Will 2009 be the year for Medicare for all? HR 676 backers define the challenge

Registered nurses, doctors, labor leaders, elected officials, and political activists sounded a call Tuesday at the Democratic Convention Tuesday for a broad national movement to enact comprehensive, single-payer Medicare for all in 2009.

With one important caveat, "we've got to win the election," Congressman John Conyers author of the single payer bill HR 676  told a large gathering at an event sponsored by the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee, Physicians for a National Health Program, and Progressive Democrats for America.



On a day in which the number of unemployed declined slightly -- but only because of the economic crisis which has pushed more Americans into government-funded Medicaid -- CNA/NNOC co-president Deborah Burger, RN asked how it is possible "in the richest nation on earth" for tens of millions to have to choose whether to pay their medical bill or their mortgage payment."

And, why is it that "I talk to patients every day who have to cut their prescription medications in half, or skip vaccinations for their children, or put off appointments with their doctor, all because of the unconscionable cost."

"How long," asked Claudia Fegan, MD, past president of Physicians for a National Health Program, "will we pay (insurance companies) to limit access to care, in a nation where more women die in childbirth than any other industrialized nation and 12 percent of veterans are uninsured. It's time we made healthcare a right for all and not a privilege for those who can afford it."

Greg Junemann, president of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Employees and chair of the HR 676 labor caucus, noted how the healthcare crisis has had devastating consequences for working people and their unions. He talked of workers who are no longer able to achieve pay increases because employers are diverting more money into skyrocketing healthcare costs, and how contract bargaining is increasingly focused on "bargaining over insurance, not even bargaining over healthcare."

"We're going to get this passed next year. We're going to make history," Junemann said.

What's going to make the difference, Burger and Junemann both emphasized, is the broad and growing grassroots movement for HR 676. Junemann noted, for example, that 455 labor organizations and 37 state AFL-CIOs have endorsed HR 676.

"The insurance industry and its allies are a powerful foe. But we have a group with us as well -- the public," said Burger, citing polls showing support by two-thirds of Americans who say the government should guarantee healthcare for all..

"And we have nurses and doctors and patients and millions of other Americans who have quietly been organizing and holding town hall meetings and house parties and showings of movies like "SiCKO" and writing letters to their home town newspaper and talking to their neighbors in city after city across America. There is no healthcare reform in this country today that has the groundswell of popular support and the passion and commitment of a broad, energized, sometimes enraged grassroots movement," said Burger.

HR 676 has more co-sponsors, 91, than any other healthcare reform bill in Congress, and CNA/NNOC and PDA are uniting to elect more pro-single payer candidates to Congress.

Two of those candidates spoke at the Denver forum. Debbie  Cook, mayor of Huntington Beach, Ca. running against a longtime Republican incumbent, recalled that when her son was born her family didn't have health insurance. She praised CNA/NNOC and nurses for setting a standard in the fight for guaranteed healthcare. "You didn't go into healthcare to maximize profits, you did it to maximize healthcare."

Andrea Miller, candidate in Virginia's 4th district, noted that "when you are sick you go to the doctor for healthcare, not for health insurance. If we're going to spend the money for healthcare, we ought to at least get it."

Burger and Fegan also counseled against halfway steps that will not solve the crisis.

"Band aids are nice but they don't solve the problem. It's time for us to demand what we need, what we deserve," said Fegan. Not much longer will we let this go on because we are heading for a fight for healthcare that is everybody in, nobody out."

Burger chastised "the experts and the political realists who counsel us to settle for incremental solutions whose premise is more insurance, not more care.

"On the anniversary of the enactment of the amendment for women's suffrage, let us remember that we did not settle for a limited right to vote. We did not settle for selective segregation when we fought for civil rights. And we must not settle for partial restraints on an out-of-control healthcare industry.".

"We need leaders and fighters, like so many of you in this room, who will not advise us to lower our expectations, but challenge us and everyone around us, to rise up, and bring everyone else along with us," Burger said.

"We know that change is on the way. We're moving in a new direction," said Conyers.

But the opportunity, most emphasized, would be far harder under a McCain administration and McCain's healthcare policies that would accelerate the healthcare crisis.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Photos of this historic event!

All of us who weren't there hope you have photos?

Anything up on You Tube?

This is not a very realistic

This is not a very realistic bill. It's one of fantasy. Didn't the libs learn from their foolishness when LBJ passed the welfare reform act in the 60's? This misguided attempt to assist poor people in lean times totally backfired and we, the middleclass, got stuck with a huge financial mess, not to mention higher taxes.

Granted our healthcare system is a mess, but increasing our taxes and having the government step in and take over is not the answer. There are many players in the healtcare industry besides big pharma (which the libs like to pick with).

IMHO, I think this bill would better serve the public if it would place more emphasis on a more comprehensive nutrition education program along with fitness programs to encourage more physical activity. And, instead of trying to get big pharma to negotiate prescription drug fees, why not talk to the big box grocery store chains like Publix or Kroger? If they could be convinced into taking some risks in placing their businesses in poorer communities, the health outcomes of our poorest citizens (particularly with diabetis and obesity) would be reduced dramatically. Add more bike paths and pedestrians footpaths. How about re-introducing Home Economics and physEd back to the high schools? Petition your local/city governments to stop issuing liquor licenses to "convinence" stores who deliberately target those neighborhoods. I believe if you get rid of the alcohol, you will almost certainly get rid of most of the drugs and violence.

Simple suggestions like these are pretty darn cheap and highly effective.

I'm willing to invest in overall preventive care, but I'm not willing to have my taxes increased and watch this bill become another Albatross.

You're missing the point

HR 676 is really about insurance companies, not pharma. They are blowing a hole in our healthcare budget of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Is that smart?

Sorry Shum, I disagree.

Sorry Shum, I disagree. What's not smart is this bill. It's Medicare and Medicade that's blowing a hole in the budget. To my knowledge, private healthcare insurers aren't reimbursed through the Feds. It's people like my self who pay the higher premiums to private insurers.

the real deal

Let's face it - healthcare is really really really expensive. The reason is because we've invented lots of really great treatments, drugs and doctors get paid well. the administration of insurance is a small chunk. you can get rid of that chunk, but the rate of increase will still be unsustainable unless you get draconian with limits on prices (hurt the doctors) or limits on what's offered (hurt the beneficiaries ie. all of us citizens). I for one don't want that kind of limitation forced on me, and worse, i'm the one who has to pay for it through my enormous tax bill. and yet, the tax system even without this huge entitlement is woefully in the red. Better to have individuals choose based on local conditions rather than have it centralized.

All healthcare costs, cost

regardless of how we pay for them. In terms of the effect on society, the number that matters is not how much tax one pays for healthcare, but how much the society as a whole pays for healthcare - though all of the avenues we pay it - in the form of taxes, premiums, deductables, co-pays, out of pocket costs, the portion of every thing you buy tht goes to pay for someone's healthcare. Whether you call it a tax, or call it something else, it all gets paid and all has the same effect on the economy. ALL of the single payer/universal care countries - even though their systems vary a lot - manage to cover everyone in their country for a lot less money than we do and manage to get results that are at least as good as ours on all- or nearly all- measures of performance.
You operate on your quasi-religious belief that the market is always more efficient than government. I operate on data. If you disagree, come up with some data that supports your side. I've never seen anyone come up with supporting data to support our current system, since all the data runs the other way, but I'd love to see it if you can find it.

