.

Published on Friday, March 13, 2020, by Common Dreams. Sanders Says Coronavirus 'A Red Flag for Current Dysfunctional and Wasteful Healthcare System' by Jake Johnson, staff writer (Common Dreams)

What is Medicare for All

Stalking Heads

Can we have less "lesser"

Good candidates are running across the country, and pretty much every Democrat is better than his or her opponent. But the national leadership has not crafted a compelling program comparable to the New Deal or the Great Society (to say nothing of MAGA). They haven't even tried, the closest thing being the proposal to use the tax cut to pay teachers, a pr stunt not a program.

Many of the most compelling candidates (in Texas, Florida and Georgia, for example) owe little or nothing to the national party. In many cases, the "great candidates" the DNC and DCCC did recruit are ex-military and veterans of the security state apparatus, which means they will not be of great help in turning swords into plowshares, an essential project if we are to find solutions to our festering problems in such areas as poverty, infrastructure, housing, education, and health care.

When Republicans got the polls, they know what they're going to get, as awful as that is. The same cannot be said for Democrats, who once again are being asked to vote against rather than for something. Will the Democrats as a party fight for infrastructure spending, progressive taxes, Medicare for All, a living wage and universal basic income? Who can say? Are they going to take on the military-industrial giants and the security state? Not likely, but who really knows.

The House and maybe the Senate are at stake; it would be helpful to know what the stakes really are.

And, parenthetically, in a census year, the outcomes in races for governor mansions and state legislatures will determine the makeup of the House for at least a decade.

Return of Medicare For All

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

Although Obamacare is an improvement over what existed before, it was clear from the beginning of the health care debate that the compromised plan would deliver neither truly universal nor truly affordable access to health care. The greatest fear of liberals who opposed it was that, by embedding the insurance industry in the health care infrastructure, it would prevent either of these goals from ever being achieved. As the deficiencies of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have become more recognized, however, a new opportunity has opened up for Congress to do what should have been done in the first place: establish a single-payer system.

The insurance industry will oppose single-payer with scalpels and skull saws, of course, but the fight will be somewhat fairer because the industry's reputation is even lower than that of Congress. Still, with little or no help to be expected from the White House, it promises to be a hell of a battle, one that will be won only if ordinary citizens are mobilized. You can help right

from the start by asking your representative today to become an original cosponsor of H.R. 676: "The Expanded and Improved Medicare For All Act" (Capitol switchboard: 866-220-0044).

Rep. John Conyers will reintroduce national, single-payer healthcare legislation sometime this week. Before he introduces the bill, Conyers would like to have as many original cosponsors as possible. Please call your rep today and let them know you want them to cosponsor H.R. 676. Help them out by mentioning that in order to become an original cosponsor of H.R. 676 your member will need to contact Michael Darner from Rep. Conyers' office at michael.darner@mail.house.gov or 202-225-5126.

Already on board (thank them if you're in their district): Nadler, Schakowsky, Pingree, Grijalva, Ellison, Hank Johnson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Takano, Holmes-Norton, Lofgren, Rangel, Moore, Chu, Al Green, Farr, McGovern, Welch, Clarke, Lee, Nolan, Pocan, Doyle, Engel, Gutierrez, Frederica Wilson, Cohen, Edwards, McDermott, Clay, Huffman, Roybal-Allard, Cummings, Yarmuth, George Miller, Honda, Christensen, Rush.

If you live on the liberal west side of Los Angeles, note the following absences from this list: Waxman, Hahn, Sherman and Bass (Capitol switchboard: 866-220-0044).

Resources: PNHP.org: Physicians for a National Health Program is a non-profit research and education organization of 18,000 physicians, medical students and health professionals who support single-payer national health insurance
Healthcare-Now!: Organizing for a National Single-Payer Healthcare System
PublicCitizen: the Health Research Group of one of the country's most effective citizen's organizations

Health Care: A milestone on the long road to affordable universal medical insurance

Medicare turned 45 this week, not old enough to qualify for benefits, and the DNC celebrated with a little video bloviating. The smug tone is undeserved. Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman believed that they were taking only the first modest step toward affordable universal health care, toward Medicare For All. They never imagined a day would come when the Democratic Party would pat itself on the back for delivering the American people into the clutches of the for-profit insurance industry.

Health Care Reform: The elephant in the room

"Distinguished leaders went round and round on Thursday debating the problems of delivering and paying for health care for the American people without finding actionable agreement. Not one mentioned a simple known model to cut costs dramatically and deliver care efficiently to everyone -- Medicare for all.

