US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this feature | View comments | Email this feature | Printer-friendly version
News :: Human Rights : Labor : Politics : Social Welfare
Rep. Delahunt co-sponsors "Medicare for All" bill (HR 676)
19 Dec 2005
Rep. William Delahunt is the seventh member of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation to co-sponsor HR 676, the "Medicare for All" approach to health care reform written by Rep. John Conyers.

"Skyrocketing costs, deteriorating quality of care, loss of insurance coverage and access to essential services is affecting everyone's health care," said Congressman Delahunt. "Common sense solutions like extending Medicare to cover everyone can save money while improving quality and access to health care for all. That's why I've decided to co-sponsor HR 676."
hcare_bus.gif
Rep. Delahunt co-sponsors "Medicare for All" bill (HR 676)
Rep. Delahunt joins six other Massachusetts Representatives, (Michael Capuano, Barney Frank, Stephen Lynch, James McGovern, John Olver and John Tierney) and 53 other members of Congress as a co-sponsor of HR 676.

"From our experience in the phone company, I know we can't solve the problems in the health care system through collective bargaining or by just tinkering with incremental reforms," said John Horgan, a telephone linesman and member of IBEW Local 2222 who lives in Weymouth. "With Delahunt's support for Medicare for All, everyone can see that the momentum for comprehensive reform in Massachusetts and across the nation is growing."

Horgan worked closely with Rep. Delahunt's office to gain support for the Medicare for All approach. He is a long-time health care reform leader, shop steward and member of Jobs with Justice's Health Care Action Committee.

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2004 shows that in Massachusetts the share of uninsured among people under 65 was the highest it has been in seven years (13.2 percent). A recent Institute of Medicine report states that 18,000 people a year die prematurely in the U.S. due to not having health insurance.

American workers and voters are growing increasingly impatient for action. A recent poll by Peter Hart Research showed that health care is a major concern of workers.
· Seven in ten (72%) workers indicated they would like to see the federal government guarantee health care coverage for all Americans.
· Workers clearly want Congress and the president to take action and establish a national health care plan that guarantees health care coverage for all Americans. More than seven in ten (73%) workers highlighted this as their top or high priority for Capitol Hill and the White House to address.

The support from the seven Members of Congress follows a grassroots hearing on the health care crisis where organizers vowed to win co-sponsorship for HR 676 from all of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation. The hearing, organized by the Jobs with Justice, was held in Boston's historic Faneuil Hall on September 1.
See also:
http://www.massjwj.net/taxonomy/term/4
http://www.healthcare-now.org

This work is in the public domain.
Add a quick comment
Title
Your name Your email

Comment

Text Format
Anti-spam Enter the following number into the box:
To add more detailed comments, or to upload files, see the full comment form.

Comments

Oh goody
19 Dec 2005
And yet these great congressional humanitarians still keep voting up the war budgets and down the corporate taxes every few months. Delahunt and co. only sign on to this legislative farce because they know it will go nowhere in congress, while generating maximum loyalty from their benighted "progressive" footsoldiers in the labor and social justice reform bureaucracies come next election year.

We need a fighting workers party based in the trade unions with a socialist program. Down with the Democrats, the other party of war and racism!
Re: Rep. Delahunt co-sponsors "Medicare for All" bill (HR 676)
20 Dec 2005
Lev,

it's not nearly as simple as that, did you bother to read his record or just react that anyone working within the system must be a corporate warmonger? He's not my ideal legislator (if there is such a thing), but your hyperbole under cuts your argumnet.

If you was to claim he's a pawn of the military industrial complex, you realy should state specific examples and address potential counter examples.

I don't really know anything about this guy, not even sure where his district is, but a very quick internet search for his voting record was most instructive.

# Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)
# Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)
# Voted NO on implementing the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
# Voted NO on implementing the US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
# Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
#Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
# Voted YES on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
# Voted YES on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

from: http://www.issues2000.org/MA/Bill_Delahunt.htm
Re: Rep. Delahunt co-sponsors "Medicare for All" bill (HR 676)
20 Dec 2005
That brings to mind an interest debate I had w/a friend of mine who doesn't believe in voting. I asked him if he really thought he didn't believe in voting because he was a self-declared anarchist or because the US voting system had convinced him that his voting doesn't count. He said he didn't believe in voting, period. But how could the indigenous people had ever won the presidency in Bolivia w/out voting?

Does voting for someone like Delahunt change things? I say yes, it does.
Re: Rep. Delahunt co-sponsors "Medicare for All" bill (HR 676)
22 Dec 2005
Use all available tools.
Voting takes so little time it is not a drain of resources on more effective forms of action.
There are degrees of evil, choose the lesser one.
We'll See...
22 Dec 2005
Hawaii and Oregon have state run medical programs for all citizens.
I hope Massachusetts follows. Insurance companies are robbing us blind!
Re: Rep. Delahunt co-sponsors "Medicare for All" bill (HR 676)
23 Dec 2005
So the religion of health care will be institutionalized.
That way all the heros who vote for this can have their investments in hospitals pay off for them. It is awesome that the gov pays so poor can give the rich money to live in slums. Now we can be forced to pay for healthcare that will most likely be worthless.
Just so that their drug stocks take off just like all their 'realestate trust charites' are able to, after 20 years of not paying taxes, convert low-cost housing to wealthy person housing. Meanwhile the whole thing is paid for by the government.

If I am broke and out of work then how am I going to pay for this new health care tax? It will be a payroll tax most likely.

I am sure it will sure up the health company stocks. Hey, they want national health insurance not national health care.
And they want to tie it all in with a national ID card.

We are not cattle and owned by public sector so-called charities. And yet don't many people act that way?

I am sure that it will all be a debacle. I am a white middle aged unemployed man. I get nothing from the government and I will probably continue to get nothing.

Maybe this is the last straw that finally makes me leave this state run by phoney liberals who are really mostly grifters.

I know I am being harsh, but tell me I am wrong. Label me flame bait. I know that the government does some good. But this new forced health care, it is largess out of control, government spiriling out of bounds. Another unpaid mandate. Most of the money will end up as divendend checks for investors and not used for health care at all. It will be chewed up in paper work. It will be the legislature getting the public to write a check for the investments of the legislators trust funds.

Most 'liberal activists' are either nieve or trust fund brats living on tax-free money and sitting as directors on phoney charities.

They sicken me.
I sicken myself for being so upset about it.
Re: Rep. Delahunt co-sponsors "Medicare for All" bill (HR 676)
24 Dec 2005
Dude, why doesn't anyone read these things? People just spout off. The second hit on google for "hr 676" is the text of the bill so it's not like it's hard to find.

There's lots of trouble that will come of something like this like defining necessary and funding controvercial procedures, but the Dude's two main complaints do not fit this bill:

Lining the pockets of investors:

SEC. 103. QUALIFICATION OF PARTICIPATING PROVIDERS.

(a) Requirement to Be Public or Non-profit-

(1) IN GENERAL- No institution may be a participating provider unless it is a public or not-for-profit institution.

(2) CONVERSION OF INVESTOR-OWNED PROVIDERS- Investor-owned providers of care opting to participate shall be required to convert to not-for-profit status.

(3) COMPENSATION FOR CONVERSION- The owners of such investor-owned providers shall be compensated for the actual appraised value of converted facilities used in the delivery of care.

(4) FUNDING- There are authorized to be appropriated from the Treasury such sums as are necessary to compensate investor-owned providers as provided for under paragraph (3).

(5) REQUIREMENTS- The conversion to a not-for-profit health care system shall take place over a 15-year period, through the sale of US Treasury Bonds. Payment for conversions under paragraph (3) shall not be made for loss of business profits, but may be made only for costs associated with the conversion of real property and equipment.

So yes there's a buy out, but it's a one time payment in compensation, similar to a nationalization scheme but for converting to a private non profit.

The other point is funding, basicly this funded out of US Treasury in the same way as most government expeditures:

SEC. 211. OVERVIEW: FUNDING THE USNHI PROGRAM.

(a) In General- The USNHI Program is to be funded as provided in subsections (b) and (c).

(b) Annual Appropriation for Funding of USNHI Program- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act such sums as may be necessary.

(c) Intent- Sums appropriated pursuant to subsection (b) shall be paid for--

(1) by vastly reducing paperwork;

(2) by requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications;

(3) from existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care;

(4) by increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners;

(5) by instituting a modest payroll tax; and

(6) by instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.
Re: Rep. Delahunt co-sponsors "Medicare for All" bill (HR 676)
24 Dec 2005
Actually, Democratic Rep. Delahunt apparently votes in favor of funding the U.S. war machine. (See following excerpt from Project Vote Smart website). In Massachusetts, the Dem politicians still are apparently unwilling to use their political clout to prevent Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard-Pilgrim and the other health care industry/health care insurance special corporate interests from blocking establishment of a universal, single-payer health care system in Massachusetts.
Defense Department FY2005 Authorization bill
Bill Number: HR 4200
Issue: Defense
Date: 05/20/2004
Sponsor:Rep Hunter, Duncan [CA-52]
Roll Call Number: 0206
Bill Passed (House)
How members voted
Representative William D. 'Bill' Delahunt voted YES.
Official Title of Legislation:
HR 4200: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes.

Project Vote Smart Synopsis:
Vote to pass a bill that would grant appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 2005.
Highlights:
- Appropriates funding for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps, and Air Force for aircraft, missiles, weapons and tracked combat vehicles, ammunition, shipbuilding, conversion, and other supplies
- Requires the Secretary to guarantee that the distribution of supplies acquired using funds authorized under this title to operational units involved in Operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom be made without regard to the status of the units as active, Guard, or reserve components
- Includes Force Protection Initiatives and the increasing of military manpower
- Specifically, allocates appropriations for improved pay, benefits, living and working facilities
House Passage Vote: 5/20/2004: Passed: 391 - 34 (Roll no. 206).
Healthcare For All, Now!
26 Dec 2005
Bobby Kennedy wanted to have universal health care. (Unfortunately, the rich killed him.)
Anyone who babbles about the liberal activists being part of the problem? Or some right-wingnut claiming that we're moving towards "socialism"? Are spewing lies.
Fact is, health care for all should be the most important agenda of 2006. (Besides, impeaching Bush.)
The only obstacle? The GOP.
Re: Rep. Delahunt co-sponsors "Medicare for All" bill (HR 676)
10 Jan 2006
non profits are unaccountable ways for people live the high life as if they are doing charity work.

What happens is that non-profit directors give themselves huge saleries.

Of course not all, but enough. And so what does this mean? That non-profits often serve as ways for wealthy trust-fund types to launder money into tax-free ventures and then live off of the charity.

"Oh, we'll do the meeting in Aspen in January" and the non-profit pays.

It lives all around us, so-called trustees living very lavish life styles.

So how does saying that all this money going to 'non-profits' is a good idea if it comes from people who derive no benift from it?

What about people who believe that God heals them? Do they get to have an exemption from paying for all the face-lifts and tummy-tucks that get billed as 'medically necessary'?


and of course some non-profits are not these currupt cess-pools of high-born connection. How many? I've never seen a study that tells me. But when I look at the names in the lists of trustees I usually see names of trust fund people who inherited everything or married wealth.

And I don't want those people having so much power.

Bust the trust, I say. And the first step is rooting out the inherent curruption in these old-line so-called non-profits.

Let these people , these trustees, accept no fee or benifit from their trust, not even a meal. Let them disclose all compenstaion and be taxed on it as if it is capital gains. Let them have fully open meetings and accept new members from walk-in public advocates from the non-privledged class. Let any full-time employees only recieve that current rate of a civilian employee of the Federal Government.

And so I think that there is curruption in so-called charities. So do a lot of people.

Am I wrong?

And giving money to chase the illusion of 'healthcare for all' seems a waste when you ought to give everyone a living wage, worthy work, and the ability to pay for the health services that they want. Not what some currupted committee on Beacon Hill says that they can have.
...
07 Apr 2006
...
...
14 Apr 2006
...
...
14 Apr 2006
...
...
26 Apr 2006
...
...
26 Apr 2006
...