Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSanders to Push for Single-Payer Vote in Senate
MONTPELIER - U.S. Sen. Bernard Sanders will likely make history this year when - for the first time ever - he brings a bill creating a national single-payer health care system to the floor of the Senate for a vote.
![[Senator-elect Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is interviewed by a Reuters reporter at Sanders' office in Burlington, Vermont November 28, 2006. (REUTERS/Brian Snyde)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/bernie.jpg "bernie.jpg")
As a compromise on a public-option plan that would allow
states to opt out gains steam in the U.S. Senate, Sanders, a Vermont
independent, continues to focus his attention on a single-payer bill,
although he acknowledges that there are not enough votes to pass it.
"That bill will lose," Sanders said Wednesday morning during a telephone interview. "The question, however, will be how much support it will get."
Introduced in the early spring, Sanders' American Health Security Act of 2009 would eliminate the role of private insurance companies in health care and create a public fund that would insure all residents of the United States.
Sanders said his bill would insure the 46 million Americans without coverage and could save upwards of $400 million annually by eliminating insurance overhead and medical bureaucracy.
The system would be paid for through existing sources of government health care spending along with some tax increases, which advocates say would be less than what people pay now in co-pays or out-of-pocket expenses.
Sanders' bill has received little attention in Washington political circles as this summer's health-care debate focused more on discredited fears of government death panels and the cost of a public health insurance option, which President Obama favors.
There has never been a vote on a single-payer health care system in either the U.S. Senate or the House, according to Mark Almberg, communications director for the organization Physicians for a National Health Program, a national advocacy organization that supports a single-payer system.
"We do believe that this could be the first time a single-payer bill gets a vote in Congress," said Almberg, whose organization supports Sanders' bill.
Almberg agreed that single-payer does not have the votes to pass the U.S. Congress. He said there are about 80 co-sponsors of a similar House bill, but would not hazard a guess as to how many votes for such a plan there are in the Senate.
Knowing that his single-payer bill is likely to fail, Sanders said he also plans to try including a provision in the final health-care bill that would allow states such as Vermont to experiment with a single-payer system on a state level.
If that legislation is approved, it would be welcomed by some lawmakers in Vermont. Sen. Doug Racine, D-Chittenden, a candidate for governor in 2010, said he plans to kick off hearings at the Statehouse in January on exactly what a single-payer system in the Green Mountain State would look like.
Racine said Vermont would need certain waivers from the federal government to conduct a single-payer health care system here - exactly the type of clearance that Sanders' proposed provision would allow.
"There are lots of different questions that need to be answered," Racine said. "I think we need to move past the question of whether or not a single-payer system would be good for Vermont and begin looking at how it would work."
Sanders was hesitant to make predictions of where health care reform will end up in the Senate - his staff has yet to see a final version of the bill and a date for a vote has not been scheduled.
But his expectation is that the final bill will have the required 60 votes to overcome a Republican filibuster to bring it to a final vote, which only requires more than 50 votes to pass.
"I think that, once we get closer to a vote, the American people will look closely at what is in the Senate bill and what is in the House bill," Sanders said. "I hope that we will see a groundswell of support for health care reform that will force some members to take a stand and allow for a vote."
Still, Sanders is not too enthusiastic about the public-option opt-out plan pushed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, this week.
"All the American people should be given the option of a public health insurance plan that competes on the market with the private insurance companies," he said.
35 Comments so far
Show AllAs a Vermonter, I'm a strong supporter of Bernie Sanders. But he's wasting his time and energy introducing a bill to create a single-payer health care system.
He knows -- and has acknowledged publicly -- that a single-payer system doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passage in either house of Congress. So why is he pushing it?
Even if the votes were there to pass single-payer, it would not likely survive a court challenge by the private health insurance industry. They would almost immediately sue to have single-payer declared unconstitutional on the grounds that:
1) The commerce clause of the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, does NOT give it authority to put an entire industry out of business.
