The thing is, if you read this very long detailed book about Obama, it's clear
that he did have a lot of good instincts. Yes, he was ambitious and his
personality was such, that he avoided confrontations. But he chose politics
because he really believed that he could serve the people as a politician. He
made a very conscious choice not to take a high paying corporate law firm
position, which was immediately available to him, because he thought that the
ethical choice was to work in government. His wife was opposed to his choice
from the start because in order to maintain their lifestyle, which wasn't
particularly lavish, they were constantly in debt, partly because they were
repaying their student debt.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 2:14 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Senator Sanders, We Cannot Begin Medicare for
All From a Position of Compromise
If the understanding of Bernie's bill is correct, then shame on Senator Bernie
Sanders.
More proof of how difficult it is to stay clean in a contaminated pool.
Impossible, actually. When even our most committed friends of the Working
Class decide to compromise, the only course left open to us is to toss the
Capitalist System to the dogs and begin putting together a People's Government.
Of course that's pie in the sky, sort of like saying, what we need in order to
have good health is to get rid of bad germs.
I do believe, after hearing Bernie Sanders on Thom Hartman's Friday radio show,
"Brunch with Bernie", and hearing his views over several years, that he is
working on behalf of the American People. Unlike Barack Obama, who had no
track record from working in the trenches, and came to the presidency in a
compromising mood. And yet, Bernie appears to be being pulled under in the
congressional cesspool.
This is the danger of trying to "work within the system". Maybe it can be
done, but when good politicians like Bernie Sanders are compromised, then just
who will we have left to send in as his substitute?
Carl Jarvis
On 9/4/17, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Senator Sanders, We Cannot Begin Medicare for All From a Position of
Compromise Monday, September 04, 2017 By Margaret Flowers, Health
Over Profit | Op-Ed
Activists march in the Medicare for All rally on June 26, 2017, in Los
Angeles, California. (Photo: Molly Adams)
At the start of the August congressional recess, Senator Bernie
Sanders announced that he will introduce a senate bill this September
"to expand Medicare to cover all Americans." Since the election, the
movement for improved Medicare for All, has been urging Sanders to
introduce a companion to John Conyers' HR 676: The Expanded and
Improved Medicare for All Act, which currently has a record 117
co-sponsors in the House and is considered the gold standard by the movement.
Recent reports are that Sanders' bill falls far short of HR 676 in
fundamental ways. In fact, Sanders' bill is a multi-payer system not a
single-payer system. His bill reportedly would allow private insurers
to compete with the public system, allow the wealthy to buy their way
out of the public system and allow investor-owned health facilities to
continue to profit while providing more expensive and lower quality health
care.
As a leader in the Democratic Party in the Senate, Sanders is trying
to walk the line between listening to the concerns of his
constituency, which overwhelmingly favors single payer health care,
and protecting his fellow Democrats, whose campaigns are financed by
the medical industrial complex.
Sanders needs to side with the movement not those who profit from
overly expensive US health care.
On August 30, Health Over Profit for Everyone steering committee
members and supporters sent the letter at the end of this article to
Senator Sanders raising specific concerns and urging Senator Sanders
to amend his bill before it is introduced.
There Are Two Realities
It has become the practice in Washington, DC to offer weak bills,
which fail to address the roots of the crises we face, to make them
'politically feasible'. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is an example of
this. It was a compromise with the health insurance, pharmaceutical
and private hospital industries from the start -- an attempt to
appease them with public dollars in exchange for greater access to
care. The ACA was built on a foundation of private industry even
though the priorities of those industries are profit for a few, not
health for everyone. That faulty foundation has perpetuated the
healthcare crisis -- tens of millions without health insurance, tens
of millions more who have health insurance but can't afford health
care and poor health outcomes including tens of thousands of deaths each year.
There are two realities that must be considered. The healthcare crisis
will not end until a system is put in place that guarantees universal
comprehensive and affordable healthcare coverage through National
Improved Medicare for All or another form of single payer system such
as a national health service. That is what we call the 'real reality',
and it simply won't change until there are real changes in policy that
solve it. The political reality of what is 'politically feasible' is
the other reality. This reality will change as people organize and
mobilize to demand what they need.
Politicians change their positions when they believe it is necessary
to maintain their position of power. It is the task of movements to
change what is politically feasible.
The movement for National Improved Medicare for All has been working
for decades to educate, organize and mobilize the public to change the
political reality. And it is working. There is broad public support
for Improved Medicare for All and legislation in the House that
articulates the demands of the movement. What is needed now is a
companion bill in the Senate that is as strong as HR 676. Once that is
introduced, activists will work to secure support for it.
Sanders has it backwards. Rather than starting from a position of
strong legislation and building support for it, he is starting from a
position of weak legislation that he considers to be more politically
feasible. By doing so, he is losing the support of the movement that
he needs to pass expanded and improved Medicare for all.
Activists Versus Legislators
This is where it is important to recognize the difference between
activists and legislators. Activists and legislators have different
priorities.
Activists work to solve crises. Their dedication is to an issue.
Legislators
work to maintain their position, whether it is re-election, seats on
committees, good standing with other legislators or continued funding
from Wall Street or other wealthy interests. Legislators compromise
when they believe it is in their personal best interest. Activists can
only compromise when it is in the interest of solving the crisis they
face.
To win National Improved Medicare for All, activists need to follow
the principles outlined in I.C.U.:
The "I" stands for independence. Activists must keep their allegiance
to their issue independent of the agenda of legislators and political parties.
The goal is to solve the healthcare crisis, and politicians from both
major parties will need to be pressured to support Improved Medicare for All.
Remember, the movement is going against the interests of the big money
industries that finance members of Congress.
The "C" stands for clarity. Legislators will attempt to throw the
movement off track by claiming that there are 'back doors' to our goal
or smaller incremental steps that are more 'politically feasible'.
They will use language that sounds like it is in alignment with the
goals of the movement even though the policies they promote are
insufficient or opposed to the goals of the movement. This is
happening right now in the movement for Improved Medicare for All.
Numerous people, who consider themselves to be progressive but who are
connected to the Democratic Party, are writing articles to convince single
payer supporters to ask for less.
And the "U" stands for uncompromising. Gandhi is quoted as saying that
one cannot compromise on fundamentals because it is all give and no
take. When it comes to the healthcare crisis, the smallest incremental
step is National Improved Medicare for All. That will create the
system and the cost savings needed to provide universal comprehensive
coverage. Throughout history, every movement for social transformation
has been told that it is asking for too much. When the single payer
movement is told that it must compromise, that is no different. The
movement is demanding a proven solution to the healthcare crisis, and
anything less will not work.
The momentum is on the side of the movement for National Improved
Medicare for All. Act now to push Sanders to amend his bill so that it
matches HR 676. Sign and share the petition tool, and read the letter
below to understand the concerns about Sanders' bill.
Dear Senator Sanders,
For almost fifteen years the movement for National Improved Medicare
for All has organized around HR 676: The Expanded and Improved
Medicare for All Act, introduced each session since 2003 by
Congressman John Conyers. As you know, HR 676 has 117 co-sponsors so
far this year. This legislation is considered by the movement to be
the gold standard framework for a universal healthcare system in the
United States.
We appreciate your support for Improved Medicare for All and the work
that you have done to elevate the national dialogue on Improved
Medicare for All.
We hope to continue to work with you to make this a reality in the
near future.
To that end, we are writing to share our concerns about the
legislation that you are planning to introduce. These concerns are
based on what we have learned about your legislation without having
the benefit of reading a draft of it.
In order to maintain the cohesion and strength of the movement for
Improved Medicare for All, the legislation in the senate must be in
alignment with HR 676. This is important so that the movement is
unified and so that the process begins from a position of asking for
what we want and need, rather than starting from a position of
compromise. It is the task of the movement to build political support
for the legislation in Congress.
Here is a list of our concerns:
1.We oppose the inclusion of copayments and deductibles in an Improved
Medicare for All bill. As outlined in the recent letter to you from
Physicians for a National Health Program, including copayments adds
administrative complexity and creates a barrier to care, which leads
to delay or avoidance of necessary care. Economic analyses indicate
that the administrative and other savings inherent in a well-planned
single payer system offset the added expense of eliminating copayments and
deductibles.
HR 676 does not include copayments. The movement for Improved Medicare
for All has coalesced around the elimination of these financial
barriers to care.
2.We support a rapid transition to National Improved Medicare for All.
The Medicare system was implemented within a year of passage without
using computers. Unlike when Medicare became law, the United States
now has basic infrastructure in place for a national health insurance based
on Medicare.
We urge you to utilize the timeline in HR 676, which would start the
universal system in less than two years, rather than delaying or
phasing it in by age group over time. Beginning with a universal
system allows savings and cost controls that can be used to provide
comprehensive benefits without cost sharing.
3.We support a single payer healthcare system. We understand that your
legislation will allow employers to continue to provide employee
health insurance that duplicates what the national health insurance
covers to avoid conflict with the Employee Retirement and Income
Security Act (ERISA). We urge you to include a carve out of ERISA for
national health insurance so that the new system is a single payer
system. Without doing so, your bill will be a multi-payer system. This
is required to achieve administrative simplicity and significant cost
savings. HR 676 allows private insurance that does not duplicate the
benefits of the system. Employers and unions would be able to provide
extra benefits beyond what the system covers.
4.We support a universal system. We understand that your legislation
will allow health providers to opt out of the national health insurance
system.
This would create a parallel health system for the wealthy and
undermine the quality of the public system. Universal systems are of
higher quality than tiered systems because they create a social
solidarity in which everyone has an interest in making the system the
best it can be. We urge you to reject a tiered healthcare system as
healthcare is a human right and should not be based on wealth.
5.We oppose inclusion of investor-owned health facilities.
Investor-owned health facilities treat health care, which is a
necessary public service, as a commodity for profit. These facilities
have an incentive to cut corners, under and over treat and charge
higher prices. The result is higher cost and lower quality. We urge
you to reject profiteering in the healthcare system so that the bottom
line is improving the health of our population, not profits for Wall
Street.
The above concerns are based on what we know about your legislation at
present. We do not know if they are warranted because we have not read
the text. Upon reading it, there may be additional concerns.
We hope that you will share the draft text of your legislation with us
and address the above concerns before it is introduced. Our support
for your Improved Medicare for All legislation will depend upon
whether or not it will serve as a companion to HR 676. If it is, we
are ready to work in our states to build political support for it. If
the above concerns are not addressed, then your bill will not be a
single payer Improved Medicare for All bill and we believe it will undermine
the movement for HR 676.
We recognize that legislators tend to compromise from the start to
build political support for legislation. This has served as a failed
strategy because the final legislation is too weak to accomplish its
goals. We suggest a different approach of beginning from a position of
what is required to solve the healthcare crisis. We have organized for
too long to concede from the start on these fundamental principles.
Signed,
Seth Armstrong, board member, Western Washington Physicians for a
National Health Program*
Vanessa Beck, Health Over Profit for Everyone Steering Committee
Claudia Chaufan, MD, California Physicians for a National Health
Program*
Andy Coates, MD, past president, Physicians for a National Health
Program*
Mary L. De Luca, MD , Child, Adolescent, and Adult Psychiatrist
Dena Draskovich, Leader of Indivisible Omaha and disabled citizen*
Margaret Flowers, MD, director of Health Over Profit for Everyone
Terry Flowers, RPh Centerpoint Medical Center of Independence,
Missouri*
Leslie Hartley Gise MD, Clinical Professor Psychiatry, University of
Hawai'i*
James S. Goodman, MD, Psychiatrist
Leigh Haynes, People's Health Movement-USA*
Paul Hochfeld MD, Board Member, Physicians for a National Health
Program*
Dana Iorio, ARNP, Board Member, PNHP Western Washington, Board Member,
Health Care For All-Washington*
Joseph Q Jarvis MD MSPH, Utah*
Tim Jordan, MD, member, Physicians for a National Health Program*
Stephen B. Kemble, MD, Physicians for a National Health Program
advisory board, past president of Hawaii Medical Association*
Edgar A Lopez MD, FACS, member, Physicians for a National Health
Program, Kentuckians for Single Payer*
Ethel Long-Scott, Women's Economic Agenda Project (WEAP)*
Eric Naumburg, MD, co-chair Maryland chapter of Physicians for a
National Health Program*
Carol Paris, MD, president, Physicians for a National Health Program*
George Pauk, MD
Julie Keller Pease, MD, Topsham, Maine
Julia Robinson, MD, People's Health Movement-USA*
Anne Scheetz, MD, Illinois Single-Payer Coalition, Physicians for a
National Health Program and steering committee of Health Over Profit
for Everyone*
Mariel Scheinberg, OMS 4, Rowan University School of Osteopathic
Medicine*
James Squire, MD Physicians for a National Health Program Western
Washington*
Lee Stanfield, Health Over Profit for Everyone Steering Committee and
Single Payer Tucson NOW*
James P. Thompson, Ph.D.
Bruce Trigg, MD, Public Health and Addiction Consultant
John V. Walsh, MD, California Physicians for a National Health
Program*
Robert Zarr, MD, past president, Physicians for a National Health
Program*
Kevin Zeese, co-director of Popular Resistance
*For identification purposes only.
CLICK HERE TO SEND AN EMAIL TO SENATOR SANDERS.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It
may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from
the source.
Margaret Flowers
Dr. Margaret Flowers practiced pediatrics for 17 years. She is
currently co-director of Popular Resistance and coordinator of its
Health Over Profit for Everyone campaign, adviser to the board of
Physicians for a National Health Program and on the leadership council
of the Maryland Health Care is a Human Right campaign.
Related Stories
Thirteen Democrats Join GOP to Kill Sanders Resolution on Canadian
Drug Imports By Sam Knight, The District Sentinel | Report Sen. Bernie
Sanders Will Introduce "Medicare for All" Bill By Jon Queally, Common
Dreams | Report Lessons We Can Learn From the Fight to Create Medicare
By Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company | Op-Ed