|
|
|
|
Why a new Strategic Initiative?
Project
EINO has always advocated for recognition of the "Right to Health
Care". We have had the central arguments of this new initiative
posted since the fall of 2001 within the FAQ section
at the EverybodyInNobodyOut website. Over the last few years it has become increasingly
clear that a focus on the "Right
to Health Care" will be a key feature to the achievement of genuine UHC in
the USA. This is obvious given the analysis of both our opposition's
vulnerabilities and the main errors coming out of recent failed state attempts at
UHC (activists own self-criticism in those states).
|
Strategic Points in Shift of Focus
|
Ease of Connection with Lay Activists, Interested Citizens
Most Americans (well over 90%) have no
doubt that: (1) their children have a "Right to Education", (2) that they can demand this right be respected if their children were
denied access and (3) that whatever expense universal education incurs, or
whatever budget shortfalls a state or county might be having this right should not
be abridged.
Financial considerations of "what we can afford",
who must receive less (poor quality education, leaving some children out etc.)
are not arguments many Americans would tolerate. They can quickly
appreciate the "Right to Health Care" on this same basis.
|
Ability of Lay Activists to Defend Position
We need to have a thousand activists across each state building overwhelming
support for UHC. We will never have a sufficient number of
physicians, or health policy Ph.D's to do this work. Arguing on the
financial and administrative merits will not win us the overwhelming broad
support we need, even though the facts from the financial and administrative
aspects support our position. These facts can be referred to and included
in pamphlets and on websites in some detail, but they are probably not the most
advantageous focal
point for our initial arguments in recruiting new adherents (beyond
academicians).
The thousand activists we need in each state to
win real UHC state-by-state (as the universal Right to Education was won) should
be based on believing this is an obvious Right working Americans
need, in order to have any chance of "pursuing happiness", contributing productively and
participating in a functional democracy.
Not only can
we get the numbers we need, but the activists we mobilize will all be able to
feel confident and defend our position. They can refer people elsewhere
for the financial nuts and bolts, while they argue forcefully on the basis of
this Right that all workers enjoy elsewhere, and Americans too must share
in. Its as American as apple pie, our nation began with the call "No
taxation without representation". Now 65% of health care costs are
paid out of taxes, yet fewer of us are secure in coverage for our medically
appropriate needs and those of our families. Almost none of us is secure into the
future of old age, independent of
particular misfortune or circumstance.
|
Undercuts "Near Universal" Advocates
A major obstacle in the growth of our movement aree
so-called advocates of UHC who argue that additional years (and decades) of
"solid incremental reforms" will somehow bring us to UHC almost
magically and/or that "near universal" access to care will be good
enough for America (and as much as is "politically feasible" often
they argue). Project EINO has fought against these phony positions for
many years with only very limited success.
It seems obvious that the
"Right to Health Care" once embraced will not allow any
advocate to "compromise" that some appropriate medical expenses
(like certain necessary
treatments, or certain pharmaceutical expenses for several million individuals)
can be excluded. Recognition of the "Right to Health Care" in this
country can only mean that everyone shall have their needs met.
|
Connects Specifically with and Empowers Underprivileged Communities
A major self-criticism of recent state campaigns (in their failures) has
been in not connecting strongly enough with the great numbers of Americans who
are most excluded and disproportionately restricted in access to needed health
care.*1 Too often the UHC grassroots work has
been led by progressive committed academicians who fail to connect with the
broad population of working people across the state. Cultural, ethnic gaps
are part of the reason. But also, perhaps, the whole struggle is conceived
in terms remote from the priorities of the more underpriveleged sectors in our
society.
To force through state legislation, influencing a majority of state
legislators we need very strong numbers of constituents contacting their
Representatives, only then could we hope to offset the enormous financial
advantages (lobbying power) that our enemies enjoy. These numbers will
only be generated in a campaign that is easy to communicate and clearly
stated. Arguments about expenditures on specific programs and where each
cost-saving element originates will not get us those numbers among the lay
working people.
|
References
1* For example see Oregon activists discuss their
failure with Measure 23 CLICK
HERE. Also in Calif failure of their initiative was widely attributed
to a failure in connecting with hispanic population.
|
|
