How Funny Would It Be If The Utah Republicans Inadvertently Bared Their Own Candidates From The Ballot?

Kathie Allen

No, that's not a scenario from The Onion; but from the Salt Lake Tribune. "Imagine," wrote Lee Davidson, "this year’s ballot with no Utah candidates listed as Republicans. Or, alternatively, the ballot listing only those Republicans who gathered signatures, while others who went through the GOP convention are shut out." Sounds good to me. And deserved.

Republicans say those scenarios are a growing possibility now that the Legislature failed to pass a bill designed to fix problems caused by a recent bylaw change adopted by the Republican State Central Committee.

The fix-it bill, HB485, passed the House. It was on the Senate calendar awaiting action Thursday night when the Legislature adjourned as required at midnight-- so it died.

Now, “I think there’s certainly a cloud over this election,” Rep. Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork, sponsor of the bill, said Friday.

The questions swirling in the wake of HB485’s demise include which, if any, Republicans eventually may appear on the ballot, whether the party may be listed at all-- or whether GOP hopefuls might be forced to run as unaffiliated candidates.

The turmoil stems from a recent party rule change forced through by hard-liners on the GOP State Central Committee that would kick out of the party candidates who gather signatures to qualify for the ballot in some races. Signature gathering, they argue, decreases the power of state delegates and infringes on the right of the party to choose its own nominees.

The problem is that the GOP last November filed to operate this election cycle as a “qualified political party,” which under state law means it would have to allow candidates to gather signatures, use the caucus-convention system, or both.

“It’s clear they [Central Committee members] made an effort to break the law with their bylaw change,” McKell said, which could lead to lawsuits to revoke the GOP’s qualified political party status. That, in turn, could decertify the party, or lead it to be declared a “registered political party,” which under law allows only those candidates who gather signatures to appear on the ballot.

McKell’s bill sought to solve problems by making clear that once a party files as a qualified political party, the party has no power to change midstream in an election cycle.

Sen. Curt Bramble, R-Provo, Senate sponsor of the fix-it bill, said many of his colleagues lost interest in it after its narrow passage in the House, 40-31. Had it achieved 50 votes, it could have become effective immediately-- instead of in May.

Bramble said immediate implementation was important to provide clarity as people begin filing their candidate declarations.

Candidates must decide whether they go though the caucus-convention system, gather signatures or both. And without HB471, Bramble said, it remains murky whether the party actually has power to kick out those who gather signatures.

If the party tries to enforce its new rule by ousting signature-gathering candidates, McKell said, it could trigger punishment by the state.

...[Lt. Gov. Spencer] Cox (R) warned that the new party bylaw “puts every Republican candidate at risk, as a judge could revoke the party’s qualified political party status.”

Alex Cragun, executive director of the Utah Democratic Party, said Friday that Cox “cannot pick and choose which laws he can enforce,” and should now move to strip the GOP of its qualified political party status. “They can choose whether to violate the law, but they have to face the consequences.”

Cragun said Democrats are finding it easier to recruit candidates this year with “the Republicans ready to shoot themselves in the foot,” and he and other party officials tell potential candidates “you might not have an opponent in November.”

Blue America endorsed a candidate for Utah state Senate, Kathie Allen, who already looks like a winner in her race for this special election in Senate District 8, entirely within Salt Lake County, a relatively blue area. Kathie told us that the GOP brought this on themselves. "This is what happens," she told us this morning, "when you ignore the will of the people to have more than a small coterie of hyper-partisans determine  our candidates." Tight now the Utah state Senate has 29 members and only 5 are Democrats. This would be a good year to start getting that number up-- whether there are Republicans on the ballot or not. Please consider helping Kathie Allen win this race by clicking on the Blue America thermometer for state legislative seats on the right... and contributing what you can.

If There Is One Thing More Dysfunctional Than The Democratic Party In Utah...

Not all Utah Republicans are happy Mitt is taking over the party

Yes, the Democratic Party is a mess. But, luckily for the career politicians who think they own it, so is the Republican Party-- even in a deep red state like Utah. They hated Trump in Utah, but Hillary only won 27.5% of the vote. The statewide PVI is R+20, same as Oklahoma. Only Wyoming is worse. A few days ago, Bob Bernick, writing at UtahPolicy.com looked at the chaotic crazy-quilt of psychosis the far right has turned the Utah Republican Party into. "You may have thought," he wrote, "the internal workings of the Utah Republican Party were really screwed up before. But now get this: If some GOP candidates gather signatures to get on the ballot this year, they may well be kicked out of the Utah Republican Party via a bylaw change adopted Saturday over the objections of party chairman Rob Anderson."

And that’s not all.

After a “special” meeting of the party’s Central Committee Saturday, Rob Anderson says CC members new bylaw bifurcates the allowed candidate-to-ballot routes, one set of rules for U.S. House districts 1st and 2nd, and another set of rules for House districts 3rd and 4th.

“I think that violates both state law (SB54) and the U.S. Constitution’s” equal protection rights, said Anderson.

But after Stewart Peay, the Snell & Wilmer attorney whom Anderson has had as the party’s legal counsel said so, the CC members in attendance fired him.

That’s right.

The Utah Republican Party doesn’t have an attorney.

Anderson said he will fight on against the group of right-wing Central Committee members that are clearly out to get rid of him.

“I will not resign,” Anderson told UtahPolicy.

Saying he is not trying to sound over-dramatic, “But really, I’m the only person standing now between the collapse of the Utah Republican Party” if the rightwing group gains control of the state office. “And that’s the truth.”

A bylaw change adopted Saturday also says that the only way a candidate can be a Republican in Utah is to follow the party’s nomination laws-- which now don’t allow to get on the taxpayer-funded primary election via signature gathering-- outlined in SB54.

The bylaw says if any GOP candidate accepts the signature route to the primary, he or she “immediately” loses their party membership.

