Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The DNC's 'Guaranteed Healthcare' Reality Check
So, healthcare voting friends, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) platform committee added the language "guaranteed healthcare for every man, woman and child in America" to its party platform yesterday in Pittsburgh. Was it simply to placate Hillary Clinton delegates? Was the DNC squelching activists' voices for single-payer reform? Or was something else at work here? Perhaps an actual democratic process that played out with a wide variety of motivations but also a wider variety of potential outcomes and wide open possibility?
Because I was there--and I mean there as one of the people who negotiated the changes in language with Rep. John Conyers and DNC platform committee member Bob Remer of Chicago--I can tell you that there probably was a little nodding to the Clinton camp and some hope to quiet the single-payer rumblings. It is significant --that language shift from universal health "coverage" to guaranteed health "care"-- and we who are in this for the long haul must grab this moment and this victory and make it our own.
And, believe it or not, I actually witnessed some truly noble behavior by our party. Was it a hearkening back to our roots? Was it an effort to quiet a seemingly meaningless rebellion and move a united front to Denver? Or, was it reaching boldly toward the future? Maybe a little of "all of the above...."
Are the progressive Dems finished with their fight in favor of HR676, John Conyers' "National Health Insurance Act," already co-sponsored by 91 members of Congress? Not by a long shot. In the AP account of the day's activities, the reporter got it wrong. It's hard to say if someone from the DNC pitched him on the point-I didn't see that happen, but the big boys were working pretty hard. But allow me to set the record straight: single-payer reform was never taken off any table. In fact, a language shift further along in the healthcare section specifically adds the terminology, "everybody in and no one left out." Heard that before? Everybody in, nobody out.
And I promise you the reasons for inserting that specific language-as innocuous as it may seem to the general reader-should send a signal of seismic levels to those thundering forward to Denver and beyond.It is in our hands, my friends, it is now in our hands.
The Meat Grinder
But, for those of you who wonder how all of this unfolded and just how one middle-aged grandma from Chicago inserted herself--OK, demanded that she be inserted--here's a first hand account of 27 hours on the ground in Pittsburgh and on the way to "guaranteed healthcare for all."
Back to the activists' tour, the only flight my wonderful PDA folks and I could find on short notice (and at a price we could afford )took me from O'Hare to LaGuardia and then from LaGuardia to Pittsburgh. Eight hours after I departed Chicago I arrived at the Westin Hotel in downtown Pittsburgh. Nice digs. Paid for by other activists. Since I had been in transit the better part of the afternoon and evening, I didn't know whether or not Bob Remer of Chicago, the platform committee member who agreed to offer PDA's amendment on "guaranteed healthcare for all" to the committee, had made the Friday, 5 p.m.filing deadline. I soon found out he had done so and had already been deeply involved in efforts to alter the language of the amendment with the DNC's platform committee leadership.
This was the first time I met Bob. He was (and is) a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton's. From the icy cold in Iowa to this moment, Bob believed with his heart and his head that Sen. Clinton was the best candidate to lead his nation. A big, hulking fellow with a rich history of community and political involvement and a career spent working in the healthcare field, Bob felt the strengthening of the platform language on healthcare was a way to honor Sen. Clinton. So, I thought, that's fine, so long as we agree that every American has a basic human right to healthcare. We sat in the hotel coffee shop in Pittsburgh, two ordinary folks from Chicago, hoping we could push our party off the mark on this issue and toward true reform. We both agreed that the platform is not where legislative details or programs are either negotiated or adopted--and because we disagreed on what the final outcome of health reform legislation might be, Bob and I quickly moved beyond that discussion. He supports a Clinton-type reform while I am firmly in the single-payer camp.
So on Friday night, with my mind screaming for some rest and my need to finish some work I had not been able to do in the air--blog writing and postings and preparing for the next day's press conference--I relaxed a bit and got to know Bob. (The guilt and conflicting pressures are the result of my work ethic run amok which many simply exploit--and which also has been terrifically heightened by my fears that unless I work harder and smarter than every other person, I will once again be homeless and without voice as a victim of the healthcare crisis. Since I am not a victim any longer, I work--a lot.)
When the DNC folks came to lobby Bob--which they did repeatedly--to alter the amendment's language, I wanted the personal relationship formed with me to also inform his choices. I suggested we not agree to any language change on the amendment unless and until Rep. Conyers was with us in the morning. He liked that idea, and I did too. I figured it couldn't hurt to bring along a couple of big guns. Bob and I wondered briefly if we could actually move our party even a bit toward healthcare reform. And then it was time to rest up for Saturday.
I slept only from 1 a.m. to 4:30 a.m. as I was fired up and worried about work and worried about my husband at home not feeling well. I spent as much time as I could on the hotel computer (at $6.95 every 15 minutes, that wasn't long). But down in the convention center where the DNC platform committee would be meeting, Bob was already at work.
There were some wonderful local folks who had somehow decided the PDA amendment wasn't single-payer friendly who decided to leaflet against the amendment--interesting strategy, I thought. And because of that leafleting, I think some of the amendment's strength was diminished. It's the old, tired, and failed pattern of activists targeting one of their own rather than forming a united front. It hurt to see that, but I actually thought it quite interesting to see all the various levels of interest playing out--and all the agendas, hidden and not.
All the while, PDA's fearless leader, Tim Carpenter, called in frequently with his classic, 'We've got your back" calls--a tremendous offering of support and confidence in what his on-the-ground co-chairs are doing for our collective behalf. Another PDA friend and single-payer stalwart, Chuck Pennachio of HealthCare4AllPA, worked tirelessly in the crowd, spreading the good word of amendment #33, guaranteed healthcare for all.
PDA friend, the wonderful Harvie Branscomb of Colorado, flew in to Pittsburgh just to help support the effort. He handed out fliers and offered support to us all as we worked through the committee members.
Conyers arrived, and he and I and Chuck participated in a press conference hosted by State Sen. Jim Ferlo of Pittsburgh--a tireless advocate of single-payer healthcare. Meanwhile, Bob was in the DNC platform meeting room. Conyers eloquently talked about the long haul-the plodding, committed work it takes to make legislative change. He repeated the idea that HR 676 will move along much more quickly as soon as a co-sponsor comes from the other side of the political aisle. And it will happen, he said. "Everything is everything," he quipped as he shared a story meant to validate all of the various efforts to push reform-every point of pressure having its place in the whole.
When we wrapped up the press conference, Bob and a representative from the Obama/DNC effort came to talk about the amendment language. As Conyers stood up front getting his photo taken with and talking to the onlookers, the DNC fellow said that as soon as Conyers was done, he and Bob would meet with him to discuss the amendment. I couldn't tell exactly what the plan was in terms of my participation, but I quickly said that as a PDA Healthcare Not Warfare co-chair with Conyers, I wanted to come along for this meeting. All agreed.
We walked to the center of the open refreshment area of the convention center. Around a raised cocktail table meant to allow folks to eat $3 hot pretzels, chips and sip $2 sodas, Bob, I and the chairman of the House Judiciary (and my fellow PDA Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign co-chair) John Conyers talked platform language with two or three DNC/Obama folks, who made repeated trips to and from the conference room.
I was incredibly honored that Conyers deferred to me and Bob on the language of "guaranteed health care" not coverage, and also I referenced a connection I have of my own within the Obama camp with whom I had also reviewed our amendment language to make sure they all understood that this language was agreeable and simply (and strongly) expressed a common goal: to guarantee one of our basic human rights. Even grandmoms from Chicago have the smarts to develop our own connections and strategies, a notion that I am just becoming accustomed to.
Both Bob and I commented that the American people are not stupid and they do know the difference between health "care" and insurance coverage, and that we agree that the legislative process must now work out the details of achieving the amendment's pledge. We were unwavering in our commitment to the wording: "guaranteed health care for every man, woman and child."
Then we suggested adding the "everybody in and no one left out" phrasing in a later passage of the plank. The DNC/Obama negotiators returned to the conference room from which they originally emerged. I hope that signals to every single-payer advocate in the land that the battle is on. Everyone gathered around that table heard me say that-there was no direct support expressed for our position besides mine, but there also was no opposition expressed. So, the ball is now in our court, good citizens.
Conyers patted Bob and me on our backs-wonderful and wise legislator that he is-and said, "This is huge." Did we accomplish all that we wanted? No. Did we make a dent? Did we stake a claim for real reform? Yes, we did. And knowing as Conyers can only know after more than 40 years in Congress, negotiating in the right direction of the desired goal is tough work. When you are just Donna and Bob from Chicago up against some of the country's foremost political hacks and policy wonks who have personal agendas and ambitions, it's tougher still.
The DNC/Obama gang returned with the written and corrected amendment for Bob's approval, discussed how it would be presented and then told us it would be up for consideration right after the break. Conyers bid us farewell and walked off for yet some more meetings.
Back to the floor
Back inside the ballroom, the platform committee was called back to order. Bob stood at the microphone with another committee member and they read the amendment. The chair called for seconds. And here, fellow Dems, is where the nobility and the dignity entered the picture.
Do I have seconds for this amendment, the chair asked? And slowly but deliberately, nearly every platform committee member present rose to their feet in support. They stood. For guaranteed healthcare for all. They stood in support.
And moments later, after hearing comments of support from Chris Jennings, senior health policy advisor during the Bill Clinton administration (and one of our cocktail table DNC negotiators), the chair called the amendment for a vote. All in favor, "AYE"--All opposed-silence. Guaranteed healthcare for all passed unanimously. Bob and I hugged in the back of the room. And we both cried. A victory from two people who didn't even know one another two days earlier--and who share different views on how we get to the place so clearly stated in our amendment. It is our party that allowed us to do this work, and it is our party that will make guaranteed healthcare for all a reality.
Going forward
I have no illusions. And especially after these grueling few days. The fight to actually achieve guaranteed healthcare for all is not going to be any easier--and in some ways those who oppose us will grow even more devious and they will pour more money into the battle. As evidenced by the AP report and other reports that somehow show this as a brokering on behalf of a Hillary Clinton plan, the reality was much cleaner and much more clear, and we'll need to be vigilant in our calling for honesty and for clarity as we move forward.
In the airport hours later, Chuck Pennachio and I sat sharing just a few moments of joy surrounding our shared victory. We also wanted to honor all those advocates who share our continued commitment to the passage of single-payer healthcare reform. Publicly financed, privately delivered, guaranteed healthcare for all. HR 676.
As we brainstormed ideas and strategies for the future, Chuck scrawled on an airport napkin what we thought Conyers might want to title HR 676 when he re-introduces it to a new, more progressive Congress in 2009. "The National Guaranteed Healthcare for All Act."
Bravo, PDA, bravo. Onward.
Sign the Healthcare NOT Warfare petition. Donna Smith is a Communications Specialist for California Nurses Association (CNA) and the National Nurses Organizing Committee (NNOC) as well as the national co-chair for PDA's Healthcare Not Warfare campaign.



82 Comments so far
Show AllNotice the uphill struggle for single payer healthcare in the Democratic Party. Why do you need to lobby your own party to do what the base wants? Exactly who do the Democrats represent anyway? Is this just a DPA explaing PDA as damage control for their party?
I aim to claim this language fully and with all the hope I am told will bring about real change. Even if the higher level folks at the DNC meant only to calm the waters, there are always unintended consequences. I'd like to make those positive and transformative.
And then I plan to work like crazy to elect more progressive members of Congress and hold them to single payer, guaranteed healthcare for all, HR676. And as John Conyers said, we'll win the day when we get a Republican or two to show some leadership and join the other 91 co-sponsors. I am not willing to give up or give in.
Truly unbelievable that in a country that claims that "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" in an unalienable right, that YOUR HEALTH is treated as a COMMODITY...with health and life being sold only to those that can afford it, and be damned to those that can't....and you call yourselves a civilized nation...
-that language shift from universal health "coverage" to guaranteed health "care"
So Donna Smith, this is a nice tale of meat grinders and "folks" you talked to and someone named "Bob". It's very riveting, really, I'll save it for my next insomnia attack.
I presume this is Democratic damage control but since you are a "communications specialist" I would have expected something a little less clumsy.
What I don't find in this long-winded narrative is an explanation of why the Democrats are avoiding something that is understood and has a fixed meaning: "single payer universal coverage", something that is less expensive, something that gives every citizen health care, and are instead proposing modifications to the price gouging, bankruptcy creating for profit system, now going under the moniker "guaranteed health care".
It is truly sad to see that a publicist for the California Nurses Assn (CNA) -- an organization that has been in the forefront of the fight for single payer -- would pen this apology for a sell-out.
What's even worse is that she brags about negotiating the sell-out, calls it a "victory" and commends the DNC platform committee.
Maybe if she got a little more sleep, she would have seen things a bit more clearly.
I actually witnessed some truly noble behavior by our party.
-Oh my God, all they did is add a few words on a non-binding piece of paper which is as worthless as the Democrats who promised to end the war in 2006.
Democratic Party platforms are marketing gimmicks designed to win votes.
In 2004 the Democratic Party platform included:
(3) Peace - more than just the absence of war it means protecting America's security wherever it is endangered and promoting democratic values around the world.
-And we all know how that worked out.
Noble?
-Noble would be ending the war and impeaching Bush!
Go Greens! Go Nader! Go anybody but a God-damned Democrat! (Sorry Grandma)
Note: I am going to assume, perhaps incorrectly, that the commenter "donnasicko" is also the author, Donna Smith, of the above essay.
>> Donna Smith writes (in the essay):
>>> And, believe it or not, I actually witnessed some truly noble behavior
>>> by our party.
> I (Eric Patton) wrote:
>> And the antecedent of "our" is?
donnasicko writes:
> I aim to claim this language fully
I appreciate the work you, Donna Smith, are doing within the Democratic party. However, you did not answer my question. I asked you what the antecedent of "our" (in your essay, obviously) is. You answered, essentially, that our refers to yourself. However, our is a plural pronoun, and therefore cannot refer to only you.
Thus, I say that, if by "our" you mean "any group including Eric Patton," I must respectfully disagree. The Democrats are in no way, shape, or form "my" (i.e., Eric Patton's) party. They do not represent me, and to me they are the enemy.
If you wish to work with John Conyers in order to pressure the Democrats -- of which, as a member of Progressives Democrats of America, I can only assume you belong -- fine. But this is the same John Conyers who, while he is indeed a co-sponsor of HR 676, is also a liar when it comes to his plans to begin impeachment hearings against Bush.
The moral of the story is this: I have no issue with pressuring Democrats. However, don't try convincing me they're my friends.
And when I ask you what the antecedent of "our" in your essay is, give me a straight answer, not typical Democratic doublespeak.
Dogs, as you know, are reportedly able to smell or sense the presence of disease. This morning I stripped naked, bent over and grabbed my ankles and had my bulldog, Luigi, smell my ass. I turned around and saw the expression on his face hadn't changed, so I presumed that right now I am healthy, more or less. This is my health care plan.
I don't get this confusion about Dims. OF COURSE they have NO INTENTION of providing Medicare For All. WON'T DO IT. NOT EVER. Health care is one of the 6 Vultures that MADE these "politicians". Think of the Vultures eating human flesh and defecating politicians. We are the FOOD on this Plantation. BHO wants to be Head Overseer and will say whatever is necessary to get there. Think Billy Clinton with Debt Bondage as a restored legal concept, targeted first on women and minorities, then generalized to the rest of you. It's the next step. Natural Progression.
WE ARE NOTHING BUT MEAT FOR THEIR MACHINE. Until we act. WE ACT. If we act. Not quite enough pain yet, apparently.
And yes, it will become more horrible than you can imagine, and Americans will do what???? Nothing??? Chris Hedges said it, "People who don't have a breaking point are slaves."
Whooooo Arrrrre Yuuuuuu? Who-Who? Who-Who?
Your pain can be transformative. The question is, transform into what? We answer that question in our lives with every action we take. Even if that action is to curl up into a fetal position. Silence is an action. Doing nothing is an action as powerful and meaningful as any other.
Interesting times. "How low can they go?", doin' the Limbo now>?
Hi Donna,
Thank you so much for moving us forward. The whole point of your story is that we move forward one step at a time. Martin Luther King was also criticized for not advocating an "All or Nothing" strategy. Martin Luther King was a brave and noble advocate, so are you!
Please continue your work. Just like Martin Luther King and Ghandi, you are moving us forward one step at a time.
We all have to make some compromises in life. Unless the detractors above are armed revolutionaries, living outside the law, they have contradicted their own "All or Nothing" philosophy.
It's fine to disagree with someone's strategy. However, it is outside of civil discourse to "mind read" someone's intent, and use "name calling".
The incredible amount of time and energy you've donated selflessly, shows love for your fellow human beings. Therefore, in the name of love, we thank you.
what good are party platforms if not an expression of ideals?
what is the dem. party platform for ending the war?
One more time:
The Dems don't care about We, the People, as amply demonstrated since 2006, not counting NAFTA and some other abominations.
Until we rise up as a monolith and conduct a general strike which won't end until Bush, Cheney, Feith, Powell, Rice, etc., and their Dem enablers like Pelosi, Conyers and BHO are sent to the Hague for war crimes, they won't listen. Why should they? They have guaranteed pensions and healthcare for life. We beg and plead for crumbs, and like Grandma, slobber all over them with affection when they hint that one might be falling on a floor near her, soon.
I've vote nearly straight Dem through 2006, and, to continue the Who meme, Won't Get Fooled Again.
Wake up. Let's plan the strike. The elections are meaningless.
Prove me wrong.
Peace.
Of course, this is all just a giant load of bull.
Has the House leadership signed on to HR676? Are the leaders pushing this, including trying to hold party members to a party line to support it? Are leaders threatening committee assignments of any who don't sign on? Has the Dem leadership been backing and funding primary challenges against those who don't sign on?
What about in the Senate? Is Sen. Obama a co-sponser of an identical bill in the Senate? Why was the DNC and the Obama campaign even negotiating on this in the first place? Why aren't they leading the charge?
All of which leads to the question? Do you expect to see this become policy after the election? Since Obama and the Dem leadership has to be drug kicking and screaming to a weak bit of language that doesn't really do much, it would seem the answer is 'not very likely'.
If you want single-payer, vote Green.
If you want more of a health care system that's designed by the insurance companies and HMOs for the benefit of insurance companies and HMOs, vote Democrat.
Meanwhile, today's local paper had a brief look at what freedom and democracy mean inside the Dem party. If you wonder why every Dem seems to spout the same party line, take a look at what's happening to this delegate who wrote a critical email (GASP!) about Obama.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/aug/12/dems-call-clinton-delegate-on-carpet/
"Colorado Democratic party officials have asked a delegate who supports Hillary Clinton to come to headquarters and talk about a complaint that she wrote a negative e-mail about Barack Obama.
Party Chairwoman Pat Waak confirmed Monday night that the party's political director, William Compton, sent the request to Sacha Millstone, who was elected as a Clinton delegate to the Democratic National Convention."
.....
"Millstone, of Boulder, could not be reached for comment. However, in an interview with Denver's 7, she was critical of Compton's request.
"I think one of the reasons I got this letter was to intimidate me," she said in the interview. "I thought it sounded very un-Democratic, and I was completely shocked."
Millstone added that the letter is "a very clear message. . . . Keep quiet if you want to come to the convention.""
Donna Smith writes:
> And, believe it or not, I actually witnessed some truly noble behavior
> by our party.
And the antecedent of "our" is?
Save the insurance companies! Vote Obama!
I support single payer, guaranteed healthcare for all -- even for those who don't now get in the battle and try. I urge everyone to do all they can do to reach whichever party and whichever office they can to support single payer. HR676 needs to be the law of the land.
So much time and energy wasted on an empty effort. As I said the other day, I expected some sort of spin, thus "language victory."
The goal of the Democrat Party is the same as the Republican Party: To gain control of the US government for the benefit of their corporate owners, the difference being nuances in propaganda that targets different groups. Well over 100 Million citizens either lack health insurance or have coverage that is essentially meaningless given restrictions and their ability to pay hefty deductibles. I can't imagine any other issue that would propel a presidential candidate into office more readily than a vociferous committment to singlepayer-universal heathcare. That this isn't happening shows well how DLC really feels about the issue--it doesn't like it one bit. One need only recall the Clinton FUBAR over this same issue back in 1993-94, and the proof that later came out that it was the Clinton administration that sabotaged its own policy initiative. The insurace industry is very much intertwined with the financial industry; and for the latter to keep its head above water, the former must be allowed do continue reaping its obscene profits. Democrat Party insiders know that HR676 is a dead issue, like impeachment, which is why there's no trumpeting of the issue because its percieved "failure" will hurt its chances to remain in power.
For all her energy and enthusiasm, Donna Smith should have become a candidate instead of pursuing something as quixotic as universal healthcare.
Out of all the articles on the health care issue that could have appeared in Common Dreams, again we have one that is the typical democratic party fluff, full of smoke and mirrors but no substance.
And there is a value in taking one small step at a time, but you shouldn't confuse it with getting taken in all the time.
The millions of health care dollars aren't being wasted, they are going into someones pockets who wants to keep it going into their pocket. And they now have the democratic party leadership in their pocket.
And it is difficult not to dismiss anything that a Hillary supporter says. If 'Bob' supports this wording, it indicates that there is little reason to believe that it would actually support affordable health care for all. In fact, it proves the opposite, that while this is another program promoted to 'help' the common person it's real purpose is to enrich the health care corporations. That's guaranteed. (just think NAFTA)
Just look at how the democrats handle impeachment and funding of the war if you want to find out how every person will be 'guaranteed' health care.
Peace and justice. Vote third party.
"...we'll need to be vigilant in our calling for honesty and for clarity as we move forward."
Although I fail to find anything in your report that anyone at this meeting was calling for honesty and clarity, I am willing to set aside a cynical viewpoint that your efforts were not completely co-opted by the same Democratic Party machine that is frequently oiled by pharmaceutical, "health care" and insurance insiders.
As I am willing to do that, perhaps you can give us some insight into what you consider to be honesty and clarity? At what point are you willing to admit that you were lied to and blinded? How do you intend to communicate those revelations to us?
... and please! Your pretension that you are only communicating to Democrats, and that nobody else matters is insulting beyond belief. The fact is that Democrats are desperately depending upon the Independent vote to win. You might want to remember that. Posts like yours just reinforce my personal belief that I will not be voting for Obama.
Donna,
Could you have at least have given the "local folks" the coutesy of providing the name of their organization - or were you too dismissive of them to even find out? They were and are the Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Single Payer Healthcare.
And can you explain how their leeafletting for genuine single payer healthcare weakened your amendment? The PDA Amendment was wishy-washy. If you want something, you ask for it by name. The name is universal, free, tax-financed, single payer healthcare. That is what the leafletters were doing. And, isn't it a bit presumptuous for you to assume that they are attacking their own - i.e. you represent their interests?
The first lessons that these often-compromized, seat-at-the-table political groups like the PDA and Move-on need to learn is to respect diversity of tactics and viewpoints - particularly those to their left. A great W. Pennsylvania institution, the Thomas Merton Center,is on it's last legs due to a contingent of "progressive" board members and moneyed supporters with no respect for diversity of tactics, resulting in the mass resignation of all the youthful board members and the collpase of it's most active projects.
The Western PA group specifically asked not to have their name associated with the amendment -- as they felt it was not strong enough. I honored that directive.
I support single payer, guaranteed healthcare for all. Period.
Social Security, Medicare and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 all made real differences in people's lives. During those battles there were conservative Democrats who opposed social change and their were progressive Democrats who supported social change.
Donna Smith is a living testament that the same is true today.
All Democrats are not the same. Dennis Kucinich is not Rahm Emanuel. Those are facts, not assertions. Folks are defined by there positions on the issues.
Rosa Parks sat down on a bus and refused to get up. What at first seemed like a small gesture, we know acknowledge as a critical action.
Let's take the fight to where it leads us. Not to where we want it to be. Changing the language from "insurance" to "guaranteed healthcare" is huge. Thank you Donna. This may seem like a small gesture, however, our continued united work together will prove this to be a critical action that changes history.
"It's not made by great men" -- Gang of Four
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah
ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...
You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
-- The Beatles - Revolution
USAn:
Thank You
Donna, I'll be happy to contact my local Green Party and urge them to support 'single payer'. Of course, that's an easy phone call because they already do support 'single payer'. I won't waste a dime on calling a Democrat.
To the person wondering why the Dems would abandon something simple, popular and cheap like single payer for something complex, less-popular and more expensive like this, the answer is simple.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
The key question to ask is this. When push really comes to shove. When there are meetings in the Obama White House on their congressional agenda, or when a bill comes up for a key vote, which way are the Democrats going to go?
Are the Democrats going to pull out their dog-eared printout of this platform plank and decide that they must support Americans who need health care? Or are the Democrats going to listen to the lobbyists sitting in their office from the insurance and hmo companies?
The Democrats have a very long and proven track record dating back to at least the mid-90's that says they'll listen to their lobbyists and set a policy that screws the rest of us.
"The Western PA group specifically asked not to have their name associated with the amendment — as they felt it was not strong enough. I honored that directive."
I know that this isn't your intent, but you seem to be presenting to those on your left a "my way of the highway" attitude. If they asked not to be associated with the PDA amendment, than you can still recognize organizations, by naming them, who are working very hard in spite of not having a seat at the table. Some of these people are working very hard, and have even faced police harassment and apprent spying at the behest of oue of our more odious Republican congressmen, Tim Murphy.
--"Dennis Kucinich is not Raul Emanual."
--This is correct.
--The Democrats put Raul Emanual into a key position controlling the money that goes out to candidates for Congress.
--The Democrats tried hard to kick Dennis Kucinich out of Congress by putting up a well-funded and well-supported primary challenger against him this year.
What more do you need to know about the Democrats?
Back in the old days, them Dixie "Democrats" were enough of a pain. Nowadays, they're all Repugs and yet there are still sellouts in the Democratic party left. This goes to show that the two party duopoly just ain't worth shit. Sorry Obama hacks but we're sick and tired of fake shit. It's 3rd party progressive/independent or NOTHING !
DPA (Democratic Party apologist) argument #4: Not all the Democrats are bad, just look at Kucinich.
-Right, but how much influence does Kucinich have versus Pelosi and how many Kucinichs do the Dems have versus Blue Dogs?
This is a typical DPA red herring argument. If the Democrats had chosen Dennis Kucinich to be their presidential candidate then this dog of an argument might actually hunt.
Just look at who the majority of Democrats chose to be their leader if you want to know where the majority stand: NANCY PELOSI
When I pick up an apple and it's rotten I don't go on a wild goose chase looking for some tiny part that isn't spoiled. I toss the apple. It's high time to dump the Dems who have proved they cannot stand up to Republicans have nothing to offer but lip service and cave in after capitulation.
Go Greens! Go Nader! Go anybody but a God-damned Democrat!
Samson,
It is _Rahm_ Emmanual.
And in all fairness, i think, or hope, that Donna's piece was intended to be an internal memo to her fellow PDA'ers - this explains all the "we"'s and "ours" with regard to the Democrat Party.
The commondreams editor should have prefaced this article with a remark explaining this.
...
The stance made by the Progressive Democrats of America on healthcare communicates the message that the PDA still considers the status quo as legitimate, that PDA members are still as heavily invested in the status quo as the Repuks in the far depths of the extreme right gutter. With this message conveyed that the PDA will tolerate extremism-as-usual, they wipe out the possibility of meaningful healthcare reform. Everyone knows that if the PDA were to make loud demands for serious reform they will gain strong public support. But the PDA isn't prepared to be the agent of change. Its members have benefitted too much from the gilded-age status quo. THIRD PARTY ALL THE WAY!!
The Progressives at the DNC meeting did the best they could with what they had ... which in part, is a group of political pragmatists. This is not an ideologically committed party of the faithful to the common sense and morality of single-payer universal healthcare.
Some hope --- the Hail Mary --- is that after he is elected, Barack will lead or at least not obstruct, a single-payer initiative from Congress. Absent a majority in the Senate strong enough to stop filibusters, the dream will not come true.
Falling on one's sword (a McGovern nightmare) or ignoring the notion (which I would bet the house on) that Barack's endorsement of a single-payer universal healthcare plan today would result in the bundling and gift of hundreds of millions in cash to McCain's campaign by September 1 is foolish.
The pragmatists would like us to believe that they can make the insurance industry and its cohorts in profit generation from healthcare play nicer with the public. They don't say it. They imply it. We are smoking different substances.
I submit that they will be able to sell this concept to the ill-informed and hopeful. Meanwhile, those of us who have been down this mine shaft before should be wise enough to afford the enthusiastic the time and room to learn from the descent. There is plenty of time. Many stars must align before anything remotely resembling a single-payer universal healthcare system becomes reality.
Meanwhile, Donna Smith et. al. are doing the best they can with what they have to work with amongst the policy wonks, political operatives, and multitude of agendas that they have before them. No one should question Donna's integrity or sincerity. This is no picnic for her or others involved in attempting to forge change that we might believe in from the insults to our intellect that we cannot believe it.
Respectfully, any other group could have done an amendment if they had followed the same path -- and PDA is made up of wonderfully committed, hard working single payer advocates. In retrospect, it would have been a great strategy to have many,many amendments all supporting guaranteed healthcare for all, everybody in and no one left out health care, using every strategy possible. Time was short, PDA made a great call to dive in or no one else would have.
I am proud of them. I am not willing to wait for single payer for a third party to gain power or for any other group to gain power -- single payer, guaranteed healthcare for all is needed as soon as we can get it. And I am so grateful for all the groups working on this -- don't want to see people beat up on one another as all want the mess fixed. But if that advances single payer, so be it.
Thank you all for working and for commenting. It matters. It still matters.
Now, is there something more we who believe in single payer could do in Denver and in Minneapolis to still have our voices heard and advance this movement even more? I know with so many awesome advocates out there, ideas will come and so long as we still have a few days, there is time to be heard. I read that someone wanted to flood the convention floor with single payer supporters who are also delegates, so who is working on that? There is still time left. Or would the energy be better spent on Congressional campaigns? Or is there room for all the action?
[...] This morning I stripped naked, bent over and grabbed my ankles and had my bulldog, Luigi, smell my ass. I turned around and saw the expression on his face hadn't changed, so I presumed that right now I am healthy, more or less.
__________________________________
Sure it wasn't rigor mortis, Mordechai? :?: ;)
If I believed in reincarnation, I'd suggest that George Carlin has been reincarnated as Mordechai Shiblikov, 2:25pm.
Thanks for your always caustic and entertaining insights!
Dem Party Apologists love to point out that not all Dems are corrupt, that there are good DemocRATS like Kucinich.
First, they can't see that these good Rats like Kucinish are kept in the party exactly to fool the base into thinking that not all is lost.
Second, good Rats like Kucinich have absolutely no power over the party leadership, he knows it and he doesn't mind being used as a puppet.
The Democratic Party must be wiped off the electoral map if American wants its country back.
The Democratic Party, the big engine that cant!
My grandmother used to say, "If you're looking for something wrong, then you deserve to find it."
I don't know what folks expect from a country that is almost entirely corporate owned. Too many Americans are asleep at the wheel, and it is not going to be easy to enact the necessary progressive reforms to get this country back on track.
Now that we're sliding towards a fascist state and economic ruin, people are finally starting to pay attention. Perhaps a groundswell of citizens demanding single payer healthcare will get us where we need to go.
Until that day, Donna Smith, CNA, PDA, and other grassroots group are pushing forward in the hope that the troops will soon arrive.
It is certainly easier to complain about the Democratic Party then it is to roll up your sleeves and get to work in it, transforming it into what it should and could be. For those seeking the downfall of the Democratic Party, I hope you enjoyed the last eight years of Republican rule because without the Democratic Party, you are guaranteed more horrendous policy, which will decimate the middle class, the environment, and end government by the people.
I daresay the naysayers on this thread were nowhere near Pittsburgh demanding stronger language in the Democratic Party platform.
Donna, I have no doubt you are sincere and care deeply about health care for all. That said, I'm with all the posters who have given up on the Democrats as a group (yes, there are a few progressive Dems in Congress). Maybe something good will come of your hard work on this issue but I doubt it. As others have said, the insurance industry continues to reward those who defend them, the majority of Dems and Repubs.
The money will dictate the policy, as usual.
The devil is in the details and nobody wants to say how to pay for it. No one wants to suggest tax inceases with a 53$trillion entitlemant deficit for social security and medicare. yes that was 53$ trillion. It is the inconvienent financial truth.
Donna Smith says John Conyers thinks the next step is to get some Republican co-sponsers for HR676.
I think it might also help if one, just one Senator might introduce a companion bill in the Senate. So far no one in our royalist House of Lords has seen fit to do so. Not Bernie Sanders,not Sherrod Brown, nor Russ Feingold, nor Ted Kennedy, nor even Ms. Hillary Healthcare Clinton. Whose money is muzzling all of them?
http://www.votenader.org/issues/single-payer/
Single Payer
[ snipit ]
In our current system, there are thousands of different payers of health care fees.
This system is a bureaucratic nightmare, wasting $350 billion—close to a third of all health care spending on things that have nothing to do with health care—overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments, huge profits and exorbitant executive pay.
In addition, there is over $200 billion in computerized billing fraud and abuse.
Nader/Gonzalez support a single payer system that would save the $350 billion and apply those savings to comprehensively cover everyone without paying more than we already do.
All Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services.
Patients would have free choice of doctor and hospital.
Costs would also be controlled in part by the single payer negotiating fees and making bulk purchases.
Vote Nader/Gonzalez 2008...
.
.
On Wednesday, August 27, right during the heart of the Democratic National Convention, we will be holding a Super Rally for 5,000-7,000 people at the University of Denver Magness Arena. (Check out our new Nader/Gonzalez video promoting our rallies here.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmcIlEIQtcs
And we'll be hosting a second super rally in Minneapolis on September 4th at the Orchestra Hall during the week of the Republican National Convention.
Why?
To protest the corporate control over our political system and to call for opening the presidential debates.
.
marc melchiori August 12th, 2008 9:13 pm
The devil is in the details and nobody wants to say how to pay for it.
-not as hard as you think. If the Democrats actually did what the people want them to do and ended the war/occupation that would free up $168,000,000,000.00 a year. Then if the Democrats actually put people ahead of war and war profiteering they could actually cut military spending instead of increasing it as the Democratic "antiwar" candidate Barak Bush wants to do. That's how we could pay for universal health care marc melchiori.
pragmatic progressiv August 12th, 2008 7:57 pm writes, "I hope you enjoyed the last eight years of Republican rule because without the Democratic Party, you are guaranteed more horrendous policy,..."
-honestly, I hate the Democratic Party and I am amazed their supporters actually believe the Democrats are holding the Republicans back and not enabling them
Listen, pragmatic progressiv Listen can you please make a list of what the Democrats have done for you in the last 2 yrs, last 4 yrs, last 8 years?
If you can't, then you have no argument and are doing the standard DPA CRYING WOLF, with an absence any reason to vote for your candidate Obama, other than he isn't a Republican. Policy-wise can you explain the difference between Obama and McCain on war?
Barack Obama is ultimately articulating a position of sustained troop levels in Iraq based on the conditions on the ground and the security of the country," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "That is the very same position that John McCain has long held."
Can pragmatic progressiv state reasons to vote for Democrats that aren't reasons to not vote for Republicans (lesser-evilism). Please explain why we should put our faith in Democrats. What have Democrats done?
This is what Democrats have done:
1) Refuse to stop funding the war
2) Refuse to impeach Bush
3) Refuse to hold Bush accountable for torturing
4) Allow right-wingers like Mukasey and others to be confirmed
5) Confirmed right-wingers into the Supreme Court
6) Rubber stamp gargantuan military budgets
7) Allow Bush to spew 935 lies about the war
8) Allow Cheny to out CIA agents and defy subpoenas
9) Granted Bush and the Telecoms immunity
10) Insert your favorite Democratic Party capitulation here:_____________________________________.
The Democrats promised to end the war if we put them in control of the Congress. We did and they lied. What makes pragmatic progressiv believe Democrats are bound by something they write down on a piece of paper when their actual record shows they don't listen to us anyway.
Why the hell should I vote for Democrats when all they offer is a continuance of war, give aways to Big Business and the destruction of our civil rights (FISA)?
The stupidity of ignoring the complete prostration of the Democratic party before the Republicans and claiming the big bad wolf McCain is coming and the Democrats will save us is dumbfounding.
Why didn't the Democrats save us by impeaching Bush and ending the war?
Go Greens! Go Nader! Go anybody but a God-damned Democrat!
A lot of people on this thread are very sophisticated.
Why not take this nearly breathless Victory report by one of the few on-the-ground-near-the-top Grass Roots Activists on her Grandma face?
Assume she is an honest idealist.
What are the practical implications of her idealistic machinations?
The Platforms of the Dem and the Rep parties mean little. The last time they paid any attention to them was in 4000 B.C. The only people who really pay attention to their Platforms are the parties of the Outs.
Watch the next 4 years as the Dems bring us "universal health care."
I am a 65-year-old. The guvment should have informd me of my options but it did not. I am very angry.
Really, I want to kill, but I do not know who(m) to target. I really want to kill.
I have killed a lot of sentient beings. I no longer care (I killed a lot of mice.). Bush has killed and/or displaced MILLIONS of humans. Does he care? I say that Bush no longer cares if he ever did but in fact, I care. I am a liar. Bush is a liar. Conyers is the Committee Chair holding the Power of Impeachment. He has abjured. He is guilty.
I respect the Author and her Idealism, but I seriously doubt that anything substantive will come from the Democrat Platform. They are a bunch of fucking liars and Indiana's Dem Senator, Evan Bayh, is among them. He is in the running for VP and he ought to be skewered.
Watch out.
-30-
People are dying of starvation in Gaza. why is nobody on Common Dreams talking about it?
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m46386&hd=&size=1&l=e