Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Obama for Single-Payer Before He Was Against It.

By David Sirota, Open Left. Posted May 11, 2009.


How Political Elites Have Made Single Payer "Politically Impossible"
singlepayer
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In light of the White House's big hand-holding session today with the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries today, let me take this moment to note that a cynic - or, perhaps, a realist - might look at President Obama's statements on health care and see a politician moving farther and farther away from his progressive roots and closer and closer to the Washington/money Establishment. 

In 2003, Obama said he supports a single-payer health care system, and that the only reason we "may not get there immiediately" is "because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House" - which, of course, we have:

"I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program...I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that's what I'd like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House." - Barack Obama, 2003

In 2006, I spent a day with Obama in the U.S. Senate, and he said he supports a "debate" on single-payer, but that he also bad started to have his doubts, now that he was in the Senate:

I asked him to give me some specific examples of what he meant. Is a proposal to convert America's healthcare system to one in which the government is the single payer for all services revolutionary or reformist? "Anything that Canada does can't be entirely revolutionary-it's Canada," Obama joked. "When I drive through Toronto, it doesn't look like a bunch of Maoists." Even so, Obama said that although he "would not shy away from a debate about single-payer," right now he is "not convinced that it is the best way to achieve universal healthcare."

By last week, it became clear that Obama and his allies in Congress will use their legislative leverage to prevent even a debate about single payer. Here's the Associated Press:

Baucus and many others, including President Barack Obama, say single-payer is not practical or politically feasible.

"Everything is on the table with the single exception of single-payer," Baucus said.

My guess is that Obama still believes in what he originally says, because he knows the evidence about the supremacy of a single-payer system is irrefutable. But I'm also guessing that he's afraid of being attacked by moneyed interests that enjoy the status quo, and he's surrounded himself by Clintonites who, after the health care debacle of the early 1990s, aren't interested in antagonizing the insurance industry.

However, let me just echo Ta-Neishi Coates who recently wrote that "while a good politician accomplishes what is possible, a great one expands the realm of possibility - he doesn't simply accept the lines of argument as they're drawn and hew to the side with the most soldiers, he tries to redraw those lines to benefit his ideals."

The whole idea that single payer is the best option but politically "impossible" is simply unacceptable. Last I checked, electing an African American president was politically "impossible"...until Barack Obama went ahead and got himself elected president. The entire notion of "politically possible" and "politically impossible" is a canard that justifies the status quo. So while it's certainly terrific that Obama is fighting for some sort of universal health care system, and one with a public option (which could ultimately become a single-payer system), let's just remember: Nothing has been politically "possible" until it actually happened - and so if that's the major argument against single payer, it's not just a poor argument, it's a fraud.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: democrats, health care, lobbyists, single payer, baucus, president obama

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was just released this month. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
We have the Model
Posted by: JSquercia on May 11, 2009 3:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have the Model already . It is the Medicare system . Simply expand Medicare to everyone .
AS for the Republican talking point about getting spme bureacrat between you and your Doctor , ask them what the difference is between THAT bureacrat and the Insurance Company other than the insurance company makes money by denying coverage while the bureacrat
does not

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ah, the irony
Posted by: TheAverageMan on May 11, 2009 3:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haven't big business & republicans always claimed that private companies can provide services better and cheaper than the government?

If that's true, then why would health insurance companies be worried about a little government competition?

Cuz they're liars. And they know they'll soon be out of business.

We've got an opening here. Let's hold their feet to the fire. I've been e-mailing Baucus' office mercilessly...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE IS AN OXYMORON
Posted by: jacksmith on May 11, 2009 4:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PRIVATE FOR PROFIT HEALTHCARE IS AN OXYMORON!

As congress debates fixing Americas current private for profit healthcare disaster, global embarrassment, and national disgrace. The question is not weather we will have a public option. But rather what kind of public option we will have.

America is the only country in the developed world that has a GREED DRIVEN! PROFIT DRIVEN! IMMORAL! UNETHICAL! PRIVATE FOR PROFIT! healthcare delivery system.

As a result, hundreds of thousands of you are needlessly killed by your healthcare delivery system in America every year. And millions of you are crippled and injured. America is the only country in the developed World that does not have a NOT FOR PROFIT, PATIENT PROTECTING, government managed healthcare delivery option for all it's people.

America currently has the most costly health care system in the developed world. And the lowest quality of healthcare in the developed world. And the most dangerous, deadly, and FEARED! healthcare delivery system in the developed world.

America is the only healthcare delivery system in the developed World that does not cover all it's people automatically. And America has the most difficult healthcare system to access in the developed World.

Contact your representative and tell then that a single payer, government managed healthcare option is a must for everyone that wants it. Tell them that you demand that the public option be the finest in the World.

