Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe People’s House Provides Glimpse of Real Democracy: Healthcare Reform Debate Provides Bipartisan Victory
In recent years there has been little to claim coming out of Washington, DC, that resembles the vision of the democracy envisioned for this nation by our founders. But yesterday in perhaps the most unlikely way, our Congress witnessed a victory that crossed party lines, ideological lines and even heavy and sustained lobbying by everyone from White House operatives to single payer activists. But this was a win for the people -- and it came in the People’s House.
Human rights met states rights. Bipartisan effort fought for and against, and in the final recorded vote, an amendment offered in the United States House of Representatives Education and Labor Committee by Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio won handily. The issue? Should states be granted federal program waivers if they choose to pass and implement single payer, publicly funded, privately delivered healthcare systems for their residents?
Ultimately, in the wee hours of the morning on voice vote, the amendment passed despite arguments against it by those who somehow would deny states like California, where single payer has passed the state legislature twice only to be vetoed by the governor, the ability to successfully implement a single payer system. Other states are forging ahead with legislation aimed not only at providing healthcare for all but also providing relief from the crushing budget woes that stem from healthcare costs for public employees and retirees that threaten everything from roads to schools to sewer projects to filling potholes.
Enough about single payer for the moment. President Barack Obama has called for bipartisan effort on the health reform crisis. And to date we’ve seen few real and solid examples. We’ve heard all the old saws about socialism and stretching the federal budget with program development. And we’ve seen the Democrats breaking campaign promises on everything from taxation of benefits to insurance mandates.
But in the House Labor and Education Committee where Mr. Kucinich brought his amendment, finally we saw and heard some debate based in Constitutional law ( the 10th amendment protects states rights) and also heard debate on allowing states to develop single payer. Republicans praised the effort for its recognition of 10th amendment protections while Democrats struggled with how to tow the line for the Obama healthcare vision and the thousands of activists and constituents calling and emailing and writing for support of single payer.
Undoubtedly there was a lot of political gamesmanship in the vote. No matter. Each side had its agenda and its pushes and pulls.
When the vote came down, it was breathtaking in its depth and in its complexity and simplicity of purpose all at once. Big “D” democracy – the people matter in the People’s House meets little “d” democracy as healthcare reform shapes up.
There is hope yet friends. And there is cause for celebration and praise. Our Democracy can still listen and function. Thank you to Dennis Kucinich for shepherding this amendment through. Thank you to the Committee for allowing the debate and the vote. And thank you to the millions who support healthcare as a human right for believing that we can move single payer forward and we can do it together.
It may have been a little more bipartisan than President Obama wished for… and it may prove once and for all that single payer is not off the table for the American people, whether they are in Oregon or California, Pennsylvania or Illinois, Colorado or Missouri, Ohio or Montana, Utah or Florida, Nevada or New York, Maine or Maryland, Minnesota or Virginia… or even inside the infamous Beltway where every so often we see an example of the democratic process at its best.
29 Comments so far
Show Allone can put it this way:
SINGLE PAYER was NEVER allowed ANY breath at All in the USA for its entire history .
the examples of the SUCCESS and HUMANENESS of other industrialized countries with SINGLE PAYER has been used as a "fear" factor "socialism"......
to PREVENT it from EVER "coming INSIDE": the USA .
THIS appeal to the "state's rights" part of the constitution - in a certain sense
"LET IN A SEPARATE COUNTRY" "socialist" or "single payer" system
INSIDE the UNITED STATES........
it is like:
since the US FEDERAL system would not ALLOW "sweden" or "norway" or "france" systems
to become a part of the AMERICAN "system" ....even if they are demonstrably far superior
this amendment so to say - went to an "INSIDER" - an actual USA STATE - one by one - to apply "single payer".
eventually its success will LEAVE those that don't or haven't adopted it - behind in the dust with their patchwork health care as it stands today.
americans are still americans - they can even move to a different "STATE" or country "within the USA" - someone from alabama can go to georgia if they DON"T like Alabama's "single payer" if adopted - and "become a citizen of georgia" because they liek georgia's "privatzed" system..and SEE where THAT gets them in the end.
back to where they ARE TODAY ..bankrupted and RATIONED by the insurance companies!
but doesn't this pretty much take the pressure off congress to create a national system?
and isn't it only by congress creating a nation-wide single payer system run by the fed gov that there could be enough 'funded base' to bring down costs and make insured health care available to everyone?
does giving states the option to opt out and create their own SP systems really solve the health care issue for all USAens?
what about states whose legislatures are controlled by conservatives who won't create such system? won't their uninsured people be in the same predicament as they are now?
ditto: what about states whose population is too small to create an adequate funded base for a workable state SP system?
i don't see how this congress-given state option solves the overriding problems. seems like this is a cop-out that really allows the problem to get worse, for lots people....
