Single Payer and the Duplicitous Rahm Emanuel

Earlier this year, Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, warned about what she called "the futility of piecemeal tinkering."

Obama and the Democrats did not heed her warning.

Earlier this week, the most liberal of the Democrats tinkering plans - Senator Kennedy's - went up in smoke when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the Kennedy plan would cost $1 trillion over ten years and still leave 37 million Americans uninsured.

Three months ago, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Maryland) told single payer supporters that he would seek to get the CBO to score single payer legislation (HR 676).

But Steny Hoyer backed off his pledge. He never did get the CBO to score single payer.

Why?

Because it would show that under single payer, we'd pay what we are paying now - or less - and it would cover everyone.

<snip>

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/18-2

And the predictable CHESS, FIVE MONTHS, PONY responses.

HE NEVER SAID HE WAS FOR SINGLE PAYER.

Don't blame Obama for not pursuing what he never promised to do.

OTOH, Congress could do it, and if congress did it, Obama would sign it.

And the predictable "YOU JUST LOVE TO HATE HIM, DON'T YOU" responses.

And the predictable "HE NEVER PROMISED TO DO THE RIGHT THING" responses.

And the predictable "OBAMA HAS NO POWER -- IT'S ALL UP TO CONGRESS" responses.

Take your time to search - I've got three and a half years.

Did you actually watch the video, or did your jerking knee get in the way?

Single-payer is the right way to go. It's also what the vast majority of people want. Obama is not only refusing to even consider single-payer, he's hinting that he'll drop the public option if he gets enough pushback.

That's not the kind of leadership I voted for.



Oh right.. Obama never specifically promised to lead. :eyes:

I didn't watch the video - can't access it - but regardless, you can't blame him for not doing what he never said he would do.

I ABSOLUTELY believe that single payer is the ONLY rational way to go - but NO candidate was backing single-payer except Kucinich, and when he fell out that option did too.

UNLESS congress backs it, and presents it to Obama as a workable package. At that point it WILL be on him to sign it, which I would definitely want him to do.

But I'm not going to fault him for not pushing something he does not believe is feasible - and considering the trouble he's having just getting the public option over, WHY would he think that single payer IS feasible?

In fact - it seems the ONLY reason someone would bash a politician for not doing what they did not say they would do is to simple BASH the politician - and if it isn't this pretext, it's another.

I am disappointed he hasn't (apparently - I can't see through closed doors) pushed harder on repealing DADT and DOMA, as those were things he specifically said he would do; but I never expected him to back single-payer because during the campaign he specifically said he did NOT back single-payer.

So WTF?

We already had 8 years of a president who never changed his position no matter what the data. The fact that Obama never campaigned on single-payer is no excuse.

The people want it, it's the best, cheapest option, and from where I sit it looks like the Obama administration is actively working to undermine even having a debate on the issue.


Watch the video. Cenk makes some great points on how Obama could make single-payer happen if he wanted to do so.

His criteria for getting it was a Dem Senate, a Dem House and a Dem Whitehouse. Now that he's got all that, he's decided he's not in favor of single payer afterall. Go figure.

During the campaign, he derided Clinton's plan for containing mandates to purchase products. Now mandates are assumed to be a part of it. He no longer has a cross word for mandates at all, while during the primary mandates were an issue so important that he said we should not vote for Clinton because of her plan to mandate purchase.
So what do you say about that? He said no mandates, in very strong terms. Now he says absolutely nothing as the Congress plans to mandate purchase of for profit products to a broke and underemployed population.
Is it ok with you to blame him for forgetting about his no mandate stance? With or without CAPS? I mean he said 'her plan has mandates and that is terrible. Mine does not have mandates so vote for me.'
But that's not lying, it is just 'campaign talk' that all high blown Christian moralists who oppose equal human rights on the basis of their 'faith' think is dandy. Saying one thing and then doing another. Making a promise and then forgetting it. Claiming another is bad for believing what you also actually believe. Big morals there.
So that is what he did promise. NO mandates with him, mandates with her. I blame him for doing what he said he never would do. How's that one?

www.johnedwards.com

Americans prefer the public option (67% favor), keeping private insurance for some alongside a public program, over a single payer plan (49% favor). Survey results are from April 2009.

http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/7892.pdf

g. Having a national health plan in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan
49% favor
47% oppose

h. Creating a public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans
Favor: 67%
Oppose: 29%

They're told that if we had a single-payer system, they wouldn't be able to have their own private insurance, choose their doctors, etc. COMPLETE CRAP. I've never heard anyone suggest that just because government funded healthcare would be available to all that they would have to use it and that private insurance would somehow be illegal or something. Here in the UK there are private medical insurance companies, strictly private hospitals and doctors' offices, etc. Yes, it costs more, but some want to pay it, and that's fine. It's just understood that wanting to pay more shouldn't mean that people who don't want to pay more should get nothing. Separating "single payer" from "public option" is just semantic crap. People love their "options" and their "freedoms". ugh....

