>Yoshie Furuhashi:
>
>> One of the points of doing campaigns like one for single-
>> payer health care is to mobilize many of the rank and file,
>> rather than the wonky few.
>
>That's great, Yoshie. So who's doing it? For real, I mean.
There aren't many organizations other than Physicians for a National Health Program doing this full time (and they have 14,000 members, most of them doctors, which isn't trivial), but there are a bunch of endorsers, some of them pretty significant <http://www.pnhp.org/links/national.php>: American Association of Community Psychiatrists, American Medical Women's Association, American Medical Student's Association, National Medical Association, American Nurses Association, American Public Health Association, Islamic Medical Association, Americans for Democratic Action, Church Women United, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, National Assocation of Social Workers, National Council of Senior Citizens, National Family Farm Coalition, Neighbor to Neighbor, Older Women's League, Screen Actor's Guild, and the US Public Interest Research Group, and United Steelworkers Union.
There are numerous state & local campaigns, many with the words "Health Care for All" in their name; for a list, see <http://www.pnhp.org/links/state.php> for a list. Also, there are bills in 18 state legislatures <http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/universalhealth.htm>, most of them a version of single-payer: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
There have also been several ballot initiatives - I think Jenny Brown was involved with one in Florida.
It's not a mass movement by any means, but there's certainly the nucleus of one. And if a few big unions joined the push, that would really be a shot in the arm.
Interesting editorial in the Des Moines Register, reprinted on the PNHP site <http://www.pnhp.org/news/2006/january/walmart_law_the_wron.php>, which rightly points out that the point of health care insurance reform should be to sever the link with employment:
>Don't mandate coverage by only large companies.
>By Register Editorial Board
>Des Moines Register
>January 17, 2006
>While millions of people flock to shop at Wal-Mart every day, the
>company has also gained a flock of critics for running small stores
>out of business, paying low wages and forcing many of its employees
>to turn to taxpayer-financed programs like Medicaid for health care.
>It's easy to throw stones at such a big target. But the Maryland
>General Assembly went too far last week when it overrode the
>governor's veto and required employers with more than 10,000 workers
>- i.e., Wal-Mart - to spend at least 8 percent of their payroll on
>employee health care or pay into a fund for the uninsured.
>Maryland is the first state in the country to pass a "Wal-Mart
>bill," but labor unions are pushing legislatures in at least 30
>other states - including Iowa - to enact similar requirements. It
>should end there: The law is unfair because it targets only
>companies of a certain size. Of the state's large employers, only
>Wal-Mart spends less than 8 percent on health care. Other government
>mandates, such as those requiring companies to pay minimum wage or
>honor medical leave, apply to all companies.
>So why did Maryland do it?
>"The taxpayers are giving a health-care subsidy to the largest
>retailer on Earth," said Maryland lawmaker Kumar Barve.
>But that rationale is misguided because it assumes providing health
>care is the responsibility of employers. It shouldn't be. Employers
>don't pay workers' car insurance, homeowners' insurance or grocery
>bills. They shouldn't be responsible for picking up their health
>care tab, either.
>Unfortunately, the twists and turns of this country's history have
>led to employer-based health insurance. Following World War II, a
>labor shortage and wage-freeze led to some companies offering
>insurance as a "perk." Now it's become an expectation that burdens
>companies financially. Worse, it keeps workers in dead-end jobs they
>hate. It thwarts entrepreneurial spirit when people are forced to
>stay with a company solely because it provides health insurance.
>The United States is alone in the world in tying jobs to health care.
>The country should be moving away from employer-based health care
>and toward a tax-financed system that provides health care to all
>Americans, regardless of where or if they're employed.
>What has happened in Maryland should be a wake-up call to businesses
>all over America to get on board with reforming health care. The
>best action for employers to take: support the expansion of the
>existing, tax-financed Medicare program for seniors to cover all
>Americans.
>Companies and workers could contribute to the Medicare fund through
>payroll taxes the same way they pay into Social Security. Because
>Medicare has lower administrative costs and covers a larger pool of
>people, that may be cheaper for companies than the premiums they're
>currently paying to private insurance companies to cover workers.
>Maryland lawmakers had good intentions. They want more residents to
>have access to health care. They're tired of Wal-Mart employees
>ending up on the public dime. But the move is unfair to large
>business and, in the long run, detrimental to moving this country
>toward a single system of health care that covers all Americans.
Doug