Memo to Members of Congress: Don't Be on the Wrong Side of History

Today it would be hard to find one member of Congress who openly advocates the abolition of Medicare or Social Security. It's true that during the Bush Presidency, right-wing Republicans tried to weaken, dilute and privatize both. But their proposals were always passed off as attempts to "strengthen" these programs that have become two of the most popular and widely respected institutions of government.

Of course it wasn't always so. Both Social Security and Medicare were incredibly controversial when they were passed - the first in 1937 and the second in 1964. In fact, their opponents sounded very much like today's Republicans as they denounced them for being "big government takeovers" - or, in the case of Medicare, "socialized medicine."

But it wasn't long after they were enacted that Social Security and Medicare became "third rails" in American politics. Former Senator Bob Dole once made a speech where he said: "I was there, fighting against Medicare." The TV spot reprising that speech during his 1996 campaign against Bill Clinton helped seal Dole's defeat.

The view shared by most Americans - and all senior citizens - was summed up in the slogan for the 2005 campaign to defeat Bush's privatization program: "Hands off my Social Security."

No one brags that their father or grandfather lead the fight to oppose Social Security or Medicare - any more than they brag that their forbearer lead the fight against civil rights. But of course in the 1960's, civil rights did not have the universal acclaim it has today.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had many detractors who thought his agitation for justice was downright subversive. Others thought that he wanted to move too fast. That extended to the Pastors - many men of good will - who asked him to call off his protests in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. It was to those Pastors that he wrote his famous letter from the Birmingham jail: "Why We Can't Wait."

In 1963 most people would not have dreamed that just a few decades hence, a national holiday would be named after the young organizer and agitator, Martin Luther King.

Every major social advance is surrounded by controversy and conflict. That's because every time there is change in the status quo there are winners and losers. The controversy over President Obama's health care reform does not center mainly on "differences in approach" or academic disagreements over the way that health care systems should be designed in some ideal world. They center instead on battles over wealth and power - just as they did when the Congress created Social Security or Medicare, or passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That's why the 19th Century abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass was right: "You can't have the rain without the thunder and lightning," he said. Of course Douglass was referring to the granddaddy of all major social change in our history - the end of slavery . That required a horrific civil war.

Health care reform involves one out of every six dollars spent in America today. It involves the jobs and livelihoods of millions of people and the fortunes of huge corporations. Of course change in the health care system is going to be controversial. Luckily it is not controversial with average Americans. On the health care issue, Democrats - and the President - have the political high ground. But that doesn't mean it isn't controversial with the insurance companies or with wealthy Americans who may be asked to pay a small increase in taxes (bringing their rates to the level they were in the Reagan Administration) in order to pay for needed reform.

Members of Congress can't avoid the controversy. If they want to, they should look for another line of work. All they can do is hope to be on the right side of history - to take positions that their grandchildren will brag about after they are long gone.

All that they can hope - or any of us can hope - is that the things we do will stand up to the test of history - that they will make future generations proud.

Forty years ago today, for the first time in history, human beings first set foot on another celestial object when Neil Armstrong planted his boot print on the moon. I was one of the millions of Americans who got up in the early morning hours to witness first-hand the historic event live on television. It was extraordinary - a phenomenal evolutionary advance for our species - brought to us live from outer space.

Less than a decade before, another young President challenged American to put that man on the moon. John Kennedy's vision put America in the forefront of the technological revolution that created the jobs of the future -- for a generation of Americans.

This year, President Obama challenged us again - to create the jobs of the future for our generation: millions of clean energy jobs.

Last month, the House of Representatives voted to meet that challenge - passing an energy bill that will finally begin to break our dependence on foreign oil and make America a world leader in clean energy technologies of the future. Now, members of the Senate will have to decide which side of history they will be on when it comes to creating a clean energy economy.

In the next two weeks, Members of both the House and Senate will be called upon to decide which side of history they will be on when it comes to ending our status as the only nation in the industrial world that does not guarantee health care as a human right.

The Obama health care bill is controversial because it will control the growth of health care premiums for American families. That, in turn, will take money from the pockets of some of the most powerful special interests in the country - most notably the insurance industry.

But it is safe to say that one day, future generations will look back on this battle and wonder way it wasn't obvious to everyone that every person has a right to health care - they same way we look back today and wonder how anyone could have supported slavery. Remember we still had slavery in America just 150 years ago.

Our grandkids will wonder why anyone would balk at beginning to rationalize the bloated, inefficient American health care system that leaves us 37th in the world in health care outcomes and costs us 50% more per person than any other country on the planet.

They will look back on those who tried to stand in the way of serious health care reform, the way we look back on those who tried to block the creation of Social Security or Medicare or the Civil Rights Act.

Often, when political leaders are faced with historic choices, they are forced to choose between the next election - and the next generation. This time, with the political wind at our back, they don't have to make that choice. But they do have to choose to stand up against special interest pressure and act decisively to take the actions that are necessary to build a foundation for the long-term economic success of future generations of Americans.

So in the next few weeks, talk to your Members of Congress. Ask them each what kind of legacy they want to leave after their political career is done. Tell them to stop worrying so much what the lobbyists and big contributors think about their decisions and ask themselves how those decisions will be viewed by history.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the recent book: "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available on amazon.com.

Comments

[chicagoed77]

This is a thoughtful comment. However, what does the Obama health care bill actually do? I'm not sure and no one in the media seems to know.

[MegWe]

Congress is writing the legislation- as it should be.

[PaulRodes]

With Government action there are unexpected consequences because politicians rarely think past the next election and are overwhelmed with advise by special interest groups. Medicare is a case in point. In order to affect a small change in reimbursement rates by medicare, providers had to make a large increase in usual and customary rates. This exacerbated the the problems in healthcare by making it too expensive for anyone without insurance to pay. By pricing beyond the ability to pay, bills aren't paid, and as medicare reimbursement is still too low and the uninsured can't pay, the healthcare providers are in constant need of money. A better reform would establish some sort of parity between what insurers are charged for services and what the uninsured are charged. (For example uninsured can be charged no more than three times what a provider will accept from a carrier, and that would be reduced by 50% if the patient pays or enters into a plan to pay within 30 days of service). Pricing is so out of whack, there are two many fee structures: medicare, nofault, workman's comp, usual & customary, various deductibles to reconcile at this point into an effective plans. Better the government take over expensive medical care (i.e once bills reach 100,000 a person) for all Americans reducing what insurers have to cover to bring healthcare insurance premiums down and if the consumer only needs to worry about the first $100,000 he/she will have more choices.

[JohnnyCanuck2]

As a Canadian I say keep the status quo down in the States .. We are experincing a pretty good wave industrial movement into Canada from the US for our low corporate taxes and the fact that employers have relatively cheap health care costs here (most companies have value added plans here... private room plans + dental + chiropratic) but not nearly as expensive as your businesses pay ...it makes us really competitive for operating costs here, ask the car companies ...and huge legacy health care costs factored into each car price ......so thanks ......I think you should keep what have and hopefully costs will increase down there even more ...Also the health of our employees are better up here which also adds to the operating costs of employee absencee

[JohnnyCanuck2]

keep what you have you don't know how lucky you have it ..here we

1.) ration care
2.) there are beedy eyed governement beaurcrats between me and any Doctor of my choosing
3.) we kill our old people here they are too expensive to insure , by pushing them off into ice flows
4.) every Canadian comes to the US for health care ..nobody wants to be treated the same as everyone else I deserve better care than the guy down the street
5.) Although I find it suspicious the number of "Canadian" friends that Conservatives in the states seem to have and thier seemingly high rate of poor medical experience ..it is all true every last story
6.) Although it is half the cost for our health care ..it is really going to cost you more than what you have now
7.) Our heath measuring metrics may be statiscally higher than yours ...you know statistics can be spun ....

[CyrusBeaucephus]

wow a sock in a conversation with himself. So you are supposedly from Canada?

[talis13]

BrainyBeachBum unhook the OxyRush intravenous feed and go already. Quit threatening and go. If we tax the rich by taking away the Bush tax cuts the country will stop working LOL.
The Bush tax cuts are part of the reason we are in the mess we are in.
Why are conservatives so scared of everything?
You arent willing to give a couple thousand dollars more a year to make this country work better?

[egal]

Actually, we can do more than HOPE our actions will be on the right side of history--we could actually act with the intention of doing what's best, for the nation and its people, rather than doing what is best for our short-term monetary and political gains.

But that would require honor and a backbone.

[brainybeachbum]

Your universal healthcare is my slavery. There is no moral difference. The products of my labor are being forcefully taken from me by another. It it is too unbearable I will leave. Which of you will make up the loss of my $120,000 in taxes and $5 million in jobs? Wealth does not trickle up. A poor man has never created a job except at the expense of taxpayers to provide services for the poor man. The passage of the current healthcare bill will ensure stagnation in hiring as no company will hire until it absolutely must to avoid the cost of health care. Companies will minimize growth to stay below the thresholds at which the healthcare requirements kick in.

[ChelseaC]

You're paying for other people's health care now brainybeachbum.
If you think this private for profit system is not taking your money for a ride, you are in denial.Like it or not your tax $ are going to subsidize these insurance company blood suckers to inflate their profits and CEO salaries.
Would you rather pay tax subsidies to insurance companies as we are doing or pay taxes (and save $) and deliver HEALTH CARE-- MEDICARE?
What kind of human being would stand by and watch their fellow human being die because they can't afford the outrages costs of medical care--even those WITH health insurance? Ask yourself that question, and if you don't care, ask yourself again.

Everyone would save money if HR-676 were passed. Get the facts.
http://www.pnhp.org/change


I think this article is very well written, but I don't think Obama's health care plan is anything special as it leaves the insurance companies as the front runners.
If Obama wanted to make real historic difference he would help pass HR-676 or give anyone/everyone the choice to choose private insurance or join MEDICARE.
Close SCHIP, Medicaid and have ONE strong public program that anyone is free to join.
THAT would be democracy.
Why?
Given the choice, most American would drop their private rip off insurance like a hot potato and be taxed for MEDICARE instead--leaving many insurance companies loosing billions--that is why there's no MEDICARE for all who want it.

[Berettasskeeter]

Noone dies, noone, because they cannot afford care. Our hospitals have a legal requirement to provide that level of care, even if they have to eat the costs. Wise up!
Semper fi

[Liberal2]

Your salvation is at hand. Simply move to a business friendly country (low taxes, no regulations) such as Somalia. There's so much freedom there you can choose to be pirate ... especially if you like to eat.

[Ekwekwe]

The Democrats will have themselves to blame if the Republicans end up killing the health care reform. De Mint who cannot hide his hatred for Obama has let the cat out of the bag. It is up to the Democrats to learn their lessons.

[robbep]

Where is hollywood on this? They were active in getting Obama elected for change now that chng is here you dont hear frm them. Obama needs to get his celebrity frnds behind this and make adds with them.

[ChelseaC]

Hollywood has made ads--for HR-676.
Mike Ferrel, Ann Meara, and a few others.
See youtube.

[capitalistswine]

Enough with the "right to healthcare" comments! We can't go around establishing some predestined right to a product of someone else's own labor. This is no different then me saying "every human has a right to an iPod!". Just because 80% of this country has them, doesn't automatically make it a right and surely doesn't mean we need to have the government put iPods into the hands of the other 20%. I know, we are talking about human lives and that is much different than an iPod. But, healthcare is still service that another human must make sacrifices to provide, just as one must sacrifice and put effort into making an iPod. The government has no right to determine the cost of that service when they are not involved in creating it. The idea of healthcare is a relatively new concept in human history. At one time, you were on your own. But, because someone decided to devote themselves to understanding how the body works, we came up with medicine, which brought along the idea of "healthcare". Do I believe it is important for everybody to have some form of healthcare? Yes. But, giving the government the power to enforce this is an endorsement of tyranny in a socially conscious form.

[elbzee]

Chill swine.

"The government has no right to determine the cost of that service." The government has an obligation to the public to stop thievery, fraud, poor services provided at obscene cost. Take private insurance companies out of the picture and you eliminate multiple layers of administrative expense. Remember, those administrative layers exist to minimize the company's risk of having to spend your money on your care. It’s they who deny claims.

I would very much prefer that my government stop the tyranny of the insurance/pharma industries. Thank you.

[LateBoomer2]

Agreed. And Mr. Swine even agrees his argument is bogus: Ipods and health care are not at all similar! Yet he still uses the argument. Wow, amazing.

Also, Mr. Swine: 'because someone decided to devote themselves to understanding how the body works, we came up with medicine, which brought along the idea of "healthcare".' Do you know know how those scientists who discovered all these things were supported? By either rich people who were generous and caring, or (more often) by governments who taxed people. It didn't just happen. It happened because there was enough *money* to allow it to happen. That's why we need the *money* to go to real health care, *not* to line insurance execs' pockets.

[rjmiller]

The right to healthcare is the right to live. Do you think people have a right to live? Do you want companies profitting in the billions for agreeing to pay for some percentage of the bills that arise because you didn't want to die? Do you want accountants to get year-end bonuses for being able to weasel out of paying for your chemotherapy?

The argument against universal healthcare simply doesn't hold. The "someone else's labor" point is absurd, you already pay taxes for a million other things. You pay for children to go to school, for roads, police, the military, subsidies for a million different products, scientific research, etc. You don't think healthcare could be added to that list?

[LateBoomer2]

Swine only wants the rich to live, I guess. No more "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Let's rewrite the Constitution while we're at it! No more "for the general welfare"!

I wonder if these types wish they didn't pay taxes on any of those things you listed, either. These types want only the rich to have access to good education, roads, police, firefighters, and books. Libraries? A tax on the rich for the poor, bah, Humbug!

[JuliaRain]

Bravo.

[WinterParkMom]

It's all socialism! I don't see any of those over the hill right wing nutjobs or their parents turning down their social security benefits.
Use hard numbers when writing your reps.
47 million un insured
20 million under insured
Subtract 10 million poor/indig­ent/mental­ly ill, etc, uninsured and have to get free care = 37 mill un-insured who can pay.
18.5 million can pay $50/mo = 925,000,000
18.5 mill can pay $100 = $1,850,000,000
20 mill under insured will switch and can pay $100 = 2,000,000,000
That is a grand total of $4,775,000,000
That is FOUR BILLION, SEVEN HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE MILLION DOLLARS IN PREMIUM PAYMENTS PER MONTH. FIFTY SEVEN BILLION THREE HUNDRED THIRTY MILLION PER YEAR IN PREMIUMS FOR ONE SET OF PEOPLE.
That does'nt count the millions who'll switch from private companies if they can pay $100 or 200 per month and their entire family covered even with pre-existing conditions. Repeal bush tax cuts asap another 700 billion.
After thinking about it more, institute a 1 penny federal sales tax on EVERY item. I can hear the opponents shouting about making the poor poorer, but my statement is 1 cent on each item NOT on every dollar or hundred dollars. From candy bars tto big screen tv's to your house. 1 cent on everything. If your grocery bill was $100. for 53 items, your bill would be $100.53. That's not putting people in the poorhouse when we're already paying price increases

[Rhetticent]

So tell me where your 47 million uninsured comes from? How many are uninsured because they choose not to be? Do you include illegal aliens in that number?

Reminds me of how they used to manipulate the numbers of homeless during the Reagan administration: never had proof, just made 'em up.

[LateBoomer2]

Oh yes, all those "well children" Bush talked about in his 2000 debate with Al Gore that "don't need health insurance."

Everyone needs health insurance. Prevention has been proven to save on later health care costs at a ratio of 100:1, if not more.

Unless we just let them all die.

[MegWe]

Stop listening They are misleading you.to Dobb$ and Faux.

[Tom Joad]

Health Security now, Health Security tomorrow, Health Security forever!

[Arnie S]

Well said, Creamer.

It is inevitable - our nation will assume a single-payer system in the next 20 years. Costs will continue to rise under either the current system or Obama's plan until incentives/taxes are implemented at the consumer level to instill behavioral changes in our lifestyles.

I am sick of hearing people use 'rationing' as an argument in opposition. Rationing happens now! As it must with any third-party payer system. It's just that now, the rationing occurs by insurers having limited provider networks, high deductibles, exclusions, disqualifiers and lifetime maximums.

There is no doubt, when we look back on this 20 years from now, it will appear as foolish as critics of civil rights reform or equal pay for women. What were we thinking!

On that note, it is my belief that the insurance industry disenfranchises poor and minority citizens solely on their preferential treatment of employer-based coverage.

[zipowitz]

Just out of curiosity, you say rationing happens now, and it's not good, yet you agree that rationing WILL happen in the future. Why does this somehow make it OK?

[LateBoomer2]

Hi Zip o' buddy, ol' pal :)

Yes, a form of "rationing" perhaps is always going to be in play. After all, I can't just go out and demand an MRI tomorrow because I have a headache! But it will be a rational approach, mediated by health professionals in consultation with themselves, considering applicable research and risks, and in concert with their patients' own desires (some will want aggressive chemo; others won't, for example). It won't be some overpaid executive in a posh office cutting off care based on some prior condition or minor infraction in a policy application, such as we have now.

Won't that be so much nicer, Mr. Zip? :)

[Arnie S]

Nothing in my post indicates rationing is 'not good'. Rationing is a must in ANY third-party payer system. Health insurance dictates number of visits per year, what end-of-life treatments are administered, and refuses to cover any 'experimental' treatments. Any government plan would have to do the same.

The difference is : Health insurance rations by what's profitable, the government rations by what's effective. Which do you believe is more humane?

[ChelseaC]

It's not just the poor, I HAVE health insurance and the blood sucker insurance company has disenfranchised me!
Bankrupcy is still a reality for those with health insurance.
You learn about how good your insurance (isn't), when you get sick.


HR-676 is the answer--with some modificati­ons--cutti­ng waste, elimination part D.
When will we come to our senses???

[LateBoomer2]

"I am sick of hearing people use 'rationing' as an argument in opposition. Rationing happens now!"

Amen to that, and to everything in your post.

[tlgeiger62]

That right ... EVERYONE of us needs to contact our reps and senators DAILY - call, email, whatever EVERY DAY!!

Get the info for your rep throught this link http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

[expired]

Health Care: The Public Plan Option

These Democratic Senators have NOT agreed to support it:
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)

These names are reported by The Hill here and here

Update: Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) says she supports a public option.
Update: Senator Jeff Binghaman (D-NM) says he supports a public option.

You can also contact the White House and voice your opinion
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414

----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------­----------

Catch Bill on The Ed Show on MSNBC tonight at 6 PM ET

[Tom Joad]

did it tonight!

[Chromehawk]

Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
( 2010 )
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE)
( 2012 )
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
(2012)
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
(2010)
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL)
(2102)
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)
(2012)
Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
(2014)
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND)
(2012)
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)
(2014)
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
(2012)
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)
(2010)
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR)
(2014)
Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
(2012)
Senator Mark Warner (D-VA)
(2014)

SOOOOOOOOOOOO ....
4 will be in the senate until AFTER Pres Obama tries to get re-elected ( he threatens them he can count on NO support from them in re-election ).
The 7 elected at the same time? Kind of going to be rough running in their state and saying "Re-elect ME and vote these TRAITORS out or I will consider your STATE Traitorous too!!!"

The three up in 2010?
AR, OR, and IN ... Bayh is considered the most likely Presidential candidate to REPLACE Obama.
And Obama lost AR by TWENTY percent and won IN by 0.9%.

This is not even covering the idea if he tries to knock them off at the knees they can respond by voting no confidence on both Pelosi and Reid.
Republicans will back their candidate and the new Sen Pro-Tem will be Bayh and Speaker be Heath Shuler (NC - 11 ).
They then dictate the agenda.

[Rhetticent]

Health care. Even Obama has no idea what's in the bill.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/07/21/obama_not_familiar_with_key_provision_in_health_care_bill.html

Please. Be sheep. Call your representatives and tell them to vote for something they haven't read and don't understand, because someone has told you to.