Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Nataline Keeps Bending the Arc of Healthcare Justice
"Someday, my story will be your story," Gregor Sarkisyan, father of the late Nataline Sarkisyan, 17, who died December 20, 2007, as CIGNA denied her care. She could be your child, she could be my child, she was his child. Watch Gregor's still grief-stricken face as he tries again to get some answers that never come.
He spoke at the CIGNA protest in Glendale, CA, on October 28, 2009. Nothing in the current reform bills will stop this. Nothing.
Covering pre-existing conditions and lifting lifetime caps does not stop these profit mongers from denying any and all treatments that reduce their profits for shareholders. There will be more Nataline Sarkisyan stories under the new reform than there already are as denying treatment becomes the main way for the insurance companies to raise profits. More pain. More suffering. More death.
While Congress pats itself on the back and President Obama claims a victory, more children will die. This healthcare reform does not get us to the place where we can know that our care decisions are about health not wealth. It moves us to more uncertainty and it remains a dishonest discussion about all the broken parts of the system, and the reform leaves us at serious risk. Forcing us to buy the product that killed Nataline and leaving in place the defective mechanisms in that product that caused her death is a failure beyond imagination.
No ceremony on the lawn in Washington, DC, washes away the truth.
Did you see in the video how the police helped CIGNA by shielding photos of the arrests? It isn't good PR for them to show policyholders being arrested for seeking answers. And it isn't good PR for our elected officials to see the profiteers they are protecting arresting the people who have trusted them to reform this broken system.
Even after this reform mess passes, we must fight on. Until the waves of healthcare justice break on the shores of compassion and truth, we fight on. Until we bury no more Nataline's murdered by greed and by indifference.
Healthcare is a basic human right, and we know President Obama knows that. We just don't know if granting this human right to all he seeks to lead will continue to be his fight with us.
"The arc of history bends toward justice," the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. , told us. We cannot know where we are on that arc, but together we will sharpen that bend.
Follow the money. Stay in the fight. It matters.


38 Comments so far
Show AllThank you, Donna. I am sick over this bill. I know that under it I will most likely remain uninsured and end up paying a fine, and for what? To make this war-happy oligarchy I live in richer? It's certainly not for the people. Anyway, it's been beyond depressing.
I was reading one of Professor Green's latest blog entries, "America Heal Thyself," last night and here's the last paragraphs:
Here’s an alternative scenario. It might smack too much of progressive hallucination, but we can still dream, can’t we? Or did that go out the window too, along with habeas corpus?
"What if the Republicans in the Senate blocked passage of the current bill on a filibuster, crushing the signature legislative goal of the Obama presidency? What if Mr. Really-Smart -But-Not-So-Wise got pissed off for the first time in his life, looked over the edge and into the abyss of his failed one-term presidency, didn’t at all like what he saw, and then started playing hard ball, throwing elbows, naming names, and treating his and America’s enemies like they were – golly, could it be? – actually enemies? What if he and Democrats in Congress wrote a real healthcare bill, one that was really about providing health to Americans, not wealth to corporations? What if they actually used their majorities and their presidency to make it law, rolling over a Republican objection to their use of the reconciliation process as an end-run to a Senate filibuster, just like Bush and the Republicans did to Democrats all across the last decade?
Now that would certainly make losing on this current go-round more than worth it.
But, of course, for that to happen, Democrats would actually have to have some guts.
Unfortunately, ‘Democrats’ and ‘guts’ are two words that have not been used in the same sentence – other than in opposition to each other – for nearly fifty years now."
http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Articles/America,_Heal_Thyself.html
Personally I don't know if anything can shake this corporate-owned President. I have no idea what he stands for, or who he stands for. He's crawled back into his hole on health care again, and the WH apparently came out swinging against Harry Reid on the opt out for the PO and apparently is pulling for the "trigger" again. As bad as the PO has become this is pretty astonishing crap.
The only bright spot in this whole mess right now is Dennis Kucinich. He's put up a new website with a petition called "Health Care for All: Whatever it takes, for as long as it takes."
http://kucinich.us/
A poster on HuffPo left this link. The story over there on Kucinich is garnering more comments than I would have expected -- certainly not in the past -- with the overwhelming majority supporting him.
Here's the comment of an Obama-bot in the Halloween bash story on HuffPo. In light of all that's going on it really made me gag:
"How nice. A POTUS and FLOTUS of the people, for the people and by the people."
When do these delusional people wake up?
Nice post.
Excellent post, Samalabear. Like you, I have no idea what Obama is thinking or planning. He is making a lie of his campaign promise of "change you can believe in." I can't think of any word to describe him other than "appeaser."
It seems as though all he wants is for people to like him, and his words are designed not to offend anyone - including the Repubs - the enemies of all his proposed changes.
I never imagined that he would turn out to be a President who talked out of both sides of his mouth, willing to glibly say whatever the audience he's talking to wants to hear, with no corresponding action to prove it. I have no hopes whatsoever that he will ever play hardball with anyone - some people might stop liking him.
How truly sad for our country!
I'm starting to get that cringing feeling every time I hear Obama speak.....while the words sound nice - I'm starting to realize it's all just double-speak .....
This is why it Must BE SINGLE-PAYER (as Obama PROMISED) OR SINGLE TERM!
For the first time I must disagree with Donna Smith, she has been right throughout this entire mish mash. Single Payer is the answer.
But....."Healthcare is a basic human right, and we know President Obama knows that."
Where did this "right" come from? Its not in our Constitution nor the Bill of Rights.
All persons have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Mind you, you don't have the right to have a fire department, or a police station...
What ?!?!? So what if it's not in the bloody Constitution ? That does not change the moral fact that health care is a human right. That is also why laws are to be passed even when amendments can't make it. I would love to see a Constitutional Amendment to make health care for everyone a fundamental right but HR 676 and S 703 are our only tickets.
And sorry to get picky but I am still confused that you would say this even though you support single payer health care:
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/08-1
"Henry8 October 8th, 2009 6:41 pm
I personally do not want HR 676 to pass, I believe its a bad bill. Very bad."
How can you possibly oppose HR676 and then say you support single payer? Sometimes, you're great but sometimes you can throw us off !
"HR 676" was the wrong darn number! Confusion in the feeble old mind!! I meant H.R.3200.....Whatever the number....if it is not a Single Payer bill its worthless and just another political payoff.
Because the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the only things that guarantee you specific rights. Not basic human rights, but basic rights to the citizens of our country or under its control.
Morality cannot guarantee anything, its clear that whats moral in one society is not in another. For example what is moral and the norm or Muslim women would be considered abuse to us. The forced marriage of under sixteen year old girls, girls as young as 8 or so even, would be considered highly immoral in our society, but not in theirs.
Health Care is very much like Fire Departments....there is no basic right to them, but in everyones interest and in the interest of society, we organize and pay for them. But they are not a "basic" human right.
I hope thats clearer....and sorry about the HR numbers....
>>Because the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the only things that guarantee you specific rights. Not basic human rights, but basic rights to the citizens of our country or under its control.
This is simply not true. Many rights are derived via common law. As example none of the following are in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights.
1>The right to a fair trial.
This right is derived from Common law.
2>The right to a jury by ones peers.
This right is dervived from common law.
3>The Right to Vote.
No such right is listed in the bill of rights or the Constitution. This derives from Common law.
4>The Right to Marriage.
No such right is listed .
5>The Right to travel.
No such right is listed.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
There are many others but this article helps to explain it further. Common law is every bit as valid in the courts as Constituional law. It simply incorrect to suggest that the Only rights a citizen in the USA are entitled to are those listed in the Constitution.
The Constitution AS example allows for a Navy and an army.
It does not matter that the concept of an "air force" did not exist in 1776. There are specific provisions for an army and navy. No amendment was made to allow an air force.
There no provision for Martial law in the Constitution. No mention of executive privelege. No mention of signing statements. No mention of how the supreme court shall be made and how many justices will sit on it. There no clauses giving the Federal Government control over immigration.
All of these have been defined via Judicial Precedent and Common law.
GW, lovely post on that Constitution. This deserves to be stapled on every pol's face when they go to Washington. :)
Well said. The old canards: "it's not in the constitution" and "we cannot legislate morality" are libertarian time wasters. It's really all about money to these folks. They don't mind trillions for the pentagon but scream bloody murder when something humane is being legislated.
The other canard is : "All handouts should be left to charitable organizations. Government is a force and should play no role in handouts".
I'm surprised good old hen-ery8 hasn't put that one out here.
Thanks for clearing up on the HR numbers. You may be technically correct on what you say about morality but I still don't think that we should just give it up like that. GW North's response nails it all the way.
Oh yeah, the constitution was great at guaranteeing civil rights! All it took was some legislation in 1964 to sort of "firm it up" a bit. What's almost 200 years among friends, right? The natives and brown folks didn't really miss all that white privilidge, right?
The constitution doesn't mean squat if the nation's leaders are immoral. Only liars and lawyers quote the constitution these days.
Actually it's right in the Preamble of the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
How is 1 million going bankrupt due to health care expenses "insuring domestic tranquility"?
How is 40,000 dying every year due to lack of health care "promoting the general welfare"?
How is the fact that many people are glued to jobs they hate and want to leave but can't because their health care is provided by their employer helping to "secure the blessings of Liberty" and "form a more perfect Union"?
only ayn rand freedom hating libertarians would argue that the COnstitution doesn't allow for Universal Health Care!
Well said.
These people ask the ridiculous question about whether it is "in the constitution" all the time. If it's not in the constitution, then we just can't define something as a human right? How incredibly ignorant (or is it just machiavellian obfuscation?). The constitution doesn't say a word about whether cats have a right to be treated well. It says nothing about punishing humans that tie cat tails together and set them on fire (Kukliski serial killer when he was a child). It says nothing about funding a secret government organization (CIA) with taxpayer dollars . Does that make the CIA illegal? How much crap can be passed as "laws" in congress and ignored by the supreme court. Checks and balances? Give me a break. The only checks and balances we have are the lobbyist checks going into congress people's checking balances.
Hey, child labor isn't addressed in the constitution, so it's okay, right henry8?
Geeze AGG, surely you didn't mean THAT as an argument?
I saw no argument in my post that said the Constitution did not allow it, I said the Constitution did not guarantee it. Not exactly the same thing is it? If you read things into something that aren't there you make a mistake in your answer. And if you aren't sure of what was said or the meaning, try asking for a clarification before attacking.
Good advise for most of us I believe.
The right to life IS a constitutionally guaranteed right. In any industrial society, the sources of disease could be the result of one or a combination of many corporate and government decisions (such as the decisions to allow cigarette advertising; to medicate children with drugs tested only on adults; to allow literally tends of thousands of chemicals whose health effects aren't tested into our air, water and food; to allow genetically modified agricultural products onto our tables before any long term studies are done, thus making the entire US population the guinea pigs for this experiment, and on, and on...). In an industrial society, any individual decision on a corporate or government level can adversely affect hundreds or thousands of people. Therefore, industrial society with the right to call itself civilized must accept, along with the wealth that comes with industrialization, the responsibility providing health care. Barbara LaMorticella
The "Right to Life" is guaranteed and you could make an argument that it infers the right to health care from it. The problem is that by custom of consideration, by precedent it doesn't include that.
Doesn't mean it can't. Just doesn't now. Frankly I'd favor a Constitutional ammendment to clear this up once and for all.
"Therefore, industrial society with the right to call itself civilized must accept, along with the wealth that comes with industrialization, the responsibility providing health care."
I'd agree with that.
Oh 'henry8' I just love it when you 'hand your head' to others, even though they need a 'magnifying glass' to be able to hold it----
"We hold these truth to be self eveident that all men are created equal*"
and PLEASE did you not read that 'part' about 'life, liberty* and the pursuit of happiness'?
Let's say that YOUR 'Doctor'---came to you and 'said Henry'---you have a rare disease called by some name that even I your doctor can't pronounce---and it will kill you if you do not get this rare cure----but shit man I'm sorry that your Insurance carrier, (you know the one you have trusted and all that other propaganda you bought into) will not cover it.
So, if you are going to live any longer than a week, you must get this treatment:
But wait, you sell all 'your stuff'---and the 'stuff' you can 'get away with stealing from others'---and you still do not have enough money.
Would 'henry8' have a 'right to life'----or because he could not afford his 'life saving treatment' would his other 'conservative friends' just let him die---of a rare condition that could be cured-----if you only have the 'money'.
Then I am reminded of the story recently revealed that a ten year old boy in Fort Worth Texas, died from complications of an abscessed tooth---because he did not have insurance, and his parents could not afford to go to the dentist.(Never mind that that boy may well have grown into the 'doctor or scientist' who discovered the cure for 'stupidity' (or a least a viable and affordable treatment): and just take a moment to imagine how marvelous a 'cure' like that would be for all of those Americans in Washington DC----especially those 'conservative' "Amurikuns"
You contradict yourself many times with your conservative dogma, and if that 'dogma' does not kill you soon, it may kill someone you care about---and you most likely will cling to it if for no other reason than it 'seems familiar and safe'.
I would suggest that the next time you 'wonder what the hell has happened to this once great nation'----you will consider reviewing the 'roster of conservative voters'---THEY are the reason YOU are loosing your 'once great nation'.
* Those 'authors' were 'conservatives' who were not considering "ALL men" just the ones that they would 'recognize' as being 'worthy' of 'equality'.
And if nothing else the 'conservatives have maintained themselves well all these many years'---even though they are loosing their country mostly at their own hands.
"If the USA were another nation the USA would invade the USA to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."
I do wish you'd read things before commenting and think about what is actually being said before interpreting as it suits your prejudice, Truly I do.
Folks: Face it, when it comes to health care, most of your Representatives in Congress are not the Red Communist menace, but are just as bad if not worse; ( Cuba has free health care for all and has one of the best health care systems in the world) because most of your Representatives are THE HEALTH CARE MENACE! They are for the most part, totally impervious to the average Americans suffering. They have no empathy or compassion and could care less that 122 American citizens perish every day because of lack of health care. If this is not a national health care emergency, then I do not what is! Just like they claim to support the troops but really could care less about how many die in punic wars,they claim to be patriotic and wrap themselves in the flag and could care less about 122 sick American citizens perishing every day. They are owned by the fascist $$$$$$ of big pharma and big insurance!
"...denying treatment becomes the main way for the insurance companies to raise profits."
By what actual mechanism is this accomplished? Do insurance companies employ a specific committee, or panel, if you will, to sit in judgement over who lives and who dies? I wonder if they call it a "life panel".
- Kent Shaw -
Sioux Rose
KENT: Twenty years ago in Key West I was friendly with a very talented street performer whose sister worked for a big insurance firm. He told me that she was paid to siphon from their system any that would cost them money. Yes. They do HAVE committees who weed out any who might be in NEED of expensive care. Gore Vidal said the insurance companies function as the piggy banks for the corporations. And we know what ungodly principle they lay homage to: Mammon.
Well said. Speaking of Mammon, there's a good book coming out:
"It Takes A Pillage" by Prins. This lady was a former big shot at Goldman Sachs and she traces the felonious conduct of Paulson and Geithner throughout the crisis. The lying, fraud, embezzelment, distortion and thievery is monumental. These people belong in prison. The way Geithner gamed the Bear Stearns mess for the benefit of Goldman Sachs is particularly revealing. The date that will live in infamy is March 11, 2008. A bloomberg reporter discovered that Geithner, then head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, called a secret meeting inviting all the big investment bank players EXCEPT Bear Stearns. A week later, Bear Stearns was history. What a coincidence. What a bunch of worthless pieces of fecal coliforms these crooks are.
Sioux Rose
AGG: The book sounds interesting. In better, saner times, it would probably qualify as fiction.
BEE/MTDON: Good posts!
Donna,
I just read that Pelosi stripped the health care bill of the Kucinich amendment. I signed a petition telling her to put it back in.
What are you doing about this latest outrage?
Our activists and advocates have been hard at work since last week. One protest action took place in Henry Waxman's office in California on Friday, another will take place today at George Miller's office. Calling, faxing, letter writing and emailing campaigns have been underway to Nancy Pelosi and others plan an action at her office as well. Thousands of contacts are likely before the "managers' amendment" is filed which will either restore the Kucinich amendment and allow the Weiner amendment or not.
In DC, those single-payer groups with folks in the area are paying visits to leadership and calling on Pelosi and other leadership to keep their commitments.
And numerous websites (including this one and Michael Moore's) are helping spread the word. Media outreach is underway.
Outrage is right.
Donna Smith, American SiCKO
Katie Robbins of Healthcare Now said “this bill falls so short, even with the Kucinich amendment — we will not support it.”
There's a good reason for Ms. Robbins's statement: like the ever-malleable and shrinking pubic option, the Kucinich Amendment is the fruit of a timid, losing strategy.
This Kucinich state-by-state tack is just another doomed-to-fail farce to siphon off energy from the real fight. There are only nine provinces in Canada. There are fifty U.S. states--trying to pass single payer on that long, winding road should take only, say, about thirty years, during which 45,000 people per year will still perish from lack of ability to afford a doctor (not to mention that the states are mostly broke anyway). My guess is that most of the people proposing this leisurely, doomed approach probably already have very comfy coverage (certainly Kucinich does!) and feel no personal pressure to press for Medicare for ALL--now.
This state-by-state gambit is a variation of the half-hearted "public option" approach--give half the game away before the game even begins, the idea being, I suppose, that if you propose something half-assed right away, the corporate malefactors will be so bowled over by your reasonableness and politesse that they will just melt in gratitude and say, "Great idea!" The reality is that, like a feral beast, they will smell your weakness and attack you with redoubled ferocity--which is exactly what has happened in the Democrats' health-care debacle that is now unfolding--or unraveling--before our eyes.
Wow! Its really hard to have an Adult conversatio. Its my pleasure to give all you folks such an opportunity to attack rather than discuss, especially since I am apparently elected to the status of these folks.......so I'll have to answer broadly....
B ut before that, thanks Jennifer for your adult and reasoned response. And I NEVER suggested we should give up on Single Payer, its ther only system that gives every citizen what they deserve. Full health care. And I think we all agree on that.
It seems to me that it shouldn't be that hard unless you are simply so eager to assert your self appointed moral superority or that you are so obtuse you cannot read that....
"Health Care is very much like Fire Departments....there is no basic right to them, but in everyones interest and in the interest of society, we organize and pay for them. But they are not a "basic" human right."
It SHOULD be apparent this is exactly the same as " Many rights are derived via common law" ....you are also thanked for an adult and reasonerd response. My whole point was that there are no guaranteed rights except under the Constitution. All the things you mentioned could be changed tomorrow without the Suprme Court being involved. And even the Constitution can be amended of course. But I know you are well aware that our entire legal structure is derived from the Constitution and it is the final arbiter of every law America.
Moral rights as I believe I pointed out are different culture and religion to religion and even different within some countries. The mountain people in Viet Nam were nothing like the rest of the Vietnamese people for example.
To those with their usual personal attacks....pitiful.
To those racists that insist on charging racism to every diviation from their chosen ideology....transparent to say the least.
For those that speak of Canards....insisting that something is a basic human right without anything other than a "moral" argument, without a law under the Constitution or the Constitution itself guaranteeing it, that is a canard.
When something should be a right, you change the law, the "Civil Rights Laws" are a prime example.
Henry8, no problem. I don't think they meant anything bad against you. They are nice people but maybe they were upset and weren't sure what to say with regards to the Constitution. Maybe they felt that you threw them off but hopefully the misunderstanding will be cleared up. I'm still open to discussing with a variety of people on this site. Take care and don't get too upset. I know there's still that progressive heart deep down in you. :)
Katie Robbins of Healthcare Now said “this bill falls so short, even with the Kucinich amendment — we will not support it.”
There's a good reason for Ms. Robbins's statement: like the ever-malleable and shrinking pubic option, the Kucinich Amendment is the fruit of a timid, losing strategy.
This Kucinich state-by-state tack is just another doomed-to-fail farce to siphon off energy from the real fight. There are only nine provinces in Canada. There are fifty U.S. states--trying to pass single payer on that long, winding road should take only, say, about thirty years, during which 45,000 people per year will still perish from lack of ability to afford a doctor (not to mention that the states are mostly broke anyway). My guess is that most of the people proposing this leisurely, doomed approach probably already have very comfy coverage (certainly Kucinich does!) and feel no personal pressure to press for Medicare for ALL--now.
This state-by-state gambit is a variation of the half-hearted "public option" approach--give half the game away before the game even begins, the idea being, I suppose, that if you propose something half-assed right away, the corporate malefactors will be so bowled over by your reasonableness and politesse that they will just melt in gratitude and say, "Great idea!" The reality is that, like a feral beast, they will smell your weakness and attack you with redoubled ferocity--which is exactly what has happened in the Democrats' health-care debacle that is now unfolding--or unraveling--before our eyes.
I can't imagine state wide single payer passing in MO. There is the possibility though that if some states pass their single payer then others might follow but yes, it's really iffy at best. Still, I guess that with very little hope of seeing a nationwide single payer plan, our next fallback is the states.
The point is that no one should be proposing far-fetched, doomed-to-fail amendments that essentially give the game away.
This fight will be won or lost on the national level.
The states route is a sop and diversion--any activist time and energy devoted to that amendment is time and energy diverted from the real fight--MEDICARE FOR ALL, NOW.
We're plunging into long-term economic decline. The states do not have the money to implement single payer.
This is one of Kucnich's patented interference runs for the mainstream Democrats--trying to lull progressives into supporting a reactionary, crappy bill.
I see what you are saying. I admit that I am ambivalent and have mixed feelings about Kucinich. I too had thought that states already have the right to enact single payer on their own and then someone points to something specific in HR3200 where the bill would actually limit their abilities to do so. I agree that it's better to tear the whole thing down and start with HR676. It's unbelievable that Conyers himself won't push for it. I can only look at Kucinich and Conyers as fallbacks at best.
You make a good point on state funding. It's not as easy to rack up deficits as it is on the federal level although single payer on the federal level is supposed to save tax money. I can see where it will be tougher to make the case even though single payer would actually reduce the deficit in some ways. It might vary from state to state.
By the way, last I heard, HR3200 was 1990 pages and counting. I don't even want to know what they've added to make it so huge anymore.