John Conyers remarks yesterday; defends single-payer AND advocates for a strong public option

[andym]

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=9030718

I thought folks might like to see what Representative Conyers is actually saying (given another post here today):
Essentially, he prefers single-payer, but in it's stead emphatically desires a strong public option (note how he is working in a positive way to achieve change):

"What I am saying is that those Members who support universal single-payer health care have already made a major concession in the discussion, major concession. And it just seems to me that this could have been addressed in a different way, and it wasn't. That's water over the dam. But still, 86 Members, and there are more who are not cosponsors of the bill, were never cut into the major premises of how we go about it.

So for the President to compare that with those people who want everybody to go buy their own insurance any way they can, I think, was a mistaken metaphor. I just wanted to inject that into the discussion because this was a speech that was a call to arms to the American people and the Congress that there is going to be health care reform.

Now, the consideration is, however, that where we are right now, as you have said so articulately, you and the chairwoman, is that we have to not have a public option. We have to have a robust, strong public option. And my job, as I see it, is to pursue this, not that we have one that we discussed or that we may stick one in or that is a sliver of the whole subject matter. For the reasons you have already articulated in this Special Order, it's critical. It's not I hope we can get it. We've got to get it. This bill's name of health care reform will only be justified if we do get it.

I want to pledge to the many people in the many places that I have been around the country who are not happy that H.R. 676 was not more thoroughly considered, single-payer, that we definitely must have an alternative to the dozens and dozens of private insurance companies if we are to have any savings and have any real meaningful reform worthy of the name.

[Vincardog]

1. Why not add an amendment that makes the Insurance companies abide by the anti-trust laws?

That would be change we could believe in

[andym]

2. That would be a good idea.

At a minimum.

Another good idea:
Why not cap their premiums for a basic health plan.

[Vincardog]

3. Why not let them raise the premiums all they want but pay for them with a tax on insurance companies...

[andym]

4. That's one way to do it

The trouble is that people paying would be need to be reimbursed later. But one way do cap premiums would be to create a "windfall" ceiling-limited tax that essentially does the same thing.

I think by capping premiums/total cost on a defined basic plan (with coverage similar to Medicare), we could achieve universal coverage at low cost and good quality.

[yodermon]

6. Wait. Health Insurance companies don't have to abide by Anti Trust Laws?

???

[Vincardog]

13. They are exempt along with sports teams

[depakid]

12. Good luck with that!

Democrats aren't even going to put ETISA preemption on the table!

Bought & paid for- and after the Supreme Court pulls off its corporate coup against America's paltry campaign finance laws, you can pretty much forget about even trying something sensible like that.

[Vincardog]

14. How about this: We give up on Single Payer for now and they remove the anti trust exemption

[depakid]

17. Might have been a way to go. There's no more excuse for that than for ERISA preemption

[slipslidingaway]

5. Here is my post that you are likely referring to...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6522383&mesg_id=6522383

Conyers speech yesterday on single-payer and the public option...

Edited on Fri Sep-11-09 11:29 AM by slipslidingaway

back in the 90's they were asked to step back from single-payer and they did so...this time they were pretty much ignored.

"...Now, on the other hand, the universal single-payer health care bill is not just a few people that have come up with something to involve themselves in the discussion with health care reform. As a matter of fact, the single-payer concept is one of the oldest serious major notions that has been around. That is to say, for those of us who were here when the President was Bill Clinton and he assigned his wife the task of taking on the reform of health care, we were summoned, we who were supporting single-payer, were summoned to the White House collectively.

I remember very well that Jerry Nadler of New York was there, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee. And what happened was that we were urged to step back from our initiative which had been going on for years before the Clintons assumed their responsibilities on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and after some brief discussion, we agreed that that was the appropriate thing to do. We did it. We did step back.

That concept is now undergoing a very short shrift in this whole discussion, namely because this whole discussion was initiated on the premise that universal single-payer health care was too new, too startling and too complex. It would take too long to institute. And so we are going to start off by not including it in the mix.

...What I am saying is that those Members who support universal single-payer health care have already made a major concession in the discussion, major concession. And it just seems to me that this could have been addressed in a different way, and it wasn't. That's water over the dam. But still, 86 Members, and there are more who are not cosponsors of the bill, were never cut into the major premises of how we go about it..."

