Some questions on single payer..

[t0dd]

- Is Bernie Sanders the only Senator advocating it? Aren't most of the Democratic Senators personally in favor of single payer, but "against" it because it isn't politically possible? Would most Senators in favor of a public option be easily coerced to support single payer?
- Do you believe if we passed health care "reform" now, single payer might be possible in a few years, when the Dems (hopefully) have a larger majority in Congress?
- I know the Progressive Caucus in the House supports single payer. What if all of them pledged to support ONLY a single-payer system? Then no health care bill would pass the house. Wouldn't this approach, waiting until its politically feasible for single payer, ultimately be the best course of action?

I guess a lot of these are difficult to answer, but any information related to these questions is greatly appreciated!

[Eric J in MN]

1. Senator Al Franken said during his campaign that...

...he wanted states to be required to offer a Medicare-like service to children.

That would be a step towards single-payer.

[sandnsea]

2. Education is the only way forward

There has to be some kind of enlightenment in blue dog states before there is any real progressive change.

[glowing]

3. The idea is that eventually, because of the low overhead costs, ie the

govt is not trying to make money and only needs 3% for admin. costs, that most people and companies would be on the Public Plan.. which would essentially just be single payer. Most people I know just want the option of having Medicare for all; starting from the time of wanted conception until death. Why is it you have to be dead broke or 65 to have healthcare that works. Insurance co's deny, deny, deny. Medicare pays for what the doctor orders. There is a bill sitting around in the House or Reps that is essentially this. BUT the insurance co's pay a lot of money to buy our politicians and buy fear in commercial form and with the news agencies who take their money to be on the air with ad buys.. so they spin the crap... Also, in order to pay for a system like this, we'd have to tax the wealthy more to cover the initial costs. The reason why is because there are so many with medical problems that have not been treated for a length of time... As the system exists, regular healthcare check-ups and access would help to lower the longer term health problems like heart disease, obesity...etc.

[Ms. Toad]

4. No in answer to the following:

>>Wouldn't this approach, waiting until its politically feasible for single payer, ultimately be the best course of action?<<

Far too many people do not have access to health care NOW. Although I would love to have a single payer system, we need substantive reform NOW - not once single payer is politically feasible.

By substantive reform I mean at least the immediate implementation:

No denials of coverage (or of health care) because of pre-existing conditions (issue the policy and don't exclude pre-existing conditions)
No caps on coverage
Premium parity - Health status cannot be used to determine how much you pay for insurance

(These would make insurance available on an equitable basis for those who can afford to pay a "reasonable" premium - in the ball park of $5000-$8000/year rather than the $14,000-$20,000 for folks in a high risk pool)

And the implementation in the next 1-2 years (at the longest) of:
Subsidies for low income individuals.

Currently both groups of concerns, in the House Bill, do not even begin until 2013. The first reform group costs nothing and will at least make it possible for far more people than currently carry insurance (some are denied entirely, others who are "lucky" enough to have a state high risk pool just can't afford what insurance policies cost in that pool). Permitting delay for 1-2 years of the subsidy allows for the generation of funding - which, unfortunately, is probably a political reality

Even with a delay for subsidies - it is still far better than doing nothing until single payer is politically feasible.