Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Party of No' Blocks Debate on Bernie Sanders' Real Reform
We're talking real reform.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has always understood that the real reform involves a lot more than enriching insurance companies with massive new infusions of federal money.
The real reform takes the insurance companies out of the equation and replaces them with a single-payer Medicare-for-All system that provides care to all Americans and cuts costs by eliminating corporate profiteering.
The Medicare-for-All reform has always been the right fix. Barack Obama, as a U.S. Senate candidate in 2003, said as much.
"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program," he told a crowd of union activists. "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what (reformers are) talking about when (they say) everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see."
Obama was right six years ago. Unfortunately, he has opted for compromise and the result is the unfocused, lobbyist-driven, spin-defined debate over so-called "reform."
Sanders has kept to the real reform path and, on Wednesday, he was supposed to get a vote on a proposal to amend the Senate health-care reform bill to replace all the compromises with a single-payer plan that would provide health care and dental coverage for every American, save money, and improve health care results.
"In my view, the single-payer approach is the only way we will ever have a cost-effective, comprehensive health care system in this country," explained the independent senator from Vermont. "One of the reasons our current health care system is so expensive, so wasteful, so bureaucratic, so inefficient is that it is heavily dominated by private health insurance companies whose only goal in life is to make as much money as they can."
Like many of the amendments proposed by Democratic and Republican senators during the current wrangling over health-care reform, the Sanders amendment was not going to pass. But the prospect of the debate on it offered a rare opportunity for the Senate to engage in real debate about what needs to be done to provide care for all and eliminating unnecessary costs.
The Sanders amendment offered senators a chance to get serious about the fiscal responsibility they are so very inclined to discuss but so very disinclined to embrace.
As Sanders and his aides explained in their argument for the amendment: "The 1,300 profit-making private insurance companies administer thousands of separate plans and waste about $400 billion a year on administrative costs, profiteering, high CEO compensation packages, and advertising. Health care providers spend another $210 billion on administrative costs, mostly to deal with insurance paperwork. As a result, the United States spends $7,129 per person on health care, almost double the amount spent by nearly any other industrialized country. Nevertheless, 46 million Americans lack health insurance, 100 million Americans cannot access dental care, and 60 million Americans do not have access to primary care."
Compare that $7,129 per person figure for the U.S. with per capita health spending figures for countries with genuine national health care plans, such as Canada's $3,895 and Austria's $3,763 on health care costs. Both of these countries provide fuller care for people who live longer and healthier lives than do Americans.
Those are the facts, and those facts terrify "Party of No" Republicans and the many Democrats who imagine that they represent the insurance industry rather than constituents who need more care at less cost.
How terrifying?
Rather than allow the Sanders amendment to be debated as every other proposal to improve a fundamentally flawed Senate proposal, Republican senators engaged in extreme obstructionist tactics to block consideration of the amendment. Rejecting Senate tradition and standard practice during the current debate, several conservatives demanded that the clerk of the Senate read every word of the 767-page amendment Sanders proposed.
Recognizing that the move would stall action not just on health care reform but on a host of economic issues that are critical to unemployed Americans, Sanders had no choice but to pull the amendment off the floor. But he was not happy about what happened.
"The fact that 17 percent of our people are unemployed or underemployed, one out of four of our children are living on food stamps, we've got two wars, we've got global warming, we have a $12 trillion national debt, and the best the Republicans can do is try to bring the United States government to a half by forcing a reading of a 700 page amendment. That is an outrage," Sanders said. "People can have honest disagreements, but in this moment of crisis it is wrong to bring the United States government to a halt."
Opponents of real reform made the sad and frustrating spectacle that is the current debate all the more sad and frustrating.
But Sanders still has history on his side.
"At the end of the day -- not this year, not next year, but sometime in the future -- this country will come to understand that if we are going to provide comprehensive quality care to all of our people, the only way we will do that is through a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system," the senator says.
That is the truth, uttered by an honest reformer, in the midst of a debate on which Americans will one day look back in anger. Real reform is not coming this year or next. But it will, it must, come. And when it does, it should be remembered that Bernie Sanders tried to get the Senate to do the right thing.
