March, 05 2009, 02:10pm EDT
Single-Payer Advocates Win Seats at White House Health Summit
Dr. Oliver Fein releases prepared remarks
WASHINGTON
Two
leading advocates of single-payer health reform, sometimes
characterized as an improved Medicare for All, received last-minute
invitations to attend the White House health care summit being held
today. The invitations were greeted as a victory by single-payer
supporters.
Rep.
John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), chief sponsor of the single-payer U.S.
National Health Care Act, H.R. 676, was invited to attend the meeting
late in the day on Tuesday, and Dr. Oliver Fein, president of
Physicians for a National Health Program, was invited on Wednesday
afternoon.
The
White House invitations were extended to the two leaders after intense
grassroots lobbying efforts by single-payer supporters, who were
concerned that no single-payer voices would be present at the meeting.
The efforts included an outpouring phone calls and e-mail messages to
the White House, along with a threatened demonstration outside the
White House gates by doctors and other health professionals wearing
their white coats. The demonstration was called off when word arrived
that Rep. Conyers and Dr. Fein had been invited.
In
his prepared remarks, the full text of which follows, Dr. Fein says,
"We are pleased to be here today and appreciate the implicit
recognition of the majority support for single payer in our country. We
hope this is the beginning of a serious dialogue on how to enact
single-payer health reform and we look forward to working with
[President Obama] and the Congress toward this end."
Dr. Fein's prepared remarks for the summit follow.
Prepared remarks by Dr. Oliver Fein
Mr.
President, Physicians for a National Health Program agrees with your
statement during your presidential campaign: health care should be a
basic human right.
Physicians
recommend an improved and expanded Medicare-for-All - that is, a
single-payer national health insurance program, providing care that is
publicly financed but largely privately delivered. This fundamental
health reform - which enjoys solid majority support among physicians
and the public - has become even more urgently needed in view of our
severe economic recession.
Millions
of people are losing their employer-sponsored health insurance, joining
the 46 million who already lack coverage. Millions more, including
those with insurance, are finding it harder to pay their co-pays and
deductibles and are scrimping on their medications and doctor visits.
Many go without care, risking their health and often their very lives.
Physicians
find that private, for-profit health insurance companies add cost but
no value to the health care system. The administrative waste associated
with the private-insurance-based industry - enormous paperwork,
marketing costs, and other costs that have nothing to do with
delivering care - consumes 31 cents of every health care dollar.
As long as we rely on private health insurers, universal coverage will be unaffordable.
Mandates
to buy private insurance are not the answer. Experience with mandate
plans in Washington state (1993), Oregon (1992) and Massachusetts (1988
and today), shows they simply don't work, achieving neither universal
health care nor cost containment.
Some
of these plans offer a Medicare-like, public option that people could
buy into, but experience with Medicare shows that the private plans
refuse to compete on a level playing field. They cherry-pick healthier
patients and insist on more than their share of payment.
In
contrast, single payer guarantees everyone access to comprehensive,
quality health care and choice of their own doctor and hospital.
Single-payer
health reform, an improved Medicare for All, is the only reform model
that offers $400 billion in annual savings in administrative costs. It
is the only approach that contains effective cost-containment
provisions such as bulk purchasing and global budgeting.
Such
economies would allow for expanding health coverage to everyone - with
no co-pays or deductibles - with no overall increase in health care
spending. In other words, it's the only health reform proposal that
pays for itself.
The
single-payer model is the only fiscally prudent proposal available, an
especially important consideration at a time of economic distress. And
we know from our experience with Medicare and other single-payer
systems that it will work.
With
a single-payer national health insurance program we can assure
lifelong, high quality, comprehensive and affordable coverage for
everyone. Such a program will lift the heavy burden of crushing medical
expenses off the shoulders of our population, expenses that often lead
to personal bankruptcy. And we can save lives: the Institute of
Medicine estimated in 2002 that more than 18,000 Americans die each
year from lack of health insurance. That number is certainly higher
today.
From
the standpoint of what benefits our patients, single payer is the
health policy model that best reflects their needs and values.
Support
for single payer is extensive. In a peer-reviewed statistical study in
the Annals of Internal Medicine, 59 percent of U.S. physicians said
they would support government action to establish national health
insurance. In a recent Associated Press poll, 65 percent of the
respondents said, "The United State should adopt a universal health
insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like
Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxes."
Single-payer
health reform is embodied in the U.S. National Health Care Act, H.R.
676, sponsored by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). It had 93 co-sponsors in
the 110th Congress, the most of any health reform legislation.
We
are pleased to be here today and appreciate the implicit recognition of
the majority support for single payer in our country. We hope this is
the beginning of a serious dialogue on how to enact single-payer health
reform and we look forward to working with you and the Congress toward
this end.
****
A short biography of Dr. Fein is available here: https://www.pnhp.org/stateactions/new_york/
Physicians for a National Health Program is a single issue organization advocating a universal, comprehensive single-payer national health program. PNHP has more than 21,000 members and chapters across the United States.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular