Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati'Weiner’s Amendment Breathes 45,000 Lives into HR3200'
Wow. Things are getting pretty tense out in the trenches where we’ve all seen Wall Street bailouts and bulging unemployment while Congress inches forward on the healthcare reform debate. Millions of us have lost jobs, homes, retirement savings and access to healthcare benefits. And if many in the for-profit health insurance industry have their way, we’ll face an industry bailout for them too – unless we act together, act loudly, act fast and follow the action items Mike shared with us all this week.
Support HR3200 with the Weiner amendment, that’s what Mike told us all. But wait. Does that mean Mike is asking us to support whatever the end product is of the current legislative effort? No. None of us know that result yet. There will be time enough to weigh in on the final product later but for now we’re all critical to what that final product is or is not. We still matter.
Getting to the heart of extending (and improving) Medicare coverage for all in America is only possible through one amendment currently under consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York will offer what is essentially the text of John Conyers’ and Dennis Kucinich’s single-payer bill, HR676, as what is called a substitute amendment when the House debates its current bill, HR3200, on the floor within the next couple of weeks.
In the meantime, the deaths of our fellow citizens due to the lack of access to healthcare continue. 45,000 deaths in America every single year as the debate rolls on. If we are to stop the death march of the for-profit medical-industrial complex led by the for-profit insurance giants in this nation, we must support those in Congress who hear the drumbeat of healthcare justice and who are advocating for us all.
It’s often hard to follow this legislative process and some are ready to throw in the towel on this Congress before the work is done. But the reality is that the rough and tumble work of blending the bills first from individual committees in both chambers of Congress and then tossing in any amendments passed during floor debates still affords us all the first real chance in 44 years to pass healthcare for all into law.
Rep. Weiner is our champion in the House right now, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont is our Senate hero. Both of these brave and determined American lawmakers will offer amendments in their respective chambers to replace other reform bills with single-payer legislation. Both the Weiner and the Sanders amendments are substitute amendments. Substitute amendments offer an entire alternative to the existing text of bills under consideration. The for-profit insurance purchase mandates proposed can still be replaced with the real extension of the basic human right of healthcare. The single-payer substitute amendments can make that right into our American reality.
That’s why when Mike tells us in his list of actions we can take right now that we need to support HR3200 in the House with the Weiner amendment. The Weiner amendment is our road to extending the basic human right of healthcare to all. We all wish the formal bill under consideration right now was HR676. We’ve all fought for it, lobbied for it, written and called supporting it … but the reality is that we won’t get true Medicare for all out of the People’s House any other way but through the Weiner amendment to HR3200.
And in the Senate, we will not get anywhere close to providing healthcare to all without Senator Sanders’ amendment.
President Obama told us again recently, “I want to cover everybody. Now, the truth is unless you have what’s called a single-payer system in which everyone’s automatically covered, you’re probably not going to reach every single individual.”
Rep. Weiner was on a conference call just last night with the activists of the Progressive Democrats of America. He said that his amendment is currently being “scored” by the Congressional Budget Office. The score assigned will measure the amendment’s impact on the federal budget. The results of that score will be out sometime soon. Then it will be up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to honor her commitment to Rep. Weiner to bring his substitute amendment to full debate on the floor of the House when HR3200 is under consideration. Rep. Weiner says that will be happening sometime in the next few weeks – maybe as early as the first week in November. He also said more Congressional members are learning more about the economic and moral benefits of his amendment. We need to support that work.
President Obama wants both chambers debating their bills at the same time. But the Senate effort may be a bit more complicated as staffers tell us there may be as many as 1,000 amendments offered to the Senate healthcare reform bill after its two committees finish merging their efforts. Then we’ll know what Senator Sanders decides to offer in his amendment and a better time frame for our support of his effort there. Stay tuned.
So time is of the essence. We must act now in support of the Weiner amendment or we’ll need to be taking different actions soon – and we’ll keep you posted on the Mike & Friends blog about how things are going.
When I speak to audiences around the country and some express concern or even discouragement about where the healthcare reform battle is right now, I remind us all that if we had taken a poll just two years ago asking how a Presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama would finish, Obama would have won only Hawaii and Illinois. And if anyone had asked us just 14 months ago if we’d find three-quarters of a trillion dollars in a matter of days to hand over to the Wall Street giants with almost no questions asked, we’d all have thought it insane and impossible to believe. But we know what happened. We know change happens.
And we know we can fight together right now to support a better outcome in this healthcare reform battle. Everybody in, nobody out. The urgency was never fiercer than now. Take action.
This piece originally appeared on Mike & Friends Blog.
107 Comments so far
Show AllToo much drama here. The issue is whether we support the Weiner Amendment and, if so, what do we do to help it succeed.
I am for it. I would like to urge everyone to contact their so-called legislators and tell them to support the amendment and tell them we will be watching.
We should explain the amendment to our friends and colleagues. Sowing confusion has been the main tactic of the right on this issue.
Joe
Well said.
Thanks for this invaluable dollop of literary criticism, worthy of Lionel Trilling.
Now where's your post on the subject matter you keep claiming you want to discuss?
Based on years of working in medical IT, I believe that computerizing medical records will not be cost effective, nor medically helpful, nor even possible in the current chaotic and fragmented system. Just as with paper records, bits of medical information will be scattered in different locations because patients have to switch doctors due to insurance company and physician caprices about what is covered and accepted, job loss etc. Computerization will not address the ever-changing complexities of coverage rules. In fact, it requires that every new technicality be coded into the system every day or week.
A single payer system such as Medicare or the VA is the only foundation for coordinated and rational health care spending and record keeping. I reluctantly agree with vanmungo that computerizing medical records is the darling of the health care computing industry because it leads to very fancy and lucrative contracts.
However, I object to an uncivil tone that does not allow for sincere disagreement on the subject. Long winded attacks and name calling are wearisome and diversionary. I think that is the intention by some to wear us down so we give up paying attention to an actual little bit of light.
I suggest everyone write a supportive note to Weiner. Give credit where it is due. We have to use some positive reinforcement with our politicians once in a while.
Joe
People should write a "supportive" note to Weiner when he renounces HR3200 and stops supporting the doomed-to-fail farce of a public option that it contains. Until and unless he does that, it's hard to take seriously his otherwise admirable professions of support for single payer.
By the way--I agree with you about maintaining a civil tone; but you have been an enabler of one of the most chronically nasty and sour ad hom attack artists on this list, zmann--someone who, moreover, mindlessly parrots corporate/MSM myths about a subject as important as the computerization of medical records.
If you want to see civil discourse, you should not offer open encouragement to the people who most openly flout it. You write supportive messages to thugs who tell others, "knock it off," "get a life," "you're going crazy," "take a nap." Your giving encouragement to this kind of thuggery makes a hash of your pose of sanctimony and exposes you as just another hypocrite, grinding out your agenda of personal spite behind a curtain of sanctimony, without the guts to acknowledge your true agenda.
You're not the sage parson you believe yourself to be--you're a coward and hypocrite.
vanmungo,
I am gob smaked with amazement. You agree that keeping a civil tone is best and adopt the ad hominim attack at the end. I could laugh it off if you just suffer from a type of Turrets syndrome in writing. I know pot shots are kind of fun but, like Joe said, it doesn't help.
Now to make sure you understand that this NOT an ego thing on my part, please realize that at times I am a twit, asshole, prick, etc.
You are smart and give it to the powers that be with both barrels. I admire that and I'm sure that Joe does too. We don't need to fight each other. It's useless.
Oh, please--this is really insufferable.
There have been repeated snarling personal attacks in this thread that did not leave you "gob smaked [sic]" with amazement.
Nor were you "gob smaked" when Joe came to the defense of one of the worst offenders.
Nor were you "gob smaked" the morning after you called someone else a "prick" out here, just below, in this very thread! So in your bizarro ethical world, your calling someone a prick is just fine, but someone else noting an example of hypocrisy is a cardinal sin. Duly noted, Parson. With whom did you study elementary ethics--Jimmy Swaggart?
Anyone who sermonized on the subject of polemical decorum after calling someone else a prick is, well, a prick (and a laughable hypocrite, wouldn't you say?). Hoist by your own petard.
Sorry--there's no other word for it.
PS--Oh, now I see that you're the twit who started your own little thread of personal nastiness with your nasty typo flame.
It's a pretty amusing irony that you thought it SO important to intervene with your typo flame over a mistyped number that everyone knows, yet you can't correctly type the phrase "gob smacked"--or is it that you just can't spell? Judging by the crude writing style of your other posts, I'm betting the latter.
Hoist by your own petard AGAIN, and never more richly deserved...PRICK.
Now . . . do you like it on the receiving end, or are you just SO OFFENDED. LOL!
I am guilty, guilty, guilty. Now can we go back to discussing health care reform? I gather that you think my tone is condescending. Since you can't hear me and simply read my writing, I suppose it's possible. I may be a prick, asshole, twit, coward, bad speller, idiot, hoisted on my insufferable petard but it doesn't do a GOD DAMNED THING to the health care debate to discuss my faults. It's useless. Do you want to help or just shine a light on all of us insufferable morons that surround you? We are human and make mistakes. If you don't like that, tough shit. That isn't going to change any time soon. I may be a dumb shit Christian, but I'm not a masochist. And Jimmy lying asshole Swaggart was NEVER a Christian. If you've got a hard iron for Christians, take it somewhere else. The hypocrites and assholes are not limited among humanity's different belief systems.
As for Christians, you are a perfect exemplar of Nietzsche's observation, "The last Christian died on the cross."
So you want to discuss health care?
So why is your post above a lunatic rant devoid of a single sentence on health care?
You DESPERATELY want to discuss health care?
And this from the guy who first entered this thread to give us a typo flame?
Who tells others not to attend too closely to his manifold peronal faults but intervened just above to discuss someone ELSE's faults?
Who has contributed nothing of substance or originality to this thread?
Seriously? You're not joking?
All together now, to AGG:
"Ah, shaddup!"
zmann has been tainting this thread with diversionary MSM/neoliberal propgaganda about the "hundreds of billions" of dollars to be saved from computerizing medical records.
There is no authoritative evidence that computerizing medical records is a key to saving lives or money.
This issue gets promoted by right-wing neoliberals and their confederates in the mass media in order to avoid dealing with the main source of bloated medical costs--drug and insurance company profiteering.
zmann should do some reading and educate himself. He might start with the following summary of a scholarly study by two prominent members of Physicians for a National Health Program:
"Electronic medical records (EMR) are unlikely to save much money according to a commentary by Harvard Medical School health policy experts Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler that appears in the September/October issue of the journal Health Affairs. The commentary debunks a Rand Corporation report appearing in the same issue that forecasts massive savings from EMR.
"The Rand report (which was financed by medical computing firms) is the latest of many recent claims that medical computing will save hundreds of billions of dollars in medical costs. Politicians across the political spectrum from Hillary Clinton to Newt Gingrich see in computing a painless solution to our nation’s health care crisis (additionally, Sen. Ted Kennedy has introduced federal legislation calling for the widespread adoption of EMR).
"The Himmelstein/Woolhandler commentary points out that computer vendors have been claiming that such savings were imminent for the past 30 years. Yet during that time thousands of hospital computer systems have been installed that “haven’t saved a nickel.” The commentary criticizes the Rand researchers for basing their forecast on little or no reliable data. Moreover the Rand forecast assumes that “interoperability” among disparate medical computing systems, which has yet to be achieved in practice, can be readily accomplished nationwide.
"Dr. Himmelstein, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard and former Chief of Clinical Computing at Cambridge Hospital, commented: “We’ve made steady but slow progress in medical computing over the past three decades. But computers don’t offer the panacea that politicians hope for and computer firms are peddling. To mount a national program to do in every hospital that which has yet to be done in any hospital may benefit the computer vendors who paid for the Rand research, but it risks failure on a colossal scale.”
“Computers won’t solve the health care crisis. Since hospitals started computerizing, bureaucracy has multiplied and costs have risen faster than ever. Only national health insurance can streamline health care bureaucracy and save enough money to make universal coverage feasible. We need politicians to provide real leadership, not wait and hope for a technologic miracle.” according to Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard and prominent health policy researcher.
Here's a link to the article:
http://pnhp.org/PDF_files/ElectronicMedicalRecords-HealthAffairs.pdf
Oy, knock it off man. I never said anything about electronic health records saving any money at all, just that it could save some lives, and that we need to do more than implement a single-payer health care system to fix health care in this country. I would say ending patents on medicines and medical devices would be a good idea too, I have read about ideas for funding medical research through some kind of award system, instead of slapping 20 year patents on every new medicine which is usually just a tiny tweak of a previous one.
Get a life.
"Knock it off." "Get a life."
What an ugly, snarling beast you are--and a dangerously misinformed one at that.
There is ZERO evidence that the computerized records would save significant numbers of lives, either. The whole preoccupation with computerized medical records is just (a) a corporate/MSM propaganda tool to divert attention from insurance/drug industry profiteering as the main cause of soaring health-care costs, and (b) a sales tool for software/computer companies. In all, another corporate fraud.
Systematic, universal computerization of medical records might possibly have some benefits, but it is being way oversold, is far from a panacea for any of the ills of the current system, and is essentially a an MSM/neoliberal diversionary talking point that you have digested and are regurgitating here without any real study or information.
Why don't you read the Himmelstein/Woolhandler study before you go on spouting your diversionary MSM propaganda here. Here's the link:
http://pnhp.org/PDF_files/ElectronicMedicalRecords-HealthAffairs.pdf
Don't let them bother you. You should be honored that you have been singled out for special attacks.
Joe
Oh, really--he should be honored?
And what about the mad-dog attacks this zmann jerk has loosed upon others? Here's a small sampler: "knock it off," "get a life," "you're going crazy," "take a nap," etc.
He should be "honored," and you should be embarrassed.
You and he belong together--a growling pit bull and his pious goader/enabler.
"Them" in this case is a serious progressive who studies the issues and knows that facts and tries to counter the regurgitation of MSM/corporate talking points by ill-informed dupes like zmann.
Just for clarification.
If you believe zmann is being unfairly or gratuitously "attacked" rather than being called out for purveing dangerous misinformation on a key point of substance, perhaps you need to read the Himmelstein/Woolhandler article as well. Here's the link:
http://pnhp.org/PDF_files/ElectronicMedicalRecords-HealthAffairs.pdf
Insurance is only part of the problem.
Nearly 200,000 a year die from preventable medical mistakes
According to Medical News Today:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php
This is over twice the rate at which American GIs were killed during WWII by the Germans and Japanese combined!
----------------
And nearly 800,000 a year die from modern medicine itself
(even when done correctly, modern medical techniques kill)
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed.htm
By this reckoning, medicine itself is the leading cause of death in the US -
more die from medicine, than from heart disease or cancer.
-------------
About half of all doctors admit not reporting unethical, unprofessional, or impaired practice by their colleagues:
http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/12/04/
nearly-half-of-all-us-doctors-fail-to-report-
incompetent-or-unethical-colleagues/
If you are a patient, know that your doctor may very well see protecting his colleague from being caught doing something wrong is more important than your welfare.
-----------------
Much is written about our dysfunctional health care financing system.
But the medical community itself is pretty dysfunctional too.
We can do better.
Kick the bad doctors out of medicine (and the bad nurses, and bad administrators)
They deserve no stinking tenured protection for simply graduating from med school,
doing residency, and completing the license exam.
We can find better people to train and do their jobs.
The arrogance of medical professionals is the biggest impediment to their improvement.
I'm concerned the unethical medical culture that US doctors today have grown used to will take a while to get rid of - it's deep in the personality of people who are used to having their well-entrenched views respected.
There should be zero tolerance toward physicians who don't live up to their ethical obligations. If there are school districts that hold kids to strict zero tolerance about abusing drugs, we should hold physicians (who have so much more power and are given so much more trust), to strict zero tolerance toward abusing medical ethics.
We need to invest power in people who AREN'T doctors, nurses, or health care professionals of any sort, and are not in any way beholden to that industry. Those whose expertise is basic understanding of medical ethics need to be given teeth to strip doctors of their licenses, have the willingness to do so, and the backbone not to stray from that purpose. Zero tolerance - if high school kids should be kept to it, doctors should be too. Overseeing torture, or training Chinese doctors in organ transplants to help make their Falun Gong executions more profitable, are simply the tip of a huge unethical iceberg in American medicine. Doctors supervising doctors is like kids supervising kids. Doctors DON'T collectively have their act together well enough for that.
Take ALL doctors off their own licensing boards!
Put people there whose first interest is patient welfare!
It's really hard to get people to sustain a line of thought out here.
Profiteering by private insurers is indeed the MAIN problem for the topic under discussion here: spiralling medical costs.
Yes, medical malpractice is a serious problem.
But the issue here was medical costs--as in dollar costs.
The United States has twice the per capita health-care costs, on average, of other industrialized countries. This constantly soaring rate of cost increases is economically unsustainable--the chief culprit here is private profiteering, which is allowed by no other industrialized country in the main sources of health-care funding.
Not all aspects of the health-care crisis are germane to every comment.
Your coomment is a worthy subject for another thread, but off-topic for this one.
Kudos for Weiner for doing what looked like couldn't be done. I think that chances of the amendment passing are nearly nil but the fact that, against all odds (and without ANY leadership support), some version of single payer is still breathing, causes me to despise this government just a smidge less.
I wrote a thank you to Weiner for doing his job. It is unusual enough to deserve notice.
Joe
How come the pentagon funding amendments aren't scored? We are tired of these bureaucratic kabuki dances. NO, they are NOT necessary or democratic or required in our so-called "complex" government. They are stalling.
Just because Weiner is doing his job does not mean he is a hero. So now we enshrine a legislator because he isn't an obvious corporate patsy? WTF?
We, the people, did our work! Why do we have to be yelling and screaming at these legislators just for them to do what they were elected to do?
Do we need to chase them down on the streets with bats to get some decent behavior out of them?
Is this the "brow beating" type of democracy?
Do we need to place them in a "health care labyrinth" with only one path so they can make correct decisions?
Are these people total morons or just totally corrupt?
Take part of the war funding and use it for HR 676, PERIOD.
Congress:
Take part of the war funding and use it for HR 676, PERIOD.
Don't tell me it can't be done. My memory is still fresh on how the SENATE, which is not supposed to originate laws, went around the constitution for the 700 billion dollar Paulsion scam. They can do ANYTHING THEY WANT TO WHEN THEY REALLY WANT TO DO IT.
We are tired of the bullshit.
I just have to add this for the sake of irony:
From the CounterPunch CIA article:
By the late 1970s, the CIA had planned or carried out the assassination of leaders in more than a dozen countries; CIA jokers called this “SUICIDE INVOLUNTARILY ADMINISTERED” courtesy of the Agency’s “Health Alteration Committee.”
That's ha, ha, hillarious (as in Hillary or a basketfull of dead babies).
HEALTH ALTERATION COMMITTEE! Now you know what the repub/democratic corporate party health insurance reform is REALLY all about.
Anyway, best of luck with the HR 676-like amendment.Without it there will be lots of changes in 2010.
Single payer health care for everyone! NOW
Just curious why you use the moniker "Nietzsche." Nietzsche was a brilliant provocateur and entertaining high-brow rambler, but he was also a virulent anti-socialist and hair-curling misogynist.
Do those values dovetail with those of the left?
Donna-
Two questions:
1. Can you explain why none of the Congressional sponsors of single-payer measures--whether HR767 or the Weiner amendment--have pressed to have single payer costed out by the CBO? It would obviously be the most cost-efficient system, and having a CBO evaluation would lend a powerful argument in its favor. Yet, when I asked Conyers's aide for health care why this was not done, he was full of evasions and excuses. This kind of caginess leads some people to believe that HR676 was proposed as a ruse to keep the Democrats' left-wing base in line, without any real intention of taking the real-world measures needed to get it passed.
2. If the Weiner amendment fails, do you recommend that people still support HR3200? Without the Weiner amendment, HR3200 will be WORSE than the current system--a feeble "public option" that will neither control costs nor significantly expand coverage, along with an individual mandate that will force people to buy the overpriced, lousy products of the private insurers, with zero cost controls. This is a STEP BACKWARD. Please clarify your position on HR3200 minus the Weiner amendment--do you agree that progressives should oppose it?
I don't mean to be picky but when you wrote HR767, I think you really meant to write HR 676.
Carry on, friend.
Duh.
You seem SO PROUD that you have caught a typo! Apparently it escaped your attention that I have typed 676 just below, and in dozens of other posts on this subject as well, Professor Pedant.
If you're one of the unemployed, I suggest you run to the classifieds and scour the "proofreading" section.
I doubt that they have a "pompous jerk" section as well, but you might try checking just in case.
Carry on, twit.
Dear Vanmungo,
Sorry to piss you off. I brought it up mainly because OTHER PEOPLE READ HERE and I didn't want them confused. I realize that you meant HR 676 and I did read the correct number further down. As for me being a twit, it certainly is within the range of possibility that, at times, I can even be a total asshole. Nobody is perfect. I could have, for example, accused you of suffering from transpositional aphasia. This happens to all people with dyslexia. They swith numbers around. Our G.W. Bush has this problem. If so, don't worry about it.
See, anyone can be a prick if they can't take correction gracefully. Have a nice weekend and get off my case, jack.
You did not make your criticism gracefully.
"Carry on, friend" is the smug sign of a self-important twit.
You didn't make your trivial correction in the interests of anyone's education--the numbers 676 come up only about a thousand times a day in these articles and responses.
You made your intervention in the spirit of proving what a terrifically discerning guy you are--over three mistyped digits, and in a snide tone.
You think that makes you smart--but you're really just a smartass--in tone and intent. Big difference.
Carry on, twit.
Relax man, I doubt he was trying to be a smartass.
Oh--another yenta makes the scene. Weak on the issues, love a pissing match. Here's a guy who buys into the neoliberal preoccupation with computerized billing records as the key to saving money in the health-care system--a classic MSM red herring that distracts public attention from the main cause of soaring costs--the extortionat pricing and profiteering of the private insurers and drug manufacturers.
Now--moving on from your obtuseness on medical costs to your obtuseness on personal attitudes:
"Carry on, friend" is not a comradely, friendly closing.
It is the snide, condescending kissoff of a smartass.
So now this thread has a smartass and a dunderhead.
Eagerly awaiting the next miscreant to gallumph into view.
You're going a little crazy tonight. Take a nap, you'll feel better after.
I was thinking the same. Here I was thinking that AGG and vanmungo were having more in common than either one of them were giving each other credit for.
I am so sick and tired of progressive infighting as it is.
Marco Nanto--
Do you have anything intelligent to say about the subject of this thread, or are you just another pathetic yenta/loser?
Let's see what you've got--I'm betting nothing but more ad hom blather.
"I'm getting so sich and tired of progressive infighting."
You think "progressives" should be political clones marching in lockstep to the same drummer at all times? George Orwell, where is they sting? And where is this guy's brain?
Try dusting off your copy of Walden--or better yet, try reading it for the first time.
Actually, what I wanted to say about this article has already been said by a mix of comments that addressed this. I just wanted to help you two out. What's wrong with that? Chill dude.
Gee--just don't have anything to say, except:
"Chill dude."
Tell me--in exactly what year did you drop out of junior high school?
You are entitled to your own personal opinions. Good night.
Thank you, swami. Having read the first amendment to the Constitution, I was already aware of this.
Thanks for the advice, Yenta Zmann. Your Dear Abby interventions are always awaited with breathless anticipation by a heartsick world.
This unsolicited Dr. Phil impression comes from a Net conflict addict whose life is so threadbare that he gains a sense of self-worth from rising to the defense of an equally damaged pedant in a political discussion thread. (How many ways can you spell "cuckoo"?)
Now you go give us a big lecture on your favorite subject: how much money we can save by computerizing medical records. Big Insurance and Big Pharma will no doubt send you a note of thanks for diverting attention from their profiteering.
At least the Democrats get paid to bend over for the health lobby.
What's your excuse?
Seems to me ya all need some health care. I need some too. Time to medicate.
Exhibit A for The Decline and Fall of the American Empire--a poster whose chief literary inspiration seems to be the screenplay for Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
It will only fall if you choose to let it fall. It's bad enough that there was a flame war going on between SB and SR and the last thing we need is another one. I'll leave my last reply to you. Good night.
Uh, "dude"--progressives WANT the American empire to fall.
Progressives are opposed to empires--that means "imperialism."
So here's what you missed by dropping out of high school:
Imperialism--bad.
Self-determination of nations--good.
Quiz tomorrow.
Rep. Weiner has been working with the CBO on a score of his single-payer amendment. We are awaiting those results.
Minus the Weiner amendment? What in the world would I support? I have been very clear about my support for single-payer. And I have been very clear that forcing me to buy the defective product that is for-profit private health insurance is a long way from freedom and a long way from healthcare justice.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
I see Michael Moore has added an update on his website regarding the Weiner amendment: "I do not support H.R. 3200 unless it includes Rep. Anthony Weiner's amendment, which would essentially gut H.R. 3200 and replace it with Rep. John Conyers Jr.'s H.R. 676."
Good, but yesterday's article here on CD didn't mention HR 676 at all, and several of us noted it. I'm sure Michael received a lot of emails about it along with mine. I'm afraid that what people will remember is that he supported it.
Elainem
Excellent point as Moore neglected to mention HR 676 yesterday in his article.
Donna--thanks for your prompt reply.
If the Weiner Amendment fails--as is likely, alas--I hope that you will encourage Mike and others to be unyielding in their opposition to HR3200 and to urge all Democrats--especially all members of the CPC--to vote NO on HR3200.
As you know, the CPC has never been serious about supporting HR676--they haven't even been serious about supporting a really large-scale public option. See this analysis by Kip Sullivan: "Does the Congressional Progressive Caucus Care About Its 'Public Option' Principles?"
http://pnhp.org/blog/2009/07/28/does-the-congressional-progressive-caucus-care-about-its-public-option...
I hope that you will especially lean on Michael Moore on this. He has been so maudlin in his personal praise of Obama that he has seemed reluctant to really take on Obama on the health-care issue--or any other issue, for that matter. The president has long since made it clear that he is enforcing the agenda of the health lobbyists, not the American people.
It's time for Michael Moore to take off his "I Love Obama" button, take off the gloves, and start pounding away at the president (and the Congressional Democrats) on this issue.
