Identity Politics #fail

In the wake of Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle's decision to veto a bill that would have granted same-sex couples most of the rights of marriage there has been an understandably ferocious response online. There have been many calls to "hate straight people". Really? Do we really want to go there now? Are we going to divide the world into "LGBT" and "straight" and judge everyone according to this duality? This on the same week a Federal Judge in Massachusetts struck down the "Defense of Marriage Act"? Identity Politics pretty much destroyed the left in the 90's and here it is again to distract us and help fuck up everything again.

Let's take a step back for a minute. Dolores Huerta, founder of the United Farm Workers and member of Democratic Socialists of America is straight and has fought tirelessly for decades against oppression of all kinds including GLBT oppression. Andrew Sullivan is gay and was a big supporter of the Iraq war as well as Thatcherite economic policies that hurt the working class. I'll stand with Dolores over Andrew any day.

In 2006, openly gay Sean Patrick Maloney was running for Attorney General of New York against Andrew Cuomo. Both supported marriage equality. But while Cuomo opposes the death penalty, Maloney highlighted his support of executions. I voted for Cuomo. I didn't have to think about it for a minute. I don't care who you fuck, if you are in favor of state killing and preemptive war, you are not a part of the movement for social justice. I'd vote against an openly gay candidate who opposed universal health care or was against increasing the minimum wage no matter their position on marriage. There is a very wealthy and powerful element of the gay rights movement that would gladly ignore economic and social injustice as long as they have the right to marry. There are many working class straight people facing physical violence at this moment trying to organize low wage workers in dangerous parts of the country. This makes dividing the world into LGBT=good, straight=bad exceedingly problematic.

And that's the thing. These labels are simplistic. Sure I have felt oppression as a Queer person. But people of all shapes, sizes, orientations, colors, and genders are hurting all over the place right now and we are more powerful together than apart. A single straight woman working a back breaking job 60 hours a week at subsistence wages with no health insurance and no Union to advocate for her dignity. I dare say she has a harder life than David Geffen who can't get married. Is she indulging in straight privilege? Many of us in the fabulous ghetto of Manhattan with our iphones and open bars know nothing of this kind of economic deprivation and humiliation. But it's not a contest.

We must fight for marriage equality, yes. But, for me, this issue is one of many. The right to join a union, the right to quality health care, the right to earn a living wage if you have a job. These are fundamental to human dignity. The gap between rich and poor continues to grow and there is so much suffering. This suffering, these humiliations hit every gender, race, and orientation. I refuse to be a "one issue voter" seeing everything only through the lens in which it affects me. Mayor Bloomberg supports marriage equality but he opposes a living wage bill for low wage workers, supports a racist "stop and frisk" policy by the NYPD that detains and humiliates thousands of New Yorkers a year (90% of whom are charged with nothing) So I did not vote for Bloomberg. I wasn't willing to throw other people under the bus so my community can get what we deserve (especially considering the other candidate supported marriage rights also) If we are to achieve anything approaching a just society, it has to be a group effort. We need to work together to make sure everyone has the right to get married, to have quality health care, to be paid a living wage and to be treated with respect and dignity. Of course, all this overlaps, Class is the real dividing line in this country and millions of LGBT people are denied health care and the right to collective bargaining just like their straight brothers and sisters. You can't get married if you're dead from lack of insurance.

So if you want marriage equality, volunteer to elect candidates to the New York State Senate who support the cause. There are many straight members who stood up and voted yes last time. But let's also be there in solidarity with everyone, whatever their orientation, who fights for justice and human dignity in our society. Divided we fail.

Health Care Meltdown

Again today I searched blogs, news sites and anything I could for news on the progress of Health Care Reform. Some days the news seems good, like the other day when Obama spoke to Senate Democrats and implored them not to abandon comprehensive reform. Today it didn't look good, when he seemed passive and spoke of Congress dropping the ball. Al Franken is pissed the white house hasn't offered more leadership. All of this is confusing and leaves me more and more worried nothing is going to get done.

The consequences of inaction are devastating in every respect. Devastating for millions of people who are living in fear that any illness will destroy them financially and it will be rightly devastating for the Democratic Party. If Democrats fail to use the largest majorities they have had in a generation to enact their signature legislative proposal, one that they have fought for since the days of FDR, I don't know what the purpose of the Party is at this point.

The way forward is clear. The Senate needs to pass a reconciliation fix to their earlier bill and the House then needs to pass that and the original Senate bill. I have been a strong supporter of single payer or a strong public option. I was incredibly disappointed by the Senate bill. But there are simply too many lives on the line right now to hold out for a perfect bill. The recriminations can come later. What is important is that the bill on the table raises medicaid eligibility to 133% of the poverty level and subsidizes insurance for anyone up to 400% of the poverty line. It's not enough in the long run but it is a vast improvement over the status quo.

There are people, right now as I write this who are delaying getting a lump checked out, or ignoring other potentially life threatening conditions because they can't even pay for a check up. The ugly truth is that in the United States, the first thing we have to think about if we get sick, is money. It's a form of cruelty we inflict on each other by not taking care of this.

This congress may be the last chance for decades that we have to even make the limited step forward that is the Senate bill. Please, call your Senators, and your Representatives and make it clear, that failure on this issue is not acceptable.

(202) 224-3121 House and Senate switchboard.

The Tragedy of the Senate

This post is a fantasy. I'll explain that later. Let's start with the reality. The reality is that The House of Representatives, legislative body that actually represents the people of the united states (except those unfortunate enough to live in the District of Columbia) passed a comprehensive health reform bill two weeks ago. This bill is not even close to the single payer system I would have wanted and it's a retreat from a robust public option set to medicare rates, but it is a step forward. It includes a national public option that can be built on later. It does include the horrible anti-choice Stupack Amendment, but hopefully that can be dealt with later in the process.

Now debate might possibly begin in the Senate, the legislative body that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the 21st century. In the House, every member represents roughly the same amount of people, whether you are Barbara Lee from Berkley CA or Michelle Bachman from MN, you know you have the same mandate. Each representative carries the weight of about 700,ooo people. (We can talk about the pitfalls of winner take all systems vs proportional representation as well of course). Not so in the Senate. Barbara Boxer of CA represents 30 million people. Mike Enzi of Wyoming represents about 500,000. They each have ONE vote. If I was Barbara, any time Mike Enzi questioned me on, let's say global warming, I'd laugh heartily and say "girl, I represent 30 MILLION people", and then run through the halls demanding that Mike Enzi produce 60 of himself before he dared to question me again. That just shows why Ms. Boxer is a way better Senator than I would be. She manages to hold her tongue most of the time.

Not only is the Senate unrepresentative, favoring rural areas over urban and conservative over liberal (The Democratic Party actually won 50% of votes case in 2004 to the Republicans 45% but the Republicans picked up 5 seats). It's undemocratic within itself. It takes 3/5 (60 out of 100) of the membership to even allow a vote on anything. The fillibuster (as it is known) has been a favorite trick of reactionary forces in the US, most famously during the civil rights era, when "unlimited debate" was used to block racial justice.

So here we are, The health bill is about to maybe, kind of, let's hope be debated in the Senate and 41 Senators representing 25 percent of the population can kill it if they want by not even allowing a vote. The fate of millions of people who worry about just being able to see a doctor rest in the hands of such dubious characters as Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. The tragedy here is that, because of the structure and rules of the Senate, far reaching progressive legislation is almost impossible in this country. It's built into our system. Forget health care, just try passing the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize.

Now here's why this is all a fantasy. Let's say you wanted to pass a constitutional amendment, making the Senate truly representative. You know, you still want an upper house made up of members who have longer terms and represent larger constituencies to temper the occasional Stupack Amendment that comes out of the House. I would be cool with having 50 Senators elected from districts representing regions of the country of equal population.

Well, that's impossible. Even if todays Senate would actually approve such an amendment, the constitution forbids it. Congress may propose amendments except that... "no state, without it's consent, shall be deprived of it's equal suffrage in the Senate". So we're stuck with a system devised when Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were almost different nations. In 2009, the 500,000 people of Alaska have much more say about what happens to health care than the 30 million of California.

The one thing we can do is get rid of the filibuster. Progressives might worry that this could come back to haunt us when Republicans are back in power. Well that's a risk I'm willing to take. We're taking a larger risk by keeping it. Without the filibuster we could have a national public option, expanded labor rights, and a climate bill. With it, we make it almost impossible to get progressive legislation through the congress, even with massive majorities. We tie our hands forever and allow a reactionary minority to block the will of the people.

This is probably a fantasy as well, it will be very difficult to get rid of the filibuster, but it's something that we should be fighting for.

It's about Money....

I just saw this post about LGBT supporters of Michael Bloomberg and it got me thinking. I'm gay, Bloomberg has been generally good on gay issues I suppose. Why am I not supporting him? The reason I'm not supporting him is class. It goes beyond sexual orientation, race, religion, any of the dividing lines we like to rail about. My solidarity is going to be with the poor woman (for argument sake lets say she happens to be straight) fighting to keep her apartment while a rich (let's say he's gay) developer is trying to evict her. This is a hypothetical of course, but it illustrates one of the places identity politics breaks down.

Bloomberg might be cool with gays and lesbians but he's shown shocking indifference to the struggles lower income people of every orientation face every day. This is an uncomfortable truth the wine and cheese liberals in Manhattan don't always want to deal with. I've seen my neighborhood transformed from a vital incubator of creativity to a warehouse for students with rich parents and investment bankers.

Bloomberg has appointed the most anti-tenant Rent Guidelines Board since the creation of that board, approving an 8.5% rent hike (the largest in 20 years) in 2008.

People are holding on for dear life in this city and we have a Mayor who symbolizes the worst instincts of predatory capitalism, greenlighting a deal several years ago for Tischman-Speyer to force thousands of people out of their homes in Stuyvessant Town.

Bloombergs cynical politics extend to his campaigning for Joe Lieberman (who right now is trying to block health reform that would save thousands of lives a year). It goes on and on. He wouldn't even endorse Obama last year.

Bloomberg recently campaigned with Rudy Giuliani and stood by while Giuliani fanned racial and class resentments. That was just too much. He has allied himself with the most reactionary forces in our community.

I haven't even mentioned the obscene spending, the buying off of non profits, the continuation of Giuliani's punitive food stamp and welfare policies.

These are not issues on the radar of the wealthy gay elite, but they matter to people struggling to make ends meet. There's something so sad about all this. Even in the midst of an economic catastrophe, so many of us continue to worship at the altar of wealth and power.

We live in a society where a huge percentage of our citizens face daily humiliations because of their economic status. I see little evidence Michael Bloomberg has any understanding of this or any desire to fight for the dignity of people who can't afford to buy a luxury condo on a lower east side block that used to be an actual neighborhood.

Oh but he supports LGBT rights? So does Thompson. I'll be voting for Bill Thompson on Tuesday.

Don't Let OBAMA betray us....

Today, another friend of mine said she cannot afford her health insurance and will drop it..

I read a heartbreaking letter from another friend who has dangerous sleep apnea and cannot get insurance.

Health Care reform without a public option will not lower prices enough to help my friends.

Like many of you, I volunteered for President Obama believing he would bring real change to this country.

I cried as he was elected President. In the campaign he said he supported a robust public option as a critical

element for health care reform. Even this was a hard pill to swallow for most progressives. We have always wanted

a single payer system and elimination of the for profit insurance system. We were willing to take the public option as

a compromise.

But now President Obama has abandoned real health care reform. His aides have attacked public option reporters and in a

most appalling quote the president has said people on the left are "Obsessed with a public option".

Fine Mr. Obama. We will fight you too.

Don't expect millions of people to volunteer for your re-election if you turn "health care reform" into huge subsidies for the insurance industry.

Thankfully 60 House Democrats have put their collective foot down. They have told the White House and the Senate they will vote NO on any

bill that does not include a robust public option. THE AFL-CIO has already said they will sit out the next campaign if the Democrats waver on a public option.

Even Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman have blasted your inability to do what is right on this issue.

So President Obama..... Do you want health care reform to pass? Do you want to get re-elected?

THEN DO WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD IN THE CAMPAIGN.

make him do it...

Call the White House.... 202 456-1414

Ask for the office of Linda Douglas, key health care point person

tell her the President must demand a real public option so that Americans can choose to escape from for profit insurance companies.

This is a life and death issue for millions of our fellow citizens.

My friend Michael Faulkner wrote a letter to Obama pleading with him to stand firm on a public plan.

here it is............

Dear Mr. President,

As a proud supporter of you, and Governor Howard Dean before you, I was deeply, profoundly saddened by your Secretary of HHS's comments over the weekend seeming to back-off from support for a public-option in the health care legislation.

I can only hope that such comments were a trial balloon to gauge public opinion on the necessity of the public option. What a tragedy the lack of a public option would be. I believe Co-Ops to be insufficient to solve the health care crisis.

Today ends 8 days of free health care provided to Greater Los Angeles, which saw as many as 8,000 insured, under-insured, and uninsured members of the general public give up countless obligations and stand in hours-long lines to receive the most basic healthcare procedures, what kind of message does it send to us that support for a public option is weakening IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

You ran your campaign on the theme of "Hope." I have Sleep Apnea, which requires expensive equipment or surgeries to treat, and is considered a "pre-existing condition" that excludes me from affordable healthcare. Yet it is hard to afford the equipment necessary to treat my condition without insurance. And I am not overweight -- the bad luck of genetics left me with what one doctor called "bad geography" in my esophagus that causes my condition.

The basic, inalienable rights our nation was founded on were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I can tell you that living with a condition that you cannot afford to treat takes away one's happiness. I can tell you that I interpret the right to life as the right to a HEALTHY life.

I know you understand this and support the public option. Please don't let prevaricators and mediocre meddlers around you convince you to back away from supporting a public option. We need it. It will be good for American businesses, allowing them to compete with companies based in countries where healthcare is a right. It will be good for American workers, removing the burden of healthcare costs from their unions. And it will be good for all Americans, as we regain our sense of community and shared sacrifice. Please, Mr. President, don't take away my hope.

You ran on the theme of Hope. In the words of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who in some ways set the stage for you, please "keep hope alive."

Sincerely,

Michael Faulkner

If you agree with me, please take the time to write President Obama yourself. You can find out how right here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/opinion/18herbert.html?_r=1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/18/unemployed----and-crossin_n_261939.html

August Health Care Blues

I don't think it's an overstatement to say the health care debate is a debate more fundamental to who we are as a people than any we have had since perhaps the civil rights battles of the 1960's. It forces each of us to grapple with what we are willing to sacrifice to help our fellow citizens and whether we look at society as isolated individuals fighting over finite resources or a community of human beings who collectively work to secure dignity for every single person. This is what is at stake.

For the past few weeks we have had to endure a blizzard of lies from entrenched interests bent on stopping health care reform at all costs. We hear how old people will be left to die by government bureaucrats (people are being left to die today by health industry bureaucrats and there is nothing in any bill that would empower the govt to deny care to the elderly). I've even heard my liberal friends say that they support reform as long as they can keep their private insurance plans they are so afraid of a single payer system.

Let's be clear. Nothing on the table in congress right now goes far enough to really reform health care or guarantee every American equal access to health care. Eventually we will need to move to a single payer system. Honestly I hope the right wing nuts are right when they say the purpose of the public option is to destroy private insurance and I hope Obama is wrong when he says if you like the insurance you have you can keep it.

Here's why. As long as different classes of people do not have access to the same level of care, we are not a just society. Even under Obama's plan, a poor woman on medicaid who gets cancer is not going to get the same level of care as a rich woman. Effectively we are rationing care based on income. We are saying the lives of the wealthy are worth more than the lives of the poor. We are all participating in this and we are all responsible.

In Canada or the United Kingdom, the level of care is the same for everyone. There are not dozens of different programs like medicare, medicaid and private insurance (or even the "public option" which hopefully will become the basis of a single payer system here). Everyone in these other countries has a stake in making the health system the best it can be since they all depend on it. It's a much different mind set than in the US where we are conditioned to grab what little we can and hold onto it for dear life.

I know what many of you are thinking, "but their quality of care is horrible, they have to wait, rationing! etc." Bullshit. We have rationing in this country, it's based on income. We have higher infant mortality, lower life expectancy and they have better health outcomes in general. Single payer would reduce costs in a way that the public/private system being proposed cannot. Hospitals and doctors could be given global payments as opposed to being paid per test or visit they could be paid by each case or on salary.

Recently some right wing nut said that Steven Hawking wouldn't be alive if he were under the care of the British National Health Service. Well he actually is under the care of the NHS and says he owes his life to his NHS doctors. Here is a great article from The Guardian detailing how our health care debate is viewed in the UK.

My sincere hope is that somehow a strong public plan with rates tied to medicare rates that all doctors who accept medicare will be required to accept will survive in congress. If that happens this plan will eventually destroy private health insurance just as the industry fears. Once say 75% of the country is enrolled it will be politically feasible to pass a single payer plan. Imagine a day when every single person in this country knows he or she can receive the care needed if she gets sick, where the first thing one thinks of when diagnosed with a life threatening condition will no longer be money but how best to get well. This would fundamentally alter our feelings about ourselves and about our nation. The pervasive fear and insecurity that grips so many Americans would be no more and people would be free to pursue their life's dreams without having to beg corporations to promise to help if they get sick.

It's possible. A lot of money wants us to believe it isn't. Right now Democrats in the Senate are negotiating away the public option and Obama (who has already given away a sickening amount of leverage to drug an insurance companies) has signaled he is fine with this. Howard Dean has repeatedly said anything that is passed without a strong public option is not health care reform, but a huge giveaway to the insurance companies.

Yes, this is the transcendent issue of our time. This is why we elected a Democratic President. Unfortunately the administration has been acting more like Jimmy Carter on this than LBJ. As Roosevelt said to the left during the great depression when they wanted him to move faster "You have to make me do it". Obama is only hearing outrage on the right and he needs us to make him and the congress do the right thing.

Health Care thoughts...

We all know that the United States is the only industrialized democracy that does not guarantee health care to all of it's citizens.    If you or someone in your family becomes gravely ill, even if you have health insurance, you can expect to be devastated financially.   There is something fundamentally abusive going on when someone fighting for their life has to think about finances.  It's something that all these other countries think is so abhorrent they have outlawed the possibility.  

In all these debates about cost, taxes and private vs public, that bottom line, gets lost.  The bottom line is it is unacceptable to inflict this level of fear on each other, fear of how to pay to stay healthy.  Yet this is what we do when we make up excuses over and over again for why we can't get health care done.  The people who think they have good insurance are afraid of losing what they have and those who might pay more in taxes resist.  Of course there is the power of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. 

This is where Capitalism breaks down.  Capitalism is great for computers and clothes and vacations but it's not that great at ensuring everyone has an education or can see the doctor.  Imagine if we had no public schools.  And this might make people crazy, but imagine how much better our public schools would be if the rich weren't allowed to abandon them for private schools and had a stake in making them better.  I'm not advocating that per se, but it does make one think.

That's why I wish we were debating a single payer system, a system where everyone has a stake in making that one system work for everyone.  The public option being debated in congress will have to do but it's the least we should do.  If you become sick, all you should be concerned with is how you are going to get well, not if you will lose your home trying to pay to get well.  All these other nations take this for granted.   Until we achieve what they have, we will not be a civilized society.