democracynow--2020-02-19--Latinx Group Mijente Backs Bernie Sanders in First-Ever Presidential Endorsement

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : In its first-ever presidential endorsement , the Latinx and Chicanx organization Mijente endorsed Bernie Sanders on Tuesday ahead of the Nevada caucuses .
The group tweeted its decision , saying , quote , “ We know that in 2020 , Trump ’ s potential re-election is a life-or-death threat for us , for our people , and for our planet .
This moment demands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why Mijente is uniting with the movement to elect @ BernieSanders.
” A video accompanied the announcement .
AMY GOODMAN : After the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire , where the electorate is overwhelmingly white , Nevada is the first election with a diverse population , Nevada ’ s population nearly 30 % Hispanic or Latino , 10 % black .
According to entrance polls , nearly one-third of voters in the Nevada Democratic caucuses in 2016 were either black or Latino .
Well , for more , we ’ re going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where we ’ re joined by Marisa Franco , who is the director of Mijente .
We ’ re going to go to her in one minute .
But , Juan , you know , in your book Harvest of Empire , you look at the population from Latin America coming north .
And can you talk about Nevada ’ s increasing Latino population and the power of its voting bloc ?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , the Latino population , of course , has been growing across the country , but especially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like Nevada , Arizona , Texas , California .
And I think the key thing to understand about the Latino vote in general is that it has been much more involved in recent years .
You know , I ’ ve been updating my stuff in Harvest of Empire recently .
For instance , in the 2018 congressional elections , there were 11.7 million Latinos that voted .
That ’ s almost double the number that voted in the previous midterm elections .
So you ’ re seeing an enormous surge in votes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statistic that most people are not aware of : There are now more than 3 million Latino citizens who turned 18 since President Trump was elected .
Listen to that carefully : 3 million Latino citizens who turned 18 since President Trump was elected in 2016 .
That ’ s an enormous potential group to register and vote that was not even eligible to vote back in 2016 .
So , I think the important thing to understand is that the explosive growth of the Latino communities is going to continue for years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just as the 2018 election , is going to be a reflection of that .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , we are joining right now with Marisa Franco , director of Mijente , which has just given its first presidential endorsement .
She is talking to us from Las Vegas , Nevada .
Marisa Franco , welcome to Democracy Now !
Can you talk about your choice of Bernie Sanders ?
And what was your membership offered ?
What was the vote ?
MARISA FRANCO : So , buenos días , good morning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our membership that included an analysis , interviews with the candidates and an internal debate .
We felt it was important , as an organization and as a community , not to sit in the sidelines in this 2020 election .
And I think what the promise of the Sanders campaign is , the idea that we would be electing someone who — we understand this as we ’ re picking our target .
We know that there ’ s not one candidate who ’ s going to come in and fix everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to consistency of message , Bernie Sanders is it .
You don ’ t have someone here whose — you know , you look back six months or nine months , or this poll or that poll , and the positions change .
He has been fairly consistent .
And we want a candidate , and we want a president , who ’ s going to fight like hell , like we will .
And that ’ s what we intend to do , regardless of who wins in 2020 .
AMY GOODMAN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — they could do Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders , do a joint endorsement , as well ?
MARISA FRANCO : That ’ s right .
I mean , I think one of the great things about this primary is that I do believe we ’ ve had real options .
And that ’ s — for progressives , for radicals , that ’ s often not the case .
You know , our membership essentially was choosing between four different political positions : a no endorsement , a stand-alone endorsement for Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Warren or a dual endorsement .
AMY GOODMAN : Finally , as you fly out , when the corporate media talks about the lack of people of color endorsing Bernie Sanders , what is your response ?
MARISA FRANCO : I think it ’ s a bald-face lie .
I think when you look at the support for Senator Sanders , it cuts across race , it cuts across region , it cuts across class , and it cuts across generation .
You see , particular with young people , you know , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all ethnicities , are supporting Senator Sanders .
He , I think , does have the ability to really bring together a working-class , multiracial coalition that can take on Donald Trump .
I think he gives the clearest alternative .
Donald Trump , when he won , was saying , “ Something is wrong in this country .
Here ’ s why .
It ’ s this person ’ s fault .
It ’ s that group ’ s fault .
It ’ s this group ’ s fault.
” Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative to that and gives an actual narrative and a solution that I think can speak to millions of people .
And that ’ s why we endorsed him .
AMY GOODMAN : Well , Marisa Franco , we want to thank you so much for being with us , director of Mijente .
That does it for our show , but first… JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , today we want to celebrate Democracy Now !
's 24th birthday .
That 's 24 years covering the movements changing America and the world .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all the people who have made Democracy Now !
possible throughout the years , our staff and volunteers , [ past ] and present , the more than 1,500 public radio and television stations that carry us , and , most of all , our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world .
Don ’ t forget , you can keep up with us on Facebook , Instagram , Twitter , YouTube , Roku .
Thank you , everyone , for supporting news with a heart , for helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is .
Congratulations , Juan !
AMY GOODMAN : Well , that does it .
And you can keep on joining Democracy Now !
as we continue to grow .
Democracy Now !
is currently accepting applications for a development manager position , news production fellowship , news producer , as well , all of these positions right here in New York .
You can go to democracynow.org .
And tonight , I ’ ll be at Purdue University in West Lafayette , Indiana .
And I will be moderating a panel with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jr. ; with Arun Gandhi , the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi ; with Reverend Naomi Tutu , the daughter of Archbishop Desmond Tutu ; as well as others .
I hope people come out at 6:00 .
That ’ s at Purdue University .
Go to democracynow.org .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now! I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: In its first-ever presidential endorsement, the Latinx and Chicanx organization Mijente endorsed Bernie Sanders on Tuesday ahead of the Nevada caucuses. The group tweeted its decision, saying, quote, “We know that in 2020, Trump’s potential re-election is a life-or-death threat for us, for our people, and for our planet. This moment demands a historic mobilization. That’s why Mijente is uniting with the movement to elect @BernieSanders.” A video accompanied the announcement.
MIJENTE NARRATOR: [translated] This moment demands a historic mobilization. Our members agree that the best path to defeating Donald Trump is uniting with the movement to elect Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders is the best candidate, because…
MIJENTE MEMBER: [translated] He will end the criminalization of our community.
IMMIGRANT RIGHTS ORGANIZER: He has been the candidate that really speaks to working-class communities of all backgrounds.
ATTORNEY: He’s the candidate with the best climate change proposal. He is the candidate who believes all — todita — student loan debt should be canceled. He is the candidate who believes in all of us having the right to vote, even those of us who are incarcerated.
MIJENTE MEMBER: Because we are realistic in the way that the system was set up, in the way the system works. I do believe that shifting the administrations will definitely create a space where we can push for a higher quality of life for our gente.
MIJENTE NARRATOR: Mijente is proud to endorse Bernie Sanders.
AMY GOODMAN: After the contests in Iowa and New Hampshire, where the electorate is overwhelmingly white, Nevada is the first election with a diverse population, Nevada’s population nearly 30% Hispanic or Latino, 10% black. According to entrance polls, nearly one-third of voters in the Nevada Democratic caucuses in 2016 were either black or Latino.
Well, for more, we’re going back to Las Vegas, Nevada, where we’re joined by Marisa Franco, who is the director of Mijente. We’re going to go to her in one minute. But, Juan, you know, in your book Harvest of Empire, you look at the population from Latin America coming north. And can you talk about Nevada’s increasing Latino population and the power of its voting bloc?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, the Latino population, of course, has been growing across the country, but especially in the Southwest and especially in states like Nevada, Arizona, Texas, California. And I think the key thing to understand about the Latino vote in general is that it has been much more involved in recent years. You know, I’ve been updating my stuff in Harvest of Empire recently. For instance, in the 2018 congressional elections, there were 11.7 million Latinos that voted. That’s almost double the number that voted in the previous midterm elections. So you’re seeing an enormous surge in votes. And here’s an interesting statistic that most people are not aware of: There are now more than 3 million Latino citizens who turned 18 since President Trump was elected. Listen to that carefully: 3 million Latino citizens who turned 18 since President Trump was elected in 2016. That’s an enormous potential group to register and vote that was not even eligible to vote back in 2016. So, I think the important thing to understand is that the explosive growth of the Latino communities is going to continue for years to come, and this election, just as the 2018 election, is going to be a reflection of that.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we are joining right now with Marisa Franco, director of Mijente, which has just given its first presidential endorsement. She is talking to us from Las Vegas, Nevada.
Marisa Franco, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about your choice of Bernie Sanders? And what was your membership offered? What was the vote?
MARISA FRANCO: So, buenos días, good morning. We went through a process with our membership that included an analysis, interviews with the candidates and an internal debate. We felt it was important, as an organization and as a community, not to sit in the sidelines in this 2020 election. And I think what the promise of the Sanders campaign is, the idea that we would be electing someone who — we understand this as we’re picking our target. We know that there’s not one candidate who’s going to come in and fix everything for us. But when it comes to consistency of message, Bernie Sanders is it. You don’t have someone here whose — you know, you look back six months or nine months, or this poll or that poll, and the positions change. He has been fairly consistent. And we want a candidate, and we want a president, who’s going to fight like hell, like we will. And that’s what we intend to do, regardless of who wins in 2020.
AMY GOODMAN: And you had the choice of — they could do Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, do a joint endorsement, as well?
