Dick Durbin's tepid response to my letter in support of single payer

He sounds like he has no political will. I should also add that letter included my additional support of a public option-as a choice open to each citizen-as a compromise between ideal situation and tough reality.

June 26, 2009



Mr. Izzy Beans
XXX N. Bean St.
Chicago, IL XXXX


Dear Mr. Beans:

Thank you for contacting me with your support for a single-payer national health care system. I appreciate hearing from you.

All Americans should have access to affordable health care coverage including the 47 million Americans without health insurance and the 8.9 million children. One of the most frequent concerns I hear from businesses as well as consumers involves the rising cost of health insurance. This struggle is especially severe for small businesses and their employees.

To address these problems, I support an employer-based approach to universal health insurance coverage, supplemented by a publicly-financed program to assist those with limited means and to encourage small businesses to provide health insurance for their employees. As a first step, I have introduced bi-partisan legislation to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses and the self-employed by allowing them to join purchasing pools with a choice of health plans and tax credits to reduce their costs.

Advocates of a single-payer system must overcome the skepticism regarding a "government-run" program. They may have more success grafting a public health plan option onto a system that retains private health insurance plans. I believe in leaving major elements of the American health care system in place while addressing the current system's serious shortcomings. This approach can lead to coverage of more individuals sooner. I look forward to working with the Obama Administration and my colleagues in the Senate to address the growing health insurance crisis.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts. Please feel free to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator

RJD/kg

...in standing up to lobbyists..."

to focus your attention on a plan that has a chance to pass, the public option. He has political will - do you? Or is it your way or no way?

In fact the letter I wrote was mainly focused on that issue.

And his support for the public option is weak at best, as indicated by letter. I find this unacceptable however "supplemented by a publicly-financed program to assist those with limited means". This is not what is meant by a public option.

He is trying to tell you what he is up against and how to best convince skeptics to accept a plan with a public option.

"Advocates of a single-payer system must overcome the skepticism regarding a "government-run" program. They may have more success grafting a public health plan option onto a system that retains private health insurance plans."

which is not something I can support with good faith. (the part I quoted in my response to you). He doesn't fully support the public option.

Actually I found the part you seem hung up on patronizing because it's exactly the reasons I gave him in my letter to him about why I could support the public option in place of single payer. Its just been regurgitated back to me in a form letter.

The publicly financed program refers to subsidies and business incentives that can be applied to either private insurance or a public option.

Curiously, what would you have liked to have heard in a letter, outside of full support for single payer.

I would like to go outside of the employer based system and have the choice of an unsubsidized private plan or a tax supported public payer plan.

Durbin's plan sounds very similar to what we already have now with bandaids. This is the only other thing he mentioned about a "plan", again its not public.

I have introduced bi-partisan legislation to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses and the self-employed by allowing them to join purchasing pools with a choice of health plans and tax credits to reduce their costs.

1. To address these problems, I support an employer-based approach to universal health insurance coverage, supplemented by a publicly-financed program to assist those with limited means and to encourage small businesses to provide health insurance for their employees. As a first step, I have introduced bi-partisan legislation to make health insurance more affordable for small businesses and the self-employed by allowing them to join purchasing pools with a choice of health plans and tax credits to reduce their costs.

2. Advocates of a single-payer system must overcome the skepticism regarding a "government-run" program. They may have more success grafting a public health plan option onto a system that retains private health insurance plans. I believe in leaving major elements of the American health care system in place while addressing the current system's serious shortcomings.

I could post what I said. Because it might help you with some context here. This email response makes very little sense. Because:

Number 2 was pretty much my comment to him. I asked him if he supported it, and he told me what "they" should do. I believe I even asked "do you support pairing a public option with private plans to produce competition and downward pressure on prices?" I then said I support either universal single payer as the quickest means to control costs and provide coverage or I can support the public/private competition as an alternative. He then responded with Number 2, which tells me nothing about what he himself supports, but what "they" supports, not "we",not "I", they.

I choose the word "tepid" in the OP precisely because it takes a selective reading to get to a precise answer to my question. Rather than merely saying yes, I support it, and I've made preliminary steps to shore up private coverage for the time being, he said "they would have more success", who? Advocates. But he never said he supported it. He just said "I support an employer-based approach to universal health insurance coverage, supplemented by a publicly-financed program to assist those with limited means and to encourage small businesses to provide health insurance for their employees."

This sentence indicates I will not have a choice under Durbin's view, as I am not someone of "limited means" by the government's standards. This is not a workable option and actually would require two systems, which is what we already have employer based vs Medicaid.

It takes an informed reading. Follow the plans and the debate and then you'll know what's being proposed. Stop writing to them about single payer and support a public option for all, and then you'll get a response that addresses the public option for all.

I wrote in support of a public option for all and the response I got indicated he supported a public option for people of limited means. And if this is what you support, as you seem to think I need a lecture on, you would see that in his reply.

In fact the title to the comment I submitted was "in support of the public option". He seems to have responded to the two sentences I had about single payer. After asking him that I was seeking clarification of his position on the public option, I merely suggested why I thought single payer was doable and why I would support it at some point in the future. I then describe what I understood about the political environment and why I do not foresee it being possible. And then wrote three to four paragraphs about why I thought the public option was the right route politically and how I foresaw it working. I asked him if he supported public option for everyone, and he said (again) "I support an employer-based approach to universal health insurance coverage, supplemented by a publicly-financed program to assist those with limited means and to encourage small businesses to provide health insurance for their employees".

The letter then regurgitated back to me with basically what I had already said about the political situation with regard to single payer vs. public option.

Note it was he that responded to single payer, hence the title of the OP. I had since clarified the OP as to what my email actually was.

I could easily have changed the op title to "Durbin's tepid response concerning the public option". "The grafting on" that Durbin describes, If I perform the "informed" reading you seem to think I am incapable of, is the "public financed system for people of limited means".



Are you willing to accept a dual system where you don't have a choice to take the public option, that is unless you fall on hard times? I'm not. I want my tax dollars to cover us both. And I'd rather free room up on my employers books to spend money used on premiums elsewhere should I have the freedom to opt in to the system. But according to this email, if Durbin has his way, I won't-unless I los my job.

Keep in mind I wrote Durbin as my Senator because he has sent mixed signals about the public option in the very recent past. I wanted to know which of the proposals for the "public option" he might support. It's clear that what he supports is not what you nor I support, which is the choice for all citizens. And you can't interpret this email differently if you are doing this "informed" reading you speak of.

I thought small businesses couldn't afford the high price of coverage. Am I wrong?

Makes no sense.