Hill: D.C. Dems Back Off Health Care Promises
In a stunning - if predictable - story, the Hill newspaper reports that congressional Democrats are now saying that they will effectively thwart any effort to create a national health care program. Here is the key excerpt:
"Congressional Democrats are backing away from healthcare reform promises made by their two presidential candidates, saying that even if their party controls the White House and Congress, sweeping change will be difficult...Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), a member of Senate Democratic leadership and a key Hillary Clinton ally who also sits on the Finance Committee, said he is 'not sure we have the big plan on healthcare.'...'Healthcare I feel strongly about, but I am not sure that we're ready for a major national healthcare plan,' Schumer said...Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-Fla.), a Clinton supporter who sits on the House Ways and Means Committee, said "the money is not necessarily there right now" to enact the plans."
There's a lot to unpack here.
First and foremost, to those in Washington who say the nation should just wait for Washington to act on health care and wait for Democrats to win control of Congress and the presidency, this story exposes the glaring failure of that strategy - especially as states move forward into the breach. Health care reform has to be a dual effort - at the federal level and at the state level. And most likely, real reform is going to start in the states - in part, because Democrats in Washington are so afraid of their own shadow and bought off by Big Money interests that they are now acknowledging that they are no serious about fulfilling their health care promises.
Second, you'll notice the right-wing arguments being made by Democrats in this piece. Schumer, like a reliable Fox News anchor, tells us that America isn't "ready" for national health care plan, despite polls over the last decade showing strong support for such a concept. Likewise, Meek - playing right into the Grover Norquist "drown it in the bathtub" mantra, claims the federal government doesn't have the cash to pay for a health care overhaul - even as Congress continues writing blank checks to fund the Iraq War.
Finally, this reminds us of the need for progressives to focus on building a social movement, rather than exclusively on winning elections. Democrats are effectively saying that no matter how many elections are won, they will not move forward on the most pressing domestic issue. That's because there isn't yet a powerful social movement putting constant pressure on both parties - and instilling fear in both parties. The infrastructure that has been built in recent years is largely partisan rather than movement-oriented - that is, aimed at buttressing the Democratic Party, regardless of what it does. If we are to get health care reform, it will require a movement - not a party.
Join the book club for David Sirota's upcoming book, The Uprising, due out on 5/27.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Before anything can happen in health care, we - the people - will have to forceably disconnect the mouths of the legislative and executive branches of government from the teats of BigPharma and the insurance industry. At present, there is simply no incentive for these people to do anything; they continue to rake in campaign cash by doing nothing. If we can threaten them with the loss of their jobs, then there might be a chance.
blooddoc, yes indeed. I think the only way way we'll get a national health plan is if a huge percentage of Americans simply drop their coverage. It would have to be an unprecedented unilateral movement, but it would work.
All talk, no action. Typical American. Get in that queue to vote Demo-Republican Party. Oh, it might not count. But at least you and every other American can say, "I Voted!". And, as a bonus, they give you a sticker! Just like in first grade. A Gold Star!
Seriously, ever notice those other parties on the ballot? Of course! Maybe that is what we need. And a constitutional amendment for public financing of our elections. Why public financing? So the Supreme Court cannot overrule it when the corporations sue. And if The Supreme Court does overturn it (think Nevada), you know you live in a dictatorship. And you are the peasant.
Or just go ahead and vote to enact Gravel's national initiative to take back the government and vote it in ourselves. www.nationalinitiative.us
England started Universal Health Care right after WORLD WAR TWO!! Don't give me that "we can't afford it" crap.
What "we can't afford it" means is the private insurers who contribute to our supposed "representatives" in Congress don't want to lose a profit center for them.
This is what corruption rooted in private campaign contributions leads to in practical terms for the American people.
And we are left with a failed health care system that can't cover 50 million American men, women and children, and leaves 50 million more underinsured or covered by predatory private health plans.
We can afford it. We just cannot afford that and
1) low taxes for people who make over $200,000 a year; and
2) flushing trillions down the sewer in Iraq because George W. Bush misled the nation into war under false pretenses against the wrong country and got away with it, and still gets away with it because the Democrats don't have the courage to use their congressional majority.
This is horrifyingly sad.
We need a true Progressive Party that is founded on the principle of not accepting one dime of corporate money. The Democrats are addicts who cannot give up that corrupting corporate cash even if they don't need it.
If Obama is denied the nomination by the Superdelegates after winning the popular vote and the most pledged delegates, he should start a new one.
As a nation, we have fundamentally, we have limited resources. At present, we are allowing our infrastructure, our education systems, and our safety nets for those who need them such as health care to falter because a large chunk of the available resources are going to the war. Additionally, we have allowed those with the greatest wealth to acquire further more wealth without bounds. Finally, we as a nation spend more than we produce.
So, when it is stated that the money isn't available, this is probably true. But it does not have to be true. It comes down to a matter of priorities for our society. Do we want to be a society of imperial conquest, or do we want a productive society that invests its resources in itself?
While it is a sad state of affairs, the fact that as far as I know no Democratic senator has stood up on the floor of the Senate and called for investigations and impeachment of BushCo should have been an indicator which direction many Democratic congressmen have already taken on this question.
I like you. Let us stop calling them Democrats or Republicans. Just call them Party Members. You know, like in the old Soviet Union. Amerikan Politburo is Congress. And the Presidency? Premiere.
Which is why we need to clean house. Return No Incumbent!
So when are we going to get serious about democracy and start supporting candidates such as KUCINICH, NADER, GREEN PARTY and their ilk or are we just going to play this stupid, repetitive game year after year after year. You have to do more than read HUFFINGTONPOST.COM to be a progressive liberal.
I'm with you. We need to stop voting in Republicrats. Kucinich is the only exception. The rest must go. Vote in Mike Gravel, Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader and be done with them!!! Vote in Greens and Libertarians into the rest of the offices. It is the only way we won't continue our imperialism and endless wars. The Libertarians are a strange bunch but (now that I'm learning more about them due to my support of Gravel) I have found that they are VERY strong on civil rights. Not as excited about their stance on free market, but they WILL make smaller government, including an end to war as policy, American Imperialism, etc. I think we need a combination of Greens and Libertarians in all offices.
That's a joke! Voting for third party candidates in a presidential election only assures a win in one of the major parties! Essentially it's the same thing as staying home and not voting at all! If you want third party elections to actually count for something, then support third party candidates for state and local offices! Build your third party into something worhty of voting for in a presidential election, instead of becoming the Spencers Gift party of jokes that are no longer funny!
Schumer is wrong about not being able to afford a national health care plan.We can't afford not to have national health care. What Schumer is concerned about is all that lobbyist money that comes from the health care and insurance industry drying up.
Good point, tomsemioli. We've been betrayed by the Dems; let's all dump them.
Nader wants no regulation on business. Oh, we already see how that goes with government deregulation. Just imagine what it would be like with no regulations. Well, we can see that today.
Are you sure about this? Nader doesn't seem like the kind of candidate that would be against regulations on business. Can you point us to a link on this? This is the same man who attacked the automobile industry over the corvair's safety record...? Are you sure?
Nader? Against regulating business? You must be joking. I think you have him confused with Ron Paul.
Thanks, David, for bringing this to light. While it is just one more disappointment re: the Democrats in Congress, it surely is not surprising. Schumer has long shown himself to be a corporate shill, as are many -- if not most -- of the whores in Congress (there are notable exceptions, of course) be they nominal Democrats or Repugnants. So long as control of the healthcare payment system is in the hands of for-profit entities, just that long will there remain the current disparities in access, quality and availability, because those who profit from the existing system --handsomely, I might add -- will contiinue to buy off or threaten/intimidate anyone in Congress who seriously proposes to reform the system. A national movement for single-payer, universal coverage, exerting more than just electoral pressures on both Congress and state legislatures is what will be required.
I agree with the proposal of zizyphus about what REALLY needs to happen. Sadly, I don't think either of the Democratic presidential candidates can/will bring that about. It's for sure McNutcase won't even come close to talking about it, much less attempting it. In my opinion, McNutcase is a sad little tempermental fraud, who hasn't had an original thought simce he got out of the third grade. He will kiss whichever asses are put in front of him attached to someone who promises to line his pockets and those of his friends.
Then let's all agree to not vote in any of the 3 "front runners". Vote third party.
Thank you David, great insight as usual and thank you Debbie. I have long thought that NADER was the best hope now that Edwards is gone.
I hate them.
I think THEY'RE not ready for national health care either. I say we should force a repeal of their government health benefits IMMEDIATELY. If it's not good enough for us - then it's not good enough for them either.
Why should they be the only ones suffering? Let us help. This is as good a place for the movement to start as any.
*
I'm with you! How do we do it? How do we get even one member of congress to stand before the body and shame them on this? Better yet, how do we get enough of them to make a movement?
I mean, look at the results on impeachment.....
My theme has always been my motto, "Re Elect No One" ( click my profile )
I am a Democrat. That said, they all need to go, D's and R's alike and be replaced with a fresh lot.
You have never received anything from those in office now so why would you really expect to just because we elect a new President? Same old people = same old policies and politics.
American's will never have any representation from those currently in office, long since sold out to corporate America, their allegiance does not lie with the average citizen any more. It never will again.
We simply have no chance with status quo members of Congress.
Yes.
And thanks.
I agree, for the most part. There are very few that I would re-elect. Some that come to mind are Kucinich and Waxman. I think we should go a step further and elect third parties in their place. We NEED to break up the two party system. They are essentially identical now. Let's vote in Greens and Libertarians. At least they've stayed true to their platforms.
... This cowardly capitulation by (ostensibly )progressive Congresional Dems to Big Pharma/the insatiable private health insurance parasite before the battle is even engaged is just another exemplification that America- with a big assist from the corporate media and its "dumb 'em down" / "millionaires and big business first" agenda- is hurtling towards a Corporate Plutocracy...neither Jimmy Carter Obama or Nelson Rockefeller Clinton can or will turn the tide.
I totally agree with this guy. The Democratic Party itself is just another wing of Corporate Power and it still has Neoliberal henchmen in key positions. The "Liberal" base of the party needs to come to power before anything will change.
I like Sheehans' idea of running an early primary against Pelosi to get her out of power.
Well it just figures! They are ALL liars and crooks out to grab as much as their greedy hands will hold. Did someone say lobbyist, hmm, i.e. drug companies, HMOs, on and on. We have been sold such a bill of goods in America. We are living like third world countries. We are stressed, worried, overworked while those in Europe just shake their heads at our stupidity. They don't have to worry about paying for healthcare or drugs, oh and they work less, have many, many more government programs designed to HELP them, have more time off, oh and did I forget their stress levels are way down from ours. Wonder why we are such a nation of overweight, depressed, scared people holding down 2 or more jobs and praying they can keep it together? Well until we say "enough" and stand up we will continue to be at the mercy of BIG BUSINESS or the CORPORATION OF THE UNITED STATES. Oh, and BTW, those folks in charge just laugh at how easily we are led...it is beyond tragic. They talk about new help, new programs while undercutting the precious few that are already in place. But don't worry their healthcare is just fine, thank you very much, they have a system where they are covered 100% and don't pay, nice touch. I dispair for our Country.
Everyone in Congress believes wholeheartedly in Socialized Medicine. Yep,. . . . for themselves. Regardless of how rich they are, they help themselves to taxpayer money to give themselves the finest medical care available and all for free out of the US Treasury.
If taxes are used for that, shouldn't the American taxpayer be provided at least the something approaching the health care coverage that our selfish Senators and Representatives give themselves?
Actually they are working for their health care like most Americans. It has nothing to do with socliazed medicine, try making a point that makes sense.
Increasingly the burden for employer based health care is shifting to the worker. According to studies this is happening all across America.
My family's health care related costs are now through the roof compared to what they used to be. We pay significantly more into the system - additionally, our co-pay costs for doctor visits and medications have skyrocked. Always with declining options and features. You can bet your ass THIS is not happening with the congressional health-care plan.
*
Try comparing the congressional health care plan with the average employer-sponsored health plan. The congressional plan is a lot more "equal" than the average Joe's.
And the employer of the congressional reps is the US Taxpayer who is a whole lot more generous than most employers and does not push large deductibles on to the "employee".
Shill. What happens when they leave Congress? The keep their very good healthcare. The retirement package is a nice "golden parachute". And don't forget who they will most likely work for afterwards. Hmmmm... you were saying, Shill?
CheneyOilCo has depleted the US Treasury so thoroughly (with the willing help of Congressional Democrats), that to believe there will be anything to fund a national health care system, is purely delusional.
This country will do well to feed its population once we slip into the full-blown global recession for which the IMF is currently preparing. If you believe that's an overly bleak assessment, I would invite you to open your eyes a bit. Health care may be the least of your worries.
alienated in Seattle
sad but probably true...
That is probably true. But we could do a LOT more for our country if we did what many of the non-front runner candidates have proposed. And that is... pull our troops back from Iraq AND EVERYWHERE ELSE. It's time to end our imperialism. That alone and cutting our military budget by 65% would help us immensely. Stopping corporate welfare would be a good second step.
Actually, I believe that monetary policy is controlled by The Federal Reserve. And they surprised Congress by loaning Wall Street 200 BILLION of your tax dollars. Oh, did I say loan? No, I meant given away. You know. Tax dollars. All in a few hours. Adding to the debt you and your children will have to pay off later. If you can. Start selling your children now while you enjoy the twilight of American prosperity on your credit cards. Oh, you were denied? Just be poor. You like it!
Ooops. Control a nation's money supply and you control the nation.
Nothing new here... and it just goes to show that Obama's plan is more reasonable than Hillary's.
I Agree:
3% Chance of Obama's plan being enacted
2% Chance of Hillary's plan being enacted
Do you get paid per post of disinformation? Not one single thing you've posted is verifiable or even believeable. So I do have wonder if you're paid to do this, as your information is blatantly bogus and you surely have no sway over anyone with your nonsense.
And a 100% chance for McCain, Obama or Clinton to give more money and power to the corporations. I give 110% for a McCain plan. Just look at Mitt's plan in Massachusetts.
Actually, both plans suck. They are just subsidization of the insurance companies. I prefer Gravel's voucher plan.
"Democrats are effectively saying that no matter how many elections are won, they will not move forward on the most pressing domestic issue. "
Baloney. Only certain KINDS of Democrats are implying that, no matter how many elections are won by Democrats, IN GENERAL, they will still obstruct significant reform.
The Progressive Democrats of America not only don't suffer from such a don't-rock-the-boat attitude, they have clearly stated that they will support a more sweeping plan than either that of Obama or Clinton. Don't take my word for it, examine their top 5 priorities, as listed at: http://pdamerica.org/policy/priorities.php . "Health Care for All" is their number 2 priority.
If people think that just putting Democrats in power will get them a national health care program, especially in light of their performance in forcing a draw-down of our involvment in Iraq, then they are delusional. The answer doesn't lie in electing Democrats of the Schumer variety (BTW, Schumer, if you read this, say "hi" to Mukasey, won't you? He turned out to be a real prize.) Rather, the answer lies in getting the right KIND of Democrats, who actually care about the same issues that us little people do, into office.
That's not too hard to grasp, is it?
So, my suggestion for getting national health care entails getting the Schumers out of office, and replacing them with Democrats who work for the public good.
See: openleft.com, dailykos.com, democracyforamerica.com.
I have little doubt that, if the Democratic Party as a whole was serious about a national health care program, then they would do a cost benefit analysis of the leading plans of other major, first world countries. Thereafter, they would make the case for the best solution that they could come up with, which would reflect lesson learned from other countries that have had national health care in place for 50+ years, make a compelling presentation, and then SELL the plan to the public.
When I checked the Democratic Party web site a couple of years ago, they instead had nice sounding boilerplate that could have been easily transposed to the Republican web site, save a sentence or two. In short, they gave NO indication about being serious about a national health care plan that serves the public first and foremost, and lets corporations fend for themselves. How perverse is that?
The Progressive Democrats of America are a very young organization, so I will give them a pass (for now) for not having made the case, as I suggest above, for national health care. It looks like they consider it self-evident that HR 676 is the way to go, but of course, you need to make a case primarily for skeptics. Concerns about cost are quite legitimate, and should be met head-on.
Because of corporate campaign contributions we essentially have two conservative parties -- one far right and one moderately right.
Unless the Democrats start taking voluntary pledges to do the right thing and abstain from all corporate cash, no real progressive agenda will ever pass, regardless of who's President or what health care reforms they support.
Watch all the Democratic Party apologists now come and tell us we have to vote Democrat as the lesser of two evils, or show us paltry crumbs that came out of this Congress as a rationale to vote to reelect them.
It is true that until we get a direct popular vote with some form of runoff, it is hard to argue voting minor party for President with the Supreme Court at stake. But, I'm seeing precious little that makes me want to vote to re-elect my Democratic Congressman who voted for the Iraq War.
Until the Democrats start using their majority for a progressive agenda with the virility that the Republicans used their majority for conservative policies, it is hard to argue what they've done to warrant haven't being given the majority again in the first place other than simply not being as bad as the Republican.
Perhaps Dave has a good point here, perhaps not--the UHC issue has been difinitively inserted into the national conversation, and mere off-hand proclamations by Schumer or any other DC senate twit will silence those who feel the urgency of this issue. Until you hear this from multiple sources and see the issue begin to snowball, I would take it with a grain of salt.
I posted the following on a different article yesterday, but I'm reposting it here now as I feel there is a great deal of information here, and it needs to be assimilated by those commenting here, in order to adequately refute the nonsense of GOP-trolls like UnBiasView, who happens to be clueless in regards to verifiable evidence, and is constantly posting ridiculous GOP/NeoCon propaganda all over this site.
*****
If you missed the PBS program Frontline last week, do try to catch it if it airs again. Here's a link to a page with a brief synopsis of five UHC systems from around the world:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
You can watch the programs online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/main.html
I just watched the one on Japan. They pay $98 for an MRI that cost $1200 in Denver. Bankruptcy due to health care costs are virtually unknown, and nobody can be refused coverage due to a pre-existing condition.
A doctor which sows up a small wound gets less than $5.00 for his efforts - prices are controlled by the government. A night in the hospital, in a shared room, costs $10.00. While well-heeled patients could pay for their physicians privately, the national health care is so popular that most physicians would go broke if they relied on private patients.
God bless the Japanese, but as an American, thinking about the gouging that goes on here, watching this made me a litte sick! Well, I better not get very sick - Japan is a long way off.....
The frontline programs could have, and should have, been created by the Democratic Party 10 years ago and made available (perhaps via CD; bandwidth back in those ancient days was not what it is now) to the public. Frontline is more serious about national health care than the Democratic Party is.
Thanks for the link, I'll pass it along. I saw the original broadcast, but wasn't aware if many here had seen this one or even knew of it. I was greatly impressed by the comparisons, and in hindsight see that some of the information I had already encountered in Moore's SiCKO.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