MARISA FRANCO: That’s right. I mean, I think one of the great things about this primary is that I do believe we’ve had real options. And that’s — for progressives, for radicals, that’s often not the case. You know, our membership essentially was choosing between four different political positions: a no endorsement, a stand-alone endorsement for Senator Sanders, a stand-alone endorsement for Senator Warren or a dual endorsement.
AMY GOODMAN: Finally, as you fly out, when the corporate media talks about the lack of people of color endorsing Bernie Sanders, what is your response?
MARISA FRANCO: I think it’s a bald-face lie. I think when you look at the support for Senator Sanders, it cuts across race, it cuts across region, it cuts across class, and it cuts across generation. You see, particular with young people, you know, young people of all races, of all ethnicities, are supporting Senator Sanders. He, I think, does have the ability to really bring together a working-class, multiracial coalition that can take on Donald Trump. I think he gives the clearest alternative. Donald Trump, when he won, was saying, “Something is wrong in this country. Here’s why. It’s this person’s fault. It’s that group’s fault. It’s this group’s fault.” Bernie Sanders, I think, gives the clearest alternative to that and gives an actual narrative and a solution that I think can speak to millions of people. And that’s why we endorsed him.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Marisa Franco, we want to thank you so much for being with us, director of Mijente.
That does it for our show, but first…
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, today we want to celebrate Democracy Now!'s 24th birthday. That's 24 years covering the movements changing America and the world.
AMY GOODMAN: A huge thank you to all the people who have made Democracy Now! possible throughout the years, our staff and volunteers, [past] and present, the more than 1,500 public radio and television stations that carry us, and, most of all, our listeners and viewers across the country and around the world. Don’t forget, you can keep up with us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, Roku. Thank you, everyone, for supporting news with a heart, for helping us to go to where the silence is. Congratulations, Juan!
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Congratulations, Amy!
AMY GOODMAN: Happy 24!
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: OK.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, that does it. And you can keep on joining Democracy Now! as we continue to grow. Democracy Now! is currently accepting applications for a development manager position, news production fellowship, news producer, as well, all of these positions right here in New York. You can go to democracynow.org.
And tonight, I’ll be at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana. And I will be moderating a panel with Ronald Reagan’s son Ron Reagan Jr.; with Arun Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi; with Reverend Naomi Tutu, the daughter of Archbishop Desmond Tutu; as well as others. I hope people come out at 6:00. That’s at Purdue University. Go to democracynow.org.
I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. Happy Anniversary, everyone!


democracynow--2020-02-19--Yale Study Says Medicare for All Would Save U.S. $450 Billion, Prevent Nearly 70,000 Deaths a Year

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The War and Peace Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : Well , as the Democratic presidential hopefuls prepare to take to the debate stage tonight , we turn to a central issue of the campaign : Medicare for All .
In a new study , Yale scholars have found that Medicare for All will save Americans more than $ 450 billion and prevent 68,000 deaths @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lancet , one of the oldest and most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals , found that Medicare for All , supported by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren , will save money and is more cost-effective than “ Medicare for All Who Want It , ” a model supported by Pete Buttigieg .
Sanders referenced the study at a campaign rally in Carson City , Nevada .
AMY GOODMAN : That was presidential candidate Bernie Sanders .
For more , we go to New Haven , Connecticut , where we ’ re joined by Alison @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at Yale ’ s School of Public Health .
She ’ s the lead author of the new medical journal Lancet study called “ Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA.
” Thanks so much for being with us , Alison .
If you could start off by responding to the way in this country — we certainly see it in all of the debates , what the moderators ask .
Is Medicare for All going to increase taxes , as opposed to the overall cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found .
ALISON GALVANI : Well , on the one hand , Medicare for All will increase taxes for households and employers .
I think the important point is that , overall , it will reduce costs for both the taxpayer households as well as the employer , because it will eliminate the even higher costs of healthcare premiums paid by individuals and employers .
It will also eliminate pharmaceutical prices , deductibles , copays and all these other fees .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And in terms of Joe Biden , Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for All would cost more than the entire federal budget .
Could you respond to that ?
ALISON GALVANI : Well , we found that Medicare for All would save over $ 450 billion compared to what the country is paying now .
So , right now the U.S. is paying more than any other country for healthcare , yet we don ’ t even rank in the top 34 , some key public health measures , including infant mortality and overall life expectancy .
And at the same time , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health insurance , so either without any health insurance or without health insurance that they can afford .
And the Medicare for All Act identifies a number of ways in which it ’ s going to save the country money .
So , firstly , what people pay right now for hospital services doesn ’ t correlate with their outcomes , their clinical outcomes , and it varies widely .
So , by applying Medicare rates to the entire country , that will save us $ 100 billion right there .
Another important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimize paperwork and will streamline administration and billing .
So , currently , Medicare has an overhead of 2.2 % , whereas private insurance , it ’ s over 12 % .
So , applying Medicare overhead to the entire country will save us $ 200 billion .
ALISON GALVANI : Medicare for All will also — oh , sorry , go ahead .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to go to Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg speaking during the New Hampshire debate earlier this month .
He said he supports “ Medicare @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOODMAN : So , that ’ s Pete Buttigieg .
Can you tell us what you found , if you understand what he means , Medicare for All Who Want It , and what that would cost ?
ALISON GALVANI : OK , sure .
So , while I just analyzed in detail Medicare for All , if we strip away the savings identified in Medicare for All and expanded healthcare through the Medicare for All Who Want It plan , we ’ d still have all these private entities , and we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes our healthcare system so expensive .
So , on the one hand , I would support the offering healthcare to everyone in the country .
That ’ s paramount .
On the other hand , Medicare for All Who Want It , it sounds good , but it ’ s a very expensive way to achieve it , rather than the single-payer plan that ’ s being proposed in the Medicare for All Act .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And could you talk about your projection that about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for All ?
How did you get that calculation ?
ALISON GALVANI : Sure .
So , people without health insurance , they tend to have mortality rates that are 40 times higher than people who have adequate health insurance .
So we looked at the number of people in each age cohort who don ’ t have health insurance , and we said , “ OK , if we can reduce their mortality rate to be in line with people that do have health insurance , then we would save — conservatively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 68,000 compared to status quo .
When we compare with access prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act , it ’ s 107,000 .
And this is a conservative estimate , in that we didn ’ t even look at — we focused on the 40 million that have no health insurance .
There ’ s another 40 million or so in America that have inadequate insurance and are foregoing healthcare that they need , because of the expense of copays and that sort of thing .
So , those people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would also receive full health insurance with Medicare for All , so the 68,000 is actually a very conservative estimate .
AMY GOODMAN : And what do you say to the candidates who say , you know , “ You ’ re hurting people who have healthcare , when you switch them to Medicare for All ” ?
But , of course , you ’ re helping people who are not insured , who would then be overall insured .
ALISON GALVANI : Well , the premise of the first part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pervasive misconception .
We would — people would have more choice .
Everyone would have more choice , because with Medicare for All , there would be no distinction between out-of-network and in-network barriers .
So , not only would you be able to keep your doctor ; if there was a different doctor you preferred , you would be able to switch .
AMY GOODMAN : And what , Alison , surprised you most about this study that you did ?
What didn ’ t you expect to find ?
ALISON @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act has already saved many people ’ s lives .
That ’ s been quantified .
So I was surprised that the Medicare for All Act could save almost double — and again that ’ s conservative — almost double as many people as have already been saved by the Affordable Care Act , on top of the benefits that have been achieved by the Affordable Care Act .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , of course , there are critics who say of Bernie Sanders ’ , Elizabeth Warren ’ s Medicare for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in America , that this isn ’ t Denmark or Sweden .
What ’ s your response to that ?
ALISON GALVANI : I think it ’ s absolutely possible .
In fact , a Medicare system gives us a real-world test of viability .
It succeeded for 54 years , so more than half a century .
It has high popularity , bipartisan popularity .
And if Medicare can succeed in the age cohort that is the elderly , 65 and above , who access healthcare most often , if it can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is all the more feasible and cost-effective to be offered to everyone .
AMY GOODMAN : And what about the fact that most people in this country do not realize we are so alone in the industrialized world when it comes to providing healthcare for our population ?
ALISON GALVANI : Oh , we absolutely are .
Virtually every other industrialized country , and many that are lower- and middle-income countries , offer universal healthcare .
For instance , Costa Rica has a per capita GDP that ’ s about one-fifth ours per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For the last 30 years , that have had a higher life expectancy than the U.S. AMY GOODMAN : How have the campaigns responded to what you have to say ?
Certainly , Senator Sanders has repeatedly talked about this study .
How has , for example , the Biden campaign and others ?
ALISON GALVANI : I ’ m not aware of the response .
There may have been a response , but I ’ m not aware of it .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And also , you ’ ve taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calculations , so that others who want to question or delve deeper into your analysis — where is that available ?
ALISON GALVANI : That ’ s available — so , our tool is called Shift .
And as you said , it ’ s an open-access , freely available tool , in which users can adjust the parameters and tailor a financing plan .
And that ’ s available at shift.cidma.us — which is the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis .
So I encourage members of the public , Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it out .
You can adjust your assumptions .
If there ’ s a particular assumption you think is too optimistic , you ’ re welcome to adjust it and see how you would finance it .
There ’ s — ALISON GALVANI : — many options .
Oh , go ahead .
AMY GOODMAN : And finally , Alison Galvani , if you can talk about being in academia ?
You ’ re there at the Yale School for Public Health .
The amount of money that goes into studies from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry , that skews what ’ s looked at and what the results are ?
I mean , your study here is extremely significant and unusual .
ALISON GALVANI : Well , I ’ m not familiar with how much they ’ re spending on studies to counter this .
I do know , and it ’ s publicly available , that lobbying and campaign financing is — well , it dwarfs the rest of the industry .
So , pharmaceutical companies are spending more than any other industry .
And the second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fossil fuels , for instance , or banking , they ’ re tiny fractions of how much are spent by those two industries .
AMY GOODMAN : Alison Galvani , we want to thank you so much for being with us , director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at Yale ’ s School of Public Health .
We will link to your Lancet study , titled “ Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA.
” This is Democracy Now !
When we come back , the Latinx @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time in its history .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, as the Democratic presidential hopefuls prepare to take to the debate stage tonight, we turn to a central issue of the campaign: Medicare for All. In a new study, Yale scholars have found that Medicare for All will save Americans more than $450 billion and prevent 68,000 deaths every year. The study in The Lancet, one of the oldest and most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals, found that Medicare for All, supported by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, will save money and is more cost-effective than “Medicare for All Who Want It,” a model supported by Pete Buttigieg. Sanders referenced the study at a campaign rally in Carson City, Nevada.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: A study was published by a group of epidemiologists from Yale University on Medicare for All. This is not Bernie Sanders; this is Yale scholars publishing in a prestigious medical journal. This is what they said in that article, and I quote: “Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion” — in other words, under Medicare for All, more people are starting, going to get the healthcare they need — “and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than $450 billion annually.” …
In other words, if we end the profiteering of the insurance companies and the drug companies — and they made $100 billion in profits last year — if we end the absurdity of having thousands of different healthcare plans and the hundreds of billions it takes to administer these thousands of plans. All of you have had the experience of getting on the phone, arguing with some insurance company. You thought you were covered, and they’re telling you — you’re paying for the other guy at the end of the line who’s telling you you’re not covered, when you paid for it and you thought you were covered. We can save $500 billion a year by ending the administrative nightmare that currently exists in healthcare.
AMY GOODMAN: That was presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. For more, we go to New Haven, Connecticut, where we’re joined by Alison Galvani, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at Yale’s School of Public Health. She’s the lead author of the new medical journal Lancet study called “Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA.”
Thanks so much for being with us, Alison. If you could start off by responding to the way in this country — we certainly see it in all of the debates, what the moderators ask. Is Medicare for All going to increase taxes, as opposed to the overall cost of healthcare? Lay out what you found.
ALISON GALVANI: Well, on the one hand, Medicare for All will increase taxes for households and employers. I think the important point is that, overall, it will reduce costs for both the taxpayer households as well as the employer, because it will eliminate the even higher costs of healthcare premiums paid by individuals and employers. It will also eliminate pharmaceutical prices, deductibles, copays and all these other fees.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And in terms of Joe Biden, Vice President Joe Biden has said repeatedly that Medicare for All would cost more than the entire federal budget. Could you respond to that?
ALISON GALVANI: Well, we found that Medicare for All would save over $450 billion compared to what the country is paying now. So, right now the U.S. is paying more than any other country for healthcare, yet we don’t even rank in the top 34, some key public health measures, including infant mortality and overall life expectancy. And at the same time, there’s over 80 million people without adequate health insurance, so either without any health insurance or without health insurance that they can afford.
And the Medicare for All Act identifies a number of ways in which it’s going to save the country money. So, firstly, what people pay right now for hospital services doesn’t correlate with their outcomes, their clinical outcomes, and it varies widely. So, by applying Medicare rates to the entire country, that will save us $100 billion right there. Another important point is that Medicare for All will minimize paperwork and will streamline administration and billing. So, currently, Medicare has an overhead of 2.2%, whereas private insurance, it’s over 12%. So, applying Medicare overhead to the entire country will save us $200 billion.
AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go to —
ALISON GALVANI: Medicare for All will also — oh, sorry, go ahead.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to Democratic presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg speaking during the New Hampshire debate earlier this month. He said he supports “Medicare for All Who Want It.”
PETE BUTTIGIEG: There is now a majority ready to act to make sure there is no such thing as an uninsured American and no such thing as an unaffordable prescription, just so long as we don’t command people to accept a public plan if they don’t want to. That’s the idea of Medicare for All Who Want It. My point is, what I am offering is campaigning for all of these things that America wants.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s Pete Buttigieg. Can you tell us what you found, if you understand what he means, Medicare for All Who Want It, and what that would cost?
ALISON GALVANI: OK, sure. So, while I just analyzed in detail Medicare for All, if we strip away the savings identified in Medicare for All and expanded healthcare through the Medicare for All Who Want It plan, we’d still have all these private entities, and we’d be continuing the inefficiencies that makes our healthcare system so expensive. So, on the one hand, I would support the offering healthcare to everyone in the country. That’s paramount. On the other hand, Medicare for All Who Want It, it sounds good, but it’s a very expensive way to achieve it, rather than the single-payer plan that’s being proposed in the Medicare for All Act.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And could you talk about your projection that about 68,000 unnecessary deaths per year would be avoided by going to Medicare for All? How did you get that calculation?
ALISON GALVANI: Sure. So, people without health insurance, they tend to have mortality rates that are 40 times higher than people who have adequate health insurance. So we looked at the number of people in each age cohort who don’t have health insurance, and we said, “OK, if we can reduce their mortality rate to be in line with people that do have health insurance, then we would save — conservatively, save 68,000.” That’s 68,000 compared to status quo. When we compare with access prior to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act, it’s 107,000. And this is a conservative estimate, in that we didn’t even look at — we focused on the 40 million that have no health insurance. There’s another 40 million or so in America that have inadequate insurance and are foregoing healthcare that they need, because of the expense of copays and that sort of thing. So, those people, the people with inadequate health insurance, would also receive full health insurance with Medicare for All, so the 68,000 is actually a very conservative estimate.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do you say to the candidates who say, you know, “You’re hurting people who have healthcare, when you switch them to Medicare for All”? But, of course, you’re helping people who are not insured, who would then be overall insured.
ALISON GALVANI: Well, the premise of the first part of that statement, I think, is a pervasive misconception. We would — people would have more choice. Everyone would have more choice, because with Medicare for All, there would be no distinction between out-of-network and in-network barriers. So, not only would you be able to keep your doctor; if there was a different doctor you preferred, you would be able to switch.
AMY GOODMAN: And what, Alison, surprised you most about this study that you did? What didn’t you expect to find?
ALISON GALVANI: Well, the Affordable Care Act has already saved many people’s lives. That’s been quantified. So I was surprised that the Medicare for All Act could save almost double — and again that’s conservative — almost double as many people as have already been saved by the Affordable Care Act, on top of the benefits that have been achieved by the Affordable Care Act.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, of course, there are critics who say of Bernie Sanders’, Elizabeth Warren’s Medicare for All proposal that this is not possible in America, that this isn’t Denmark or Sweden. What’s your response to that?
ALISON GALVANI: I think it’s absolutely possible. In fact, a Medicare system gives us a real-world test of viability. It succeeded for 54 years, so more than half a century. It has high popularity, bipartisan popularity. And if Medicare can succeed in the age cohort that is the elderly, 65 and above, who access healthcare most often, if it can succeed in that age cohort, it is all the more feasible and cost-effective to be offered to everyone.
AMY GOODMAN: And what about the fact that most people in this country do not realize we are so alone in the industrialized world when it comes to providing healthcare for our population?
ALISON GALVANI: Oh, we absolutely are. Virtually every other industrialized country, and many that are lower- and middle-income countries, offer universal healthcare. For instance, Costa Rica has a per capita GDP that’s about one-fifth ours per capita, and they have universal healthcare. For the last 30 years, that have had a higher life expectancy than the U.S.
AMY GOODMAN: How have the campaigns responded to what you have to say? Certainly, Senator Sanders has repeatedly talked about this study. How has, for example, the Biden campaign and others?
ALISON GALVANI: I’m not aware of the response. There may have been a response, but I’m not aware of it.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And also, you’ve taken the step of making publicly available your calculations, so that others who want to question or delve deeper into your analysis — where is that available?
ALISON GALVANI: That’s available — so, our tool is called Shift. And as you said, it’s an open-access, freely available tool, in which users can adjust the parameters and tailor a financing plan. And that’s available at shift.cidma.us — which is the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis. So I encourage members of the public, Congress, presidential candidates even, to try it out. You can adjust your assumptions. If there’s a particular assumption you think is too optimistic, you’re welcome to adjust it and see how you would finance it. There’s —
AMY GOODMAN: And finally —
ALISON GALVANI: — many options. Oh, go ahead.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Alison Galvani, if you can talk about being in academia? You’re there at the Yale School for Public Health. The amount of money that goes into studies from the drug, the pharmaceutical, the insurance industry, that skews what’s looked at and what the results are? I mean, your study here is extremely significant and unusual.
ALISON GALVANI: Well, I’m not familiar with how much they’re spending on studies to counter this. I do know, and it’s publicly available, that lobbying and campaign financing is — well, it dwarfs the rest of the industry. So, pharmaceutical companies are spending more than any other industry. And the second most is insurance companies. So, fossil fuels, for instance, or banking, they’re tiny fractions of how much are spent by those two industries.
AMY GOODMAN: Alison Galvani, we want to thank you so much for being with us, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis at Yale’s School of Public Health. We will link to your Lancet study, titled “Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA.”
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, the Latinx group Mijente endorses a candidate for the first time in its history. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-02-19--Bloomberg Gains in Democratic Primaries, But Has History of Hostility to Unions Key to Voter Turnout

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now !
, democracynow.org , The War and Peace Report .
I ’ m Amy Goodman , with Juan González , as we continue to look at the race , particularly looking at Michael Bloomberg running for mayor in New York City .
He equated a coveted endorsement from the United Federation of Teachers with the , quote , “ kiss of death.
” He went on to say , in this , quote , “ I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minds , but maybe they understand if the UFT wants it , it ain ’ t good and you don ’ t want that person.
” We ’ re staying with Hamilton Nolan , the In These Times labor reporter .
Hamilton , can you talk about this larger union issue and the billionaire presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg , who will take the stage in the debate , presidential primary debate , for the first time tonight in Las Vegas ?
HAMILTON NOLAN : Yeah , it ’ s really very striking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean , because coming into the 2020 race , I think you could make a really good argument that it was the most promising election year for organized labor in a long time .
The president was weak .
There was a big Democratic field , so unions had a lot of candidates to choose from .
The presidential candidates all really competed very strongly for union endorsements .
They all put out labor plans that are far more progressive than anything we ’ ve seen in recent U.S. history .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well positioned .
And now you have this megabillionaire jumping into the race , and Mike Bloomberg , as you pointed out , is not well liked by unions , especially in New York , unions that dealt with him when he was the mayor of New York .
It ’ s fair to say he is not a great friend of unions , not superpopular with unions that have dealt with him .
And so it ’ s this wild card in the race .
And it ’ s almost like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially if Bernie Sanders ends up being the leading candidate , as he is now .
If he keeps up with that and Bloomberg buys his way into the race , I mean , you really have such a strong contrast of visions for the Democratic Party and for organized labor , between , you know : Are people going to back the money , or are they going to back the socialist ?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Hamilton , in that vein , it wasn ’ t just that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I think that many of the unions , when he left office , hadn ’ t even been able to get a contract for up to five years , because the mayor refused to grant them any .
But he also — in a broader sense , he not only opposed $ 15 an hour in the raise in the minimum wage ; he opposed any raise in the minimum wage .
He also opposed paid sick leave when it was passed in New York City .
So , many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but have impact on working people in general , he ’ s on the side that the Democratic Party has left , supposedly , because all of these issues now , most of the Democratic Party candidates , presidential candidates , support .
HAMILTON NOLAN : Yeah , absolutely .
And , I mean , remember , Mike Bloomberg was a Republican not that long ago .
And I think , at heart , Mike Bloomberg probably still is a Republican .
And Mike Bloomberg ’ s governing record , in many areas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has issues like climate change and gun control that he touts that he ’ s been progressive on , but in many areas he governed like a Republican .
And it ’ s kind of shocking to see , you know , Mike Bloomberg decide to run for president and issue a press release and say , “ By the way , I was wrong about stop-and-frisk , ” for example , when he spent years and years and years defending this policy in New York when he was in control .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thing to say is , it will be a test of how credulous voters are when he says that he ’ s changed his heart on all these various issues , compared to what you look at his actual record is .
AMY GOODMAN : Hamilton Nolan , you ’ ve reported on the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers announcement that it ’ s endorsing Joe Biden for president .
It was his biggest union endorsement campaign so far in this presidential campaign .
Then nearly 1,300 IBEW members who support Bernie Sanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them to retract that decision .
The letter , from the ” IBEW Members for Bernie , ” blasts the union ’ s leadership for endorsing Biden without a vote of members , and says , in part , quote , “ [ W ] e are disappointed that the International has instead thrown their weight behind the Biden campaign without member consultation , ” and says they support Sanders ’ , quote , “ transformative vision for expanding the labor movement , as well as the democracy and the solidarity that his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this , and what you think will happen with the IBEW .
HAMILTON NOLAN : Yeah , I mean , there ’ s really two issues here .
The first is kind of the split between progressives and leftists within organized labor and moderates and centrists within organized labor , the establishment of organized labor .
Joe Biden obviously has some stronger connections to what you would consider to be the moderate factions of organized labor .
He was endorsed by the firefighters .
He was endorsed by the ironworkers and by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endorsement , more than 700,000 members .
And all these unions have factions within them that are far more progressive probably than the union leadership .
And in the case of the IBEW , what you saw was these Bernie supporters within the union put together a letter with a huge amount , 1,300 names , of union members .
And the point that they made was not just that they want the union to endorse Bernie , which is not actually what they asked for .
What they asked for was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And that ’ s really the second issue , is union democracy .
I mean , I think there ’ s a fair argument to be made that a labor union making a political endorsement that is not based on a vote of the members is , to a certain extent , meaningless , because it really just means that the head of that labor union , that ’ s their preferred candidate .
You know , if you have a union like the IBEW with 700,000 to 800,000 members and you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the members , what does the endorsement really mean ?
So , that ’ s what you ’ re seeing within the IBEW .
And I can tell you that the same — the very same thing is happening within other unions that have issued endorsements that the members don ’ t like , as well .
AMY GOODMAN : And finally , Marcie Wells , this is the first really diverse state that the primary and caucus is taking place in , the two of the whitest states , Iowa and New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it goes from Nevada , the caucus on Saturday , down to South Carolina .
The significance of this ?
MARCIE WELLS : The significance is it will be sort of a test of both the strategies that have been enacted by unions and everyone else , and sort of how much people have been paying attention as individuals .
We need to start recognizing the policies that help diverse populations .
And it ’ s pretty clear that Medicare for All is one of those policies that would sort of represent the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been looking for for a long time .
AMY GOODMAN : We want to thank you both for being with us , Marcie Wells , member of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada , very powerful union there , and thanks so much to Hamilton Nolan , labor reporter with In These Times , both speaking to us from Las Vegas , Nevada .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González, as we continue to look at the race, particularly looking at Michael Bloomberg running for mayor in New York City. He equated a coveted endorsement from the United Federation of Teachers with the, quote, “kiss of death.” He went on to say, in this, quote, “I don’t know what goes through voters’ minds, but maybe they understand if the UFT wants it, it ain’t good and you don’t want that person.” We’re staying with Hamilton Nolan, the In These Times labor reporter. Hamilton, can you talk about this larger union issue and the billionaire presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg, who will take the stage in the debate, presidential primary debate, for the first time tonight in Las Vegas?
HAMILTON NOLAN: Yeah, it’s really very striking, having Bloomberg jump into the race, I mean, because coming into the 2020 race, I think you could make a really good argument that it was the most promising election year for organized labor in a long time. The president was weak. There was a big Democratic field, so unions had a lot of candidates to choose from. The presidential candidates all really competed very strongly for union endorsements. They all put out labor plans that are far more progressive than anything we’ve seen in recent U.S. history. So, unions, I think, are well positioned.
And now you have this megabillionaire jumping into the race, and Mike Bloomberg, as you pointed out, is not well liked by unions, especially in New York, unions that dealt with him when he was the mayor of New York. It’s fair to say he is not a great friend of unions, not superpopular with unions that have dealt with him. And so it’s this wild card in the race. And it’s almost like a cartoon battle now in the Democratic primary, especially if Bernie Sanders ends up being the leading candidate, as he is now. If he keeps up with that and Bloomberg buys his way into the race, I mean, you really have such a strong contrast of visions for the Democratic Party and for organized labor, between, you know: Are people going to back the money, or are they going to back the socialist?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Hamilton, in that vein, it wasn’t just that he was in strong opposition to organized labor. I think that many of the unions, when he left office, hadn’t even been able to get a contract for up to five years, because the mayor refused to grant them any. But he also — in a broader sense, he not only opposed $15 an hour in the raise in the minimum wage; he opposed any raise in the minimum wage. He also opposed paid sick leave when it was passed in New York City. So, many of the issues that go beyond just organized unions but have impact on working people in general, he’s on the side that the Democratic Party has left, supposedly, because all of these issues now, most of the Democratic Party candidates, presidential candidates, support.
HAMILTON NOLAN: Yeah, absolutely. And, I mean, remember, Mike Bloomberg was a Republican not that long ago. And I think, at heart, Mike Bloomberg probably still is a Republican. And Mike Bloomberg’s governing record, in many areas — I mean, obviously, he has issues like climate change and gun control that he touts that he’s been progressive on, but in many areas he governed like a Republican. And it’s kind of shocking to see, you know, Mike Bloomberg decide to run for president and issue a press release and say, “By the way, I was wrong about stop-and-frisk,” for example, when he spent years and years and years defending this policy in New York when he was in control. So, again, I guess the analytical thing to say is, it will be a test of how credulous voters are when he says that he’s changed his heart on all these various issues, compared to what you look at his actual record is.
AMY GOODMAN: Hamilton Nolan, you’ve reported on the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers announcement that it’s endorsing Joe Biden for president. It was his biggest union endorsement campaign so far in this presidential campaign. Then nearly 1,300 IBEW members who support Bernie Sanders sent a letter to union membership asking them to retract that decision. The letter, from the ”IBEW Members for Bernie,” blasts the union’s leadership for endorsing Biden without a vote of members, and says, in part, quote, “[W]e are disappointed that the International has instead thrown their weight behind the Biden campaign without member consultation,” and says they support Sanders’, quote, “transformative vision for expanding the labor movement, as well as the democracy and the solidarity that his campaign embodies.” Talk about the significance of this, and what you think will happen with the IBEW.
HAMILTON NOLAN: Yeah, I mean, there’s really two issues here. The first is kind of the split between progressives and leftists within organized labor and moderates and centrists within organized labor, the establishment of organized labor. Joe Biden obviously has some stronger connections to what you would consider to be the moderate factions of organized labor. He was endorsed by the firefighters. He was endorsed by the ironworkers and by the IBEW, which was his biggest endorsement, more than 700,000 members. And all these unions have factions within them that are far more progressive probably than the union leadership.
