A coalition of major labor unions and liberal organizations has recently created what it calls “a national grassroots campaign organizing millions of Americans to win a guarantee of quality, affordable health care for all.”

Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is a project of three major unions, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), along with MoveOn and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Elizabeth Edwards is a spokesperson for the new coalition.

With its $40 million budget, HCAN could put a lot of muscle into the fight for a universal, single-payer system that would make the government the sole insurer (the “single payer” to doctors and hospitals). Unfortunately, instead HCAN favors a mixed public/private system that would allow Americans to “keep your current private insurance plan, pick a new private insurance plan, or join a public health insurance plan.”

While HCAN’s “health care for all” slogan will resonate with labor and the left, the group’s actual proposal has met with a skeptical response from, among others, the California Nurses Association and Physicians for a National Health Program. Both fault HCAN for failing to support the United States National Health Insurance Act (H.R. 676), aka “Medicare for All,” introduced in February by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). The bill now has over 91 co-sponsors.

So why doesn’t HCAN support single-payer? According to Richard Kirsch, HCAN’s national campaign director, “One point of this approach [giving people the choice of private insurance or Medicare] was not to scare people away from reform or to make it easier for the opponents of reform to panic the public.” HCAN apparently thinks single-payer is not popular enough among labor, elected officials, or the public to be politically feasible—but they’re wrong.

H.R. 676 has significant labor support. To date, over 445 labor organizations, including 36 state AFL-CIO chapters, 110 Central Labor Councils, the United Steel Workers, the United Auto Workers, and at least 14 AFSCME and SEIU locals have passed resolutions supporting the bill. Interestingly, both SEIU and AFSCME have passed resolutions supporting H.R. 676 at national conventions, showing that there is strong rank-and-file support for single-payer.

Why? Because H.R. 676 takes health benefits off the bargaining table, allowing labor to focus on other key issues. A position paper from the New Jersey State Industrial Union Council explains: “H.R. 676 can create a real opportunity for white- and blue-collar workers. When negotiating a contract the final two issues always are wages and medical benefits. The benefits will always affect wages, and the employer will cry that their health insurance costs limit their ability to give raises.” With health care a non-issue, unions can concentrate on wages, safety, and organizing more workplaces.

And given the budget crisis states and municipalities across the country are facing, the support of AFSCME’s leadership for HCAN rather than single-payer is particularly questionable. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than 30 states face deficits totaling a projected $40 billion this year. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, representing over 1,000 cities with populations over 30,000, unanimously adopted a resolution supporting H.R. 676, which, in their view, will save municipalities millions. According to Healthcare-NOW!, a national organization founded five years ago (not to be confused with HCAN), even a small city could save millions of dollars.

HCAN seems to be out of touch with the American public as well. People aren’t scared of a national health program—quite the opposite. USA Today reported the results of a December 2007 Associated Press/Yahoo! poll: “Sixty-five percent of those polled said the United States should adopt universal health insurance that covers everyone under a program such as Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.”

While mixed public/private plans like Massachusetts’ are beset by problems and have left many uninsured and over-charged, single-payer has become increasingly popular. With HCAN’s full support, H.R. 676 could be even closer to becoming reality. It’s our only hope if we truly want quality “health care for all.”

Jeffrey Muckensturm is a freelance writer and activist living in Philadelphia.  He can be reached through www.CityInvincible.org.

Resources: Health Care for America Now, www.healthcareforamericanow.org; Jim Kuhnhenn and Trevor Tompson, “Poll: Economy, Health Care Top Issues,” USA Today, December 28, 2007; Richard Kirsch, “Why Not Single-Payer?,” the Now! Blog, blog.healthcareforamericanow.org, July 15, 2008; New Jersey State Industrial Union Council, “For HR 676 One Plan, One Nation Campaign And Regarding Health Care for America Now The Trojan Horse,” www.healthcare-now.org.

Note: This is the full article I had published in the October/November issue of Dollars and Sense.

Both AFSCME and SEIU were instrumental in creating Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a lobbying group whose chief objective is to support Barak Obama’s healthcare plan. HCAN is critical of private health insurance companies for their desire to put profit over the lives of their customers. But they won’t go as far as removing private insurance, as single-payer would, from the system completely.

Richard Kirsch, HCAN’s National Campaign Director writes, “One point of this approach [giving people the choice of private insurance or Medicare] was not to scare people away from reform or to make it easier for the opponents of reform to panic the public,” in his blog post “Why Not Single-Payer?“

Sadly, Richard Kirsch is wrong–Americans are ready for reform. 59% of the nation’s physicians and 65% of people nationwide believe that: “The United States should adopt a universal health insurance program in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers.” Even the rank and file members of AFSCME and SEIU voted to endorse the most widely supported single-payer healthcare legislation, HR 676.

The labor issue of Dollars and Sense should be on newsstands soon. Please check it out.

Once again, I used WordPress to develop the site and redesigned, with my friend Brian, a theme by Brian Gardner. WordPress has been a joy to work with, and I plan on using it for future projects.

Let me know what you think of the new site.

It seems that “the declines occurred because HUD changed guidelines in late 2006 for counting the homeless, requiring an interview with each person counted. In 2005, counters could use their judgment to determine if a person was homeless.”

It’s easy for the the government to reduce the amount of homeless people by changing the definition to include less people. Some cities include people who are living with relatives, because they don’t have a permanent home. The Federal government, however, decided not to include them anymore. Problem solved.

Claiming that there’s less homeless people is dangerous because Bush will now claim that cities don’t need as much help or funding. HUD, and the right, shouldn’t be so quick to tout easily disputed “accomplishments.”

Below is the film in its entirety. However, I suggest renting or buying a copy to support the filmmakers.

This tactic only serves two purposes. First, it lends to the right-wing’s highly pushed notion that Obama is an elitist. What could be more elitist than forcing the poorest of the poor away from, rather than invite them into, your surroundings? Even the Republicans say–at least for now–they’re not moving a local homeless shelter from their convention’s surroundings.

And second, it shows that the Democrats, including Obama, prefer to ignore homelessness and other urban issues (though, homelessness is a rural issue as well), rather than face them head on thus emphasizing the party’s shift to the right–or more accurately, Obama’s previously consistent centrist views.

The presidential candidates must start taking urban issues seriously. Their incredible lack of interest in poverty, homelessness, transportation, and sustainable infrastructure show that they’re not in touch with reality, and that photo opportunities are more important than those most in need.

Homeless athletes from all over the US will converge on Washington, DC from June 27 though June 29 to participate in the Homeless US Cup soccer tournament. The tournament, which includes about 10 teams and 55 athletes playing short-field street soccer, will determine which players move on the Homeless World Cup this year in Melbourne, Australia.

The US Cup tournament, which is organized by Street Sense, Inc. and the National Alliance to End Homelessness, coincides with the theatrical release of Kicking It, a documentary which follows six homeless men from around the world who played in 2006’s Homeless World Cup in Cape Town, South Africa. The documentary focuses on the players’ backgrounds (including a war refugee, heroin addict, and former foster child) and their newfound desire to change their lives after competing in the world soccer tournament.

Homeless World Cup organizers say, “We use football [soccer] as a trigger to inspire and energize people who are homeless to change their own lives.”

The results are interesting: 73 percent of homeless participants claim that the tournament has changed their life for the better while 92 percent claim to have a new motivation for life.

Besides the motivation of the players to better their lives, the tournament also helps raise awareness of homelessness, and often changes peoples’ negative perceptions of the homeless. Over 64 nations are expected to field teams in this year’s Homeless World Cup in front of more than 100,000 spectators, and after competing in the Homeless US Cup, the players selected for the US national team will play exhibition matches throughout North America.

Organizers of the World Tournament claim: “From 160 spectators surveyed before watching a game at the Copenhagen 2007 Homeless World Cup, 20% admitted a negative perception of homeless people, 21% stated no opinion and 58% claimed a positive view. After watching a game, their views had shifted significantly with 85% claiming a positive perception, 12% had no opinion and only 1% shared a negative view.”

While the players’ stories and new positive attitude are moving, the tournament’s overall impact on homelessness here in the US and globally is questionable. Both the Homeless US Cup and Homeless World Cup focus on the participants’ individual problems over the systemic socioeconomic issues that cause homelessness.

Laura Flanders, host of GRITtv, echoes this thought in her interview with Kicking It director Susan Koch, an Emmy and Peabody award-winning filmmaker. “But they don’t stop being homeless, right? I mean one of the questions running through my mind was, ‘This is all very nice and the get to go to South Africa and compete, but their economic situation hasn’t changed.’ At least we don’t see it change,” says Laura Flanders.

After competing in the Homeless World Cup, for example, only 35 percent of the homeless participants secure employment of some kind, and only 44 percent improve their housing situation.

The problem is that participants only receive a finite amount of assistance while the tournament is active, not the prolonged help many people need to stabilize their life and housing situation. This leads to difficulty fielding full teams in the US, where the priority for many homeless people is finding employment and permanent housing.

“Anthony Lyons, manager of the Gainesville Community Redevelopment Agency, has been trying to start a local homeless soccer program since early fall 2007. However, Lyons is facing a major problem: getting local homeless people to participate,” says the Independent Florida Alligator.

Byron Woods, a Gainesville, Florida homeless man says, “How I look at it, money needs to be spent on more important things, such as adequate shelter.” Woods also says, “It would be hard for the homeless to participate in a team sport while they are struggling to find long–term employment and permanent shelter.”

Despite its inability to address the systemic causes of homelessness, the awareness the Homeless US Cup tournament and the Homeless World Cup tournament bring to homelessness is valuable. The Homeless World Cup has increased its participants and spectators every year, and its impact on the nation’s consciousness can only grow stronger. The Homeless US Cup, while not the sole solution to homelessness, is part of a larger effort to raise awareness of American homelessness and our need to take further action.

City politicians, often pressured by the public, sometimes take drastic and dehumanizing measures to deal with homelessness. San Diego County’s “Operation Clean Sweep” is among the more sinister methods.

According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, “Sheriff’s deputies converged on several homeless camps in Spring Valley early yesterday, warning people to leave or be arrested.”

“The primary target of Operation Clean Sweep was a swath of land–referred to as Bamboo City by deputies. Authorities believe as many as 30 people live there in tents and ramshackle shelters about 20 yards from homes,” the article continues.

“Operation Clean Sweep” organizers hope that criminalizing homelessness will rid their city of homeless individuals. But, in doing so, it will only make the lives of those living in the camps more difficult and do nothing to secure permanent housing for San Diego’s homeless.

Unfortunately, sweeps like this are common. Victims of a similar sweep in a Seattle homeless camp recently had all of their belongings sent to a landfill. Camp residents and homeless advocates, who were arrested protesting the sweep, say they lost essential items like clothes, bikes, mattresses, and tents.

“They see the time the city takes their stuff as a defining moment in their lives: Before the city took our stuff and after the city took our stuff,” said Doug McKeehen, an advocate for the homeless in Seattle.

Luckily, there’s legal precedent in California that may help victims of these sweeps. Fresno, California, and the California Department of Transportation recently paid $2.3 million to settle a class-action lawsuit on behalf of homeless people whose belongings were tossed during sweeps of homeless camps. Still, the lawsuit could take years, leaving the homeless with few protections in the meantime.

Note: This is another article I wrote for an interview.

The bike costs about $30 to make and its body is biodegradable.  Unfortunately, the bike can’t get wet and it can only hold a person–Americans beware–up to 168 pounds.

Source: Cardboard Bike A Cheap Solution to Theft | EcoGeek