[andym]

7. Nope referring to another post with a misleading article interpreting Conyers from 8/4/09

Your post is perfectly reasonable as it contains direct quotes from Conyers.

[slipslidingaway]

9. Well then accept my apology, not too many people post the cspan

Congressional links.

As you can see we have been here before, where the politicians go against the majority of the people and try to keep the for profit companies in business.

:(

[andym]

11. This was the post I was referring to (note it did not contain cspan)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8646762&mesg_id=8646762

Your post is great-- it's always useful to hear what key congress people are saying.
I have the utmost respect for Conyers.

[slipslidingaway]

15. Cspan has a great tool to see who said what each day...

FWIW I posted some instructions on how to use the site to see Congressional comments. They do update it often during the day, but there will not be a transcript until the next day.

It has changed a bit, but still is helpful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=308&topic_id=690&mesg_id=690

Conyers is at least trying to make the point that the progressives have already compromised enough, just as they did the same thing in the 90's.

Thanks.

:)

[slipslidingaway]

8. It's Time for a Real Debate on National Health Insurance - by Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon

Conyers confirmed in his speech yesterday that the progressives backed off and follwed the President in the 90's.

Sound familiar? Ther majority of the people favor a national, not for profit system, but the politicians favor the for profit companies, their investors and those who contribute to their campaigns.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6499259&mesg_id=6499259

Edited on Wed Sep-09-09 12:47 PM by slipslidingaway

Single-payer was marginalized and taken off the table during the Clinton health reform debate. We are repeating the same mistakes in 2009 by ignoring the polls which say that the majority prefer a government run, national health insurance, system similar to Medicare.


It's Time for a Real Debate on National Health Insurance

May 12,1993

"...Critics dismiss managed competition as a bureaucratic hoax that should be renamed the "Insurance Industry Preservation Act."

Near the end of the discussion, anchor Robert MacNeil offered Woolhandler the last word "since you're in the minority"-to which she responded: "Robert, I'm not in a minority. Polls are showing two-thirds of the American people support government-funded national health insurance."

...Because it won't "provide Americans with the care they need," the doctor replied.

But she could have offered another response: If much of the public supports national health insurance, and it's not debated seriously in Washington or the national media because of the power of special interests like the insurance lobby, what does that say about the health of our democracy?"


Extra! July/August 1993

Healthcare Reform: Not Journalistically Viable?

"...The media slant in favor of managed competition seen before the 1992 election (see Extra!, 1-2/93) continues. While the phrase "managed competition" appeared in 62 New York Times news stories in the six months following the 1992 election, "single-payer" appeared in only five news stories during that period--never in more than a single-sentence mention.


...The justification media managers give for the imbalance of attention is that while managed competition is supported by the Clinton administration, a single-payer system is not "politically viable." What this means is that news judgements are based on elite preferences, not on popular opinion: The New York Times' own polling since 1990 has consistently found majorities--ranging from 54 percent to 66 percent--in favor of tax-financed national health insurance..."


Americans Support Single payer. Why Doesn't Celinda Lake?

"...Similar strong support for Medicare for All was found the last time health reform was on the top of the nation’s agenda, during the Clinton administration. In 1993, a citizen jury sat for 8 hours a day for five days in Washington, DC before making their choice among the then-leading options for health reform: managed competition (supported by Clinton), medical savings accounts, and single payer. Single payer received 17 out of 24 votes (70 percent). There were 5 votes for Clinton’s plan, and none for medical savings accounts. Focus groups conducted that year by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake reported the same strong support for single payer. “After conducting extensive focus groups on health care, pollster Celinda Lake discovered that the more people are told about the Canadian system, “the higher the support goes.” In contrast, according to Lake, working Americans found the managed competition idea “laughable.”

[populistdriven]

10. This sounds like the Conyers from the 60's and 70's when he earned 13th spot on Nixons enemies list.

:)

[Better Believe It]

16. Did someone say that Congressman Conyers is opposed to a strong public option? I missed that post.

I wish President Obama would have demanded a strong public option in his speech.

K & R