Hail Mary: Long Shot to Get Kucinich Single-Payer Amendment Back In Bill
By Susie Madrak Sunday Nov 01, 2009 7:00pmThe Kucinich bill would allow states to form their own single-payer systems:
As reported earlier, House leaders have stripped the Kucinich amendment from the House health care reform bill. This amendment would help nullify legal challenges against efforts by individual states to enact their own single-payer systems.
[...] According to Tim Carpenter of Progressive Democrats of America, one avenue of appeal remains regarding these efforts:
Democratic House leaders can insert what is called a “Manager’s Amendment” into legislation, even when it is closed to any other amendments. The managers are the majority and minority members who “manage” debate for the bill on each side.
Today, tomorrow, and beyond, we need to call these “managers” and insist that the Kucinich Amendment is restored into the healthcare bill.
The “gang” that holds our future in their hands includes:
* Speaker Nancy Pelosi: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-4965; San Francisco office (415) 556-4862
* Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: Washington, DC, office (202...; Greenbelt office (301)...; Waldorf office (301)...
* Rep. Henry Waxman: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-3976; Los Angeles office (323) 651-1040
*Rep. Charles Rangel: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-4365; New York office (212) 663-3900
* Rep. George Miller: Washington, DC, office (202) 225-2095; Concord office (925) 602-1880; Richmond office (510) 262-6500; Vallejo office (707) 645-1888
Login or Register to post comments.
Damn, another 15 years in the wilderness
............that as it stands now, healthcare is WEALTHCARE. Its a gift to the Insurance Com.
Let's hope a universal/1 payer/Government run plan comes to be. Just look at loids of london they are a insurance company and they didn't go out of business, So don't believe the false dichotomy of 1 payer system destroying the insurance industry, or the false dichotomy of health care getting worse from a 1 payer system. When by structuring it you can make that paradigm different, and actually get much better health care and cost effectiveness out of good structuring of such systems. Take the best of what works in the whole world, and incorporate the better systems into a new system that is structured to incorporate the whole population. We need to at least catch up to the other industrialized nations that have single payer systems. Then work out any kinks or bumps that may occur. But as we see corruption and ideological repression is coming from special interest groups, and propaganda networks ( Like F.U.B.A.R. NEWS or fox ). And it looks like special interest, industrial/economic are getting their way, and the common people are stepped on. More proof " Wealth is too precious to be entrusted to the rich. " Would you like to be born into servitude to multiple industries ( a slave to industrial interests ), or would you like to be born into a society that helps the sick get better threw government means, and can actually change threw a political environment such as people voting for a specific change to such a structure/system.
Just my 2 cents
is an insurance company, but they are not a health insurance company in any normal meaning of the phrase. They will insure just about anything for a price. They insure everything from paintings to oil rigs to banks and even celebrities body parts. Heck supposedly j lo has her ass(and the rest of her body) insured by them and an unnamed celebrity has their chest hair insured(although loss from illness or just simply falling out isn't covered)and Betty Grable had her waist insured against gain(weight gain that is) and lets not forget Dolly Partons biggest assets.
And single payer wouldn't destroy the insurance industry? By definition it would have to, how can you have single payer with a multitude of insurance companies? A public option would not necessarily destroy the insurance industry, but would most likely if it was subsidized by tax money. Look at it this way if you and I run competing businesses and I can tell you what you have to offer and can limit how much you sell it for and also make your customers pay me even though they are buying from you, how long do you think you would be able to stay in business?
Also please get a dictionary or use a decent online one like http://www.merriam-webster.com/ if your going to use words like dichotomy and paradigm please use them correctly and if you can use them correctly you should also be able to use the correct spelling of through instead of threw .
Sorry P, I didn't come here for my spelling or grammar,Though if you have good suggestions let me know just don't get mad. I have dyslexia and know I switch things some time without realizing it. I was trying to make a simple point that you might clearly see. And yes loids is not a primary health but a supplemental extra coverage and compensation if something happened. And sorry for the homonym mistake But as I relied on spell-check a lot I miss those occasionally, just like their, there. As far as Paradigm I thought 1 of the definitions was a system set that has specific rules, A pattern set model with specific governing laws/rules. Or how I normally look at it a set of algorithms with sets of rules, the rules allow for change in the structure of those algorithms, and those algorithms can in turn end up changing the rules, A new paradigm emerges. Or am I miss perceiving some thing in that version of the definition? Or did I miss it some other way, with drawing a parallel to health care systems set up already being the algorithm like system, or the rule set that changes through government and legislation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm . Please if I'm wrong on paradigm let me know, the other stuff I see clearly and am not that worried about. After all this isn't a term paper or even 2nd draft type cross communication barrier level. And realize if that type of slip up makes you cringe, you might not like some of the gamming/TXTing community. And yes I know that's no excuse, but it does show a slightly different social communication barrier level thresh hold, and base lines needed for such.
and am not mad and I apologize for being snarky.
But comparing Lloyds to health insurance as an example of why single payer doesn't mean the destruction of the health insurance companies is a false comparison. It's like saying that allstate or geico (car insurance) isn't threatened by single payer health insurance, they are two totally different animals.
Why don't we want to destroy the insurance industry??
No, I see what you're saying. In fact, seems to me I heard somewhere recently that insurance in America didn't used to be "for profit." We should go back to that, and thus keep all those people at those giant companies employed, for the sake of the country. Even though by this time, I feel people who work for them should have their heads shaved for collaborating. Good thing I have so little power, :D
I'm starting to see why historical overthrows of foul-bastard governments by the citizenry are terroristic and always go too far. The French revolution, the Bolshevik revolution. Citizens had all gone completely over the edge by the time they rebelled. This led to heads on pikes as part and parcel with Reform. Lest we forget.
Why do get the feeling, as the months have gone by since the 2008 election, that we Progressives have been thoroughly punked?
These people in Congress are just a mess. Totally corrupted. And smiling at me while pissing on my shoe.
Oh hell, I just have to brush myself off, get up, and continue the fight.
It's a long shot, but worth it!
California has an active Single Payer bill in the legislature (SB-810) that WILL pass (it's passed twice before only to be vetoed by Arnold). AND we have a well thought out 3-year plan that absolutely will make S.P. happen in this state (www.californiaonecare.org for info).
The Kucinich bill is crucial to the process. Without it, it's one more hurdle.
Canada got Single Payer one province at a time. We'll have to do it one state at a time. And despite CA's problems, it's still a leadership state. S.P. is working in San Francisco, it will work in the state and the country will follow.
Make the calls and contribute to the www.californiaonecare.org campaign
I'm confused. If states already have the power to choose single-payer, then why do we need Kucinich's amendment?
I live in California, so I'll definitely support this campaign. Thanks for the link, nom de plume.
because of the way allot of people think and talk about federal and state powers. They think that fed automatically trumps state which is not the actual Constitutional way it works. Yes in some things fed trumps state but in others state trumps fed. Art 1 Sec 8 lists the powers of congress, the 10th amendment states that all powers not reserved to congress or prohibited to the states are the states and the peoples.
This amendment is not needed for states to form a single-payer health insurance if they choose to.
For an idea of just how far this country has slipped away from the Constitution just look at prohibition. It took a Constitutional amendment to ban alcohol. Now congress can simply pass a law and ban any thing they like. Look at medical marijuana in CA for instance. The Constitution does not grant the fed gov authority over any drug, but since it is not granted to the feds nor prohibited to the states, they should be allowed to ban or allow what they like.
Or for another instance the new law and current lawsuit from Montana against the BATFE regarding firearms made and sold in Montana, according to the new law, firearms and silencers made in Montana and marked as to only be sold and used(cannot be transferred out of state)are exempt from the BATFE regulations regarding NICS checks and tax stamp etc. No where in the Constitution does it give the feds any authority over an item that is made in and stays in state.
So... Kucinich's amendment is only to ensure that the fed does not intervene with the pre-established rights of states to grant single-payer health care to its citizens?
I guess the amendment is not quite as significant as I thought it was.
Prohibition banned the importation or the exportation of hooch, even those from Canada, so it required more.
It even prohibited hooch if made inside the state, and it stayed inside the state.
The California marijuana law is different because it already exists on the list of prohibited substances, and Article VI paragraph 2 kicks in.
isn't reefer not banned from importation? To compare hooch and grass, both were legal in this country to grow/import/use etc. one took a Constitutional amendment to ban, the other a simple act of legislature. Heck wacky weed was even legal during prohibition it didn't become illegal till after prohibition was repealed. And actually it wasn't illegal after prohibition it was simply taxed(the marijuana tax act of 1937)because the fed government did not have the power to ban it without an amendment. The actual criminalization of weed is relatively recent,the fed gov distributed maryjane to a handful of people who have grandfathered prescriptions for medical marijuana.
What has changed between then and now? No new Constitutional amendments granting the feds more power, just them taking the power.
...........is exactly the point! They are manipulating the 'public' opinion to create just that, then 'bait/Switch' Vote out all incumbants except Kucinich.
This is the way. So simple. So cheap. So states rights even.
just have the fed sue the f out of the insurance companies until they do right
before Nancy Pelosi ever lets a Dennis Kucinich-sponsored health care bill come up for a floor vote.
Hail Mary, full of grace, don't let Laverne get punched in the face.
*
I want Health Care Reform. I want "health care reform" to fail. Our "side" is still confusedly at it, bemoaning the horrors in these bills that are about to be "merged," and simultaneously having complete nervous breakdowns that this hideous legislation might be "stopped" by republicans, blue dogs, or whomever. "They" are really smart to be able to do this to us. Or else we are really stupid. Can't we decide which it is? Do we want real health care reform, do we want this watered-down disgrace killed, the ground where it lies covered with salt? Or do we want just anything that Obama and the dems can call reform, even though it enslaves us, just to spite Blanche Lincoln and Rush Limbaugh, and to protect President Obama, bring him the "success" he desires, which "our enemies" are trying to deprive him of? We can't want both. They're opposites!
I hope all "reform" fails and fails HUGE until it gets real. The only real reform is the reform proposed by Dennis Kucinich, based on numbers crunched by Michael Moore.
Till then, "they" have us busy-busy-busy getting oh so upset at Michelle Bachman, Glenn Beck, et al, for calling us names and disrespecting our president. I tell you, this whole Beck/Palin/Bachman/Teabagger/Birther/Nazi-mustache deal has been cooked up (using all the useful morons out there) to turn our heads away from the reaming WE, not the teabaggers, are getting from Obama and the dems. Every time CNN questions the marvelousness of our president, we give them exactly what they want as a response: we go nuts, start seeing Obama as our darling again, our elegant well-educated first black president with the beautiful family, who looks so good (cosmetically) to the rest of the world after 8 years of bush, OUR president, who requires our constant vocal protection. And that is as far away from holding Obama accountable as you can get! VOILA.
Notice that when SNL called Obama's performance into question, where a huge cross section of America could see it, CNN went nuts "fact checking" and disproving the contention that Mr. Obama is anything but wonderful. Rest of the time, CNN stays busy disrespecting the prez, uplifting his critics, diverting the attention of progressive voters to the wrong enemy full time.
Thanks for posting Kucinich's side of this, C&L. I never worry that this blog is turning into one of them.
(Example from "our side": Katrina Vanden Heuval is on C-Span Washington Journal right now explaining what a great political player for our times Barrack Obama is. I used to really, really respect her. I call our side a bunch of damn reverse bushies. Kudos to the caller from Oklahoma who asked her where she was in 2003 as our troops prepared to invade Iraq. She's trying to answer. She is failing miserably. She changed the subject.)
Login or Register to post comments.