"but doesn't this pretty much take the pressure off congress to create a national system?"
Since the it seems unlikely that will happen in this congressional session, having successful state systems could serve to promote the possibility of national single payer systems in the future. Even the failed MA and other state mandate plans have been a model for current legislation.
"and isn't it only by congress creating a nation-wide single payer system run by the fed gov that there could be enough 'funded base' to bring down costs and make insured health care available to everyone?"
San Francisco is doing a great job with "Healthy San Francisco"--giving all of it's residents healthcare although it's not a single payer plan. The CA ONECARE plan seems very viable and has passed legislation twice--only vetoed by the governor.
"does giving states the option to opt out and create their own SP systems really solve the health care issue for all USAens?"
A national plan would be great, but in lieu of that, it's great for states to have the freedom to create single payer systems which can also serve as successful model for other states and the nation. NOT having that right would be a travesty.
"what about states whose legislatures are controlled by conservatives who won't create such system? won't their uninsured people be in the same predicament as they are now?"
Yes,I agree that is a valid concern. However, I think that if there are some successful state models, that would be a plus in getting other states to adopt a single payer plan.
"ditto: what about states whose population is too small to create an adequate funded base for a workable state SP system?"
Not sure how that would work but I think SF is a good model to look at.
"i don't see how this congress-given state option solves the overriding problems. seems like this is a cop-out that really allows the problem to get worse, for lots people...."
Why worse? To me it's better to have state models of how single payer could work than to wait until we get a national plan. Canada has a national single payer health care system and it started with one just one province.
"Since the it seems unlikely that will happen in this congressional session . . ."
This is the same rationalization for abandoning the fight for single payer that we hear from the public-option crowd. Same result: self-fulfilling prophecy of defeatism and resignation in the fight for single payer.
You are correct. State-by-state is definitely not the best way to win single-payer. The positive side is that some large states-- particularly California, which has a large enough base to make single-payer viable-- have ALREADY PASSED single-payer. It was vetoed by Schwarznegger-- twice. This amendment -- if adopted in the final bill --- which is by no means assured-- may encourage Californians to try again-- and I hope they do-- and make it easier for single-payer to actual work once in place-- thereby setting a precedent for other states and the rest of the country.
California does currently have another bill for single payer. With elections for governor coming up in the near future and with candidates who are more progressive than our current government, our chances for enacting it are much greater. It would have been a shame if we didn't have that freedom.
Conversely this also means that in a new election all the residents of a state could LOSE their coverage, a major reason why this amendment is a pile of crap.
Only a commitment to covering EVERYONE is a real victory. This amendment is a commitment to allowing some people to have a theoretical temporary and removable "right" to coverage, and is no victory at all.
I suppose you folks buy that "withdrawing from Iraq's cities" is the same as "withdrawing from Iraq"..?
I'm glad that you people weren't around in the 1860s, Alabama would still have slavery but you'd call the ban in Maine a general victory...
I don't agree that in a new election in the state if a single payer system was enacted could just be dismantled by a new governor. And if there was a national single payer, that would be the same--there would have to be new laws not just a new administration dismantling it.
I personally don't think that there was any real withdrawal from Iraq and certainly Kucinich who introduced these amendments was very vocal about letting people know there wasn't a real withdrawal. See his website. There was a re-drawing of the city boundaries so that some troops would no longer be "in the city." In addition, all of that doesn't even to speak to the escalation of mercenaries in Iraq and Afghanistan. See Jeremy Scahill's article and even a Bill Moyers journal interview with him.
Well of course the election of new politicians within a state could kill a state program; this happens all of the time whether you agree or not.
People seem to be missing the obvious: NATIONAL SINGLE PAYER KILLS THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY DEAD NATIONWIDE. They can't compete. This state by state thing lets them live to fight (dirty) another day, let's them gather money in one state to kill single payer in another.
