Bernie Sanders Presses For Vote On State Single-Payer Option

[midnight]

Source: Huffington post

While Democratic leaders abandoned the public option on Thursday, one senator reignited his push for an amendment that would allow states to test-pilot single-payer health insurance systems.

No matter what federal health care reform finally looks like, the Senate should give interested state governments the right to prove single-payer critics wrong, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said during a floor speech Thursday.

"I think we have got to give states the option, the flexibility to go forward with a single-payer system if that is what they want to do," Sanders said. "Once they've done it and done it well, other states around the country will say, 'We want the same thing. It's the cost-effective way to provide comprehensive health care to all of our people.'"

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/bernie-sanders-presses-fo_n_387960.html

[polichick]

1. Sanders is a true blue Dem - k&r

[Cal Carpenter]

3. Well, except for the fact that he's not a Dem

:shrug:

[polichick]

4. LOL - that's true and he's still one of the best Dems! nt

[No Elephants]

29. Not really. He's one of our best legislators, though.

[No Elephants]

28. Listed as Independent on senate.gov and labeled Democratic Socialist on his website, but

he does caucus with Senate Democrats, just as that other Senate Independent, POS Lieberman, does. Ya win some and ya lose some. That's life.

[INdemo]

39. Yes and there are a couple more real progressives

in the Senate but add this amendment or that amendment it will not make a difference...Its over..I would like to see Congress just drop the healthcare issue.Why should Congress bother passing a worthless healthcare bill just for the sake of bragging rights..It was a battle that could not be won and the healthcare insurance industry was better prepared to win the battle months before President Obama took the oath of office.
It is sad to that we will probably lose our Majority in 2010..not because of what Democrats did....It was because they did not use their Majority and pass real legislation.
This President should just forget the possibility of bipartisan legislation..It will not happen..

[dysfunctional press]

46. then why doesn't he join the party?

:shrug:

[reggie the dog]

58. because he does not need to,

the Democrats are too far right for him, but because he often votes with the Democrats they do not run a candidate against him.

[dysfunctional press]

62. how can the democrats be too far right for him, if he is a 'true-blue dem'..?

that don't make no sense.

[reggie the dog]

66. he is not a Democrat

he is an independent Democratic Socialist

[mdmc]

2. God bless Bernie Sanders

:toast:

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JDPriestly]

5. This would be great for California.

Of course, in spite of our size, we only get two votes in the Senate. So, we have very little clout. We just get told by people in states like South Dakota and Wyoming, Idaho and Alabama what we can and cannot do.

Democracy? If you say so, I suppose.

[swilton]

10. He's a true democrat!

[DonCoquixote]

27. You get more house reps

than any of the aforementioned states, so we in Florida.

[No Elephants]

30. It's a democracy with a republic--and it's the "republic" part that is unfair to most of us.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. You make that sound like a situation unique to CA

rather than the way the US Senate works. You get how many house Reps? Did people in Wyoming elect Arnold, Wilson, Duke Cunningham? Is Idaho funding your Rick Warren and your Prop 8? Or are those home grown, CA made?
When you say 'we have very little clout' when the fact is you have clout equal to all others in that Chamber, it is very telling. You have the same, not more, so in CA style, it is whine and pretend that your State's problems come from Alabama, not apathy.

[JDPriestly]

55. Bluenorthwest, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.

We have, with our huge population, a fair share of representation per capita in the House, but in the Senate, we only have two senators, two votes. The states in the (blue) northwest, the south and many other places, also have two votes in the Senate, two senators. This means that individual Californians have next-to-no representation in the Senate compared to those who live in other states.

When slavery was permitted, slaves were still counted for purposes of representation based on population, not as full persons, but as partial persons. We have recognized that slavery is wrong and that the counting of the population in that manner was unfair -- and changed it.

I am old enough to remember and lived long enough in Alabama to know that the former slaves were prevented from having any representation in Congress (or in any political arena) long after the abolition of slavery. We also recognized that as unfair -- and changed it.

The Constitution requires that each state (but not each citizen) be treated equally for purposes of representation in the Senate. Back when the Constitution was adopted, although there were differences in the sizes and populations of various states, there were no states the size of California and no differences as great as the difference between the size of Rhode Island compared to that of California or Texas or the population of Wyoming and Montana compared to that of New York, California or Texas.

Thus far, our country has not recognized the extreme injustice of the disparity in representation between citizens in states with small populations and citizens in states with very large populations.