"No one dared to recommend this common-sense way to extract the poisons of useless costs and unnecessary complexity from the system." -- Connell J. Maguire, Riviera Beach, Fla., Letter to the Editor (New York Times 2010-02-27).

Of course that just might be because no senator or representative who supports single-payer -- Medicare for All -- was allowed in the room; neither the president nor the health care industry's paid representatives in Congress want to talk about it. Ever since the House leadership took single-payer "off the table" at the insistence of the Obama White House, discussion of the only system that reliably can deliver affordable, universal health care has been verboten. As the senior White House correspondent Helen Thomas put it the other day, "In my opinion, Obama blew it big time when he refused to fight for a single payer program." You think?

Dems: Pass the fake health care insurance company bailout bill

Speaker Boehner and President Gingrich will thank you.

Dr. Howard Dean, M.D. is right

Howard Dean says the Senate health care bill isn't worth passing--that it signifies "the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate" and that it's "a bigger bailout for the insurance industry than AIG." Dean: Kill the Bill by Chris Good (The Atlantic)

Health Care Reform: Not!

Here's a statement by Healthcare-NOW! summing up the prospects for affordable, universal health care:

On Saturday, November 7, 2009, the House passed H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, to much celebration by the Democratic party. Healthcare-NOW!'s view, however, is that the House bill is a gift to the insurance industry at the further expense of the people of this nation.

The bill's advocates claim it will cover an additional 36 million people, subsidize the cost of insurance for families up to 400% above the poverty level, increase Medicaid coverage to 150% above the poverty level, close the Medicare donut hole by 2019, place a surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples making more than $1,000,000, will end rescissions and pre-existing conditions.

What the Democrats fail to mention is the bill leaves millions of people uninsured, allows medical bankruptcies to persist, criminalizes and fines the uninsured, increases the number of underinsured, does nothing to contain the sky rocketing costs, blocks women from their reproductive rights, transfers massive public funds to private insurance companies strengthening their control over care, protects pharmaceutical companies' superprofits at patient expense, fails to reclaim the 31% of waste in our system, expands Medicaid without regard to the state budget crises, discriminates based on immigration status and age, and sets up several levels of care covering less for those without the ability to pay. Those who have coverage will increasingly find care unaffordable and will go without. The whole system will inevitably fail from being fiscally unsustainable.

So is the House bill better than nothing?

"I don't think so," writes Marcia Angell, M.D. , former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. "It simply throws more money into a dysfunctional and unsustainable system, with only a few improvements at the edges, and it augments the central role of the investor-owned insurance industry. The danger is that as costs continue to rise and coverage becomes less comprehensive, people will conclude that we've tried health reform and it didn't work. But the real problem will be that we didn't really try it. I would rather see us do nothing now, and have a better chance of trying again later and then doing it right."

Given that the bill does nothing to contain or reduce rising costs or end the private health insurance industry's dominance, we hoped that the Progressive Caucus would stand strong. But they did not. All but two of H.R. 676's cosponsors voted for H.R. 3962 -- Rep. Eric Massa [D-NY] and Rep. Kucinich [D-OH].

Rep. Massa stated, "At the highest level, this bill will enshrine in law the monopolistic powers of the private health insurance industry, period. There's really no other way to look at it."

Despite telling single-payer advocates that Congressman Weiner's single-payer amendment could not go to vote because it would open the floodgates for regressive amendments on abortion and immigrant access, the Democratic leadership allowed votes on both. Prior to the vote on H.R. 3962, the Stupak Amendment passed that will prevent women receiving tax subsidies from using their own money to purchase private insurance that covers abortion and in many cases will prevent low-income women from accessing abortion entirely.

"The House of Representatives has dealt the worst blow to women's fundamental right to self-determination in order to buy a few votes for reform of the profit-driven health insurance industry," writes Terry O'Neill, President of National Organization for Women. "We must protect the rights we fought for in Roe v. Wade. We cannot and will not support a health care bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion."

Healthcare-NOW! fought to win a fair and open debate on healthcare reform including the merits of a single-payer system. This has not yet happened, but the advocacy for this system has greatly impacted the debate in meaningful ways.

We need to continue to build the grassroots movement for single-payer, not-for-profit, national healthcare. We look forward to much brain-storming at our upcoming national strategy conference in St. Louis this weekend, and the opportunity to move forward with renewed energy, creative ideas, and resolve.

