This week the National Nurses Organizing Committee and the California Nurses Association distributed the results of the first study built from an econometric model of the current face of health care.  

Simply put, this study provides an analysis of the economic benefits of healthcare to the overall economy.  It demonstrates how changes in direct healthcare delivery affect all significant sectors touched by healthcare, and how sweeping healthcare reform can help drive the nation’s economic recovery.  Bottom line conclusions; Single Payer Health care reform would create 2.6 million jobs, infuse $317 billion in new business and public revenues as well as $100 billion in wages into the economy.  

Why shouldn’t we get serious about this?  Why do we continue to wrap ourselves in the cliché by taking as truth such statements as “I support SP, but it is just too expensive”, “too difficult to put in place”, “the public does not support it”, “not economically feasible” or some other comparable sop.  Why do we continue to give credibility to Harry and Louise chatter?  Maybe we don’t want to rock our own personal boats or, perhaps we really don’t want to participate in anything so leveling as a public program.  Maybe we have been overcome by the complexity of the reimbursement system or have succumbed to right wing propaganda that SP is creeping Socialism.  

Whatever the reason, this study should be instrumental in sweeping away past fears and prejudices, and replacing them with red, white and blue attitudes, hopeful national economic inspiration and

not leastly, necessary health care for all Americans.  

Do we think we can get serious about this?  I know we can.  We met at house parties all over the country during December.  Over the past week Single Payer has ranked  number three in the issues presented to the listening  online Obama team.   In the words of Donna Smith, community organizer for the California Nurses Assn,,

…in light of these study results, if there remain those who argue a single payer system is not politically feasible, it will certainly be because of a specific and direct desire to keep the profit motive in healthcare and not the desire for a healthier and more secure America.

From the media center at is this:

Adding all Americans to an expanded Medicare could be achieved for $63 billion beyond the current $2.1 trillion in direct healthcare spending. The $63 billion is six times less than the federal bailout for CitiGroup, and less than half the federal bailout for AIG. Solely expanding Medicare to cover the 47 million uninsured Americans (as of 2006 data on which the study is based) could be accomplished for $44 billion.

And then consider this hypothetical about just how much it will cost taxpayers to subsidize the mandated plan now being proposed by the Obama camp. Health care costs are projected to be 4 trillion dollars by 2012.  If we subsidize insurance for administering the mandated plans to the tune of 15%  (this is the current fee for Medicare Advantage plans), the tab would come to over a half a trillion dollars per year.  And, one trillion per year if we maintain their current 30% margin.

The results of this study are now in the hands of the Obama team and Ms. Smith states that participating nurses were “welcomed as healthcare policy stakeholders”. A sour note is that  HHS Secretary Tom Daschle has seemingly already eliminated Single Payer as a viable contender.  In his book, “Critical, What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis”, he mentions single payer briefly just one time and labels it “not feasible”.  Daschle doesn’t seem to be on board.  He will need encouragement.  Single Payer Health Care Reform is Obama’s ticket to greatness.  Let’s see if he picks it up