No more automatic support for Democrats--it's either single payer (serious, fighting support--not just tepid, token support for doomed-to-fail amendments), or we support primary challenges and/or independent candidates!
Michael Moore once understood this--let's hope that he recovers his lost insights as this struggle advances.
Well and truly stated, vanmungo.
I'm sorry to keep flogging reworked bits of a previous comment, but IMO it complements your view:
The early 19th-Century shift from populist to partisan politics, and the tsunami of legislation required by explosive territorial and technological expansion enabled an unconscious, unplanned, and pernicious schism to arise: a government ostensibly of, by, and for The People assumed TOTAL responsibility for, and control of, the literal Letter(s) of the Law(s). And the process and product of legislation perforce became an arcane technical process with a language and form unintelligible to a layperson.
It's as if the enactors of laws adopted an approach consistent with a standard expressed by pitching great Johnny Sain: "The world doesn't want to hear about the labor pains; the world only wants to see the baby."
And, as sometimes happens when concerned parties finally SEE a baby with uncertain parentage, the parties are reduced to desperately searching for features that bear even a faint resemblance to possible progenitors. When standing at the window of the legislation nursery, the hope is to find features that resemble the true and original intent and scope of the legislation.
So now we're stuck with a professionalized, specialized political elite that transacts business way over the heads of the ordinary citizen. There are wheels within wheels within wheels in infinite recession, and even citizens with time, training, and dedication can't reasonably be sufficiently informed on every important issue.
The conventional media establishes the public storyline, and provides formulaic reporting and analysis to put an open, businesslike spin to the proceedings. Thus, there's a broad but superficial consensus on what our Elected Misrepresentatives are supposedly up to.
But the esoteric sleight-of-hand sausage-making-- the inside wheeling, dealing and numbers-crunching-- is exclusively patrician business. Directly interested parties and wonks can follow the proceedings, as experienced handicappers follow the horses, but generally the people are ultimately left outside the process, reduced to standing in the square and waiting for the Leader(s) to pop out on the balcony and tell them what's what.
____________________________________
Don't misunderstand-- I very much respect and admire Donna Smith and activists, and believe in doing everything one can to transform-- "reform" is too weak a word-- the defective status quo described above.
My "nursery" and "baby" metaphors are entirely inapposite in one respect. We have every reason to expect that our Elected Misrepresentatives will deliver a grossly deformed monster, just based on the gruesome spectacle of its interminable conception.
There's a regrettable tendency to recoil from such horrors, but in the same deep breath brightly compliment the monster's virtues-- e.g., OK, it only has two webbed toes on its one foot, but at least they're TOES! And the claws can easily be clipped!
I just hope that reflexive anti-sour-grapes mocktimism doesn't kick in. I hope that if the final legislation contains a grotesque caricature of a "public option", for instance, activists will remain strong enough to say "No good! Drown the bugger! Back to the drawing board!" (How nice! I always WANTED a purse made out of a sow's ear!)
The usual "moderation" and polite billing and cooing for the sake of comity is too easily co-opted and marginalized by the ruling class. We might as well be lying in puddles of our own puke on the White House lawn, passed out on too many brewskis.
· Yr Obd't Servant
1. I guess that you read the article a bit too fast to see these lines.
"Rep. Weiner was on a conference call just last night with the activists of the Progressive Democrats of America. He said that his amendment is currently being “scored” by the Congressional Budget Office."
2. I think that both Donna Smith and Michael Moore have been quite clear in pointing out that, without Weiner's amendment, HR 3200 is unsupportable.
q
Maybe Donna has been clear about this, but Michael Moore has not been, at least not until the last 24 hours.
Moreover, more clarity is needed about their orientation to the Democrats who have cynically trampled single payer, often in the guise of supporting it.
Donna and Michael--and the CNA--supported Obama for president even though he made it clear during the campaign that he was opposed to single payer and in favor of an individual-mandate pseudo-reform of the kind that Donna and Michael rightly oppose. Then why support the candidates who promise to push what you oppose?
It would help to have some reassurance that they will not keep making this same kind of mistake--getting taken in by Democrats who are opposed to real health-care reform and throwing their influence and resources behind them.
This is, to put it mildly, self-defeating.
I would like Ms Smith to respond to Russell Mokhiber's article posted at http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber10232009.html that puts Weiner's action in a rather bad light.
I think Russell is right that this Weiner amendment began as a way to avoid delays in the Ed and Labor Committee process, pat the single-payer folks on the head, make them feel a bit less marginalized and march onward to the Tri-committee bill mess. One only had to look as far as the witnesses plugged into some committee hearings or the one and only single-payer hearing held in the House to know that some gamesmenship was at work.
But, I think in the inelegant and wavering days of political dancing around what the White House wants, what the insurance companies want, what the teabaggers want, what the Blue Dogs want, what the Repubs want, and so on, the effort to get some real single-payer energy moving has become much more serious. The Weiner amendment has become more not less serious.
You see, the Congress is still not where the American people are on this. But we won't move them there if we withdraw from this fight now.
The Kucinich state single-payer option and ERISA waiver amendment remains the only piece of any healthcare reform legislative effort that has passed with both Dem and Repub votes. That, too, was unexpected.
So, I do not believe the vote on the Weiner amendment is a joke or superficial or should be viewed as such. The folks who have been working on this are not seeing it that way.
Will it pass? Probably not. Will we still need to fight for single-payer in the future? Yes. And we will win. We shall overcome.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
Oops -- I meant to avoid delays in Energy and Commerce Comm not Ed and Labor. Brain glitch. Sorry. Donna Smith, American SiCKO
Donna,
How come the pentagon funding amendments aren't scored? We are tired of these bureaucratic kabuki dances. NO, they are NOT necessary or democratic or required in our so-called "complex" government. They are stalling. Just because Weiner is doing his job does not mean he is a hero. So now we enshrine a legislator because he isn't an obvious corporate patsy? WTF? We, the people, did our work! Why do we have to be yelling and screaming at these legislators just for them to do what they were elected to do? Do we need to chase them down on the streets with bats to get some decent behavior out of them? Is this the "brow beating" type of democracy? Do we need to place them in a "health care labyrinth" with only one path so they can make correct decisions? Are these people total morons or just totally corrupt?
Take part of the war funding and use it for HR 676, PERIOD. Don't tell me it can't be done. My memory is still fresh on how the SENATE, which is not supposed to originate laws, went around the constitution for the 700 billion dollar Paulsion scam. We are tired of the bullshit.
I just have to add this for the sake of irony:
From the CounterPunch CIA article:
By the late 1970s, the CIA had planned or carried out the assassination of leaders in more than a dozen countries; CIA jokers called this “SUICIDE INVOLUNTARILY ADMINISTERED” courtesy of the Agency’s “Health Alteration Committee.”
