I am a community organizer. I've worked hard to lobby politicians in Oregon and Rhode Island, and I've planned direct actions against hospitals and insurance companies on behalf of neglected patients, all as a result of our broken down health care system. I worked hard for HR 676 when Sicko was a new movie, and I worked hard as hell to elect Obama. I am blessed to be able to have done all this for a living.
Having said that, I know that there are strategists and organizers that think that we should be fighting for the Public Option, even though it is a huge compromise. I've been having a debate with my friends in the far left spectrum about this point. Even Drudge points out that Obama in 2003 admitted that what he would like to see is a single payer health insurance system, where no one has to pay, and yet the government saves more money than they would on the public option cost control system. But I've become a pragmatist in my organizing days, and thought that the bills that have been passed in the four committees are the most we can expect, so let's talk to politicians about those.
Deep down, like many of you, I've been eagerly waiting for someone to make me a good case for organizing the grassroots, netroots, and the left in general around a Single Payer, universal health care plan. Anthony Weiner of Brooklyn, New York has provided us with that opportunity. And John Nichols of The Nation Gives us the argument.
There was stunning news this past week from the New York Daily News regarding Single Payer Health Care:
Anthony Weiner is about to be the new hero of the progressive crowd after getting a promise from Nancy Pelosi to debate — and vote — on a single-payer plan to solve health care reform.
Weiner got that promise after he agreed to withdraw an amendment to essentially create Medicare for the whole nation in the Energy and Commerce Committee health care markup session this evening.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/...
And in case you missed the brilliant political theater that he led into this with when he introduced a hilarious amendment the day before, garnering major notice in the MSM, by Rachel Maddow and others, here it is:
So as I said, I've been having a debate with my friends in the far left about what plan is a better organizing tool to build a campaign around. They argued that a watered down public option would set back single payer advocacy for years. I argued that a loss to the republicans would set back EVERYTHING for at least as many years as a weak bill would do to single payer reform.
And there's plenty of work to be done on that. My point is to draw our attention to the analysis of John Nichols. Nichols argument can be essentially summed up as follows:
Of course, getting a September vote on single-payer does not mean that single-payer will get the votes.
With the Obama administration and congressional leaders determined to compromise rather than fight, it is unlikely in the extreme that the current debate will end with the adoption of a single-payer plan. Even if the House approved one, it would still face a fight in the Senate.
But just as Republicans are willing to just say "no" to any reform, progressives should just say "yes" to real reform.
Campaigning for single-payer in August – by demanding that members of the House agree to support such a plan when it comes up for a vote, and by urging senators to schedule and support a similar vote in their chamber – is the best was to assure that whatever reform ultimately comes will err on the side of Americans who need healthcare rather than insurance companies that would deny them that care.
I think he's right, in light of the deal Weiner made with Pelosi. We should go all out for a House bill that is single payer. There is absolutely no political risk to members of Congress in voting for this bill, unless they are in the pockets of the death-by-spreadsheet industry. And by getting as many of them to vote for it as possible, we will be bolstering the case for a strong public option in the most effective way possible.
Lastly, Nichols makes a convincing argument for the Kucinich ammendment as a last resort:
At the very least, single-payer advocacy should preserve an amendment sponsored by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, which would allow states to experiment with single-payer programs even if the federal government refuses to do so. That's a significant matter, since Canada's national health care program began with single-payer experiments at the provincial level.
Alright, we have our work cut out for us. It's important to work hard, but it's more important to work smart. I hope this resonates with the netroots, I'm really just trying to spread what I thought was a good meme on Health Care organizing in August.