How Universal Health Care was Destroyed in the U.S.

Much of the rw (and lw) spin currently floating about our heads came from this debate. Many of the phrases and attacks we hear (and innocently repeat) come from this time. Since many on DU have said 2000 was the year they began to pay attention to politics, I thought some of those same people might want to read about where some of the "common knowledge" which is wafting about in political debate, discourse and attack had its origins. This is a 3 pager, but I believe it is well worth the time to it takes to read it to have a more comprehensive understanding of the political process; and perhaps a scorecard of some of the players.

I've added emphasis for the parts that jumped out at me and also at the beginning of paragraphs for 'readability.' The four paragraph rule made this less impressive than if I'd been able to emphasize more, so please, take the time to read as I had to leave out some excruciatingly amazing information.

Enjoy. (how Freudian of me, I accidentally typed 'endjoy' instead of 'enjoy' before correcting it)

A Detailed Timeline of the Healthcare Debate portrayed in "The System" (From PBS, May, 1996)

Spring 1991 - Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, in a private discussion about long-term Republican political strategy, predicts that the "next great offensive of the Left," as he puts it, will be "socializing health care." Gingrich declares the need for hardline Republicans to begin positioning themselves now to keep Democrats from winning in the future.

--snip--

August 30, 1992 - Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller gets wind of Clinton's waning support for "pay-or-play" and fires off a memo arguing against any change of direction. He also tells Clinton that his statement that "Americans deserve or have a right to health care" might present problems for the candidate in the future. "Although many Americans may initially react positively to this statement," he writes, “over time it can make them uneasy. Before long they will be asking: How would we pay for all that care for all those people? Won't it require a huge new government bureaucracy?"

--snip--to Page 2--snip--

November 1, 1993 - Hillary Clinton launches a scathing attack against the insurance industry to counter the highly damaging "Harry and Louise" ads. She accuses the industry of greed and deliberately lying about the reform plan in order to protect its profits. She specifically denounces the ads' claim that the Clinton plan "limits choice." Rarely, if ever, has a First Lady publicly attacked any American industry or industry group -- and certainly never in such strong language and in such a furious manner. Her assault makes front-page newspaper stories, network TV news shows, and calls more attention to HIAA's role and message.

--snip--

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

--snip--Read the full account at the link above

Stealth Campaigns in the Democratic Party

"Democrats for Life" uses the same rhetoric as many rabid anti-choice organizations, e.g. pro-life versus pro-abortion, unborn rather than zygote or fetus, pro-choice="radical", stem cells are people, and wrap their message in religious terms.

If all pro-life people shunned the Democratic party, who would then speak up for the unborn?

--snip--

It is too dangerous to allow a group with that much power to be totally under the influence of the pro-abortion mentality....serve as a buffer against the more radical elements in the party.

--snip--

The party has sent out such a strong and pervasive pro-abortion message that many pro-life people have felt silenced or alienated.

link accessed from this page

This is the speech presented by Dr. Lois Kerschen, President of Democrats for Life of Texas, on January 25, 1997 to the Greater Austin Right to Life Rally. The rally was held on the steps of the Capitol in Austin after a walk by an estimated 1500 Pro-Life supporters.

They are anti-stem cell research:

Because embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) doesn't have the starkness of other pro-life issues, some people may not realize what an urgent issue it is. My wife, a former AIDS and cancer-research technician at Johns Hopkins University, put it simply: When it comes to ESCR, "the problem isn't the cells, it's the person you have to kill to get the cells."

--snip--

You have to be able to see and understand that your debate partners really are trying to do what they think is right, and appreciate that they might not have been presented the truth in a way they can understand. You have to love them as Jesus did when He wept for them—to see them with His compassion when He said they were “like sheep without a shepherd” (Mk 6:34).

link accessed from this page

Supporters of the 95 10 initiative include, wow, a token woman beyond the ED, /sarcasm who'd have guessed? /sarcasm:

Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH)

Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI)

Congressman Lincoln Davis (D-TN)

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)

Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Congressman Collin Peterson (D-MN)

Congressman Jerry Costello (D-IL)

Congressman Jim Oberstar (D-MN)

Dan McConchie, Americans United for Life

Rev. Clenard H. Childress Jr. Assistant National Director of LEARN (Life education and resource network)

Tom Atwood, President and CEO, National Council on Adoption

Dr. Randy Brinson, Redeem the Vote

State Representative Mark Miloscia (D-WA)

Kurt Entsminger, President, CareNet - who stands to profit quite handsomely from "Federal Funding for Toll-Free Number/National Public Awareness Program - Enact an advertising campaign in each state to provide a toll free number that will direct a woman to organizations that provide support services for pregnant women who want to carry their children to term and/or direct women to adoption centers. Organizations that qualify for the referral from the toll-free hotline must be non-profit, tax exempt organizations that do not provide abortion referral services."

Through our phone and internet services, we have been able to educate men and women on the risks of abortion as well as provide them with resources and information about abortion alternatives. But more importantly, through the Option Line and the work of affiliate centers, these men and women have been exposed to the message of the Gospel, and by the grace of God, we have seen many make decisions for Christ. Care Net's "Option Line"

CareNet also opposes emergency contraception for women.

The 95 10 initiative also presents, as fact, that abortion (has) adverse side effects to a woman's health in spite of the fact that there is no valid proof of detrimental effects to a woman's health, mental or physical despite years of anti-choice activists who insist on proving otherwise.

Still, it is fair to say that neither the weight of the scientific evidence to date nor the observable reality of 33 years of legal abortion in the United States comports with the idea that having an abortion is any more dangerous to a woman's long-term mental (or physical, read the article) health than delivering and parenting a child that she did not intend to have or placing a baby for adoption.

So, to summarize to this point,

- the federally funded "informational" hot-line is bait-and-switch and removes abortion from the choices offered
- women's "right to know" will include false and disproved information
- college women will be given the option (bribed?) to receive help to carry a pregnancy to term but removes abortion from her federally funded choices
- requires women's clinics to provide "adoption referral information" to further complicate a difficult decision during a stressful time and is part of a collection of trap laws which are used "to subject abortion providers to burdensome restrictions that are not applied to other medical professionals"
- provide additionally confusing and distressing information should a woman choose to undergo prenatal genetic testing; will they cover a second opinion? Is this another trap law?
- federally funding to "collect accurate data on why women choose abortions"?! There are several studies already available; here's one. Why do they need more studies and research? Do they not like the answers they've received to date?


This initiative is a "beard". The more I research the more it looks like the anti-choice, pro-fetus, anti-women people have infiltrated the Democratic Party. /sarcasm Gee, what a surprise. /sarcasm