Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Today, September 5, 2009, Mr. President, it is not about us. It is about you.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 01:11 PM
Original message
Today, September 5, 2009, Mr. President, it is not about us. It is about you.
”The fact that LBJ fired up Medicare in '65-'66 for millions of seniors in only 11 months when small computers were the size of cargo vans should be a immeasurably potent pro-reform argument...”



Excellent point.


More from Bruce A. Dixon at the Black Agenda Report:



.....

Running away from single payer and all its eminently rational supporting arguments deprived corporate funded Democrats of most of the best answers to Republican charges that real reform was “socialized medicine” that would result in “rationed care” at enormously increased cost. It robbed President Obama and Democrats of the most potent leadoff arguments against the present untenable system --- that health insurance companies who produce no care at all account for one third of every health care dollar in the US, and that two thirds of all family bankruptcies are from unpayable medical bills. Democrats now can't make that argument because the Obama bill is a taxpayer-funded bailout for those same vampire insurance companies.

It made Democrats unable to present a health care reform package as a job creating economic stimulus more real than anything the president has yet proposed. Adopting a single payer system, as the National Nurses Organization pointed out at the beginning of the year, would create 3.3 million new jobs. Subtracting out the 550,000 in the insurance industry who would have to find other livelihoods, a single payer health care plan would create a net surplus of 2.6 million new jobs, as many as the economy lost in all of 2007, and provide tens of billions in taxes that support the budgets of local governments. So with millions unemployed and underemployed Democrats cannot argue that their health care bill will put Americans back to work, or help fund local and state governments.

Progressives in the House, many of whom supported single payer when Bush was president, have switched to a shadowy something they call the public option. But although many of them know by now that the White House has gutted the public option from an original 120 million strong, large enough to actually force health care prices downward, to a mere 10 million, not nearly enough to compete with private insurance, congressional democrats continue to cling to this scrap of a fig leaf. It's not single payer, it's not even universal health care of any kind, they admit, but it's a big first step. They are contradicted by Obama's own HHS Secretary who declares that absolutely nothing in the public option or in the president's health insurance reform package will ever, under any circumstances lead to single payer.

Even Maryland's Rep. Donna Edwards could be seen on C-SPAN last weekend before a substantially pro-single payer crowd in her own district, claiming that although she preferred single payer, the public option would be the best they could get through the Congress this year. It was, “a uniquely American solution,” she said, implicitly echoing the right wing canard that HR 676, the Enhanced Medicare For All which she professed to support a few breaths before, was somehow “un-American.”

If progressives like Donna Edwards can be blamed for blocking health care reform, it's only because they are choosing to follow the White House lead and settle for “health insurance reform” instead. The White House itself, and our First Black President are the biggest political obstacles to achieving health care for every American, along with the corporate media which controls the public debate.

The fact that Lyndon Johnson fired up Medicare, enrolling and providing care to millions of seniors in only eleven months back in 1965-66 when small computers were the size of cargo vans should be a immeasurably potent pro-reform argument against those who argue against “socialized medicine” or for a go-slow approach to health care reform. In face, the barrier to delivering health care to additional millions has never been technical. It's always been political. But this too is an argument the White House and Congressional Democrats cannot throw against their opponents. The Obama plan's health insurance exchanges won't begin gearing up to cover the uninsured till 2013, three and a half years away. Oh, well.

It's not Republicans, it's not blocking blue dogs, or die-hard progressives who form the biggest political obstacle to enacting universal health care this year. It's Democrats, following the lead of the chief Democrat in the White House. In less than a year, the Democrats have gone from the party of Change to the party of Excuses.





Taking Single-Payer off the table before any health care discussions even began this past summer, robbed us of our best weapon against the deafening and very destructive August battles with the teabaggers, birthers, deathers, tenthers and town-hall gun toters. Without Single Payer in the discussion, the battle for health care reform was lost on the spot.


This health care battle has exposed the raw and bloody divisions in this country, between Big Money and the rest of us. We cannot escape it.