The federal money is there, state money often is not.
Healthcare coming from the federal budget also forces us to eye the war spending as something to be cut, whereas forcing the money from state budgets just pits helpful social programs against each other.
For the umpteenth time, national single payer makes healthcare a RIGHT and this crap makes it a PERK.
This is a time-wasting defeat for the single payer cause.
These are good questions, Terry.
I disagree that with the author of this essay that some kind of victory has been achieved. States do have autonomy within the federalist system, so Kucinich's proposal seems uncontroversial.
Maybe it's more like a Pyrrhic victory. That is, Kucinich's proposal is only good if single-payer national healthcare has failed. And it has indeed failed. Single payer was rejected by Obama and Democratic leaders. People should be contemplating that as a personal assault.
-TIA
In the past, CA had passed a bill for lowering emissions standards and that was blocked by the government. Vermont had a bill to label genetically modified food and that was blocked as well.
This is now the only reason to throw support behind this bill.
If this clause is still there when this is signed into Law, single-payer will have sealed its inevitable victory over "private-insurance for all".
Don't be fooled by the window dressing, if the many States are free to pursue single-payer, one of them eventually will (California would be ideal). When this happens, as other posters have mentioned, that State will have gained a HUGE economic advantage and will begin reverse the general trend of collapse that has gripped these United States. At that point, the race to single-payer and the abandonment of national and global insurance for health maintenance will be on, and any State wishing to escape the economic morass that grip them will follow suit.
The total corrupt, Corporatist, despicable failure that the rest of this "health-reform" bill will become will only help State-by-State single-payer spread.
Has D. Kucinich finally outfoxed the bastards?
Has he finally seen that if the TRUE Progressives/Social-Democrats on the "left" would only find a way to get together with the TRUE Constitutionalists/Libertine Revolutionists on the "right", they might actually have the strength to topple the Corporatists who now rule?
I hope so.
If only lefties would get over the whole "white-male-hatin'", college-activist, PC denouncements of historical figures for failure to hold the social views of their great-great-great-great grandchildren! Then maybe they could see that the guy who flies the Rattlesnake Flag, calls himself a Jeffersonian Republican, and actually knows what the 10th Amendment says represents a much more egalitarian and democratic worldview than the Neo-Feudalism of the Corporatists.
And if only righties (that are actual genuine political libertines, whatever their social view) could see that the Social-Democracy/Progressive movement is actually a continuation and expansion of the Liberal Revolutions of the 18th and 19th Centuries that they rightly revere and uphold! Then maybe they could see the same in us.
Then maybe the U.S. could become a true Federation of States again, and finally catch up to the European States that it beat to the democratic punch in 1775-87.
State Sovereignty, Regional Integration, Global Outlook, AND Social-Democracy. Is it possible? Look to the South my friends, and see.
sierra7
Is there a scent of revolution by the States versus that "rule of whoredom" in Washington DC and K ST????
(This might get exciting!!)
Just think what might have happened (I know, I know, might, could, would, should etc) if the media hadn't "crushed" exposure to Kucinich during the 08 election cycle!!!!
great post matti.
nice post.
Time for some more hope :-)
Thanks, Donna, for your stalwart work on healthcare issues and making information available here despite the blackout by the corporate media of almost any mention of single payer or Medicare for all. Your resolute work has continued even as your own family has been again tangled up in the nightmare non-system we live under where it is the bottom line that counts. .
Toward the close of today's Democracy Now interview with former Vermont Governor Howard Dean MD, a listener's question was posed to Dean. The focus was on the refusal of corporate media to give any time or attention to single payer despite polls showing it was favored by a majority of citizens and medical professionals. Dean rejected the question saying it was "obviously a question with a point of view" and he disagreed with the polling and that the criticism of the media was unfounded. Wow!! Makes one wonder if Dr. Dean is spooked by the power of the corporate media--which is very real--after they disciplined him with endless reruns of the Howard Dean scream following his 2004 loss in Iowa.
So henceforth, please, only plain vanilla, disconnected, marshmallow soft questions. Direct questions citing documented facts on polls or media performance makes political and presumably corporate leaders decidely uncomfortable. Donna Smith, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez kindly take note and amend your behaviors.
