|
|
|
Uploaded: Thursday, December 10, 2009, 2:40 PM
Upfront: 24 hour party people
In the battle for healthcare reform, Marin's community organizers answer the call--and make a few as well...
|
|
by Peter Seidman
While cantankerous backroom wrangling over healthcare legislation has been blasting across national headlines, organizers across the country--including Marin--have been working quietly to build a community organizing operation to support the Obama administration's vision of healthcare reform.
The news this week that Senate Democrats of the moderate persuasion, as well as some who are on the more progressive side of the scale, have reached an agreement to create an alternative to the much-maligned public option gives a boost to the possibility of passing a Senate version of a healthcare bill. The House already has passed its version. Both the House bill and the proposed Senate healthcare deal jettison the hopes many progressive Democrats had of creating true comprehensive healthcare reform.
And while the White House and some Senate Democrats trumpeted the deal as a major move toward healthcare legislation, some progressives are having a hard time supporting the deal. But they also say they're willing to wait until the full details of the Democratic deal are unveiled. The Senate compromise is going to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring, the process that determines a best guess for its cost.
Early Wednesday morning, White House spokesman Reid Cherlin said, "Senators are making great progress, and we're pleased that they're working together to find common ground toward options that increase choice and competition." That statement, reported on CNN, lies in stark contrast to the assessment issued by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., who said he could not support a healthcare proposal "that would replace the public option...with a purely private approach." Feingold is one of 10 Democrats working behind those closed doors to craft a healthcare proposal, one that has the support of enough Democratic senators to block a Republican filibuster.
Feingold's comments target one of the provisions of the backroom compromise. Instead of a full-on public healthcare delivery system that would insure all Americans, the compromise would create a nonprofit private insurance option that the federal Office of Personnel Management would oversee. (That's a plan similar to the one for current federal workers.) The arrangement would, theoretically, allow control over healthcare premiums. But it's a private model, and it's far from what many progressives want to see: a public healthcare delivery system like those in other industrialized countries across the world.
Some progressive Democrats (if those labels even stick any longer) are a bit more uppity than Feingold. Perhaps the strongest voice calling for constituents to push the party to assert its majority in Congress has been Ed Schultz, who has shows on radio and MSNBC. He's been hammering the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate for capitulating to lobbying efforts mounted by the insurance industry, which filtered through the Republican legislators' sieve and eventually resulted in the "Tea Parties" that received so much television coverage this summer. He's angry.
"When push comes to shove, there ain't no shovin' goin' on," Schultz said on the air Tuesday. He and others say that unless a healthcare plan includes more of the approximately 45 million uninsured in this country, the chances of forcing the insurance companies to keep a lid on premiums is dismal.
The Senate deal crafted this week also raises the possibility of lowering the age for Medicare qualification to 55 for currently uninsured people. But what about the rest of the population? That's the big question Schultz and other progressives are asking. Without a major expansion of the number of people covered under any sort of public option, healthcare legislation will simply deliver more customers to an insurance industry that already engages in unfair practices and is driving up the cost of healthcare.
The lines have been drawn since the debate over healthcare legislation began earlier this year. While the so-called "Tea Parties" went for the visual in a media campaign that revealed rips in the cloth of the American culture, Democratic Party activists were working beyond the camera's gaze to support an Obama administration vision of compromise legislation. If the Republican Party has been the "party of no," the Democratic community organizing effort has been the party of "can we talk?" (to paraphrase a Joan Rivers line).
Obama won the election last year using some of the most traditional tools of community organizing. Not surprising, considering his early efforts at community organizing in Chicago. Schultz recently said he wanted to know what's happened. He supported Obama, he said, because he thought he would see some "of that tough Chicago politics." But the vision of community organizing as a rabble ready to rouse the citizens, to call them to the barricades to force social change, is outdated. A basic principle of the new model of community organizing: consensus. That concept explains many of the strategic moves in the White House during the healthcare debate.
When Obama took office, his campaign organization had amassed a huge number of small financial contributions--and an e-mail list that included about 13 million names. The question of what would happen to those names and to the community organizing structure that helped elect Obama was answered early in the administration; Organizing for Obama was rechristened Organizing for America to work for the "change we can believe in" that had been the rallying cry during the election campaign.
