Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sanders Puts Single-Payer On the Agenda
While the one reform that could cure what ails America's health care system has attracted plenty of adherents in the House -- 72 members have signed on as backers of House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers' single-payer proposal and others back a plan introduced by Washington Democrat Jim McDermott's legislation -- there has not been a Senate proposal to rally around.
Until now.
That's what makes Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders' proposed "American Health Security Act of 2009" such an important piece of legislation. In addition to being the first single-payer bill introduced in the Senate since the mid-1990s -- when the late Paul Wellstone, D-Minnesota, sponsored a bill similar to the plan now being advanced by Sanders -- it raises the profile of the doctors, nurses, patients and other campaigners who are trying to tell the Obama administration and its congressional allies that the legislative compromises they entertain are doomed to fail.
Under the American Health Security Act of 2009:
· Patients could seek care from the doctor or hospital of their choice.
- The new national health care program would be paid for by combining current sources of government health spending into a single fund with modest new taxes amounting to less than what people now pay for insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
· Funding would come from the federal government, but the program would be administered by the states.
- The high overhead and profits of the private, investor-owned insurance industry would be eliminated, along with the burdensome paperwork imposed on physicians and other providers. As a result, the plan would save at least $400 billion annually - enough money to provide comprehensive, quality care to all.
- Community health centers would be fully funded, giving the 60 million Americans now living in rural and underserved areas access to care.
- To address the critical shortage of primary care physicians and dentists, resources for the National Health Service Corps to train an additional 24,000 health professionals would be provided.
The Sanders bill stands in stark contrast to the proposals being considered by the Obama administration and U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, D-Montana, which would establish a new public-versus-private hybrid to try and address dysfunctions in the current public-versus-private hybrid that has left more than 45 million Americans uninsured and at least that many Americans underinsured.
"This is excellent news," says Dr. Quentin Young, national coordinator of Physicians for a National Health Program. "There is now a way for the Senate to help us exit the nightmare of a collapsing health care system. If this bill is enacted, we no longer have to put up with the outrageous costs that prevent millions of Americans from receiving medical care and medications. Nor will tens of thousands have to declare bankruptcy over medical bills. In the face of our present economic calamity, this is an urgent necessity."
Recalling that "President Obama once acknowledged that single-payer national health insurance was the best way to go," Young added, "We are confident that Senator Sanders' bill will accelerate the national drive for the only reform that we know will work."
Let's hope the doctor's diagnosis is right.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
23 Comments so far
Show AllThank you Senator Sanders. If the Senate had more people ala Sanders, we the people wouldn't be mistrusting Washington by now. I appreciate Democrats like McDermott but am disgusted with Blue Dogs and DLC shills such as Baucus. I'll writing to my two senators Mckaskill and Bond letting them know that a lot of companies throughout this state are dealing with the burdensome costs of privatized healthcare and that the unemployed who are trying to get back to employed status are finding themselves unable to afford privatized healthcare. Mckaskill might listen and while I know Bond very well for his partisan righwing rubberstamping, I did finally get a successful response from his staff when I punched it to them that even one of his favorite companies were open to EFCA and I think I could perhaps frame the case on single payer in a way that he'll have to pay attention. Rural MO, where the GOP get most of their votes from, actually stand to recover the most from both EFCA and single payer. I know most folks in the rurals are used to railing against EFCA and single payer mainly because they don't know what those policies really are and how they'll benefit but a lot of us city folks in the Kansas City and St Louis areas will still try to help even if we get our hands bitten at.
All CD readers need to write, phone or e-mail their two US senators and tell them to co-sponsor and support Senator Sander's American Health Security Act of 2009.
Snobama, congressional reps. and senators are under tremendous pressure from the insurance industry to keep single-payer off the table. Hearing from you will help counter that pressure.
I'll be forwarding this article around! Sanders is the sort of representative of the People we need more of - and this plan seems to have addressed concerns for all parties - the only losers are those who would make the People's Health a source for their own personal profit ...and they deserve to lose!
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
Thank G-d.
Even on a liberal site this only has 4 responses. Why? Because we all know it doesn't stand a chance of passing. It's a token, an appeasement. Nonetheless, I will support the good doctors at PNHP and I will once again hope beyond all hope that Washington might listen when I know perfectly well they are paid not to hear.
This is pretty close to the Canadian Model outside how the funding is divided up.
What needs to be detailed would be the portability aspects so as to ensure that no matter the State of residence/birth you could not be denied service in another state.
They might also wish to examine provisions to ensure there can be no "offloading" of funding down to the States at the Federal level. This happened in Canada where when the Feds wanted to balance the budget they just shifted a greater chunk of the costs to the provinces.
With the greater number of "smaller" states as compared to provinces in Canada there also has to be some sort of minimal standards state to state so one state does not rely on a neigboring state to provide services.
The closer one can get to the model of "The health system in Alabama is as good as the health system in Virginia , the better.
I don't know if portability is really an issue...government services are provided to all people inside the state aren't they? Do Miami police refuse to help a robbery victim who is in Florida on vacation from new York?
Zmann, In the case of a robbery, the victim doesn’t receive a bill from the police. That is true just about everywhere in the world.
In the case of medical care, in the US, most people have to pay insurance companies to receive it. This is unlike the advanced democracies where your taxes pay for it.
Portability means that, for example, the (proposed) taxes your vacationing New Yorker pays in his home state, will cover health care received from providers in Florida. If your system doesn’t have portability, then you are back to paying for private insurance when you travel around the states.
Well the bill in its current form, according to the article at least, also means patients wouldn't receive a bill, the hospital/medical center will pay for it out of their allocated funds or bill the government...eh, I'm sick today, I don't know if I'm making my point clear enough.
Portability means that a person getting sick In Alberta while there on Vacation from Newfoundland can go to a hospital and not be billed for the services.
What happens is this. Let us say a given State is given 1 billion a year to cover its health Care costs by the feds.
The State finds it is spending 1.5 billion a year because for whatever reason people come in from "out of state" and use their services. The State then says "we are under funded by 500 million a year so will start billing these out of State visitors"
The other issue is to ensure a steady stream of funding wherein the Federal Government can not cut funds at will to "starve the system".
All of these are important to ensure universailty across the country and to ensure that administrations that follow who might be opposed to single payer do not start to starve the system so it looks like it failing.
For any such bill introduced, Mr Sanders and others have to ask "How will those opposed to this Bill try and WRECK it should they ever get in power"? and build in safeguards against it.
In Canada we deal with provinces trying to introduce parallel private systems and or have Federal Governments that will cut funding to health care and then say "see its NOT working...."
Its sort of like a take on Benjamin Frankilin saying we have a republic if we can keep it.
If you ever do get single payer Universal care (and I am hoping that you do) rest assured there will be groups of people both in Government and in Industry that will try and tear it down.
It is absolutely no surprise that this being proposed by Bernie Sanders, as he is one of the few senators who does not owe his seat to corporate interests. Sanders is also not afraid to talk positively about the health system in other industrialized nations (which is taboo for most other congressional types). That this article does not engender the same response as the ones about Gaza is truly appalling, as this has a lot more direct impact on a great number of the habituates of this site than the latest update about rockets or snipers.
Having spent part of my adult working life in a country with single payer (Switzerland, where I was guest worker), it is not the nightmare the right wing insurance and drug industry hired flacks obfuscate about. It is no coincidence that the current media strategy of the anti-single payer camp is outright deceptive propaganda, as their gross mismanagement has neutered every other option. It is well past time that their campaign be a textbook example of a media operation that ultimately failed.
Talk about obsfucation: the republicans are now talking about "universal access" to health care. Not at all the same thing!
The republican version will be to criminalize anybody who doesn't pay the ransom for univeral access.
The Republican version, and sad to say that of many Democrats, could be so oppressive to families that people will clamor for it to end. It could well be written so that hard working families in the "above-poverty below-comfort" range would have to sacrifice rent, food and saving for education in order to pay. Then if they refused, they would be in violation of the law.
That is a common strategy. Write bad bills for social welfare so that people will turn against them.
Single payer national health is the only rational and streamlined solution. Health care decisions could be based on public health considerations, not raw market forces.
By the way - go Bernie!!
Joe
You're right. This is really the single most important issue for the vast majority of us. Without single payer health care, people and businesses will continue to go bankrupt. I commend Sanders for this proposal but I won't hold my breath waiting for it to get anywhere. There are just too many corrupt cowards in Congress.
YES!!!
"Recalling that "President Obama once acknowledged that single-payer national health insurance was the best way to go," Young added, "We are confident that Senator Sanders' bill will accelerate the national drive for the only reform that we know will work."
Let's hope so!
Where is Ted Kennedy? Is he going to back Bernie Sanders on the "American Health Security Act of 2009"?
Last I heard he was in the hospital...haven't heard anything about him in a while.
Okay, I really didn't think that Bernie had it in him--and I am happy to be proven wrong.
At this point it isn't nearly as important whether it passes or fails, (because even if it passes then begins the "where will we find the funding for the measure"shuck and jive) as much as it is to get it out of committee and up for a vote. From there it will be possible to determine who are for and who are against the the healthcare needs of Americans.
Poet
Well the bill includes the funding part: using existing healthcare funding sources plus a modest tax.
72 supporters - that is actually reasonably substantial out of about 435 members of the House.
Well, considering that the US spends about double per capita on healthcare and receives worse care, I ask Americans, is it objective analysis or ideology that makes you resist this?
Just imagine if we could get Sander's single payer health insurance passed and the Durbin-Specter publicly funded elections bill passed. Now that would make a difference.
We can only hope. In the spirit of transparency I would suggest that each Congressperson discloses his or hers campaign contributions from Health Insurance and Drug companies. It would be a good indication of how their vote will go. Anyone without one or more of these campaign sources stand up and take a bow. Public financing for elections is the only answer to eliminating 'bought and paid for' politicians. Add NO MORE WAR & REGULATE FINANCE to the list and we would be well on our way to a healthier, less corrupt, peaceful nation. As everyone in Congress is indebted to all facets of these industries there is little hope of a home run any time soon.