Yesterday I wrote a diary saying that John Kerry was a sellout on health care because he represents America's most liberal state and yet refuses to cosponsor the Bernie Sanders single payer bill. Given national polling data showing a majority likely supporting Medicare for All, and given that Massachusetts residents apparently don't care much for Kerry's position on health care, and given that some even tried to primary him via Medicare for All supporter Ed O'Reilly in 2008 and lost partly due to being outspent by an enormous amount, I said that Kerry was a sellout.
I don't regret it one iota.
What really bodes ill for the health reform movement is how many people fanatically defend Kerry despite all the evidence. Imagine for a moment how the right would react if in Utah, America's most conservative state, Orrin Hatch refused to be clear about whether he opposed the public option. Would they say:
"Sure, we trust you, wonderful Senator Hatch."
Or would they say:
"Get the freak out you freakin' sellout!"
I have a feeling it would be closer to the last one. And this is why they are winning the national debate and we are losing.
Also keep in mind that this is if anything a less outrageous example than Kerry rejecting Medicare for All is! We know that a strong majority of the public nationally favors a public option, so Hatch would at least be in keeping with national opinion even if not local opinion in being unclear about opposing the public option. But Kerry is not only bucking the tide of his state in rejecting Medicare for All, he's also bucking a likely majority (half if we're pessimistic) opinion nationally!
I am driven to ask: how did this insane situation come about? How do we find ourselves in a nation where the Senator from the most leftist state can thumb his nose at a leftist proposal favored by not only his own constituents but probably even the country as a whole? Why does the media not instantly call him out and shriek about this incredible outrage? Why are the liberal blogs, supposedly the prime example of how technology is democratizing the media, not haranguing Kerry about his fealty to corporate power and lack of attention to the concerns of ordinary Americans? In short, what the fuck is going on?
To clarify the situation it helps to look at Kerry's sources of funding in the last election and compare them with those of his far more admirable neighbor, Bernie Sanders of Vermont. (The graphs are links.)
Looking at a few Republicans' sources of funding helps us see what we're looking for. Here are links to John Cornyn from Texas, Saxby Chambliss from Georgia, and our friend Orrin Hatch from Utah.
What we see immediately is the very frequent first place of the Finance/Insurance/Real Estate sector. This is also Kerry's biggest funding sector. On the other hand Sanders' graph is different from either Kerry or the Republicans because of his very strong Ideology/Single Issue and Other donations. With some consideration, maybe even more striking is the third place role of Labor, a group which is marginal in the campaigns of Republicans and which actually isn't even in the top five for most Democrats.
Kerry is clearly more beholden to business interests than Sanders is, though not as much as most Republicans and probably even most other Democrats. Kerry's graph shows several interests competing among themselves and business coming out on top: in order we have Finance, Ideology/Single Issue, Lawyers & Lobbyists, Health, and Other. So the single issue and other interests do play a role but they aren't in the lead and on balance they're outspent by business. Labor doesn't even enter into the top five. And obviously Health being in the top five does not help matters any.
I don't think that Kerry's sources of funding in the health sector alone are the deciding factor here, though. That is not supportable. What is supportable is that his campaign was much more influenced by business interests than Sanders' was, and maybe just as important, the role of labor was not very large. Citigroup and Goldman Sachs were in the top five contributors to Kerry's campaign, whereas somewhat shockingly for a US Senate campaign, Sanders' top five contributors include two labor unions. This is not about narrowly being bought by the health care sector. It's about a much bigger issue: the dominance of corporate America in politics.
Now that we've looked at their funding sources it's time to see the actual policies on health care. Let's start with Sanders.
With more than 47 million Americans without health insurance coverage, it is clear that we need major changes in our country’s health care system. But, health care coverage will not be enough to assure access to care. Over 55 million Americans, insured and uninsured, have trouble finding a primary care provider. That is why Senator Sanders has proposed a comprehensive set of proposals that will assure not just insurance coverage, but will increase the number of health professionals and community health centers to enable all Americans to receive affordable medical, dental, and behavioral health services.
Senator Sanders is a strong advocate of a single-payer health insurance system that would be administered at the state level. He has introduced legislation that would provide funding and incentives for five states to experiment with a variety of methods to cover all state residents. Through these experiments, Sanders believes the single-payer approach will be proven to be the most cost-effective program and will expand nationally.
After reading this it is hard not to yell out, "You are so right!" Sanders hits the nail on the head with both of his first two major points. America certainly does have a shortage of primary care providers. And Sanders, of only (at most) four US senators in the entire Union, takes the bold step of advocating a system like Medicare for All.
Now let's compare Kerry's policies.
Health reform is not only a matter of fundamental moral values, but an economic imperative as well. 47 million Americans are living, at some point of the year, without any health insurance coverage at all. Health care costs are rising at twice the rate of workers' wages. Excessive waste and medical errors cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives each year. We live in the richest country on earth, but our health care system has fallen far behind, failing too many Americans.
However, the road to fundamental reform of our broken health care system is clear. First, every American must have quality health coverage by 2011, starting with every child NOW. Second, we must control skyrocketing health costs that push families into bankruptcy and put our businesses at a disadvantage in the global economy. Third, instead of telling tens of millions to wait until they are sick enough to go to an emergency room, we should assure high quality preventive care.
There are many true statements here, but the obvious difference is the total lack of emphasis on changing the system as opposed to just somehow meeting goals. Kerry says 47 million are uninsured and he says that we're going to do it mostly through guaranteeing coverage in the current shockingly wasteful system, making only at best incremental changes. Sanders says 47 million are uninsured and that the current system is fundamentally undesirable. That is the difference.
For those who still doubt Kerry's lack of commitment to Medicare for All, you may view the Senate's single payer bill on GovTrack and note its total lack of cosponsors--Bernie Sanders is standing alone on this. You may also view the AP's coverage of Kerry's latest public meeting, which included this tidbit:
Kerry at times found himself on the defensive against those in the crowd who said he should push harder for a single-payer system, or at the very least refuse to back a plan that doesn't include a strong public health insurance option.
Kerry said there wasn't enough support in the Senate for a single payer plan under which the government would pay health care bills.
Of course, the question is not whether we have the votes. The real question is: why don't we have your vote, John Kerry? After all it will be extremely difficult to ever get any votes if nobody ever signs on in the first place.
Here's a video of Kerry again giving his standard circular argument for leaving Sanders to fight alone.
A few have also tried to argue that since you can create an efficient health insurance system with only private insurance (like the Dutch system), it might be a legitimate disagreement. That would be true if Kerry advocated the necessary steps of abolishing the employer based health insurance system, taxing employer provided insurance, and creating a risk adjustment program to make the American system look more like the Dutch one. He did actually advocate some sort of risk adjustment program in 2004, but certainly never favored the more important step of abolishing employer based insurance, which is known to be inherently wasteful. This argument is therefore not tenable.
One obvious explanation for Kerry's behavior is that he is being bought, like so many other senators are being bought, by business interests that include not just the health care lobbies but also the financial and legal sectors and many others that instinctively oppose reform. I would actually suggest other factors are at work as well--that the corporate media does not report this issue almost at all is obviously important, with the few instances of it being actually commented upon being hostile attacks more often than arguments from supporters. And Kerry himself is personally very wealthy not just in his own right but through his marriage to an heiress.
Whatever the specific causes, it's a completely outrageous and unacceptable outcome for Massachusetts. If you live there, be sure to write and phone John Kerry about his position.
If he doesn't change in the next few years (rather unlikely) then we must run a repeat of the primary campaign of Ed O'Reilly. O'Reilly's campaign is worth looking at because it was a model and extremely admirable campaign. If we could make a campaign like that succeed in Massachusetts in 2014 the benefits would be immense for the whole country, as we can see from O'Reilly's positions:
Single-Payer Healthcare: Medical Insurance For All
In 1948—60 years ago—President Harry S Truman asked Congress to provide national health insurance for every American. America is still waiting.
Ed O'Reilly supports Representative John Conyers' bill, the National Health Insurance Act (H.R. 676), and would file accompanying legislation in the Senate.
Iraq
My position on Iraq is clear and concise: We must begin withdrawing our troops today. The vast majority of Iraqi people view us as an occupying force and believe it is acceptable to use violent means against our troops. There is no clear mission for our military.
Marriage Equality
Ed fully supports all GLBT rights including gay marriage, the full repeal of DOMA, the enactment of Employment Anti Discrimination Law protecting the GLBT community and the abolition of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell".
This guy was awesome! Unfortunately he was outspent by a huge amount (we don't know exactly how much because Open Secrets doesn't seem to record funding collected only before the primary, but the ratio between their totals was over forty) and got only 31% of the vote to Kerry's 69%. But considering Kerry's longtime name recognition and his enormous funding advantage one could argue even that can't be sniffed at. O'Reilly was actually thinking of running for Kennedy's seat but recently decided against it. Pity.
Here are some Ed O'Reilly quotes that are worth noting from his 2008 campaign. Here's the video.
"If you look at the platform of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, I am in line with every single issue of that platform."
"I support not only universal health care but a single payer health care system. A majority of Massachusetts House Representatives have endorsed the single payer health care bill (HR 676). That's in line with the Massachusetts Democratic Party. John Kerry is not in favor of a single payer health care system."
This guy is completely right. I actually watched five minutes of a politician speaking and agreed with everything he said! That does not happen too often. Hopefully we can primary Kerry in 2014 and actually win.
There's one other issue that needs to be cleared up here. This is the national polling data on Medicare for All, which DOES point to a likely majority in favor. (Yes, yes, and yes.) Pessimistically, if you include the term "single payer" that most people don't understand, you get about an even split.
Poll #1. The first poll above is by Kaiser and asks about two proposals. One is:
Having a national health plan in which all
Americans would get their insurance through
an expanded, universal form of Medicare-for-all
58% approve
38% disapprove
The other one is:
Having a national health plan – or single-payer
plan – in which all Americans would get their
insurance from a single government plan
(July)
50% approve
44% disapprove
(June)
47% approve
49% disapprove
I would argue that the first question is better because most people probably do not know what "single payer" means (most certainly do not know what a public option means).
Poll #2. New York Times / CBS News poll.
HEALTH INSURANCE: PRIVATE ENTERPRISE VS. GOVERNMENT?
CBS/NYT CBS/NYT
Now 1/1979
Private enterprise 32% 48%
Government – all problems 49 28
Government – emergencies 10 12
Don’t know 9 12
Poll #2 says that half of the public favors a totally public health care system covering all medical problems, or in other words, half of the public favors HR 676 in its current form. Another ten percent of the public, however, would be open to national health insurance for "emergencies," presumably the kinds of catastrophic cases that make insurance companies long for a rescission. Presumably, we might expect that somewhere between 49% and 59% would favor a system like in Canada or Australia where the government does not cover all medical problems but does cover more than medical emergencies. This is therefore a likely majority, though not a terribly strong one.
Poll #3. Grove Insight Opinion Research did a February survey of registered voters. They found that:
When given a choice of the current system or one "like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers," voters overwhelmingly chose the latter. A solid majority (59%) say they would prefer a national health insurance program that covers everyone, over the current system of private insurance offered to most through their employer.
Indeed, Americans seem willing to pay more in taxes to achieve this. When asked views of a national health insurance program for all Americans, "even if this would require higher taxes," a majority (55%) say they would be inclined to do so. While opposition (40%) is higher when taxes are added to the mix, there is still a double-digit preference for national health care even if it requires a tax hike.
This is tough to deny. One person I talked with who refused to admit that the polling data points to a likely majority said that this poll is flawed because it "doesn't show questions, only makes assertions." But seeing as the poll quotes the exact phrases people were asked to judge, this objection makes no sense whatsoever.
Let's sum up the major points of this diary.
- John Kerry is an outrageous sellout on health care who doesn't remotely represent the views of America's most liberal state, Massachusetts.
- John Kerry got most of his campaign funding from business interests, and much more proportionally than his neighbor Bernie Sanders, though still less than most US senators.
- Ed O'Reilly would have done a far better job despite his extremely poor haircut.
- The available polling data does point to a likely majority in favor of Medicare for All nationally despite many people reflexively claiming it doesn't.
Write and phone your senators and representative about HR 676, S. 703 and the Weiner and Kucinich amendments! This easy call in system can help!