As we see with the health care bill, California's lack of representation in the Senate means that we will have a bill foisted on us by people from states with relatively small populations - states like Connecticut, North and South Dakota and Nebraska.

That would be OK except that this health care bill will supersede or to use the appropriate word, pre-empt California's state laws on this topic. And, Californians are way ahead of the rest of the country in terms of health care insurance and insurance company regulation. We already have a plan under which people with pre-existing conditions can find insurance (for very high rates). Many of the proposed "changes" in the Senate bill are already law in California or are much worse than the laws we have.

So, basically, the Senate, with senators from small states like North Dakota, Nebraska, Connecticut, etc. leading the charge (paid handily by the insurance companies, of course), are screwing Californians (and people from other populous states).

Those of us who live in populous states need equal representation in Congress. Certainly, we deserve it just as much as the people of color did in southern states where they were denied the vote.

I never realized how unjust this disparity in representation is. But, thanks to the Senate's horrible handling of the health care insurance reform bill, I now understand that we are being effectively disenfranchised by our lack of adequate representation in the Senate.

At this point, I think the only thing that would be fair would be to allow California and other similar states the right to opt out of the federal health care "reform." The "reform" looks more and more worthless with each passing day. What a fraud! What injustice!

[Cleita]

6. If I still were a Catholic, I would recommend

Bernie for sainthood. What a great humanitarian.

[seeinfweggos]

7. best senator there is

[gateley]

8. He's a true representative of the people. nt

[swilton]

9. Three Cheers for Bernie Sanders!!

For He's a Jolly Good Fellow!

[fascisthunter]

11. Funny thing is, Democrats used to be like Bernie Sanders

someone who fights for the common man.

[No Elephants]

31. Bingo. But we stood by as K Street got to be more important than voters. And we still stand by.

We are not willing to spend the time and do the work it takes to have a better government than we have, nor are we organized so to do. I cannot abide the Teabaggers, but I have to grudgingly grant them points for not falling asleep at the switch.

[reggie the dog]

59. really??? I was born in 1979 and I remember no such thing

in my lifetime at least. What epoch are you talking about?

[anonymous171]

12. STATES' RIGHTS!

:)

[ozone_man]

15. It's funny when it works for us.

Maybe those founders were pretty wise after all.

[No Elephants]

32. Meh. I'd gladly give up the vestigal states rights for truly representative

government and Presidential elections.

[Bozita]

13. I think it's Thom Hartmann who calls him "America's Senator"

[madrchsod]

19. breakfast with bernie

[Iowa]

14. Bernie Sanders is an honorable man. I wish he (or someone even remotely like him) was President. n/t

[Goldstein1984]

26. Probably why he isn't president

Bernie Sanders would be the same person after being elected as before.

Corporate America wouldn't let integrity like that into the Whitehouse.

[Jefferson23]

16. Oh Bernie, bless you for still trying! n/t

[Mithreal]

17. Go Bernie!

[madrchsod]

18. bernie really cares about americans

he`s the only one who got the balls to say it like it is....

[laughingliberal]

20. Ironic, huh? The best Democrat we have isn't a Democrat and the worst Democrat we have isn't either

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

33. Lieberman was our most traitorous 20th Century VP nominee, but not our worst Democrat on his.

overall voting record. Some of this fellow DLCers, like Baucus, Bayh and Landrieu, are just as bad, if not worse.

[mbperrin]

21. Yes, let's do it!

Bernie!

[earcandle]

22. Jackpot! Take this!

Crashing into a The Future Widget

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[andym]

23. A very good idea! k&r nt.

[New Dawn]

24. K&R

[No Elephants]

34. Contact Saunders office and say thanks. I imagine he could use encouragement as he often

goes up against many or all of his fellow Senators.


http://sanders.senate.gov/contact/

[Enthusiast]

35. We love Bernie! nt

[democrank]

36. Show them what courage is, Bernie.

Bravo!

[NecklyTyler]

37. K&R

[pjt7]

40. Can he team up with any Republican Senators for this

State option?

What other D's will be carrying the load for this?

[NecklyTyler]

57. The best we can hope for at this point is Representative Sanders can get a recorded floor vote

A floor vote on single payer health care would be be a litmus test for who is on our side, and who is on the side of the big corporations. I am all for getting each Representative on record as where they stand on single payer. It becomes part of their Congressional Voting Record and can be held up to them each election as an indisputable fact.

[varelse]

42. We, the people would seem to have only a handful of representatives in Congress

I'm grateful for Bernie and his minority "by, of, and for the people" caucus.

[Pharaoh]

43. Bernie is a socialist

and socialism is a good thing compared to unfettered capitalism

[orbitalman]

44. Bernis Sanders is showing true leadership for the people...

Time and again he puts forth the peoples' business. What a legislator!! I have good senators but they don't show the leadership Bernie does. :fistbump:

[surrealAmerican]

45. Is he likely to get the votes for this to pass?

If so, it would be a great step forward.

[flyarm]

47. I Can Believe It’s Not Medicare: Schumer, Baucus “Fixing” Buy-In Plan

I Can Believe It’s Not Medicare: Schumer, Baucus “Fixing” Buy-In Plan
By: Jon Walker Friday December 11, 2009 7:45 am

Allowing younger people to buy into Medicare sounds like a good idea. Medicare is a well-run and cost-effective program. The problem is that the latest reports indicate this “Medicare buy-in” idea might not really be Medicare at all, it might in fact be fake Medicare:

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said efforts were under way to address concerns raised by senators, including the low reimbursement rates for hospitals and doctors.

“All of the problems that people have mentioned, we are mindful of,” said Schumer, who worked to develop the package with 10 moderate and liberal senators. “Every one you have mentioned has been brought up in our discussions, and we didn’t ignore any of them.”

snip: as per DU rules:

This change would result in this fake Medicare program having much higher premiums and a smaller provider network. It would also result in greater administrative overhead. This fake Medicare would lack almost all the benefits of Medicare. A Medicare buy-in program that does not actually allow people to fully buy into real Medicare is a farce. Beware: it looks like we are about to get fake Medicare for Christmas.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Harry Reid, Crook for PhRMA, Tries to Kill Drug Reimportation
By: Jane Hamsher Friday December 11, 2009 6:08 am

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/10/harry-reid-crook-for-phrma-tries-to-kill-drug-reimportation/

snip:

The CBO says that drug reimportation would save the government $19 billion dollars, and the public $100 billion dollars. In reality, however, Jon Walker estimates it could be more like $400-$500 billion, if the reimported drugs pressure the price of US drugs down.
Sounds like a good thing, right? Except Harry Reid uses his control over procedure to do what Harry Reid wants to do. (Tell that fish story about “60 votes” and Joe Lieberman being the block to anything to someone else.) And what he wants to do is block Dorgan’s drug reimportation bill, and protect Obama’s PhRMA deal.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/09/the-public-... -“deal”-that-does-not-sound-like-it-is-even-a-deal-yet/
Public Option “Deal” Does Not Yet Sound Like It is Even a Deal
By: Jon Walker Wednesday December 9, 2009

What is in this deal that might not be a deal? The answer is that I don’t really know, and it seems like most of the Democratic senators don’t even know yet.

Medicare Buy-In

It sounds like the vague outline of the deal includes an early Medicare buy-in for some subset of people between the age of 55-64. (Whether this is a buy in for Medicare or for Conrad’s fake Medicare is not yet determined.) It at least sounds like this program might not be just a temporary stopgap, and will start in 2011.

That buy-in option would initially be made available to some uninsured people aged 55-64 in 2011, three years before the exchanges open. For the period between 2011 and 2014, when the exchanges do open, the Medicare option will not be subsidized–people will have to pay in without federal premium assistance–and so will likely be quite expensive, the aide noted. However, after the exchanges launch, the Medicare option would be offered in the exchanges, where people could pay into it with their subsidies.

Remember, the exchanges, at first, will only be open to roughly 10% of Americans, so it is only a very small group of 55-64 year olds who would have the option of buying in to Medicare. With this provision, the devil really is in the details. It could be done well, or it could easily devolve into a worthless Medicare buy-in in name only.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

CWA Slams Senate Health Care Bill: “Would Make our Health Care System Worse”

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.com/2009/11/20/cwa-sl... /

CWA Slams Senate Health Care Bill: “Would Make our Health Care System Worse”


By: Michael Whitney Friday November 20, 2009

The Communications Workers of America just put out a statement hitting the Senate health care bill, specifically slamming the regressive excise tax on health care plans. Their statement (emphasis mine):

The Senate bill’s proposal to tax health care benefits would make our health care system worse, not better. This new tax, which is opposed by the majority of Americans, would affect millions of families. Average families who clearly don’t have “Cadillac” health care plans would owe thousands of dollars in new taxes.

Taxing health care benefits is a bad public policy that would hit millions of families hard as employers cut back health care benefits to avoid the tax. The idea that this tax will curtail rising premiums is just wrong.

CWA supports health care reform that is fairly financed, and the House bill has a better approach. It fully funds health care reform by making large employers pay toward their workers’ coverage, adding a modest surtax on the wealthiest Americans and including a public option.

CWA will work with Senate Majority Leader Reid and other Senators to produce a bill that will provide the real health care reform that working and middle income families deserve.

Those are strong words from one of the country’s most influential unions, going beyond the AFL-CIO’s tepid praise and SEIU’s lauding of the Senate for the bill. CWA was part of an ad pushed by AFL-CIO member unions last month hitting the same excise tax in the Senate Finance Committee bill, but appears to have gone one step further than other major unions with this statement.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Public Option Grand Compromise Becomes A Grand Big Nothing
By: Jon Walker Tuesday December 8, 2009
snip;
For starters, the Medicaid expansion has completely been dropped, even though it would have been a big money saver for the government:

This afternoon, Jay Rockefeller said that the new proposal to expand Medicaid coverage for those who are 133% to 150% above the federal poverty line was dropped during a meeting of key legislators this morning. “I was sad this morning,” Rockefeller told me and a few other reporters. “We walked in, and it was 133 to 140, then it’s staying at 133… So we didn’t get anything.”

Now we are getting reports that the Medicare buy-in is not really a buy-in. . . or really Medicare. Senators are looking at restricting the Medicare buy-in so completely that it will be an option for almost no one. It will likely only be for a very tiny segment of poor and very unhealthy 55-64 year-olds:

Negotiators are considering limiting consumers to those who would qualify for high-risk insurance pools already set up under the Senate’s health care legislation. This would mean primarily those who have been uninsured for a certain amount of time, have a history of poor health or are unable to get insurance because of a preexisting condition.

Adding insult to injury, the “Medicare” this tiny fraction of people could buy in to might end up not even really being Medicare:

Conrad said that he’d propose having the Medicare buy-in be treated as “a separate pool” that could have negotiated rates, rather than those set by the existing Medicare program.


http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/08/public-opti...

[dreamnightwind]

50. Excellent post

Should be its own OP? It sure didn't make me any happier, though, damnit, add some pom-pom fluff next time.

Seriously, just when I thought I couldn't be much more disgusted with this HCR fiasco...

[flyarm]

54. I did a post ..here it is..getting unrec's at present!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7202611

[dreamnightwind]

63. good...

And my rec brings that thread to +14.

[inna]

51. Thank you, thank you for the links! I love FDL. nt

[Echo In Light]

48. K&R

[Blue Owl]

49. Why this sounds like...

actual, authentic DEMOCRACY!

I wanna see those vote tallies!

[winyanstaz]

52. k & r.....

Go Sanders!

[SandWalker1984]

53. Bernie will not commit to voting against mandates w/o a strong public option

Just listened to Bernie Sanders on the Thom Hartmann radio show. A caller asked Bernie how he can support mandates to buy private insurance if the final bill does not have any public options.

Bernie danced around the question, talking about a sliver of a public option that's struggling for survival.

That makes me think that Bernie at times acts more like a politician than the Bernie Sanders that I want to believe in from his past performance.

It appears to me that Bernie is leaving room for himself to vote FOR a bad insurance giveaway bill.

I hope he proves me wrong.

[Shagbark Hickory]

65. Uh Oh. Not good. On Thursday he was still saying he wouldn't vote if it "didn't reduce costs"

The health denial companies must have infused some millions into his accounts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Yes! That's how Canada did it--one province at a time

There's a single-payer advocacy group in Minnesota and in other states as well.

If the "health care reform" (actually, insurance company corporate welfare) bill that comes out of this process is as bad as it looks, the idea of single payer will start to look very attractive in a number of states.

[crazyjoe]

60. why does a state need federal permission to offer

single payer healthcare to it's citizens? can someone explain that to me?

[dgibby]

61. I wish Bernie would run for prez some day. n/t

[Shagbark Hickory]

64. This would be great. If they only passed it in Vermont, at least ppl can move to vermont to get care

nt