Democrat To Offer A ‘Lifeline’ For Single-Payer Health Care

They can't complain if we adopt/co-op their arguments. If that gets a foot in the door and the programs are successful then a state-by-state approach be better than nothing -- I s'pose.

At least until red states stop electing jackasses.

federal funding for health care is that the red states use that money to make health care very sub-par for their neediest citizens. It is a travesty. In TN., they (the uninsured) depend on the local health dept. The health dept.'s hands are so tied by regulations that it is almost like not having health care. The Dr.'s are not allowed to do much besides giving vaccines and referring patients to for profit Dr.'s and hospitals. You have to be critical, with only certain types of cancer (for instance), before you qualify for temporary medicaid.
No dental care at all.
The Dr.'s are not allowed to prescribe any narcotic pain medicine, no matter what.
If you're poor; suffer and die...

are the people of these states going to allow before they see what is happening. More than likely under this bill these states will just opt out and continue with the federal program as it is. Medicaid is already governed by states so it is Medicare that will be a problem for them. All states administer Medicaid.

No reason why other states have to follow that example.

Minnesota has a strong Single Payer plan working its way through the State Senate. I was pissed that Obama didn't go for universal but now I see that an incremental approach like Canada had will be most successful.

House? Of course if we all do our jobs in November that will not be a problem.

to only be dashed by an almost completely corrupt congress, bought and paid for by Big Pharm, Insurance Companies...

This is not going to get through unfortnately...

But good on McDermott for trying..

And they wonder why we become cynics.

health insurance reform legislation.

A state by state approach will simply not work, it doesn't address the facts of modern life, ie that we're a mobile society. Furthermore, state by state means that about two thirds of the states will opt out of this. Nice if you life in MA, but not so nice if you live in MO.

This is a polite fig leaf that the Dems are tossing out, knowing full well that they fucked up health care reform, and squandered one of the best chances we will have for real progress in a long while.

Vermont led the way on this, and kicked down door #1. This kicks down door #2. When people in the states that reject it sees how it works in other states, they will demand it.

We're not as mobile a society as we used to be. A lot of people are trapped where they are right now, and have been since the real estate market crashed.

Sometimes (most of the time) incrementally is the only way to get what you want. Often incrementally is the *best* way to get what you need, because it enables you to see what does and doesn't work elsewhere and craft a better solution.

Am I right, Californians?

at some point it's going to be put to vote again, we'll see what Jerry Brown does with it.

arnie has enough f*cking money to personally insure the whole state, but he is ok with letting people die from lack of health care.

thought Brown might be in favor.

I lived in San Francisco many years ago,

and am considering going back; the health care

issue, of course, would be a factor.

Industry has the money to "convince" whomever will listen that it will not work.

During the last go around, the bill for Single Payer almost squeaked by, but in the end two Dems got their pretty little arms twisted (or maybe their pocket books were filled?) The state legislators in California are pathetic, as far as so many of them being bought and paid for by the Monied Crowd.

The California Nurses Association has done a great deal of work on the issue. I do hope that at some point soon, that work pays off.

I remember him as being a huge progressive, but now I get mixed impressions.

And the bill that she nurtured got through the Assembly, back in both 2006 and 2008, but then was shot down by Ahnold vetoing it.

And then this last time, these two Democrats sold out (inside the Assembly.)

I don't know if Brown is for Single Payer or not. I do like a lot of the appointments he has made. And right now, the state is hurting economically - I don't know if budget-wise it could happen or not.

How lousy is it when we have these "sell-out" Dems..The Repukes almost are MUCH more

unified. Blue Dogs should be voted out.

I understand what you're saying, though, regarding the budget...Is Brown still a progressive,

would you say.

yes, get some pilot projects going and then people in other states want it.

The federal government (in Canada) offered provinces matching money if they provided health care --in a nutshell.

hellhole like MO can move to a civilized state like MA

It's hard for anyone, particularly women, who are over, say 45, to get hired anywhere, much less in a state where they don't know anyone.

I'd like to move out of Tennessee, but I can barely get call-backs for better jobs here, much less in a state where I don't have references anyone knows.

People who live in states with non available can lobby their state legis.

that's potentially an awful lot of people (considering NYC and LA) who could get health care.

It's a baby step to be sure, but I wouldn't dismiss it because it will help some. And then we keep working for more.

or go blue?

and they're too stupid to figure out the truth

for the leaders of some states, especially those in the rust belt, to realize a single payer health care system could be very attractive in bringing new business to their state.

controlled both houses of congress and passed such a bill in the House, the Republicans would filibuster it in the Senate.

if the Democrats would pass such a bill even if there were no Republicans in congress.

In all states with a GOP legislature, they cut social services to the bone. That's their policy. Their radio pundits call the Democrats tax and spend bleeding hearts for trying to help the poor.

Whatever goes on in a state, reflects the people of that state, is the policy their representatives in D.C. enact if they have the votes. It's that simple.

The Democrats are the party of social programs their constituents want to have, and GOP are the party of the people who want the government to disappear and privatize everything except for getting into the private sex lives of people.

After decades of working with this process and I might add, unpaid, this has been my experience. The nation is divided 50% vs. 50%, not 1% vs. 99% on all issues. The parties both have platforms made by people in the conventions state by state. Then they fight by the numbers in legislatures.

So check out your local representatives and see what their take on the social contract is. It was not a Democratic majority that passed regressive laws in states nationwide and in D. C. I've seen what strong Democratic majorities in this country vote for and you should tell your own Democratic representatives what you want.

If you live in a red area, they assume you want what they want and they'll do what they've done in all GOP areas. Slash taxes and spending, give the Commons away to their pals, and tell people how to live their sex lives.

It's actually en madde, but of course the "mistake" here is this: "If Republicans are truly interested in states rights..."

In point of fact, they are not interested in ideas and principles, but power, though I suspect the author knows this.

But the point is well taken.

What do we have to lose by trying something that could work? We're headed for a train wreck otherwise anyway.

Good on Rep. Jim McDermott!

Not holding my breath that this would work in the states with Republican Governors, but it's worth trying. Hope it goes through, but not holding my breath on that either.

If democrats bother to vote this year......HR needs to fix the filibuster rules on the first day of the next session. Otherwise , the rushpublicans will fight for their masters and never allow HCR .

current system of private insurance. They showed where their allegiances lay - this looks like nothing more than pandering of the worst sort.

not encouraged. Single Payer should have been the Health Care Reform and we could have been done with it once & for all.

and be done with it!

sort of a "lifeline" for single-payer? Frankly, I think that universal SP is going to come from the ground up, not the top-down. Once some states adopt it and if it works out, people in other states will invariably take notice and if they want it too, they'll push their own legislators to give it to them as well. Likewise for all of those Republican "free market" fans, they will have an opportunity to prove the superiority of their *ideas* as well- as long as they can demonstrate that they at least meet the standards set by ACA. All in all, ACA really wasn't that bad of a deal IMHO when you consider things like this.