So this election year “if you collect signatures” as a way to get on the primary ballot, “they (the right-wingers) will expel you” from the party, said Anderson.

There is a group of around 50 or so right-wingers who continue to call special CC meetings-- as the bylaws allow.

There are around 180 members of the Central Committee, but many of them don’t want to travel long distances to attend a quickly-called special CC meeting in Salt Lake or Utah counties.

So the right-wingers have the votes to do what they wish in the “special” CC meetings.

It would take 60 percent of the whole state Central Committee to remove Anderson. And he said he knows his CC opponents don’t have that number, so his chairmanship is safe-- although it appears his opponents are trying to get him to resign by making his life pretty miserable.

The CC normally meets just quarterly, and that next meeting is not until mid-May, after the GOP nominating convention in April.

So Anderson and a few other of the elected state leaders face the right-wingers-- who are clearly very angry with Anderson.

‘Oh, and Saturday they denied my whole (state) convention committee list-- every one of them,” said Anderson.

So he doesn’t have any help, at least for now, to run the scheduled April 21 convention in the Maverik Center.

The 4,500 state delegates-- to be picked March 20 in neighborhood GOP caucus meetings-- will go to that convention to vote on an array of candidates-- U.S. Senate, U.S. House, and multi-county legislative seats.

Anderson said he really, really hopes that a lot of “reasonable” rank-and-file Republicans attend their March 20 evening caucuses, and elect similar-minded delegates.

Those same state delegates will vote, in the spring of 2019, on a new state Central Committee membership. And only then can some of the right-wingers fighting Anderson et al. be replaced.

But that’s over a year away.

Anderson has to run a party that is supposed to be raising money and organizing the critical 2018 elections-- finding candidates and turning out the GOP vote statewide.

As of now, under SB54 the Utah Republican Party is still a Qualified Political Party (QPP).

Anderson filed that official paperwork, following the law, last November.

That means as a QPP the state party MUST allow all candidates to take both the signature gathering route, or the caucus/delegate/convention route, or both at the same time.

But the new bylaw passed Saturday says that in the U.S. House 1st and 2nd districts the ONLY route to the GOP nomination is through the caucus/delegate/convention route.

Anderson said since U.S. Reps. Mia Love and John Curtis, in the 3rd and 4th House districts, respectively, have already started gathering signatures, the right-wingers’ bylaw says in those two districts GOP candidates can take the SB54 signature-gathering route.

“What do I do?” Anderson asked rhetorically. “Do I obey the law of the land? Or some party bylaw?”

How can a party legally treat candidates for the same office, but in different districts, differently? He asks.

Anderson said since he no longer has a party attorney, he will seek and take legal advice “from people I admire and trust.”

But those attorneys won’t get paid because the CC told him he couldn’t hire his attorney of choice.

Finally, UtahPolicy.com had written about a proposed bylaw change that would have said the party itself would decide who can and who can’t be a member of the party – and run as such in elections.

That bylaw change would have allowed so-called “purity tests” by some kind of committee to allow a person/candidate to be an “official” Republican.

But, said Anderson, he refused to let that bylaw change be considered Saturday because it was not properly filed under current party rules.

Expect, said Anderson, another “special” CC  meeting to be called soon to consider that bylaw, if it is properly filed.

Currently, Blue America has endorsed just one Utah candidate, Kathie Allen, who's running to flip a swingy state Senate seat in Salt Lake County.

"If there is one thing more dysfunctional than the Democratic party in Utah," she told us," it is definitely the Republicans! Ever since the public passed a ballot initiative allowing candidates to be on the primary ballot by collecting signatures, the Republican party has fought it. This measure went into effect They want candidates to come exclusively through the  caucus system and be chosen at the conventions. The problem underlying this is that the caucus system heavily favors extremists. On caucus night, people attend in their neighborhoods and choose delegates. The people most invested in the Republican party in places like Utah County always choose right wing candidates over moderate candidates with more general appeal. Then, when it comes time for the Republican County and State conventions, all of these extreme delegates vote for an extreme candidate to be their nominee. It is ironic that Mitt is considered by some to be the savior of conservatives around the country, and yet his own party wants to hobble his nomination process. The party went into deep debt last year defending their law suit against the ballot initiative, which is called 'Count My Vote.' They have even tried to run a counter initiative to undo it. They would be bankrupt right now except an 'angel' saved them by eliminating their legal debts.

 "I am in the process of collecting 2000 signatures to insure my place on the primary ballot in June. If I do not collect the signatures in time, my only path to being on the ballot is to be chosen by the delegates at the Democratic county convention in April, by 60% of the votes outright (to be the only nominee) or to prevent my rivals from getting 60% (in which case, we both end up on the primary ballot). It's a crazy system, but it is more democratic than before we passed the initiative. People can easily manipulate the caucus system to install extreme delegates who will vote for extreme candidates.  Here's more about the Count My Vote initiative and why it was put into place.

"Most of us on the left favor the signature collection, and find it actually quite hard to collect the required signatures. We would like even less stringent barriers to get on the ballot. We don't want a small coterie of extremists dictating to the rest of the party who are nominees will be!"

How A Good Candidate Becomes A Better Candidate-- By Running For Office

Perhaps you remember that last year Kathie Allen was one of the first Democrats after Trump was installed who took on the difficult task of running in a special election in a red, red district, in her case Utah's 3rd Congressional District, the seat that Jason Chaffetz was abandoning. The district is 90.5% white, 10.2% Latino and just 0.6% Black. The Utah County portion of the district is one of the reddest counties in America and it proved impossible for Kathie. It proves impossible for any Democrat. Hillary took only 14% of it. In 2012 Obama took 10%. We're happy Kathie is running for an open state Senate seat this year-- and we're happy Utah County isn't part of it!