2) To establish a government-run single-payer system would require nationalizing all private health insurers -- which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment, unless the owners of the private firms are compensated. The private firms are worth an aggregate $3 trillion -- more than three times the current federal budget deficit. Clearly, the government cannot afford to pay that much in compensation.
It took a constitutional amendment -- Prohibition -- to put the alcoholic-beverage industry out of business in 1919, only to see it repealed in 1931 after it proved to be a colossal failure that gave rise to organized crime.
Moreover, when President Harry Truman tried to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean War, he got slapped down by the Supreme Court, which ruled he did not have the authority to do so under the Fifth Amendment -- which is also why Congress has never attempted to put the tobacco industry out of business.
So unless Sanders' proposal for a single-payer system is in the form of a constitutional amendment, it has no chance of passage. And even if it was a constitutional amendment, there's no way, given the current makeup of Congress, that it can muster the two-thirds majority required for passage.
I like Bernie, but he's wasting his time pushing for a single-payer system. There is much about single-payer that I admire, but unfortunately, the Constitution won't allow it.
it would show where someone from the green party could grab a seat in congress
if they played up voting records
Go Bernie!
At least make the dogs vote against it, so we'll all be clear on who to vote out of office.
My hero, I'd move to Vermont but it's too COLD for me! Give 'em hell Bernie, I'll fight by your side anytime, one of the few in Congress that hasn't been bought and paid by the Oligarchy!
Sanders can not be bought. How many other senators can say the same??
Kucinich had an amendment in the House health care bill which would have allowed states to set up their own single payer system with federal support. Pelosi just deleted it from the bill to go to the floor for vote. Jesus, Californians, can't you rid us of this hag?
Please everyone, call your senators to support Sanders single payer bill.
GOooooooooo, Bernie!!!
Best news I've read all day.
Perhaps this is the answer to the whole "third party" debate. How about "no party"? Good men and women can run as independents, and be beholden to no corrupt bureaucracy. Mr. Sanders is a great example of what can be achieved. We need more like him.
My sentiments, too, hamster.
Bernie is a great example of what can be achieved as an independent socialist.
The US Senate could use at least 60 like him to overcome to the corporate filibusterers!
Now that's a common dream!
The Greens take no corporate money as a matter of principle.
Running as an Indie will not be a viable route until we have public campaign financing.
B. Sanders is a great Senator, but is also a Socialist, so he does have a third party behind him, small tho it is.
And I agree. We need a whole cluster of Sanders' types in Congress.
Having met with Bernie many times in both political and social environments I think he is best described as an independent that just happens to have socialist beliefs. He tends to shy away from third parties. I voted for him since he first ran for mayor of Burlington until I moved from Vermont in 2005. I never saw Socialist next to his name on any ballot. In the early days, Democrat might have been next to his name, but not Socialist. I tend to be a socialist too, but as a voter I am registered as independent and do not belong to any party, although in the past I have been a dues paying member of the Labor Party.
I think the "so he does have a third party behind him, small tho it is" part of your "B. Sanders is a great Senator, but is also a Socialist, so he does have a third party behind him, small tho it is." statement implies something that is inaccurate.
Knowing that Bernie cosponsored HR 676 when he was a House member, I called his Burlington office early this year requesting that he sponsor a like bill in the Senate. I can't say my call did anything, but who knows?
There is a glaring error in this article. I don't believe I am mistaken when the article should say that a single-payer system would save upwards of 400 billion, not "million" as the article states.
Now if we added to that number the savings from shifting our war economy and military spending from the 680 billion spent yearly (though studies have shown it is actually a trillion a year when all other aspects are factored in), then we could actually do a lot of good things--education, housing, transition to a green economy, shore up social security, maybe actually start creating a society that servers the interests of the people. But naw, we are a Christian nation filled with independent capitalists. We'll have none of it.
Brilliant idea johntwodogs,but you are assuming that these corporate clients have a "conscience"Be Well in peace.
God bless Bernie Sanders! The rest of the Senators can join the lobbyists who pay their way in hell.
