June, 04 2009, 02:18pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Scott McLarty, Media Coordinator, 202-518-5624, cell 202-904-7614, mclarty@greens.org
Starlene Rankin, Media Coordinator, 916-995-3805, starlene@gp.org
Greens Challenge Baucus & Insurance Defenders to Debate Single-Payer Advocates
WASHINGTON
Green Party leaders challenged Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and other
defenders of health care reform based on private insurance to debate
advocates of Single-Payer national health care in a public forum.
Greens also challenged the major media to broadcast the debate.
"Americans deserve to hear a debate on the merits of
Single-Payer/Medicare For All versus the merits of a health care system
dominated by for-profit insurance companies and HMOs," said Angel
Torres, co-chair of the Green Party of Maricopa County (https://www.maricopagreens.org), which organized a rally for Single-Payer in front of the office of Congressman Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) on May 30.
"Greens are prepared to defend Single-Payer publicly. We also
challenge groups like Physicians for a National Health Program, the
Healthcare-Now Coalition, Single-Payer Action, and the California
Nurses Association to represent the Single-Payer side. Single-Payer
supporters have been fighting to get public attention, especially for
Rep. John Conyers' Single-Payer bill, HR 676," said Mr. Torres.
Greens participated in national Day of Action for Single-Payer events throughout the US on May 30 (https://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=218). In Augusta, Maine, 2004 Green vice presidential candidate Pat LaMarche hosted a Single-Payer rally at the statehouse (https://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/6407921.html).
Sen. Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has called
Single-Payer "off the table" and barred Single-Payer advocates from
participating in committee roundtables on health care reform that took
place in May.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic politicians are trying to discourage state Single-Payer advocates (https://www.Healthcare4allPA.org), including Greens, from participating in a health care lobby day on June 11 organized by the AFL-CIO.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats and
Republicans accepted over $46 million in insurance industry donations
in 2008 (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09).
According to Consumer Watchdog, Sen. Baucus has taken more campaign
contributions from health insurance firms ($183,750 in the last two
election cycles) and pharmaceutical companies ($229,020) than any other
Democratic member of the House and Senate.
Greens blast misleading TV ads
Green Party health care activists warned that private insurance
defenders are placing ads to mislead the public about health care
reform, even to the point of confusing private insurance-based plans
favored by President Obama and Democratic leaders with Single-Payer.
Recent TV ads have featured Rick Scott, chair of Conservatives for
Patients' Rights, who was fired from his position as CEO of
Columbia/HCA in 1997 after he was caught trying defraud the federal and
state governments for hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars in
false Medicare and Medicaid payments, the largest Medicare/Medicaid
fraud in history. The company had to pay back $1.7 billion, but Mr.
Scott, instead of facing prosecution, received $10 million in severance
pay and $300 million worth of stock.
"The last thing private insurance lobbies want is open and honest
discussion about Single-Payer. Sen. Baucus has remained steadfast in
rejecting Single-Payer and excluding advocates from future hearings.
But we're hopeful that Sen. Ted Kennedy will invite pro-Single-Payer
physicians to an upcoming June 10 and 11 hearing hosted by the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which Sen. Kennedy
chairs," said Jody Grage, treasurer of the Green Party of the United
States. (See https://www.opednews.com/articles/Baucus-Tells-Single-Payer-by-David-Swanson-090603-713.html)
Greens argue that for-profit health insurance adds high costs
(administrative overhead, demand for profit) but no value (medical
treatment). All other industrial nations guarantee their citizens
health care; no one in Canada, which has a Single-Payer system, faces
financial ruin because of illness or injury.
Single-Payer, based on Medicare (administrative costs: about 3%),
eliminates the inefficiency of private coverage, drastically cutting
costs while covering all Americans ("everyone in, no one out") and
allowing full choice of physician and hospital. Greens said that the
reforms favored by President Obama and many Democrats don't curb
inefficiency, because they leave the insurance/HMO gatekeepers in
charge (https://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=216).
Green leaders noted that polls have shown widespread popular support
for a national health care program that guarantees universal coverage (https://www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html). In 2008, the US Conference of Mayors endorsed Single-Payer (https://www.usmayors.org/resolutions/76th_conference/chhs_03.asp), as have thousands of physicians.
The Green Party of the United States is a grassroots national party. We're the party for "We The People," the health of our planet, and future generations instead of the One Percent.
(202) 319-7191LATEST NEWS
Climate Movement Cheers Michigan AG's Plans to Sue Big Oil
"Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable," said the state attorney general
May 09, 2024
Advocates of holding fossil fuel giants accountable for their significant contributions to the climate emergency welcomed Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's Thursday announcement that she intends to sue the polluting industry.
"Big Oil knew decades ago that their products would cause catastrophic climate change, but instead of doing the right thing they lied about it," declared Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity. "The people of Michigan deserve their day in court to make these companies pay for the massive harm they knowingly caused."
Dozens of municipalities and attorneys general for the District of Columbia and eight states—California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont—have already filed climate liability suits against Big Oil in recent years.
"Our 'Pure Michigan' identity is under threat from the effects of climate change," said Nessel, whose state was praised last year for passing clean energy legislation. "Warmer temperatures are shrinking ski seasons in the UP and disrupting the wonderful blooms of Holland's Tulip Time Festival. Severe weather events are on the rise."
"These impacts threaten not only our way of life but also our economy and pose long-term risks to Michigan's thriving agribusiness," she continued. "The fossil fuel industry, despite knowing about these consequences, prioritized profits over people and the environment. Pursuing this litigation will allow us to recoup our costs and hold those responsible for jeopardizing Michigan's economic future and way of life accountable."
The Democratic attorney general's office explained that she is "seeking proposals from attorneys and law firms to serve as special assistant attorneys general to pursue litigation related to the climate change impacts caused by the fossil fuel industry on behalf of the state of Michigan."
The Detroit Newsnoted that "Nessel took a similar tact in suing drugmakers for the opioid crisis, farming out much of the work to outside law firms in Michigan, Texas, and Florida."
According to the newspaper:
Nessel's office is working with other state departments to assess the costs associated with climate change, such as the cost of expanding storm water systems to handle flooding caused by stronger storms, responding to natural disasters, or supporting northern Michigan tourism economies dealing with dwindling ice and snow.
"This is going to be a massive discovery effort to find out exactly what our Michigan damages are now already and what can we expect to see in the future as a result of climate change," she said.
"I don't know that there's a bigger issue facing the state of Michigan than climate change," Nessel told the outlet. "We are talking about billions and billions of dollars in damages and we're already starting to see that on a day-to-day basis. We know this is only going to get worse."
The youth-led Sunrise Movement applauded Nessel's plans and asserted that U.S. President Joe Biden—who is seeking reelection in November—and the Department of Justice "must follow suit."
The group's call echoed similar demands that emerged last week in response to the U.S. Senate Budget Committee's hearing about a three-year investigation into "Big Oil's campaign of deception and distraction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Compare Biden's Proposed Asylum Rule to 'Failed Trump-Era Policies'
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," said one migrant rights advocate.
May 09, 2024
Immigrant rights advocates on Thursday slammed the Biden administration's proposal to fast-track the rejection of certain migrants seeking asylum in the United States.
On Thursday the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule that would empower immigration officials to disqualify certain asylum-seekers during their initial eligibility screening—called the credible fear interview (CFI)—using existing national security and terrorism-related criteria, or bars.
DHS said the rule would apply to noncitizens who have "engaged in certain criminal activity, persecuted others, or have been involved in terrorist activities."
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation."
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas called the proposed rule "yet another step in our ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of the American public by more quickly identifying and removing those individuals who present a security risk and have no legal basis to remain here."
However, Greg Chen, senior director of government relations for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, argued that while "bars are an important feature of our immigration laws to ensure that dangerous individuals are not allowed into the country," they must be "accurately applied where warranted."
"This change could make the process faster by excluding people who would not be entitled to stay," he noted. "However, due process will likely be eroded by accelerating what is a highly complex legal analysis needed for these bars and conducting them at the preliminary CFI screening."
As Chen explained:
At that early stage, few asylum seekers will have the opportunity to seek legal counsel or time to understand the consequences of a bar being applied. Under the current process, they have more time to seek legal advice, to prepare their case, and to appeal it or seek an exemption. Ultimately to establish a fair and orderly process at the border, Congress needs to provide the Department of Homeland Security with the resources to meet its mission and also ensure the truly vulnerable are not summarily denied protection without due process.
Democratic lawmakers—some of whom held a press conference Wednesday on protecting undocumented immigrants in the U.S.—also criticized the proposal.
"As the Biden administration considers executive actions on immigration, we must not return to failed Trump-era policies aimed at banning asylum and moving us backwards," said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), referring to former Republican President Donald Trump, the presumptive 2024 GOP nominee to face President Joe Biden in November.
"I urge President Biden to embrace our values as a nation of immigrants and use this opportunity to instead provide relief for the long-term immigrants of this nation," he added.
One year ago, critics accused Biden of "finishing Trump's job" by implementing a crackdown on asylum-seekers upon the expiration of Title 42—a provision first invoked during Trump administration at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and continued by Biden to expel more than 1 million migrants under the pretext of public safety.
Earlier this week, the advocacy group Human Rights First released a report detailing the harms of the policy on its anniversary. The group held a press conference to unveil the report and warn of the dangers of further anti-migrant policies.
"The interviews with hundreds of asylum-seekers make clear that the asylum ban and related restrictions strands in danger children and adults seeking asylum, punishes people for seeking protection, leads to the return of refugees to persecution, spurs irregular crossings, and denies equal access to asylum to people facing the most dire risks," Human Rights First director of research and analysis of refugee protection Christina Asencio said during the press conference.
"The Biden administration and Congress must not erect any more unjust barriers to asylum that will sow further disorder and result in irreparable harm," Asencio added.
On Wednesday, three advocacy groups—Al Otro Lado, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and the Texas Civil Rights Project—sued the federal government on behalf of noncitizens with disabilities seeking more information regarding CBP One, the problem-plagued Customs and Border Protection app migrants must use to schedule asylum interviews at U.S. ports of entry.
"We have and continue to see migrants with disabilities facing unlawful discrimination and unequal access to the asylum process due to the inaccessibility of the app," said Laura Murchie, an attorney with the Civil Rights and Education Enforcement Center involved in the case.
"CBP needs to release these documents so we can advocate for and ensure compliance with the law so asylum-seekers with disabilities do not continue to be harmed by CBP's disregard for rights that are guaranteed by federal disability law," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netanyahu Says Israel 'Will Stand Alone' as Biden Threatens to Withhold Arms
"If we have to, we will fight with our nails," the Israeli prime minister said in response to the American leader's warning against a major Rafah invasion.
May 09, 2024
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday responded to U.S. President Joe Biden's threat to withhold shipments of arms used by the Israel Defense Forces to kill thousands of Palestinian civilians by declaring that his far-right government would continue its assault on Gaza with or without American help.
"If we are forced to stand alone, we will stand alone," Netanyahu said in a video ahead of next week's anniversary of Israel's establishment in 1948, largely via the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's Arabs. "I have already said that if we have to, we will fight with our nails."
Echoing Netanyahu, Israel Defense Forces spokesperson Daniel Hagari said the IDF already has the "necessary weapons" to wage war, "including in Rafah," where over 1 million people forcibly displaced from other parts of Gaza are sheltering alongside around 280,000 local residents, all of them bracing for a full-scale Israeli invasion.
The prime minister's remarks came a day after Biden threatened to withhold bombs and artillery shells from Israel if it launches a major invasion of Rafah—even as critics noted that Israeli forces have already attacked and entered the city. Some accused Biden of walking back a previous "red line" warning against any assault on Rafah.
Common Dreamsreported Tuesday that Biden is delaying shipments of two types of bombs to Israel in order to send a message that the president's tolerance for what he called Israel's "indiscriminate bombing" of Gazan civilians is waning.
However, observers noted that Biden recently signed off on $14.3 billion in emergency armed assistance for Israel atop the nearly $4 billion the key ally already receives from Washington each year. The Biden administration has quietly approved more than 100 arms sales to Israel since October 7, while pushing for billions of dollars worth of additional deals, including advanced fighter jets.
Biden has also repeatedly bypassed Congress to fast-track weapons transfers to Israel as it wages what the International Court of Justice in January called a "plausibly" genocidal war that's killed, injured, or left missing more than 124,000 Palestinians—mostly women and children—since October 7.
The U.S. administration also provides diplomatic cover for Israel's policies and practices in the form of United Nations Security Council vetoes.
Despite all this support—which comes as most election-year voters supporting Biden's Democratic Party believe Israel is committing genocide in Gaza—Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Thursday tweeted, "Hamas ❤️ Biden."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular