Banner
Labor Heritage Foundation
Works to strengthen the labor movement through the use of music and the arts.

Unions for Single Payer Healthcare

We print below excerpts on Social Security, Medicare and the nature of the Deficit Commission itself from the testimony of James K. Galbraith, Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr., Chair in Government/Business Relations, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, before the Commission of Deficit Reduction, June 30, 2010. Professor Galbraith's full statement can be found here: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/07/professor-jamie-galbraiths-testimony-to.html

"Mr. Chairmen, members of the commission, thank you for inviting this statement.

I am a professional economist, but I have served in a political role, as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress. I am offering this statement on behalf of Americans for Democratic Action, an organization co-founded in 1949 by (among others) Eleanor Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith, Arthur M. Schlesinger, jr., and Ronald Reagan. Accordingly I would like to begin with a political comment.

1. Clouds Over the Work of the Commission.

Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. In this respect, there are four major issues.

First, most of your meetings are secret, apart from two open sessions before this one, which were plainly for show. There is no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction. No secrets of any kind are involved. Nothing you say will affect financial markets. Congress long ago -- in 1975 -- reformed its procedures to hold far more sensitive and complicated meetings, notably legislative markups, in the broad light of day.

Secrecy breeds suspicion: first, that your discussions are at a level of discourse so low that you feel it would be embarrassing to disclose them. Second, that some members of the commission are proceeding from fixed, predetermined agendas. Third, that the purpose of the secrecy is to defer public discussion of cuts in Social Security and Medicare until after the 2010 elections. You could easily dispel these suspicions by publishing video transcripts of all of your meetings on the Internet, and by holding all future meetings in public. Please do so.

Second, there is a question of leadership. A bipartisan commission should approach its task in a judicious, open-minded and dispassionate way. For this, the attitude and temperament of the leadership are critical.

I first met Senator Simpson when we were both on Capitol Hill; at Harvard he became friends with my late parents. He is admirably frank in his views. But Senator Simpson has plainly shown that he lacks the temperament to do a fair and impartial job on this commission. This is very clear from the abusive response he made recently to Alex Lawson of Social Security Works, who was asking important questions about the substance of the commission's work, as well as calling attention to the illegitimate secrecy under which you are operating.

A general cannot speak of the President with contempt. Likewise the leader of a commission intended to sway the public cannot display contempt for the public. With due respect, Senator Simpson's conduct fails that test.

Third, most members of the Commission are political leaders, not economists. With all respect for Alice Rivlin, with just one economist on board you are denied access to the professional arguments surrounding this highly controversial issue. In general, it is impossible to have a fair discussion of any important question when the professional participants in that discussion have been picked, in advance, to represent a single point of view.

Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare, raises the most serious questions. Quite apart from the merits of Mr. Peterson's arguments, this act must be condemned. A Commission serving public purpose cannot accept funds or other help from a private party with a strong interest in the outcome of that Commission's work. Your having done so is a disgrace.

In my view you also should not have accepted help from the Economic Policy Institute, even though EPI's positions on the merits are substantially closer to mine.

Let me now turn to the economic questions….

6. Social Security and Medicare "Solvency" is not part of the Commission's Mandate.

I note from Chairman Simpson's conversation with Alex Lawson that the Commission has taken up the questions of the alleged "insolvency" of the Social Security system and of Medicare. If true, this is far outside any mandate of the Commission. Your mandate is strictly limited to matters relating to the deficit, debt-to-GDP ratio and fiscal stability of the U.S. Government as a whole. Social Security and Medicare are part of the government as a whole, so it is within your mandate to discuss those programs -- but only in that context.

To make recommendations about the matching of benefits to payroll taxes -- now or in the future -- would be totally inappropriate. Within your mandate, the levels of payroll taxes and of Social Security benefits are relevant only insofar as they influence the current and future fiscal position of the government as a whole. Their relationship to each other is not relevant. You are not a "Social Security Commission" and there is no provision in your Charter for a separate discussion of the alleged financial condition of either program taken on its own. Such discussions, if they are occurring, should be subjected to a point of order.

The usual "solvency" arguments directed at the Social Security system and at Medicare as separate entities are in any event complete nonsense. These programs are just programs, like any others, in the Federal Budget, and the Social Security and Medicare "systems" are thus fully solvent so long as the Federal Government is. Further, as explained below, under our monetary arrangements there is no "solvency" issue for the federal government as a whole. The federal government is "solvent" so long as U.S. banks are required to accept US. Government checks -- which is to say so long as there is a Federal authority in the Republic. This point has been demonstrated repeatedly in times of stress, notably during the Civil War and World War II.

7. As a Transfer Program, Social Security is Also Irrelevant to Deficit Economics.

Political discussions of "long-term fiscal sustainability" -- including in the Charter for this Commission -- make an economic error when they loosely use the word "entitlements" and suggest that supposed economic dangers of federal deficits (for instance, rising real interest rates) can be reduced by "entitlement reform." As a matter of economics, this is not true.

"Government Spending" -- as any textbook will verify -- is a component of GDP only insofar as the spending is directly on purchases of goods and services. That alone is what economists mean by the phrase "government spending." GDP is the final consumption of produced goods and services, and government is one of the major consuming sectors; the others being private business (investment) and households (consumption).

Social Security is a transfer program. It is not a spending program. A dollar "spent" on Social Security does not directly increase GDP. It merely reallocates a dollar from one potential final consumer (a taxpayer) to another (a retiree, a disabled person or a survivor). It also reallocates resources within both communities (taxpayers and beneficiaries). Specifically, benefits flow to the elderly and to survivors who do not have families that might otherwise support them, and costs are imposed on working people and other taxpayers who do not have dependents in their own families. Both types of transfer are fair and effective, greatly increasing security and reducing poverty -- which is why Social Security and Medicare are such successful programs.

Transfers of this kind are also indefinitely sustainable -- in fact there can intrinsically be no problem of sustainability with transfer programs. Apart from their effect on individual security, a true transfer program uses (by definition) no net economic resources. The only potential macroeconomic danger from "excessive" transfers is that the transfer function may be badly managed, leading to excessive total demand and to inflation. But there is no risk of this so long as the financial crisis remains uncured. Under present conditions Social Security and Medicare are bulwarks for stabilizing a total demand that would otherwise be highly deficient.

Similarly, cutting Social Security benefits, in particular, merely transfers real resources away from the elderly and toward taxpayers, and away from the poor toward those less poor. One can favor or oppose such a move on its own merits as social policy - but one cannot argue that it would save real resources that are otherwise being "consumed" by the government sector.

The conclusion to be drawn is that Social Security should in any event be off the agenda of your Commission, as it is a transfer program and not a program of public spending in the economic sense. In particular it does not use capital resources and will not drive up interest rates. This is true whether the "Social Security System" is in internal balance or not…."


read full article

By: Kay Tillow
Saturday July 17, 2010

Original article on firedoglake.com.

Andy Stern, a key member of the president’s deficit commission, proposes to invest a part of our Social Security funds in the stock market. Dean Baker, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank, has expressed approval for Stern’s proposal. “I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea,” said Baker. “If he’s talking about getting money out of the trust fund for that purpose, I could live with it. You’d get a higher return now that stocks are falling.”

Alarmed at Baker’s statement, I wrote to him:

“Did you really assert (as Ryan Grim reported in the June 30th Huff Post) that it would be okay to invest part of our Social Security funds in Wall Street? Please say it isn’t so.

I regularly distribute updates on health care and the movement for single payer to 20,000 unionists across the country, and I have shared with them some of your analyses on the economic crisis. Your work has been helpful to union members struggling to understand the complex economic forces that are battering us. We have to find our way through the barrage of misinformation that comes at us from the journalists who are bought and paid for.

Where are we to go for economic analysis, if you now propose turning over a portion of Social Security to a gamble on Wall Street?

The need to stand on principle to protect our precious safety net programs far outweighs the gaining of a few bucks in the short run. Don’t you agree?”

I heard from Dr. Baker who has confirmed his support for investing a part of the Social Security Trust fund in the stock market as a way to get higher returns.

Social Security and Medicare are under a many-sided attack. I believe that if the door is opened to invest Social Security, even a small part, in the stock market, that the program will suffer irreparable damage.

I invite Dr. Baker or anyone else who wants to invest social security assets in Wall Street to respond to these concerns:

Social Security is a trust and not an investment vehicle. The resources taken in for collective purposes should be held with no risk, not little or minimal risk.

Policy makers have no license to break into this trust for any reason other than to distribute its assets fairly and equitably. Social Security is held in trust for the people, not as gambling stakes.

The proper way to grow the trust is through mechanisms that fairly and equitably obtain the funds through taxes or assessments.

Funding should be solely a matter of social justice and not financial manipulation.

The market has no mechanism to insure the vitality of the trust. The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index has fallen at an annualized rate of 3% a year over the past 10 years. The market will always be a gamble.

Investment requires investment managers. Their interest in the fund is to make money through management fees – a cost to the trust – and their incentive to grow the trust is based upon personal gain, a goal that encourages speculation and risk to the trust.

The aggregate performance of the market is one thing; the performance of particular investments is another. Like mutual funds, a Social Security investment bundle will depend on the skills and decisions of managers. Some are winners, some losers. There is no way of deciding in advance if we pick a winner. Even winners are later losers. Short of catastrophic default, the cost, recovery and return on treasury bonds are guaranteed.

In the long run, the dips and rises in the market do not correlate with the demographic dips and rises that determined funding requirements. As with the overall economy, these market-induced imbalances would guarantee periodic social security crises, whether real or politically manipulated, inviting the call for privatization.

The very success of a “little” investment of Social Security funds in the market will be followed by a cry for more and more, and in our very limited two party system, it will be very difficult to call a halt to enlarging the investment in a Wall Street that is temporarily producing gains. Private investment of a part of the trust fund will only grease this slippery slope.

Private sector investment will invite the charge that since public funds are now invested in private markets, why shouldn’t individuals make their own investment decisions with “their” funds? In other words, private sector investment will lead to the call for privatization.

Mary Katharine Ham of the Weekly Standard is ecstatic over the possibilities. Citing some liberal support for the partial privatization of Social Security, Ham asserts, “Improbably, Obama’s unifying rhetoric and bipartisan vision can now be applied more accurately to the formerly toxic idea of Social Security reform than it can to his own agenda.”

We can’t let it happen!

Kay Tillow
Unions for Single Payer Health Care-HR 676
Louisville, KY


read full article

Medicare: Protect it, Improve it, and Expand it to All!

On Saturday, June 26 in 20 cities, America Speaks, funded by billionaire Pete Peterson’s Foundation, will be holding one day “discussions” to preach about the dangers of “the deficit”. These events are nothing more than efforts to soften up the public to accept Medicare and Social Security cuts when the deficit commission reports before December 1.

These articles have more detailed information:

http://www.thenation.com/article/whacking-old-folks

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthis...

http://tinyurl.com/34e8jjh

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/05/26/wall-street-propaganda-blame-social-se...

We urge you to attend and speak up boldly at these America Speaks events which are open to the public at no charge. Check here to see if there is one in your city and to sign up. http://tinyurl.com/367gwjy

There will be protests outside many of the June 26 meetings to demand “Hands off Social Security and Medicare—Make Wall Street Pay.” Below is the press release for the protest rally that will be held in Louisville. If there is one near you, join it!

__________________________________________________________________

NEWS: Immediate Release

Hands Off Medicare and Social Security

Louisville activist groups interested in preserving Medicare and Social Security programs are protesting the aims of the AmericaSpeaks "town meeting" to be held Saturday, at the Gheens Academy in South Louisville.

Kay Tillow, head of the Kentuckians for Single Payer Healthcare (KSPH), said yesterday that AmericaSpeaks events being held across the nation June 26 are being funded by right-wing foundations wanting to curtail federal retirement programs.

“It appears that AmericaSpeaks wants to shape the national discussion so it can provide feedback to the President’s newly appointed Fiscal Commission, an 18-member group charged with giving Congress a report next December on how to reduce the national deficit,” Tillow said. “But the commission is stacked heavily in favor of slashing benefits in both Medicare and Social Security. On top of that, the commission’s staff is being provided by Wall Street billionaire Pete Peterson’s Foundation, which is also funding the America Speaks event. For decades Peterson has been trying to privatize or get rid of Social Security.”

KSPH spokesperson Harriette Seiler said that a public rally is scheduled for 10:30 a.m. Saturday outside the Gheens Academy, 4425 Preston Highway. Anyone from the public who wants to preserve Social Security and protect Medicare is invited, Seiler said.

KSPH is working with two national organizations--Social Security Works (socialsecurity-works.org) and Healthcare-NOW (healthcare-now.org), besides various labor leaders.

These groups contend that conservative organizations are spending more than one billion dollars to convince the public that slashing these programs is the only way to protect our children and grandchildren from poverty.

KSPH’s Seiler points out that Social Security has not contributed one dime to the nation’s deficit. In fact, it has accumulated a massive surplus of $2.5 trillion from many decades of workers paying into the system from every paycheck, she said.

As for Medicare’s financial troubles, Seiler said that they are quite fixable without any reduction of benefits. “For 40 years Medicare’s critics have warned of impending doom for the program but it always gets repaired. Here's our suggested fix: Eliminate the massive waste and expense caused by the private for profit insurance companies. Put the savings into Medicare--protect it, improve it, and expand it to all."

Protest rally: 10:30- 11:30 AM, Saturday, June 26, 2010
Place: Gheens Academy, 4425 Preston Highway, Louisville, KY 40213

CONTACT: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it


read full article

Rally for HR 676 at UAW Convention, Sunday, June 13, 1 PM, Cobo Hall

Rally for National Health Care (HR 676) Sunday, June 13, 2010, at 1 PM At the UAW Convention at Cobo Hall Detroit, Michigan

Join Retirees for Single Payer Health Care as we welcome our delegates to the 35th UAW Constitutional Convention.

Important decisions will be made at this convention, including continuing our work for a National Health Care system. "National Health Care" or a "Single Payer system" means "Everybody In, Nobody Out, No Deductibles," for health care services in America.

To achieve "Everybody in, Nobody Out, No Deductibles," Congressman John Conyers, Jr. introduced HR 676 to the 108th Congress in 2003. Conyers has reintroduced his health care reform bill in every session of Congress since, including the present 111th. And he has vowed to do so as long as he is in the U. S. House of Representatives. 87 other U. S. Representatives are co-sponsors of the bill. He needs at least 200 co-sponsors.

Retirees for single Payer Health Care continues to work for Conyers' HR 676 because it returns to our union members health care benefits lost, not covered by VEBA and covered by current legislation. By providing health care for "Everybody," HR 676 would cover us. We are rallying in support of our Union's long held goal of achieving a Single Payer system in America that leaves to one behind.

Please join us at this Rally.

Join us in support of National Health Care (HR 676).

Retirees for Single Payer Health Care

The above is a leaflet from Retirees for Single Payer Health Care. This gutsy organization of UAW retirees, centered in Detroit, has been meeting regularly at the UAW Local 22 Hall for over a year. They work to turn labor's support for single payer into a movement strong enough to win.

They will share their leaflets and educational materials with you. Cassandra Ford is the Secretary, Randy Sandusky is the Chairman, and Al Gladyck is in charge of the communications. You can reach them at (313) 570-0899 or (313) 897-8850 or This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or Retirees for Single Payer Health Care, UAW Local 22, 4300 Michigan Ave., Detroit, MI 48210. www.uaw22.org


read full article

We Need a Single Payer, Doctor/Patient Health Care System to achieve “Health Care for All”

Rose Roach, Field Director of the California School Employees Association (CSEA), spoke on single payer to the Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party at the Annual Convention in Los Angeles on April 17, 2010.

Roach’s union, the CSEA, represents 230,000 school support staff throughout the state and is affiliated directly with the National AFL-CIO. Clyde Rivers represents the union on the AFL-CIO Executive Council.

Roach’s ten minute healthcare report can be viewed on video here:

http://www.progressivecaucuscdp.org/healthcare.html

The text appears below.

We note that while Roach, speaking to a California audience, concludes her speech with a focus on state single payer, the national single payer movement is alive and growing. We urge locals, CLC’s and state federations who have not done so to endorse the national single payer legislation--HR 676 and to pick up the fight to put all our unions into motion to build a winning movement. Single payer is now AFL-CIO policy since the September 2009 convention. If you are taking action, tell us about it and we’ll spread your news. If you need help or a speaker, just let us know.

Progressive Caucus Health Care Report

April 17, 2010

Presented by Rose Roach, Chair, Progressive Caucus Healthcare Committee

Good afternoon Progressives, I’m here today, as the Chair of the Progressive Caucus’ Health Care Committee, to provide some Progressive perspective on the national health insurance reform legislation and present a plan for achieving what everyone in this room knows is the only real way to reform our cruel and fragmented health care system and that is by implementing a single-payer, doctor/patient, improved and expanded Medicare for All system.

The CA Democratic Platform on health care reform, thanks to many of the folks in this room tonight, is clear and unambiguous. It states, “California Democrats believe that health care is a right, not a privilege. The CDP recognizes the health and well-being of Californians cannot continue to be based on arbitrary private and public financial decisions and therefore advocates legislation to create and implement a publicly funded (single-payer), privately delivered, fiscally tractable, affordable, comprehensive, secure, high-quality, efficient, and sustainable health care for all Californians.”