- Posted in
58 Comments so far
Show AllThey don't have to read it on the floor!
JM i commend you on being a good corporate supporter and coming on here to trash a noble idea.so what you're saying is..."Look why should everyone have what I have..GOOD HEALTHCARE?" PPL......NEED HEALTHCARE and you're willing to deny it to them..cause you might pay a lil bit more in..GASP...TAXES!!!!
This is purely a political move, and it's cynical as hell. It's generally thought that most of those in elected office are capable of reading the thing for themselves. Understanding it might be a different thing entirely.
Maybe you should have demanded that the freaking patriot act had been read into the record BEFORE it was voted on. Maybe THEN we wouldn't be stuck with it's completely unconstitutional existence. Or maybe we should demand that the war funding bills they are passing now with out a spec of debate be read in their entirety. Or anything else that is a disaster waiting to happen. Which is pretty much anything that these jerks would actually agree on.
But really, when was the last time you heard of ANYTHING being read in it's entirety on the floor of EITHER house? This doesn't happen until some schmuck wants to stop something dead in it's tracks.
BTW, how about a constitutional amendment that demands that those in office actually KNOW what they are voting on? That one thing alone would have stopped the patriot act.
Will the Real Bernie Sanders please stand up? The issue is not a debate as important as that is, but a frigging PUBLIC OPTION with some bite to provide competition. READ GREENWALDS ARTICLE YESTERDAY! Nichols is a chief obfuscation agent for the apologetic wing of the DEM party.
I am waiting to see if Sanders votes FOR the current Bill which all progressives now call another corporate welfare bill from Dennis Kucinich to Howard Dean.
If Sanders votes for the Bill, we will get a glimpse of the REAL Sanders, i.e., what my grandmother use to characterize as "a big talker, little doer."
If Sanders sells us out, he ought to be banned from propogating any further nonesense on CD.
Furthermore, if Sander's had any balls, he would pull a Lieberman by telling the Dems he will not support the Bill without a public option. One cannot play both sides of the fence.
Get your head out of your own ass, please. Bernie has stated that he most definitely will NOT vote for it as it sits now. Happy yet?
Christ, Bernie is probably the ONLY decent senator out there and you are trying to make HIM out to be the bad guy. He's NOT. In fact, he's the ONLY senator out there standing up for YOU and what YOU need. Way to support the guy.
Please point out anywhere where he has NOT been on the side of people. I am suspecting that you can't do it. He's NOT the problem. Quit trying to make him and his actions fit with your twisted ideas of what everyone else (but you, no doubt) is like. I do grant you that the vast majority of those in office, especially the senate, don't give a damn about anything but money and where to get more of it for themselves. Bernie isn't like that, at least not in the time I've been following him, which is decades, now.
Maybe you should wait and do a little more reading BEFORE you bad mouth the only friend you have in the senate.
I guess I hit another nerve for the Obamabot crowd. Oh, dear.
But to your advice, I don't think I will follow it. If you don't like it, you can always take a whiff of your own rectum.
I am NOT an "Obamabot", for your information. I did vote for him, but it was as a course of last resort. There was NO way I would see McCain get into office and have myself to blame for it. That being said, I was a Kucinich supporter from the first get go.
I'm not surprised that you won't take my advice. Those with their heads there they should sit usually don't. They just keep on spouting bullshit like it's in style.
Maybe you should learn who you are bad mouthing and learn to live with the consequences. You are denigrating the only senator who is worth a shit, and you think I WON'T call you on it? Not likely. When there actually IS someone who is worth defending, I will do so.
I honestly think that all the rest of the senate can go jump off of a very high cliff, preferably with television coverage.
Liar!
You are in no position to say such a thing. Those who have read what I have written on this site for the last 3 years or more know that I'm telling the truth. I've been saying the same thing for that whole time.
Your comment is classless as hell.
Your opening volley directed at me asserted the following before I ever responded to you:
"Get your head out of your own ass, please"
Ever consider walking your talk? Or are you just another frustrated Obamabot?
I just call them how I see them. And I've already answered your question.
In that case, take another whiff.
Bernie has stated that he most definitely will NOT vote for it as it sits now.
------------------------
Got a cite? The last thing I saw was that he said his vote was "in doubt".
Nor did he say he would not vote for it without a public option. It is known as the Texas Two Step.
Didn't Bernard Sanders endorse Obama last year? Other than that and his choice to give up the fight for single payer, he has been a great senator.
While the goal 45 years ago for health care reform was single-payer for all, the result was Medicare, that starting in 1966 (11 months from signing, not 4 years from signing)became a single-payer system for Americans age 65 plus.
Viewed within that historical context, the only metric that can be considered progress in improving the health care system is to expand Medicare to the other 90% of Americans age 0-64.
In addition to making no progress, Obama and Congress are setting health care reform back to a pre-1965 standard with an added toxic touch that will provide the insurance and drug industries enough corporate welfare that, rather than being used to provide health care, will expand their campaign contribution war chest to unprecedented levels, thereby assuring that you will see no more effort at health care reform for AT LEAST the next 45 years than you saw during the past 45 years.
Where will you be in 2055?
Both the Republican and Democratic parties are the parties of no.
"Recognizing that the move would stall action not just on health care reform but on a host of economic issues that are critical to unemployed Americans, Sanders had no choice but to pull the amendment off the floor." - Nichols
Just what action is he talking about, the action to see to it that big government hastens up legislation to meddle in health care affairs in favor of the big insurance and drug companies? Bernard Sanders had two choices:
1. Pull the amendment off the table and not tell the public who is standing for who. This would result in adding more low quality low paying jobs in the insurance industry and higher health care costs because government meddled for the drug and insurance giants and raised taxes on the American people.
2. Have his clerks and himself read his own amendment out loud and tell the American people who stands for who. This would result in replacing bad jobs with good jobs and motivating people to fight for health care first so that they will have the strength to fight for better jobs.
Sanders chose choice #1 and guess who loses.
Perhaps he could have anticipated this probable move by the obstructionists, and offered a less wordy bill that could've been read in say 20 minutes, so real debate could have happened? After all, wasn't this the whole idea behind the bill? Why didn't someone think of this?
Bernie brought it on himself.
Why does it take him 767 pages to say
"Free Medicare for All, for the common good, paid for from the common pot"??
Yes, I have. It is less than 100 dollars per month for Medicare B and it does not show on any "pay stub" but on my annual Medicare statement. You obviously know nothing about Medicare insurance costs.
Yes, Medicare does not cover everything. However, 90% of the bills of my three recent hospitalizations were promptly paid by Medicare (close to 40,000 dollars each). The remaining 4000 dollar were paid by my secondary insurance of Aetna for which I had to fork up 280 dollars per month! Indeed jm37219 the "pay stub" tells the truth. It says that private insurance coverage stinks.
Even though I am still covered by Medicare I am doing my utmost to stay out of hospitals by changing my food and drink habits as well as my lifestyle.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=110997469
A site where you can compare health care between the USA, Great Britain, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and France, It includes average annual per person spending.
You don't think that the people over 65 have paid into the Medicare fund? Will you still complain when you become eligible for Medicare? And how will you feel after paying into the fund for your entire working career when a young person starts bitching abut you being eligible for Medicare?
If everyone were on Medicare, the cost would probably drop. As it is, those over 65 have more health problems simply due to age and therefore actually need the insurance more than younger people do. If Medicare included everyone, there would be a much larger risk pool with a lot of healthier young people contributing to the fund without actually using the insurance. More people with just a moderate increase in claims. That would likely lead to lower insurance costs for everyone.
Medicare is superior to private insurance because it has a much lower administrative cost. There is no CEO making $52,000,000/yr. like United Healthcare's CEO did last year and there is no profit motive. It covers 80% of the claim made and claims are rarely denied. This should be made available to everyone. Unfortunately, Medicare doesn't have the ability to force its users to pay for bribing congresscum like the private insurers do.
You can start offsetting any tax increases by remembering that the $6K+ / year cost of today's 'insurance' is $500+ a month, weather you pay it all or your employer pays a portion, WILL NO LONGER BE COLLECTED. Don't kid yourself, if your employer is paying for your insurance it is part of your compensation package. translation: less money in your paycheck.
Also please recognize that the $6K+ is the cost for an individual. Do you provide your family with health insurance, then surely it costs more, much more.
Also, please remember that the single payer model eliminates copays and deductibles and also it includes dental. There are no lifetime caps on how much insurance you might consume.
One other point. This is insurance folks, it is not the delivery of health care. For that you go to private doctors and hospitals, not to government doctors and hospitals like for example the VA.
If a health care provider doesn't satisfy you, or a friend of neighbor mentions a problem they had with a particular provider, you can choose to go to a different provider. There is no in-network madness. This is the free enterprise system that has stood us well since we began this experiment called democracy.
There is much that is misunderstood about single payer, and that's the way the industry wants it. It is a shame that it did not have its moment in the sun. Then many many more would understand and appreciate its simplicity. The house version H.R. 676 is 30 pages (that's right, thirty pages). But most don't know about it because it has been kept off the table and that is where any effort for reform has been consigned. OFF THE TABLE. Nothing to see here, keep on moving.......
If I could vote on the current bill, I most definitely would not vote for passage.
ed
At least we have one Senator in the Senate that is interested in doing the People's will.
Keep slugging Bernie, in a 100 years, there will be more than 1 Independent(Lieberman dosen't deserve to live let alone be in the Senate) in the Senate.
Please correct me if I am wrong but could 60 Democratic Senators have pronto stopped the reading of the bill and demanded that the debate begin?
Remember the Republican congress' "nucular option"(Bush spelling) ?
No need for sixty votes there.
It is interesting how one Senator wasn't able to stop the patriot act or the Iraq war or the tax cuts to the rich. And yet now, one Republican objects and "poof" the single payer bill, the one most Americans want, disappears. It must be magic!
Ok, here is the poll question:
Do you want to pay half as much money as you do now, choose any doctor you want and never be denied necessary medical care ever in your life, care that will extend the average lifespan and reduce the infant mortality rate of Americans? Yes or No?
I can see how that would be a toss-up for Americans. But I see your point, many Americans aren't informed enough to answer this no-brainer. But it is the same with many issues we banter about on this site, isn't it?
Better stated? I disagree...
What scheme are you discribing? I am describing the typical universal healthcare availably in all(but one) western democracy.
"maybe 10 to 15 percent"?
No I would choose, universal single payer as do almost all people living in democracies. It is half the price.(if you literally can't afford that, then it is free for you, the rest of society pitches in)
"a lower standard than you may have become accustomed?"
Again, where do you get this? If you get all the medical treatment you need from the doctor of your choice, you live longer and your children are less likely to die prematurely, how is that a "lower standard"? Obviously single payer meets a higher standard.
"choices you used to get to make about your care are now out of your hands."
What choice? the choice to not be able to afford to go see the doctor to check out that lump in your breast? Is that a real choice?
Single payer, medicare for all, universal healthcare gives you and your physician the freedom to keep you as healthy as possible, not worry about the cost and lets doctors do what they like to do, care for their patients.
-"However, for the majority of us that have good insurance our care would decline. I had a slight rotator cuff tear, and my doctor asked me if I wanted (and insurance would have paid for) a $1500 MRI to diagnose the severity. I didn't do it, but it was available. That kind of consumer driven high end care (that Americans have gotten used to) would be a thing of the past."
Well you like the current system and you will choose what is best for you and your family. I am interested in the tens of thousands of Americans who are dying every year from preventable illness, illness that wouldn't have cost them their lives if they lived, just about anywhere else in the developed world. They are my concern.
But let's address your rotator cuff concern. In single payer nations, you can still buy additional medical care, cosmetic or otherwise, you can still "go private". And the costs are LESS for private care than you are paying now in the US. For example, instead of 1500 for an MRI you would pay hundreds, maybe 300 dollars. Anything above that is pure profit. How do you think I can get an immediate MRI, if my doctor says I need it, for free, and only pay a few hundred, if I want one that is not really necessary? The answer is the same with your prescription drugs. Why do Americans pay double what other people pay? For the same drugs?
"Do you want to pay maybe 10 to 15 percent less..."
Average annual per-person spending:
US - $6,402
France - $3,374
Germany - $3,373
Great Britian - $2,723
Netherlands - $3,580
Switzerland - $4,177
Japan - $2,358
"...is of a lower standard than you may have become accustomed?"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91971406
I suggest you read this article where American expats compare US and German healthcare.
And this one:
http://jentryingermany.blogspot.com/2009/07/socialized-health-care.html
You obviously have been severely mis-informed.
Sioux Rose
JLOCKE: Excellent cutting through BS. Great post.
It's a foregone conclusion that humane and decent impulses go to Congress to die.
They don't survive in the White House, either, but that's another story.
Sanders is definitely an "exceptional" Senator, and I give him some credit for volunteering to be a martyr on the Senate floor.
But my initial respect and sympathy cooled when I considered that Sanders isn't much of a Don Quixote. He charged up to the windmill, but meekly holstered his lance and trotted away after the first challenge.
It seems that the Senate has a hundred OTHER pending schemes to screw over the common citizen, and Sanders' exercise of principle was preventing his fellow crooks from speedily and efficiently skinning the REST of the Amerikan body politic's carcass.
And THAT would be unconscionable.
So what we're left with is that Sanders apparently boldly and courageously upped the ante, an opponent promptly called his bluff-- and Sanders just as promptly folded.
And we're to believe that this exercise in futility even left a mark? Yeah, and I can see the face of the Blessed Mother in this piece of toast. Wanna buy it?
Sorry, this is just another interlude in the dog-and-pony show in our pseudo-democratic duopoly.
PS: Speaking of "The Nation", check out this portrait recommended as a "Great Gift Idea for First Anniversary" in an e-mail from Peter Rothberg, Associate Publisher, The Nation.
It's entitled "Heroes Who Guide Obama" - said heroes being Abraham, Martin, and John. It's a visual work of fiction, obviously. You really need to check it out:
http://www.thehallofframers.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=39
I wonder WHEN "The Nation" committed to pushing this dreck? I suspect that they got locked in to the deal during the euphoria surrounding Obama's election and inauguration.
Am I the only one who doesn't follow the "first anniversary" craze of buying kitsch to celebrate Year One of a doomed and degraded presidency?
And why "The Nation", anyway? The painting looks like it's intended for homes that still have a blank space on the wall above their "Praying Hands" simulated-wood carving.
I'm also a little surprised that it isn't painted on black velvet.
Anyway, I'm waiting for the revised version, showing Obama being Pensive beside a portrait-within-a-portrait of Ronald Reagan, Henry Kissinger, and Bill Clinton. But I'm sure that's just ME, and these things are leaping off the shelf.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Nicely stated, Sanders talks a good game but when push comes to shove, he caves in faster than one can say, Obama.
Sanders is one against ninety nine.
So what? Humanity needs someone to stand up, speak the truth, and not sit down until listened to. Anything less is just not enough.
People hunger for true humanistic leadership. Shutting Lieberman up is not enough, proposing progressive programs is not enough if the status quo remains untouched and the forces of greed remain in power.
It has to start somewhere, and I think a Vermont Senator is a good place to start, or maybe a Wisconsin Senator, or an Ohio Representative? Someone please stand up and don't sit down until something right happens.
ej,
I want someone to stand up and shout the injustices loud and clear same as you. I can't claim to know what is in Sanders' heart or head. None of us know what really happens and is said when the cameras are off. We get "information" from media, which includes the internet. The best we can do is watch, listen, and monitor their actions. Why did Sanders decide to stop reading? I don't know. What I do know is that Sanders has been very consistent through the years, a voice that speaks about principals that come closest to mine. Of all the players in this venal charade, Sanders is one that I'm willing to give benefit of doubt.
