Medicare For All. It's what we need. Will we get it?
Ezra Klein of Vox offers this survey of potential Democratic presidential candidates:
The Democrats’ 2020 primary has kicked off
with a confusing and confused debate about the details of
Medicare-for-all — one that shows just how much complexity lurks behind a
seemingly simple slogan.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) started things, telling
CNN’s Jake Tapper that she’d “eliminate all of that,” where “that”
referred to private insurance. Within a few hours, her staff was
softening the statement, telling reporters that while pursuing
single-payer health care was Harris’s goal, she had also signed
on to more incremental bills. (“I want a burrito,”
tweeted Harris’s communications director, in an impish clarification. “I’d accept tacos in the meantime, but I want a burrito.”)
Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) took another tack
after announcing his candidacy. Asked whether he would “do away with
private health care,” Booker
replied, “even countries that have vast access to publicly offered health care still have private health care, so no.”
Within a few hours, Booker was besieged by angry tweets from liberals reminding him that he was a co-sponsor of
Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-VT)
Medicare for All bill and that the bill abolishes private insurance.
(It actually doesn’t — more on that in a moment.) So, they said, he’d
just proven himself a fake progressive and a real hypocrite.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) quickly
surveyed the wreckage and decided to sidestep the whole mess. “We know
where we’re aiming, and that is every American has health care at a
price they can afford,” she told
Bloomberg. “There are multiple bills on the floor in the United
States Senate. I’ve signed on to Medicare for all. I’ve signed on to
another one that gives an option for buying into Medicaid.”
Sanders, who deserves credit for making
Medicare-for-all the defining policy of the 2020 Democratic primary,
took the opportunity to tout his bill. “I look at polling and 70 percent
of the people support Medicare for All,” he
told the New York Times. “I think I’d be pretty dumb not to develop policies that capture what the American people want.”
He also explores what
Medicare For All could be, there are various options for the term. I
have a minor problem with the article but it is minor. I don't go to
Vox. I feel it's way too partisan. C.I. actually
saw this article and she e-mailed it to me thinking I might find it of
interest -- which I clearly do.
I'll try to check in on Klein from time to time with regards to health care.
I'm honestly not pleased with WSWS currently. Where is Kate Randall's health care coverage or any one's health care coverage?
I know there is a ton of
things to cover and that WSWS is covering worthy topics; however, I
really feel this is a time that we have to focus on Medicare For All.
Regularly and repeatedly.
Look where the politicians are right now? They suddenly want to talk about what Hillary considered unthinkable.
That was just four years ago.
This is a moment to push
and push again. People made this happen. We The People made it
happen. It's what we want. It's what we need and we need to stay
focused on it.
I was with C.I. recently
when she was speaking about Iraq to a group of high schoolers. A few
brought up how the media doesn't focus on Iraq anymore. She agreed and
she noted what they do focus on: Donald Trump's
Tweets. Over and over. And how does any of that effect our lives?
She said it's up to us to focus on the topics we need to focus on. And
she does that, it's not just words. She focuses on Iraq at The Common
Ills over and over and over. And I need to
try to get some of that focus -- but for Medicare For All -- over here.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for Tuesday:
Tuesday, February 5, 2019. US President Donald Trump's comments on Iraq continue to stir controversy.
Sunday, when US President Donald Trump announced that he would keep US troops in Iraq as a means of keeping Iran in check, Margaret Brennan stated ahead blankly in a catatonic state but what didn't seem like news to her remains news to everyone else. Jennifer Hansler (CNN) reports:
Trump's comments were strongly rejected by current and former Iraqi political leaders.
BBC NEWS recaps, "He said the troops would soon be moving to the huge Al Asad Airbase in Iraq's Anbar province and that their new tasks would include protecting Israel and keeping an eye on Iran, which his administration has accused of being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and of wanting to acquire nuclear weapons." There's an aspect to Donald's remarks that no one's noticed so far. We'll probably pick it up tomorrow. If so, we'll come back to this BBC story. If that happens, we may also include Tamer el-Ghobashy and Mustafa Salim's WASHINGTON POST article which may rival on Margret Brennan for stupidity.
