Democrats should face new reality: Medicare for All is a winning platform

You do not know what you do not know. This common phrase speaks to people's blind spots when it comes to their perspectives on various types of issues and ideas, including politics. What is considered not in the realm of possibility may simply be a reflection of societal biases forced upon people by various power structures in which society is based upon. Copernicus learned this the hard way as he challenged the church's orthodox view that the sun revolves around the earth. The same kind of analogy can be made for the political viability of a universal healthcare policy, such as Medicare for All.

“Never, ever”

In the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries most Democratic Party insiders believed that having some type of universal healthcare proposal, such as Medicare for All, was not a political possibility because they believed that the idea was too far to the left on the political spectrum to be accepted by the American mainstream. The party ultimately nominated as its presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, a candidate who said that Medicare for All would “never, ever” happen, over Bernie Sanders, a fiercely vocal proponent of an aggressive move leftward towards some type of a universal healthcare system. This turned out to be a huge mistake, resulting in Donald Trump's ascendancy to the Oval Office.

A new political paradigm

Now with Sanders consistently polling as the nation's most popular politician, while Clinton continually remaining one of the least popular, there is little doubt that Sanders would have fared much better against Trump and probably would have won the presidency if the Democratic Party had nominated him. One of the main reasons for this is Sanders's consistent support for Medicare for All, which a clear majority of Americans support. It is obvious that Democrats running in the 2018 midterm elections need to fully support universal healthcare which is already a part of the official party platform. Essentially, Democrats need to start actually being Democrats if they really want to win elections. This is a new political paradigm and a ripe opportunity if Democrats do not allow their past political biases to blind them.

Universal Healthcare vs. Paul Ryan

This new paradigm is clearly illustrated in the current movement to unseat Republican Speaker of the House, Congressman Paul Ryan in Wisconsin. It is notable that the top Democratic primary contenders for the seat, Randy Bryce and Cathy Myers, both have universal healthcare in their platforms. This is remarkable because there are currently no Democrats running in the primary election for the party's nomination that does not support Medicare for All, while just during the previous election cycle the Democratic Party's presidential nominee considered universal healthcare a political impossibility.

This presents, once again, the opportunity for Democrats to sharply draw a contrast between themselves and Ryan, Trump and the GOP's recent effort to strip tens of millions of Americans of healthcare via the highly unpopular Obamacare repeal bill. Progressives, liberals and Democratic voters need to strongly support primary candidates who support Medicare for All, while pushing incumbents to adopt the policy as part of their agendas, if the party is serious about their “blue wave” in the 2018 midterm elections.

Rep. Keith Ellison wants U.S. prosperity to include all Americans

As the Federal Reserve Bank cites a revitalized economy as a reason to raise interest rates, many everyday Americans have yet to share in the benefits of a recovering U.S. economy. Wealth inequality in America is still a serious problem which has continued to grow worst despite a booming stock market and rapidly rising real estate valuations. The U.S. falls well behind most other industrialized nations in income equality and even fares worst than some third-world countries, such as Kenya. Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) understands this dynamic and has proposed legislation aimed at addressing this issue.

Wall Street on the rise, Main Street not so much

President Trump is quick to tout the rising stock market as evidence of his success, despite having been unable to pass any major legislation to address the American economy. However, it hardly matters whether Trump has anything to do with stock market prices, since most everyday Americans do not have a significant amount of their wealth in the stock market. In fact only a little more than half of Americans, a record low, currently own any stocks at all, according to a recent Gallup poll. Therefore, with stagnant wages that fail to keep up with the cost of living, the vast majority of the financial gains of the recent economic recovery skipped over the middle-class and impoverished communities.

U.S. prosperity should be for all Americans, not just the wealthy

Congressman Ellison has vowed to address wealth inequality in America and has taken action by introducing the Inclusive Prosperity Act of 2017 (H.R. 1144) in the House. If it becomes law, the bill would impose a tax on transfer of ownership of certain securities, including stocks, bonds and other derivative financial instruments. It would also provide a tax credit for those earning $50,000 or less annually which would fully cover the new securities excise tax. The collected taxes would allow for the funding of infrastructure and community investments which would help middle-class and impoverished communities receive more of the gains from a recovering American economy.

The bill currently has 23 Democratic co-sponsors in Congress. As of now, no Republicans have supported the proposed legislation. Those who believe that all Americans should enjoy the benefits of an improved U.S. economy should take the time to contact their representatives in Congress and urge them to support H.R. 1144.

Struggle against wealth inequality includes fight for reproductive rights

Wealth inequality is an important concern for those on the left of the American political spectrum. It is also no secret that wealth inequality is currently at record levels in the U.S. However, tackling wealth inequality cannot be done in a vacuum, since this issue intersects with various other social issues in America. For instance, many on the left may not realize how much the battle over reproductive rights in the U.S. can significantly affect the distribution of wealth across the country.

Lack of access to abortion has financial consequences for women

Having a child when not ready financially can be a serious problem for many women. This can keep a woman from being able to advance in her career or obtain the necessary education or training in order to move up along the economic and social ladder. Therefore, policies implemented by lawmakers which make it more difficult for women to access abortion can have significantly negative financial effects on women with unintended pregnancies. As a result, these women and their families are less able to accumulate wealth and therefore are significantly disadvantaged economically.

Anti-choice policies hurt impoverished communities most

Unfortunately, these policies restricting choice are most detrimental to impoverished communities. Women from impoverished communities are five times more likely than affluent women to have an unintended birth, according to The Brookings Institute. The effort to make the anti-choice Hyde Amendment permanent is one of the latest of these GOP anti-choice policies which would result in increased wealth inequality.

GOP aims to make anti-choice policy permanent

The Hyde Amendment, originally passed in 1976, bans the federal government from using taxpayer dollars on abortion services. However, the 2016 Democratic National Committee platform explicitly called for the repeal of the Hyde amendment which has prompted Republicans to take action. The GOP has already passed in the House the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act (H.R. 7) which would essentially make the Hyde Amendment permanent if it is passed in the Senate.

Democrats move to stop GOP

Fortunately, progressives, liberals and Democrats have responded to this most recent GOP attack on women's rights by putting forth a bill of their own which would put a stop to this latest anti-choice effort by Republicans. The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act of 2017 (H.R. 771) would block the GOP's anti-choice bill by permanently repealing the ban on federal funding for abortion.

Who supports the EACH Woman Act?

The EACH Woman Act, along with its sponsor Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D-CA), is co-sponsored by 122 Democrats and no Republicans. Some of the co-sponsoring Democrats include Keith Ellison, Mark Takano, Ted Lieu and Pramila Jayapal. As of now, progressive Tulsi Gabbard has not signed onto the bill.

If you want to do something about wealth inequality and fight for a woman's right to choose, then please contact your representatives in Congress and ask them to vote for the EACH Woman Act of 2017. Also, call your Senators and demand that they vote against the GOP's anti-choice bill H.R. 7.

American justice is for sale, bill in Congress aims to fix this

For-profit prisons are turning America into a modern day slave state. The industry's lobbying activities have continuously aimed to unjustly lock up more impoverished and middle-class Americans along with undocumented immigrants in order to garner more profit for themselves. The incarceration rates for the United States is five to ten times that of other developed democratic nations, according to Jacobin. At the same time it costs American taxpayers nearly $2 billion annually to house around 400,000 undocumented immigrants detained by the government, reported The Nation. Progressive Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) is looking to address this serious problem in a new bill which could signal the beginning of the end of the prison-immigration industrial complex in America.

Banning for profit prisons

Grijalva recently introduced the Justice Is Not For Sale Act of 2017 (H.R. 3227) which would ban the federal, state and local governments in the United States from contracting with for-profit private prison companies, therefore cutting off the private prison industry lobby's power over American politicians. The current contracts with privately-run prison companies would be phased out over the course of three years.

Parole and immigration reform

The bill also has provisions which give judges more flexibility in sentencing as well as helps reformed inmates more easily obtain parole in order to help them become productive and contributing citizens of society. Additionally, the proposed law would also give undocumented immigrants parole rights which would enable them to return to their families and continue contributing to the U.S. economy while working through the legal system to help them better integrate into American society.

Bill has support from some Democrats, no Republicans

The bill has been co-sponsored by 15 congressional Democrats. Among those include Keith Ellison, Tulsi Gabbard, Mark Takano and Barbara Lee. As of now, no Republicans have been brave enough to begin “draining the swamp” when it comes to reigning in the lobbying influence of the private prison industry. The bill has no co-sponsors from the GOP.

If you believe that American politicians should not be beholden to the prison industrial complex and believe in humane immigration reform then please contact your local congressional representatives and tell them to support the Justice Is Not For Sale Act of 2017.

Want single-payer? End Citizen's United

In the aftermath of the recent Republican attempt to destroy the American healthcare system and take away health insurance from millions of people, many may be wondering what would possess the GOP to attempt to ram through the Obamacare repeal bill which was extremely unpopular among voters on both the left and the right. It is the same reason that centrist Democrats balk at supporting a single-payer healthcare system. That reason is money.

Koch Industries money controls GOP

One would think it would not be good politics for the GOP to attempt to enact legislation that a majority of the public on both sides of the political spectrum strongly reject. However, political campaigns are becoming increasingly more expensive to mount, which means politicians need large amounts of donations to compete. One of the largest donors to the Republican Party, Koch Industries, an international corporation owned by Charles and David Koch, had donated $1.8 million to 176 Republican congressional candidates in 2016. Leading up to the Obamacare repeal vote the Koch brothers had warned Republicans if they were not able to pass major legislation to move the conservative agenda forward, they, along with other GOP mega-donors would stop donating to GOP politicians, according to Salon.

This is why Republican Senator Mitch McConnell had brought the Obamacare repeal bill to a vote despite not knowing if he had enough votes to pass the legislation. He had to at least give the appearance that he was doing everything he could to pass the Republican “healthcare” bill which was also essential for GOP tax cuts for the wealthy to be implemented via the budget reconciliation process.

Democrats and 'Big Pharma'

On the other hand, corporate donors also exercise extensive influence over Democrats and their decisions regarding healthcare policy. This was apparent in Democratic Senator Cory Booker's refusal to back progressive Senator Bernie Sander's bill to allow Americans to purchase prescription drugs from Canada where medications are generally less expensive. He did this despite 72 percent of Americans supporting the idea of importing prescription drugs from Canada, according to The Intercept.

It is no accident that Booker is notorious for being heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry, garnering more donations from Big Pharma than any other Democratic senator. Over the last six years Booker has received $267,338 from the drug industry.

Influence from the pharmaceutical industry even played a role in the forming of Obamacare. After receiving millions of dollars in donations from the drug industry Barack Obama decided to back off his push for a single-payer healthcare system, according to International Business Times.

End Citizen's United

The legal mechanism which allows for corporations to essentially pay off American politicians on both sides of the aisle is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs. Federal Election Commission. This decision by the highest court in the country empowered corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns in order to pressure politicians to enact policies friendly to corporate interests regardless of what is best for the American people. Therefore, it is imperative for progressives, Democrats and anybody else who wants to see an American healthcare system that works for everybody to back candidates who want to reform the corrupt U.S. campaign finance system. 

 

Some of the politicians out there right now advocating for campaign finance reform and for ending Citizen's United are Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders as well as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard who has recently pledged to stop taking corporate donations. Even centrist Senator Booker had to decide to “pause” his accepting of Big Pharma donations due to political pressure from constituents, a testament to how much everyday people can change politics if they are informed and involved. There are also various organizations, such as Our Revolution, working to achieve campaign finance reform in the U.S.