And in the case of the IBEW, what you saw was these Bernie supporters within the union put together a letter with a huge amount, 1,300 names, of union members. And the point that they made was not just that they want the union to endorse Bernie, which is not actually what they asked for. What they asked for was a vote of the members for the endorsement. And that’s really the second issue, is union democracy. I mean, I think there’s a fair argument to be made that a labor union making a political endorsement that is not based on a vote of the members is, to a certain extent, meaningless, because it really just means that the head of that labor union, that’s their preferred candidate. You know, if you have a union like the IBEW with 700,000 to 800,000 members and you haven’t done a vote of the members, what does the endorsement really mean? So, that’s what you’re seeing within the IBEW. And I can tell you that the same — the very same thing is happening within other unions that have issued endorsements that the members don’t like, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, Marcie Wells, this is the first really diverse state that the primary and caucus is taking place in, the two of the whitest states, Iowa and New Hampshire, now done. And then it goes from Nevada, the caucus on Saturday, down to South Carolina. The significance of this?
MARCIE WELLS: The significance is it will be sort of a test of both the strategies that have been enacted by unions and everyone else, and sort of how much people have been paying attention as individuals. We need to start recognizing the policies that help diverse populations. And it’s pretty clear that Medicare for All is one of those policies that would sort of represent the freedom that a lot of people have been looking for for a long time.
AMY GOODMAN: We want to thank you both for being with us, Marcie Wells, member of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada, very powerful union there, and thanks so much to Hamilton Nolan, labor reporter with In These Times, both speaking to us from Las Vegas, Nevada.


democracynow--2020-02-19--Nevada Culinary Workers Union Member: I Would Trade My Union Healthcare for Medicare for All

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : We begin today ’ s show in Nevada , where the third state presidential primary vote takes place in the Nevada caucus on Saturday .
Early voting ended Tuesday , and polling stations reported long lines with more than 36,000 residents of the state opting to vote early .
Amid growing fears the vote-counting debacle in the Iowa caucus could be repeated , the chair of the Nevada Democratic Party has said they will not be using the same vote-reporting app or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems .
Nevada is the first state in the West to cast its vote in the Democratic race for the presidential nomination and also the first diverse state to be heard from so far .
One of the state ’ s most coveted endorsements is from the Culinary Workers Union , a division of UNITE HERE , which represents some 60,000 workers in the restaurant and hospitality industries in Las Vegas and Reno .
Its membership is 54 % Latinx .
Last week , they decided not to endorse any of the candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ treasurer of the Culinary Workers Union , speaking Thursday outside the union ’ s headquarters in Las Vegas .
AMY GOODMAN : Nevada is a so-called right-to-work state , and the Culinary Workers Union has attracted members by offering them healthcare .
It says it supports “ choices ” in healthcare .
The mobilization of service employees could be critical to winning the Nevada caucuses , so the union ’ s lack of endorsement for any candidate could be a setback for former Vice President Joe Biden and an opening for moderate candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Culinary Workers Union also decided not to endorse a candidate in 2016 race during the primaries between Sanders and Hillary Clinton .
For more , we go to Las Vegas , where we ’ re joined by two guests .
Marcie Wells is with us .
She ’ s an activist , a waitress , a single parent , who ’ s been a member of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada for 16 years .
She wrote an essay for Common Dreams titled “ I Have 'Some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Can Get , But I Would Trade It Today for Medicare for All.
” Also with us , Hamilton Nolan , labor reporter for In These Times .
We welcome you both to Democracy Now !
Hamilton , why don ’ t you give us the lay of the land in Nevada , why the Culinary Workers Union is so significant and the story of the healthcare they provide and why they have chosen not to support Medicare for All ?
HAMILTON NOLAN : Yeah .
Well , the Culinary Workers Union is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no doubt about it .
There are about 60,000 members strong .
They have successfully unionized the casino industry in Las Vegas .
And they ’ re really a role model for building power in a single industry for unions and for elevating people into the middle class who would not have otherwise been able to have middle-class jobs .
So they ’ re a great union .
They run their own healthcare center .
Healthcare is a big benefit of being in the Culinary Workers Union .
And I think that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ running up against the issue of Medicare for All in these primaries .
And the idealism of Medicare for All , that a lot of people in the Democratic Party and in the world of organized labor would like to see , is running up against unions that do run their own healthcare and use that as a benefit to help attract workers , especially in a right-to-work state like Nevada , where it can be harder to attract and maintain numbers .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : But , of course , Hamilton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that unless you ’ re going to be a member of the Culinary Workers Union for life and never leave to go to another job , that you will have health insurance , but , obviously , if you move to some other occupation , you face the reality that the healthcare that you get may not be — or the health insurance that you have may be far inferior .
Do you know what the debate has been , your sense , within the union on this issue ?
HAMILTON NOLAN : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there ’ s a debate not only within the Culinary Workers Union , but within the union world at large and within every major union in America right now .
And progressives do want Medicare for All .
And really , if you talk to a lot of people in the union world , if you talk to people who have negotiated union contracts , they ’ ll tell you that if unions did not have to bargain over healthcare , they would have so much more political capital to use to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things like that .
So , in a big picture sense , I think Medicare for All would be a great thing for unions and for organized labor .
It ’ s sort of this transition period where you have all these different unions that have their own healthcare plans that they have expended a lot of political capital on over the years , and they ’ re extremely nervous about , I think , the bridge between what we have now and what Medicare for All would be .
So , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of faith on behalf of the Culinary Workers Union and organized labor as a whole .
AMY GOODMAN : Marcie Wells , you ’ re with Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada .
You ’ ve been a proud union member for something like 16 years .
Tell us your story , what kind of healthcare you have .
Can you talk about — how does the healthcare work ?
You go down to a union hall , you sign up for the healthcare at the beginning and join the union at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Absolutely .
So , specifically for the place that I work , it was being opened when everyone started , when I started .
So , it was automatically union , so signing up for the union gets you the healthcare .
You do have to work 360 hours to qualify for the healthcare .
So , if you ’ re just starting out as a steady extra or something along those lines , you have to meet minimum requirements .
And then , once you meet those requirements , you have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or you don ’ t qualify .
In that case , for each hour that you ’ re short , you can pay $ 5 per hour to keep your insurance .
So , that ’ s kind of how the insurance works .
It ’ s not exactly free ; it costs labor .
So , for someone like me , I suffer with chronic illness .
There are flares , and there are moments when I can ’ t work .
And in addition to that , there are moments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get into the specialist I need to see in a timely manner , so I end up missing a lot of work , not qualifying for the insurance and sort of not even having the resources from work to pay for that insurance .
So , for someone with chronic illnesses , it is not really the best insurance .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And when you do have full coverage , what are some of the copays or the requirements out of pocket for workers ?
Are there any ?
MARCIE WELLS : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Culinary Health Center , there are not copays .
But at the same time , there aren ’ t any specialists there .
So , a person like me would still have to go outside of that location .
It ’ s $ 15 for a regular doctor visit , $ 20 to $ 30 per specialist visit .
If I need an MRI , which I do frequently , it ’ s $ 125 each time .
An endoscopy is $ 150 .
So there are out-of-pocket costs , just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because that ’ s what it is .
It ’ s private insurance .
AMY GOODMAN : So , talk about the debate within your union about whether to endorse Medicare for All , and how your co-workers feel .
MARCIE WELLS : Well , I wouldn ’ t even say it ’ s much of a debate as it relates to co-workers , especially for people that have been working in the industry for a long time .
Locally , we have this sort of local lore about culinary union and good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the idea of these golden handcuffs that sort of keep you tethered to an industry that you may not be physically or emotionally invested in anymore and there ’ s not really a way out .
MARCIE WELLS : The debate is more centered around democracy , and people feeling like their voices are not being heard by the union that represents them .
You know , we ’ re paying dues , and at the same time culinary has a political PAC that a lot of us donate money to .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to get to this moment and see that we ’ re not being heard and we ’ re also being intentionally or unintentionally misled , because for everyone that is a person that looks like me in America , you ’ re more likely to be uninsured than someone who is white or Asian .
And that is not any different here in Nevada .
So it ’ s kind of sad to think that in Nevada you will only be protected under the umbrella of the culinary union .
We have friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the union , and , you know , it sort of projects this false image of elitism in a working-class town .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And I wanted to ask you .
The union in the past has mobilized members to participate in caucuses .
If I ’ m not mistaken , some caucuses were even held on the grounds of some of the hotels .
What ’ s been the mobilization effort to get out members to vote , even if the union is not endorsing any candidate this time around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same as any political organization , because that side is more politically based .
So , there are town halls at the union with each candidate .
There are text messages and , you know , just reaching out to get members to participate in the process and to influence members on which way to vote as it relates to how a person could benefit the culinary union as a whole .
So they sort of give an overview of good for union/bad for union , and then let the workers do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caucus locations for people that work day shifts , so you don ’ t have to miss out or leave work .
They ’ re right inside the hotels , so that ’ s very convenient .
So , yeah , I would say this time around there ’ s a lot of attention on caucusing and a lot of attention on Medicare for All .
And the culinary ’ s message is we don ’ t want Medicare for All .
But membership message is we want Medicare for All .
AMY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in your essay for Common Dreams , that last November you attended a Bernie Sanders town hall held by the union in Las Vegas .
And tell us what you saw .
MARCIE WELLS : Well , in general , it was great .
Bernie was getting great reception from the crowd .
And then , when the question-and-answer portion happened , a little chaos erupted , and people started heckling , chanting “ Union healthcare !
Union Healthcare !
” And I did see people that were employed by the union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those chants .
In addition to that , the questions that were asked were not random .
I don ’ t think I would ever get an opportunity to stand up and ask a question , because they ’ re kind of staged , if you will .
They ’ re preselected , and the people that are going to ask them are also preselected .
AMY GOODMAN : So , Hamilton Nolan , can you talk about what the nonendorsement means ?
Who do you think ultimately lost here ?
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bernie Sanders , who endorses Medicare for All , and then you have Vice President Biden , who also didn ’ t get the endorsement and doesn ’ t support Medicare for All .
HAMILTON NOLAN : Yeah , it ’ s interesting , and there are a lot of competing theories out there , and I ’ ve heard a lot of competing theories and rumors about this .
I mean , in one sense , Bernie Sanders did lose , because he , I think , would make the argument that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate , for organized labor , and so the fact that he didn ’ t get the culinary workers ’ endorsement , you could say , is a loss for him .
On the other hand , there were rumors flying when — last week , when the union put out the flyer that kind of dinged Bernie .
Everybody started talking about who they were going to endorse .
“ Are they going to endorse Pete ?
Are they going to endorse Biden ?
Are they going to endorse Warren ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t win Iowa and New Hampshire would love to get that endorsement , because it ’ s seen as a real pathway to winning Nevada .
And I think that the fact that the union didn ’ t endorse anyone may be a bit of a signal that they looked at the polls and thought about the fact that they don ’ t want to endorse somebody in Nevada who doesn ’ t win Nevada , because if the union were to come out and endorse a candidate that didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weak .
And that did happen in 2008 , I believe .
They endorsed Obama , and he didn ’ t win Nevada .
That ’ s not something that the culinary union wants to do .
So , a lot of people that I spoke to saw the nonendorsement as sort of a tacit acknowledgment that Bernie Sanders is looking very strong in Nevada , and they decided to just stay out of it .
JUAN GONZÁLEZ : And , Hamilton , the issue that some of the leaders of the Culinary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Bernie Sanders supporters that they received afterward , do you get a sense that this is having any impact on how people will vote ?
I know Bernie Sanders did come out with a statement saying that that ’ s not what his supporters should be doing , but he didn ’ t really come down hard on his people and tell them to stop it .
HAMILTON NOLAN : Yeah .
I mean , I think it goes to the core issue that Bernie Sanders does not control everybody on Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been writing on the internet for 10 years , and I can tell you that every time I write something or say something on the internet , there ’ s a thousand people who call me an idiot .
And , you know , it happens on the internet .
And the fact that people are saying mean things on Twitter , I think , is not necessarily an issue for the Bernie Sanders campaign per se .
I mean , you saw Mike Bloomberg actually put out an attack ad recently , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Twitter , mean things .
So , it ’ s clear that campaigns are trying to make this an issue , but I think if we ’ re being fair , you can ’ t really hold a campaign responsible for something that random people are saying on Twitter .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to go to the issue of Mayor Bloomberg , but we ’ re going to break and then come back to this discussion .
We ’ re speaking right now with Hamilton Nolan , who is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Marcie Wells of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada , where the caucus will take place on Saturday .
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: We begin today’s show in Nevada, where the third state presidential primary vote takes place in the Nevada caucus on Saturday. Early voting ended Tuesday, and polling stations reported long lines with more than 36,000 residents of the state opting to vote early. Amid growing fears the vote-counting debacle in the Iowa caucus could be repeated, the chair of the Nevada Democratic Party has said they will not be using the same vote-reporting app or vendor, and have developed backup reporting systems. Nevada is the first state in the West to cast its vote in the Democratic race for the presidential nomination and also the first diverse state to be heard from so far.
One of the state’s most coveted endorsements is from the Culinary Workers Union, a division of UNITE HERE, which represents some 60,000 workers in the restaurant and hospitality industries in Las Vegas and Reno. Its membership is 54% Latinx. Last week, they decided not to endorse any of the candidates. This is Geoconda Argüello-Kline, secretary treasurer of the Culinary Workers Union, speaking Thursday outside the union’s headquarters in Las Vegas.
GEOCONDA ARGÜELLO-KLINE: The official announcement is we’re going to endorse our goals, what we’re doing. That’s what we’re going to endorse. We’re not going to endorse a candidate, a political candidate. We respect every single political candidate right now.
AMY GOODMAN: Nevada is a so-called right-to-work state, and the Culinary Workers Union has attracted members by offering them healthcare. It says it supports “choices” in healthcare. The mobilization of service employees could be critical to winning the Nevada caucuses, so the union’s lack of endorsement for any candidate could be a setback for former Vice President Joe Biden and an opening for moderate candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar. The Culinary Workers Union also decided not to endorse a candidate in 2016 race during the primaries between Sanders and Hillary Clinton.
For more, we go to Las Vegas, where we’re joined by two guests. Marcie Wells is with us. She’s an activist, a waitress, a single parent, who’s been a member of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada for 16 years. She wrote an essay for Common Dreams titled “I Have 'Some of the Best' Health Insurance a Union Member Can Get, But I Would Trade It Today for Medicare for All.” Also with us, Hamilton Nolan, labor reporter for In These Times.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Hamilton, why don’t you give us the lay of the land in Nevada, why the Culinary Workers Union is so significant and the story of the healthcare they provide and why they have chosen not to support Medicare for All?
HAMILTON NOLAN: Yeah. Well, the Culinary Workers Union is one of the best unions in America, no doubt about it. There are about 60,000 members strong. They have successfully unionized the casino industry in Las Vegas. And they’re really a role model for building power in a single industry for unions and for elevating people into the middle class who would not have otherwise been able to have middle-class jobs. So they’re a great union.
They run their own healthcare center. Healthcare is a big benefit of being in the Culinary Workers Union. And I think that that is the reality that’s running up against the issue of Medicare for All in these primaries. And the idealism of Medicare for All, that a lot of people in the Democratic Party and in the world of organized labor would like to see, is running up against unions that do run their own healthcare and use that as a benefit to help attract workers, especially in a right-to-work state like Nevada, where it can be harder to attract and maintain numbers.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But, of course, Hamilton, that issue runs up against the reality that unless you’re going to be a member of the Culinary Workers Union for life and never leave to go to another job, that you will have health insurance, but, obviously, if you move to some other occupation, you face the reality that the healthcare that you get may not be — or the health insurance that you have may be far inferior. Do you know what the debate has been, your sense, within the union on this issue?
HAMILTON NOLAN: There definitely is a debate. And there’s a debate not only within the Culinary Workers Union, but within the union world at large and within every major union in America right now. And progressives do want Medicare for All. And really, if you talk to a lot of people in the union world, if you talk to people who have negotiated union contracts, they’ll tell you that if unions did not have to bargain over healthcare, they would have so much more political capital to use to make other gains for workers: wages and things like that. So, in a big picture sense, I think Medicare for All would be a great thing for unions and for organized labor. It’s sort of this transition period where you have all these different unions that have their own healthcare plans that they have expended a lot of political capital on over the years, and they’re extremely nervous about, I think, the bridge between what we have now and what Medicare for All would be. So, it’s going to require a leap of faith on behalf of the Culinary Workers Union and organized labor as a whole.
AMY GOODMAN: Marcie Wells, you’re with Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada. You’ve been a proud union member for something like 16 years. Tell us your story, what kind of healthcare you have. Can you talk about — how does the healthcare work? You go down to a union hall, you sign up for the healthcare at the beginning and join the union at the same time?
MARCIE WELLS: Absolutely. So, specifically for the place that I work, it was being opened when everyone started, when I started. So, it was automatically union, so signing up for the union gets you the healthcare. You do have to work 360 hours to qualify for the healthcare. So, if you’re just starting out as a steady extra or something along those lines, you have to meet minimum requirements. And then, once you meet those requirements, you have to work 240 hours within a two-month period, or you don’t qualify. In that case, for each hour that you’re short, you can pay $5 per hour to keep your insurance. So, that’s kind of how the insurance works. It’s not exactly free; it costs labor.
So, for someone like me, I suffer with chronic illness. There are flares, and there are moments when I can’t work. And in addition to that, there are moments when I’m not able to get into the specialist I need to see in a timely manner, so I end up missing a lot of work, not qualifying for the insurance and sort of not even having the resources from work to pay for that insurance. So, for someone with chronic illnesses, it is not really the best insurance.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when you do have full coverage, what are some of the copays or the requirements out of pocket for workers? Are there any?
MARCIE WELLS: Well, if you’re going to the Culinary Health Center, there are not copays. But at the same time, there aren’t any specialists there. So, a person like me would still have to go outside of that location. It’s $15 for a regular doctor visit, $20 to $30 per specialist visit. If I need an MRI, which I do frequently, it’s $125 each time. An endoscopy is $150. So there are out-of-pocket costs, just like with any other private insurance, because that’s what it is. It’s private insurance.
AMY GOODMAN: So, talk about the debate within your union about whether to endorse Medicare for All, and how your co-workers feel.
MARCIE WELLS: Well, I wouldn’t even say it’s much of a debate as it relates to co-workers, especially for people that have been working in the industry for a long time. Locally, we have this sort of local lore about culinary union and good insurance, but there’s also the idea of these golden handcuffs that sort of keep you tethered to an industry that you may not be physically or emotionally invested in anymore and there’s not really a way out.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And —
MARCIE WELLS: So, the debate —
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Go ahead.
MARCIE WELLS: The debate is more centered around democracy, and people feeling like their voices are not being heard by the union that represents them. You know, we’re paying dues, and at the same time culinary has a political PAC that a lot of us donate money to. So, it’s kind of disheartening to get to this moment and see that we’re not being heard and we’re also being intentionally or unintentionally misled, because for everyone that is a person that looks like me in America, you’re more likely to be uninsured than someone who is white or Asian. And that is not any different here in Nevada. So it’s kind of sad to think that in Nevada you will only be protected under the umbrella of the culinary union. We have friends and family here that aren’t in the union, and, you know, it sort of projects this false image of elitism in a working-class town.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And I wanted to ask you. The union in the past has mobilized members to participate in caucuses. If I’m not mistaken, some caucuses were even held on the grounds of some of the hotels. What’s been the mobilization effort to get out members to vote, even if the union is not endorsing any candidate this time around?
MARCIE WELLS: It’s the same as any political organization, because that side is more politically based. So, there are town halls at the union with each candidate. There are text messages and, you know, just reaching out to get members to participate in the process and to influence members on which way to vote as it relates to how a person could benefit the culinary union as a whole. So they sort of give an overview of good for union/bad for union, and then let the workers do the rest. And there are Strip caucus locations for people that work day shifts, so you don’t have to miss out or leave work. They’re right inside the hotels, so that’s very convenient. So, yeah, I would say this time around there’s a lot of attention on caucusing and a lot of attention on Medicare for All. And the culinary’s message is we don’t want Medicare for All. But membership message is we want Medicare for All.
AMY GOODMAN: Marcie Wells, you wrote, in your essay for Common Dreams, that last November you attended a Bernie Sanders town hall held by the union in Las Vegas. And tell us what you saw.
MARCIE WELLS: Well, in general, it was great. Bernie was getting great reception from the crowd. And then, when the question-and-answer portion happened, a little chaos erupted, and people started heckling, chanting “Union healthcare! Union Healthcare!” And I did see people that were employed by the union, paid organizers, in the middle of those chants. In addition to that, the questions that were asked were not random. I don’t think I would ever get an opportunity to stand up and ask a question, because they’re kind of staged, if you will. They’re preselected, and the people that are going to ask them are also preselected.
AMY GOODMAN: So, Hamilton Nolan, can you talk about what the nonendorsement means? Who do you think ultimately lost here? I mean, of course, you have Bernie Sanders, who endorses Medicare for All, and then you have Vice President Biden, who also didn’t get the endorsement and doesn’t support Medicare for All.
HAMILTON NOLAN: Yeah, it’s interesting, and there are a lot of competing theories out there, and I’ve heard a lot of competing theories and rumors about this. I mean, in one sense, Bernie Sanders did lose, because he, I think, would make the argument that he is the candidate, the strongest candidate, for organized labor, and so the fact that he didn’t get the culinary workers’ endorsement, you could say, is a loss for him. On the other hand, there were rumors flying when — last week, when the union put out the flyer that kind of dinged Bernie. Everybody started talking about who they were going to endorse. “Are they going to endorse Pete? Are they going to endorse Biden? Are they going to endorse Warren?” Obviously, all those candidates who didn’t win Iowa and New Hampshire would love to get that endorsement, because it’s seen as a real pathway to winning Nevada.
And I think that the fact that the union didn’t endorse anyone may be a bit of a signal that they looked at the polls and thought about the fact that they don’t want to endorse somebody in Nevada who doesn’t win Nevada, because if the union were to come out and endorse a candidate that didn’t win, it makes the union look weak. And that did happen in 2008, I believe. They endorsed Obama, and he didn’t win Nevada. That’s not something that the culinary union wants to do. So, a lot of people that I spoke to saw the nonendorsement as sort of a tacit acknowledgment that Bernie Sanders is looking very strong in Nevada, and they decided to just stay out of it.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Hamilton, the issue that some of the leaders of the Culinary Workers Union raised about harassment and threats by Bernie Sanders supporters that they received afterward, do you get a sense that this is having any impact on how people will vote? I know Bernie Sanders did come out with a statement saying that that’s not what his supporters should be doing, but he didn’t really come down hard on his people and tell them to stop it.
HAMILTON NOLAN: Yeah. I mean, I think it goes to the core issue that Bernie Sanders does not control everybody on Twitter. I mean, I’ve been writing on the internet for 10 years, and I can tell you that every time I write something or say something on the internet, there’s a thousand people who call me an idiot. And, you know, it happens on the internet. And the fact that people are saying mean things on Twitter, I think, is not necessarily an issue for the Bernie Sanders campaign per se. I mean, you saw Mike Bloomberg actually put out an attack ad recently, just pulling things that people had said on Twitter, mean things. So, it’s clear that campaigns are trying to make this an issue, but I think if we’re being fair, you can’t really hold a campaign responsible for something that random people are saying on Twitter.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to the issue of Mayor Bloomberg, but we’re going to break and then come back to this discussion. We’re speaking right now with Hamilton Nolan, who is a labor reporter with In These Times, and Marcie Wells of the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 in Nevada, where the caucus will take place on Saturday. Stay with us.


democracynow--2020-02-19--Headlines for February 19, 2020

Headlines for February 19, 2020

President Trump falsely called himself the “ chief law enforcement officer ” of the United States Tuesday .
This is Trump speaking about the Justice Department ’ s abrupt decision to withdraw an earlier sentencing recommendation for Trump ’ s close friend and former campaign adviser Roger Stone , who was found guilty of seven counts of lying to Congress .
President Donald Trump : “ Just so you understand , I chose not to be involved .
I ’ m allowed to be totally involved .
I ’ m actually , I guess , the chief law enforcement officer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve chosen not to be involved.
” Trump ’ s statement is not correct : The attorney general is the United States ’ top law enforcement officer , not the president .
Trump ’ s false claim comes as more than 2,000 former Justice Department officials have now called on Attorney General William Barr to resign , after he intervened in Stone ’ s sentencing .
Four federal prosecutors withdrew from the case , and one resigned from his job , over Barr ’ s actions .
The Federal Judges Association is holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerns about Trump ’ s intervention in the Stone case and the Justice Department overall .
Roger Stone will be sentenced on Thursday , despite Trump demanding a new trial .

President Trump falsely called himself the “chief law enforcement officer” of the United States Tuesday. This is Trump speaking about the Justice Department’s abrupt decision to withdraw an earlier sentencing recommendation for Trump’s close friend and former campaign adviser Roger Stone, who was found guilty of seven counts of lying to Congress.
President Donald Trump: “Just so you understand, I chose not to be involved. I’m allowed to be totally involved. I’m actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country. But I’ve chosen not to be involved.”
Trump’s statement is not correct: The attorney general is the United States’ top law enforcement officer, not the president. Trump’s false claim comes as more than 2,000 former Justice Department officials have now called on Attorney General William Barr to resign, after he intervened in Stone’s sentencing. Four federal prosecutors withdrew from the case, and one resigned from his job, over Barr’s actions. The Federal Judges Association is holding an emergency meeting today amid the growing concerns about Trump’s intervention in the Stone case and the Justice Department overall. Roger Stone will be sentenced on Thursday, despite Trump demanding a new trial.


democracynow--2020-02-20--Mayor Pete Attacked by Rush Limbaugh Amid Debate over Whether He Is an LGBTQ Trailblazer

This is a rush transcript .
Copy may not be in its final form .
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to bring Annise Parker into the conversation , former mayor of Houston , Texas , president of the LGBTQ Victory Fund , which works on increasing the number of openly LGBTQ officials in government and has endorsed Mayor Pete Buttigieg for president .
As Amy Klobuchar tried to defend herself for forgetting the Mexican president ’ s name by saying to Pete Buttigieg , “ Are you suggesting that I ’ m dumb ?
” your thoughts , Annise Parker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the heat of the moment , a lot of things were said last night .
What I appreciated about Mayor Buttigieg is that , as he has done in every one of the debates , he continued to not just attempt to speak to Democratic primary voters .
He was trying to speak to the broader American electorate and to keep focused on the priority in this campaign , which is to ultimately beat Donald Trump .
It ’ s unfortunate that we ’ ve reached the point in the campaign where people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staying focused on : Let ’ s have a robust policy debate so that we can prepare ourselves for a win in November .
AMY GOODMAN : And why did you endorse , and the Victory Fund endorse , South Bend former Mayor Pete Buttigieg ?
ANNISE PARKER : Mayor Pete ’ s candidacy , Mayor Buttigieg ’ s candidacy , is why we exist as an organization .
We are focused on achieving more equal representation of the LGBTQ community in American political life at all levels of government .
We didn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entered the campaign .
In fact , I had a conversation with him and said , “ You ’ re going to have to get out there and compete on a level playing field and show that you belong on the national stage as a candidate for president.
” He did that over and over again .
And last June , we endorsed him .
I believe personally , and I believe as the head of my organization , that he is the best candidate for this job .
AMY GOODMAN : I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t last night but was the night before , when Pete Buttigieg was being questioned by Erin Burnett .
He was in a CNN town hall , and he was being asked about the horrific homophobic comments , you know , of the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh , who went into a homophobic rampage against Pete Buttigieg .
This was Limbaugh on his radio show .
AMY GOODMAN : So , this was Erin Burnett questioning Pete Buttigieg about this in a town hall the night before the debate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ’ d like to respond ?
ANNISE PARKER : Well , you have Rush Limbaugh doing the same shtick Rush Limbaugh has done for a couple of decades now and Pete Buttigieg going directly to that .
We know as an organization , and I know personally , that Americans will vote for capable , qualified LGBT candidates when they are the right candidate for the job and they have the good policies and they are prepared to lead .
We have elected LGBTQ leaders at every level of government in America @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every position , except president of the United States .
That ’ s just the next step .
I happen to believe that Pete Buttigieg is ready for that next step , and he ’ s positioned himself .
And he ’ s not going to take the bait .
That ’ s what ’ s so amazing about Pete ’ s ability to focus on the issues and let the attacks fall away .
Do I believe that Americans are ready for an LGBT president ?
Yes .
Do I believe Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Yes .
Do I believe Americans are ready to vote Donald Trump out of office ?
Yet , and one of the people — yes .
And yet , one of the people on that stage last night has to be ready to step up and take the mantle .
I am proud of all of the candidates .
I am particularly proud that , as a body , as a party , Democrats have advanced so far on LGBTQ issues .
But they ’ re not that far away from where the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMY GOODMAN : Raquel Willis , you ’ re the executive editor of Out magazine .
Your thoughts on Pete Buttigieg , and why you chose to endorse Senator Warren ?
RAQUEL WILLIS : So , I think that it ’ s great , you know , that he is an openly gay candidate .
However , I do think that it ’ s important for us to remember that your identity isn ’ t enough .
And exactly what was just said , as a black trans woman , it doesn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for when you tell me that we ’ re in the same community .
And for me , it was important to really endorse someone that I feel has been very intentional about their outreach particularly to LGBTQ organizers , black and brown organizers who are on the ground .
And so , the campaigns that have done that work have really spoken to me , and I think Senator Warren has done that probably better than — actually , I would say she ’ s definitely done that better than the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say is that I think what also is important is , when I really look at what Mayor Buttigieg stands for , he stands for the status quo .
He stands for us kind of not really rocking the boat enough .
He feels that particularly someone like Senator Elizabeth Warren , who is really out there interested in tackling corruption on all levels in the government , is really gunning for a fight that isn ’ t necessary , and I think that that is so necessary .
I think that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how even when you are of a marginalized group , you may have many privileges .
And so , the way that the world operated in 2016 , before Trump was in office , may have been fine for you .
I mean , you know , I think that for a lot of LGBTQ folks , particularly those who are black and brown and more marginalized , we need more .
We do need a revolution .
People were hurting before .
We need people who are fighting for those who are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detained , fighting for those who are trying to access a healthcare system that has really ignored them for so long .
And I think that someone like Senator Elizabeth Warren , who is really trying to uproot and get out of here all of that corruption , is who we need to be standing behind in this moment , because , as you will notice in particularly the mayor ’ s closing statement last night , he made a statement that he ’ s gunning for people who are interested in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a revolution .
That really makes no sense .
You know , I think that you have to be very clear about where you stand .
And for me , I think maybe he ’ s afraid to say that he stands for the status quo , but I know what the people that I roll with in the LGBTQ community are looking for , and they ’ re looking for something that is going to blow past the status quo that has forgotten us for so long .
AMY GOODMAN : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was “ We shouldn ’ t have to choose between one candidate who wants to burn this party down and another who wants to buy this party out.
” We have to go to break , and then we ’ re going to come back to the discussion .
This is Democracy Now !
Stay with us .

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Annise Parker into the conversation, former mayor of Houston, Texas, president of the LGBTQ Victory Fund, which works on increasing the number of openly LGBTQ officials in government and has endorsed Mayor Pete Buttigieg for president. As Amy Klobuchar tried to defend herself for forgetting the Mexican president’s name by saying to Pete Buttigieg, “Are you suggesting that I’m dumb?” your thoughts, Annise Parker?
ANNISE PARKER: I think in the heat of the moment, a lot of things were said last night. What I appreciated about Mayor Buttigieg is that, as he has done in every one of the debates, he continued to not just attempt to speak to Democratic primary voters. He was trying to speak to the broader American electorate and to keep focused on the priority in this campaign, which is to ultimately beat Donald Trump. It’s unfortunate that we’ve reached the point in the campaign where people are throwing elbows on stage and not staying focused on: Let’s have a robust policy debate so that we can prepare ourselves for a win in November.
AMY GOODMAN: And why did you endorse, and the Victory Fund endorse, South Bend former Mayor Pete Buttigieg?
ANNISE PARKER: Mayor Pete’s candidacy, Mayor Buttigieg’s candidacy, is why we exist as an organization. We are focused on achieving more equal representation of the LGBTQ community in American political life at all levels of government. We didn’t endorse him when he first entered the campaign. In fact, I had a conversation with him and said, “You’re going to have to get out there and compete on a level playing field and show that you belong on the national stage as a candidate for president.” He did that over and over again. And last June, we endorsed him. I believe personally, and I believe as the head of my organization, that he is the best candidate for this job.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to a moment that wasn’t last night but was the night before, when Pete Buttigieg was being questioned by Erin Burnett. He was in a CNN town hall, and he was being asked about the horrific homophobic comments, you know, of the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, who went into a homophobic rampage against Pete Buttigieg. This was Limbaugh on his radio show.
RUSH LIMBAUGH: They’re looking at Mayor Pete, 37-year-old gay guy, mayor of South Bend, loves to kiss his husband on the debate stage. And they’re saying, “OK, how is this going to look? Thirty-seven-year-old gay guy kissing his husband on stage next to Mr. Man, Donald Trump. What’s going to happen there?” And they got to be looking at that, and they’ve got to be saying that despite all the great progress and despite all the great wokeness and despite all the great ground that’s been covered, America’s still not ready to elect a gay guy kissing his husband on the debate stage president.
AMY GOODMAN: So, this was Erin Burnett questioning Pete Buttigieg about this in a town hall the night before the debate.
PETE BUTTIGIEG: The idea of the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Donald Trump lecturing anybody on family values? I mean, … one thing about my marriage is it’s never involved me having to send hush money to a porn star after cheating on my spouse, with him or her. So, they want to debate family values? Let’s debate family values. I’m ready.
AMY GOODMAN: Annise Parker, if you’d like to respond?
ANNISE PARKER: Well, you have Rush Limbaugh doing the same shtick Rush Limbaugh has done for a couple of decades now and Pete Buttigieg going directly to that. We know as an organization, and I know personally, that Americans will vote for capable, qualified LGBT candidates when they are the right candidate for the job and they have the good policies and they are prepared to lead. We have elected LGBTQ leaders at every level of government in America, every state, every level, every position, except president of the United States. That’s just the next step. I happen to believe that Pete Buttigieg is ready for that next step, and he’s positioned himself. And he’s not going to take the bait. That’s what’s so amazing about Pete’s ability to focus on the issues and let the attacks fall away.
Do I believe that Americans are ready for an LGBT president? Yes. Do I believe Americans are ready for a woman president? Yes. Do I believe Americans are ready to vote Donald Trump out of office? Yet, and one of the people — yes. And yet, one of the people on that stage last night has to be ready to step up and take the mantle. I am proud of all of the candidates. I am particularly proud that, as a body, as a party, Democrats have advanced so far on LGBTQ issues. But they’re not that far away from where the American population is, as well.
AMY GOODMAN: Raquel Willis, you’re the executive editor of Out magazine. Your thoughts on Pete Buttigieg, and why you chose to endorse Senator Warren?
RAQUEL WILLIS: So, I think that it’s great, you know, that he is an openly gay candidate. However, I do think that it’s important for us to remember that your identity isn’t enough. And exactly what was just said, as a black trans woman, it doesn’t necessarily tell me what you stand for when you tell me that we’re in the same community. And for me, it was important to really endorse someone that I feel has been very intentional about their outreach particularly to LGBTQ organizers, black and brown organizers who are on the ground. And so, the campaigns that have done that work have really spoken to me, and I think Senator Warren has done that probably better than — actually, I would say she’s definitely done that better than the other campaigns.
The other thing I will say is that I think what also is important is, when I really look at what Mayor Buttigieg stands for, he stands for the status quo. He stands for us kind of not really rocking the boat enough. He feels that particularly someone like Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is really out there interested in tackling corruption on all levels in the government, is really gunning for a fight that isn’t necessary, and I think that that is so necessary. I think that we really have to have a conversation about how even when you are of a marginalized group, you may have many privileges. And so, the way that the world operated in 2016, before Trump was in office, may have been fine for you. I mean, you know, I think that for a lot of LGBTQ folks, particularly those who are black and brown and more marginalized, we need more. We do need a revolution. People were hurting before. We need people who are fighting for those who are incarcerated, fighting for those who are detained, fighting for those who are trying to access a healthcare system that has really ignored them for so long. And I think that someone like Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is really trying to uproot and get out of here all of that corruption, is who we need to be standing behind in this moment, because, as you will notice in particularly the mayor’s closing statement last night, he made a statement that he’s gunning for people who are interested in the status quo and aren’t interested in a revolution. That really makes no sense. You know, I think that you have to be very clear about where you stand. And for me, I think maybe he’s afraid to say that he stands for the status quo, but I know what the people that I roll with in the LGBTQ community are looking for, and they’re looking for something that is going to blow past the status quo that has forgotten us for so long.
AMY GOODMAN: Or another way Pete Buttigieg put it was “We shouldn’t have to choose between one candidate who wants to burn this party down and another who wants to buy this party out.” We have to go to break, and then we’re going to come back to the discussion. This is Democracy Now! Stay with us.