Regular readers of this blog know that I am a proponent of single-payer, universal health care, specifically HR 676.

 

I am against the plan that puts taxpayers' money into private, for profit, health insurers pockets and requires the people of that state to purchase health insurance.  Unfortunately, it is the wealthy insurers who win while the cost overrun (which many warned about) is increasing placing more burdens on the hardworking people who must buy the insurance.  This is not an optimum plan for universal coverage and is the antithesis of the effective, coverage for all via single payer, government administered, health care coverage that has been successful for decades in other industrialized countries like Canada and France.

 

A number of organizations in the US are working together to make single payer, universal health care a reality.

 

From the Progressive Democrats of America: "With Barack Obama about to assume the presidency and take up the healthcare issue, leaders of single-payer healthcare organizations met for two days, November 11 - 12, at the AFL-CIO headquarters in Washington, D.C. The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee (CNA/NNOC), Physicians for a National Health Plan (PNHP), Healthcare-NOW! , and Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) convened the meeting. Providing healthcare to the millions of Americans who lack it was a centerpiece of the presidential campaigns. 

"Approximately sixty people representing over a dozen organizations and three members of Congress were in attendance. The agenda included a political overview, developing a legislative strategy, and alliance-building discussions. Among the represented groups were Healthcare-NOW!, the AFL-CIO, All Unions Committee for Single-Payer, American Medical Students Association, Rep. John Conyers, and aides from the offices of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Dennis Kucinich. 

"There was broad agreement among the participants that a single-payer healthcare plan, H.R. 676 specifically, is not only the solution to solving the problem of providing healthcare to every American, but is also a sensible part of any economic stimulus package and lasting economic recovery. 

"Concern was expressed that a plan similar to the Massachusetts health plan will be offered by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, which could pass out of respect for his service in the Senate. The law, enacted in 2006, subsidizes healthcare corporations with taxpayer dollars and mandates that Massachusetts citizens buy health insurance. The Boston Globe reports the costs of providing healthcare to most of its residents have risen well above the original estimates-the state faces huge shortfalls and will need to secure additional revenue from the federal government or drastically reduce the benefits. While a deep respect for Sen. Kennedy's contributions was evident, participants rejected the Massachusetts plan as the cure to U.S. healthcare woes. 

"In addition, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's healthcare plan was rejected on the same grounds. See this article, Baucus Health Plan is Fatally Flawed.

"There was general agreement that single-payer healthcare legislation would provide economic stimulus by drastically reducing the number of employee sick days, creating thousands of new jobs in the delivery of healthcare (as opposed to the thousands of jobs which currently exist for the purpose of denying health insurance claims), and by containing rising costs from bulk-purchasing, advertising, CEO salaries and benefit packages, and a profit-driven system. 

"Members of the alliance will continue to meet regularly to ensure single-payer healthcare, H.R. 676, becomes a meaningful part of the healthcare reforms Obama will consider as the debate moves forward.

 

This is good news, but the last sentence is the key.  What exactly are the tactics (not the meetings) that are planned to ensure that HR 676 becomes a reality in the near future, and not just "a meaningful part of the healthcare reforms Obama will consider as the debate moves forward."

 

It has already been more than a half century since single payer, universal health care was first proposed by the Truman administration.  How long must this debate continue before Americans must move to Canada or other countries to obtain the health care that the people of other industrialized nations have had for many decades as a human right, not a commodity as it is in the United States?

 

While that debate "moves forward" the number of people in the US without health care coverage continues to increase (now 50 million plus) and more employers decide to place more of the skyrocketing health costs on the employees or end coverage at their workplace.  That should be unacceptable in the 21st century.