Single-payer advocates disrupt Senate Finance Committee.

They wanted an advocate of single-payer as part of the round table discussions. They didn't get that.

The people who interrupted the meeting were acting in a well-organized and well-planned manner. They knew exactly what they would accomplish by their actions, and that was to get attention and sympathy, not a seat at the table.

There are many people in the United States who support a single-payer option. Why isn't their voice present in these proceedings?

Universal health insurance — the idea that every resident would have medical coverage from birth to death — has been labeled everything from a communist plot to the only thing that will solve America's growing problem of the uninsured.

Still, Americans consistently tell pollsters they embrace such an idea….

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-15-universal-usat_x.htm

...many single-payer advocates believed (and still believe) that democrats would be more likely to consider a single-payer option as opposed to republicans. I find it highly unlikely that any republican politician would ever entertain a single-payer option.

As do I.

So, when considering the single-payer option and who to sell it too, it's basicall a waste of time to go to a republican. I don't see the irony.

I believe that healthcare is a human right, along with many other rights, but I don't believe that the gov't or any other taxpayer has any obligation to pay for my rights.

I also don't believe that the definition of a right means I can behave like a drunken sailor and shout over the normal order of things.

Every regional attempt at a single payer in the US has failed? I would be interested to know what you mean by that. Are you talking about the Massachusetts plan?

Whether it's the first hearing on the issue or the last, it's still important. Essentially, a large group of Americans (single-payer advocates) were excluded from these proceedings, which is perhaps why one of the protestors asked the simple question of why single-payer advocates were not present. I agree, they were out of order. There are times however, when we can't follow the proper channels and expect our voices be heard.

We pay for your clean water, your public libraries, your public school system, your streets, parks, sidewalks, and your police and fire protection.
Why should healthcare be any different?

Did you watch the CSPAN? I didn't see any "drunken sailors." Just physicians and nurses and community members who've seen real people suffer and die for lack of basic, medically necessary health care.

What I see is a speeding health insurance industry locomotive barreling down the tracks of unrestrained greed decimating our health care system. What do you consider the "normal order" of things in this situation, considering there was a room full of industry executives and their political handmaidens who've all but announced that they see nothing wrong with the current system? They refuse to have a debate and a side by side comparison between single payer and mandate plans. THEY REFUSE, despite the overwhelming public support for single payer. THEY REFUSE to represent the best interests of the electorate. THEY REFUSE to do anything except carry on with business as usual politics.

"The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government." Abraham Lincoln

"It was once said that the moral test of Government is how that Government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." Hubert Humphrey

Mass. for starters.

On to Hawaii, which plan lasted about 8 months.

California, which died before vote because the legislature know just by looking at it that it wasn't affordable.

And then there was Wisconsin, which failed to pass because the proposed 15% additional payroll tax was ridiculous, and even advocates acknowledged that it would result in the loss of thousands of jobs.