Meanwhile, we have the opportunity NOW to continue to support the Sanders' Single-Payer Amendment to be introduced in the U.S. Senate, Congressman Kucinich's efforts to get the state single-payer amendment back in when the House and Senate bills are reconciled, and the efforts of the Mobilization for Health Care for All.

Action: Donate to Healthcare-NOW!

See, also: Why I Voted "No" by Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

Health Care Reform: Why I voted "no" - Rep. Dennis Kucinich

Dennis Kucinich Explains Why He Voted Against the Affordable Health Care for America Act

Congressman Kucinich has been one of the strongest voices for health care for all. With Rep. John Conyers, he introduced HR 676, the single-payer or Medicare-for-All bill, the proposal that had the widest support among Democrats in Congress until Pelosi and Obama pulled it "off the table" to make way for H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, a.k.a., the Save-the-Insurance-Companies bill that passed Saturday. Thirty-six Democrats joined all but one Republican in voting "nay," Kucinich among them. On his website, he explains why:

“We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system.

“Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick.

“But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies — a bailout under a blue cross.

“By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress’ blog, Think Progress, states 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy.

“During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies.

“Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks’ hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy -- in which most Americans live -- the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street.

“This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America’s manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care.

“Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America’s businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals.”

Why I Voted NO by Dennis Kucinich

Health Care: Single-payer may be on life-support, but it's not dead yet

It's do or die time for Medicare for All!

Although media coverage of the health care reform debate is focused on the Senate finance (Baucus) committee's bill (which was largely drafted by current and former executives at Wellpoint, the nation's largest private health insurance company and the dominant member of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association), several congressional votes on single-payer Medicare for All are imminent.

Sometime in the next two or three weeks, Rep. Anthony Weiner's (D-NY) amendment that would substitute single-payer legislation (along the lines of Rep. John Conyers' HR 676, which has deep support in the House) for the Democratic leadership's bill, HR 3200, will come up for an up-or-down vote on the House floor. In addition, a provision in HR 3200 that was secured by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) allowing individual states to adopt their own single-payer systems will be challenged by representatives of the insurance industry. Meanwhile, in the upper body, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) will introduce two single-payer amendments to the Senate bill, one to create a national single-payer plan and the other to allow individual states to adopt single-payer.
Action: Contact Congress and ask them to vote "yes" on the Weiner, Kucinich, and Sanders amendments for single-payer. Go here to call Congress for free: the site matches your zip code to your representatives, provides a simple call script, and is toll-free. Or, call the congressional switchboard directly at 202-224-3121.

Rep. Anthony Weiner's CountdownToHealthcare.com
Read the Kucinich and Weiner amendments
Senate Finance Committee Approves Sen. Baucus' Health Care Bill
by 14-9 Vote -- Snowe the only Republican to vote yes; Wyden and Rockefeller vote yes reluctantly by Huma Khan, Byron Wolf and Jonathan Karl (ABC News 2009-10-13)
Why we must vote on the public health care plan by Rep. Anthony Weiner (Politico 2009-07-22)
New twist in Washington gives public option backers some hope by Daniel Barlow (The Barre-Montpelier Times Argus 2009-10-13)

Health Care Reform: What's the difference between "the public option" and Medicare for All?

The opponents of reform have sown considerable confusion about the differences between single-payer health care -- Medicare for All -- and the various health care reform alternatives, including the so-called public option, being debated in the House and Senate. Here are some more resources to help clarify the difference:
Report Card for Single-Payer and “Public Option” (pdf)
More of the Same Is Not Health Care Reform, It’s a Placebo by Leonard Rodberg, PhD
Hold out for single payer by Nick Skala
Bait and switch: How the “public option” was sold by Kip Sullivan
The “Public Plan Option”: Myths and Facts
Health Policy Q & A with PNHP Co-founders Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler (pdf)
Tell them why they’re wrong when they say single-payer is not politically viable! (pdf)
Dr. Len Rodberg, of Physicians for a National Health Program, made a great presentation on single-payer and the public option at a teach-in in New York City. Download Len Rodberg’s slide show (ppt)

And here's a rap kicker.
It's not over 'til it's over. Contact your representatives and let them know you want Medicare for All.

Sonameme further reading about the public option:
Trigger Happy (Time 2009-11-18)
One-Two Punch: Unemployed and Uninsured (Families USA 2009-10)
The House Public Plan: Yes, It's Worth It (The New Republic 2009-11-05)
Trigger Unhappy: What Experience Can Teach Us About Why We Should Not Delay the Implementation of Public Plan Choice by Timothy Stoltzfus Jost (Washington and Lee University)
Trigger Unhappy (The New Republic 2009-11-22)

Health Care: There will be a health care bill. It just won't be anything recognizable as reform.

