...and so do Kucinich and Conyers. Here's what they had to say at commondreams.org (emphasis and link mine)
Co-Authors Question Stand Alone Vote on National Single PayerSeems strategy trumps everything and the "urgency of now" is only for selecting empty suits. Where are those Nextel Firemen when you need 'em???
by Dennis Kucinich & John Conyers
Dear Friends,
We thank you for your continued devotion to the cause of health care for All Americans. We have worked together for many years to write, promote and campaign for HR676, a single payer, not for profit health care system. Your work, in communities across America, has been instrumental in helping at least ten states create single payer movements, with many more states to come.
Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is scheduled to consider a single payer bill. As the two principal co-authors of the Conyers single payer bill, we want to offer a strong note of caution about tomorrow's vote.
The bill presented tomorrow will not be HR676. While we are happy to relinquish authorship of a single payer bill to any member who can do better, we do not want a weak bill brought forward in a hostile climate to unwittingly accomplish what would be interpreted as a defeat for single payer.
Here are the facts: There has been no debate in Congress over HR676. There has not been a single mark-up of the bill. Single payer was "taken off the table" for the entire year by the White House and by congressional leaders. There has been no reasonable period of time to gather support in the Congress for single payer. Many members accepted a "robust public option" as the alternative to single payer and now that has disappeared. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has scored the bill scheduled for a vote tomorrow in a manner which is at odds with many credible assumptions, meaning that it will appear to cost way too much even though we know that true single payer saves money since one of every three dollars in the health care system goes to administrative costs caused by the insurance companies. Is this really the climate in which we want a test vote?
While state single payer movements are already strong, the national single payer movement is still growing. Many progressives in Congress, ourselves included, feel that calling for a vote tomorrow for single payer would be tantamount to driving the movement over a cliff. The thrill of the vote would disappear quickly when the result would be characterized not as a new beginning for single payer but as an end. Such a result would be seen as proof that Congress need not pay attention to efforts to restore in Conference Committee the right of states to pursue single payer without fear of legal attacks by insurance companies.
We are always grateful for your support. We are now asking you to join us in suggesting to congressional leaders that this is not the right time to call the roll on a stand-alone single payer bill. That time will come. And when it does there will not be any doubt of the outcome. This system of health care injustice will not be able to endure forever. We are pledged to make sure of that.
Sincerely,
Congressmen John Conyers and Dennis Kucinich
Dennis Kucinich is a Congressman (D) from Ohio. John Conyers is a Congressman (D) from Michigan.
And this is pretty interesting Ladies:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD CONDEMNS PASSAGE OF STUPAK/PITTS AMENDMENT
“Planned Parenthood condemns the adoption of the Stupak/Pitts amendment in HR 3962 this evening. This amendment is an unacceptable addition to the health care reform bill that, if enacted, would result in women losing health benefits they have today. Simply put, the Stupak/Pitts amendment would restrict women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion, even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977..." (emphasis and link mine)Make sure you thank
10 comments:
Horrible (Spanish pronunciation). The fact that two financially well-off white men gave up the ghost is not surprising. The fact that women's healthcare is not considered important is not surprising. Will there be anyone willing to challenge the constitutionality of the Stupak/Pitts amendment if it is left in the Senate version? Time to hit the Senators.
Oops, my mistake. For some reason I had Dingell stuck in my brain, not Conyers (both Michiganders who have been in Congress for decades). I apologize.
No problem, girl. I'm so damn tired of these men and the women who carry their water against their own interests. Guess we'll have to wait and see what comes out of committee, but I'm not hopeful.
As for the "decades" thing - its only remedy is term limits, and we know that won't be happening.
Hey, Deb, just wanted to check in and say, "hey!" I also want you to know that I've dropped by every day, it's just that some of your recent posts have been so personal that I almost feel I have no right to comment. Thank you for sharing so much of yourself with us, and know that I, for one, appreciate your candor, and admire your courage, honesty, and passion.
As far as these Democratic sell-outs and the women who enable them go, I'm sure you know how I feel about that.
I knew somebody was going to get sold out...sorry it had to be you ladies...
Citizen Ojo...Welcome! But 'tis not only us ladies who were sold out with this mess!
Crazy how we've all fallen for the "public option" versus universal health care bait-and switch. And if that's what we end up with, people who couldn't afford insurance before, still won't be able to (even with subsidies). And on top of that, they'll be fined if they can't - male or female! Can't squeeze blood from a turnip, but they will try.
This is a carrot-and-stick move for almost all of us - no matter what happens.
Citizen Ojo...Here's an interesting piece on how this bill would also affect the "under-insured" a well: http://www.propublica.org/ion/health-care-reform/item/what-health-care-reform-means-for-the-underinsured-profile-1124
Pretty eye-opening, no?
Received an e-mail update from one of my U.S. Senators this p.m. This was my spontaneous response to his claims about healthcare reform legislation. And my e-mail bounced--guess I have to use his official form to get my two cents any attention. Still a good rant but too long for here. Will break it up into two posts (figured out why it wouldn't post--helps to read the little message). Part 1/2:
Oh please. The public health option is a joke. The comparison of mandated purchase of medical insurance to the mandated purchase of automobile insurance is not valid. People may choose other options for transportation in populous areas of the country. Many, many people who live in large cities do not drive at all. Children do not drive, and many elderly people no longer drive. They are not required to buy auto insurance -- they do not drive. Further, enforcement of the existing laws is lacking. Look at New Mexico. I have read estimates of upward of 25+% of drivers in New Mexico do not carry liability insurance.
People may choose to live healthily and avoid chronic, lifestyle-related illnesses. People may choose to practice good hygiene and significantly reduce risk of communicable disease. People may choose not to prolong the ends of their lives by opting out of resource-consuming and futile, "heroic" measures during end-of-life care. All of these actions reduce the need for medical care, leaving only rare, castastrophic events as a potentially financially devastating. Preventative measures, with respect to screening tests, are relatively inexpensive when administered by evidence-based guidelines and individual risk assessment. It is reasonable to expect well-educated and motivated individuals to judge for themselves whether an overpriced premium for arbitrarily restricted benefits is a good investment given the ability to absorb the cost of an unlikely catastrophic occurrence. I strongly oppose the insurance purchase requirement when you and your colleagues direct my tax dollars toward the funding of illegal military invasions and occupations of other countries and vote yourselves salaries and pensions and benefit plans the vast majority of us can not obtain while working every bit as hard or harder than legislators and political appointees. I strongly oppose the insurance purchase requirement on low- and middle-income workers and business owners when my tax dollars go to multi-millionaire corporate executives as bonuses after showing how bad they are at their jobs. Instead of getting fired for derailing the economy, they get you and your colleagues to give them more money so they can maintain extravagant living standards while unemployment in this country rises to the highest level in decades. Instead, I want my tax dollars to go toward a single-payer health and medical care system.
Part 2/2 (thank you for the indulgence):
The legislative give-away to private corporations you and your colleagues are calling healthcare reform is a disgrace. It is truly shameful how vociferous many of you Democrats were in announcing what you would or would not accept on behalf of the tax-payers of this country and then conveniently forgot about it because some ill-informed Republican or blue dog Dem had a hissy fit. Most egregious is the wholesale dismissal of women's health and reproductive healthcare after the disgusting behavior of your party during the 2008 presidential election--claiming that a Republican in the White House would cause the overturn of the Roe v. Wade decision and fabricating complete lies about Governor Palin's position on reproductive rights. Abortion services ARE HEALTHCARE. Apparently your precious messiah president doesn't get that. I personally challenge you, Senator Udall, to stand on the Senate floor and ask your male colleagues how they can justify coverage of drugs such as Viagra and Cialis as healthcare then turn around and say that dealing with the consequences of the use of those drugs is not healthcare. Ask President Obama if he thinks it is right to deny a procedure to a man, when that procedure would reduce the risk of serious morbidity or mortality by 10 to 100 times compared to not having the procedure. That, Senator, is what a first-trimester elective pregnancy termination does for a woman with an undesired pregnancy (which some male participated in creating)--it reduces her risk of a serious adverse event, including death, by up to 100 times compared with carrying a pregnancy through delivery.
Please demonstrate to me, Senatory Udall, that you are not another go-along-to-get-along politician. Please show some backbone and integrity.
No indulgence need be requested nor extended here, Hermana! Hell! I don't even have a womb and I agree with you 1000%!
"Oh please. The public health option is a joke."
And it seems the whole country is running at break-neck speed to help them jam it through!
"I strongly oppose the insurance purchase requirement when you and your colleagues direct my tax dollars toward the funding of illegal military invasions and occupations of other countries and vote yourselves salaries and pensions and benefit plans the vast majority of us can not obtain while working every bit as hard or harder than legislators and political appointees. I strongly oppose the insurance purchase requirement on low- and middle-income workers and business owners when my tax dollars go to multi-millionaire corporate executives as bonuses after showing how bad they are at their jobs. Instead of getting fired for derailing the economy, they get you and your colleagues to give them more money so they can maintain extravagant living standards while unemployment in this country rises to the highest level in decades. Instead, I want my tax dollars to go toward a single-payer health and medical care system."
¡Dígale mi hermana!
"Senator Udall, to stand on the Senate floor and ask your male colleagues how they can justify coverage of drugs such as Viagra and Cialis as healthcare then turn around and say that dealing with the consequences of the use of those drugs is not healthcare. "
Touché!
Post a Comment