Fuck Sebelius: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius Suggests Obama Could Back Single-Payer Ban

[avaistheone1]

The Obama Administration isn't using its push for a public health insurance option as a stalking horse for a single-payer plan Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told NPR's Steve Inskeep, host of Morning Edition in an interview this afternoon.
Indeed, in response to Steve's question as to why the administration just didn't say categorically that there would be no attempt at a single-payer system on its watch and that it would even support legislation to enshrine that position into law, the secretary said:
Oh, I think that's very much the case.

Sebelius told Inskeep that the disappointed reaction of supporters of a single-payer system is proof that the administration doesn't back the single-payer approach.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/06/hhs_secretary_suggests_obama_c.html

WTF? A ban!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A ban on single payer written into law..just like the Republicans did on Medicare Part D - so the government can not negotiate for better prices for the American people !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MarjorieG]

1. Not backing, because of so much disinformation and politicking, is different from a ban. Who said a

ban, and this was always going to be choice for a public option, not single payer to make it passable.

[avaistheone1]

4. The Secretary of Health & Human Services, Sebelius, is saying that the Obama administration

is considering writing into law a ban on single payer. Didn't you read the NPR article I linked?
This is not a rumor. This is an Obama cabinet official making this statement on national radio.
This in interview with Sebelius so it not as if the author misinterpreted her words.

I know it's hard to believe, but the article speaks for itself.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Listen to the audio, it's longer, and it's worse.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. A "Level playing field " is code for a weak public option. Which in turn means

trillions of dollars of tax payer funds to private health insurance companies.

You call that reform?

I call it rip-off.

[sisters6]

26. I fear you are right.

[Lasher]

2. Bravely standing up to the Democratic base that elected them.

While ensuring everyone else's wishes are taken into account.

[Bozita]

10. Looks like bipartisanship trumps principles.

[LaurenG]

3. I heard that this morning on the way to work

:(

[bullwinkle428]

5. Heard the interview - Inskeep is a douchebag and an assclown, as he

kept badgering her over the single-payer issue. It seemed like he was literally begging her to make a guarantee that single-payer would not be implemented, like it was a bigger threat than Al Qaeda, and she came across as not wanting to shut the door on any possibility.

I'm not shy about dishing out criticism of anyone within the Obama administration, but I thought she sounded reasonably sincere about consideration of all public options on health insurance...

[zulchzulu]

7. You're jumping the shark on what she said and what is trying to happen

What is trying to occur is not a Single Payer solution... at least in terms of all healthcare providers, doctors and hospitals getting payment from a SINGLE fund. That single fund would generally be from the government, like Medicare and Medicaid.

What is being attempted in both a public option (a variation on single payer in the same template as Medicare and Medicaid) AND the choice to have funding via private health insurance, where insurance companies go through with the current risk levels and multiple kinds of coverage and payment scenarios.

It's more like calling it Universal Healthcare, where there is very affordable public healthcare (public option) and where people who have health insurance now with their companies or chosen coverage can keep it.

Sebelius did not say she would support a ban on Single Payer. That would mean she doesn't support a public option. Perhaps it's also just word games. She (and Obama) want the public option as part of the new reform as well as allow private insurance companies to COMPETE with the public option.

[suzie]

20. Why is "single payer solution" such a better idea than a public option

as in expanded Medicare/Medicaid?

"Single payer" sounds like "socialized medicine taking away my ability to have my private doctor", while "Medicare for all" sounds like adding onto something that the public knows about and likes.

I know that on DU, it isn't always important to do what is politically feasible, but maybe "public option" would be easier to pass now?

[kenny blankenship]

9. I guess the puppet masters are now demanding legal guarantees that "public option" will never evolve

into Single Payer. The Administration would support (apparently, judging by the Secretary's remarks) verbiage that forbids that evolution from happening being included in the law that authorizes a public option plan.

When they kill something, they always like to give it 2 in the head.

[Vidar]

11. Yet another disgusting betrayal by the Obama administration.

[uponit7771]

12. Obama NEVER EVER said he supported single payer!!! Our system would be more like Autrailias

...system and our own post office.

Damn, WTF!!!!

Pay ATTENTION!!!!

[avaistheone1]

13. EXCEPT FOR when Obama said he supported single-payer.

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

[snappyturtle]

14. You beat me to it! Here's the written quote:

Full quote from Obama in 2003:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program." (applause) "I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. 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."

Obama speaking to the Illinois AFL-CIO, June 30, 2003.

[AzDar]

15. Candidate Obama ... much, MUCH different from President Obama.

:puke:

[Bozita]

16. Hey, ... I voted for that guy.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Actually, what you quote from 2003 demonstrates exactly that

President Obama is not AGAINST single Payer, and understand the good of it. And so what he is doing is providing a way of backing into Single Payer. This approach is realistic and doable.

Realistic and Doable are exactly what we should be aiming for, and that is what Obama is doing.

With all of the big monied interests banging at the door, and a right leaning media ready to distort, twist and misinform at a moment's notice, to believe that President Obama could
get health Care reform any other way than how he is doing it is to be...well, unreasonable and delussional. I'm glad that this president is being smart and pragmatic as opposed to delussional and irrational as to the political hurdles thrown in his way to reform.