Organizing for America now has a structure that covers the country, and its first order of business has been healthcare legislation. The organization created what it calls "rapid response teams," whose members have been using a community organizing structure to support Democrats who work for the Obama vision of healthcare. Organizing for America is kind of like a party within a party. Its members call it a special project of the Democratic National Committee, but they also stress that the thrust is to specifically support the administration's position on issues.
"Our rapid response teams have been active as the bill has been moving through the amendment process in the Senate," says Patricia Ravitz, a community organizer whose turf includes the 6th Congressional District. "We can turn on a dime." Ravitz says that last week, members of Organizing for America were calling Alaska in response to events during the Senate healthcare debate. (Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, has wavered on whether he would support a bill with a public option.) "We may get notice that we need to call Arkansas or elsewhere." Members of the rapid response teams have promised to be available within 24 hours to make calls on behalf of the organization--and the administration.
Organizing for America has a national structure based in Washington, D.C. State organizations form the next tier. Then comes a regional organization structure, with a Bay Area tier. Finally, there's the tier that includes congressional districts and counties. It's a classic community organizing model. Ravitz says organizing the county structures, like the one in Marin, includes forming neighborhood teams. And those teams are taking shape across the country. Members of the neighborhood teams take a piece of an issue and become the go-to person for action on a specific issue. "Eight or nine neighborhood teams already have formed in Marin," says Ravitz, who lives in Novato.
Marching orders--telephone talking points, actually--come to the local groups from the national organization, through the state and regional groups, and on to the local teams. The idea is to amass as many telephone calls as possible as fast as possible to representatives and senators who are in sync with the Obama administration.
Along with the calls of support, Organizing for America also tries to persuade those legislators not already on board or who are opposed to healthcare reform. That's not the primary goal, says Pat Johnstone, a volunteer who lives in San Anselmo, but it happens. When an Organizing for America push nudges against a legislator or constituents who may be averse to the administration position, the group may, for instance, contact members in the legislator's district to register an opposing opinion with the legislator. But the support of Democrats who are simpatico is the primary motivation.
The group has made waves. "On Oct. 20, there was a big push to make calls," says Johnstone." "The next day we heard that on the floor [of the House everybody was buzzing about how many calls they got from constituents behind [healthcare legislation."
When the national organization sends out an alert, the statewide and local groups take action based on information coming from the national organization regarding where volunteers should make calls and what they should say. Calls go out to legislators; they also go out to Democratic constituents who in turn can call other Democrats in a phone-tree strategy.
"We've been organizing neighborhood by neighborhood," says Mary Jane Stevenson, the state director for Organizing for America. "We're organizing them into teams to carry on the kind of campaign that we had in the presidential election. This is a little bit different in that we are doing issue-based campaigns where we are reaching out to members of Congress, other constituency groups and allies. We are training people how to organize."
In addition to the telephone campaigns, Organizing for America "can make available local volunteers to tell their own compelling stories about how this broken healthcare system is impacting their lives to explain why they are joining the fight to bring about change." That's from a Marin chapter press release. The idea of ordinary people sharing their stories to illustrate social problems is a major tenet in the foundation of community organizing. It's central to creating consensus among groups that might not agree on everything.
Ravitz say the push to support the Obama vision of healthcare reform has attracted new members. And the issue of healthcare isn't the end of the road. "We're in this for the long haul," says Stevenson. "Once healthcare reform passes, we will take on other issues." Organizing for America plans to mobilize its forces to work on clean energy legislation, education, financial regulatory legislation "and possibly immigration." Working on those issues also will keep a Democratic base invigorated for the election campaigns in 2010 and 2012, notes Ravitz.
Keeping people invigorated during the healthcare debate isn't the problem for the Democratic Party or for Organizing for America. Preventing a catastrophic split in the party might be, however.
