Congress: Conyers is alive and well
Every day more and more evidence piles up that Democrats are going to regain control of the Congress. It’s so compelling that even Democrats in Congress are beginning to believe it.
Here’s how I know: Rep. John Conyers’ universal health care bill that has been lying dormant all these years has suddenly come alive. If the American people could have voted on the bill, Conyers’ legislation would have passed overwhelmingly when it was first introduced. But everyone knew that in a GOP-controlled Congress where the health care industry underwrites most of their campaigns, it didn’t have a prayer. So no one paid it much attention.
In a recent speech, Sen. John Kerry called health care “the great unfinished business of half a century.” He noted that for five decades, presidents “have approached this challenge, then backed away—and powerful interests have had their way.”
That’s why states took the lead. Last spring Massachusetts and Vermont both passed versions of universal health care. Illinois is knocking at the door as is Maine. Just this summer, San Francisco passed universal coverage and other California cities are making similar noises.
Any politician with presidential ambitions wants to get out front on this issue. All are envious of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney who got a jump on everyone when his state passed a health care reform bill that won him accolades across the nation. Close scrutiny of the Massachusetts law indicate it is quite a few rungs short of its promise of providing a ladder to affordable care for every resident, but his boast as “the man who brought universal health care to his state” is the brightest nugget in Romney’s otherwise lackluster presidential campaign.
No slouch at fattening his campaign resume is New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson who governs a state with the second highest rate of uninsured. He appointed a task force to study whether universal coverage will work in New Mexico, or at least measure up to whatever it is Mitt Romney is boasting about back in Boston. Earlier in the year Richardson vetoed a bill that would have funded a study of universal health care but that was BM (Before Massachusetts).
For years, labor unions have wanted health care taken off the collective bargaining table and have been active participants in statewide universal health care campaigns. Now as they perceive Democrats regaining control of the Congress, they’re giving new attention to the Conyers’ bill. Hundreds of local unions and central labor councils have endorsed HR 676, including state AFL-CIOs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut and Kentucky. Just the other day the nation’s largest labor union, the National Education Association, signed on.
There is a huge and anxious audience impatient for government to do something about our country’s biggest domestic crisis. Health insurance premiums have gone up five times faster than worker incomes so it isn’t just the uninsured who are panicky. Businesses and state governments know too that health care costs are unsustainable.
Now that gasoline prices are also out of sight, oil companies are as profitable as the health insurance industry. Since the Bush administration has good friends in both camps, don’t expect any summoning of company executives to the White House for “jawboning” to bring down prices. The only solution is the traditional one: throw the bums out.
Once that’s done my guess is we’ve got a better shot at universal health care (with states leading the way) than energy independence, if global warming doesn’t get us first.
Here’s how I know: Rep. John Conyers’ universal health care bill that has been lying dormant all these years has suddenly come alive. If the American people could have voted on the bill, Conyers’ legislation would have passed overwhelmingly when it was first introduced. But everyone knew that in a GOP-controlled Congress where the health care industry underwrites most of their campaigns, it didn’t have a prayer. So no one paid it much attention.
In a recent speech, Sen. John Kerry called health care “the great unfinished business of half a century.” He noted that for five decades, presidents “have approached this challenge, then backed away—and powerful interests have had their way.”
That’s why states took the lead. Last spring Massachusetts and Vermont both passed versions of universal health care. Illinois is knocking at the door as is Maine. Just this summer, San Francisco passed universal coverage and other California cities are making similar noises.
Any politician with presidential ambitions wants to get out front on this issue. All are envious of Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney who got a jump on everyone when his state passed a health care reform bill that won him accolades across the nation. Close scrutiny of the Massachusetts law indicate it is quite a few rungs short of its promise of providing a ladder to affordable care for every resident, but his boast as “the man who brought universal health care to his state” is the brightest nugget in Romney’s otherwise lackluster presidential campaign.
No slouch at fattening his campaign resume is New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson who governs a state with the second highest rate of uninsured. He appointed a task force to study whether universal coverage will work in New Mexico, or at least measure up to whatever it is Mitt Romney is boasting about back in Boston. Earlier in the year Richardson vetoed a bill that would have funded a study of universal health care but that was BM (Before Massachusetts).
For years, labor unions have wanted health care taken off the collective bargaining table and have been active participants in statewide universal health care campaigns. Now as they perceive Democrats regaining control of the Congress, they’re giving new attention to the Conyers’ bill. Hundreds of local unions and central labor councils have endorsed HR 676, including state AFL-CIOs in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Connecticut and Kentucky. Just the other day the nation’s largest labor union, the National Education Association, signed on.
There is a huge and anxious audience impatient for government to do something about our country’s biggest domestic crisis. Health insurance premiums have gone up five times faster than worker incomes so it isn’t just the uninsured who are panicky. Businesses and state governments know too that health care costs are unsustainable.
Now that gasoline prices are also out of sight, oil companies are as profitable as the health insurance industry. Since the Bush administration has good friends in both camps, don’t expect any summoning of company executives to the White House for “jawboning” to bring down prices. The only solution is the traditional one: throw the bums out.
Once that’s done my guess is we’ve got a better shot at universal health care (with states leading the way) than energy independence, if global warming doesn’t get us first.

1 Comments:
Mr. Kamber, I just saw you on television. My office break room blares MSNBC all day, so I end up hearing what the "rest of the world"--people like my parents & grandma--hear as news.
(It is very weird to go from very selective internet news, bulletin boards, & blogs to the TV. I get so MANY topics on the internet, and TV blares the same 6 stories all day! How can people stand it? Is it just because they get used to it and don't know anything else, not having discovered alternative internet news sources?)
For some reason, I looked at the TV when I went to the fridge because I thought I recognized Tucker's voice and wanted to see if I'd really learned to identify it after only a few views. I can't stand the way the man talks about controversial issues. He picks such WONDERFUL issues and ALMOST asks wonderful questions, but then they're just...off. They sound like the questions my classmates used to ask about national news items in the hallways of middle and high school. Which is, unfortunately, the kind of question I'm sure most adults in Suburbia & Exurbia ask, too, but I'm not sure--I've been hiding in the city since college.
It drove me crazy today when Mr. Carlson presented one view on Clinton & Obama, let Mr. Liddy present a more detailed view, let you respond with, "I agree with everything that's been said--it's all pretty reasonable," and he replied, "But..."
"But WHAT, Tucker?" I wanted to scream. "Everyone's in consensus! What the hell unrelated question are you going to present and pretend is a rebuttal?"
Mr. Kamber, I want to say that the only reason I stayed in that room for 3 whole issues was because of you. I even excused myself to a coworker who walked in, saying, "I don't normally watch this, but you've gotta see this guy. I've never seen him talk before." His response, before he saw you, was, "Eh, he's probably too sensible to be on there much."
That helped me precisely formulate a question that'd been floating as general annoyance in my head each time I saw news television:
Why don't I see moderators like you on the television I blip into whenever I'm in the "normal world" (airports, work, etc.)? Why are people like you the guests? Why don't the people who can answer questions critically and on topic get offered the chance to ask questions of their own and seek out guests of their own, under the presumption that they'd be good at that, too?
I started wondering--what's it like to fight the uphill battle of going on TV and knowing that no matter how directly and comprehensively you answer your host's questions, they're just not going to get that you did that? It sounds like...*shudder*...talking to water cooler buddies about politics. Every time I do it, I just want to take their heads between my hands, shake them, and say, "Go back to school, learn to debate, and then come back with direct answers so we can actually say something!" So I avoid them. What helps you continue to talk to them, interview after interview, year after year? What helps you keep getting invited back? Producers who got that you actually answered the questions and encourage the moderator to invite you back? Moderators themselves who, even if they don't get you, liked the way you said what you said? How does this business work from your perspective?
One last thing. I've been doing a lot of reading on -isms for the last year and a half, and when I saw those flashes of the Tennessee ad, I too didn't get what was "racist" about the scenario Tucker described. Sexist, sure--it implied that men were philanderers by nature, rather than by conditioning against nature, and that women were sexy bait but not animals on the prowl by nature, rather than by conditioning against nature. But racist? I didn't see how! It just had...black people & white people. And one person, who happened to be white, hit on one person, who happened to be black. Wasn't the scandal and the "just. not. right" in the idea of a man in politics searching for sex at the party of a corporation that sells sex images of sex disassociated from its connections to other things in life (such as emotions)? Where was the racism?
That would've been my question if we'd been talking. And then you...you gave me no reason to grab your head and shake it! ;-) You answered the question in my mind: the ad aired in TENNESSEE, and in Tennessee, there are voters who would vote against someone because he is black and is flirting with a white. These voters might even be the most likely to use a phrase like "just not right," so the ad seems ready to go to an audience like that.
Bam. Okay, you made a counterpoint, and you convinced me. Thanks. I feel like I've got a brand new updated lens for my media-glasses.
I suppose if a person wanted to contradict you, they'd argue, "Can you cite a study that shows people think that way? This is 2006, not 1956!" But no...sigh...Mr. Carlson (*handstoheadshake*) instead said, "I don't get what's racist! He's potentially interested in sex, but what's racist?" And when you repeated, "I already told you--the racism is in the advertisement's intent to reach out to a demographic that thinks he shouldn't be interested in any romantic or sexual relations with a white," he answered, "I don't get what's racist! Tell me where the racism is!"
*sigh*
I got you, Mr. Kamber. Thanks for saying what you did.
Post a Comment
<< Home