New Hampshire House Stands Behind Single-Payer Plan
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. - The lack of federal action in finding solutions to the multitude of problems that have led to the national health care crisis has frustrated states suffering from the results of that crisis. Nowhere is that more evident than in New Hampshire, where no less than 250 individual pieces of legislation were filed this year in an attempt to address various aspects of the problem. They range from a bill that would establish a committee to study just what is driving the cost of health care up in the state, to extending insurance coverage for the use of midwives, to establishing an electronically controlled drug prescription monitoring program.
However, the strongest indication of the bind the state finds itself in as a result of the inactivity of federal lawmakers may have been the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 5, which endorses the National Health Insurance Act put forth by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. The resolution passed the New Hampshire House on March 21 by almost a 2-to-1 margin.
“It’s very exciting,” said Portsmouth physician Thomas Claremont, who was the impetus for the resolution. “It will open up the debate, because now when these (presidential candidates) come to speak before the Legislature, they will know where that body stands on health care.”
Conyers’ legislation establishes a new American national health insurance program by creating a single-payer health care system. The bill would create a publicly financed, privately delivered health care program that uses the already existing Medicare program, aiming to expand and improve the program for all U.S. residents.
The reasons for the overwhelming New Hampshire support for Conyers’ legislation were listed in the body of the resolution. They included:
- The fact that approximately 135,000 New Hampshire citizens lacked health insurance in 2006, and those insured now often experience burdensome medical debt.
- An estimate that half of all personal bankruptcies in the state are due to illnesses or medical bills, among other issues.
State Rep. Jim Splaine, D-Portsmouth, said he and state Rep. Paul McEachern, D-Portsmouth, sponsored HCR 5 “because we wanted to make it clear that a single-payer, national health care system is what New Hampshire and the nation need.”
“There were some concerns about cost,” he said of the House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee, which considered the bill. “But most saw the eventual savings a single-payer system would result in.” The committee voted 9-6 to recommend passage of the resolution.
The cost of Conyers’ bill has been estimated at $1.86 trillion a year. However, it is estimated that Conyers’ plan would save more than $150 billion on paperwork alone in the first year and another $50 billion by allowing Medicare to negotiate a bulk purchasing discount for medications.
Splaine said the HCR 5 must now go to the Senate for passage. He said he is optimistic about its chances there.
As a lead-up to the visit by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama Tuesday for a “Community Meeting on Health Care,” an article on this issue will appear each day in the Portsmouth Herald. We invite readers with stories to tell to contact Shir Haberman at 570-2230 or shaberman@seacoastonline.com.
Copyright 1999 - 2004 Seacoast Newspapers, a division of Ottaway Newspapers Inc.
Hmm…without further ewlaboration I am deeply suspicious of anything that is “publicly financed” and “privatly delivered”. This sounds like Blackwater, Halliburton, and the burgeoning “faith based initiatives” program. I cannot imagine someone as consistently progressivew as Conyers wanting such but that descriptor sets off alarm bells in my mind.
Poet–I understand your scepticism. What publicly financed, privately delivered means in practice is the retention of the already existing care structure–hospitals, clinics, labs, and their employees, etc.–while replacing the chaotic way health services are paid for–and paying for EVERYONE in need of such services. It is this sort of plan/system that Hillary Clinton denied passage of in 1993/4 by making sure the insurace companies still remained in business and continued to scalp those they allowed to insure. Look for her and others to try a repeat of 1993/4.
Insurance is the second oldest scam in the world. Massive savings and better benefits would accrue if ALL forms of insurance were replaced by single payer systems.
Poet, this is exactly the type of system Canada uses. By having a single public insurer all the risk is spread evenly over the entire population. There is no bureaucracy devoted to weeding out the healthy from the sick to improve profits. No money is spent trying to deny benefits. What to cover and what to pay providers is negotiated publicly. Canada spends half as much per person as the US and gets better outcomes (longevity, infant mortality, etc.) It’s not a perfect system but it is significantly better than what the US has now. Just ask any Canadian.
karlof1, exactly right. We can’t have no-fault auto insurance because the lawyers have to make money. A single payer system for health care would rob the poor insurance companies. We can’t dispense with war lest corporate contractors’ profits fail to increase at an ever-accelerating rate. When is it going to be our turn?
It should also be noted here that the real name is Conyers-Kucinich bill# 676 (I think that’s the number). anyway, this is a dual effort on the part of both these GREAT Progressives. Poet, go to www.kucinich.us and read the plan. As was said above by Duquesne, this is what Canada has and, actually, WE ARE THE ONLY MAJOR ECONOMIC COUNTRY
WITHOUT THIS PLAN! Think about that one!
It is surely a far sight better to have a single payer system than to have what we have now with large companies profiting from the suffering of the sick.
There is an excellent 17 minute video on “Canada’s Single Payer Health Plan: A Model for Reform” with an introduction by Paul Wellstone. It’s easy to show and is an eye opener. Human beings relating to human beings instead of profiteers and commodities. Choice of doctors, egalitarian treatment, satisfaction, high standards, and at half of our cost. Nedless to say, insurance companies and HMOs are not happy with it.
Now, I’ve lost the name of the company selling the DVD and google doesn’t have it. Does anyone know where to get it?