House To Vote On Single Payer Health Care

(10 am. – promoted by ek hornbeck)

Friday evening in in the House Energy and Commerce Committee health care markup session, Anthony Weiner (D-NY) extracted a promise from Nancy Pelosi that the full House will debate and vote on a single payer plan after the summer recess.

The promise was made after Weiner agreed to withdraw a proposed amendment to H.R. 3200, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s version of a health care reform bill, which the panel passed by a vote of 31 to 28 late Friday, to create a universal Medicare system for the entire nation.

According to the New York Daily News:

“The Brooklyn-Queens Rep. looked a little surprised when Chairman Henry Waxman said Pelosi would allow that vote, and made Waxman repeat the deal to be sure it was clear and on the record. It’s an especially big deal for advocates of a single health care system – who see it as cheaper and simpler than the complicated measure being drawn up – because they have been complaining that they have not even been able to get an airing of their position.”

David Swanson analyzes how this came about in Single Payer Summer:

So, here’s the truth. Congress is not voting on single-payer healthcare purely because we forced it to, or because the bill is (prior to our shaking the country up this summer) even remotely likely to pass. Our advocacy for single-payer has had an impact. We’re a big reason why some congress members are fighting for a public option. Whether or not you consider any of the current versions of public option worth the paper they’re written on, the fact is they’d be weaker without the public demand for single-payer, and were that demand stronger so would the public option be. Our work has also led to passage in the House Education and Labor Committee of an amendment that would make it easier for states to create single-payer systems. And our advocacy led to the promise of a floor vote on single payer in the fall.

But the floor vote was negotiated as an alternative to a vote in the Energy and Commerce Committee. We lost the opportunity to have a vote there. And the Democratic Party leadership, which largely takes its orders from the White House on this, was not so much afraid that single-payer would win on the merits, as that it would pass because Republicans voted for it purely out of spite. The Democratic “leaders” badly wanted to get a bill out of that committee before August, a bill that would at least vaguely resemble the bills passed by two other House committees. Rather than risk failing in that goal, they preferred to allow a floor vote later that would not interfere with the bill they want to pass, and which itself — at least in their minds — would be extremely unlikely to succeed.

Allowing such a vote would have another positive side-effect from the point of view of those in charge: it would overwhelmingly distract attention from the state single-payer language passed by the Education and Labor Committee. From their point of view, national single-payer will not pass on the floor this year, not with them whipping hard against it and the Republicans opposing it. But if the language on allowing states to do state-level single-payer is left in the bill that they whip for and pass, it’s unlikely to cost them any Blue Dog votes, and it’s likely to result in a number of states fairly quickly taking actions that accelerate public awareness of the shortcomings of the federal reforms.

From the point of view of people who really want to get our population better healthcare and who have not been purchased by insurance, drug, and hospital companies, lobbying for Yes votes on single-payer AND lobbying to leave the states language in the non-single-payer bill (or at least allow a vote on it) seems to make a lot of sense. We’re saying that we want single-payer nationally, but that if they won’t give it to us right away, we at least want states to be left free to lead the way. Canada arrived at its system after a province led the way, and the first state likely to create single-payer, California, is about the same size as Canada. If Canada’s system does so much good, why would we deny the same to California?

For those lobbying directly for a public option, it also makes perfect sense to demand freedom for states to do better faster. If the goal is providing more people with better healthcare, if the goal is not to avoid making the federal government look second best, if the goal is not to achieve a perverse hyper-simplicity of “messaging,” then including the state single-payer language in August demands is the way to go.

Read the whole thing here…


Skip to comment form

    • Edger on August 1, 2009 at 17:50

    …they preferred to allow a floor vote later that would not interfere with the bill they want to pass, and which itself — at least in their minds — would be extremely unlikely to succeed.

  1. about setting the stage for the future. We were never going to get single payer this round. We don’t have the needed foundation and we don’t have the President pushing it. Without those two things it ain’t going to happen.

    However, we will get there, by getting the public option set up, then we can come back and work our way to single payer. That does have the support of the President and the public option is the foundation which doing that requires.  

    • sharon on August 1, 2009 at 18:08

    but we are in different places on this.  we just wrote about the same thing from two divergent perspectives.  i can’t go with the gloom and doom.  david’s right, the only way we are going to get anywhere with this is to fight for it the way we have been.  we can look at the downsides to everything, but where does that get us?  

  2. and kick some butt!

Comments have been disabled.