Democrats convene here and reach a consensus on the party's platform
U.S. Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, joined state Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, in a news conference calling on the platform drafters to endorse universal, single-payer health care coverage.
The platform that will be submitted in Denver calls for the goal of universal coverage -- "a commitment that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care" -- but falls short of the single-payer concept in which all Americans would be enrolled in a Medicare like system.
Rep. Conyers, Mr. Ferlo and other advocates of universal single-payer health care had called for Democrats to embolden their effort to pass legislation Mr. Conyers sponsored in January 2007.
"This is the pinnacle of our protest for the 47 million Americans without health care," said Mr. Ferlo, speaking on behalf of the National Health Insurance bill, also known as HR 676.
"We know what works. Social Security works. Medicare works. And we want to give everyone that under a single payer and control executive salaries, profiteering, waste and abuse."
Edit -
Jefferson's Porch has a first hand account.
- DCblogger's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
we'll need to compare 2004 and 2008--
2004 platform here--
https://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_...
(pdf link there)
Oh, Conyers.
I love Conyers. As a child, I lived in his district. But, it's a bit unfortunate he endorsed in the primaries the guy who's health care plan was significantly further away from universal healthcare than Senator Clinton's. If this has really been one of his issues, well, you couldn't tell in the primaries.
File this under the Department of "Better Late Than Never"?
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
i've become rather disgusted with conyers
i'm sure at heart he's a nice man and believes in a lot of the progressive ideals that we do. he's done good things for the people of his district, well, some of them at least, and he sings a pretty tune when put in front of a mike or cam, about various progressive issues. he was even in Mike Moore's movie! yeah!
but like La Pelosi, he's essentially a toothless old whore, when it comes to his constitutional duties and the bush regime. time and time again, i get these breathless announcements from his people about "hearings" and "outrages" and "this time, strongly worded letters will be sent" and "demands for action." whatever, dood. it's been 8 years, and he's up close and one of the higher ranking, and with more experienced staff, members of the house. he's likely known about so much bush criminality i couldn't easily name it all. and what has he done? as has been pointed out: endorse the guy with the policy farthest away from single-payer universal, and not led a revolution inside the dem party (of which he is uniquely suited to do, should he choose) to force La Pelsoi and Hoyer and the rest of them to you know, call the fucking sgt at arms and arrest Rove for being in contempt. that would be a great start; until that happens, i'm bored with him and his protestations of caring.
never good enough
no matter what Democrats do, it is never good enough. Conyers is the champion we have. He is fighting this fight right now and is more than half way home. You are going to throw this all back at him because he let you down on other issues? I don't understand this attitude, I really don't.
Speaking for Myself.
I'm not sure it has anything to do with "never being good enough" and more much to do with the fact that these leaders seem to be self-sabotaging.
HR 676 has been out there since, what, 2003? And, the current form at least since January 2007. Not only that, I believe it was introduced by Conyers.
You'd have thought, then, that if he were really pushing for this and he truly felt, for instance, that a President Obama would be better than a President Clinton he'd have, at least, made more noise about this during the primaries to pressure his chosen candidate to support it.
To me, this push, after the fact, seems just slightly weak, no? Again, I'm struggling with whether this is better late than never; and I have to be honest that I'm really not sure considering how long this bill has been around.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...
dunno when it was introduced
but it is here now, is picking up steam, and has a real chance, isn't that what matters?
do we really want to start a series of vendettas about who endorsed who in the Presidential?
One Would Expect
One would expect the sponsor and intiator of the universal, single-payer bill to support the candidate who's more than hinted at her support of, and work towards, single-payer universal health care, stay quiet, or at least offer a compelling explanation as to why his chosen presidential candidate would fight for the same thing, and arrive at the same end, no? If not the sponsor and champion of universal, single-payer health care than who, right? I guess that means that the means always justify the ends, huh?
You may think it irrelevant and petty the issue of presidential politics when it comes to this issue, but I find it more than worth noting and questioning.
[sarcasm]Sorry if that bothers you.[/sarcasm]
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...