Dear Dr. Healthcare Reform,

I know I've been a bit disconnected lately, but what exactly IS Obama's health care plan? It seems that he would be well advised to do a little proactive sales on his plan, but does anyone know what it actually is?

-- Perplexed.

Dear Perplexed,

You haven't missed anything. It's true that the Right has been attacking "Obamacare" for months, but they don't have any better idea what it is than you do. We may find out more tomorrow when the president addresses congress, but then again, maybe not. He seems to have a problem with any kind of governing that doesn't involve an executive order or a signing statement. Still gives a hell of speech, sometimes, though.

The Obama administration, committed to "health insurance reform" by the candidate's vague promises during the campaign, knew it wanted something it could call health reform, but apparently didn't know what. They parsed the failure of the Clintons to pass health care reform, not necessarily coming away with the lessons you might have. The Clintons' massive bill was drawn up in secret without input from the legislature. That might have led to the conclusion a) that the process should include elected representatives and b) that it should be public and transparent. The White House decided that the corrective of too much control by the White House was none. The president should stay completely out of the process -- in other words, he would decline to lead at all. The part about transparency went right by them -- at the same time that they left the legislature to tack this way and that without a rudder, White House officials were holding secret meetings with drug companies, insurers and other big players in the health care industry. Instead of the promised "change," as far as secrecy goes it was business as usual in the new administration.

It's not like the Obama White House had to lay out a program in Clintonian detail, every t crossed, every i dotted. But he owed it to other leaders in his party to make clear, in general outline at least, what he expected. Since House bill HR 676 that would establish Medicare for All only takes up 13 pages, it's obvious that you can say a lot in a very few words. During the campaign, Obama stood to Hillary's right on insurance reform, so it's not as if anyone expected him to propose socialized medicine, but his supporters were not wrong to anticipate some minimal changes: even those of us with the lowest expectations thought that, at the least, health care insurance would be made more affordable, universal and portable; costs would be controlled; and no one would be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition.

Naturally, because no one can think of any other way to control costs, many believed that Medicare for All, or single-payer health insurance, would have to be considered. But in another misreading of the Clinton health care debacle, the administration, in its only glimmer of leadership, took Medicare for All "off the table" for being too radical, even though the president himself acknowledged that it is the only way to bring down the cost of health care. It never seems to have occurred to anyone in the White House that part of the reason the Clinton plan foundered was the degree complexity that came from trying to devise a mechanism that would save the parasitic insurance industry. Like the massive bill that has emerged from the House of Representatives, Clintonian health care reform lacked the simple directness that made "Medicare for All" an easier sell.

The "public option" that has the Right so exercised is a compromise introduced in an attempt to put a brake on costs by providing a publicly financed alternative to exploitative private insurance. It probably wouldn't have worked as intended, so we shouldn't be too disappointed if the president throws it under a bus tomorrow. But it has to be understood that with out it, or Medicare for All, or the conversion of the insurance companies into not-for-profits, whatever the president conjures up tomorrow will be as a bandaid on a hemorrhaging wound. A public option that is triggered a decade from now by some vague set of circumstance is the same as no public option; probably worse, because it will leave the impression that something was done.

At the end of the day, this is what is likely to happen: every person in the United States not eligible for Medicare or other existing government programs, will be forced into a private insurance plan, with the tab for those who can't pay picked up by the taxpayer. In other words, the insurance companies will sell many millions of additional policies and get massive government subsidies for the trouble. Businesses will probably still be on the hook for huge insurance expenditures, although some industries may be excepted. Insurance may become more "portable," that is you will be more able to carry it from job to job, and to a much larger extent than now insurance companies will not be able wriggle out medical payments. There will be no significant reduction in insurance industry overhead, however, beyond the loss of a few claims adjusters.

Should this pass -- by no means a sure thing given the profoundly undemocratic nature of the U.S. Senate -- the administration will call it a victory and move on to less vexing tasks. Like bombing the crap out of Afghanistan.

Health Care: Consider the public option 'trigger' pulled

"Serious reform doesn’t mean capitulating to the private healthcare industry, mandating private coverage, failing to control costs, the government subsidizing private insurance industry, and then Obama calling it 'the public option.' A real public option controls costs, expands coverage, and regulates the insurance industry." - Allison Kilkenny (Consider the public option 'trigger' pulled -- hTrue/Slant 2009-09-08)