The Utah state Senate is comprised of 29 senators, and only 5 are Democrats. Her district was held by a moderate Republican physician who resigned in December to take a regional post in the federal Department of Health and Human Services.

  45% of state Senate 8 lies within CD-03 where Kathie spent 2017 campaigning. And she won that part of the district by 16 points. This is probably the most easily flipped state Senate seat in Utah. And Blue America endorsed Kathie for that seat today. Please consider clicking on the ActBlue thermometer for state legislative seats on the right and contributing to her campaign. In her new race, she will benefit from the great name recognition she got last year from TV ads, billboards, and publicized debates. We have many reasons to be optimistic about flipping this seat. A pressing need she has right now is to collect 2,000 signatures to insure her place on the ballot. Although she have a good base of volunteers, signature collection is slow, painstaking work. She told me yesterday she's trying to accelerate the process by hiring professionals to collect them full-time. We want to help her do that. Before is a fascinating guest post she wrote that I urge you to read. You can check out her Facebook campaign page and follow her on Twitter @kathieallenmd.




The Evolution of A Progressive
by Kathie Allen

Last year, I took on the enormously difficult task of running for Congress in the 3rd Congressional District of Utah, for the seat vacated by Jason Chaffetz. When Chaffetz was still in the race, he made a series of tone deaf comments, which I mocked on Twitter. His most egregious remark was when he said that people had to make tough choices and forego that "shiny new iPhone" so that they could pay their health insurance premiums. My responding tweet indicated that, indeed, people do have to make difficult choices-- and it suggested that people consult my CrowdPac funding page for a better choice of Congressional representative. That tweet got my Congressional campaign off to a roaring start. I earned about $500,000 in just a few weeks and still hold the fundraising record on CrowdPac for most money raised in a day.

In my case, money came in long before I had really had time to crystallize my views on various issues. I hadn’t even definitively made up my mind to enter the race when FEC rules dictated that I file due to the influx of donations. It took time for me to sort out my priorities. As a physician, I knew that healthcare would be a major focal point, but I started out with a much more "moderate" stance than where I landed.

For more than 25 years, I had been active in my state's medical association, the Utah Medical Association. Like a lot of organized doctor groups, it tends to be reactive rather than proactive. As I went through various positions of leadership within the organization, I tried to be a voice for progress and I tried to be very patient. Sometimes it would literally take decades for me to see the issues I care about finally addressed. Some of my physician friends were far less patient. In trying to advocate for universal healthcare, we would inevitably be labelled with the S word-- socialist. There could hardly be a more repellent term to some of these stodgy old doctors primarily interested in protecting their own turf and income. A lot of my progressive colleagues left this organization in frustration long before I did.

Thus, at the beginning of my campaign, I was reluctant to use terms like "universal health care" and "single payer." I'd been conditioned to expect a huge backlash. I was also running in a gerrymandered district where most of the votes came from Utah County, one of the most conservative in the nation. I thought that my message had to be tempered to this constituency.

But last summer was a time of upheaval for U.S. healthcare. We saw the inexorable efforts to repeal the ACA. People lived in fear that they would lose their coverage altogether, or that it would go back to being unaffordable with the reinstitution of "pre-existing conditions." It was in this environment that I decided to launch a series of my own healthcare townhalls. One of our speakers was Dr. Joe Jarvis, a conservative Republican. His power point show clearly demonstrated how much waste we have in our inefficient and expensive system. Dr. Jarvis showed step-by-step how healthcare cannot be considered a "commodity" and how it does not respond to market forces. I also wrote my own op-eds on healthcare reform, went to numerous rallies, and debated with people on social media. All of these interactions helped embolden me. I came to advocate for universal health care without apology or ambivalence.

In the same way, my view on legalizing medical cannabis swung from a "maybe" to a strong "yes." As a physician I knew how to look up the most current research, and I became persuaded that the evidence was strong that medical cannabis is effective for chronic pain and for childhood epilepsy. More evidence is coming in all the time that suggests additional uses-- for PTSD and depression, for example. The opioid crisis in Utah continued to worsen throughout 2017. Every week 5 Utahns died from accidental overdoses related to them. I knew that we could have additional tools with which to manage chronic pain if medical cannabis were legalized. As I witnessed this scourge, it reminded me of what it was like to live with someone with an opioid addiction, namely my physician father. I wrote an op-ed about how his addiction affected my life, and it was published in the Deseret News and can be read here.

There is a ballot initiative circulating to put legalization of medical cannabis before the voters on the November ballot. The people driving the initiative became exasperated with the slow pace with which our legislature embraced the data, and decided to appeal directly to voters, 70% of whom favor legalization.

It is this discordance between what the citizens of Utah want and what our state legislature does that induced me to run for a state senate seat. We have a record number of ballot initiatives this year, aiming to expand Medicaid, institute a fair redistricting advisory board, legalize medical cannabis, and increase state spending for education. We have no female physician and no Democrat physician in either house of the legislature. There are only 5 Democrats out of 29 in our Senate. And my race, in district 8, is said to be the most flippable. District 8 is completely contained within the boundaries of Salt Lake County, which tends to be much more progressive than the rest of the state. And, I have a proven record-- 45% of this Senate district was within my congressional district race just last November. I won this 45% by 16 percentage points! I definitely moved the needle in Salt Lake County, almost tying my Republican opponent who went on to win. Fortunately, the most conservative elements of Salt Lake County are not part of Senate district 8. The demographics of the remaining 55% are similar to the 45% I won a mere 3 months ago. This is not Trump country.

I did pay a price for some of my progressive views. I sought the endorsement of the Utah Medical Association. During my candidate interview I stated that I was in favor of universal healthcare and medical cannabis. Despite my having won an award from the UMA for my prior activism, they chose to endorse my opponent, a non-physician Republican who was in favor of letting the free market decide healthcare. That was the last straw for me, ending my long membership in the UMA. It's not easy being on the vanguard of change!

