This short documentary was shot on 2.17.10 and was produced by Lyn Goldfarb in association with Ramblin’ Man Films. For more in this reform series, visit http://www.RamblinManFilms.org.

Now North Carolina house candidate Marcus Brandon has pledged to introduce a bill to create single-payer healthcare in that state. Brandon, whom I know and like and who worked for Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s 2008 presidential campaign, is a candidate in North Carolina House District 60. That’s near Greensboro, where I can just picture Marcus sitting at a lunch counter and refusing to be provoked.

Brandon has promised that if he is elected, the first piece of legislation he will introduce will be the “North Carolina Healthcare Act” which will provide universal single-payer healthcare to every citizen of the state.

Brandon says that he remains a supporter of national single-payer healthcare and will continue lobbying for passage of HR 676, Congressman John Conyers’ bill:

“The HR 676 fight is definitely not over, but we must now strategically shift the focus to the state level. When other states see that we can cut the cost of healthcare, streamline our medical industry, and still provide universal coverage to all North Carolinians, then all of the sudden, single-payer health care doesn’t look so bad.”

Brandon argues that a single-payer system could save over $1.5 billion per year in reduced bureaucracy in the state of North Carolina alone. And he speaks confidently about making this happen:

“North Carolina is poised to be the first state to adopt single-payer, once I am able to introduce it. North Carolinians are ready for real solutions to healthcare. North Carolina has the third highest healthcare cost of any state, while it sags at 37th in average income. This is a disparity that most North Carolinians feel when they have to think about healthcare. Every day, as I am knocking on doors to talk to voters, I hear stories of people who cannot afford insurance and become victims of this for-profit industry.”

Brandon says his bill is similar to other states’ initiatives such as the “Minnesota Health Act” or the “California Universal Healthcare Act.” Brandon points to these two bills as excellent examples of how a single payer healthcare system could be both fiscally sound and provide full coverage.

Brandon served in 2007 and 2008 as Dennis Kucinich’s National Finance Director and Deputy Campaign Manager. He says that Kucinich inspired him:

“Dennis urged me to run for office so we could build a state-by-state grassroots movement for single payer and other progressive issues. My campaign for the North Carolina House is an extension of the work I did with Dennis Kucinich.”

While Kucinich has struggled unsuccessfully thus far to pass federal legislation facilitating the state creation of single-payer healthcare systems, states are pressign ahead and will deal with lawsuits from “health” corporations when and if they arise.

Marcus Brandon’s website is at
http://www.marcusbrandon.com

He has a primary on May 4th. Those who want a real healthcare system in this country would be wise to pour money into his campaign and those of other state leaders across the country.

Alternatively we could keep putting all our eggs in the basket of fantasies about the United States Senate getting its act together.

David Swanson is co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org and author of the new book Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town by visiting davidswanson.org/book.

The answer is a matter of debate, but there is little dispute that such an act of Congress would be unprecedented.

Sheldon Laskin, an Adjunct Professor at the University of Baltimore Law School who has argued that the Constitution forbids such a move, describes the new and dangerous can of worms it would open up:

“If Congress can compel the purchase of insurance from a for profit insurance company, it can compel the purchase of any commodity if there is an arguable public policy to support it.

“The auto industry is collapsing? Forget Cash for Clunkers, just order Americans to buy cars or tax them if they don’t. Obesity crisis? Order Americans to join health clubs, or tax them if they don’t. If Congress gets away with this, there is no stopping point and Big Business will have succeeded in making Americans into involuntary consumers whenever it so chooses.”

Outlandish? Consider this: Many Supreme Court observers expect a ruling, quite possibly on Jan. 12, 2010, in the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission that would lift all limits on corporate funding of elections, meaning that national and international corporations could swamp the election system with so much money that any influence from actual citizens would be utterly negated.

If you were a corporation and you owned the legislature, and laws were being passed requiring people to purchase products, and you owed it to your shareholders to maximize profits, what would you feel compelled to do?

Exactly.

The U.S. Department of Justice recently claimed that, for purposes of keeping illegal government-funded activities secret from the public and the courts, telecommunications corporations were effectively part of the executive branch of the government.

