contact.ipr@gmail.com


Independent Senator Bernie Sanders denied single payer, promotes clinics

December 22nd, 2009 · 26 Comments

Even though Vermont’s independent Senator Bernie Sanders was forced to withdraw his amendment for a national single payer system recently, he has managed to put language into the health care bill that would allocate somewhere between $10 billion and $14 billion for thousands of primary care clinics around the country.  He is also working to change the bill so that individual states are allowed to adopt their own single payer systems.  A press release from Sanders (a video of Sanders describing the clinic program on the Senate floor is posted below):

WASHINGTON, December 19 – A $10 billion investment in community health centers, expected to go to $14 billion when Congress completes work on health care reform legislation, was included in a final series of changes to the Senate bill unveiled today.

The provision, which would provide primary care for 25 million more Americans, was requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

He said the additional resources will help bring about a revolution in primary health care in America and create new or expanded health centers in an additional 10,000 communities. The provision would also provide loan repayments and scholarships through the National Health Service Corps to create an additional 20,000 primary care doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants and mental health professionals.

Very importantly, Sanders also said the provision would save Medicaid tens of billions of dollars by keeping patients out of emergency rooms and hospitals by providing primary care when then needed it.

Sanders has worked with House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) to include $14 billion in the House version of the legislation.

Sanders is also working with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to improve language already in the bill to provide waivers for states that want to provide comprehensive, affordable health care and curb rapidly-rising costs for money-making private health insurance companies. The waivers could clear the way for a state-run, single-payer system.

For the health centers, the $14 billion in the bill that the House of Representatives approved on Nov. 7 would increase the number of centers from 20 million to 45 million over the next five years.

The investment would more than pay for itself by saving Medicaid $23 billion over five years on reduced emergency room use and hospital costs, according to a study conducted by George Washington University.

The system of Federally Qualified Health Centers began four decades ago under pioneering legislation by the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. Community health centers now provide primary health care, dental care, mental health counseling and low-cost prescription drugs for about 20 million Americans. The centers offer basic services like prenatal care, childhood immunizations and cancer screenings. Open to everyone, the centers care for patients covered by Medicaid, Medicare and private insurance as well as those who have no insurance.

Dan Hawkins, senior vice president of the National Association of Community Health Centers, testified before Congress earlier this year that the cost of care at health centers is 41 percent less than what is spent to care for patients elsewhere.  The savings would grow if health centers were expanded to serve more patients, according to Hawkins.

In Vermont, eight health centers and 40 satellite offices provide primary health care to more than 100,000 patients regardless of their ability to pay. Sanders said that with the additional health care funding it was very likely that new centers would be established in Addison County, Bennington County and perhaps Windham County.

Filed Under: Independents · Socialist/left parties

26 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Michael Cavlan // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    bernie SOLD OUT

    he could have KILLED THIS BILL. In fact he was the pivitol vote.

    Instead, he said

    OK

  • 2 paulie // Dec 22, 2009 at 9:57 pm

    This legislation is corporate welfare and nothing but corporate welfare.

  • 3 Windsor County needs a VD clinic? right? // Dec 22, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    uh, Windsor County, Vermont doesn’t even have a VD clinic?

  • 4 VT Board of Medical Practice abuses disabled & senior patients! // Dec 22, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    Vermont Board of Medical Practice “castrates” doctors and abuses disabled and senior citizen patients! http://vermontnews.livejournal.com

  • 5 Ross Levin // Dec 22, 2009 at 11:04 pm

    Michael, I’m not sure I agree with that. I haven’t really made up my mind, but he might have just been doing the best he could with the power he has. If he succeeds on the state single payer thing, I’ll be very happy.

  • 6 paulie // Dec 22, 2009 at 11:23 pm

    As Tony Palmieri points out…


    Barack Obama is sending Democrats into the 2010 elections having to defend:

    *The TARP (Wall St.) bailout
    *Escalation of the war in Afghanistan
    *A mandate to buy private insurance

    Good luck with that.

  • 7 jason // Dec 22, 2009 at 11:26 pm

    I agree with Ross. This bill blows for us lefties, but at least let Bernie get into it what he can for us. If states create their own single-payer, then maybe everybody will move to those states and the fed govt will see that this really is what the people want.

  • 8 Michael Cavlan // Dec 22, 2009 at 11:49 pm

    Jason and Ross

    You two just nailed precisely why I am so opposed to this Bill.

    In the Congressional version, the Stupak Amendment was added, which stops funding for abortions. here is the important part. The Kucinich Amendment, which expressly states that individual states have the RIGHT to organize their own Single Payer Bill was pulled out.

    True, we can challenge this on the 10 Amendment but, well that Bill of Rights has taken quite a pounding, hasn’t it?

    Not to mention having to fight this before we can even start organizing.

    Kucinich knew exactly what he was doing.

  • 9 Steven R Linnabary // Dec 23, 2009 at 12:13 am

    If states create their own single-payer, then maybe everybody will move to those states and the fed govt will see that this really is what the people want.

    It’s possible, I suppose. But if history is any guide, the opposite is true.

    People and money ALWAYS move toward relative freedom. You never see people trying to swim to Cuba on an innertube, but people of Cuba will try to come here everyday, toward relative freedom. And they already know they must evade the Cuban Navy as well as the US Coast Guard.

    Not saying it can’t happen. I just have my doubts.

    Pacem en Terris

  • 10 tiradefaction // Dec 23, 2009 at 6:12 am

    If the final bill contains a provision that allows states to enact single payer (or other universal health systems, bismarck or whatever) I’ll be happy. Even if the federal government never enacts single payer or otherwise universal healthcare, states doing it on their own would still be a very good thing. If not, this bill will do little good.

  • 11 Michael Cavlan RN // Dec 23, 2009 at 8:43 am

    Steve Linnabary

    Actually, this is how Canada got their single payer plan.

    Seskatchawan province got Single payer. Small buisnesses flocked there and boosted the economy. It then spread to the rest of the country.

    Simple historical fact

  • 12 The Inquirer // Dec 23, 2009 at 12:14 pm

    It’s a good deal for Canadians. They can drive to the US for anything serious, and stay in Canada for routine care. 90% live within 50 miles of US border.

  • 13 tiradefaction // Dec 23, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    Very few Canadians use US facilities for anything serious. Most couldn’t afford it. They usually stick with their own system for all necessary health needs.

  • 14 The Inquirer // Dec 23, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    Nothing to afford…emergency care is mandatory in the US.

  • 15 tiradefaction // Dec 23, 2009 at 5:32 pm

    And costs quite a bit once they send you the bill.

    Canadian paramedics don’t send Canadians to American hospitals to an emergency.

  • 16 The Inquirer // Dec 23, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    They drive themselves, or have someone drive them if they are unable to drive. The bill can be safely ignored. I’d rather have a life saving major operation and bad credit than die on a waiting list, wouldn’t you?

  • 17 tiradefaction // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    The waiting lists in Canada are greatly exaggerated, and vary between provinces. In Canada people with priority concerns go to the front of the line. So yes, you will have to wait for liposuction because a granny fell and broke her hip. Wait times for life and death treatments are about 24 hours (such as heart surgery) in both the US and Canada, but that’s only for those who are covered in the US. For the uncovered, it’s becoming common to die in emergency wait rooms. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19207050/)

    Also, most emergencies would take far longer to get to an American hospital, than going to a Canadian hospital. You’d be likely to die waiting on border security. Also, most emergency room visits are driven by the paramedics, who, again, won’t take them across the border.

  • 18 Ross Levin // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    There are about 47 million Americans on a permanent waiting list for most medical procedures (other than possibly the ER if there’s an emergency).

  • 19 Michael Cavlan RN // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:29 pm

    Tired and Ross

    You both have far too many facts in place.

    Facts tend to confuse some people. This Registered Nurse, who knows exactly how corporate healthcare works in the US and understands how the HMO’s beaurocrats are the death panels.

    Sarah Palin lovers are, quite frankly morally and politically lost.

    Single Payer works. Canadians know it.

    Oh and for the record, SCREW MICHAEL MOORE. He supports Democrats, not Single Payer like he pretends.

  • 20 paulie // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    Ross, as one of those 47 million, let me assure you that I am not and have never been on a waiting list for any procedure,.

    I just walk into the ER and get care, whether truly emergency or just a prescription. Most of the time the latter. If I had it my way, of course, that would not require a medical visit – drugs should be sold openly without prescriptions. A huge and expensive racket, doubly so because government involvement in medicine has caused a price spiral while the government has simultaneously made it expensive to bring drugs to market and created protectionistic measures to drive their costs up even further.

  • 21 tiradefaction // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:31 pm

    @19

    Tirade, not tired lol!

  • 22 Brad // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    tired tirade.

    :-)

  • 23 tiradefaction // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:33 pm

    Haha, regardless if that was an insult or not, still cute.

  • 24 paulie // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:41 pm

    HMO’s beaurocrats are the death panels.

    True.

    Posted by Roderick Long at http://praxeology.net/aotp.htm#1:

    Those who see government power and corporate power as being in conflict, and those who seem them as being in cahoots, each have a point. The alliance between government and the corporate elite is like the partnership between church and state in the Middle Ages: each one wants to be the dominant partner, so there’s naturally some pushing and shoving from time to time; but on the other hand the two parties have a common interest in holding down the rest of us, and so the conflict rarely goes too far. The main difference between “left-wing” and “right-wing” versions of statism, as I see it, is that the former generally seek to shift the balance a bit farther in favour of the state (i.e., toward state-socialism) while the latter generally seek to shift the balance a bit farther in favour of corporatism and plutocracy. (In the U.S., the reigning versions of liberalism and conservatism are arguably both more corporatist than state-socialist; but the liberals are still a few notches farther toward state-socialism than the conservatives are.)

    But whether the special interests who are the primary beneficiaries of state power are mainly within the state apparatus or mainly outside it, the actual application of state power remains much the same. Hence it is a mistake to suppose that the corporatist-plutocratic version of statism is in any interesting sense less statist than the state-socialist version.

    But it is an all-too-common mistake – and this tendency to underestimate the chasm between free markets and corporatism is enormously beneficial to the state, enabling a slick bait-and-switch. When free markets and government grants of privilege to business are conflated, those who are attracted to free markets are easily duped into supporting plutocracy, thus swelling the ranks of statism’s right wing – while those who are turned off by plutocracy are likewise easily duped into opposing free markets, thereby swelling the ranks of statism’s left wing. (These are the two tendencies that Kevin Carson calls “vulgar libertarianism” and “vulgar liberalism,” respectively.)

    As one of the villains in The Fountainhead explains in a moment of frankness, talking about the choice Europe was then facing between communism and fascism:

    “If you’re sick of one version, we push you in the other. We’ve fixed the coin. Heads – collectivism. Tails – collectivism. Give up your soul to a council – or give it up to a leader. But give it up, give it up, give it up. Offer poison as food and poison as antidote. Go fancy on the trimmings, but hang on to the main objective.

    The largely (though not completely) illusory conflict between state-oriented Palpatine and corporate-oriented Dooku in the Star Wars prequels is a nice dramatisation of the same principle.

    This dynamic applies in particular to the debate over health care policy. The contrast between, say, the Canadian and American approaches is frequently described – by both sides – as a contrast between a “governmental” or “socialised” system on the one hand, and a “market-based” or “free enterprise” system on the other. But the American health care system bears little resemblance to a free market; instead it represents massive government intervention on behalf of private special interests, from insurance companies to the medical establishment. The choice between the American and Canadian models is simply a choice between different two different flavours of statism – each with somewhat different vices, it’s true (e.g., do you prefer higher prices or longer waits?), but ultimately coming down to a matter of the percentage to which control of your healthcare is exercised by people sitting in government offices as opposed to being exercised by people sitting in governmentally-privileged “private” offices – but in either case by ambitious, avaricious apparatchiks who aren’t you.

    So what would a libertarian approach to health care policy look like? At a minimum it would have to include:

    1. Repealing laws that have the effect of cartelising the medical industry (e.g., the licensure monopoly granted to the A.M.A.), thus artificially boosting the cost of medical care.

    2. Repealing laws that have the effect of rendering the labour market oligopsonistic, thus artificially lowering people’s ability to pay for (and collectively negotiate for) medical care.

    3. Repealing laws that shift healthcare funds from the 25%-devoured-by-overhead voluntary sector to the 75%-devoured-by-overhead coercive sector, thus decreasing the amount of healthcare that gets to needy recipients.

    4. Repealing laws that transfer the power to make medical decisions for individuals from those individuals to centralised bodies, thus increasing the impact and scope of fatally bad decisions and suppressing the competitive signals that allow the identification of better and worse policies.

    5. Repealing laws that wiped out the old mutual-insurance systems (basically HMOs run by the patients instead of by corporations) and empowered insurance companies at the expense of patients.

    6. Repealing laws that suppress innovation and distribution in the pharmaceutical industry in the name of “intellectual property.”

    Until the unlikely day when the Republican Party embraces this program, let’s hear no more of their favouring a free-market approach to health care.

  • 25 paulie // Dec 23, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    I recommend reading the links in that, too.

  • 26 paulie // Dec 23, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    @ California Libertarian Alliance:

    Markets, Not Mandates
    December 23rd, 2009

    “While congressional reform efforts screech and shudder along, let’s take a moment to dream about real health care reform. Imagine a system that is genuinely transparent, competitive, and driven by consumers.”

    “Right now, thanks to incentives built into the tax code, patients are locked into the health plans their employers choose. Consequently, most of us don’t have a clue what our health insurance and health care cost. We have no way to reduce those costs and no incentive to do so even if we could. Worse yet, it’s precisely when you need the system the most that it fails you. In the words of the Princeton economist Uwe Reinhardt, “when you’re down on your luck, you’re unemployed, you lose your insurance.…Only the devil could ever have invented such a system.” ”

    Ronald Bailey looks at what Real Healthcare Reform would look like @ http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/23/markets-not-mandates

Leave a Comment