According to a post on Pennsylvania blog, House speaker Nancy Pelosi will allow a mere twenty minutes of debate on single-payer, albeit indirectly.

[chart stolen adapted from the incomparable Ian Welsh]

You've read/heard the phrase bending the [cost] curve [downward] once or twice by now, and in case you've been a tad confused [or not] about what that means, basically it's what Canada did in 1970 when single payer went completely nationwide there.

.... should listen to all sides of the argument, make himself or herself as available as possible, and to the best of their ability, cast a vote that they think will help their constituents."

And yes, he says that he will vote against HR 3200, and that yes, his constituents, coming to the 47 Town Halls he has held, want him to vote against HR 3200.

Tell him THANK YOU!

This is on Fox News, and near the end of the interview he quotes Ronald Reagan:

We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.

Now that's how a Democrat should be quoting St Ronnie.

I want to again raise the issue of preemption and whether HR 3200 and other bills being bandied about would preempt state efforts at implementing their own single payer. My concern is something Jane Hamsher said at FDL in comments:

Kucinich did nothing. Not one single thing while the bill was in Committee to work out the details. He just dropped it in at the last minute. It’s completely unworkable within the framework already set out.

I confess to not knowing exactly what she's referring to, but since HR 676 is all worked out, it sounds to me like she's referring to Kucinich's amendment to HR 3200 that would permit states to enact their own single payer. And that it is unworkable within the framework of HR 3200. If that's true, then that's potentially a big damned deal because it likely means not only that we're not getting national single payer, but this bill would prevent states from experimenting with their own single payer systems.

I'll explain why after the break.

I've found a few variations of this phrase in HR 3200, and being unfamiliar with most legal language, I figured I should ask: is any of this anything to worry about?