When Even a Corrupt Senator Cares About Constituents

How stirring it was to see Mitch McConnell stand in the Well of the Senate and demand single-payer healthcare for the Eastern Kentucky communities ravaged by coal mining, because only single-payer is powerful and inexpensive enough .... oh, wait.

Kay Tillow at Firedoglake:

In 2009 when the Washington beltway was tied up with the health care reform tussle, Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the all powerful Senate Finance Committee, said everything was on the table–except for single payer. When doctors, nurses and others rose in his hearing to insist that single payer be included in the debate, Baucus had them arrested. As more stood up, Baucus could be heard on his open microphone saying, “We need more police.”

Yet when Senator Baucus needed a solution to a catastrophic health disaster in Libby, Montana, and surrounding Lincoln County, he turned to the nation’s single payer healthcare system, Medicare, to solve the problem.

Baucus’ problem was caused by a vermiculite mine that had spread deadly airborne asbestos killing hundreds and sickening thousands in Libby and northwest Montana. The W. R. Grace Company that owned the mine denied its connection to the massive levels of mesothelioma and asbestosis and dodged responsibility for this environmental and health disaster. When all law suits and legal avenues failed, Baucus turned to our country’s single payer plan, Medicare.

The single payer plan that Baucus kept off the table is now very much on the table in Libby. Unknown to most of the public, Baucus inserted a section into the health reform bill that covers the suffering people of Libby, Montana, not just the former miners but the whole community—all covered by Medicare.

They don’t have to be 65 years old or more.

They don’t have to wait until 2014 for the state exchanges.

No ten year roll out—it’s immediate.

They don’t have to purchase a plan—this is not a buy-in to Medicare—it’s free.

They don’t have to be disabled for two years before they apply.

They don’t have to go without care for three years until Medicaid expands.

They don’t have to meet income tests.

They don’t have to apply for a subsidy.

They don’t have to pay a fine for failure to buy insurance.

They don’t have to hope that the market will make a plan affordable.

They don’t have to hide their pre-existing conditions.

They don’t have to find a job that provides coverage.

Baucus inserted a clause in the Affordable Care Act to make special arrangements for them in Medicare, and he didn’t wait for any Congressional Budget Office scoring to do it.

Read the whole thing.
And so all the supposed arguments against single-payer collapse. Senators, representatives, lobbyists and presidents all know the truth: only single-payer - Medicare for all - can solve our deficit-exploding national healthcare crisis.

Thus only one reason to oppose it: campaign contributions from Big Insurance.

The Way to Win

Via Digby, an example of how easy it really is to beat the repugs on legislation, if you're just willing to stand up and call their bluff.

After Matt Yglesias posted a short piece on the House agreeing to hold a floor vote on single-payer, commenter Henry B (a fan of the late, great and much-lamented Texas Congressman Gonzales, perhaps?) posted this:

You missed the most interesting amendment that Wiener offered. While I was watching the health-care markup on Thursday night (because I’m a policy nerd and I think that sort of thing is fun), Anthony Wiener offered an amendment to repeal Medicare.

It was, by his own admission, intended as a political trap to force the Republican members to vote for single-payer health care. It was a hilarious debate to watch.

Wiener observed that a lot of Republicans had been warning direly about the dangers of socialized medicine and government interference in the health-care market, and so offered “the amendment they’ve been waiting for” to give them the opportunity to vote to end the scourge of single-payer health care in America. As a counterpart to the now-famous Republican flow chart of Obamacare, Wiener had a nice simple chart demonstrating how Medicare works (with just 3 boxes: patients, providers, government)

There was also a poignant moment when everyone paused to honor John Dingell, who actually voted for Medicare 44 years ago (and is now on crutches and looking rather feeble). The Ranking Republican, Joe Barton of Texas, made some nonsensical and indecipherable distinction about “government-mandated” health care versus “government-run” health care, and said that Republicans support the Medicare because it is in the former category (if that’s true, they sure ought to be supporting the current House health care bill).

Wiener asked if the Republicans would support a public plan if it looked like Medicare, and Barton dodged the question. Later Barton hit on the semi-coherent response that Medicare only pays 80% of the cost of treatment, so the private insurance market has to pick up the slack to ensure that doctors and hospitals stay solvent. My understanding is that that’s completely false, but at least it sounds coherent.

The debate on Wiener’s amendment got pretty heated, with Rep. Steve Buyer calling Wiener an “intellectual smart-ass” and Wiener calling all the Republicans hypocrites (with good reason, though).

Initially, Chairman Waxman not amused by the amendment, since he was trying to keep the markup moving quickly in order to finish on Friday. By the end of the debate, though, Waxman was clearly enjoying it. In the end, despite Wiener’s “double-dare”, all the Republicans voted no (how often do you see a unanimous “no” vote?), thus proving on the 44th anniversary of the signing of the Medicare Act that nobody’s going to mess with Medicare anytime soon.

Looks like Barney Frank's got some competition in the intellectual smart-ass department. And from a probable Yankees fan, at that.