But, more than any Republicans, Blue Dogs, ConservaDems or Progressive Democrats,... President Obama alone, has it in his hands to shape and direct this battle, into a win for the people, by resurrecting Single-Payer Medicare For All as the solution.



Right now, what is flashing before my eyes is the ominous similarity between September 5, 2009 and September 12, 2001...


Because just as surely as George W. Bush squandered the outpouring of good will from the world for America after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, I fear that our new, young visionary President is at the brink of committing the same tragic error of missing an historic opportunity to strengthen the people of America after years of despair.



And today, September 5, 2009, Mr. President, it is not about us.


It is about you.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Props to LBJ but wasn't Medicare the brainchild of Truman and then Kennedy had it in the works?
Just giving credit where credit is due.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Medicare has a very interesting origin, carried through several presidencies.
Theodore Roosevelt, who served from 1901–1909, advocated the
passage of social insurance programs his unsuccessful run for another
term in 1912. Since he believed that a strong country required healthy
people, he favored the passage of health insurance legislation,
although he assumed that such legislation would come from the
states, rather than the federal government, and cover only the
working classes.



Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was Theodore Roosevelt's distant cousin
and who was married to TR's niece, continued the fight for social
insurance. During the first of his four terms, Congress passed the
Social Security Act of 1935. This epochal piece of legislation contained
old-age insurance, unemployment compensation, and maternal and
child health, but not health insurance. Although important
administration officials, such as relief administrator Harry Hopkins,
favored the passage of health insurance, President Roosevelt decided
that it was too controversial to include in his proposed Social Security
Act and sent the issue off for further study.
Surgeon General Thomas Parran served as the Roosevelt's principal
spokesman on health care. As head of the Public Health Service, he
was sometimes wary of proposals that would expand the power of the
Social Security Board. He became an important proponent of federal
aid for hospital construction, which led in 1946 to the Hill-Burton
hospital construction program. In exchange for federal funds, hospitals
were required to serve the poor. He was the first to propose limiting
health insurance to Social Security beneficiaries.



Harry Truman, who became President upon FDR's death in 1945,
considered it his duty to perpetuate Roosevelt's legacy. In 1945, he
became the first president to propose national health insurance
legislation. After Congress rebuffed his request, he reiterated his
appeal after his surprising victory in the 1948 presidential elections.
Congress continued to oppose the measure. In 1950, he signed the
Social Security Amendments, which provided federal funds to states
for vendor payments for medical care of poor aged called Old-Age
Assistance; it became the foundation for the Medicaid program.



In 1954 Dwight Eisenhower proposed a plan to re-insure private
insurance companies against usually heavy losses on health insurance
as part of a comprehensive health and welfare program that Congress
ultimately rejected. Although his proposal failed, President Eisenhower
oversaw significant progress in services for the disabled. In 1954,
vocation rehabilitation legislation was passed for states to help the
disabled return to work. In 1956, in a significant expansion of Social
Security benefits, President Eisenhower signed the disability insurance
program into law. The Hill-Burton hospital construction program was
expanded to cover rehabilitation facilities.



Among the Congressional opponents of President Roosevelt and
Truman's approach to national health insurance was Senator Robert A.
Taft of Ohio. The son of President William Howard Taft, the younger
Taft, who served in the Senate from 1939 to 1953, became one of the
leading legislators of his generation. He favored providing federal aid
for health care for the poor that would be administered by the states.
Representative Aime Forand of Rhode Island introduced the legislation
in 1957 that is generally regarded as the direct precursor of Medicare.

Forand, who served on the House Committee on Ways and Means, was
not the first choice of the bill's authors. They turned to him only after
two more senior-ranking members of the Committee turned them
down.
Representative Wilbur Mills of Arkansas, who became head of the
Ways and Means Committee in 1958, exerted more influence over
Medicare and Medicaid than any other single legislator. The Social
Security Amendments of 1965, that initiated the two programs,
reflected many of the priorities and preferences of Representative
Mills.


