We who are advocates for the Single Payer (aka: expanded and improved Medicare for all) approach to acheving real universal health coverage in the United States are often accused of being zealots opposing the supposedly acheivable good (pre-compromising proposals like HCAN’s) for the an idealistic unacheivable best. A more balanced then most version of this argument appears under the title Single Minded by Jon Cohn in the New Republic.  Don McCanne has a response here.

But as a one of those who has supported the obvious need for some sort of “universal health care” since I was first learned about the issue as a college and medical student in the 1980s, and only came to single payer per se recently, I have a few of my own points to make:

1: Strong or Weak?

Ironically, we single payer advocates are apparently so weak that we should be dismissed out of hand and not even have a seat at the negotiating table? But then again we are also strong enough to be warned not to wreck “doable reform”?

It is the Beltway sensible moderates who have worked hard to ignore the actual presendce of single-payer grassroots and to exclude its advocates from the table, not the other way around. And frankly, it is tiresome to be dismissed upfront (and then be blamed for not participating or getting on board).

We are the ones who actually have a real grassroots movement. The single payer proposal in Congress, HR-676, has more signed-on co-sponsors then then any other “universal health reform bill.” It has a higher percent of the House then the Wyden bill has in the Senate. HCAN could have included single payer advocates as part of their mix, could have included support for HR-676 “Improved and expanded Medicare for All” as one option still in the mix of possibilities to be promoted; in their language and in their “poll”; etc.). First they exclude us from the table, then they call us rejectionist zealots after the fact.

I first encountered this back in 1992 after Bill Clinton was elected with our support, and they actively kept single payer advocates from the pre-inaugural economic summit. Similarly we were kept out of participating in the closed door development of the Clinton health plan during 1992-1994. More recently there was the so called Citizens’ Health Care Working Group, where the citizens part supported single payer but the establishment organizers made sure they were ignored. Similarly during the early part of the primaries, during the Clinton listening tour in 2007, citizens for single payer were a majority at many of her gatherings, but were actively ignored. Most recently, leading up to HCAN, there have been numerous conference call by the “Unity” group at which single-payer advocates are told to be quiet and “get over it”. At a Health Affairs sponsered press conference in D.C., ostensibly for discussing just the candidates Obama and McCain plans, other folks from AHIP, Wyden, etc., were in fact also invited and spoke. Nobody from Conyers office or single-payer groups was invited ahead of time.

Unlike those with $40 million K-street campaign-cycle-only Ads, we are the ones who have been working at the real grassroots level to inform the public and health care professionals since the last pre-compromise plan went down in flames (not due to us) in 1994. WE have made progress, as noted by the recent survey published in the Annals of Internal Medcine showing a 59% of U.S. physicians would be in favor of a single payer system, up 10%.

2: Strategy of Pre-Compromising with the Insurance Companies?

No matter what “Reform” is proposed the opposition – AHIP, Pharma, the for-profit hospitals, and free market fundamentalists will start off by opposing it. We don’t see the advantage of pre-compromising before the negotiations even begin. I prefer to keep all my bargaining chips until the real negotiations begin.

3: Politics and Overton Window & Framing?

Putting aside for the moment that we are correct as a matter of pure policy; just as a matter of politics does it make sense for us to shut-up? There is the Overton Window argument.

For those who do argue for pre-compromised mixed plan on the basis of political expediency/feasibility, is it not really better for them to also have folks arguing from their left? Is it not a good thing to have some pull from left, while they are also being fought from the right by AHIP and free market fundementalists?

Is this not part of the success the right had? What was crazy talk in the National Review in the 1950s, and a political failure with Goldwater in 1964, becomes the “success” (tax cuts, supply side, deregulation, government is the problem) of Reagan/Bush.

More recently we see the example of same-sex relationships as a case of moving successfully the goal posts. Crazy talk that becomes acceptable in compromise fashion (civil union; state benefit rights) and slowly (but surely?) marriage. Historically we can think of ending slavery, and the vote for women. There were always folks calling for half-way compromise. But the more the side that seemed more “extreme” but in fact had truth and reality on their side won in the end.

For those who prefer, and think that one wins, by framing a policy as a clear moral message, the single payer approach also offers the better way. HCAN starts off by saying that the for-profit private insurance companies are the problem, but then goes on to keep them as wasteful distorting middlemen. Rather then deliberately pre-compromising and keeping keeping the identified problem in the mix, we say who need them, get rid of them. It is similar to the confusing and mixed message the ever so clever moderates came up with of paying for SCHIP expansion with cigarette taxes. A simpler message with moral clarity is what Single Payer offers.

4: Perceived Political Feasibility Aside, Which Reform Will Work?

PNHP’s role and goal is to advocate for the the actual best plan, the one that can actually work to provide coverage that is not only universal, but also that is comprehensive, affordable to individuals and families, and also acheives system wide control of costs. Single Payer, as embodied by HR-676, Improved and Expanded Medicare for All can do this.

The U.S. already spends as much as Europe and the other developed countries do on it public sector health coverage; they provide universal; we are already in effect paying for it, but don’t get it. Keeping the for-profit private insurance companies in the mix allows them to continue to game the system (e.g. skimming the healthy and wealthy; dumping the sick, poor, old on the public system). Continued subsidizing of the wasteful for-profit private insurance companies forgoes $350 savings billion per year. Administrative waste is a natural byproduct of the private insurance firms that would retain a central role under HCAN’s plan. Private plans’ overhead is 12-fold higher than under NHI; the excess is squandered on marketing, underwriting, utilization reviewers and profits, and for the billions paid to executives. And the multiplicity of insurers envisioned in the plan precludes paying hospitals a global, lump sum budget; such budgets would save additional billions by obviating the need for most hospital billing and much of the internal accounting needed to attribute hospital costs to individual patients and payers.

Alas, HCAN’s proposal duplicates key elements of health reforms that have passed, and then failed, in multiple states: Massachusetts in 1988; Oregon in 1989; Tennessee, Minnesota and Vermont in 1992; Washington State in 1993; and Maine in 2003. In each case, rising costs scuttled the reform effort; none had a durable impact on the number of uninsured. The 2006 Massachusetts law, which incorporates many of the features of HCAN’s plan, is already threatened by rising costs, despite offering skimpy coverage and leaving many uninsured; indeed so far the increase in coverage in the new Massachusetts plan is among to poor who get public coverage, and the effect if any of mandates and regulated private coverage has not been seen yet. And Massachusetts, with its low rate of uninsurance to begin with, and a large fund devoted to care of the uninsured, offered the optimal conditions for trying such a plan.

Single Payer is the one that also control costs! CBO and GAO have previously scored single payer as most economically feasible. So has Lewin on numerous State single payer proposals. So not only does single payer provide care that is more universal and comprehensive then the other reform proposals, it does so with greater cost saving then HCAN or Obama or Wyden-Bennett or McCain. We are correct as a matter of policy and economics.

5: Who Wins “I Told You So” After the Next “Reform” Fails?

It is also a matter of who gets to win the “I told you so” argument after the next reform passes, and if it fails as Single Payer advocates believe it will. At the very least we want to be sure that after the next reform does pass, that if it fails, the next step is forward to single-payer (“see you left the private for-profit in as wasteful cheating unneeded intermediaries”), and not backward (“see government tries to reform things and it went badly”) to market fundamentalism. This is very important, since something is likely to pass after the 2008 elections and I fear for what it will and will not bring.

6: We Are Not Spoilers!

How dare others, especially folks not actually working in health care and for those who are underserved, call us spoilers! Like many other single-payer activists, I already work in the frontlines of providing care to those who are uninsured and underinsured. Many of the PNHP’ers and other single-payer advocates that I know have as their real full time day jobs just such work. And guess what? We could be earning a lot more if we worked elsewhere. Unlike the K-street lobbyists and full time corporate supported think-tanker’s, we are mostly volunteers doing this in addition to the work that pays the bills. Supporters of HR-676, both grassroots, and the 90 co-sponsers in the House, are ALSO the same folks who have always been at the forefront of all the immediate short-term reforms and fights such as those for SCHIP, Medicaid expansion, saving the Medicare from the privatizers, etc. We are hardly rejecting the good/mediocre for the perfect. It sure as heck was not us who shot down the Clinton proposal, even thought they thought they a had a pre-compromised deal with AHIP, in 1994. And frankly, despite some claims, it was not CNA or other single payer advocates who shot down the Schwarzenegger Rube Goldberg-kludge of a plan in California last year. Indeed, case in point, it was the ridiculous economics of that plan which killed it, even though, once again, Lewin had scored California single-payor favorably.

I can’t speak for any individual other then myself, but at the very end of the day I won’t be the reason a half-decent reform does not pass. But, meanwhile, I will fight for it to be at least three-quarters decent instead. But meanwhile “god forbid” we should actually argue for the actual best policy at the beginning.

Oddly in the Jon Cohn article it is Andy Stern who is cited as asking for our grassroots support to make a differnce. This joiner of every compromising coalition there has been (including with WalMart and AHIP), may not be the best spokesperson for calling out single payer advocates. He has his own separatist and exclusionary agendas with regard to some single payer advocating unions such as CNA and many AFL-CIO affiliates. Actually several SEIU locals have endorsed HR-676.

The real problem is not that Single payer advocates are unwilling to support HCAN. The real problem is that Single Payer advocates have been and still are being actively excluded from all the these other efforts. It is nice that they have gotten around to co-opting our message after we laid the ground work for them with years of hard work. Although they are using our message that the Insurance companies are the problem, even if they are too invested in pre-compromise to follow through to the conclusion. Maybe if they would be more inclusive of us upfront, we could indeed work jointly, equally, together as true partners.