Now I don’t know if you all know this or not, but for those of us who believe, as Dr. Martin Luther King believed, that social movements cannot compromise, we are being referred to as “purity trolls” because we stand on our principle that as long as you keep the profit driven health care system in place you will never be able to provide health care to everyone who needs it, when they need it.

Since I believe I am in a room filled with “purity trolls” I want to present to you our mascot – he’ll stay right here during my remarks to remind us of our commitment to single payer. I know there are some here today who feel strongly about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act just signed into law by President Obama. Those of us in the single payer movement know you ultimately want what we want which is truly universal care and hopefully we can continue to work together to achieve that goal. But here in this room today, I am speaking to Progressive friends and my remarks, as cliché as it may sound, will speak truth to power because there is still much work to do on health care reform.

So, it’s been an interesting year hasn’t it? Around this time last year we were watching with baited breath as the President and Congress began the task of debating and drafting health care reform legislation. But baited breath quickly turned into holding our breath as it became abundantly clear that the debate, and even the drafting of the bills, would be controlled not by what we needed or wanted, but by what the health care industrial complex needed and wanted as they spent a record $266.8 million making sure nothing got into the bill that would seriously threaten their profits.

Single payer wasn’t even allowed in the room let alone at the table. We came to a fork in the road in this country and unfortunately the path that was chosen is one that says here in the United States of America, health care will be provided by a market based system that treats health care as a consumable good, which it is not. There is no choice between health and illness and no one, no one, should profit from another person’s suffering. We didn’t reform health care financing - we only expanded and further entrenched our dysfunctional system.

The bill does provide some positives including the $12.5 billion funding expansion for community health centers, doubling their current patient volume, thanks to Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont. The legislation reduces, but does not eliminate, the "donut-hole" gap in prescription drug coverage for Medicare enrollees. Dependent children will now be able to remain covered by their parent’s insurance plan until age 26 and insurance companies are prohibited from excluding children with pre-existing conditions from plan coverage. Lifetime maximums are gone.

On the other hand, although there were attempts to fix insurance abuse, it seems every fix had a poison pill added by the insurance industry. A good example is no more denials for pre-existing illnesses of adults. The poison pill is that the industry can charge people who do not meet their “wellness guidelines” double what they charge others. And, if you are older, they can charge triple. So, while you cannot be denied insurance, the question is will you be able to afford it?

We also got expansion of coverage. The largest source of expansion is Medicaid – 16 million more people will be covered. But states are already stretched thin trying to pay for Medicaid resulting in more cuts to services and lowered payments to doctors. The federal government provides financial assistance for states but that ends in 2016.

The other expansion of coverage depends on people buying insurance. For many the penalty in increased taxes will be more affordable than health insurance. And businesses will find that it is much cheaper to pay a small fine than to provide insurance.

So even with some constructive changes, the new law does not include significant regulatory control of private insurance premiums nor does it eliminate the anti-trust law that allows the industry to run amok.

The bill does require that 75 to 85 percent of premium dollars must be spent on health care but in case you didn’t know, here in CA, state law already requires that HMO’s commit 85 percent of their premium dollars to be spent on health care. How’s that been working for you folks in an HMO? Have you seen your premium costs, co-pays and deductibles remain flat, without increases or with very small increases over the last decade? Of course not – the industry is very clever and they’ve already figured out how to skirt this requirement – they simply change the name of an administrative function to make it sound as though it’s connected to “care” and it gets moved on the books to the 85 percent column. And can someone please tell me why 15 to 25 percent of the premium is considered to be a reasonable share for the private insurers to consume for profit, exorbitant CEO salaries and administrative waste? That money should be going to care – period. I also wonder why we’re using a market model that for the last 50 years has clearly demonstrated complete ineffectiveness in controlling costs when we know for a fact that what we need in health financing is a global budget – everybody in, nobody out – it’s the only way to provide stability in costs.

And on top of all that, in order to pay for this reform, public hospitals that treat the uninsured will have their federal funding cut by $36 billion and eight years from now, union health plans and other job-based health insurance will be hit with a 40% excise tax. I don’t see how this reform does not get us closer to single payer my friends.

I agree with what former Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote following the vote "don't believe anyone who says Obama's healthcare legislation marks a swing of the pendulum back toward the Great Society and the New Deal. Obama's health bill is a very conservative piece of legislation, building on a Republican (a private market approach) rather than a New Deal foundation. The New Deal foundation would have offered Medicare to all Americans or, at the very least, featured a public insurance option."

On the federal level we must now turn our attention to the “state innovation” section of the bill which says states cannot request a waiver to set up a different plan until 2017. There is no wiggle room, no opt-out language. It’s a clear mandate that exchanges be established in every state by 2014. States are required to spend the time, money and resources to set up and operate the insurance exchange. A single payer type plan or an exchange with or without a public option, are not allowed.

We must ensure that our Progressive partners in Congress bring forth and/or support an amendment that removes the 2017 date allowing states to “innovate” that provides waivers from any federal barriers, including ERISA. Congress also needs to make sure that states enacting a single payer or other noninsurance market exchange system will have access to the set-up, grants and subsidies for premiums that states with insurance exchanges will receive. We must be allowed here in CA to lead the way as we did with Social Security and provide cost effective, evidence based medical care for all Californians. And we do that by building a movement around Senate Bill 810 authored by Senator Mark Leno. SB 810 has passed the Senate and is currently awaiting a hearing, most likely in mid-May, in the Assembly Health committee. Let’s put it on the Governor’s desk again this fall, even though we know full well that he’ll veto it, but let’s use it as an opportunity to educate and organize and then let’s elect a Governor who will sign the bill in 2011.

Now here’s what we need to do. We get every Democratic Central Committee in the state to pass a resolution in support of SB 810. We get every Democratic Club in the state to pass a resolution in support of SB 810. We figure out the cost savings for every public employer; county, city, school district, and we get every one of those public entities to pass a resolution in support of SB 810. Want to increase education funding? Pass SB 810. Want to shore up our needed social safety net programs? Pass SB 810. Want to ensure we have the firefighters and police officers needed to protect us? Pass SB 810. Want to help businesses become more competitive in a global market? Pass SB 810. We partner with our allies in the OneCare Campaign. We continue to hold educational forums all across the state because we know that once we talk straight talk to people, no spin or angles, we win. When someone in the room cries out “its socialism – a government takeover!” Tell them so is Medicare and everybody loves it. We socialize education, highways, police and fire services and the military, and we need to add one more to the list – health care. When someone raises their hand and says “It’s bad for the insurance industry, they’re one sixth of the economy.” You say, yes, but it’s great for almost all other businesses, large and small because less money spent on health insurance makes American products more competitive. When you hear “why should I pay for the people who are too lazy to work or pay for their own health insurance?” You tell them that keeping the work force healthy means fewer sick days, greater productivity, higher earnings and increased profits. And when you get told that “it will limit patient choice, benefits and send death squads to kill grandma!” you can simply tell them “a ha, just like Medicare does so let’s extend this deeply beloved plan to everyone.

There’s one more important component to the plan – we have to make sure, as the 2010 elections are upon us, that we know where the candidates stand on SB 810 – they will be voting on the bill and we have to be secure in knowing that vote will be a solid yes. Be diligent. Who has endorsed their candidacy? If the CA Medical Association, CMA, who is strongly opposed to SB 810, has endorsed a candidate, your antennae should immediately go up. We have to shore up our SB 810 supporters in both houses and help educate our Gubernatorial candidate about the benefits of a single payer health care system in CA and get this thing done.

I want to close by quoting the late, great Progressive Senator from my home state of MN, Senator Paul Wellstone. Senator Wellstone said, “We act with political purpose. We do not create the winds and the tides, the conditions that give rise to great social movements. So it is important to achieve power in other ways. And in a representative democracy, it matters whom we elect to office and hold accountable for public policy. Those who eschew electoral politics marginalize themselves. … No, politics is not about money or power games, or winning for the sake of winning. Politics is about the improvement of people’s lives, lessening human suffering, advancing the cause of peace and justice in our country and in the world.”

Let’s not rest until the cause of peace and justice in our country and world has indeed been advanced - let’s not rest until we have a single payer health care system ensuring finally, that we have health care justice for all.

Thank you.

Rose Roach

http://www.progressivecaucuscdp.org/f/100417_Rose_Roach_CDP_Convention_PCHC_Speech.pdf


read full article
Facebook MySpace Twitter Digg Delicious Stumbleupon Google Bookmarks RSS Feed 
  • Video
  • Poll




Featured Contributors


Latest comments