Single-Payer Healthcare Alliance Forms in Washington, D.C.

[davidswanson]

With Barack Obama about to assume the presidency and take up the healthcare issue, leaders of single-payer healthcare organizations met for two days, November 11 - 12, at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C.


l-r: Kay Tillow, Rep. Conyers, Tim Carpenter

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC), Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), Healthcare-NOW! , and Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) convened the meeting. Providing healthcare to the millions of Americans who lack it was a centerpiece of the presidential campaigns.

Approximately sixty people representing over a dozen organizations and three members of Congress were in attendance. The agenda included a political overview, developing a legislative strategy, and alliance-building discussions. Among the represented groups were Healthcare-NOW!, the AFL-CIO, All Unions Committee for Single-Payer, American Medical Students Association, Rep. John Conyers, and aides from the offices of Reps. Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich.

There was broad agreement among the participants that a single-payer healthcare plan, H.R. 676 specifically, is not only the solution to solving the problem of providing healthcare to every American, but is also a sensible part of any economic stimulus package and lasting economic recovery.

Concern was expressed that a plan similar to the Massachusetts health plan will be offered by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, which could pass out of respect for his service in the Senate. The law, enacted in 2006, subsidizes healthcare corporations with taxpayer dollars and mandates that Massachusetts citizens buy health insurance.

The Boston Globe reports the costs of providing healthcare to most of its residents have risen well above the original estimates-the state faces huge shortfalls and will need to secure additional revenue from the federal government or drastically reduce the benefits. While a deep respect for Sen. Kennedy's contributions was evident, participants rejected the Massachusetts plan as the cure to U.S. healthcare woes.

In addition, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's healthcare plan was rejected on the same grounds. See this article, Baucus Health Plan is Fatally Flawed.

There was general agreement that single-payer healthcare legislation would provide economic stimulus by drastically reducing the number of employee sick days, creating thousands of new jobs in the delivery of healthcare (as opposed to the thousands of jobs which currently exist for the purpose of denying health insurance claims), and by containing rising costs from bulk-purchasing, advertising, CEO salaries and benefit packages, and a profit-driven system.

Members of the alliance will continue to meet regularly to ensure single-payer healthcare, H.R. 676, becomes a meaningful part of the healthcare reforms Obama will consider as the debate moves forward.

[gateley]

1. Is HR 676 the bill Dennis was promoting (or wrote)? I'm hopeful that we take

steps in this direction.

[redqueen]

20. It's Conyers' and his bill, if I recall correctly.

I'm SO glad to see this coalition forming around that bill.

This is very very encouraging. :bounce:

[gateley]

25. Thanks for the clarification -- and I agree -- VERY encouraging! nt

[leftstreet]

2. K&R - Now's the time

:thumbsup:

[jwirr]

3. I am for single payer universal health care but if the economy is going

to put this issue at risk then I suggest that President Obama work first with those programs that already exist. Pass a bill that includes the Chips idea (adding children) and consolidates ALL health care programs already a part of the government into one program with one administration and one set of rules. From there we could start adding segments of society once the economy gets going again.

[nichomachus]

5. It was the freaking war, corporate theft, and the ongoing "bailout" that

puts the economy at risk. Why should universal single-payer health care take a backseat. That is something that will do the country some good. If we can afford to hand out trillions to Wall Street gamblers, we can afford health care. Can't we just say "Health Care is too big to fail." That seems to work every time.

[jwirr]

9. I happen to agree with both of you but that does not mean that it will

go our way. Already before his election Obama was admitting that many things would depend on the state of the economy when we actually know the full story about *ss's mess. I am just suggesting that consolidating the programs will not cost one single cent more than keeping them the way they are now. Something must be done and if this is all that can be done it is a step.

[nichomachus]

10. Why is it when the corporations want a handout - nobody considers the state of the economy

[Vinca]

6. Except this is a life or death issue. We can't afford not to adopt

healthcare for everyone. It's also an economic issue because so many people in this country go bankrupt because of no insurance or inadequate insurance.

[aquart]

11. Healthcare is a huge impediment to business growth.

The costs make American businesses non-competitive with others in more enlightened countries. If you want to see innovation and start-ups, take healthcare off the back of American business.

Also, many will be able to work who now cannot find work because of health conditions in their backgrounds. It also means people will be able to take part-time jobs and all kinds of irregular-hour jobs that help businesses grow...but which are not possible under current legal requirements for health insurance.

[TahitiNut]

12. In my view, the economic problems add urgency for the single-payer solution.

I regard it as an even higher priority than "national defense" since we're ALREADY losing lives all over the nation as a result of the cannibalistic for-profit 'system' that equates profit with death and suffering. After all, "national defense" is about a perceived 'threat' to the lives of the People. Well, the Enemy is withing the Walls and lives are bing lost.

Relieved of the costs of health "benefits," corporations SHOULD be able to compete more efficiently/effectively and reduce the costs of even administering such "benefits."

At the ROOT of our current economic problems is the disenfranchisement of labor ... decimated payrolls and decimated wages and salaries in the working class. Further, people with chronic health care problems are prevented from entering (re-entering) the work force along with people whose ONLY 'health' issue is age ... the ageism of corporations with a bias against group insurance premium increases exacted by predatory insurance ompanies.

Single-payer eradicates such specious resistance to some of the more experienced and skilled workers in the country: those over 50 years old.

[DesertFlower]

18. i agree.

we need it even more now with more people losing their jobs every day. on my way home i passed 3 large stores with "GOING OUT OF BUSINESS" signs.:scared:

[sandyd921]

17. Universal single payer health care could greatly help the economy

For example, it has the potential to salvage the US auto industry (along with their moving in a "green" direction in the cars that they produce) given that $1500 of the price of every car they produce represents health care obligations. The savings due to preventative care alone could be very significant. Although there would be an initial investment involved, it would more than pay for itself over a period of time. In fact I would go so far to say that a major initiative to cover everyone (and single payer is the most efficient way to do this) is essential if we want to get ourselves out of the hole and move toward real prosperity and security for our citizens.

[Cassandra]

23. The money is already there.

We just need to get the insurance companies out of the mix. Their profit and the savings for doctors and hospitals will be enough to cover all.

[LWolf]

24. HR 676 doesn't cost us more money.

<snip>

The USNHI program would reduce overall annual health care spending by over $50 billion in the first year. In addition, because it implements effective methods of cost-control, health spending is contained over time, ensuring affordable health care to future generations.

In its first year, single-payer will save over $150 billion on paperwork and $50 billion by using rational bulk purchasing of medications. These savings are more than enough to cover all the uninsured, improve coverage for everyone else, including medication coverage and long-term care.

Employers who currently provide coverage for their employees pay an average of 8.5% of payroll towards health coverage, while many employers can’t afford to provide coverage at all. Under this Act, all employers will pay a modest 3.3% payroll tax per employee, while eliminating their payments towards private health plans. The average cost to an employer for an employee earning $35,000 per year will be reduced to $1,155, less than $100 per month.

http://www.pnhp.org/publications/executive_summary_of_the_united_states_national_health_insurance_act_hr676.php

[mwooldri]

30. The UK got National Health Care after the wreck of WWII.

You couldn't get an economy more wrecked than that... even we got aid under the Marshall Plan. Plus 20% of the economy got nationalized - utilities, transit, manufacturing, etc.

[NorthCarolina]

4. I think HR 676 is the Conyers/Kucinich bill. This news is very good to hear.

I hope they are able to keep up the pressure to make sure HR 676 is part of the discussion going forward. I think I recall hearing that over 70 members in Congress have already signed on to HR 676.

[TahitiNut]

7. Yes, HR 676 is the John Conyers bill with 78 cosponsors.

Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 5/5/2005
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 5/10/2005
Rep Becerra, Xavier - 11/17/2005
Rep Berman, Howard L. - 9/12/2006
Rep Bishop, Sanford D., Jr. - 6/14/2006
Rep Brady, Robert A. - 12/5/2006
Rep Brown, Corrine - 11/15/2005
Rep Brown, Sherrod - 2/1/2006
Rep Capuano, Michael E. - 12/13/2005
Rep Carson, Julia - 6/7/2005
Rep Christensen, Donna M. - 2/8/2005
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 5/10/2005
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. - 5/5/2005
Rep Davis, Danny K. - 5/26/2005
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 12/15/2005
Rep Doyle, Michael F. - 5/22/2006
Rep Engel, Eliot L. - 6/7/2005
Rep Evans, Lane - 6/7/2005
Rep Farr, Sam - 5/5/2005
Rep Fattah, Chaka - 5/17/2005
Rep Filner, Bob - 4/5/2005
Rep Frank, Barney - 5/18/2005
Rep Green, Al - 2/16/2006
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. - 5/25/2005
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. - 5/18/2005
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. - 6/13/2005
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 5/5/2005
Rep Honda, Michael M. - 6/22/2005
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. - 5/25/2005
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 5/19/2005
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice - 7/25/2006
Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs - 11/14/2005
Rep Kaptur, Marcy - 2/14/2006
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. - 5/26/2005
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. - 2/8/2005
Rep Lantos, Tom - 6/7/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara - 5/5/2005
Rep Lewis, John - 5/25/2005
Rep Lynch, Stephen F. - 11/17/2005
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 5/26/2005
Rep McDermott, Jim - 2/8/2005
Rep McGovern, James P. - 5/10/2005
Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. - 6/16/2005
Rep McNulty, Michael R. - 12/6/2005
Rep Meehan, Martin T. - 5/22/2006
Rep Miller, George - 5/10/2005
Rep Moore, Gwen - 9/21/2006
Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 5/25/2005
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. - 11/14/2005
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes - 7/25/2006
Rep Olver, John W. - 4/13/2005
Rep Owens, Major R. - 5/10/2005
Rep Pastor, Ed - 5/18/2005
Rep Payne, Donald M. - 5/10/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 4/5/2005
Rep Reyes, Silvestre - 2/14/2006
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille - 2/8/2006
Rep Rush, Bobby L. - 12/15/2005
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. - 7/25/2006
Rep Sanders, Bernard - 6/7/2005
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 12/13/2005
Rep Scott, Robert C. "Bobby" - 5/25/2005
Rep Serrano, Jose E. - 5/12/2005
Rep Solis, Hilda L. - 7/12/2005
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 5/5/2005
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. - 5/19/2005
Rep Tierney, John F. - 6/15/2005
Rep Towns, Edolphus - 5/26/2005
Rep Udall, Tom - 5/26/2005
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 12/15/2005
Rep Visclosky, Peter J. - 6/22/2006
Rep Waters, Maxine - 12/15/2005
Rep Watson, Diane E. - 5/5/2005
Rep Waxman, Henry A. - 5/19/2005
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. - 5/25/2005
Rep Wexler, Robert - 2/1/2006
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 5/10/2005
Rep Wynn, Albert Russell - 5/5/2005

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.00676:

[exboyfil]

13. How much payroll tax to get Universal Single Payer Health Care?

The Germans pay 15% on all income. Given our current expenditures, we will need closer to 25% without added efficiencies, rationing, monoposy negotiation etc. My employers currently pays about $12K for my plan which is a high deductible ($5K) plan. The Federal plan in our area is similar (within a couple of $1Ks). My plan includes annual check ups for all family members.

If we are going to do single payer, now is the time to do it. Make the Federal program mandatory for all companies to put a predefined wage percentage (somewhere between 15% to 25%) into a Federal plan. Do not make exceptions for small businesses - why should they have exceptions? Eliminate union contracts by fiat so that those workers can participate as well. Roll all Medicare, Medicaid, VA, etc into that Federal plan. Have some deductibility which can be covered by an HSA credit for low income folks as well as some level of copay to avoid irrational use of medical services (which I know from personal experience can happen on a massive scale when you have a completely free lunch).

We will have to recognize whether it is an insurance company or the government writing the checks -- their metrics will be based on money spent and not on customer service. Expect to see longer waits for services, less access to the most advanced technologies, and reduced future drug development as monoposy negotiation reduces prices. I do expect my President, Senators, Representatives, and Governors to queue in the same line with me for medical care.

[TahitiNut]

14. Comparisons to German, French, and other tax rates are basically flawed.

When folks use the scare tactics of claiming we'll have to pay so much, they IGNORE the fact that our federal system taxes incomes at three levels: federal, state, and city. Other countries don't have the same tiered system of taxation. (Germany has the additional economic burden of re-unification. It's actually somewhat amazing that it's going as well as it has, even acknowledging the problems.)

Next ... we pay about 15% of our Gross National Product for health care, and we have one of the largest GNPs per capita in the world. (I.e. we're "productive.") France, Germany, Canada, You-name-it pay HALF of that. For HALF the cost, they get BETTER health care that covers everyone and results in better infant mortality, longer life expectancies, and better metrics all around.

Right now, some of a worker's earnings goes to health care before they even see it (the "benefit"), some before it's taxed (deductions and HSA) and some AFTER taxes (copays, deductibles, and espenses not covered).

If the average worker has to pay $15,000 in the current system (out of pre-tax and post-tax earnings) but only has to pay $10,000 under a single-payer system (in - HORRORS! - increased taxes), how is that a Bad Thing???

Read up on HR 676 ... the provisions ... instead of making suppositions regarding how it works.

H.R.676
Title: To provide for comprehensive health insurance coverage for all United States residents, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. (introduced 1/24/2007) Cosponsors (93)
Latest Major Action: 2/2/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Health.

---

SUMMARY AS OF:
1/24/2007--Introduced.

United States National Health Insurance Act (or the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act) - Establishes the United States National Health Insurance (USNHI) Program (the Program) to provide all individuals residing in the United States and in U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, and mental health services.

Prohibits an institution from participating in the Program unless it is a public or nonprofit institution. Allows nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that actually deliver care in their own facilities to participate in the Program.

Gives patients the freedom to choose from participating physicians and institutions.

Prohibits a private health insurer from selling health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act. Allows such insurers to sell benefits that are not medically necessary, such as cosmetic surgery benefits.

Sets forth methods to pay hospitals and health professionals for services. Prohibits financial incentives between HMOs and physicians based on utilization.

Establishes the USNHI Trust Fund to finance the Program with amounts deposited: (1) from existing sources of Government revenues for health care; (2) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5% income earners; (3) by instituting a progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income; and (4) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

Requires the Program to give first priority in retraining and job placement and unemployment benefits to individuals whose jobs are eliminated due to reduced administration.

Establishes a National Board of Universal Quality and Access to provide advice on quality, access, and affordability.

Provides for the eventual integration of the Indian Health Service into the Program.

[exboyfil]

16. Thanks - Maybe we can get by with 14% payroll over current taxes

I am not trying to scare anyone, and you made an excellent point about current government spending which I had not considered. I think single payer is the only viable long term solution for future American competitiveness. Right now government entities pay about 45% already. Did I say that a single payer plan is a bad idea? I just want to try to streamline the entire zoo of Federal plans and get it down to a simpler system. I really think businesses would jump on the opportunity to go to a withholdings type of system that will get them out of the health care business.

According to the CBO public spending is already at 45% which means that we will only need to come up with the other 55% from private income to make it revenue neutral. My figures (assuming national income of $7.7T and health expenditures of $2T) show that, to cover the 55% of the private total spent, we would need about 14% of income.

Anything for me that goes incrementally to protect special interests (ie current Medicare, Medicaid, VA, private insurance, union contracts) is going to end up back at Hillary Clinton's flow chart of confusion (which is what doomed the approach last time).

I would be careful comparing GDP versus income. Do you really buy the GDP numbers as truly representative of what is going on in our country versus other countries? Hopefully the census numbers on income are better. I made some estimates but a 10% (all income besides the top 5%)/30% (all income of the top 5%) will get us to 55% level for current public spending. All my numbers are based around 2006 figures. How much we can bring on a tax on stock and bond transactions?? I like the idea of that tax to reduce security volatility, but I would like to see some estimates on what it will mean for the overall numbers. I personally think Atlas will Shrug at a 30% level (remember this is not a marginal 30% but 30% of all income), and you won't get nearly the amount of revenue you are expecting

My alarm bells go off when I hear "free health care". I think anything we come up with needs to have, except for annual physicals, deductibles and copays to hold down irrational usage.

[redqueen]

21. Do some reading before coming up with your own theories. (nt)

[suffragette]

26. "irrational usage"?

What would you consider that to be?

[TahitiNut]

32. Whole families going to the hospital instead of a movie?

It's so much fun to get shots and digital prostate exams. :eyes:

[exboyfil]

34. Irrational usage

I have a family member who is in a nursing home under Medicaid who insists on seeing a doctor all the time even though she is already under the care of nurses and there is nothing a doctor can do for her. There is no economic check to this demand and family members and nursing home staff have to serve as gatekeepers.

My family, because we are hit with a $80-$100 charge everytime we see a doctor, give any illness time to clear up on its own (like most viral infections do). At least my wife and I do. We are much more cautious with our children though.

In every procedure or drug prescription I actively question the doctor to ensure that such procedure or drug is necessary and why it is necessary. I do this because every expense comes out of my pocket until I hit my high deductible. I might still elect to do it otherwise, but my motivation would not be as great. I have become a more aware consumer of medical care since I was moved to the high deductible plan.

I am not saying that we should have a high deductible plan in universal health care or that the copays need to be very high, but I am saying that, free stuff tends to be consumed more than stuff that costs something. I do understand that deductibles and copays sometimes lead to undesirable results (such as avoiding treatment for medically necessary conditions). I also think no deductible or copay should apply to annual physicals.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

31. re: "irrational usage." As self appointed arbiter...

please inform us as to what that would constitute.

(I'm curious too.)

[TahitiNut]

33. Coast to coast plague of Munchhausen's Syndrome, I guess.

:eyes:

[aquart]

8. YES! Dammit. YES!

[emald]

15. it is so past time for this

health care is a right, not a privilege for the rich. Making profit on health care is sick. Right to life ends at birth for the "cons" and it's time for serious change. Don't even talk to me about socialism since we can cough up a trillion or more on short notice for bankers but nothing for grandma and her tumor.

[ksimons]

19. interesting article - thanks for posting the details! nt

[Cleita]

22. We all love Senator Kennedy, but the Massachusetts plan is already

proving not to work. We hope President Obama will not go down that road. Thank you for posting this.

[slinkerwink]

27. very useful information!

[defendandprotect]

28. Now THAT is really interesting --!!!

Are liberal organizations at long last coming together---???

[slinkerwink]

29. kicking for a great post!

[redqueen]

35. And another kick

for the weekday crowd. :)

[area51]

36. Another kick for this important issue.

Every day, 273 people die due to lack of healthcare in the U.S. ... that's 100,000 deaths per year.

We need single-payer NOW.

[tabbycat31]

37. tell that to the "pro-life" crowd

then they will see that the importance of life does not end at birth.

[redqueen]

38. This really is a huge development.

A coalition is building to push for the passage of HR 676.

We need to get on board!

:kick:

[redqueen]

39. Get involved with one of these organizations and

start lobbying for HR 676.

:kick: