Single-Payer-Medicare-for-All Legislation Introduced in Senate & House: Bernie Sanders/Jim McDermott

Source: BuzzFlash

Single-Payer, Medicare-for-All Legislation Introduced in Senate and House: Bernie Sanders and Jim McDermott
Submitted by buzzadmin on Tue, 05/10/2011 - 10:40am.

Alerts

BUZZFLASH/TRUTHOUT NEWS ALERT

Following on the passage of a single-payer healthcare system in Vermont (awaiting the governor's signature), Bernie Sanders and Jim McDermott issued a news release announcing their Medicare-for-All bill:

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced today that he introduced legislation to provide health care for every American through a Medicare-for-all type single-payer system.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) filed a companion bill in the House to provide better care for more patients at less cost by eliminating the middle-man role played by private insurance companies that rake off billions of dollars in profits.

The twin measures, both called the American Health Security Act of 2011, would provide federal guidelines and strong minimum standards for states to administer single-payer health care programs.



Read more: http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12681

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

In my opinion, the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act, which is what it should be called, is a piece of crap and handout to the insurance industry and big Pharma.

Their lobbyists and representatives in Congress wrote the fricken thing!

disappointed--and angered -when the WH put Universal medicare for all under the table before the conference even started.

ALOT of the things this WH hasn't or HAS done. Determinedly pushing ANY sorta universal health reform ideas OFF the scene from the very beginning was a CLEAR signal that this administration had NO INTENTIONS of living up to what it ran on. "Bait and switch" is too kind a characterization of what's been perpetrated upon us.

during his first year in office. Shoot him, themselves and their Party's midtterm in the foot with a single bullet (much more economical than even Oswald). And then, there's all dem lobbyists.

But, you're right, no one would jail any member of Congress if Congress did that. Constitution says so and, so far anyway, we're still honoring the parts of that poor, dear document that protect Congress, like no jail and no pay cuts.

Was that throwing him under the bus?

I believe Obama got exactly the bill he wanted after his meetings with health insurers, PHRMA and health care providers. Remember, the House did pass a public option. As the bill was getting mauled in Senate Finance, the House Progressive Caucus tried and tried to meet with Obama and could not get a meeting until after the Senate bill passed. He also refused to meet with pro single payer or public option doctors, nurses and other medical professionals who had walked across country. (However, after the bill passed, he met with some AMA types, asking them to wear their white coats.)

Meanwhile, Obama had been for months describing the public option as a sliver and relatively unimportant --and simultaneously praising Baucus to the skies--and Brown was elected.

Obama then asked for a number of amendments to the Senate bill, to be passed by reconciliation, given there were no longer 60 in the Democratic Caucus. None of the things he requested included a public option. (There really was no issue of usurping legislative function inasmuch as the House and the Senate were divided on the issue.) This happened in March.

I and others have posted on these things for a long time, with links, so forgive me if I don't feel like pulling all up all the links again.

I think these things, plus the things I wrote about in Reply 109--lawsuit over white house logs, etc., indicate fairly clearly that he got the health insurance deal he wanted, which was different from what he had campaigned on. If you don't agree, that's your prerogative, but I and many others think the evidence is as clear as reasonable people can expect, short of Obama saying so, which will never happen.

But, I'm puzzled because I'm fairly sure you know that. Was your questioin simply disingenuous? If so, pardon me for giving a serious response. I'm not always able to pick up on that kind of thing.

Keep introducing and eventually Congress will HAVE to give in.

Sanders introduced this bill over a month and a half ago and still has not been able to get a single cosponsor.

this bill, which dominated the first 13 months of Obama's term, give or take, leaving only 7+ months to mid term election day, was not all that popular. We lost the House, theretofore overwhelmingly Democratic, six or seven Senate seats and quite a few governors' offices.

Yes, the Party in power usually suffers in midterms, but even Dummya didn't do too badly before his 2006 "thumpin" and 2010 set some new records, IIRC.

It is interesting that this new bill he has introduced has absolutely no cosponsors.

nicely asked Sanders, a member of his Caucus, to withdraw.

Sanders has never demonstrated a fear of standing alone when it comes to his own reputation. I'm sure you know that. He's proud of his pro-people positions. But, he is also protective of Dems.

I think he had to pull it so the HCR Bill could continue through the Senate, though.

I believe my theory is much more consistent with both Sanders' other behavior and Reid's other behavior than theories that ascribe cowardice and ego to Sanders, but, hey, you know what they say about opinions, whether Freddie Stubbs or mine.

It is interesting that this new bill he has introduced has absolutely no cosponsors.

HR 676 hsd over 100 co-sponsores, I believe, but a lot has changed since then.

I don't find it especially interesting. Congress spent over a year enacting a health insurers bailout bill, saving the industry from aging Boomers, against the will of the American people, over 70% of whom polled in favor of a public option. (Imagine the percewntage if they'd been polled on Medicare for all!)

Why on earth would I be surprised or bemused by anything they do, either to preserve their own jobs and/or to aid the businesses that lobby them and may hire them if their constituents ever wise up?

- The Oligarchy will not be pleased.......

Jack London wrote a dystopic novel.

It's still in print, BTW.

But what?

Now that the GOP looks foolish enough what with their Bin Laden fail (and the foolish attempt to make Bush look responsible) and the disaster that is the Ryan Budget, this is a great time to make them look even MORE foolish and out of touch as they vote down this money saving, majority desired measure. Dems would be foolish to reject it and Blue Dogs that do will look just awful.

It may not pass, but it is a measure that will again flush out the riff-raff. Let's expose the fact the GOP is not interested in saving money or doing what the American People, whom they trot out regularly, want them to do.

The GOP is worried about gays and abortion when they have this to contend with?

And I would not be surprised if it was Sanders who did it.

Never forget they are fighting an uphill battle with tight majorities. They can get more done with a Dem majority than a GOP one, or a close majority. The MSM propaganda always points to DINOs as if they represent the Democratic Party.

When people say the 'Democrats should stop being the party of Wall Street,' that doesn't represent any Democrats I vote for. In the accusation, never forget the rest of the story and what they are up against. We did this by staying home because changes weren't fast.

The GOP is the unabashed champion of 'unbridled capitalism' and monopoly power, funded by those against choice, unions, public services, the social safety net, poor, education and environment. How would most of us like to face that monster on a daily basis and try to get anything done?

The two parties are not the same, and the GOP propaganda was undercut by Pelosi in the House by having the GOP sign their names on their anti-human budget deal all by themselves but look how much bashing Pelosi gets from Democrats. The GOP loves to hide behind Dems trying to save people, making compromises that are against their values. Most of us cannot imagine what is really at stake here, it's lives that are being bargained for.

Could anyone possibly imagine the GOP ever embracing men like Sanders or McDermott?

:rofl:

Thanks kpete for another great find. You really keep us informed.

I mean, really, that's cool by me, no snark intended. Will a GOP break ranks and give us anything we want? I've only seen it done by outgoing repukes.

And the harsh fact is, Nelson votes not as he does by reason of some innate crappiness, but because the majority of people in your region like what he's doing. Your community elected him at first and it kept him in office. Not you. Your neighbors.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's your fault. You are outnumbered and in a way, oppressed by what is going on. Just what is going there? Honestly, I'm not even sure what state he represents.

Are there any progressive that can be run against him with any success? Who opposed him the last time for the nomination? Are they going to be funded by the people of your state?

Sometimes, we don't like the results that our outnumbered Dem representatives get. They don't go with the flow to do things we think are an abomination because they are not GOP. Whereas, what the GOP does makes them more popular with their base.

I've realized too, that when the Democrats ask their voters to toss in a $5 contribution (that's what they ask for here) it's not a game. That $5 represents a lot to the big donors, the liberal ones, as to where they should put their dollars. They are the ones that make the difference.

If they sense that the majority of us don't care enough to send $5, they figure their contribution will be wasted. So the campaign goes unfunded. Why should they put their money into what no one believes? Then the GOP takes the seat and it's fascism on steroids.

No matter how crappy your Dem is and that he won't vote for what my representatives want, he gives them majority. That determines what will be investigated, introduced, tabled and enables what my man can fight to save.

I'm sorry your representative sucks. Have you been able to get meetings with them or talk to their office, to see if he is doing a thing for you, that perhaps MSM won't tell us?

Peace.

trying to do to their medicare, they're waking up. Push single-payer, NOW!

again and again. There will come a day when they won't dare oppose it.

SO MOTE IT BE.

but it will happen.

(enough to pass via reconcilliation) but quashed it because it went against his deal with the AMA and Pharma.

Why wouldn't he quash it again this time?

Remember, Obama campaigned against single payer. Said it would not work in the U.S. because of all the systems we had in place. Of course, every nation that went single payer had had the same or similar systems in place before reforming, with the possible exception of socialist nations (who overthrew entire governments to get things like single payer).

I don't believe Obama was unaware of the above, so I'm guessing someone convinced him to run against single payer.

Daschle claims to have played a large role in convincing Obama to run, even though Obama thought himself not to be ready to run yet. Daschle also dedicated s great himself to Obama's campaign--the same campaign that said single payer was not feasible in the U.S.

As you no doubt recall, Obama did try to get Daschle a cabinet position --HHS, wasn't it?--but Daschle's sleaze re: avoiding restrictions on obbying by a former member of Congress via a phony technicality and cheating on taxes ended that "great" plan.

Of course, it could be simply that all Obama's advisors told him he'd never get elected unless he was a "sensible liberal," i.e., the more center right, the better.

Anyhoo, he did run against single payer, so that was off the squeaky clean Democratic table before Inauguration Day.

The WH quickly killing the drug re-importation bill, on the other hand, and Obama's calling the public option a sliver, very different from how he characterized it during his campaign, was pretty clear evidence of why the WH did not want to release visitors' logs. (And, as you know, "the most transparent administration ever" has solved that problem by meeting people in coffee shops instead of the Oval Office. Coffee shops don't keep logs.)

Let's embrace him, and get him to join the party.
He already caucuses with the Dems anyway.

He'd be an asset.

He could run on the Dem ticket --

and we'd need a strong anti-war candidate for VP -- !!

Maybe someone like Tom Hayden --

OUTSIDERS FROM THE PARTY --



The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC -- !!

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew about it, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know, pass it along -- !!


:)

I don't want him tainted/tarnished by DINOs and Blue Dogs.

He won anyway.

"Under the current health care system, 45,000 Americans a year die because they delay seeking care they cannot afford. Health care eats up one-fifth of the U.S. economy, but we rank 26th among major, developed nations on life expectancy and 31st on infant mortality..."


Go Bernie!


(thanks kpete)

Heartbreakingly sad.



:cry:

This won't pass.

However, I do think that Vermont may be the start of a slower process towards that ultimate goal.

:woohoo:

"Sanders is a self-described democratic socialist,<1><2> and has praised European social democracy. He is the first person elected to the U.S. Senate to identify as a socialist.<3> Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party and is counted as a Democrat for the purposes of committee assignments, but because he does not belong to a formal political party, he appears as an independent on the ballot. He was also the only independent member of the House during much of his service there. He is one of three current independent Senators, along with Joe Lieberman and Lisa Murkowski."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders

to take care of everyone who would be covered by Medicare - Building new clinics, more schooling in the medical field, etc., benefits might even outweigh the cost of the bill when all of these people start paying taxes..

And routine care and checkups would lessen the severity of most illnesses, preventing surgery, etc., is another plus..

People would be free to change jobs if they did not fear losing their medical coverage...

Would all those new hires offset the massive insurance company layoffs?

to a greatly expanded pool of recipients.

Right now, insurance companies often administer Medicare as it is... my parents are on Medicare, but it's administered by Aetna. And, I'm sure United Health, Wellpoint, etc administer Medicare for others.

Granted, that won't take care of all of the people, but I'm sure the CEOs and Boards of Directors will somehow bounce back.

They're the reasons why the insurance industry is a massive clusterfuck. Greed kills.

But I do hope that Medicare can absord a bunch of those newly jobless insurance workers.

of bills for single payer that have preceded it. The insurance lobby is just too strong and powerful.

been bought off by the health insurance lobby to give serious consideration to this. And that applies to both parties. But we know that won't happen.

(i.e. 2) foretheright individual in the Senate.

Had the Health Insurance Industry and Big Pharma Protection Act included a strong government "public option" insurance, it would be more difficult for the courts to rule against the mandated insurance coverage.

If the Supreme Court throws out all or most of the current law what other alternative is there but to organize for and demand a single payer Medicare for All health care system?

Leave things the way they are.

Or did you mean what other sensible alternative? Well, I don't think that we can expect sensible.

We know this can't pass but I'd love to see it come to a vote where we could see which democrats support it and which don't.

Frankly, I'd like to see medicare for all become part of the democratic platform.

... and it will document who supports it and who doesn't.

If later Vermont's program succeeds heavily, and other states start picking up single payer, and even in a later congress when the Democrats have a majority and can pass this then, and if it becomes very successful, Democrats can point to the complete non-support of it earlier when the Republicans had a chance to make a difference for future elections to keep them from getting any kind of election points then. They'll have a record then that will haunt them with voters who will have good reason not to give them any more chances then.

Just laying the groundwork now, even if they don't get it passed now.

Medicare for all amendment to health "care" "reform" Sanders proposed--and Democrats had the House and 60 in the Senate Caucus then. as well as the WH.

I hope you're right, but we'll see.