Might the same argument not be made, in the none-too-distant future, about “health” corporations funded by government mandate? If the federal government can force me to give money to major campaign funders, where does the government stop and the private business begin?

Of course most of those arguing that the government cannot do this are libertarians and/or opponents of the Democratic Party, since so many on the left who ought to be raising these concerns have sold their souls to that party and this is a Democratic proposal.

But the argument against an individual health insurance mandate is not an argument against a civilized healthcare system. The government can tax the public and/or corporations and pay for healthcare, even with those payments going to private businesses, without running up against the same Constitutional hurdles or the same concerns from observers wary of creeping corporatism.

The Constitution provides Congress with certain enumerated powers in Article I and explicitly leaves all other powers to the states or the people in the 10th Amendment.

So, the constitutional question, for those who still care whether laws are constitutional, is whether the power to force you to buy a horrible product you do not want from a disreputable monopolistic corporation that pays regular bribes to your elected representatives in the form of campaign “contributions” is specifically listed anywhere in Article I.

Article I gives Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes” as well as the power to “regulate commerce … among the several states.” Interpretations of these clauses have varied.

Predictions as to where the current Supreme Court would come down vary. I find Laskin’s arguments the most persuasive. Here’s a lengthy two-sided debate and here are the cherry-picked opinions offered by Sen. Max Baucus (D., Blue Cross Blue Shield).

Is mandated health insurance commerce? It is not, like all other commerce, something that can be resold. It is not, like all other commerce, optional, if you force everyone to purchase it.

Is it interstate? That concept has perhaps been loosened enough to cover anything that counts as commerce, and the new legislation may allow the sale of health insurance across state lines despite candidate Obama’s argument that doing so would create a race to the bottom in quality and accountability.

But you can’t have interstate commerce with something that isn’t commerce at all.

Is mandated health insurance a tax? President Obama swears it isn’t. He calls its enforcement mechanism a “fine.”

But perhaps that’s for public consumption, whereas courts will be told it’s a tax. Is it? How can it be, when it is not a payment to the government? If it is, there is the problem that Article I requires that “imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” which this would not be.

But the Constitution forbids the ongoing warrantless spying programs. The Constitution does not allow presidents to launch wars. In the Constitution everyone has the right to habeas corpus.

We have cases in which the Supreme Court has ruled our general public practices unconstitutional, and yet they blissfully proceed. Ultimately, the question is whether we will stand for fascistic policies or fascistic interpretations of the Constitution. Personally, I will not stand for either.

David Swanson is co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org and author of the new book Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union by Seven Stories Press. You can order it and find out when tour will be in your town by visiting davidswanson.org/book.

The demonstration “Patients before Profits” is supported by Mobilization for Health Care for All, which coordinated sit-ins in nine cities where 54 people were arrested.

Produced by Lyn Goldfarb in association with Ramblin’ Man Films.

They started out by immediately blackballing any discussion of real health reform in the form of an expansion of Medicare to cover everyone of every age, which of course would have ended the problem of the uninsured, while cutting the nation’s overall health bill by at least a third, but in the process shutting down the private health insurance business.

Then they chipped away and are at this point on the verge of eliminating any so-called “public option” or government-run health insurance plan to even compete with the private insurance sector.

Finally, in a move as breathtakingly accommodating of the insurance industry as was the multi-trillion-dollar bailout financial bailout of Wall Street’s biggest banks, they proposed to require (on pain of a $3800 fine by the IRS) to require everyone in America to buy a health insurance plan from the private sector—a gift to the industry of some 40-50 million new unwilling customers.

But a combination of public outrage at this compulsory program of insurance and recognition that the inevitable government subsidy of low-income insurance buyers would be humongous has led Congress to backtrack, and start backing away from the mandatory aspect of this plan.

And now the private insurance industry, not satisfied that it has managed to practically dictate the terms of the health reform legislation so fare, and angry that it might not get those 40-50 million new forced customers, is reportedly threatening to turn around and knife the president and the Democratic Congress in the back.

They’re threatening to (gasp!) start running attack ads on the “reform” legislation.

Remember the old “Harry and Louise” ads the industry ran attacking Hillary and Bill Clinton’s health reform proposal back in the early 1990s?  Well, this time, it’ll be Harry and Louise attacking Obamacare.

I can see it now. America’s Health Insurance Plans, the lobby for the insurance industry vultures, will set up some nice-sounding front group with a name like People for a Healthier America, and they’ll fund a new ad campaign like this:

Harry will be sitting at the breakfast table, reading the local paper. He’ll look up from his coffee as Louise is puttering around by the sink.

“This ObamaCare looks like it’s gonna drive up our insurance premiums, hon.”

“What do you mean Harry?”

“Well it says here that they’re not going to force the poor folks to buy insurance, so most of ‘em will probably wait until they get sick and then buy it.”

“Well what’s wrong with that, dear?”

“Nothin’ ‘cept that the law would also prohibit the insurance companies from charging those sick folks higher premiums when they do finally come in to buy insurance.”

“Well, wouldn’t it be unfair to charge them more, when they need it?”

“It might seem that way Louise, but if the insurance company has to take a loss on them, they’re going to make it up by charging us good folks who have insurance more.”

“Oh my god, Harry! We’re already paying $6,000 a year for our insurance. What will our premiums go up to?

“Says here they could go up by another $1000 a year!”

Announcer: Don’t let Congress make you pay for the uninsured. Call your Senators and Representatives and the White House, and tell them to demand that every American be required to buy insurance immediately! This announcement is brought to you by People for a Healthier America.

It’s funny really, to see Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the biggest recipient in Congress of insurance industry money, who has spent the last few months working hand-in-glove with the insurance industry lobbyists to craft a bill to their liking, suddenly accusing his erstwhile financiers of doing a “hatchet job” on his bill. Actually, his bill has been a hatchet job itself on the whole concept of health care reform.

All of this, of course, was entirely predictable. Like HillaryCare before it, ObamaCare has been doomed from the start by its unwillingness to address the basic issue behind America’s twin crisis of health care: lack of access for those with lower incomes, and absurdly high cost for everyone.

What makes it all so pathetic is that America already has an excellent model for delivering quality health care: a single-payer system called Medicare. Everyone in America gets this program, just like in Canada, Germany, France, Taiwan, Japan and elsewhere. The only difference is that in those other countries, people get it from the day they’re born. In America, you have to wait until you are permanently disabled, or until you reach the age of 65.

Far from having to “start from scratch,” as Obama claimed in his last address to Congress in explaining why he was not proposing a single-payer solution despite its obvious success in other countries, solving America’s health crisis by adopting a single-payer system would be a simply matter of taking a system that works, and expanding it to cover everybody.

But of course that would have made the insurance industry furious. They’d have to go back to just selling life insurance and homeowners insurance and car insurance.

And so we can expect a new round of “Harry and Louise,” and ObamaCare will go down in flames.

You have to laugh at these Democrats. Even when they brazenly try to sell out, they get screwed.

Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist. He is author of Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal (Common Courage Press, 2003) and The Case for Impeachment (St. Martin’s Press, 2006). His work is available at thiscantbehappening.net

Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, circulated a letter Thursday to show depth of support for public option among Senate Democrats.

Thirty U.S. Senators signed a letter today urging the inclusion of a public option in any health reform legislation that will be considered on the Senate floor. An additional 14 Senators at least have expressed support for the public option through a resolution, letter, or by voting for a strong public option during committee markups.

The letter, which was circulated by U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), was signed by Brown; John D. Rockefeller (D-WV); Russell D. Feingold (D-WI); Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT); Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI); Tom Udall (D-NM); Kristen E. Gillibrand (D-NY); Roland W. Burris (D-IL); Ron Wyden (D-OR); Debbie Stabenow (D-MI); Barbara Boxer (D-CA); Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); Michael F. Bennet (D-CO); Dianne Feinstein (D-CA); Jack Reed (D-RI); Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ); Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD); Al Franken (D-MN); Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA); Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD); Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI); Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE); Arlen Specter (D-PA); Maria Cantwell (D-WA); Robert Menendez (D-NJ); Bernard Sanders (I-VT); John F. Kerry (D-MA); Herb Kohl (D-WI); and Paul Kirk (D-MA).

“Support for the public option runs deep in the Senate,” Brown said. “Health insurance reform is all about lowering costs, improving care, and increasing choice for consumers. In too many parts of the country, one or two insurance companies control the majority of the market. This isn’t good for consumers, businesses, or taxpayers. As we finalize health reform legislation, we shouldn’t forget that a majority of Americans, doctors, and Members of Congress support a public option.”

The Senators’ letter expresses concern that “absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment.”

It continues on to state that “the number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people – patients and taxpayers alike – not the profit margins of insurance companies.”

Brown is a leading advocate of the public option. Along with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), he helped write the public option language in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee-passed health reform bill. In April, Brown circulated a letter signed by 21 senators calling for a strong public health insurance option to be included in health reform efforts. In May, he introduced a resolution sponsored by 28 senators calling for a public option.

Here’s a copy of the letter senators sent to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

October 8, 2009

The Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader

United States Senate

The Capitol, S-221

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

We have spent the better part of this year fighting for health reform that would provide insurance access and continuity to every American in a fiscally responsible manner. We are concerned that – absent a competitive and continuous public insurance option – health reform legislation will not produce nationwide access and ongoing cost containment. For that reason, we are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.

As it stands, the health insurance market is dominated by a handful of for-profit health insurers that are exempt from the anti-trust laws that ensure robust competition in other markets across the United States. Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with these insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums. This is simply not fiscally sustainable.

We recognize that the two Committees with jurisdiction over health reform – the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee – have taken two very different approaches with respect to this issue. However, a strong public option has resounding support among Senate Democrats – every Democrat on HELP, three quarters of those on Finance, and what we believe is a majority of the caucus.

The Senate Finance Committee included a cooperative approach to insurance market competition. While promoting more co-ops may be a worthy goal, it is not realistic to expect local co-ops to spring up in every corner of this country. There are many areas of the country where the population is simply too small to sustain a local co-op plan. We are also concerned that the administrative costs associated with financing the start-up of multiple co-op plans would far outstrip the seed money required to establish a public health insurance program.

Opponents of health reform argue that a public option presents unfair competition to the private insurance companies. However, it is possible to create a public health insurance option that is modeled after private insurance – rates are negotiated and providers are not required to participate in the plan. As you know, this is the Senate HELP Committee’s approach. The major differences between the public option and for-profit plans are that the public plan would report to taxpayers, not to shareholders, and the public plan would be available continuously in all parts of the country. The number one goal of health reform must be to look out for the best interests of the American people – patients and taxpayers alike – not the profit margins of insurance companies.

Health reform is about improving access to health care, containing costs, and giving Americans a real choice in the insurance plan best suited to their needs. We urge you to fight for a sustainable health care system that ensures Americans the option of a public plan in the merged Senate bill.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown (D-OH) John D. Rockefeller (D-WV)

Russell D. Feingold (D-WI) Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)

Daniel K. Akaka (D-HI) Tom Udall (D-NM)

Kristen E. Gillibrand (D-NY) Roland W. Burris (D-IL)

Ron Wyden (D-OR) Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Michael F. Bennet (D-CO) Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)

Jack Reed (D-RI) Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) Benjamin L. Cardin (D-MD)

Al Franken (D-MN) Robert P. Casey, Jr. (D-PA)

Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)

Edward E. Kaufman (D-DE) Arlen Specter (D-PA)

Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Bernard Sanders (I-VT) John F. Kerry (D-MA)

Herb Kohl (D-WI) Paul Kirk (D-MA)

Well, some of Mr. Boehner’s constituents decided to take him up on his offer and rally outside his district office in West Chester, Ohio, delivering over 1,800 signatures of people in his district who support a public option.

This video report was produced by New Left Media’s Chase Whiteside, who conducted the interviews, and camera operator Erick Stoll.