... they started with a single province, once it was a clear success the rest of the country followed. Basically the health care system remains unchanged, the only ones left looking for jobs are the top execs from the insurance companies, which will be severely reduced in number and size... since they are no longer able to charge their ridiculous overhead for the very little value they add.

Basically almost half of our health care costs are due to overhead to pay for the costs of companies which add absolutely nothing to the health care aspect of the transaction. There is no other industry/service field which has an even remotely similar cost structure. Heck, most businesses would be out of business due to such overhead costs. The only reasons why the insurance companies can get away with it is a) they have a captive audience and b) they don't have real competition. So it is being a hoot to see the so called die-hard free marketeers to bitch and moan because they don't want competition, one of the cornerstones of free-market capitalism.

I think that is the main message the advocates for single-payer should be driving: it is cheaper, same (or better health care), it covers everyone, and it makes American businesses more competitive due to reduce health care overhead costs...

Furthermore, if we had a willing administration, the reform cold be passed very quickly. Any interference or impediments put forth by the insurance industry... could be easily bypassed by the executive ordering investigations for price-fixing and collusion. You will see the insurance companies getting out of the way quicker than Paris Hilton's knickers.

it's really this simple: the US is not a first world country any longer, and it will not again become one until the government provides healthcare as a basic right to all residents, plain and simple. The trick is making people see this when corporate-controlled media and congressional representatives lie to the populace about it. What's the percentage of US citizens who own passports? Of that percentage, what is the percentage of people who have spent enough time in a country with a first world healthcare system to appreciate how it works? The more I think about this lately, the more I become certain that I will do whatever I can to stay out of the US until it gets on track with the first world in terms of basic human rights. I can afford to be dirt poor, even homeless, anywhere in the world. I can't ever afford to be left to die because I'm poor - I won't stand for it. I don't think anyone is that worthless.

If say, Vermont or New York or some other blue state implemented single payer, I think it would help greatly. And yet, I've never heard anyone bring up this idea.

The data I cited was from an April 2009 survey, before the massive media coverage of reform really took off (obviously, there was some, but not like there is now).

There is without a doubt a percentage of the US population who simply wants to keep their option for private health insurance. These people are people who tend to believe in less government involvement and less taxation - but who do recognize that uninsured people are costly and perhaps for some, a moral issue.

I don't think all the facts and data in the world are going to convince these people to go with some version of single-payer.

I know that there are some who strongly believe in single-payer, but it also seems that they forget there are many ways to instantiate a single payer - on DU, it's "single payer! single payer! single payer" - almost religious fervor for some - but exactly what kind of single payer are they advocating?

Some have said "single payer or nothing" - well, I'm glad they are healthy and believe they have guaranteed health insurance for many years, but such a view puts 50 million without health insurance, plus all those underinsured, plus those who are going to lose health insurance in the next few years, in dire straits.

Politically, single payer won't pass. But, the public option is very similar to single payer (for those who use the public option). And will provide better insurance for those with pre-existing conditions, for those who cannot get insurance, and for those who cannot get affordable comprehensive insurance.

It seems to me that it's just a different name for it. I don't care what it's called, so long as anyone living in the US can go to a doctor when they feel they need to and get any medical treatment that doctors feel they need without having to pay one cent out of pocket, even if they're homeless or unemployed.

Everyone gradually figures out that paying a fraction of the Corp premium cost and getting the same or better care (like Medicare) they gradually opt for the public plan over time which eventually becomes the dominant option for financing health care.

While I want it, and you seem to want it, and many people here seem to want it, I've not seen reputable, independent, and several polls suggesting such.

In fact, "EMERGENCY: WH says more people calling AGAINST public plan than FOR IT!!!":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5875715

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8473420
for phone & fax numbers.

But what I haven't seen is evidentiary polls for the talking point that "a vast majority of people want a public option." I'd like to see some information that supports that point.

those were his big campaign slogans and now you wonder why people are upset that he is only delivering incremental reforms and telling us it's not possible to get anything major accomplished in this environment?

He spoke in these general platitudes that let everyone see what they wanted to. But until Edwards broke out, Obama and Hillary spent most of their time arguing about the best way to nuke Iran.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/05/16/sirota/

snip:

Listening to a 2003 Obama speech, it's hard to believe he has become such an enigma. Back then, he declared himself "a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare program" -- that is, one eliminating private insurers and their overhead costs by having government finance healthcare.

In that speech six years ago, Obama said the only reason single-payer proponents should tolerate delay is "because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House."

Well, guess what: we HAVE taken back the Senate, the House, and the White House.

So what's the excuse for backtracking, now?

single payer only needed a Dem president and Congress. Well, guess what! We have that and Obama is back pedalling big time on his own statements. Guess he doesn't have the guts to stand up to his own lieutenants like Rahm...or could it be he never meant what he himself said?

that was six fucking years ago.

You can disagree with him not holding that position today, but you CANNOT bitch at him for not keeping a promise he NEVER made.

Grow up, will ya?

mandatory for all and she did not.

He called it universal, but never advocated single-payer - and HILLARY wanted it mandatory, while he wanted it optional. That was exactly the reason I favored him over Hillary in the primaries - mandatory universal coverage is nothing but a give-away to the insurance industry.

"I happen to be a proponent of Single Payer Universal Healthcare"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE&feature=related

MEDICARE FOR ALL --

He WAS FOR Single Payer. :) there a couple of town hall meetings on the Pres election trail where he states this very clearly.

he was for single payer. It's the right thing to do.

And, it's not about "hate", as so many here like to project.

should change their minds right now. The only reasonable position is to advocate for single payer. There is no other way to significantly lower cost and provide care for everyone. And that is reason enough.

In 2003, there is audio of him saying just that at an AFL-CIO meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

YouTube does not lie. But apparently Obama does. He could have been lying then, angling for votes. Now that he does not need votes, he has flipped. Or (more likely) the legalized bribery that is campaign contributions has gotten to him.

based on some intelligence vs the puerile "my president right or wrong"

baloney that keeps being tossed out by the cheerleaders.

Obama was once in support of single payer -- and changed his mind.

What Obama did promise was "change" and what we seem to be getting is more of the same!

Emmanuel/DLC influences over the White House will add to the corruption of the

Democratic Party.

You all want your pony now, but in 5 months he will have it all straight. This bill will get all the industry on his side, so the next one his passes will be single-payer for all. Its just a big scheme!

Guess who the pawns are.

indeed

Politics isn't chess. It is a combination of charades, poker, stratego, diplomacy, and dickering.

But guess what, if you don't put the position you are going with on the table or if your first offer is less than what you want, your opponent is not going to turn around and give you more than what you want.

It doesn't make any sense. You won't even be here in six months or you will have changed your name, or you will deny that you suggested that there would be any single payer option. And quit it with the silly 'Chess' analogy, most of us are not infants and actually DO read. Many of us have seen, heard and remember at least the last six administrations and are literate enough to have read about those the preceeded it.

You either actually believe in this spintastic chess metaphor or you are merely throwing it around to try to win arguments and quiet the dirty awful liberals (like me).

Right I also forgot that it has aspects of Calvin ball.

he's playing poker.

And when he takes single payer off the table he's in effect saying - " I don't have a full house, I've only got two pair."

The insurance industry bets accordingly...

if there is any other government in the world as corrupt as ours. You have to give the few like Bernie Sanders a lot of credit for sticking with it and not just giving up in despair.

Unfortunately, most of them were put in place by the U.S.

But many of those governments are openly corrupt - I'll have to give them points for that much "honesty".

What makes ours even worse is that most of "our" reps are so two faced about it except for some like Max Baucus who doesn't even bother to pretend he hasn't been bought - in some ways that makes him more honest than someone who pretends to have our interests at heart.

:kick:

Change is going to have to come from the street, but that ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, and I'm only 50. Too many bullshitters here, we will NOT have single payer, hell, what is going to come out of all this fucking congressional jawboning is that we will have the same fucking shit we have now under a different name. They'll just fix it so all the players can have a big photo op sucking each others dicks in congratulations. Meanwhile we will still be underpaid and under-covered. Same as it fucking ever was.

And I like Obama. But nothing is ever going to change unless we change it. And collectively, we have been brainwashed and dumbed-down to believe we can't or that its unpatriotic to do so.

Think I will just get myself a rocking chair, put it on the porch, sit in it and watch the world go by. At this point, its probably the most productive use of my money.

:shrug:

where are the rivals in favor of single payer, or at least a public option?

The only liberal in his administration seems to be the Sec of Labor (which is actually a great position to have a liberal heralding). However, if you look at the rest of the secretaries and chairs in his administration, liberals are a very very tiny percentage. It always struck me as a team of colleagues more than anything.

Not that Obama was ever a liberal, or even pretended to be one. I was just a tad annoying by some of the diehard supporters who pretended to make Obama everything to everyone.

> "That's how you save $400 billion a year to cover everyone - replace the 1,300 payers with one single payer."

Is the administration using the same thought process with Big Insurance that it did with Detroit: "too big to fail"? But right now it's really "too big - we fail"!

The only thing standing in the way of a cheaper, better, universal system is politics and payoffs.

Single payer is so far ahead in what could be provided in relation to cost, one could not be honest without asking why any politician would refuse to acknowledge it - from the congress all the way to the President - why not do the smart thing if not for payoffs and politics?