'Medicare for all' could unleash the American entrepreneur

With the U.S. economy growing at a historically stagnant pace, policymakers have been searching for ways to jump start the American economy. This is also one of the reasons why Senator Bernie Sanders has recently announced a new bill which would shift the current U.S. health system to a "Medicare for all" system. This would expand Medicare to make sure nobody is left without coverage, while also boosting entrepreneurship.

Employer-based healthcare system stifles entrepreneurship in U.S.

One of the most important aspects of growing an economy is providing participants in the economy with entrepreneurial opportunities. Entrepreneurs are many times described as the engines of economic growth due to their risk-taking which produces innovation while decreasing market inefficiencies. Therefore, it is important to look at what is keeping potential entrepreneurs from taking the risk of going into business for themselves.

One of the most common reasons that people stay in a job that they are not happy with is for the employer-provided health insurance. Many potential entrepreneurs with great ideas may shy away from making the leap because they are afraid of what will happen to them and their families if they happen to be seriously injured and are hit with exorbitant medical bills. However, what if the risk of losing health coverage is eliminated? This can have a profound effect on a potential entrepreneur's risk-reward analysis when thinking about starting his or her own business.

Effect of 'job lock' on entrepreneurship

The phenomenon of an employee's desire to avoid the risk of losing health insurance overriding the desire to follow a better-suited career path is known as “job lock.” According to a report from the American University Washington College of Law, this results in lower “employment dynamics” which means that “the rate at which workers and businesses exchange jobs” is low. Job lock makes workers sixty percent less likely to leave their employment while also reducing job mobility by 22.5 percent. This phenomenon also decreases the self-employment rate by as much as four percent.

Not only is Sander's newly announced “Medicare for all” bill important for those facing a life or death situation, it is also important for those hoping for a renewed American economy. This would more than likely include both the healthy and the ill. “Medicare for all” is not only about good health but it is also about good business and economics.

Betsy DeVos means more wealth inequality in America

Wealth inequality has become an important challenge currently facing America today. The effects of the current record level of wealth inequality is felt in almost all aspects of life in this nation, including educating the children of America. This is why Donald Trump's choice for U.S. Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, who was just confirmed, is probably one of the worst people to choose to oversee the education system of the entire nation.

DeVos has been a vocal leader of the so-called “school choice” movement which aims to implement school vouchers designed to funnel public dollars to private religious schools. Voucher programs tend to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor. Usually vouchers are not adequate enough to pay for the total cost of attending a private school, which leaves only wealthy families who can make up the shortfall as the only ones able to take advantage of vouchers, according to The Progressive. Essentially, the vouchers act as a discount coupon for wealthy families who already had their children attending expensive private schools anyways.

Not only are the benefits of school voucher programs essentially exclusive to wealthy families, they are also detrimental to the quality of public education provided to middle class and impoverished families. School voucher programs utilize public funds which would normally go towards public schools. This means middle class and impoverished children would be left with public schools that have less money for essential learning resources.

Additionally, there is a lack of oversight on private schools to which public schools are normally subject. Private schools can actually kick out a child based upon any criteria they choose to use, according to Tashaune Harden, vice president of the Michigan Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff, in an interview on The Majority Report posted on January 18, 2017. In Harden's state of Michigan, DeVos heavily lobbied for private charter schools and now Michigan's education system is feeling the ill effects of DeVos's lobbying efforts on behalf of for-profit charter schools.

In Michigan, private charter schools receive funding from the state government based on what is known as “count days”. What commonly occurs is that these private schools will wait until after these “count days” so they can receive funds for children enrolled in the classroom. However, they then end up kicking out some children which they deem as being problematic for one reason or another. This can include any criteria they want to use, which can unfairly discriminate against children with learning disabilities.

In the public school system the schools would normally be forced to take these children as students. However, since private charter schools avoid most regulations they can kick these children out while still keeping the public funds received on “count days.” This leaves the public schools to educate the children kicked out of private charter schools with less funds, since the private charter schools keep the funds based upon enrollment on “count days.”

Now, DeVos will likely want to spread this effect to the rest of the country with her newly found power as U.S. Education Secretary.