Daniel Freilich's Blog
Posts Tagged ‘Universal health care insurance’
Monday, August 9th, 2010
Vermont had its so-called ‘debate’ between the two Democratic Primary candidates for the U.S. Senate. This is likely to be the only pre-primary ‘debate’ because the incumbent has refused to publicly debate. It was not a real ‘debate’ but it was a spirited ‘discussion’, highlighting key policy and political ethical principles differences between the incumbent and me. I was present in VPR’s Colchester studio; the Senator called in from Washington. In any case, VPR should be commended for its efforts.
What struck me most during the debate was how out of touch the Senator was. My criticisms of the Senator’s political ethics and voting record were not ‘negative’ as he stated but real. My critiques were substantive, not personal, and backed by the same passionate feeling the electorate feels – anger. The Senator probably doesn’t understand the depth of anger amongst Vermonters at the establishment, and its acceptance of hypocritical, conflicted, and incremental approaches to solving our problems. And Congress is in the crosshair. He said ‘that’s not how we do things in Vermont’ (paraphrased) but what he meant is ‘that’s not how establishment in Vermont likes to do things’… the elite doesn’t like challenge to the status quo or political power structure. But Vermonters know when the wool is being pulled over their eyes, recognize double speak, know when they are getting screwed, and clearly are fed up with the political establishment’s ‘sweeping under the rug’ of its legally corrupt ways of doing business.
I asked the Senator three issue-related questions but he evaded meaningful responses to any of them.
I asked why he won’t publicly debate before the primary. His response was that he will debate all of his challengers prior to the general election. But that was not the question although the tactic of diluting your primary challenger amongst a sea of challengers is obvious. The Primary election is just that, an election, not a reappointment. I understand that the election is a ‘pain in the neck’ for the Senator but he should suck it up, do the right thing, and support representative democracy whether he likes it or not. He clearly doesn’t like it and didn’t want to be there. It was a lost opportunity for him to lead by showing grandfatherly statesmanship for young voters.
I asked Senator Leahy why he didn’t support Senator Sanders’ single-payer amendment to the health care reform bill. He responded that Senator Sanders knows he supports him. But the reality is that Senator Leahy declined to co-sponsor Sanders’ bill. One can’t have it both ways. A forthright answer would have been that he doesn’t support single-payer reform, he believed it was unrealistic, or he was not willing to fight for it.
I asked Senator Leahy to explain why he thinks it is ok to accept special interests funding of his campaign and explain how he can objectively represent Vermonters when he partakes in that Washington game. He responded that such funding never affected his choices, and that contrary to the case for my campaign, he has lots of individual supporters in Vermont. Not to belabor the details but the Senator is smarter than that. As a lawyer, he knows that the true issue is deeper and more philosophical – whether elected officials should prioritize minimizing conflict of interest to the best of their ability or not. Period.
Tags: campaign finance reform, Daniel Freilich, Debate, Democratic Primary, Medicare for All, Senator Patrick Leahy, Single-payer health insurance system, Special Interests, Universal health care insurance, US Senate candidate Daniel Freilich, Vermont, Vermont Democratic Party, Vermont Political Revolution
Posted in Announcements | No Comments »
Wednesday, February 24th, 2010
The President will be discussing health care reform with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders in two days.
I wonder if he will discuss the potential merits and deteriments of truly transformational health insurance reform — replacement of our multipayer market-based private health insurance system with a single payer national health insurance system (Medicare for All).
As almost every other industrialized nation on the globe has succeeded in achieving universal health care in a cost-effective manner with national health insurance programs, it behooves our leaders to put ideology and political expedience factors aside for the duration of the detente meeting, and discuss this potential solution to our health care crisis. The predicted savings, hundreds of billions of dollars annually, would be an economic stimulus, increasing American business competitiveness, profitability, and affordability to increase hiring.
At the very least, the single-payer health insurance system potential solution to our moral and economic health crisis should be deliberated upon publicly.
Details about the campaign’s platform regarding health care reform can be found at: http://www.danielfreilich.com/health_care.php.
I wouldn’t hold your breath but maybe we will be surprised.
Dan F
Tags: health care, Medicare for All, Single-payer health insurance system, Universal health care insurance
Posted in Health care reform | 10 Comments »
Friday, February 5th, 2010
I was invited by the Bennington County Campaign for Liberty for an open community meeting to discuss our campaign’s platform. The meeting occurred on January 21, 2010, at the Bennington Free Library. Although gross over simplifications, the Campaign for Liberty can be thought of as being for smaller government; in contrast, our populist platform might be considered to accept larger government. Thus, not surprisingly, there was initial suspicion on both sides, but the discussion rapidly evolved into a respectful two-way discussion. Surely we did not agree on many policy issues, but there was agreement about many policy goals and need for better governance.
We thought it would be useful to share our answers to the very apt questions posed by the meeting hosts in preparation for the discussion:
1. Patrick Leahy is an entrenched incumbent – why are you taking him on?
I am challenging Senator Leahy for a number of reasons but the two overriding themes are that I believe we have lost a sense of fairness and reasonableness in American public policy and governance. Life has become unreasonably and needlessly difficult for most Americans due to inequities in our economic system. As well, the manner in which elected officials gain office and serve casts doubt on their ability to objectively represent the people. I believe the power within the Democratic Party, including Senator Leahy, has allowed this loss of fair play to happen and/or is pursuing incremental changes which are unlikely to significantly improve on the status quo. I further believe we need new congressional representation which will prioritize effort to try to restore fair play to American public policy and governance.
2. What are the most significant differences between you and Senator Leahy?
There are significant policy and governance differences:
Regarding economic policy, I support a return to progressive taxation (income, capital gains, and payroll taxes) and a single-payer (Medicare for All) primary health insurance system. I believe Vermont should lead in advocacy for restoration of an equitable economic system. In contrast, Senator Leahy has not prioritized tax reform, did not co-sponsor Senator Sanders’ single-payer Amendment (objective data show this is the only means to reasonably achieve universal coverage and cost-effectiveness). Senator Leahy has simply supported whatever incremental health care reform legislation is proposed by the Democratic Party.
Regarding environmental and energy policy, I support transformational federal legislation aimed at achieving a ‘green revolution’ in the American economy, akin to the industrial revolution of the 19th Century and the information revolution of the 20th Century. I believe this is important because energy insecurity is a potential existential threat to the U.S. and certainly represents economic, security, and life-style threats. I advocate for comprehensive multi-faceted reform that will lead to cessation of oil importation within approximately 20 years. Federal tax policy (incentives and penalties) and standards should be used to encourage smart development, building design, appliances, cars, and fuel. I advocate a progressive carbon tax in lieu of a ‘cap and trade’ system as the latter is too complex and therefore inherently non-transparent and ripe for abuse. I believe that with Vermont’s values, it should lead in promoting federal legislation and work on establishing a ‘Silicon Valley” like center of excellence in Vermont, creating lots of high-paying and rewarding jobs. In contrast, Senator Leahy has not led in this area and can be expected to support whatever incremental legislation is proposed by the Democratic Party.
Regarding foreign policy, I believe we need to pursue an ‘enlightened security’ by optimizing the way in which we treat our own people (restore economic fairness) and overseas (increase effort to address developing world poverty) and the environment. However, we need to concomitantly fully support our troops in their duties in the Global War on Terrorism. In contrast, Senator Leahy is likely to continue the U.S.’s incremental contributions to addressing poverty in the developing world and to half-heartily support our efforts in the War in Afghanistan.
Regarding governance, I believe we need significant campaign finance reform, but I also believe that in the interim, Vermont should insist on optimal ethics from its federal elected officials, whether required by law or not. I believe ethical standards of elected officials should be the same as those for non-elected officials. All significant potential conflicts of interest should be avoided. As a consequence, I believe Vermont representatives should NOT accept PAC funds, and where they have, they should recuse themselves from voting on the manner. Additionally, I believe in term limits for congressional representatives to minimize patronage that goes along with a life-long political career in Washington. Thus, I will not accept PAC contributions. In contrast, Senator Leahy has received significant PAC contributions and has not recused himself from health care reform voting (for example) despite accepting significant PAC funds from the health care industry.
3. What unique qualities and perspectives do you bring to this campaign?
After 13 years of public service as a naval officer, physician, professor, and father, I believe I can provide Vermonters with representation in Washington with fresh, creative, and unbiased ideas. Moreover, I believe in public service simply for ’service’-sake and hope to restore a sense of fair play, decency, and honor to the process of seeking federal political office. If elected, I would try my best to address our economic inequities, aim for a green revolution in our economy, and work towards an enlightened security for the United States.
Tags: Bennington, campaign finance reform, Daniel Freilich, Enlightened security, equity, Green revolution, Progressive taxation, Single payer health insurance, U.S. Senate, Universal health care insurance, Vermont
Posted in Announcements | 1 Comment »
|
|