Buck
We don't need to know what is in his "head" or "heart" but rather what way he will vote. That is all that matters.
I feel the same way about Sanders, but the fact is that we the people still have no one going to the mat on single payer. At some point it just doesn't matter what the excuses are. We need someone to just say "fuck it" and get dirty by sticking to the truth.
Increasingly people from all political persuasions are understanding that unless their needs and desires coincide with those of the powerful they are not represented by anyone.
There are good people in government accomplishing good things, but now is the time for all good people to "cowboy" up and just stop the bullshit. Transparency goes a long way.
If we don't know what is in Sander's heart or head then why isn't he telling us? Why does Feingold stay quieter than his supporters wish? Why isn't Kucinich screaming from the rooftops? In lieu of bold action tell us why the lack of bold action. Truth!
So is Lieberman, and we have seen how that turned out. Maybe if you stopped whining and apologizing for these scum, you might actually move them in the direction we want.
come on, give sanders some credit. but, i agree, he should follow dean's lead and just vote against the present bill, which forces people to buy a product from the insurance industry, which is, as we all know, exempted by u.s. statute from the normal laws regulating monopolistic practices. mayb, we will feel lucky when and if the current right wing u.s. supreme court declares that our congress acted unconstitutionally when it ordered u.s. citizens to buy health insurance from a monopolistic enterprise. i know car insurance is mandated, but then again, the only insurance you are required to buy is the liability coverage that protects other drivers from your own mistakes. this law will be akin to the government ordering you to insure your own life or property, as the present state of your health is not per se a potential liabilty to anyone else.
Good idea. I will say one thing about articles on this site. A great deal of them come from a lot of ordinary folks too who aren't well known. Give it a try. I have faith that CD will publish your article on this site for everyone to read unlike fluffpost.
Why would anyone need 700+ pages to describe "Medicare for All"? I just did it in eleven words.
:~)
Correction! 3 words: "Medicare for All" ;~)
You can't pin this on the Party of No, John. The Party of Not Yet is right in there with them.
The Repugs asked Saunders to read. Saunders read. Who told him to stand down? Did anyone imagine the Demned would support him?
Certain aspects of this situation have become very clear. The electorate wants single payer. The population wants single payer. The sponsors do not.
With a very few exceptions, the representatives are working for the sponsors. We can see this in almost all votes cast to fund the war and almost all votes cast for this silly thing 4 or 5 Bibles thick masquerading as a healthcare bill.
It is time to cease cooperation with these entities in every personally sustainable way.
If the market was really free, we would have bought Bernie's amendment.
John Nichols covering up for the Democrats -
Boo Hoo, It will take 10 hours to read this amendment.
Boo Hoo, If we wait 10 hours, we won't be able to leave on Christmas recess as early.
After spending 10 months on the bill already, we can't take 10 hours to vote on something that a significant portion of the public really wants. No, better to vote on a trashy "take it or leave it to the public" bill.
Nichol's stating that Sanders tried to do the right thing is a joke. What a weak effort that was!
Nichol's blaming the Republicans simply because the amendment had to be read, is a weak excuse. If it is that easy to break the Democrats, their spines aren't even made of rubber. The fact is, the Democrats didn't want to vote on the bill. The bill has trended from quasi-public option to no public option, thanks to Democrat leadership. This would upset those plans.
Make them read EVERY bill that goes thru either House, pork and all, so everyone can see/hear the sausage being made.
"Recognizing that the move would stall action not just on health care reform but on a host of economic issues that are critical to unemployed Americans, Sanders had no choice but to pull the amendment off the floor. But he was not happy about what happened."
Right. Gosh, I am SO SICK of apologists for the Democrats and their total and abject failure. Could John Nichols please just take a break?
And now even Sanders, who I thought was the one good guy in the Senate, has sold out. By giving up on a yes/no vote on his amendment for a single payer plan, Sanders is covering the butts of the rest of the crooks in Congress, who can now continue to pretend they are "with us" while actually working against us.
I AM SO SICK OF THIS!!!!!!
I wonder what payoff Bernie got for his sellout.