Our national government is available for sale to those with the gold. Our representatives has ceased to represent us. The majority of Americans favor single payer health care or a strong public option. Most of us want to remove insurance corporations from our health care. But will it happen? No. Sadly no.
So we now, with mandated purchase of health insurance, have taxation without representation.
Ask yourselves, are we better off now with this health care? Are we better off with this administration and Congress? The Republicans, in the minority, are trying to convince you they are still heavy hitters, while sitting on the bench. The Democrats, the majority, are at bat and afraid of being hit by a pitch. Both parties are lined with Congressional types who have sold out to the campaign money offered by corporate donors. What to do?
Is it time to close the doors to Congress and the White House? Should we have a national recall vote instituted for national officers and representatives who refuse to represent the people? Rule the country by a giant town meeting instead of allowing Congress and the White House the power of the budget? Should we demand and force a Constitutional Convention?
What it is time for, is a vote for a third party candidate. Vote your conscience in 2009 and 2010 and help get rid of these people who have had their heads turned by the glitter of gold. Let's break the backs of the two old parties. Vote for a Green-no corporate donations accepted. And support publicly financed federal office campaigns.
If we want change, it is up to us. We must institute the change we want. No one is going to ride in on a war horse in armor to take care of us. It is up to us.
Go get 'em Bernie. You are the best.
You guys should really take a closer look at the Canadian model. It is not single payer as portrayed in the US media at all.
The PROVINCIAL government provides basic coverage of everybody for a small fee each month, which varies from province to province. Ontario covers the whole tab from general revenue, other provinces like British Columbia charge $75/pp/month. . Most employers pick up this cost as a employment benefit, and other government agencies pick it up for the poor, after the means test., which has a VERY low limit to get under to qualify. You gatta be pretty damn poor.
The Provinces are provided set budget funding by the Federal Government, which they must live within, and may add to from their own coffers.
The program does not cover prescription drugs, or any other non-critical care such as massage therapy, chiropractor, accupuncture, sports medicine,dental, etc. and includes all specialist care prescribed by your doctor of choice.
3rd party "extended coverage" is available in the marketplace, and often offered by employers as benefits, which can include prescriptions, dental etc.
There are small waiting lists for some procedures, but to my knowledge no one has died waiting for care, or if they have, the system has corrected by adding resources to the worst waits.
So, the insurance companies can make a tidy profit without getting stuck with the bills some someones longterm cancer fight, and everyone has basic coverage in case the worst happens and you get sick and need care.
"Pre-existing condition" is not in the Canadian vocabulary.
Just a thought. Its a "win-win"
Personally we all mostly love it. As long as you live in Canada for 6 months out of the year, you are covered, so the "snowbirds" plan their migrations around it.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
My next two emails will be to my U.S. Senators directing them to vote the Sanders bill. We need more like Bernie in the Norman Thomas mold.
Right on, Ed. I just emailed Cantwell to tell her that while I carried signs for her and voted for her in the past, I will actively campaign against her if she does not vote for single payer. I have done the same with Patty Murray, and that frigging weasel Larson who is no no-representative in the House. I WILL campaign against them. Primise. If we all did this, it might make a difference.
I admire and respect Sen. Sanders because he seems to have the courage to stand up and fight for what is morally right. I wish we had more third party Representives and Senators. In a way it is our own fault because we (The American People)have not made our elected officials, appointed officials, and anyone who has chosen to work for the government give an accounting for their lies, actions, and greed. We have many times excused their behavior, turned the other way, and didn't care to demand that they tell the truth, do the right thing, and put Americans first.
We can get 49 more senators to follow in Sanders' footsteps.
Medicare for all, also known as single payer healthcare, is favored by a majority of Americans.
How can we convince Congress to enact what the people want?
Tell your members of Congress that unless they support Medicare for all, you won't support them.
Take the Medicare For All Pledge today:
http://bit.ly/medicareforallpledge
Winning is important, but it is not everything. Sometimes it is important to do the right thing even when you expect to lose. For one bright moment in US Senate history, one Senator will show moral courage. Thanks, Bernie!
I just signed an online letter-to-my-Rep. re supporting the Affordable Health Care for America Act (per an email from Health Care for America NOW!). Where's the email solicitation or other contact info to support Sen. Sanders' unfortunately hopeless effort in the Senate? At least Sanders' bill would be a wonderful opportunity to garner response from us, the people!
Sorry, johntwodogs. Very few Senators vote their conscience, and we already know who they are. The rest vote their corporate masters and the only way to change that is to throw the swine out of office.
I am seriously tired of hearing the lapdog media refer to conservative "Democrats" as moderates. They aren't moderates, they are well paid corporate hustlers. Let's get real and call a pig for what it is, a pig. We can start with Baucus. But he has plenty of company, too much in fact.
This will go on as long as the public votes for whatever slop the corporate media serves up as the menu.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
The media does the same thing to the Republicans but not as much. Usually, conservative Republicans are called mainstream but if one of them goes wacky, the media will pull up another Republican who sounds less looney and call it "moderate". Out here in KY, we have conservative and moderate factions of the Republican Party. The moderate Republicans try to push for bills that favor corporations but can be helpful in pushing socially moderate bills. The word "moderate" is used to trick voters into voting status quo, Republican or Democrat.
I concur.
FANTASTIC work Sen. Bernard Sanders! A leader has emerged for the people. Now it the time to support Sen. Bernard Sanders and his single payer bill. Now is the time to let YOUR Senator know how to vote.
Well said. This is a time to ACT not ponder. Bernie is giving everyone the opening to call, fax and phone your senator. Will they listen? Will they score and count the calls? Who knows but at least you will know you took action!
Vermont....you should be proud! Bernie Sanders is a true Hero! The new Ecotopia....in Vermont instead of in California!
Great job Senator Sanders. Courage is what one has to do regardless of the odds of winning or losing. You can't have faith in government but it's great to inform people who specifically not to trust.
FOOLPROOF BULLETPROOF
Not that it really matters, but either Sen. Sanders or the reporter has made an error:
"Sanders said his bill would insure the 46 million Americans without coverage and could save upwards of $400 million annually by eliminating insurance overhead and medical bureaucracy."
_______
It's $400 Billion - an Iraq War every year. And it goes to arrangements like this one: Congress helped create a monopoly in medical supply. The monopoly they created was supposed to be limited to only raking 6% off the top of every aspirin, bedpan and MRI scanner sold. But they allowed private agreements to be made where a supplier would have to be approved as a supplier. The agreements include giving a percentage to the group purchaser in exchange for being an approved vendor.
It works like this: Say, you are a conglomerate and one of your businesses it making high-tech scanners. You are also part of this group purchasing organization. They agree to buy your equipment exclusively at a price you want. The cost is passed along. And, as a kicker, this conglomerate gets a piece of the "savings" refunded to them as a member of the group purchasing organization. The rationale for creating this organization was to save hospitals money, but it got repurposed.
Is anyone in Congress looking into these backroom deals that help make our system cost an "extra" $400 Billion a year?
"Is anyone in Congress looking into these backroom deals that help make our system cost an "extra" $400 Billion a year?"
No sir, they are not. And we'd be lucky if it started with a B instead of a T in any case. Triple that 400 would be closer to the truth.
Well, one out of 100 senators who proposes a bill that, according to polling data, a majority of the population favors, is fair and egalitarian, and would save money is not bad. That's about all we can hope for in the best democracy money can buy.
One percent support from the Senate for Single Payer compared to over 50 percent support of the citizens. Amazing ratios worth comparing. If anyone thinks we are constituents of a democracy they're crazy.
Perhaps there should be a secret vote in the Senate for SB703; likewise in the House for HR676. Maybe if everyone believes it won't pass regardless of how they vote, then they might vote their "conscience" and it WILL pass. At least it will get a vote, which is more than HR 676 got.