From last night's NEWSHOUR (PBS):
Again, this is a major story -- unless your name is Margaret Brennan. Alissa J. Rubin and Eric Schmitt (NEW YORK TIMES) offer:
In the above, you should have noticed two things. First, where's Adil Abdul-Mahdi? He is the prime minister. Everyone's rushing to weigh in except him. Second, though Saleh has long loved the spotlight and though the western press is working overtime to elevate his position, President of Iraq is a ceremonial post with little real power. To read the coverage from the western press, one would think Saleh was the prime minister and not just a ceremonial ribbon cutter.
If you're thinking Adil Abdul is on vacation or avoiding the press, refer to the following:
Sunday, when US President Donald Trump announced that he would keep US troops in Iraq as a means of keeping Iran in check, Margaret Brennan stated ahead blankly in a catatonic state but what didn't seem like news to her remains news to everyone else. Jennifer Hansler (CNN) reports:
Trump's comments were strongly rejected by current and former Iraqi political leaders.
Iraqi President Bahram Salih said that
the US had not asked permission to have forces on the ground "watch
Iran," noting that "the US presence in Iraq is a part of an agreement
between the two countries with a specific task which is to combat
terrorism."
"Don't overburden Iraq with your own issues," Salih said during a forum in Baghdad.
Former Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi tweeted in English on Monday that "Iraqi sovereignty must be respected."
"Its interests should not be compromised. Iraq should not be used as a
spring board to attack its neighbours. We are not proxies in conflicts
outside the interests of our nation," he wrote.
BBC NEWS recaps, "He said the troops would soon be moving to the huge Al Asad Airbase in Iraq's Anbar province and that their new tasks would include protecting Israel and keeping an eye on Iran, which his administration has accused of being the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism and of wanting to acquire nuclear weapons." There's an aspect to Donald's remarks that no one's noticed so far. We'll probably pick it up tomorrow. If so, we'll come back to this BBC story. If that happens, we may also include Tamer el-Ghobashy and Mustafa Salim's WASHINGTON POST article which may rival on Margret Brennan for stupidity.
From last night's NEWSHOUR (PBS):
-
Amna Nawaz:
The president of Iraq, Barham Salih, slammed President Trump today for suggesting U.S. troops will stay in Iraq to monitor Iran. In a CBS interview, Mr. Trump said — quote — "I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem."
In Baghdad today, Salih said Iraq had not been consulted, and that U.S. troops are there only to fight extremist groups. -
Barham Salih:
They are here for a specific mission for combating terrorism, Da'esh, ISIS. And they have no other definition or defined mission, beyond helping Iraqi forces in the fight against terrorism. -
Amna Nawaz:
Salih also said Iraq's constitution forbids using the country as a base to threaten other nations.
Again, this is a major story -- unless your name is Margaret Brennan. Alissa J. Rubin and Eric Schmitt (NEW YORK TIMES) offer:
President Trump’s unexpected
announcement that he wanted American troops in Iraq to stay there to
“watch Iran” achieved a previously unattainable goal on Monday: unity in
the Iraqi political establishment.
The
problem for Mr. Trump was that the unity was a collective rejection of
his proposal, and added momentum to proposed legislation that could
hamper American troops’ ability to operate in Iraq. The measure, which
is now being drafted, would limit American troop movements and
activities in Iraq.
Donald missed that reality, didn't anticipate it. But then, neither did
Margaret Brennan who just rushed through the topic sensing no news
value to it. In Iraq, it has tremendous news value. Natasha Turak (CNBC) notes:
Iraq's deputy speaker of parliament, Hassan Karim al-Kaabi, labeled the
U.S. leader's comments a "blatant and overt violation of sovereignty and
national will," according to Kurdish-Iraqi news website Rudaw.
In the above, you should have noticed two things. First, where's Adil Abdul-Mahdi? He is the prime minister. Everyone's rushing to weigh in except him. Second, though Saleh has long loved the spotlight and though the western press is working overtime to elevate his position, President of Iraq is a ceremonial post with little real power. To read the coverage from the western press, one would think Saleh was the prime minister and not just a ceremonial ribbon cutter.
If you're thinking Adil Abdul is on vacation or avoiding the press, refer to the following:
Iraq’s Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi visits St George’s Anglican Church in Baghdad ino.to/wG0mcj8 via @skinnergj
Iraq’s Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi visits St George’s Anglican Church in Baghdad – Anglicannews baghdadinformer.com/13431/iraqs-pr…
He's with the press constantly, he just does not appear to have anything to say on this issue.
As this has become obvious, you'd think reporters would wonder if his silence is because he and Donald Trump have already discussed this and Abdul-Mahdi isn't shocked by the comments? Another possibility is that he just doesn't care. "He just doesn't care" may, in fact, be the motto of his term as prime minister.
Much of #Mosul remains destroyed with the @IraqiGovt neglect of the city leaving it #chaotic and #unsafe, and many still displaced. Fears of #ISIS return also haunt residents as " it thrives on #corruption and chaos" that is endemic in #Iraq
frbiu.com/articles/no-pl…
Last Thursday, the US Embassy in Baghdad posted the following:
Ambassador Silliman
السلام عليكم،لقد كان لي الشرف والامتنان أن أكون سفيراً أمريكياً في العراق طوال العامين والنصف الماضيين. ومع انتهاء مهمتي، أود من جميع العراقيين أن يعلموا بأنني أرى إمكانيات عظيمة لعراق ديمقراطي حقيقي ذي سيادة واستقلال وازدهار.ومع مغادرتي للعراق، احمل معي الكثير من الذكريات الجميلة. لقد التقيت بشباب وفنانين وصحفيين ورجال اعمال وموظفيين حكوميين وزعماء دينيين. وسأعتز بالصداقة والتجارب الي حظيت بها عند تعرفي لهذه الامة العظيمة ذات التاريخ.سأتمنى دائما تحقيق السلام والازدهار لجميع العراقيين.في امان اللهAmbassador Douglas Silliman: "It has been my honor and privilege to serve as the American Ambassador to Iraq for the past two and a half years. As my assignment ends, I want all Iraqis to know that I see great potential for a truly democratic, sovereign, independent, and prosperous Iraq." "I will cherish the friendships and experiences I have had getting to know this vast and historic nation." "And I will always wish for peace and prosperity for all Iraqis.""Fi 'aman Allah"
Posted by U.S. Embassy Baghdad on Thursday, January 31, 2019
“It has been my honor and privilege to serve as the American Ambassador to Iraq for the past two and a half years. As my assignment ends, I want all Iraqis to know that I see great potential for a truly democratic, sovereign, independent, and prosperous Iraq. I will cherish the friendships and experiences I have had getting to know this vast and historic nation, and I will always wish for peace and prosperity for all Iraqis.”
Though Matthew Tueller is expected to be confirmed by the US Senate (he's already been through the confirmation process to become the US Ambassador to Yemen), he has not been confirmed yet. It'll be interesting to see how quickly the US Senate moves on confirmation hearings. CONGRESS.ORG notes:
Description
- Matthew H. Tueller, of Utah, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Minister-Counselor, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Republic of Iraq.
Organization
- Department of State
Latest Action
- 01/03/2019 - Returned to the President under the provisions of Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6 of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
Date Received from President
- 11/15/2018
Committee
- Senate Foreign Relations
So November 15th, the president formally notified the Senate of the nomination. It's now February 5th and there has not yet been a confirmation hearing.
Silliman's departure was known ahead of time. There is no excuse for this inaction.
Staying with US politics, Igor Bobic (HUFFINGTON POST) reports:
The U.S. Senate on Monday voted overwhelmingly to approve a symbolic resolution urging President Donald Trump not to proceed with plans for a hasty withdrawal of U.S. troops from their yearslong fight against terrorism abroad.
[. . .]
It passed on Monday by a 70-26 vote with the help of a big bipartisan majority. Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Cory Booker (N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), and Bernie Sanders (I-V.t) opposed the measure. Many of those senators have approached Trump’s foreign policy with caution, expressing criticism dealing with stylistic rather than substantive matters.
The following community sites -- plus Jody Watley, Cindy Sheehan, the Center for Constitutional Rights, BLACK AGENDA REPORT, THE PACIFICA EVENING NEWS and ANTIWAR.COM -- updated:
