States May Lead the Way on Healthcare Reform
In Canada, it took the dogged determination of one province, Saskatchewan, and a visionary leader Tommy Douglas, to pave the path to a national health care system, which they call Medicare.
For all the detractors of the Canadian system in the studios of Fox News and the board rooms of rightwing think tanks, consider this one note: In 2004, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation conducted a national poll to select the greatest Canadian of all time. The winner in a landslide -- Tommy Douglas.

While the federal window remains open for reform, with two national single payer bills, John Conyers' HR 676 in the House and now Bernie Sanders' S 703 in the Senate, many nurses, doctors, and health activists are turning to the states to lead as well.
More than a half dozen U.S. states now are considering legislation to establish single payer systems, essentially an expanded and updated form of the U.S. Medicare system to cover everyone in their states. Here's a roundup of some of the state bills:
California
The latest bill SB 810 passed its first legislative test Wednesday in the Senate Health Committee on a party line 7-4 vote before a room packed with nurses, doctors, medical students, California School Employees Association members, and healthcare activists.
In her lead testimony, Malinda Markowitz, RN, co-president of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee noted that "nurses know insurance companies don't provide any value whatsoever in the delivery of medicine. Under SB 810, we would be free of their interference, their denial of care, their massive bureaucracy, and their waste of healthcare dollars."
UC Irvine medical student Parker Duncan said that he did not want to “be in a world not doing what I was trained to do,” referring to the paperwork that is one of the expensive burdens that undermine the ability of the current system to deliver health care.
Twice this decade California's legislature passed earlier versions of SB 810 (SB 840 carried by now retired Sen. Sheila Kuehl), but the bills were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. State activists say they will continue to push single payer in California, even if they need to wait until the next governor, who won't be Schwarzenegger, is elected in 2010.
Colorado
House Bill 1273 by Fort Collins Democrat John Kefalas, passed its first vote in the state House April 6. The bill sets up a 23-member commission to design a universal health-insurance system.
"Our current health-care system is not well," Kefalas said. "Our current health-care system is unsustainable, with the cost of health care and the numbers of the uninsured rising dramatically."
Press reports note a state Blue Ribbon Commission on Health Care Reform two years ago studied single payer and found it was the only approach that saved money compared to what Coloradans now spent on healthcare.
Illinois
HB 311, the Healthcare for All Illinois Act, sponsored by Rep. Mary Flowers, had its first hearing in March. Though no votes have been taken yet, the new Gov. Pat Quinn is a long time supporter of single payer reform.
At an introductory press conference, Brenda Langford, Cook County RN, said that “Illinois can once again be a symbol of hope and progress for our nation. Nurses are tired of watching our patients suffer from denial of care and lack of access to coverage. We see far too much of this at Cook County hospitals—and that’s why we support guaranteed healthcare through a single-payer system.”
Maine
LD 1365, sponsored by Brunswick Rep. Charles Priest, and co-sponsored from legislators from all over the state, had its first hearing April 13.
The hearing came just days after both houses of the Maine legislature passed resolutions calling on President Obama and Congress to enact federal single payer legislation. A poll this winter showed 52 percent of Maine physicians also favor single payer.
As Cathy Herlihy of the Maine State Nurses Association put it in a state forum featuring U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, a single-payer system is the “the only solution,” she said. “We do not have time to wait. Our health should not be sacrificed for limited reforms.”.
Pennsylvania
Two single payer bills are alive in the state, House Bill 1660, the “Family and Business Healthcare Security Act of 2009,” and Senate Bill 300.
The state Democratic House Caucus is holding a public forum on the bill Friday, April 17 at 10 a.m. at the University of Pennsylvania campus in Philadelphia, featuring speakers from Physicians for a National Health Program, the Pennsylvania Association of Staff Nurses and Allied Professionals, and other single payer supporters..
The hearing comes on the heels of a resolution passed by the Philadelphia City Council calling for both state and federal lawmakers to establish a single-payer health system.
Other states
Single payer bills are also on the docket in Minnesota, Missouri, and Washington.
- Chuck Idelson's blog
- Login or register to post comments


How to make the "public plan" choice work
We need not search far for a model reform plan with a REAL public option - built around expansion of a state employee insurance pool.
In Connecticut, where we have more than 325,000 uninsured, HB6600, or “SustiNet,” just got a favorable report from the state legislature’s Public Health Committee and is gaining momentum.
SustiNet ensures that the state wisely uses the dollars it is already spending on state employees, HUSKY (for low-income children) and SAGA by uniting them into a large self-insured health plan.
SustiNet (which is Latin for “sustains” and is taken from our state motto) uses this critical mass of insured residents to improve the health care delivery system (with cost savings) and to phase in the enrollment of more residents of Connecticut, including: the uninsured; people with unaffordable or inadequate insurance; sole proprietors and other self-employed people; small businesses, municipalities, and non-profit employers; and, finally, businesses of any size.
By a “real” public option, I mean that EVERYONE in the state will have quality, affordable health care. If they are employed and their employer isn’t offering insurance that gets them that care, then they ALWAYS have an effective public alternative.
SustiNet was developed with extensive input from all health care stakeholders and with the expertise of Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute. It has the support of, among others: the Connecticut Realtor’s Association; the Connecticut State Medical Society; the Connecticut Public Health Association; and Small Businesses for Health Care Reform.
For more information about the bill, you can go to: http://www.healthcare4every1.org/sustinet
One state, one nation, one health plan...
Thanks for the hopeful and instructive post, which, in essence, could be the only acceptable "incremental" approach to single-payer healthcare: state by state.
A civilized country does not turn any of it's people away from the table. If we believe that certain rights are inalienable and inequality is intolerable we need to start asking the hard questions about programs that divert tax-payer money away from essential services.
Insurers and their paid-for politicians are acutely aware that if we get a healthcare system that works for the rest of us, they'll be shut out of power and will never regain the seat at the table. Health care should be the social contract in action. A well-run shared health system would affirm our commitment to one another. It would be in nobody's interest to let that system fail.
California could've been the first state in the nation to adopt a true single-payer model of genuine health care reform, except for the shameful display corporate cronyism exhibited by Governor Schwarzenegger who refused to sign it into law. Undaunted, the legislation has been reintroduced, by California lawmakers who have twice passed single-payer reform as champions of the public interest.
In the face of an important new study released in February by the Institute of Health and Socio-economic Policy that demonstrates how single-payer health care would create an enormous engine to stimulate the economy, fuel job growth, and contain costs, it just makes sense for employers, individuals, and industry to support this model of health reform.
"We commit ourselves to any wrong or degradation or injury when we do not protest against it." Lillian Wald,(1867-1940), American Social Reformer/Founder Public Health Nursing
laughable
"nurses know insurance companies don't provide any value whatsoever in the delivery of medicine. Under SB 810, we would be free of their interference, their denial of care, their massive bureaucracy, and their waste of healthcare dollars."
This statement is wrong on so many levels. Health insurance companies do plenty to improve the quality of care such as notifying doctors that their patient has been receiving perscriptions for narcotics from five other doctors in town and maybe they ought to have a little chat about narcotic abuse before their problem gets worse.
under a single payer plan you still have inteference, denial of care, bureaucracy, and wasteful spending - just from a different party - a government agency.
And let's be honest - the real detail decisions that matter are made by the low level, non-elected bureaucrats - not elected officials. they will not happen in an open transparent way. when it comes time to made a go / no-go decision on questionable treatment to perhaps save someone's life whose is 80 years old, that decision will be made by underpaid lazy government workers with big pension and the promise of never being fired or have to be accountable for results, unlike private companies which can fail when they fail to meet the expectations of their customers.
We already have a popular, remarkably efficient
single payer health plan in this country: Medicare. We need to improve it and expand it to cover every one. We can afford to do that....and it's a bargain in terms of the costs of administration and overhead, 3% as compared to the 31% mark-up (advertising, inflated executive compensation, investor dividends) of the for profit insurers. In this economy, how could anyone argue that we should take a pass on a deal like that? Especially when we will get better health outcomes!
What's wrong, and it's hardly laughable, is that real people are suffering and dying of preventable illness in this country at the highest rate among 19 industrialized nations. What's wrong, and it's hardly laughable, is allowing private insurers to profit at the expense of the sick and injured.
At a time when the gap between rich and poor is at its widest ever, the greed of a few has become hazardous to the health and economic well-being of all of us.
You have a right to your opinion, squibbie, but the case you make for keeping the status quo is tainted. The point is that private insurers have failed to meet the expectations of their "customers."
Besides the fact that insurers unethically (and fraudulently) delay, deny, and rescind coverage...decisions made by incentivized bean counters, there are tens of millions of underinsured persons who would face severe economic hardship were they to get sick. Medical bills contribute to more than half of all personal bankruptcies in the U.S. today; about three-fourths of those had insurance at the onset of their illness.
Your moral compass is pointed in the wrong direction if you believe insurance companies have the right to remain in business under the circumstances.
"We commit ourselves to any wrong or degradation or injury when we do not protest against it." Lillian Wald,(1867-1940), American Social Reformer/Founder Public Health Nursing