In an era when all Americans favor universal health care, (even a majority of Republicans) why don't we have it already? I asked four progressive Congress Members from the New York area, who were not endorsers of John Conyers' "Medicare For All" bill, HR 676, what were their views of that universal single payer plan. I asked Joe Crowley, John Hall, Nita Lowey and Nydia Velazquez. While I got some information about the views on all four, the answers of only three are below. John Hall (Northern Westchester, Putnam, Duchess, Rockland & Orange), perhaps wisely, decided he wanted to post his health insurance views directly. (You may have noticed he's signed on as a new blogger on the lower right hand side of the page). Congress Member Joseph Crowley (Bronx & Queens) is “interested in the concept of universal single payer health insurance, but has some reservations based on what he has heard about long patient wait times in Canada and Great Britain.” That is why Mr. Crowley has not endorsed HR 676, I’m told. He is interested in the possibility of a “hybrid” program in which a federally funded universal health care could be supplemented by private insurance. (Current Medicare recipients are allowed to and sometimes purchase such supplemental policies.) Mr. Crowley strongly favors extending coverage to more uninsured children and – as a member of the House Ways & Means Committee –expects a bill to cover more kids to emerge in July. Rep. Crowley is considering whether to support the bill favored by The Children's Defense Fund: the All Healthy Children Act (S. 1564/HR 1688) sponsored in the Senate Senator Bernard Sanders' (I-VT) and in the House by Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA). Congress Member Nita Lowey (Lower Westchester) said “I strongly support universal health care, and look forward to working with members of the House and Senate to enact real change. Health care in our country is far too expensive and we have to act as quickly as possible to stop costs from spiraling further.” Rep. Lowey’s website says more or less the same thing: “Rep. Nita Lowey is determined to provide every American with quality, affordable health care. She is a strong supporter of a universal health care system -- the ideal solution.” Does Rep. Lowey support or oppose HR 676? It sounds to me as though she would favor it, but I cannot tell for sure. Can you? Rep. Lowey also favors expanding children health insurance, but I cannot tell which bill she favors. My Congress Member, Nydia Velazquez (Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens), I am told, has always been a strong supporter of universal health care. Here, too, it sounds to me as though Rep Velazquez should be behind HR 676. Is she? Well, as I noted before, when we met in person in the Winter, she said she didn’t want to be committed to the Conyers Bill because she had her own approach for trying to help small business owners pay for health coverage for employees. As chair of the Small Business Committee she sees that group as her chief focus. Her concept is to provide tax credits to small business owners who join employer-insurance pools. She, too, favors expanding child health coverage. My personal impression is that the Congress Members and their staff to whom I’ve talked, don’t see HR 676 as a realistic choice. That’s what, as I see it, Rep. Lowey’s phrase (above) “the ideal solution” means. Are they concerned about attacks from the insurance lobby? Do they remember the Harry & Louise commercials which got air-time right before the GOP victory in 1994? Well if they are not concerned, they wouldn’t be good politicians. The Democrats have only just returned to majority after 12 years. What can we reassure them, to make the Conyers plan, the ideal, appear practical and feasible?