... all too many posts read as if the last two years never happened, as if Obama had never made his deal with the insurance/pharma Devils, as if the the Ds had never had majorities in the House and Senate, as if we'd had the POTUS and the Ds as a Party out there fighting for at least the public option ...

two famous quotes come to mind...

something about those who will not remember the past being doomed to repeat it and that one about insanity being doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I mean, good for Sanders and McDermott, but why anyone would think that the Ds as a Party would fight for this is a mystery - or, if any do, that it is not just another cynical ploy by out-of-power Ds to convince people that - despite the clear and compelling evidence of their behavior when they had the majority - they really are on our side.

AFL-CIO, NNU Back New Universal Health Care Bill
by Mike Hall
May 10, 2011

Last year, when Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, it was a “historic milestone on our path toward a more just society,” says AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker, “But we also know that much work is left to be done.”

That work includes moving to a single-payer, universal health care model as called for by the AFL-CIO Convention in 2009 and today in the America Health Security Act, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

Speaking at a Capitol Hill press conference, Holt Baker said:



Read the full article at:

http://blog.aflcio.org/2011/05/10/afl-cio-nnu-back-new-universal-health-care-bill/

The last best hope for the middle class!:smoke:

thinking it was speaking of Sanders & McDermott...

We need him where he's at right now and Obama is probably going to wipe the floor with the repukes in 2012, but if the country wants real independence Bernie Saunders is a real good example of doing what needs to be done and speaking the truth even if it pisses people off.

Luv that guy.

Tig

Independent.

I don't believe the U.S is ready to elect a Socialist--or even as Northeasterner with a Brooklyn accent--as POTUS. And Sanders has given no indication that he wants to run.

However, if, by some miracle, this bill passes, Obama's position in 2012 will be stronger, IMO.

Wish the Dems would have closed ranks and adopted this slogon en masse.

But, as Will Rogers said, "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."

The amendments Obama requested after Brown was elected--none of which included a public option--passed via reconciliation, only 50 Senators required. And -the House, which had passed at least a weak public option, cooperated to pass the Senate bill, as amended per Obama's requests. So, yes, everyone closed ranks.

Kind of negates the argument that only Joe Schmoe Lieberman or only he and a few Democratic Senators gummed up the works.

The thugs in the House will kill it.

how could congress not spend a fraction of that for an affordable healthcare program for its citizens? How will the political representatives of the insurance & pharmaceutical companies spin this for their I-vote-against-my-own-interests sheeple?

Force of habit? Congress loves them lobbyists?

who are winning contracts from Boeing and Lockheed ....they have socialized medicine and still are competitive giving their workers great benefits

why?

because their Military budget isn't trillions and their healthcare is socialized and not out of control prices

I bet Europe would not put up with the level of medicare fraud we have in the U.S.

Guys like the governor of Florida, Rick Scott, would be in jail. I suspect in Europe they use their jails for the truly deserving rather then for untreated mental health patients.

to spend a lot on military because we spend so much.

I once heard Hillary say something like "Maybe we should aid only those countries whose defense budgets are at least the same % of total budget as is ours." (Not her exact words.)

Seemed like an opening salvo for a discussion worth beginning, if we omit so-called third world nations.

And, obviously, there are also economic and political realities involved. Among many other things, the MIC keeps many people employed in both the public and private sector and is about the only program Republicans seem to have no problem voting for.

But, yes, I still agree. Will any politician agree? We'll see, I guess.

wouldn't it?

Is this suppose to make me well, or is it just something you need to sell, huh? from Crashing into the Future, The Granite Countertops

issue before voters--if the media doesn't bury it.

So far, seems they have. I didn't watch every minute of every MSNBC show last night, but I heard no mention in what I did catch. I'll check again tonight.

K&R

I thought somewhere there was a plan to hire those people who do the actual work to help administer medicare.....in any event, massive layoffs of manufacturing, construction, and technical jobs have only elicited sneering "just go get another job" remarks - why is this any different? Private insurance adds nothing to health care. It just skims off profit and has bastardized the concept of insurance; it is the real death panel.
I read the new "health care" bill in Maine says insurance companies can charge seniors 5 times the premiums of younger people. There's another death panel for you.

Oh, wait, that's what they're there for.

A gradual transition would not be disruptive.

First we need to reinstate government by the people, as opposed to government by corporations and Koch brothers.

People actually WANT? The only obstacle is naked fucking corruption, including those in the leadership who claim their hands are tied by procedural rules. If they wanted to do it, they could.

LOL! Fooled ya. Made ya look!

Thanks for the thread, kpete.