Trump's Continuing War Against Seniors In Long Term Care Facilities

Last Wednesday we noted the latest group Trumpanzee's Regime in targeting: senior citizens in long term care facilities. The Regime is trying to take away the right of victims of nursing home abuse to sue the nursing facilities-- something they claim in bad for business... businesses that contribute a great deal of money to corrupt conservative officials. And they tried to minimize the seriousness of old people in nursing homes being abused and neglected-- as though it rarely happens. That's just another Trump World lie, as an A.P. report made clear Monday afternoon.

More than 1 in 4 cases of possible sexual and physical abuse against nursing home patients apparently went unreported to police, says a government audit that faults Medicare for failing to enforce a federal law requiring immediate notification.

The Health and Human Services inspector general's office issued an "early alert" Monday on preliminary findings from a large sampling of cases in 33 states. The results were sufficiently alarming that investigators say corrective action is needed now.

"We hope that we can stop this from happening to anybody else," said Curtis Roy, an audit manager with the inspector general's office, which investigates fraud, waste and abuse in the health care system. The audit is part of a larger ongoing probe, and additional findings are expected.

With some 1.4 million people living in U.S. nursing homes, quality is an ongoing concern. Despite greater awareness, egregious incidents still occur.

In a statement, Medicare emphasized that nursing home safety is a high priority, but said it will await a complete report before announcing a response. That didn't impress Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who said he will push for Medicare to take immediate action.

"A crime is a crime wherever it takes place," Grassley said in a statement. "It's unacceptable for more than one-fourth of potential crimes in nursing homes to apparently go unreported."

Of the unreported cases, about 4 out of 5 involved alleged or suspected rape or sexual abuse.

The inspector general urged Medicare to systematically scour computerized billing records for tell-tale signs of possible abuse of nursing home residents. Investigators used that approach to find the cases, matching hospital emergency room and nursing home records.

Auditors identified 134 cases in which emergency room records indicated possible sexual or physical abuse, or neglect. The incidents spanned a two-year period from 2015-2016.

Illinois had the largest number of incidents overall, with 17. It was followed by Michigan (13), Texas (9), and California (8).

In 38 of the total cases (28 percent), investigators could find no evidence in hospital records that the incident had been reported to local law enforcement, despite a federal law requiring prompt reporting by nursing homes, as well as similar state and local requirements.

The federal statute has been on the books more than five years, but investigators found that Medicare has not enforced its requirement to report incidents to police and other agencies, or risk fines of up to $300,000.

Nursing home personnel must immediately report incidents that involve a suspected crime, within a two-hour window if there's serious bodily injury. Otherwise, authorities must be notified within 24 hours.

Medicare "has inadequate procedures to ensure that incidents of potential abuse or neglect of Medicare beneficiaries residing in (nursing homes) are identified and reported," the inspector general's report said. Medicare responded it has long required immediate reporting, but to state inspectors.

Even among the 96 cases that were ultimately reported to police departments, investigators were unable to tell if the federal requirement for "immediate" notification was followed.

In one case classified as "reported to law enforcement," an elderly woman with verbal and mobility limitations was taken to the emergency room after she was allegedly sexually assaulted by a male resident of the same nursing home. The report said two silver-dollar-sized bruises were noted on her right breast.

Nursing home staff had helped the woman bathe and change clothes after the incident. "These actions could have destroyed any evidence that may have been detected using the rape kit," said the report.

Nursing home employees did not immediately report the incident to police, although the federal reporting requirement was in effect. The nursing home "should have reported the incident to law enforcement within two hours of witnessing the incident," the report said.

Instead, the following day the nursing home contacted the woman's family, who called the police, triggering an investigation.

Citing a separate probe by state officials, the inspector general's report said the nursing home "contacted local law enforcement in an attempt to keep law enforcement from investigating the incident."

The state's own report found that the nursing home told police "we were required to report it but that we were doing our own internal investigation and did not need (police) to make a site visit...no one was interested in pressing charges." The police continued their investigation.

The state later cited the nursing home for failing to immediately notify the patient's doctor and family, as well as other violations of federal regulations. But state inspectors classified the incident as resulting in "minimum harm or potential for actual harm."

No other details were provided in the federal report. The inspector general's office reported all 134 cases to local police.

The number of nursing home residents is expected to grow in coming years as more people live into their 80s and 90s. Medicaid is the main payer for long-term care, while Medicare covers doctors' services and hospital care for elderly people and the disabled.

In a statement, the nursing home industry trade group said its members know they must immediately report alleged abuse. The American Health Care Association said it will work with the government to ensure safety.

-photo by Nirmal Gosh... Maryland

Dr. Kathie Allen, the progressive Democrat running for the open congressional seat in Utah's 4th district, offered to add an important perspective... "that many nursing home patients are unable to speak for themselves, so it is up to providers and family members to advocate for them. Sexual abuse of nursing home patients is a real and present danger and is under-reported. To force a patient to opt for arbitration instead of legal resolution of possible malpractice is to ignore the fact that many people being admitted to nursing homes are not fully lucid due to recent surgery, drugs, and innervated status. They should not be induced to compromise their rights while their mental state is suboptimal. This whole thing is a disgrace."





UPDATE: Here's An Example Of Why Dotty Nygard Will Replace Jeff Denham In Congress

Although the DCCC recruited some wealthy San Franciscan to run in CA-10 (Modesto, Tracy, Manteca, Turlock and Riverbank) Dotty Nygard, a nurse and former local elected official, is the progressive in the primary race. She told us that "It's horrifying that there are people in our communities who have the audacity to abuse the elderly. As a healthcare provider, I am mandated to report any suspicion of neglect or abuse immediately. Unfortunately, there have been several situations involving elder abuse where I have been forced to report individuals who have the nerve to harm seniors who were in an extremely vulnerable state. So many cases of negligence and harmful disrespect for our seniors have plagued our healthcare system and it's long overdue for advocates to step up and defend them. Seniors should be our most respected members of society-- it's time we provide them the support they need."

A Key Issue In Democratic Primary Battles-- Medicare-For-All Or Not?

Sunday evening in Leeds, Jared Golden wrapped up his announcement tour as a congressional candidate for the sprawling Maine district he seeks to represent. He spoke at his parents' house and told his supporters that he "plans to make this campaign about working class Mainers... Speaking of jobs," he continued, let’s talk about Bruce Poliquin’s health care vote. He’s the only member of Maine’s Congressional delegation that voted to take health care away from tens of thousands of Mainers. Even worse-- the MaineCare cuts that he voted for would have resulted in a loss of good health care jobs at rural hospitals and health care providers. So much for staying focused on protecting jobs... I won’t hide my progressive values and my military service has nothing to do with my politics. The Marines didn’t make me a moderate. I’m a strong progressive and a proud patriot who loves this country. If Congressman Poliquin wants to make this campaign about the meaning of my military service then I say bring it on. I’ll stack my service to this country up alongside his everyday of the week and twice on Sunday. I won’t hide my progressive values from the people of this district the way he’s hiding his Wall Street values from them. My campaign is going to relentlessly focus on economic issues that are impacting the working people of Maine: creating jobs by investing in infrastructure, faster internet, public works and renewable energy."

At the same time Jared was speaking in Leeds, Maine, another progressive veteran, Randy Bryce was releasing a letter he wrote in Caledonia, Wisconsin to Blue America. "Congress," he wrote, "should prioritize the interests of ordinary Americans, not the 1%. What I’m saying isn’t anything controversial. These are issues that concern the vast majority of Americans and the solutions-- like single payer healthcare, a $15 minimum wage, and real campaign finance reform, to name just a few-- aren’t controversial either."

So why then don’t we see change?

Throughout government-- yes, both parties-- millionaires and billionaires are in control. Donald Trump inherited a fortune worth hundreds of millions of dollars. My opponent, the Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, has a personal net worth of millions, and in 2014, for the first time, more than half of our elected officials in DC, members of both parties, were millionaires.

In Congress today, working people aren’t at the table, we’re on the menu.

When these out of touch elitists are asked to decide whether we should provide healthcare to every American or whether to give themselves a tax cut, they know their answer. When working people are asked to decide, we know ours. We are our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers. We look out for each other because we know what it feels like to be left out. We know what it feels like to make sure food is on our kid’s table. We know what it feels like to be a real, hard-working American.

...I can’t stress enough that the problems we are facing today aren’t Republican-caused problems alone. For too long the Democratic Party has used code words to trick us progressives into supporting them. That’s got to end because our lives are on the line.

When we say we are against corrupt trade deals, we must mean it. When we say we are for Medicare for All, we must mean it and pledge to sign on to Rep. John Conyers’s bill when elected. The days of third way triangulation need to be behind us because our lives-- and our childrens’ lives-- depend on it.

This fight, for single payer healthcare, to create an inclusive economy, and to protect the interests of working people, is going to be difficult. Powerful, wealthy interests will challenge our movement at every turn for fear they lose power in America, but together, we are going to win.

I’m grateful to be fighting by your side.

Not every Democrat is campaigning on a progressive vision of healthcare. Sure, even the lamest and most conservative DCCC recruits-- even their cadre of disgusting "ex"-Republicans multimillionaires-- claim to be against TrumpCare. But when Bryce talks about co-sponsoring John Conyers' H.R. 676 he's saying exactly what the DCCC forbids its recruits from saying. Although 117 congressional Democrats have already signed on-- that doesn't include the King's Landing party bosses like Pelosi, Hoyer, Wasserman Schultz nor, of course, the hacks like Ben Ray Lujan, Denny Heck, Jim Himes and Cheri Bustos who run the DCCC. They're recruiting and financing more anti-single payer candidates to bolster the dwindling conservative ranks in the House Democratic caucus.

Yesterday, Jeff Stein, writing for Vox explained what every Democratic Party primary voter needs to know about Conyers' legislation, a bill, he writes that "would fundamentally reshape American health care for every single person in the country... whose scope and speed would likely be unrivaled by any recent law in the Western world."

The most important change would be to virtually eliminate private medical insurance, forcing the 150 million people who get insurance through their employer to switch to a new plan and creating a universal system that would give every American free health care with no premiums or deductibles.

...Calling it “Medicare-for-all” actually undersells the ambitions of the Conyers bill. Medicare involves significant cost sharing, wherein the patient covers deductibles and premiums; Conyers’s bill would give everyone Medicare, but in doing so also transform Medicare into something much closer to Medicaid.

“Many people refer to single-payer as ‘Medicare-for-all,’ but it doesn’t actually operate like Medicare,” said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Foundation. “Medicare is the part of our health care system that is single-payer-like, so it’s how people understand it.”

The bill would also likely result in the largest tax increase in modern American history, one that would almost certainly have to hit everyone. Under it, for-profit hospitals would have to become nonprofit entities or fold.

Beyond that, the bill would create new regulations and new federal bureaucracies in every state that would make Obamacare’s expansions of state power look Reaganesque.

The American health care system is made up of a hodgepodge of about five different insurance systems-- each with its own rules and costs and coverage benefits.

Currently, 153 million Americans-- or about 47 percent of the country-- receive insurance from their employers. There are also government programs, most importantly, Medicaid and Medicare, that combine to insure close to another 38 percent of Americans. Then there are the last two buckets-- the 5 percent of Americans who receive coverage on the Obamacare exchanges and the approximately 9 percent of Americans with no insurance at all.

Conyers’s bill would condense that patchwork into one single system, in which every American is on the exact same insurance plan-- a decision that would achieve generous universal coverage, while also steepening the bill’s political hurdles.

Conyers’s bill would allow every American citizen to receive a two-page application in the mail to qualify for a “Medicare-for-all” card. Once everyone is enrolled, the government would pay for virtually all of their care; under HR 676, the new government insurer would pick up the full tab for a basically all key coverage areas, including primary care, inpatient care, prescription drugs, long-term care, mental health, emergency care, outpatient care, vision care, and even chiropractic care.

...Under the bill as written, very few Americans could avoid joining this plan. The bill makes it illegal for insurers to sell coverage deemed “duplicative” with Conyers’s program; since the bill provides unlimited free coverage for virtually every possible ailment, basically every existing health insurance program would become illegal overnight... Only insurance covering “cosmetic surgery or other services and items that are not medically necessary” would be allowed to be sold privately, the legislation says.

This policy route would likely make it easier to hold down the costs of overall health spending in the US by getting everyone onto the same plan and, as a result, giving the government more bargaining power, according to Levitt. Forcing every person onto one government insurer would lower the cost of employment for many American businesses, which are often expected to pay for their employees’ insurance; it would also make it easier for employees to switch jobs without fear of losing their insurance.

We reached out to several congressional candidates who are running on a platform that includes signing on as an H.R. 676 co-sponsor. First, of course was Maine's Jared Golden. This morning he told me on the phone that he plans to sign on to John Conyers' Medicare-For-All bill (H.R. 676) and that he's open to working across the aisle, the way he does in the Maine legislature, to make progress towards universal health care. Remember, the Maine legislature passed bipartisan Medicaid expansions SIX times, just to see all six bills vetoed by Paul LePage. "In Congress I'll fight to expand Medicare coverage for everyone," he said. "In Maine we continue to have far too many people without health coverage which leads to expensive hospital visits that ultimately get passed off to those with coverage in the form of higher health care costs and premiums. I'll continue to advocate for this policy while also working with anyone, Democrat, Independent or Republican who has a plan that can expand coverage and lower premiums. It's always important to fight for your values, in this case access to health care for everyone, while also accepting compromise where it's possible in order to achieve some progress over none at all."

As Dr. David Gill has explained over and over again at this blog, pledging to co-sponsor Medicare-for-All is "an easy one. Given that I have been a member of Physicians for a National Health Program for 25 years, and that PNHP helped Rep. Conyers write H.R. 676," he is eager to co-sponsor the bill. Another doctor, Kathie Allen in Utah, told us that she's sign on as a co-sponsor "unless Bernie has a better proposal, or someone else does by that time. Conyers' bill is only about 15 pages long and I have my doubts that it is comprehensive enough to ease the transition from a profit-driven system to non-profit, universal coverage. It has a 10 year plan to partially 'buy-out' insurance companies, and advocates retraining insurance employees, but there is a lack of detail on how to do some of these things. I support the goal, however." And as Peter Jacob, the progressive running for the nomination to oppose Leonard Lance (NJ-07), told us succinctly, he's eager to co-sponsor because "We don't need health insurance in America, we need healthcare."

Who Is Kathie Allen And How Does A Progressive Run For Congress In Beet-Red Utah?

Dr. Kathie Allen is a family physician who has practiced medicine in Utah for 30 years. As you probably know, she decided to challenge Jason Chaffetz this past February in the 2018 mid-term elections after, she told sum she "realized he had no intention of challenging the Trump administration or fulfilling his role as Chair of the Government Oversight Committee." But when Chaffetz stepped down from Congress, it set off a quandary in Utah because the state has no specific law for how to implement a Special Election. Both the Federal and state statutes give authority to the governor to call a Special Election, but there is no specified methodology on how to do this. We asked Kathie to introduce herself to DWT readers by bringing us up to date on the state of her race in Utah.

UT-03 stretches from the suburbs east on Salt Lake City, like Holladay and Cottonwood Heights, almost to Park City and then down through Heber City, Provo, Spanish Fork and way down through Moab and Blanding to the 4 corners where Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado all meet. Although there are 7 counties in the district, most of the votes-- by far-- are in Utah County and Salt Lake County. Bernie beat Hillary in every county and took more voters overall that Trump did in the caucuses. In Utah County Bernie beat Hillary 85.3% to 14.2%. He got 6,071 votes to Trump's 3,713 votes. In Salt Lake County, Bernie beat Hillary 78.8% to 20.9% and his 35,610 votes far outstripped Trump's 6,542 on the same day. (Cruz won the county in the GOP caucus-- with 31,164 votes-- and Bernie beat him too. And it wasn't that different in the sparsely populated rural counties. Take Grand-- Bernie beat Hillary 79.6% to 20.2% but he beat Trump 636 votes to 127 votes. Now, keep in mind, Utah's third district has a PVI of R+28. McCain beat Obama 67-29% and 4 years later Romney eviscerated the president 79-20%, one of Obama's weakest performances anywhere. But Trump isn't well-regarded in Utah and UT-03 only gave him 47.2% of the vote (to Hillary's 23.3%). Still, every one of Chaffetz's reelection bids has been won with over 70%. This is going to be a tough race.

Kathie has an extensive issues page on her official website and if you like what she stands for and what she has to say below, you can contribute to her campaign here.




On The Idiosyncrasies Of Utah Politics In The Special Election To Replace Jason Chaffetz
-by Dr. Kathie Allen

Governor Herbert took the quandary about a special election to mean that the authority was completely in his hands. He chose not to call a special session of our state Legislature. His rationale was that several State Legislators had their hats in the ring, and he felt that giving the Legislature a voice in the process would open the possibility that they would manipulate it to their own ends, enhancing the possibility that a Republican State Legislator would be named the Republican nominee. This set off a backlash and a meeting of both Democratic and Republican caucuses of the Legislature who considered suing the Governor for having bypassed their authority. They will no doubt address this fuzziness in the election law when they convene in 2018.

However, Governor Herbert prevailed, and he determined that the Democratic nominee could be chosen at the Democratic State Convention by the 3rd Congressional District delegates. Since we had not yet had our Convention, this was easy to implement and we had enough advance warning to make the caucus of the 3rd District an integral part of the State Convention.

The Republican party, however had already had its State Convention. They had to call a separate caucus session of their 3rd CD delegates, and they had no money to do so. Their mini-convention was financed by donations from delegates and Jason Chaffetz donating his left-over campaign funds to them.

The Republican Party in Utah is broke. They are over $300,000 in debt. This is largely because they chose to fight a Ballot Initiative called “Count My Vote” that the citizens of Utah were able to pass and enact into law. The Republican party wanted to preserve the caucus system intact, in which neighborhood meetings are the means of electing party delegates. These party delegates are then empowered with choosing the party’s official nominees for the local and national election slate. The problem with this approach is that it draws zealots to the small neighborhood meetings. Everyone else would rather stay inside with family, watch a sports game on TV, or pursue another activity. As the years have gone by since the emergence of the Tea Party, more and more of the Republican delegates have become Tea Party adherents or have embraced other extreme positions of the Right. More moderate Republicans and others wanted to challenge this caucus system by providing a second means of putting names on the ballot. The successful enactment of “Count My Vote” allows a signature-gathering process where signatures representing approximately 1% of the population of a district provide a pathway for a candidate to go directly on the ballot, bypassing the caucus system.

There are 3 contenders for the Republican nomination to replace Jason Chaffetz. The official designee to come out of the traditional caucus system is, as expected, a right-wing candidate by the name of Chris Herrod. He is a former State legislator with views bordering on racist. He is anti-immigration for certain, a view that does not sit well even with many of the otherwise conservative Mormons in the district who have been actively helping refugees. The two other candidates went the signature gathering route. One is the more moderate mayor of Provo, Utah, John Curtis. He actually was once a Democrat, but has been a Republican for many years now. The third candidate is Tanner Ainge, who would not have been able to collect the required signatures without the backing of his famous father, Danny Ainge, former NBA basketball star and currently top management in the Boston Celtics organization. His chances of being elected possibly dipped a little when the Boston Celtics wooed away one of Utah’s best players, Gordon Hayward, in free agency this summer.

As for me, my two opponents tried and failed to gather the necessary signatures to primary me. I was able to secure the Democratic nomination with 77% of the caucus vote. I am a progressive candidate running in a very conservative district. Some variables that will help me are if Curtis fails to advance and I face the extremist Herrod; if Donald Trump continues to undermine our democracy with no response from our all-GOP Congressional delegation (as has so far been the case), and if my message of “health care for all” resonates. My district has had one of the highest enrollments in the ACA, and many are threatened with loss of coverage. Our internal polling indicated that healthcare is the #1 issue on the minds of our constituents. The poll showed us a route to victory in identifying who our likely supporters are and what the best messaging might be. For instance, people responded to “Dr. Allen is a family doctor who will tell you the truth, even if it is hard to hear.”

This Special Election is the final chance to send a Democrat to Congress in 2017. While admittedly an uphill climb, it is a winnable race. A victory for our side would send shock waves to the White House and to Trump supporters. Symbolically, replacing Jason Chaffetz with a progressive female family doc would be a coup. I hope that you will support my race!

As A Voter, How Important Is Single Payer-- Medicare-For-All-- To You?

Last night we embedded a graphic from the ABC News poll showing that although a growing number of Americans really don't like Trump at all, a majority and disappointed that the Democratic Party doesn't stand for anything other than opposition to Trump. Now, they're not talking about people like Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Ted Lieu, Pramila Jayapal, Raul Grijalva-- or any of these House incumbents-- but they are very much talking about the party leadership. Let's turn to single payer healthcare as the perfect example.

John Conyers' Medicare-For-All bill was introduced January 24 and Conyers had gathered 51 other co-sponsors, primarily progressives. More progressives piled on the next few days and by the time political opportunists like Greg Meeks (New Dem-NY), Tulsi Gabbard (HI), Gene Green (TX) and even corrupt Blue Dog Lou Correa (CA) signed on, it was clear than a majority of House Democrats were willing to co-sponsor Medicare-for-All... at least while Paul Ryan could be counted on to make sure it was never voted on. Last week Pelosi ally Nita Lowey (NY) became the 115th co-sponsor. Right before her two very ambitious Pelosi allies, California New Dem (and "ex"-Blue Dog) Adam Schiif and designated next-leader former New Dem chairman and easily the most corrupt and untrustworthy individual in the House, Joe Crowley, signed on too-- Schiff because he wants to run for senator and Crowley because he needs to be elected House Democratic Leader when Pelosi and Hoyer go bye-bye. Pelosi and Hoyer, I might add, have adamantly refused to sign onto Crowley's bill. (Even they have more integrity than Crowley, yes even Hoyer!)

Don't kid yourself about conservative Democrats like Crowley, Schiff, Darren Soto (New Dem-FL), Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX) or another dozen opportunists supporting a real Medicare-for-All bill any more than California Governor Jerry Brown or California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon did when the rubber hit the road.

Progressive activists nationally are up in arms over the betrayal by the California super-majority in the California legislature. People who campaigned on single payer refuse to lift a finger to make it into a reality. It's one of the questions Blue America screens our candidates on-- but it's not a yes or no answer. We want an in-depth explanation. One clown looking for our endorsement didn't even know what single payer is and asked if we could-- and I mean this literally-- talk about the two issues that he said motivated him to run-- protecting the Second Amendment and expanding the use of the death penalty. This is a Democrat asking for the endorsement of a progressive political action committee. Just on a level of commonsense this guy flunked on the spot! On the other hand, El Paso congressman and Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke persuaded us that he has legitimate questions about Conyers' bill but that he does support single-payer and will work towards it if he beats Ted Cruz next year.

I have seen a number of centrist candidates trying to play word games about single payer to lure progressive voters to their cause. In her NY Times OpEd yesterday, Suzy Khimm recognized that for grassroots Democrats the issue has become a litmus test for candidates. Bernie won on this one-- and the Clinton wing of the party lost and is still losing.

During the 2016 campaign, Andrea Barton Gurney thought that single-payer health care was simply out of the question. A self-described moderate, Ms. Gurney, 56, assumed that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats would keep trying to make the Affordable Care Act work.

Now she has changed her mind. She believes the best solution to America’s health care woes is government-financed coverage for everyone. “I wasn’t thinking big enough,” said Ms. Gurney, a marketing professional from New Jersey. “I don’t see anything else that’s going to get us out of this.”

Single payer is now poised to become the standard position for the Democratic base. More elected Democrats are following suit as Republicans struggle to get their deeply unpopular health care bill past Congress. The prevailing assumption is that the G.O.P. effort will ultimately implode, clearing the way for a bold alternative. Senator Dick Durbin, the upper chamber’s second-highest-ranking Democrat, told me that he’d happily sign onto a single-payer bill-- and might even bring one to the floor himself.

But while liberals have spent decades pining for single payer-- Ted Kennedy drew up a bill in 1970-- there are surprisingly few detailed proposals.

...Single-payer advocates believe that radical change is necessary, pointing out that the United States spends more on health care than any other wealthy country, with some of the worst health outcomes. But many advanced, industrialized democracies with universal coverage don’t have a pure single-payer system. France, for instance, has health care for all that is largely state-financed, but most people also buy private supplemental coverage.

While “single payer” has become an effective political rallying cry, advocates still need to figure out what it would mean for one of the largest, most complex health care systems in the world. Senator Sanders himself is preparing to introduce a single-payer bill that will be “far more detailed than the campaign plan” and include changes to address cost concerns, said a spokesman, Josh Miller-Lewis.

...It’s unclear how receptive the base would be to incremental reforms. They could be a reminder of what’s hamstrung Democrats in the past: ceding ground to centrists who insist on largely unobjectionable-- and uninspiring-- white papers. Jeff Hauser, a progressive strategist, argues that the movement should come before the details. “You don’t build a political coalition around wonks,” he says.

What Democrats need to emphasize above all, Mr. Hauser argues, are big ideas that can energize their supporters. More than anything, “single payer” has become shorthand for the notion that everyone deserves health care. “Health care should be a right. It should never be a privilege,” Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and a potential 2020 presidential candidate, recently asserted. “We should have Medicare for all in this country.”

But the more political headway that single payer makes, the more supporters will need to explain how it could actually work in practice. Otherwise, Democrats risk making the same mistake on health care as Republicans: big promises without a plan to follow through.

The Blue America candidates you'll find by clicking on the thermometer on the right are all Medicare-For-All proponents. And we know that not just because they ticked off a box on a questionnaire. Take David Gill for example, a lifelong progressive running for a seat in central Illinois occupied by Paul Ryan rubber-stamp Rod Davis, who blithely voted for TrumpCare. The very first thing on Gill's website page about issues is Single Payer Healthcare. No one has to ask. "Healthcare is a human right, not a privilege. Dr. Gill has been a member of Physicians for a National Health Program for over 25 years, a group that advocates for a single-payer healthcare system in the United States. In addition, society benefits economically when everyone has access to quality healthcare. Moving to a single-payer system will save the United States nearly $1 trillion each year and cut the cost of health insurance for working families. Dr. Gill looks forward to leading the charge to a single-payer system when he gets to Congress." And no built in wiggle-room. Right now we're in the process of vetting almost two dozen candidates. None of them are going to appear on that page attached to the thermometer until we're sure they're for Medicare-For-All. We're sure Utah progressive Democrat Kathie Allen, a physician and a congressional candidate, is. In her own words:

Healthcare is one of the prime reasons I am running for office; this is of pressing concern to Utahns (Americans) and it is a “can’t sleep” issue for many. The United States taxpayer pays $9000 per person per year for an inefficient system that denies coverage to many. This is more than twice as much as the #2 country. Our standing in the world in terms of successful outcomes is embarrassing. Our life expectancy is less, and our maternal and infant mortality rates are higher than that of most other developed nations.

We must remove the profit motive from health care to insure that everyone is covered at an affordable rate and in an efficient manner. A basic taxpayer-funded plan covering the same, or similar, 10 essential services as the ACA should be offered, as it is in virtually ever other developed country. Costs can be contained by removing unnecessary regulation and keeping the administrative costs to below 2%, as is the case with Medicare Part A & B. Some people might actually pay less under a government mandated system when one considers the elimination of premiums, deductibles, and the costs of medications and supplies. Removing CEO salaries which average around $27 million a year, removing the need to pay dividends to investors of for-profit insurance companies, and removing duplicative costs between multiple insurers doing the same tasks can bring the administrative costs down from around 20% to the level of Medicare. A private plan can be offered for so-called “cadillac” services.

There are also many ways to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, including allowing importation from other countries, allowing more competition in the generic market, and removing patent protections that allow Big Pharma to keep extending patents year after year for basically the same chemical.

Because any reform will disemploy large numbers of people in the insurance market, we must be careful about how it is employed. This is one of the factors that makes the discussions complicated. I envision a think tank of providers, patients, disability advocates, actuaries, bioethicists, and economists sitting together for however long it takes to provide healthcare for every single American in an affordable and efficient manner. In the meantime, what the Congress is trying to do right now is basically repeal Medicaid. It's as simple as that. The will of the people is for the ACA to be fixed, not for this atrocious piece of legislation called the BCRA to pass. Let's pursue comprehensive solutions in a bipartisan manner, employing the expertise we need, to bring about lasting change and Healthcare For All.