That's ha, ha, hillarious (as in Hillary or a basketfull of dead babies).
HEALTH ALTERATION COMMITTEE! Now you know what the repub/democratic corporate party health insurance reform is REALLY all about.
Anyway, best of luck with the HR 676-like amendment.Without it there will be lots of changes in 2010.
Thanks for your reply. Our positions mesh; and like you, I refuse to buy flawed "insurance" products, especially if mandated.
But I must point a finger at the truth posed in the "Quagmire" item by Mark Weisbrot and say that Obama will not cross the Propaganda System that allowed him to become president, which is to say that we'll get some sort of corporate welfare instead of any true reform and a stab-in-the-back no different from that delivered by the Clintons in 1994. And with the designer of that debacle holding a major position in Obama's cabinet, I expect nothing different this time. And unfortunately, my expectation is being proved correct.
It just says "insiders know this is a charade" without saying why it's a charade. I support his position if Weiner's amendment doesn't pass.
I believe Carla and Jennifer brought that up already and Donna responded. We would all much rather let HR3200 go down in defeat and start over with HR 676 but with no chance of HR 676 passing with our sellout Congress, sticking an amendment to theoretically convert HR3200 to HR676 is all that Congress will have the public believe. In addition to what Carla and Jennifer each said, I would add that Congress will do something to either defeat that amendment or bring up several other amendments to weaken it as much as possible.
A couple of things. First, great job Congressman Weiner on fighting it through. Now, it's up to us to call our Congressmen and tell them to support the amendment. Second, we need to get to the bigger causes. More than being uninsured, there are 200,000 lives lost due to medical errors by the nurses, doctors, equipment, and modern medicine itself. I support single payer but the insurance companies aren't the only culprits.
"More than being uninsured, there are 200,000 lives lost due to medical errors by the nurses, doctors, equipment, and modern medicine itself. I support single payer but the insurance companies aren't the only culprits."
Government cannot take care of those casualties directly unlike taking on the insurance industries. Medical education needs to be reformed and then there are touchy nurses and doctors to deal with. It's a dog eat dog world full of money.
Sure it can. Remember the electronic health records stuff that the right-wingers made such a stink about a few months ago? That could save quite a few lives.
You lost me there. Could you explain what you meant?
Sorry for not being more specific. The stimulus bill included provisions and funding to convert American's health records into an electronic database, so they can instantly be accessed by any doctor you're seeing. Something like this could easily fix mistakes involving drugs that may provoke a fatal reaction if taken together, for example. I was pointing out there are some other things the government can do to prevent more deaths, but of course, human error will remain.
http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/reports
/plans/hit_implementation.pdf
There is ZERO evidence that the computerized records would save significant numbers of lives. The whole preoccupation with computerized medical records is just (a) a corporate/MSM propaganda tool to divert attention from insurance/drug industry profiteering as the main cause of soaring health-care costs, and (b) a sales tool for software/computer companies. In all, another corporate fraud.
Systematic, universal computerization of medical records might possibly have some benefits, but it is being way oversold, is far from a panacea for any of the ills of the current system, and is essentially a an MSM/neoliberal diversionary talking point that you have digested and are regurgitating here without any real study or information.
Why don't you read the Himmelstein/Woolhandler study before you go on spouting your diversionary MSM propaganda here. Here's the link:
http://pnhp.org/PDF_files/ElectronicMedicalRecords-HealthAffairs.pdf
Yawn.
That's diversionary BS.
BY FAR the main source of runaway medical costs in this country is the extortionate pricing of private health insurance and the myriad redundant billing bureaucracies needed to reap the profits.
All the nattering about electronic record-keeping--along with other diversionary topics such as tort "reform"--are just intended to change the subject and deflect attention from the main culprit. In this dirversionary feint you are complicit.
I'm so sorry that I think a rather simple fix to save a few thousand lives is seen by you as "diversionary BS". More has to be done than implementing single-payer.
There is no authoritative evidence that computerizing medical records is a key to saving lives or money.
This issue gets promoted by right-wing neoliberals and their confederates in the mass media in order to avoid dealing with the main source of bloated medical costs--drug and insurance company profiteering.
You should do some reading and educate yourself. You might start with the following summary of a scholarly study by two prominent members of Physicians for a National Health Program:
"Electronic medical records (EMR) are unlikely to save much money according to a commentary by Harvard Medical School health policy experts Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler that appears in the September/October issue of the journal Health Affairs. The commentary debunks a Rand Corporation report appearing in the same issue that forecasts massive savings from EMR.
"The Rand report (which was financed by medical computing firms) is the latest of many recent claims that medical computing will save hundreds of billions of dollars in medical costs. Politicians across the political spectrum from Hillary Clinton to Newt Gingrich see in computing a painless solution to our nation’s health care crisis (additionally, Sen. Ted Kennedy has introduced federal legislation calling for the widespread adoption of EMR).
"The Himmelstein/Woolhandler commentary points out that computer vendors have been claiming that such savings were imminent for the past 30 years. Yet during that time thousands of hospital computer systems have been installed that “haven’t saved a nickel.” The commentary criticizes the Rand researchers for basing their forecast on little or no reliable data. Moreover the Rand forecast assumes that “interoperability” among disparate medical computing systems, which has yet to be achieved in practice, can be readily accomplished nationwide.
"Dr. Himmelstein, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard and former Chief of Clinical Computing at Cambridge Hospital, commented: “We’ve made steady but slow progress in medical computing over the past three decades. But computers don’t offer the panacea that politicians hope for and computer firms are peddling. To mount a national program to do in every hospital that which has yet to be done in any hospital may benefit the computer vendors who paid for the Rand research, but it risks failure on a colossal scale.”
“Computers won’t solve the health care crisis. Since hospitals started computerizing, bureaucracy has multiplied and costs have risen faster than ever. Only national health insurance can streamline health care bureaucracy and save enough money to make universal coverage feasible. We need politicians to provide real leadership, not wait and hope for a technologic miracle.” according to Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard and prominent health policy researcher
Oy. I'm not saving it's a "key", I'm saying it's a simple fix that can help. To use myself as an example, my childhood primary care doctor has vanished and about 13 years of my health records with him. If they has been in a universally readable electronic format stored in a database where any of my future doctors could access them, it wouldn't be a problem.
You anecdotal personal evidence is worthless--the kind of thing offered by a person who is unaccustomed to rigorous thought and analysis. "My cancer got MUCH better after drinking chamomile tea every day." Your personal history has about as much value as that.
Any competent physician can take an oral history from you, do the necessary tests and examinations, and be up to speed on your condition. He/she would have to do that anyway, to verify what's in your medical records.
Why do you keep riding this corporate MSM hobby horse? Are you a rep for a software company?
