In 1948, Harry Truman pushed for a national nonprofit health insurance program in his successful, come-from-behind presidential campaign. When Truman’s plan was denounced as “socialized medicine” and “un-American” by the powerful American Medical Association, “Give ‘Em Hell Harry” stood his ground, defending his proposal as “simple Christianity.”
In 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson secured passage of Medicare (and Medicaid), he traveled to Missouri to formally sign it into law in Truman’s presence – declaring that “the real daddy of Medicare” was Truman. Medicare was federal health insurance for those 65 and older, but proponents hoped it was step one on the way to Medicare for all.
In the 1970s, it remained the Democratic Party’s official position to support a federally-provided health insurance program for all (“single payer”) – and its strongest advocate was the chair of the Senate Health subcommittee, Ted Kennedy. Supported by unions and seniors, Kennedy introduced a Medicare for all proposal in 1971: the “Health Security Act.” Worried about the plan’s popularity, President Nixon countered with a supposed reform that would preserve for-profit, private insurance: the “Health Insurance Partnership Act.” Kennedy declared, “It’s really a partnership between the administration and insurance companies. It’s not a partnership between patients and doctors of this nation.”
In 1976, Jimmy Carter promised a national health insurance plan in his victorious campaign for the presidency. Kennedy later called it a “missing promise” – and their discord over healthcare continued through Kennedy’s failed challenge of Carter for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination.
As harsh neoliberal capitalism dawned in the Reagan ‘80s there was a sea change in the country and within the Democratic Party. Democratic leaders – calling themselves “New Democrats” – scarcely even pretended to resist greedy corporate interests. Those interests were invited into the party and into policy formulation.
Enter Bill Clinton.
Doesn't he have investigations already into previous attacks on protesters?
And no one's been punished for those attacks -- attacks carried out by security forces under the command of the prime minister. To be fair, these previous attacks? We're talking about attacks carried out before Mustafa al-Kadhimi became prime minister (May 7th).
But he made promises. As AL KHALEEJ TODAY reminds, "Prior to joining office Mr Al Kadhimi vowed to meet protester demands by holding early elections and investigating protester deaths. Yet the new prime minister has had to deal with a catastrophic economic crisis triggered by a decline in oil prices caused by the coronavirus pandemic."
Are any of these promises going to be kept?
Oh, he's dealing with an economic crisis? Wow. Poor baby. All the leaders of countries are dealing with economic crisis in one form or another -- with or without oil being factored in.
Yes, AP, Mustafa did Tweet:
Yesterday's protest by young Iraqis are a legitimate right, and the security forces do not have permission to fire a single bullet towards our protestors.
What does that have to do with his failure to keep promises?
Discontent in Iraq is not new, and neither is the suffering of Iraqis from unemployment, lack of security, corruption and a crippled health system trying to fight Covid-19. However, tensions are escalating. Rocket attacks on military bases or in the vicinity of the International Zone of Baghdad, commonly known as the Green Zone, are near-daily occurrences, and security incidents such as kidnappings and assassinations are on the rise.
Armed groups within the country, some with political parties backing them and others with Iranian backing, know that Mr Al Kadhimi has them within his sights and are lashing back. With temperatures exceeding 50 degrees, frequent electricity cuts and a general public malaise setting in, Mr Al Kadhimi is heading towards a crisis.
The Prime Minister’s first foreign trip abroad since he came to office was slated earlier this month to be to Saudi Arabia. It was meant to bring news of economic opportunities and entering a new era in relations in the region. However, the trip was cancelled as King Salman bin Abdul Aziz was taken to hospital. Consequently, Mr Al Kadhimi’s first foreign trip was to Iran. It became a staging ground for Iranian leaders to push their own anti-US agenda, at which point Mr Al Kadhimi had to push back defensively on the need for ‘non-interference’ in relations.
All this comes as the Iraqi government is facing an economic crisis that can only be resolved by external investment. Foreign direct investment or private sector investment at a time when the global economy is facing a recession and global pandemic will not be easy and will require hard work.
“We had no guns, no knives, just our chants,” said Ahmad Jabbar, a male protester in the square.
“We (clashed) with them for six hours. They wouldn’t even let the ambulances come get the wounded,” he said. More rallies have been called for Monday night, with activists demanding the release of fellow protesters arrested the previous evening.
“If our guys aren’t freed, we’re going to ramp up our efforts. We’re staying in our tents, and we’re not afraid,” said protester Maytham al-Darraji.
“What we witnessed yesterday in Tahrir Square by Kadhimi’s government was similar to what we used to face during the government of Adil Abdul-Mahdi,” he said from Tahrir Square, referring to Kadhimi's predecessor who resigned as PM late last year.
- Truest statement of the week
- Truest statement of the week II
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Attacks on protesters continue
- TV: Navigating the stream shouldn't be this hard
- Dario Hunter destroyed his own campaign and Cindy ...
- The joke that is Brett McGurk
- From The TESR Test Kitchen
- Tweet of the week
- Coronavirus Collage
- Song to stream
- This edition's playlist
- #TheJimmyDoreShow Jimmy's Message To Independent M...
- Hawkins and Walker Oppose Trump Sending Secret Pol...
- Reparations and the Palestinian Right of Return: t...
- Highlights