interesting vote

yep, and the way they vote on it will separate the wheat from the chaff...

and the chaff is gonna catch hell for the rest of their, perhaps short, tenure in the house of reps...

Oh, the HORROR! Medicare for everybody?

Maybe we should precede this vote with a vote on eliminating Medicare since all those old folks are complaining about it so much.

Glen -
Rachel Maddow had Weiner on her show and he DID bring a vote to end Medicare since Repubs kept claiming how terrible a gov't run program would be! Of course it didn't go to a vote but I thought it was a great move.

Sorry - he brought an amendment to end Medicare!

Ayup, Dorothy. I saw that segment on Rachel's show, and it was brilliant. I heartily approve of the progressive Dems playing hardball. It's about time to really sock it to the Blue Dawgs and other Dems who want it both ways. If the centrist Dems wanna vote with the Republicans, fine, but then let's make it absolutely crystal clear so their constituents can decide if they (the centrist Dems) are truly representing them (the constituents).

I admire Weiner and the new cadre of left-leaning Dems who are willing to take a damn stand for progressive change.

Weiner's amendment was brilliant theater. If the Republicans insist on spurious gun amendments to every bill, we should be able to roil the pot as well.

Could Benen, Klein and Drum be allowed the privilege of honorary rephood, so they could vote on Single Payer? Wonder how may milliseconds it would take before their fingers hit the Nay button.

So when is the vote on single-payer?

Details, people, details!

Any further info so that I can more effectively call my rep?

Anyone catch Jay Rockefeller on NPR yesterday? He had some interesting things to say about the public option vs. coops.

He said that there are only two solvent coops in the United States. I belong to one of them: Group Health Coop in Washington State.

I have only minimum coverage and my wife has high end insurance from her employer. We both had eye surgery last year and my out of pocket was about the same. The difference: my surgery was performed in a hospital and was a much more delicate procedure. In fact, her eye doctor said he couldn't perform the operation safely in his facility.

The only downside to my coverage is that my monthly premium has been going up about 15% per year.

How do they control costs? Hard to say. They failed to diagnose my vision problems for two years until I went to my wife's doctor for help. Other than this, they tend to avoid fancy new treatments or new medications. Even though I get no drug benefit, they never prescribe a non-generic. To their credit they never fell for the Celebrex/NSAID hype.

Over the last few years they converted to all electronic records. I can review everything online, place prescription refills, etc. Their main number always gives the option of immediately talking to a "consulting nurse". Flue shots are free and don't even involve talking to your doctor or nurse, you just stop by the injection room right next to check-in.

Maybe the best benefit is that you never get an insurance bill. You are never "denied" coverage.

"If the Republicans insist on spurious gun amendments to every bill, we should be able to roil the pot as well."

Yep, spurious single-payer amendments to every bill. Especially every gun bill.

I LIKE it!

The vote is an excellent step; however, because single payer has no chance of passing I'm not sure we'll get a true evaluation of its supporters. I suspect we'll get lots of reps voting for it to look good to their constituents who, if it had a chance of passing, would vote no.
Now if we had a Democratic party really interested in health care reform, this vote would be the first move toward ridding the party of its DINOs. Get the SOBs to state their allegiance, then primary them in 2010. Full bore advertising, visits from the President for challengers, etc. Oh well.

Well, we have the month of August to make the symbol as meaningful as possible -- and to make every so-called progressive and Democrat who votes against Medicare for All suffer the maximum amount of pain.

Frankly, I'm all for the Democratic Party going the way of the Whigs, and splitting into its Finance Wing (now controlling the administration), and its Populist Wing. Because if ths vote turns into a mere symbol, then that's what will happen. The arc is history is long, but it bends toward justice.

"Liberal anger"? WTF? When is the last time you heard the phrase "conservative anger"?

tomj, Glad to see Group Health converting to electronic records ala Kaiser. Following the 2000 Millenium push, they cut loose many programmers. A friend of mine was off for over two years before being hired back.

Sounds as though that doctor was comparing Swedish to Group.

I really do hope as many House Democrats as possible vote in favor of single payer and show how out of touch they are with the mainstream of the country.

Which single payer bill? They might disingenuously put up Conyers' bill, which has (or at least had) a provision prohibiting private insurers from offering plans that cover any of the medical procedures that would already be covered by the single-payer plan. The idea was to make sure that the rich did not have better basic medical care than the poor. But that one provision would be a deal breaker for a lot of people who might otherwise support Medicare for all.

"mainstream of the country"

Since when has the Suwannee River been mainstream?

It would be good if single-payer Universal Health Care for all could get passed.

A single-payer Universal Healthcare program for all would be good to have.

Keep reminding mainstream America that the VA system and Medicare are govt-run systems that work well, don't cost an arm and 2 legs, and don't dump you when you get sick. All those members of congress who vote against govt-run single payer should have to GIVE UP their govt-run health care or publicly explain why not!

No more profits before patients. Wheres our humanity? Single payer NOW! Its time.

This shouldn't be a symbolic gesture! Obama & co. have admitted that their plan will incur tremendous expense WITHOUT covering 37 million uninsured Americans!

Universal health care works in other countries because it's based on a single-payer system. The single-payer system is the only way to effectively reduce cost by sharing risk within one giant pool and eliminating the huge expenses generated by for-profit companies and the medical personnel who must be paid to interact with them. I understand that one out of every three dollars paid to private insurance is used to pay the insurance provider, not the doctors! As long as we have a for-profit insurance industry, we will have unhealthy Americans who are denied care. It can't be any other way because these businesses MUST take in more money than they pay out in order to survive. A public option alongside this mess will just feed into the chaos and may collapse if it draws too many high-risk consumers away from private industry.

We need single-payer coverage, and we need it now! Not in four or 10 or 20 years. Please visit www.HR676.org for more information about single-payer insurance and what you can do to help!