There is ZERO evidence that the computerized records would save significant numbers of lives, either. The whole preoccupation with computerized medical records is just (a) a corporate/MSM propaganda tool to divert attention from insurance/drug industry profiteering as the main cause of soaring health-care costs, and (b) a sales tool for software/computer companies. In all, another corporate fraud.
Systematic, universal computerization of medical records might possibly have some benefits, but it is being way oversold, is far from a panacea for any of the ills of the current system, and is essentially a an MSM/neoliberal diversionary talking point that you have digested and are regurgitating here without any real study or information.
Why don't you read the Himmelstein/Woolhandler study before you go on spouting your diversionary MSM propaganda here. Here's the link:
http://pnhp.org/PDF_files/ElectronicMedicalRecords-HealthAffairs.pdf
Donna, thanks for trying to clear up the previous article by MM. I was one of the people commenting on the fact that he urges us to support the wrong bill.
OK, I get what a substitute amendment is. That's what they used to get the Wall Street bailout package passed. God only knows what bill they replaced, but it had been passed through committee and all the other necessary steps to become a bill on the floor eligible to be voted on. They replaced the entire text of whatever bill it was with whatever they wanted to say about bailing out Wall St.
And now you're saying that after congress wastes an assload of time on this bill, HR3200, it could just be replaced by HR676? Actually, you said, "much of the 1200 plus page mess is replaced by Weiner's HR676-model amendment." How much? Which much?
But here's the real scary part: "Then it will be up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi to honor her commitment to Rep. Weiner to bring his substitute amendment to full debate on the floor of the House when HR3200 is under consideration." The words "Nancy Pelosi" and "honor" don't even belong in the same sentence.
I'll bet you a nickel right here and now that this "substitute amendment" of HR676 will not happen. Some deal will be struck, pressure will be applied, and even more language that is detrimental to the consumer and supportive of the insurance and pharmaceutical companies will get in, but HR 676 will be out.
And then they can say, what are you all whining about? DIDN'T YOU SUPPORT HR3200?
OR...the congress could pass any piece of crap it likes, and Obama could attach a Signing Statement that he reads and understands this bill as Medical for All....
Worked for Bush
"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. My. My.
Wasn't the comment thread under yesterday's list of actions recommended by Michael Moore just full of accusations that he had betrayed single-payer supporters by supporting HR 3200? I seem to recall the expression "stabbed in the bacK" being used.
The extent to which these industry trolls pollute this board with their lies and distortions demonstrates the abject fear of the health-insurance industry that someone will expose their racket.
q
It's really bizarre that you stigmatize left-wing critics of equivocators like Moore as agents of the insurance industry.
Moore stridently supported Obama knowing full well that Obama was planning to crush single payer and press for a reactionary individual-mandate boondoggle for the private insurers. So, for that matter, did Donna Smith and the CNA.
Those people are belatedly seeing the light about the Democrats. Fine.
But we have to remain vigilant about them.
You, on the other hand, seem to be counseling complacency about the Democrats and Obama. But it is precisely the Democrats who are doing the dirty work of the private insurers and Big Pharma.
Your determination to fend off criticism of these skunks makes it clear that you are the one who is the health-industry troll.
Nice try, but we're on to you.
I'll be on you like a yellowjacket from now on.
Don't say you weren't warned.
What I find most encouraging is that Medicare for All will finally be scored by the CBO.
Re candrew57 October 23rd, 2009 10:29 am,
who claims "...Medicare for All will finally be scored by the CBO."
At long last!
But I wonder what deep dark hole the corporate media will find to bury the results.
I agree, I can't wait.
Thanks for the update Donna Smith. I have wanted HR676 but haven't heard a word about it for a long time.
I oppose HR3200 even with this amendment. This bill would need thousands more amendments and trimmings just to remotely resemble HR 676. Incremental health care reform? Oh please give me a break ! There isn't any incremental spending on tax cuts and wars. Weiner should be joining Dennis Kucinich on HR676 already and where's John Conyers?
Weiner is one of the good guys and for once. Earlier, Kucinich pushed for an amendment to allow for allowing states more room on passing single payer health care. What Weiner is doing is similar I believe. Yes, keeping track of amendments can be as pain in the butt. I agree with you on preferring to put HR676 on the table instead. That would be a strong litmus test of who supports health care as a right.
Kucinich amendment still alive -- and already attached to the HR3200 bill. But if Weiner's amendment passes and single-payer is the new bill, there would be no need for states to have the waivers the Kucinich amendment provides.
We still strongly support retention of the Kucinich amendment. But we have to fight the Weiner amendment fight first.
It's all so confusing, eh?
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
Thanks Donna for the clarification. I myself have been working and buckling under a lot of pressure this month that I have been slipping in trying to keep up. I know you are dedicated to this issue so I can count on you to help us out. :)
Carla,
Weiner's amendment uses the language directly from HR676 -- unless Rep. Weiner totally changed something overnight from last evening to today.
HR3200's entire first section would have the HR676/Weiner amendment in place of the mandates and other nonsense there in HR3200 now. That's what the substitute amendment does -- replaces non single-payer reform with single-payer reform patterned on HR676.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
I'll have to take some time to see through all of this. What upsets me is that this Congress could have started out with the simple HR676 bill instead of with the already bloated HR3200 bill which is thousands of pages last I checked. I need a weekend to sort this out. My husband and I shall check this out.
Great Carla... that's always a good idea. And I so wish they had started out with HR676 too. But this is our way to get there right now -- but only with the amendment passed. And that's going to be very hard work.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
Don't waste your time, Donna. Carla's just an insurance-industry drone posing as a left-wing purist to try to diminish support for this legislation - or any reform at all, for that matter.
It's nice to see you on this site, though. Keep up the good work.
q
Excuse me but I'm no insurance industry drone. HR3200 has faced serious opposition from single payer health care advocates from the start and with plenty of good reasons. The bill is thousands of pages filled with Big Insurance pork. Read it and weep.
I guess that you just missed the explanation of what a "substitute amendment" is.
Donna is right in the trenches of this conflict and supports this measure. Anthony Weiner has convincingly taken the single-payer argument to the mainstream media with irrefutable logic.
If afraid that your immediate negative reaction has given you away.
q
Quickstepper is a right-wing neoliberal whose purpose here is to bait and demoralize left-wing critics of the Dumbocrat employees of Big Pharma and Big Insurance.
Nice try, troll, but we're on to you.
vanmungo and quickstepper both need to stop this name calling.
Quickstepper, opposing HR3200 does not automatically make them an insurance shill.
vanmungo, let's not attack personally but on the issues instead.
I think all of us on this site have had enough of witnessing a huge flame war between, well you know who. Whether you voted for Obama or Nader, we need to get back to the issues. Both of you have much more in common so why not focus on it, ok?
Marco Nanto--you need to find some way of spending your afternoons other than watching Dr. Phil.
Please tell us why HR3200 even with the recent amendment is better than the real deal HR 676? What would you prefer, 1200+ pages of Big Insurance/Pharma giveaways and more death panels from them or a simple 30 page bill that guarantees health care as a right? This bill is already bad enough that even Sarah Palin was right ! HR3200 is nothing more than mandatory care for the most part and money will be robbed from Medicare just to pay for some of it. In the meantime, more taxes so that Big Insurance/Pharma can laugh its ways to the bank. Another big bailout but this time for the big monied elites of healthcare and medical industries. No wonder this country is the biggest butt of jokes when it comes to piss poor health care about to get worse ! :(
Jennifer,
Agree totally with you if HR3200 was the bill without Weiner's substitute. But with the Weiner substitute, much of the 1200 plus page mess is replaced by Weiner's HR676-model amendment.
I would never support mandated purchase of the defective product that is for-profit, private health insuracne. Never. And I would never write in support of that.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
Thanks again Donna. Now that you mentioned it, I will take this amendment to be the second biggest litmus test to see which pols regardless of party support health care for all and which don't.
I long for the days when Big Insurance will be forced to butt out. My company is already in a fight with its insurance provider for planning yet another price gouging scheme against its business customers. I take it you are aware of the overhead costs businesses are facing with Big Insurance. I joined with my boss and coworkers to try to make the provider explain its newest move but so far no answer. Small companies like the ones I work for face a real living hell while most large corporations are not quite as bad. Big Insurance never tires in persecuting small businesses and individuals who aren't rich. Oh well, more buckling under the pressure ! :(
The way this amendment works is that it will turn HR3200 into HR676, it'll just still be called HR3200.
Why does it have to take an amendment to turn HR3200 into HR676? If the Democrats had any spine, they would just drop HR3200 filled with thousands of pages of Big Insurance pork last I checked a month ago and switch to HR676. I'm keeping my fingers crossed on HR3200 still.
Because that's how legislation works. God bless America :-)
Don't forget politics that poisons every legislation it touches. I don't think God is blessing America. America is already the big butt of jokes when it comes to health care. I wished more politics could be taken out of legislating. :(
Well, it was half of a joke.
Our legislative process is bullshit because as you said, it's poisoned by lobbyist and corporate money and control.
But also, I was half serious because after all the money spent by the insurance companies, Weiner could end up wiping out the giveaways that were put into the bill, thanks to his substitution amendment :-)
Ah, you got me there. Speaking of lobbyists, I can't believe that business themselves aren't pushing for single payer or at least genuine health care for all. See my recent response to Donna about the grueling experience my company is facing with its insurance provider.
The reason that the Chamber of Commerce, business Big and Small, are opposing Single Payer is because of the glaring hole in the middle of HR676.
That bill outlaws a currently legal and profitable product. That amounts to a government "Taking" of property. There's no compensation for the 1300 companies that would be suddenly made into outlaws, and an extra 13 weeks of Unemployment checks for over one million whitecollar workers that are suddenly out on the street, in the middle of the worst unemployment since the Thirties, is not even a joke, it's pathetic.
Other company owners and officials see that Taking as being dangerous to their businesses. If an entire sector of the Insurance Industry can be taken, so can any other business.
This particular flaw in this bill is fatal. That's why it was pushed off the table. Otherwise, Single Payer is fine, the rest of the bill is pretty good, but the fate of the Insurance Companies and their workforce is not handled properly and that kills it.
Remember that window plant in Chicago, Republic (?), where the workers occupied the factory, remember how we all cheered because they fought for their jobs? That was a couple hundred workers in one company. The Progressive movement has been built around workers and maintaining good jobs in decent conditions, et cetera. We can't turn our backs on one miilion people that are currently employed and pretend tha that doesn't matter. It does. It certainly matters to the people that would be losing their jobs.
That's the beauty of Public Option. It gets US started on building a Single Payer system within the framework of the Market and it has built-in advantages that eventually force the 4Ps to either bring their prices WAY down and cover everyone or get out of the business (either way works out for US). The endstate is Universal Healthcare. But the mechanism for getting the 4Ps out is Market Competition, the exact mantra that the Chamber of Commerce has been chanting forever, NOT some "socialist" takeover, thus depriving the Insurance Companies of their screaming point and removing the fear of Takings in the rest of the Business community.
Read up on the Takings issue. The Federalist Society and the Rocky Mountain Institute (among others), both of which are conservative Lawyers gangs with considerable clout, having supplied the Bushies with all of their judicial appointments from the Supremes on down, have been talking this up as a way to buck regulations and laws that effect peoples' use of their property, claiming that the Clean Water Act illegally "Takes" the owner's value away from his land by preventing, oh, say, stripmining in the Front Range. That's a rather abstract example (but one already in litigation), but outlawing 1300 companies that handle 1/6 of our economy and touch the lives of 250 million people would be a concrete example that everyone would get.
And you don't think those companies are going to go peacefully, do you? They will leave scorched earth behind, they will tie up the courts for the next fifteen years fighting this. They will sue for literally trillions of dollars in "Lost Profits" ( a concept I still can't believe is enshrined in Law), the briefs are already being prepared. For them, it's an existential fight, it's fight or die. And since they have huge amounts of money to hire an army of council with, they could conceivably bankrupt US in the process, certainly stall any launch of the new system, for decades.
That's why 676 is off the table.
And why this ammendment will go nowhere.
The intentions are good, but the mechanism is flawed.
Probably a combination of factors such as short-sightedness, pressure from the probably conservative business associations your boss belongs to, and lack of time and resources to sort through all the misinformation out there.
Wall Street fears an empowered labor force. With universal healthcare coverage, workers are more free to take collective action against abusive employers.
And we all know how much corporations love their abuses.
q
Yes--this is one of the main reasons: provider-tied medical insurance makes workers less likely to strike, because they would lose their medical benefits.
There is another, more global reason: many corporate types, even the ones burdened with medical-insurance costs, think: "If the government can take that business, they can take my business."
They are nervous about any large-scale government incursion into the private economy, even one that would benefit their businesses!
Absolutely true. If people are not utterly dependent upon their employer for "affordable" health "insurance", they will put up with much less shit. The same would apply if we had a genuine safety net, or better yet, a guaranteed jobs program.
Please, just extend Medicare for everyone!
We pass the Weiner amendment and we move a lot closer to doing just that -- only improved and expanded.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
It was my understanding that Rep. Weiner agreed not to do this in exchange for Pelosi promising a floor vote on HR 676 this year. Did she renege on that agreement? Or is he just going for it anyway?
And by the way, Anthony Weiner rocks!!!
Edit:
I seriously need to read articles more closely, nevermind.