Certainly, Internet Warriors Talking passionaly on the Internet is easy to do.....but unfortunately, it doesn't bring about nationwide reform on an issue that has had no advance in 50 years.

[snappyturtle]

25. I was hooked on the first sentence: calling himself a proponent. nt

[harun]

28. It isn't about what he said it is about doing what is right.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

18. If there is a "ban" on Single-Payer

it would be virtually meaningless IMHO in the long term, especially if we get a strong "public option" in place and lots of people begin abandoning their private insurance plans for it. A strong "public option" is, for me, a useful (and achievable) "gateway" to getting to a single-payer system (and the RW and "Blue Dog" Dems know this to be true) and any "ban" that is imposed now could be easily repealed once the momentum towards single-payer in Congress becomes unassailable. The question for me is whether or not we'll get a decent "public option" that will encourage people to drop their private insurance plans. I have a feeling that if enough people see that having a public option isn't as scary or awful as its detractors say it is, it will be harder for the private insurance companies to remain in business without substantially improving coverage and lowering prices and movement towards a true single payer system would be more or less inevitable if they don't but even if it isn't, having a public option should, theoretically, help motivate the private insurance companies to do better, so really IMHO it's a win-win proposition. I know a lot of people here want Obama to adopt a single-payer system and I wouldn't be opposed to it personally but, politically, it is probably not going to happen right now (and President Obama never exactly promised that he would push for one either unless he was working from scratch- which, of course, he isn't).

[zulchzulu]

22. Exactly

Even though Sebelius didn't say that she supports a "ban on single payer", it means absolutely nothing in the long run anyway.

Medicare and Medicaid are forms of single payer coverage, which is the government being the one that is paid for services rendered by healthcare professionals.

The Public Option is pretty much within the template of how Medicare and Medicaid work.

What is being attempted is having the private health insurance industry compete with the Public Option. People can keep their plans they have if they want. They also would have a choice with the Public Option.

[quantass]

27. Well said...this is exactly what i was thinking too

In Canada we have a single payer system and i think it is the only option for a nation if it cares about its people but watching America it is clear that propoganda is a daily issue and so the smartest approach to get the best health care is to move in baby steps .. and that is why the public option is the bes tfor America right now. There is NO WAY a single-payer system will pass...not a chance. Obama is a very smart man to not go this route....you go for the public option then this will lay the ground work for eventual single-payer. It makes things more palpable for people who were brainwashed into thinking universal healthcare is bad and might sway some capitol hill votes based on pressure by the people on their congress-person.

[cascadiance]

19. And THIS is probably why Howard Dean's not HHS secretary...

Howard Dean probably would resign before being forced to help the administration "contain" single payer to the point of rendering it useless in the future. I'm sure that both Obama and Dean probably knew that behind the scenes, and that's why you didn't see much vocal consideration of him earlier, or him raising a stink of not being selected either.

And one more reason that we need to ask "WHY!" to Obama that he is working more for the insurance companies' interests than the public's interests here.

The insurance companies are leeches that need to be thrown out altogether if they can't provide ANY useful cog in the healthcare system machinery.

Originally when we had health care HMO's, it was said to help bring down the costs of health care down and "control" them. Well, they've basically FAILED in doing that by introducing MORE cost to the process than any waste the doctors themselves make in the process. Without cost containment as a benefit, they serve NO purpose at all to being a part of the system! They put in place MORE bureaucracy than a government funded program would or IS (Medicare is far more efficient as well as many other countries' single payer health care systems) than our corporate bureaucratic system is now.

the GOP and other corporatists rant against systemic bureaucracy, especially to attract libertarians, and try to make it sound like it's uniquely a problem with big government, but they look the other way when the bureaucracy serves corporate and other elite interests instead of going back into the government (or back to the people in terms of goods and services).

[avaistheone1]

23. The Business Roundtable loudly endorsed Kathleen Sebelius for HHS.

"Business Roundtable is an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies with more than $5 trillion in annual revenues and nearly 10 million employees. Member companies comprise nearly a third of the total value of the U.S. stock markets and pay nearly half of all corporate income taxes paid to the federal government. Annually, they return $133 billion in dividends to shareholders and the economy."



Business Roundtable Statement on Confirmation of Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services
http://www.businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/HHS%20-%20Sebelius%20Confirmation%20Statement_FINAL.pdf


I think Sebelius is in the pocket of these CEOs and their corporations. Something Dr. Dean probably was not willing to do.

[Bluenorthwest]

21. She's also saying it will take years to get people covered

and until 2013 to even start!

[avaistheone1]

24. How convenient for the insurance companies and the politicians.

NOT so convenient for those of us running out of time.

[Politicalboi]

29. Europe was lucky to have health care

Right after the war. If they can do it then, why can't we do it now? I know things don't get done over night, but 4 years away is too fucking long. And this could kill the Dems in the 2012 elections if nobody has had the benefit of using the system. If it's a hit then for sure re-elections would pretty much be a "Slam Dunk". They are too afraid it's going to fail and don't want to lose in 2012 possibly.

[avaistheone1]

30. k&r