"Makes one wonder if Dr. Dean is spooked by the power of the corporate media--which is very real--after they disciplined him with endless reruns of the Howard Dean scream following his 2004 loss in Iowa."
Which itself shortly followed his critque of the Corporate Media on Chris Matthew's MSNBC program and his promise to break-up the 6 (now 5?) controlling media "conglomerates".
I wonder if this proof that his downfall was a direct response to his original platform and surging popularity has gone down the Memory Hole?
I'll try to find it.
Well, that took all of ten seconds.
Just plug something like "Howard Dean and media conglomerates" into your search engine, and you'll find plenty of truthful articles on the situation.
His "Hardball" appearance was on 12-01-03. I remember it was at the Kennedy School at Harvard, it was part of a series that Matthews was doing with "all" the '04 Prez. Candidates, and it may have even been live.
Here's a link to an article about the whole thing that I particularly liked because it connected it with Corporatism in general, and that with counter-democratic systems as a whole:
http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_TheScream.htm
If this particular "bipartisan victory" actually does provide a glimpse of real democracy and a win for "the people" (i.e., human as opposed to corporate persons) it will indeed be historic. But recent political history makes me very cautious. Or perhaps I'm just getting more cynical as I get older.
I think that many of us are simply worn out from one disappointment after another with Obama and the Congressional Dems. We've come to expect them to do the wrong thing every time.
I have no dbout that the various factions supporting Kucinich's amendment (a very clever move on his part) are doing so for very different reasons.
I also have no doubt that any state which enacts a true single-payer system will become very attractive for new small businesses who don't want or cannot afford the burden of providing healthcare but still want their employees to have the benefit.
q
Supporting the same measure for different reasons are what coalition's all about.
Thank goodness for small and partial victories; they're mostly the only kind.
The inconguity between certain notions about "compulsory insurance", on the one hand, and the possibility of some individual states "opting out", on the other, is one of the things that make me quite sceptical. The latter sounds too much like a truly free market to survive under today's economic driving forces.
Oregoncharles
They still have to worry about the people. When there is a very loud and strong outcry, a bone will be thrown. Unless it's something really super important, like taking over the Middle East. There will be no backing away from that agenda.
RV,I hear you .The insurance lobbies spending $1.4 million a day does not inspire confidence.Your caution is wisdom build on the reality of experience.Rep. Kuccinichs' amendment is a "failsafe" an opt out for a failed effort so to speak.He has no confidence in the Bills 1100 pages of gobbledygook .Did you see Bernie Sanders talk in C.D> yesterday? peace
I think you're right on the mark about their seeing this as some kind of "safety valve" under the mounting public pressures they must be feeling to some extent at least. What worries me is their usual habits once those pressures have been relieved as they often seem to be by even the most trivial and transient concessions.
And the battle continues,from deep in the heart of the insurance empire.From ct4singlepayer@gmail.com As early as this Friday or Monday(July17th or 20),Rep. Anthony Weiner(D-NY)will introduce,in the House Energy and Commerce Committee,an amendment to the so- called Tri-Committee health care bill.The amendment would replace the private insurance industry with a single payer national health insurance program.A national pool everybody in no-one out would of course be less expensive than individual State pools.
In effect the Weiner amendment would substitute Rep. John Conyers(D-Mich)single payer bill,H.R.676,for the proposed Tri-Commitee Legislation(an 1100pp. behemoth).The vote on the amendment will take place the same day it is offered-again most likely this Friday or Monday.
If your Rep. is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee please call your congresscritter and ask that they support Rep.Weiners amendment.A list of committee members can be found here:http://tinyurl.com/dhxg65 the Congressional switchboard can be reached toll free at 800-473-6711 .If your Rep. is not a member of the Committee ,please call Committee Chair Henrey Waxman at 202-225-3976 (use the toll free switchboard)and ask for his support.
This initiative was inspired by Rep.Weiners meeting with Dr.Quentin Young of PNHP at the time of Dr.Youngs' testimony in support of single payer before the House Ways and Means Committee in June.It is also a reflection of grassroots support, that single payer be on the table in Congress. Please call today.Thankyou
Damn I wish I coulda cut and pasted that. peace
Sweet!
A small thing, but good news.
The path to health care for all may be through the individual states. That is how Canada did it.