While the administration and Organizing for America have been seeking consensus, the more radical (progressive) elements of the Democratic Party have been calling for an all-or-nothing strategy. Some have suggested progressive Democrats should vote against legislation that fails to include what has been called a "robust" public option. Anything less would be unacceptable capitulation to the insurance industry. Kill it now and revive the attempt later, they say. It's that important for the country. That sentiment, they assert, should carry over into the next general elections. Democrats beware, they warn.
But Organizing for America, reflecting the Obama administration, says incremental reform is better than no reform at all. "What we don't want to happen," says Stevenson, "is to throw out the good while trying to achieve perfection. That is not tenable right now. We have to have a comprehensive health insurance reform plan in place right away or the country's economy is not going to be able to tolerate it; our citizens are not going to be able to tolerate it. People go bankrupt because they can't afford healthcare, and frankly, people die because they can't afford to pay for healthcare."
Contact the writer at peter@pseidman.com.Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.
|
|
| Comments
|
Posted by Fly in Ointment, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 10, 2009 at 6:46 pm When we say that "people can't afford to pay for health care" what we are really saying is that "other people should pay for them." There is no free lunch here folks, and our government does nothing "for free." What our government does is redistribute income from one group of people to another. So let's at least be honest. When we say we want a public health care option, what we're really saying is "let's raise taxes on a small group of Americans and resdistribute their money to others." If we want socialism, we should at least be up front about it.
|
|
Posted by MarinResident, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 11, 2009 at 7:52 am I'm all for taxing the rich and redistributing it to pay for health care for those who can't afford it.
After all, the biggest transfer of wealth have been to the wealthy during the Bush MISadministration.
If that is socialism, bring it ON!!
|
|
Posted by Fly in Ointment, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 11, 2009 at 4:20 pm Marin resident, when you say the "biggest transfer of wealth has been to the wealthy during the Bush Administration," can you please explain what you mean? A transfer of anything means that somebody has it originally and then it's passed to someone else. So in this case, who had the wealth in the first place, and how did they then transfer that wealth to...the wealthy?
|
|
Posted by Jeff-eroo, a resident of the Bolinas neighborhood, on Dec 11, 2009 at 5:19 pm Reversing the tax giveaways to the rich is not depriving them of any money they've earned... it's finally having them pay their fair share. The tax breaks went to the very wealthy during the Bush administration, so the answer to your question is: it was taken from the nation's tax payers and given to corporations as tax breaks. See how well that worked out? Secondly, healthcare reform will ultimately save the taxpayers money in the long run, so you're right it's not a free lunch, it's a wise investment.
Thirdly, stop confusing socialism with communism. (Fox news wants you to make this mistake, by the way, or perhaps they themselves don't fully understand it.) In Europe, the nations which use some socialist policies basically do so for the "commons"--things the citizens of a nation need for security and the pursuit of happiness, such as police departments, fire departments, healthcare, military, etc., etc.--in order to ensure that those necessities are managed for the common good, not the profit motive. The UK, France, Germany--all countries with higher standards of living, better health care and stronger economies--keep the "commons" from being privatized. America has government-run police, fire, military, as well, and thus engages in socialism in those areas. Would you suggest we end those departments and privatize them because it's socialist? I guess the Republicans who hate government-run programs are against the police, fire and military? Doesn't sound very patriotic to me...
|
|
Posted by MarinResident, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 11, 2009 at 6:47 pm Thanks, Jeff - couldn't have said it better myself!
I'm still waiting for those against "socialistic" health reform to give up their "socialistic" Medicare, or to pull their kids out of "socialistic" public schools, and stop driving on our "socialistic" roads LOL
|
|
Posted by Fly in Ointment, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2009 at 8:35 am Wow...Jeff-ero and Marin Resident, where would I be without you guys for setting me straight? I guess I didn't realize the rich were the beneficiaries of "giveaways." Not only did they receive the lowest percentage tax reduction under Bush, but the top 1% of federal taxpayers still paid 40% of all income taxes - even after the Bush tax cuts. In California, the top 1% pay over 50% of the taxes. Oh...and US corporations...among the highest taxed in the entire world. But someone you guys don't think they're paying their "fair share." I love it! These are facts - you can look them up. But I don't expect you to - I wouldn't want to shake your vision of reality.
But really - forget what I say, and forget what you say. Just look at the broken state of California. Unemployment is among the highest in the nation, job creation is nil, and massive deficits will persist for years to come. Don't tell me, let me guess - it's Bush's fault, right? Your socialist state is crumbling before your eyes and cannot be fixed, for to do so would require reducing taxes on the "wealthy" and "corporations". But folks like you won't ever let that happen, so enjoy the ride! You've earned it!
|
|
Posted by MarinResident, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2009 at 9:27 am uh, we weren't talking about California...nice strawman, though LOL
When are you going to give up your medicare, or pull your kids out of public schools, or stop driving on public roads - all financed with taxes??
crickets, I hear!
|
|
Posted by Fly in Ointment, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2009 at 11:07 am Marin Resident, politics is about balance. Sure the wealthy should pay more in taxes, but if you raise taxes too high, the wealthy leave and take their capital with them. If we pass a health care bill, for example, that penalizes companies for not offering health insurance, even more jobs will be outsourced abroad - and at a more rapid rate. Why should a US company hire a worker domestically when they can hire the same worker abroad at a fraction of the cost? And now - coming out of a recession- is not the time to be raising taxes on anybody. You should look carefully at the example of California, especially after this morning (Saturday) when the US Senate passed an absolutely massive domestic spending bill. Where do you think the money comes from, my friend? California is already in decline, and our nation will soon follow. We can't keep taxing a tiny segment of society and spreading the money around, because when balance is lost, the entire system collapses.
|
|
Posted by Johnnymarin, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2009 at 2:33 pm If were not talking about California, we should be. We live here. We are the worst example of the problems that face this nation. You name it, and it started here. And how stupid to ask us to not use the roads we pay for or the emergency services we all depend on. Please elevate you argument not your stupidity. I just read on Drudge that the average pay for Federal workers is now $71k. The number of employees making over $150k is in the thousands. That's for government work. California is just as bad. It won't be long before your local city workers are up in that cloud bank for just getting in the way of you pulling permits or trying to stay in business.
We Conservative Republicans don't mind paying part of the bill for things we all need. We don't want to be the gravy train so many live off of while doing next to nothing.
Poverty is a joke in this country. Look up African or Indian poverty statistics then yell about how bad our people have it. Our poor still have cars, T.V.'s, cell phones, homes and all the junk food and liquor they can consume. For the most part, the homeless chose to live on the street. I don't blame them. No taxes, no inspectors, no Oprah and no Obama BS.
A revolution is coming one way or another. If the Left takes over, we all lose. If the Right takes over we have a shot at pulling out with little blood shed. Please Republicans, no more Bush, McCain or Arnie type candidates. They too were a big part of the problem. We want Reagan believers who can put this great ship back on course whether the Socialist like it or not.
|
|
Posted by MarinResident, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2009 at 3:31 pm Sorry but Reagan is dead and hopefully no resurrection of his so-called political ideas. Reagan decimated the middle class.
You're right about a revolution though - and it happened when Obama was elected. You lose and I win. It may take some time, but I really feel Obama will sort the country out. It will be a lot of hard work after the 8 horrific years of Bush.
|
|
Posted by Fly in Ointment, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 12, 2009 at 8:37 pm Johnnymarin, I read your post, and Marinresident can rattle on all he wants about how "you lose and I win." But how silly - what he doesn't understand is the sad truth - we all lost. Our beautiful state of California is unfixable. Our giant budget deficits will persist for years and our services will continue to be cut. In response, citizens like Marinresident can be counted upon to yell from the rooftops "tax the rich, tax the rich" as if somehow that were a magic elixir that cures all ills. He obviously doesn't understand economics, doesn't understand capital flight, and doesn't understand the global economy in which we live. But no matter. He's not concerned with the facts - just the politics of envy. He's too busy gloating about "winning" something to realize he's going to get exactly what he deserves.
California can no longer create jobs for its people because the deck is stacked against entrepreneurs and small businesspeople. There isn't a corporation in the world that will open a new facility here. And those that are here are cutting jobs and leaving the state in droves. Sadly, California is once again leading the nation in every regard. Just today, the US Senate passed a crushing spending bill, and Nancy Pelosi's "punish Wall Street" bill cleared the house. But don't you worry - the financial industry will thrive offshore, just like every other industry that is losing jobs abroad. Marinresident - are you watching closely?
Like I said to Marinresident early, congratulations! Enjoy the ride, because pal, you earned it!
|
|
Posted by MarinResident, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2009 at 2:40 pm I appreciate the congratualtions, Fly. The "you lose I win" was just a I adapted from johnnymarin's posts, something he has written many times.
For me, Obama hasn't been perfect but he's a damn good start to cleaning up the smelly mess of the Bush years. And I'm happy that he's a person of color - it was time to elect someone who more represents the kaleidoscope of America.
I sure see lots of projection in Fly's above post :-)
|
|
Posted by anon, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Dec 13, 2009 at 2:53 pm Dear MarinResident-
[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment]
I did want to point out one very simple fact that even you might be able to comprehend.
I hated the George W. Bush administration.
I oppose the Barak Obama administration.
I'm also glad that this country elected an African American but I also look forward to a time when all that matters is the content of a persons' character.
The pendulum swings of American politics from loony Jimmy Carter to loony George Bush to loony Barak Obama does not serve us well and is not a true reflection of the beliefs of the American people. It's the result of a flawed system of primaries where ten people show up to some caucus in some tiny Iowa (and other states) at the urging of some organized union or organized religion and advance the candidacy of the most extreme rather than the most qualified.
The current pendulum swing from hating minorities to counting color and counting nationality and counting religion is certainly more understandable but also a very bad idea.
I do get why 90% of African Americans voted for the African American candidate but that is not what Martin Luther King was working twards. Still, I get it. I will understand next time as well but at some point we need to elect people based on achievement , not tribalism.
More important we need to stop the swings from nut jobs of the left or nut jobs of the right and elect a leader who is normal.
|
|
Posted by MarinResident, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2009 at 7:43 am Dear anon - you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and if you need to cast aspersions on my intelligence and worldview because they do not match yours, well have at it if it makes you feel better. Very typical.
The political animal of democratic or republican suffers from the same corruptions some of the time, that is for certain.
However, as a Democrat, I am thrilled and relieved that Barack Obama is our president. I don't always agree with his course of action on certain issues but I believe he will set this country back on track after 8 years of decimation. And as I said before, it's wonderful that our country has finally elected a person of color.
|
|
Posted by anon, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2009 at 12:41 pm
marinresident, socialism in America will not be the same as socialism in other countries. But you guys are so blindly led that you don't see what your president is doing.
that's okay. carry on and celebrate his current role and watch as we slide into this socialistic nightmare.
then, when it's all done watch as Obama dances out of the White House after his first term and leaves his big mess behind.
Don't worry though, when our next President enters, she will do a better job at correcting his mistakes.
|
|
Posted by anon, a resident of the Novato neighborhood, on Dec 14, 2009 at 1:38 pm Dear MarinResident-
I was pointing out your simple view, not casing aspersions. As in fact, not insult.
Once more I won't waste time with a point by point debate but I will allow one example.
You mimic the idiotic line about Medicare being socialist so since "we all participate" we must accept socialism and therefore it follows that more is better.
A) Medicare is not voluntary.
B) Medicare is bankrupt.
C) Stop listening and repeating others stupid talking points, I never liked it when the "ditto head" followers of that *&#@ Rush Limbaugh did it and I like it less when supposedly smart people from Marin do it.
|
|
Posted by MarinResident, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Dec 15, 2009 at 7:56 am The next president will be a "she?" LOLOL do you honestly think Palin has a chance at the presidency? Well, I will question anyone's sanity at that belief. She doesn't have the intellectual capacity, and doesn't have the staying power - she's a quitter. Basically, a snowball's chance in hell.
Republicans were screaming about Medicare when it was first proposed back in the 60's - even Raygun was making speeches against the evils of socialism during that time.
But the hypocrites that they are, I don't see any of them giving up their socialistic medicare now.
Health care reform is not socialism. And in 10 years or so, we'll all wonder why we didn't have it all along!
|
|
|
| |
|
Send this story
Print this story
