Big mistake (4.00 / 3)

Both candidates, but esp HRC, has put universal healthcare at the top of their governing priorities, because it has become a crucial issue for at least half the Dem Party and who knows how many GOPers (I guess we'll find out in the GE). Meanwhile, Schumer/Rockefeller are pulling the rugs out from under them. They're gonna campaign in the GE on an issue Dem leadership says ain't gonna happen?

Passing universal healthcare will do for this Dem Party what passing Soc Sec did for FDR's: relegate the GOP to minority status for a generation.

I'm not sure it requires a movement to get it done. I'm hoping it may just require leadership/arm twisting from Pres HRC or BO (and the balls to expend a lot of political capitol) to make it happen.

For now I've gotta make a phone call to my Senator, Chuck Schumer...  

---

by: JohnS @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:02:38 AM CDT

Hillary has said.. (0.00 / 0)

....that she won't even touch the idea until midway in her second term...  So, if it fails then, she won't bear any direct consequences.

Barack's idea isn't core to his candidacy, but is more flexible... so, he may have a better shot.. IF he pushes it!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:16:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I believe what she has said (4.00 / 1)

is that she would spend her first term "building a national consensus" that we need uni healthcare (in the face of what will surely be massive pushback from the insurance industry). And that if she can build that consensus fast enough, she'll try to pass it in her first term.

---

by: JohnS @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:21:33 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

HRC and Obama's mamby pamby plans were rife for this sort of treatment. (0.00 / 0)

If either of them were running on a single payer plan they could immediately take the message to the people, who seem to hate Congress as much as the Boy King, that they will get private profit out of their healthcare and demand that Congress pass laws freeing employees from having to stake their health on their jobs and freeing employers from having to either go bankrupt or screw their employees to stay in business while giving them healthcare.

As it stand both are running with plans that must be run through the insurance lobby and instead of Congress looking like the problem our Democratic President will also be shown kowtowing to the lobbyists as the plans get watered down or turn into the inevitable industry kickbacks.

---

by: Ricky @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:18:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Advisory Referenda for November - On nat'l gov't as Insurer of Last Resort (4.00 / 2)

David,

Thanks much for the quick pick up on these statements by faux liberal Congress scum.

In the comments last night on a post by Chris Bowers on "Forging Electability," commenter johnraymond suggested that progressives attempt to place on state ballots one or two referendum questions that squarely present signature progressive issues, and make the ballot questions one major focus of the election dialogue in September and October.  This idea comes, I guess, from the 2006 Missouri initiative on stem-cell research funding, which in turn was inspired by the Karl Rove 2004 state referenda to exclude same-sex unions from the definition of "marriage."

I added a comment to the thread that tried to expand on johnraymond's idea, but it was in the wee hours and my comment was not nearly as coherent as I would like a comment to be!

However, in states where the law so provides, progressives might be able to place on the ballot one or two initiatives that endorse:

(1) Removing all combat troops from Iraq by 9/30/2010 (end of the first full Fiscal Year of the next administration), and

(2) Approving of Congress's enacting legislation to make the national government the "health insurer of last resort."  Services and coverage could come from (a) expanding VA hospital system eligibility; and/or (b) subsidizing the cost of one of the benefit packages available to Congress critters and their families by applying all savings from withdrawing troops and material from the occupation of Iraq toward the cost of the new health insurance coverage.

Winning advisory referenda on one or two points like these in a number of states should focus the attention of Schumer and other faux liberals that foot-dragging on the core policy concerns of the majority of voters could make Democratic incumbents vulnerable to web-funded progressive candidates coming up from their left wing.

Is such a project feasible?  Probably in some states, probably not in many others.  I don't know enough about the nitty-gritty of state laws on initiatives and referenda (which are virtually unique in each of the 50 states, I suspect) to know how practical such a project would be.  But if it is feasible in several close states - or even in a few swing states, for that matter - one or two uniform, carefully worded questions on the state ballot could help prevent incumbent Democrats from defeating the policy initiatives that are desperately needed both by the nation and by the Democratic Party.  

---

by: hardheaded liberal @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:45:04 AM CDT

Great. Another example of how out of touch our politicians are (4.00 / 2)

with the people they represent. John Edwards had the right idea: Step One--send a bill to Congress requiring that no one in Congress receives health care anymore until all Americans are assured of health care; Step Two--the President does a national tour encouraging the public to pressure their representatives to pass UHC, shaming the Congress into action. Meanwhile, tell the business lobbyists for pharamaceuticals and insurance companies to find another day job. It's fine to talk about a "movement", but change only occurs when you have total commitment to change from the person at the top of pyramid.

---

by: grayslady @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:48:41 AM CDT

We're going to need to MAKE them listen! (4.00 / 2)

Perhaps withholding of DSCC contributions would be a start... We also have to send them a clear and bold message, somehow.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

---

by: lord_mike @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:17:19 AM CDT

the best way to get national healthcare (0.00 / 0)

is to increase costs for the companies that most influence politicsfor employer-provided health care plans (including by forcing them to expand coverage through eliminating loopholes for temp workers, etc.), to have illness take a toll on their profits, etc., etc.  That will bring them over to shifting the costs to the federal government, even if the people involved ideologically oppose that.

at least, that's how other major social programmes have worked in the past.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:22:26 AM CDT

I've thought a lot (4.00 / 1)

about why, seemingly against all logic, U.S. companies aren't leading the charge for national health care. I've come up with only two reasons, but they are powerful ones:

1. In very simplified terms (in order to keep it short), companies and corporations actually identify with the folks running the corporate health care system, and see them as brethren - truly one of their own.

2. The current system prevents the overwhelming majority of American workers from being free to leave their job for another or start their own businesses for fear of losing health care for themselves or family members. In short, indentured slavery. Why would U.S. companies want to fuck up that sweet system? Sure, they complain a bit about costs, but they don't complain too loudly for a reason. It's a great excuse to keep salaries down and workers in line.

---

by: Oaktown Girl @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:02:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

i don't doubt either of these things (0.00 / 0)

that's why the costs have gotta go past a point where it's worth their while.  If, for example, the Maryland bill that tried to target Wal-Mart and force it to cover all its employees to go through, and other efforts like that were passed, I'm sure you'd see large corporations that aren't in the health care administration business singing a different tune.  

I haven't done any economic analysis to see what that breaking point would be, though, but a divided business elite is really all it would take at this point since the entire population pretty much supports government provided health care of some form or another (although the interpretation of what form that should take probably differs significantly...hence the debate about radicallly overhauling the entire system and replacing it with a single payer system vs. incrementally extending existing programs to cover more people and other small steps).

---

by: dr anonymous @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 17:37:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If the internet has a rooftop (4.00 / 2)

this needs to be screamed from it:

this reminds us of the need for progressives to focus on building a social movement, rather than exclusively on winning elections.

The assumption that all Dems share the same social values is killing this party.  The fact is the Dems are merely the opposition to the most corrupt GOP in generations.  There's nothing implicit in that about them making the right choices, and it's clear they don't intend to anyway.

---

by: BigTuna @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:37:16 AM CDT

tragically (0.00 / 0)

it's usually hard to convince people of this, despite that it's completely true.  And then on the flip side, when there is a full-fledged social movement, the more policy victories they win, the more tempting it is not to engage in fundamental institutional reform.

which i suppose speaks to the class bias of the american political system.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 17:42:04 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

John Edwards knew what was in store... (4.00 / 2)

The nominee will have to revive Edward's threat to cut off congress's gov't health care if they fail to act...

---

by: DukeJ @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:21:30 PM CDT

A modest proposal (0.00 / 0)

Two quick points:

If Schumer and Meek think this way, then surely they'll give up their health care and reduce their income so they can experience what 95% (or more) Americans experience every day. Put their money where their mouth is for a year. It's called the arrogance of the wealthy. Happily not all wealthy people are arrogant, only these two out of touch jerks.

Second, I agree with hard headed liberal's idea about putting progressive issues on the ballot in selected states. However, I hope the Iraq and health care issues would be two separate ballot items.

---

by: TSlavin @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 13:31:29 PM CDT

It's the Policy Positions Stupid! (4.00 / 2)

Wow, David, you're back!  Good.  I was wondering when you were going to wake up and stop being an Obama cheerleader here.

That's the bottom line, which ones will buck the corporate lobbyist agenda once into office and actually write, push and pass legislation in the national interest and for working America.

If one focuses in on their candidate like some sort of rock star groupie, well, frankly I don't think anything will change.

Getting these people to commit to policy, on paper, to make as many promises as possible and to get people into office that will act on those promises is the key.

I know saying this is sacrilege but frankly GOP Senator Chuck Grassley is acting more in the interest of the American people than many of our Dem Senators these days, so focusing in on just the party affiliation is zero guarantee of getting much needed policy changes and legislation passed.

We have people dying right this very minute due to our health care system, people going bankrupt.  This is a national outrage and it's akin to Katrina.  But, Katrina had a concentrated area where we could see the horror in one locale whereas people who are dying are hidden in corners, turned away from life saving procedures one at a time.

We need more powerful grassroots media to amplify this.  If I read one more blog or media story on Obama or Hillary, counting delegates, or lack thereof or he said what and she said that at this point I'm going to scream.  Focus in on real change and on these issues and we might actually get it.

Michael Moore, Frontline are not enough, we need images of these horror stories every damn day to get our @&*)$ Congress to act and do it right now.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 14:16:07 PM CDT

- (4.00 / 1)

If one focuses in on their candidate like some sort of rock star groupie, well, frankly I don't think anything will change.

I worry about this too, but I have some faith that issues are driving things more than in the 90s, and that people will criticize obama once he inevitably appears like a sellout, which it's likely he will on something or another.  I understand how f@#ked up American politics is right now, but I also think that Obama is more reliable not to crack down on movement building than Hillary Clinton given that he probably understands what it is.

---

by: dr anonymous @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 17:55:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

tough call (0.00 / 0)

I'm just focusing in on trade, economics and so on policy, but for myself, it's a very tough call.  We have people supporting in both camps, yet in terms of true policy in favor of the US middle class and so on, all of them work very hard to get some sort of policy based on what's really going on (which is selling the US and it's people down the river).  It does seem to me over time, Hillary has been moving away from the corporate lobbyist's agenda and adopting, some of them extremely good, more Progressive/Populist positions and plans.

But, that said, trusting to implement and fight for those plans is yet another issue.  

I try to remain agnostic, except pushing for fact based policy discussion.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

---

by: Robert Oak @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 18:40:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

not to be too pomo (0.00 / 0)

but "fact-based policy discussion" happens in the context of a discourse, and my gut is that Obama would let a more fact-based discourse flourish on these and other issues than Clinton would based on the fact that he's run his campaign more on discourse and Clinton has run hers first on power (with the promise of implementing 'good' policies once in power).

---

by: dr anonymous @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 18:50:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Any movement during a campaign is BS as far as I am concerned (0.00 / 0)

I don't trust any of Hillary's moving away from the corporate lobbyist agenda.  Such moves during a campaign strike me as ploys and the fact is her advisers are still the same DLC-types  that have no interest in a fairer America.  I am not a big 'Clintons will do anything to win' type, but I don't trust these moves that run counter to what she has stood for all these years.  Edwards's turn to populism seems much more genuine since he took the stand when it mattered most, at the beginning of the campaign.

---

by: Ricky @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:25:10 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Why not a party? (4.00 / 1)

If we are to get health care reform, it will require a movement - not a party.

Our OWN party, that is.

Yeah, I know - a third party of the left would throw elections to the Republicans, like Nader did in 2000.

That doesn't have to be the case.  In fact, it's easy to avoid.

Suppose we created a third party of the left that:
1) Didn't run a Presidential candidate, but joined in working to elect a Dem to the White House.
2) Didn't run candidates in (D v. R) competitive Congressional races.
3) DID run candidates in every safe (D or R) seat we could field a candidate in.

This party (let's call it the All-Night Party, in fond remembrance of Howard the Duck) would not throw a single race to the Republicans.  But it would keep a lot of Congresscritters of both parties on their toes.

MOST House seats, and even a number of Senate seats each cycle, are safe for one party or the other.  

By challenging safe Dems (except those that are already fighting the good progressive fight), we'd be letting them know that they're only safe from Republicans, but that they'd better be prepared to defend their record against progressives who really just want the Democrats to fight for the things they say they're for.

And by challenging safe Republicans, we'd be exposing people in conservative districts to genuine progressive ideas and arguments, rather than (a) watered-down Democratic centrism, or (b) GOP caricatures of liberalism.

I really think that, barring the Dems' actually becoming a "fighting Dem" party as a result of this election, this is the way we need to go, sometime in the next couple of election cycles.

---

by: low-tech cyclist @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 14:38:56 PM CDT