The Shame of our nation

First, anonymous has some good preventative tips like encouraging more physical education and home economics courses in our nation's high schools to deal with the problem of childhood obesity which is exploding in this country. Green cities that include more bike paths to decrease our dependence on our autos and oil is a good idea and should be part of any future land use. The by-product of that would be more physical activity. Striving for local, organic farmers' markets and urban gardens or markets that provide organic, pesticide free produce should also be part of the "Green cities" urban planning. The "slow-food" movement is actually doing just that this weekend in San Francisco and will emphasize thanks to Alice Waters the benefits of organic cooking, urban farming and more vegetarian diets . By growing our own food locally, you have an appreciation for it that cannot compare to just buying it. It is fresh, healthy and locally sustainable. As a life-long vegetarian and a gardener who is growing her own victory garden, it is good to see the slow food movement finally begin to get organized. I will be participating to teach others how to do what I can to learn the basics of urban farming.
We actually tried government regulation of alcohol consumption, under Republican administrations largely in the 1920's and it didn't work. The "Volstead Act" had too many loop-holes especially for the "medicinal use" and religious use of alcohol that proved difficult for law enforcement to regulate what many considered nobody's business if they consumed alcoholic beverages. It led to the worst crime wave in US history as alcohol merely crossed the border from Wet Canada. It ushered in the era of Roosevelt who promptly and popularly overturned it. Consuming wine in moderation has in some studies proven beneficial for our health.

All of these things can be done in addition to ushering in HR 676 in which all will be covered and free from the worry of mounting health care bills.

Why is health care so expensive? Under managed care theory, which was suppose to improve quality by reducing costs by reigning in what providers and patients spent on their care, it has meary re-directed the money into the pockets of insurance companies, drug companies and large, corporate health care chains that emphasize high tech care (like computer systems) at the expense of low-tech care. These groups got greedy along the way as for=profit care became the norm, rather than the exception. Drug prices in countries like Canada and the UK are far cheaper than the price gouging going on here.

As far as taxes go, I guess my feeling is that as a citizen taxes were a part of our responsibility in paying for a functioning democracy. The raising of taxes was one of the first things our young country did. The thing I don't like is where our tax dollars are currently going. An expanded military presence around the world, funding corporations that have squarned our dollars over-seas and at home and lastly, prison expansion at the expense of public education and infra-structure like bridges and roads is not my idea of what our nation meant when it stated in its constituion "provide for the general welfare" of our citizens.

Lastly, our public health infra-sturcture has and will continue not to be a priority if we continue to spend precious tax dollars on the above. Charity hospital in NOLA remains closed while the great Grady hospital in Atlanta was recently, privitized to make ends meet in Georgia. However, people who cannot qualify for private health insurance or simply cannot afford it are relying on the public system as never before. The shame of our nation is the will-full neglect of these systems and will be our down-fall in another natural disaster or God- forbid a pandemic that we will not be prepared for. All roads lead to NOLA where if you dare view the video on this web-site, a courageous group of citizens is doing the work that all of us eventually will be doing in our communities if we don't take HR 676 seriously and put it back on the table. Common grounds clinic is struggling to make ends meet. If we had HR 676, I have no doubt Charity would have opened a long time ago because money for actual care would have been there.

Nancy, I'm a nurse in the

Nancy, I'm a nurse in the Atlanta area and what happend with Grady ain't the whole story. Some of Grady's problems were corruption and a lack of vision. Only 2 counties were funding the hospital directly(DeKalb and Fulton) and yet the surrounding counties of Cobb, Gwinnett, Clayton, Forsythe, Paulding and few others wasn't paying at all. Which I think they should have.

Taxes

there's a big difference between voluntary (premium, deductable, co-pay) and involuntary (taxes). With taxes you cannot choose who gets it or wether you'll give it at all. The free market is more efficient all else being equal, but if the government runs something then it is not equal because you have less choices. individuals will always do more to make sure their own dollars are used effectively for something they get in return. With a government run system, the decisions are made by those who neither are providing the money, nor receiving the service... as a result the decisions are less aligned with individuals' decisions. This is why there were food shortages in Russia.

When you talk about data, you have to consider all the inputs and outputs. in america we pay more, partly because the doctors make more money here. And partly because we have a far larger research industry that benefits the entire world as knowledge is advanced. These types of things must be considered before saying that another country simply has better outcomes while spending less. One needs a more refined approach, like to say that other countries have more success with basic preventive care across a broad population, while America has unsurpassed skill and resources for highly specialized situations. We also have more economic freedom to change and adapt more quickly than other countries.