Senator Robert Kerr of Oklahoma, who entered the Senate in 1949,
quickly became a major factor in its deliberations over Social Security.
His opposition to Medicare and his desire to find a constructive
alternative led to passage in 1960 of Medical Assistance to the Aged,
also known as Kerr-Mills. It expanded the Old-Age Assistance vendor
payment program to include coverage to the "medically needy" aged,
i.e., those not poor enough to qualify for Old-Age Assistance, but too
poor to pay their medical bills.

Senator Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico had served as President
Truman's Secretary of Agriculture and entered the Senate in the same
year as Robert Kerr and Lyndon Johnson. In 1961 he became the
principal Senate sponsor of the Kennedy administration's Medicare bill.

Representative John Byrnes of Wisconsin served as the ranking
minority member of the Ways and Means Committee in 1965. His
alternative proposal to the administration's Medicare bill, a voluntary
program that would cover physician services, led to the inclusion of
Supplementary Medical Insurance (known as Medicare Part B) in the
final legislation.



John F. Kennedy made the passage of Medicare one of the priorities of
his administration. Despite intense bargaining with members of
Congress, Kennedy died before gaining his objective. The closest he
came to his goal was a vote in the Senate on July 17, 1962. Thanks in
part to the efforts of Senator Robert Kerr, the administration lost by 4
votes: a count of 52 to 48.



After the assassination of President Kennedy, the newly elected
President Johnson made passage of Medicare his top legislative
priority. Bureau of the Budget director Kermit Gordon echoed the
thoughts of many when he called Medicare the "jewel in the crown of
the federal government." Medicare and Medicaid were enacted as Title
XVIII and Title XIX of the Social Security Act. Medicare extended
health coverage to almost all Americans aged 65 or older
(e.g., those
receiving retirement benefits from Social Security or the Railroad
Retirement Board). Medicaid provided health care services to those
receiving welfare benefits: low-income children deprived of parental
support and their caretaker relatives, the elderly, the blind, and
individuals with disabilities.

Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Social Security Amendments of
1965 into law on July 30, 1965, at a dramatic ceremony held at the
Harry S Truman Presidential Library in Independence, Missouri. Some
of Johnson's advisors urged him to sign the legislation elsewhere, for
fear people would think that the administration wanted to pass
national health insurance for people of all ages, as President Truman
had. Johnson dismissed such objections, saying he wanted to
recognize President Truman as the "daddy of Medicare."


July 1, 1966—Medicare begins




Presidential Milestones


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. That is a good point. It is an equally good point that LBJ
Was savvy enough to take the correct measures to ensure the passage of the legislation that ended up being his legacy - Civil Rights Act, the Medicare Act etc.

He didn't run around trying to appease the 24% of the people who opposed such things, but strengthened the chances of getting done by dealing with those who wanted the legisaltion done.

I cannot imagine LBJ running off for a full summer to talk to ardent segregationists. he udnerstood the political process.

And possibly Obama does too - he needs to pretend that he cares about the opposition so he can help drum up the opposition (And the media has sure helped with that one.)

Then he can claim he faced too much opposition.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I can't imagine anyone being like LBJ, either
Edited on Sat Sep-05-09 04:49 PM by eleny
I've tried but they sure broke the mold after that guy. :hi:

The pundits assert that it's hard for a senator to get elected president because their record is there to pick at. But in LBJ's case it gave him savvy like none other. On the other hand he f'd up Vietnam royally, even lying to the public to escalate. Having lost two friends to that "conflict", LBJ doesn't get a pass from me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well said. k&r n/t
:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. it was a different world then- and LBJ was not... Black....- like it or not
no matter how people will deny it- racism, bigotry and self-destructive hatred is running rampant in this country.

I'm sick to death of people telling Obama to "be" FDR, MLK, JFK, RFK or LBJ or any other now dead 'icon'- What's the matter with letting the man be who he is??? Do WE have to try and change him into someone other than who he is in order to support him as our elected President??? hell with support like this, no wonder our party can't get anything done


this world is so incredibly fucked-

i need an extended DU break i believe...!

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredStembottom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I just simply don't support any President that enacts Republican policy
Edited on Sat Sep-05-09 01:51 PM by FredStembottom
That's all there is to it.

And that includes Presidents who very nicely enact Republican policies.

It's about the policies. The person who happens to be President at any given time can be a drunkard and a womanizer - or a saint complete with halo - a man - a woman - tall, short - white, black - healthy or a polio victim with braces on his legs. I just don't care about any of that.

I need the policies that do the most good for the most people.

I am (very, deeply) sorry that every move Obama makes now moves against those good policies.

Only he can stop and reverse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. your going to have a very difficult time supporting any president then
because every single president in my life has enacted policies that i disagree with and would call "republican"- including LBJ, Carter,and Clinton.

In your either or world- you condemn yourself.

But that's your choice-

Obama is NOT God- nor is he a dictator- and those of us who should be supporting, encouraging and HELPING him establish the very "policies" you claim to be essential far too often do little more than cast a vote, hold a sign, write a letter or play keyboard warrior. If any of those things.

This government requires sacrifice- and participation- and not just until the election is over, but until the policies are firmly in place.

You may want to consider putting some of your energy behind the policies you believe are essential, rather than in diss- ing the person who has become the whipping boy for all our disappointments, and un-fulfilled wishes.

:shrug:

Your expectations of the office of "President" are unrealistic and self-defeating imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. To your point...
The Republicans must have been disenchanted with Nixon's policy of affirmative action and the EPA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. not so sure they liked his ending the war either- or the
idea that everyone in America should have health care- (which his watergate issues de-railed, and which was private insurance based i believe)


thanks for hearing what i was trying to say-

:hi:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Your welcome - I can understand as I wrestle with this daily
Some days I write short emails to the White House and my reps in Congress handing out "one minute manager" expectations along with threats of no support. "If you don't do this - then that will happen" - short, sweet and to the point. Other days I feel that there's something I'm missing. Frankly, I shouldn't be wondering if Obama is playing Fourth Dimensional chess. Things should be clearer. Right now, this coming week can't get here soon enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredStembottom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I would agree with all you say......
.. except that I am not carping about some "policies I disagree with". I am carping about Democratic presidents that enact (very close to)the entire wish-list of the Republicans. Policies that enrich a few beyond all imagination and let (nearly) all the rest of us slide toward a Mexican life-style of poverty and oppression.

I'm not counting words or sentences in the bills that get passed. I am viewing the resultant slide into anti-democratic Oligarchy and ever-increasing poverty that has resulted.

I don't feel that it's quibbling to not want to slide any further. It's getting to be Life and Death time for millions of us.

As for: "encouraging and HELPING him establish the very "policies" you claim to be essential far too often do little more than cast a vote, hold a sign, write a letter or play keyboard warrior. If any of those things." I'm not sure what goes beyond the vote, hold, write, keyboard stuff. Marching? Been there and done that, too.

It seems to me that getting O elected was pretty darn encouraging and helpful!

Polls consistently showing that 60 - 80% of the American public support O and his policies should feel to him like wind at his back.

I do believe that a Dem Congress and Senate is so encouraging and helpful that it take conscious effort to thwart all that help.

And this is precisely what we are seeing now. White house efforts to seemingly rid themselves of all that help and encouragement!

Obama has it all! The whole thing. There isn't anything more.

Why does he work to satisfy the Republicans?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluerthanblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. I don't believe he's working to satisfy the Republicans- I DO believe
that he is making every reasonable attempt to seek some kind of common ground- without compromising on the core principals.

As much as my snarky, angry, and understandably frustrated side would like to scream- Fuck them- they've screwed up everything for years, and left us in this mess, what would that really gain us?

Obama was elected not just by those of us who are left-wing liberals - but with the help of many middle-grounders, and those who felt alienated by their party. In Large part because he very eloquently and clearly pointed out the reality that we all have to find a way to live together peacefully in this country- That principal in itself REQUIRES reaching out to the "other side" in good faith- making the effort, attempt, to draw people out of some entrenched positions- futile? maybe, for many, but to those whose minds are open and who are seeking to live together without all the division and hatred- it is an opportunity to help us all move forward- that we wouldn't have if we didn't at least try.

I've seen and heard people in my greater community speak about being willing to fight "for their freedom"- they aren't Democrats, but aren't your run of the mill Republicans either- they have weapons and ammunition and know how to use it. Some of them spout Rush sound bites- others seem to really think that a violent overthrow of the present Administration is getting to be a "life or death" situation- though from my perspective they would be making a conscious, willful choice to use violence to get what they want- rather than one of survival.

As for your reference to "life or death"- i'll confess, having access to medical care is vital for me- as it is now, i have none, and am only able to get by because of the kindness of a few wonderful physicians, who charge me as little as possible, and trying to prioritize my medical issues, based which one is likely to kill me first. I DO understand whats at stake, for many of us- i also realize there are others who are in more desperate situations than mine-

The potential for the racism in this country to really explode into madness cannot be ignored either. I am a white woman, my youngest son is African-American.. we've witnessed and experienced some disturbing and troubling events of late. We don't go looking for trouble, or see things that aren't there, rather, it's more like stumbling upon ugliness and bigotry thats been dormant, or well hidden until now.

Obama has always said WE- he has always emphasized, and underscored the fact that WE, you- me- and everyone in this country is needed to make this country the kind of nation we know it can be. We won't get there by ramming things down each others throats, or by imitating the people we work so hard against- As MLK said- hatred cannot drive out hatred. Acid can't neutralize acid- we can't simply respond in kind to those who have driven us into this disaster- we need to BE the Change-

After all this ranting if you are still with me- I don't think the President will compromise on the key aspects of HCR- like having a public option. He DOESN'T have all the support you claim, there are DINO's who work against us, and some otherwise ..."reasonable" Republicans who are holding back, for whatever reason (most likely money). Your claims that his approval ratings are high, don't match the MSM's cries- and the press seems all to happy to put the most negative spin on anything Obama says or does-

I don't like all of his decisions- some trouble me deeply, (Afghanistan, and the use of Drones) as the top 2- but he's the best hope we have to make some desperately needed changes in our policies- before America implodes, and takes many innocents down along the way-

i'm going to leave here- sorry for the never-ending rant-

peace~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredStembottom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Not a rant! A really first rate response!
Useful and helpful to me.

I think actually, we pretty much agree.

I just hope you don't think that simply using the Dem majority you and I elected equates to fighting hate with hate.

It's what majorities do. It's what Repubs do even without majorities.

I have both Black and Indian extended family members - so I am also very conscious of racism. I hope that Barack Obama isn't pulling his punches because of the threat of violence from some Whites. It's useless to pull back because of that - someone, somewhere will still want to hurt him no matter what he does (heck, some people want to shoot a president just to try and impress girl actors!).

So he might as well go big. Get people jobs and healthcare. Build the stabilizing Middle Class. Make Americans proud of what we can research, design and build right hear within our own borders. Give Billy-Bob the best paying job he's ever had. Show him that he's been played for a dupe by Limbaugh/Hannity and Beck.

The Right was wrong and have been shown to be.

Enact boldly and succeed by succeeding.

As for the personal side of health care - we are all still employed in my family, and yet, 2 of us have fallen of health insurance and we scramble to try to find alternatives.
It's a big reason why I am quite completely intolerant of even asking what the Republicans want any longer.

They seem to want to "decrease the surplus population" as Scrooge put it so long ago.

Anyways, all the best to you. If we are both contacting the alternate universe of Washington regularly - that's good!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
13. Hey Fred, it is good to meet another Du'er who correctly
Understands that during the eight years of the Bush/Nazi era, the DLC crowd, including Obama, moved so much to the right that I imagine that Eisenhower and Nixon would be embarrassed by Obama's policies.

And the fact that Obama is such a great PR man does not excuse the horidness of said policies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FredStembottom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-05-09 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. It's the policies to me.
I would have loved to get the right things done with that funny-looking guy you have as your avatar!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC