Early in the health care debate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised single-payer advocate Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) that the House would hold a mostly-ceremonial vote on a Medicare-for-all amendment. It was a move intended to appease the sizable faction of House liberals who felt they'd had to swallow too many compromises during the committee process.
But if you allow a vote on one amendment you might get drowned in them, so Pelosi and Weiner have come to an understanding and are walking away from the agreement.
"I have decided not to offer a single payer alternative to the health reform bill at this time," says Weiner in a statement. "Given how fluid the negotiations are on the final push to get comprehensive health care reform that covers millions of Americans and contains costs through a public option, I became concerned that my amendment might undermine that important goal."
His decision is a tactical one, but it may nonetheless disappoint progressive activists and elected officials who, at the very least, want to put members on the record, and see single-payer given its day in the sun.
"Congressman Anthony Weiner has been a forceful and articulate advocate for the single payer approach and our legislation," Pelosi said. "His decision not to offer a single payer amendment during consideration of H.R. 3962 is a correct one, and helps advance the passage of important health reforms by this Congress. While single payer, like other popular proposals, is not included in the consensus bill we will vote on this week, Congressman Weiner has been a tireless and effective advocate for progress on health care, and his work has been a vital part of achieving health care reform."

TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

Indie Pro
November 6, 2009 12:49 PM
weak
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 6, 2009 12:58 PM in reply to Indie Pro
and contains costs through a public option
he should've read the CBO analysis on the Conservative PO in the House bill:
The public option would attract about 6 million enrollees by 2019 and charge premiums that are “somewhat higher than the average premiums for the private plans in the exchanges.” This is because the public option would “engage in less management of utilization” by its enrollees and “attract a less healthy pool of enrollees,” the office concludes. Moreover, since the House bill expands Medicaid up to 150% of the federal poverty line, it’s possible that the enrollees that would have enrolled in the public option went into Medicaid instead.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/house-cbo/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miles
November 6, 2009 1:11 PM in reply to Indie Pro
That's great! Medicaid is free, and pays even lower rates than Medicare.
Medicaid for all! Fuck a public option. The ideal is Medicaid instead of exchanges, as Nixon proposed in '72.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 6, 2009 1:20 PM in reply to Miles
if you are eligible for medicaid, sure it is. If you were hoping the PO would have an effect on premiums, then, not so much.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
November 6, 2009 1:29 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Those people who enroll in the Public Option would probably have even higher premiums if they tried to get insurance on the private market. In that sense, the Public Option does lower premiums for them.
Also, when everybody is covered and there are no more people waiting until they get really sick and have to go to the emergency room, medical costs will go down. That ought to allow insurance companies to lower premiums. They probably won't without pressure to do so, but from an economic standpoint it could happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 6, 2009 1:32 PM in reply to Xantar
that isn't what containing costs through a robust public option was about.
What you are engaging in is called "moving the goal posts".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 6, 2009 1:34 PM in reply to Indie Pro
oh, and even Obama (once upon a time) saw the PO, a robust one mind you, not this one, was a way of keeping the insurance industry honest, as far as premiums. According to the CBO, that is also nixed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
November 6, 2009 2:10 PM in reply to Indie Pro
This automatic hostility of yours doesn't help your cause.
Anyway, do you propose that we scrap the Public Option, then? It still seems to accomplish something worthy to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 6, 2009 2:12 PM in reply to Xantar
IndiePro is an expert at it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 6, 2009 2:52 PM in reply to lousgirl84
again, I'm not concerned with the opinion of an admitted hero-worshipper
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
November 6, 2009 2:51 PM in reply to Xantar
hostility?
your imagination is getting the better of you
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
November 6, 2009 6:24 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Again, do you propose that we scrap the Public Option from the current bill? Do you propose that we change it somehow? Or do we keep it because it's still doing some good?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vamonticello
November 6, 2009 12:52 PM
good.....at least they are making progress
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed- ley
November 6, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to vamonticello
That's what Doug Corrigan said when he took off from Brooklyn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 6, 2009 2:28 PM in reply to Schmed- ley
I understand your point, but Weiner has worked on single-payer for a long time. Same for the other congressmen who have been pushing. Some have been going at it for decades. If they feel this is what they need to do, it must have been a wrenching decision.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed- ley
November 6, 2009 2:49 PM in reply to ericf
I think you missed my point. ....he was a skilled aircraft mechanic (he was one of the builders of Charles Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis) and had made several modifications to his own plane, preparing it for his transatlantic flight. He had been denied permission to make a nonstop flight from New York to Ireland, and his "navigational error" was obviously deliberate. Corrigan ended up exactly where he planned to go. And so will Wiener.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
November 6, 2009 12:52 PM
Let's hope that they don't water the bill down too much. I called Periello's office this morning and got the impression that he will vote for the bill because of "changes" that he thought were necessary.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vamonticello
November 6, 2009 12:54 PM in reply to CVille Dem
who is Periello?.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Xantar
November 6, 2009 1:27 PM in reply to vamonticello
Congressman from Virginia who was elected very recently in an open race (I think it may even have been 2008).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
holyhandgrenaid
November 6, 2009 1:41 PM in reply to Xantar
Wasn't an open race- he defeated incumbent Virgil Goode
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
John Hamilton Farr
November 6, 2009 3:27 PM
I hope the bill dies an ignoble death. They're only making everything worse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
November 6, 2009 4:38 PM in reply to John Hamilton Farr
"Everything" being what? That certain people (like you, maybe?) already have health insurance, and giving it to others just seems creepy?
And "worse?" Worse than someone in their 50's who loses their job being uninsurable because anyone that age has probably had an actual health problem or 2. Worse than our relatively high infant mortality rate because low-wage workers don't have insurance and don't get prenatal care?
Yes, to completely selfish people, anything that helps anyone other than themselves is a problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
November 6, 2009 11:33 PM in reply to CVille Dem
You've got your trolls mixed up. JHF is a Naderite-type who thinks failure is preferable to partial reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
david46
November 6, 2009 4:19 PM
Weuner is making it possible for a decent bill to pass. Now I happen to agree tht single payer is the best way to go, but the reality is tht there are not the votes to pass it in the House.
Had Weiner insisted on offering the proposal, here is what could have happened. The Rule setting out the procedure for consideration of the bill would have had some sort of king-of-the-hill procedure as has been typical for many years in similar circumstances. Under that procedure, the last alternative adopted, or the alternative to get the most votes so long as they consituted a majority, would be substituted for the "Speaker's bill." Suppose the Republicans voted en bloc for the Weiner alternative. At that point, the bill would be reported back to the House and it would move to final passage with the Weiner single payer being what everyone was voting on. Then the Republicans would shift and vote no en bloc on final passage, and there are enough Democrats who have announced their opposition to single payer to send the whole thing down to defeat.
Then there really is a total disaster and health care reform is dead for 10-15 more years and the Democrats loose many seats next year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stephanie Hunter
November 6, 2009 8:29 PM
The public option needs to pass one way or another. It's already been tried and tested in the U.S. and has come out looking like an amazing option! http://cli.gs/23yYaM/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?