Single payer for all is cheaper than any of the insurance profit inclusive schemes (that leave some out), that is the simple truth, time for the obvious reform that should follow such a simple truth.


Please lead Mr President.
Please follow your constituents needs for once congress people.

Or admit that you work for insurance industry payoffs rather than the people that you claim to represent.

:kick:

http://pluralism.org/news/article.php?id=21247

State officials have authorized permits for two holiday-season displays this year.

One is a Nativity scene from Olympia-area realty agent Ron Wesselius, who sued last year over the issue and then won a legal settlement allowing his display.

The other is a 30-by-30 inch placard from the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Coalition, which plans to offer a nonreligious perspective.

The placard will carry a message similar to one put up in the Wisconsin statehouse the past 12 years, AnnieLaurie Gaylor, co-president of the organization, said Monday

That placard said: “At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.

“There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

Gaylor said her group sought the permit after a Washington state member requested it. She said the coalition would not have gotten involved except that the Capitol was being opened to a religious display.

How do we know that's why Hoyer backed off?

And how do we know "we'd pay what we are paying now - or less - and it would cover everyone" if the CBO didn't score it?

I don't doubt that single payer is being throw under the bus but this article seems like a bunch of hyperbole and not much from the facts department.



ETA: sorry, I just noticed this is an editorial and as such is prone to hyperbole.

themselves. Single payer offers the most bang for the buck. And single payer has CONSISTENTLY been left out of the discussions and off the table.

To YOU this editorial seems like "a bunch of hyperbole," to others it rings resoundingly true.

Let's insist the CBO score single payer and appraise it as a bona fide alternative to the managed healthcare morass. The politicians won't allow it because the healthcare companies don't want Americans to know just how badly we are being screwed, and how much better AND CHEAPER good healthcare for all can truly be in this country once we cut out the parasitical middleman.

The sole purpose of "managed healthcare" is to see how the healthcare companies can manage to not treat you. The goal of "for profit" healthcare IS TO MAKE A PROFIT. Not treat patients.

OK, so there are "many other sources". How difficult is it to put a couple links in an article? Or at least reference such sources. The author seems to think that everyone that reads this has already seen those sources. That's a mistake. For all the reader knows, the author could be just making shit up.

That's no more helpful than the unsubstantiated statements Rush and O'Reilly make.

I guess I like facts and stuff like that.

The entire discussion is about how reform would be bad, except malpractice reform. My prediction, we will get a bill written for the health insurance industry that increases their profits and makes them safer from malpractice suits when they deny care. Then the GOP will blame Obama for being a failure.

All your base are belong to the DLC.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/obama-doctor-knocks-obamacare-business-healthcare-obamas-doctor.html

Say's clearly what is needed! It's not about what anybody said or didn't say in a campaign or over a cheese sandwich at a diner! It's about all citizens getting the medical treatment they need when they need it, and not going broke to pay for it! I don't want a private business bureaucrat between me or my childrens' and our doctor, making life or death decisions based on saving money and contributing to huge profits for faceless corporations.

indistinguishable from single payer.
There are other doctors out there who think the public option is better.

each and every day we have people dying in the richest nation in the world because they lack quality health care. I hope Obama will turn this around as he hears our voices. We NEED single payer. Not would like it but NEED it.

REVOLUTION!!! It's time to pull these do-nothing, self-serving politicians out of office, and toss them on the streets penniless.

ANYONE in Congress OR the WH have any intention of giving THE PEOPLE what they want! The mere fact that they say MOST people aren't supporting what we are should be explanation enough!

They know that we are a people who actually just go along with whatever comes down the pike! Sure we complain, we write, we call... but in the end they can IGNORE all of that!

Any figures you get are the figures THEY want you to have! When Baucus began his diatribe AGAINST single payer... the dye was cast!

JMHO, and I don't know what can be done about it! I'm told over and over again that protests and marches are out of date and don't work, and I suppose it must be true, so what other recourse is there?? I know so very well living down here in Florida that MY voice rarely (probably never) gets heard! Vern Buchanan is my representative and just last week the St. Pete Times published a long article about ALL OF HIS LAWSUITS (14) that were WELL KNOWN way back before the 2006 debacle, yet he's been elected (18,500 missing votes) and re-elected again! He won his first election by only 369 votes! Very, very suspect, but it all came down to MONEY in the end!

Many, many people worked very hard to get him out, but no way! Even IF Christine Jennings is very DLC at least a (D) would have been behind her name! Still... a Blue-Dog's Blue Dog, but my point is that we CAN'T seem to vote them out, and we HAVE to live with what they shove down our gullets!

THINK RAHM to begin with and then sit and wonder some more!

Emmanuel has no principles that I can discern.

He is the Dems' answer to Karl Rove and Lee Atwater.