Tell them it should be available to everyone that wants it as a HUMAN RIGHT! Tell them it should be the easiest to access in the entire world. Tell them it should have the highest quality, with the greatest patient protections in the entire world. Tell them coverage should be automatic for everyone that wants it unless they choose to opt out. Tell them it should be the most affordable in the World. And tell them that NO ONE in the public option is to be reported to a credit agency, or driven into bankruptcy for unpaid medical bills just because they got sick, for FREEK'EN SAKES!

Tell them, none of the requirements above are negotiable. Tell them, that we are prepared to remove them from office. Tell them, we will rain down the political FIRES OF HELL! on any of them that would betray the American people. Or continue to compromise the life, health, safety, and National security of the American people for the GREED DRIVEN, PROFIT DRIVEN! private for profit Healthcare Industry.

TELL THEM NOW! AND PASS THE WORD ON.

God Bless You

Jacksmith — WORKING CLASS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just be patient, dear
Posted by: wrinklemomma on May 11, 2009 7:10 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no issue that is LESS "politically impossible" right now than single-payer healthcare. What we have is a FAILURE OF WILL. Two-thirds of Americans WANT it and over a third of Americans desperately NEED it. What we don't have is a Congress with the balls to vote the will of the people who are actually paying for their incredibly good healthcare , AND their overly-generous salaries and perks. Instead, Congress will once again kiss the ass of the unrepentant sons of bitches who have stymied TRUE healthcare in this country for the last 40 years. To watch the president back-pedal to kiss up is making me sick- too bad I don't have the health coverage to do something about that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I have it, but Posted by: freelyb
Collusion of Government + Corporations for private profit = FASCISM
Posted by: halg on May 11, 2009 9:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And that's it for today's news, May 11th, 2009. Good night and good luck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Punked
Posted by: Gregsdiary on May 12, 2009 10:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"while it's certainly terrific that Obama is fighting for some sort of universal health care system, and one with a public option..."

I think those progressives, like Sirota, that are for the "public option" just got punked by Obama.

They should get used to it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

England Started FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE When England Was Broke After World War II
Posted by: nobyjingo on May 12, 2009 2:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Conservatives/Moderates in government, private corporate insurance, private corporate pharmacy and private corporate media are putting out garbage about Social Security and Medicare being broke; therefore, FREE Universal Health Care isn't feasible to start for the nation's citizens, because there isn't enough money, but this is garbage. The United States can have FREE Universal Health Care the same way England did.

England was destroyed after World War II and used their FREE Universal Health System as a means to pull themselves up. England started their FREE Universal Health System when their country was down and so can the United States. England didn't wait until their country was more prosperous before initiating FREE health care for all their citizens, they just did it; set up a FREE health care system to take care of ALL their citizens health care problems, and the country became WE; instead of THEM and US, and that is exactly what the United States must do.

And, don't forget CUBA. Cuba being a small non-prosperous country prospered after they developed their FREE Health Care System that now even helps other countries.

Don't believe the PRIVATE CORPORATE GARBAGE of BIG INSURANCE and BIG PHARMACY. FREE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE would be beneficial to our country economically.

The Conservative and Moderate RIGHT must end their US & THEM problem, because as a nation, we are all WE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It will come to blood before the owning class gives an inch for another human being
Posted by: DaBear on May 13, 2009 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is who we're facing people.

1789. Lock and load.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Response from Cong. Murphy (PA) to my letter
Posted by: ergo3 on May 13, 2009 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just wrote to my congressman, Patrick Murphy, and received what seemed a programmed response that said a lot but meant little. It was filled with platitudes and that he has always been for universal healthcare but that it is not possible to achieve for many years. Here's my response:

Rep. Murphy,

I’m pleased to receive your reply though I’m still not sure where YOU stand and what options YOU prefer to reform the current non-functioning and debilitating American health care system. You commented that “presently a functional and affordable universal single payer system is many years away.” Why? Are you for single-payer universal health care that needs to be phased in over time, but just not now? And if so, what time frame do you see for its accomplishment? Or not for it at all? Single-payer universal health insurance is clearly the most efficient and least costly model being discussed. In recent polls, the option most preferred by Americans is a single-payer universal health insurance system modeled as a version of the successful Medicare program. Why is it seemingly off the table to at least be discussed? What are your thoughts about it? What you and the Democratic Party think might politically be achievable in the current round of talks is different than what YOU are for and willing to fight for. Where do you stand on this? How is it that every OECD country …except the United States… provides universal health care for all its citizens, with varied system models, and for one-third to one-half less costly than our system, and yet gets superior health outcomes? Why do we seem to NOT want to know how they can do this and the United States can’t? Is there nothing we can learn from other successful national universal systems and then take the best from them to help reshape how we should reform health care in America?

What type of system are you for? Are you prepared to fight to include, at least as a minimum at this time, a public plan option to compete with private insurers? What are you for? You are my congressman, I voted for you and worked in your behalf, and I just want to know where you stand. This issue of health care reform is the single-most important issue for me and will strongly determine how I vote in 2010.

Respectfully,
Ed Goldman
Bensalem, PA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement