Home | About | Donate

'She Understands Healthcare Is a Right for All': Sanders Endorses Dr. Arati Kreibich's Bid to Oust Right-Wing Democrat Josh Gottheimer

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/06/15/she-understands-healthcare-right-all-sanders-endorses-dr-arati-kreibichs-bid-oust

1 Like

Thank you for this article. I will add Dr. Arati Kreibich to my list of candidates to watch and perhaps donate to (some races are coming up fast). So far my list is:

Dr. Arati Kreibich
Jamal Bowman
Paula Jean Swearengin
Charles Booker
Lisa Savage

Does anybody know of other good ones to add? I’m still going through ~http://inthesetimes.com/features/bernie_sanders_democrats_political_revolution_candidates.html which lists some other names.


Shahid Buttar


Bernie tells us to vote for Joe Biden. There’s no reason to take his advice on this candidate as any more valid than his advice on Joe. The man has already illustrated his lack of integrity with his recommendations against his asserted principles.

1 Like

Bernie just pointed you to a candidate based on her policy positions. If you disagree with her policy positions, don’t support her. If you agree with her policy positions, what difference does it make if you’re pissed off at Bernie for endorsing Biden? Why would you not support someone who favors the same things you do?


I disagree with the fantasy that Bernie is a reliable source. The only evidence I have is that the individual wishes to join an organization that actively suppresses the policies she allegedly advocates, and that a guy who likes Biden likes her too.

Maybe you should visit her website instead of projecting your cynicism on her. If you’re looking for evidence, go to the source—what the candidate says she stands for. Or is your position that anyone who has good policy positions but runs as a Democrat should be opposed, because you think the party won’t support the policies the candidate actually supports?

1 Like

Lawrence Hamm

1 Like

Why yes, that is my position.

It’s time to wake up and see what policies your Democrats have been delivering these last 40 years, and how they’ve rigged the last two presidential election cycles in opposition to actual one man one vote democracy.

People of good will have to stop throwing their votes down a rat hole. Tradition is one thing, but to never catch on, at some point, becomes a competence thing.

Let’s say you liked Tide Detergent, would you keep buying for 40 years if the formula gradually switched to a mixture of clay and motor oil? No because that’s what you were trying to get out. The last Democratic President is a self-described middle of the road Republican, and his only achievement was a Republican initiative the first two times it had been proposed. The Democratic Party brand has been sold to the same owners as the Republican Party brand, it’s time we make the merger mandatory, and started a party to advocate according to the preferences of the citizens.

If I were voting in this race, where should I throw my vote? I’m no fan of the Democratic Party, and this woman seems better than the alternatives, but maybe you know something I don’t about her or the other choices in that race. Her opponent seems decidedly worse. Who should be supported or opposed in this particular race?

PS They aren’t “my” Democrats.

PPS It appears you’re in a cul-de-sac at this point. There’s no way out to improve our collective well-being if we can’t vote for candidates who have policy positions we agree with.

1 Like

When in the last 36 years have we had a chance to improve our collective well-being? The erosion of our collective well-being has been moving on the same bi-partisan arc for over 40 years now. There’s so little policy difference between the brands that they have to make stuff up to even have a contest, the Dems have the Ruskies and the Repubs have the “Mexicans.” They don’t really care who gets the votes as long as only those brands do.

“Primary the motherfuckers!”

Actually, on January 1,1995 when we joined the World TO a great many services became corporations’ right to sell, and member governments agreed to not interfere between them and their prey unless those services had not been committed (like we did two years later with health insurance and a number of health related services) also they needed to be completely noncommercial and lacking one or more competitors. So its unambiguous, in the United States corporations have a right to non-interference from governments and we are trying to promote - in a permanent and irrevocable sense, everworse and more restrictive limits with our so called “next generation” trade agreements.

I am increasingly worried that Bernie Sanders is intentionally deceiving the public - even though externally he seems to be saying “the right things” they would have only really been the right things if we had not made these commitments in the mid 90s, now they are the wrong things because we need to exit other commitments first.

Its as if he is proposing marriage without having divorced a wife first.

So the implications of what he is proposing are actually wrong because they ignore the reality, and punitive sanctions we could end up triggering if we tried to ignore the fact that our healthcare has been rigged for 25 years, and we need to explain how.

He only would be right if he was doing that, he’s not, AND in the real world, we are literally fighting a war on public healthcare, we undeniably are. So Common Dreams, I beg you to stop allowing the unquestioning perpetration of this misleading kind of comment without qualifying it in some way with the facts,

Would it be that hard to qualify your articles with some facts about how in the US we committed and plan to firther commit numerous service sectors and also financial services, like health insurance, to these deals and that particularly the financial services agreements, tie our hands now.

This would make your site a lot more factual and less inaccurate when it comes to the situation with health care in particular.

Its not helpful for an entire country to be operating under a phony assumption that politicians who have zero intention of the kind might come around toour point of view when all the evidence is that they actually take the exact opposite view.

They seem to be relying on others making staements one might easily conclude were intended to create phony hope in desperate people who are literally dying in large numbers because our healthcare system has been rigged for 25 years.

Bluntly, Sanders should know better than to say that there *healthcare is a right for All, he should have said that there really, urgently should be a legal right to healthcare for all but its been hijacked by at least one trade agreement.

Because thats the facts. Currently in the US which is signatory to the GATS there is no such right whatsoever now, and in fact we are aggressively fighting all proposals that even hint at anything of that nature, and have been doing that for decades…

A national law, EMTALA basically requires that US hospitals stabilize patients who present with life threatieng conditions but that means simply that they stabilize them and then in many cases send them out the door as soon as they can with a handfull of pills and a note for their doctor. Sometimes still attached to an IV line. I have seen that and its a truly horrible sight.

Its not helpful for anybody, certainly not Bernie Sanders who people trust, to tell Americans help is near when nothing could be further from the truth. because Presidents, Congress and Senators have literally had the power taken away until we leave the dirty deals.

Instead, the US is pushing a radical privatization agenda that attempts to make public healthcare systems in other countries impossible to maintain.

Also with drugs we’re trying to kill them with high drug prices.

Its a fact that under Obama, generally we were promoting even more onerous treaties like TISA that further give CORPORATIONS instead of through countries) rights to sell healthcare and health insurance, with fewer restrictions allowed (With both the existing one and new ones, old dates are borrowed. new ones likely must be temporary and based on a ceiling set back in 1995, 1998, or possibly even earlier (my sources disagree on the dates) meaning that even the changes made in the ACA were violative of the GATS and honestly, I would be surprised if there wasnt pretty serious implications to that for it, at least its more expensive parts like guaranteed issue and limits on out of pocket costs and medical underwriting, basically everything as far as FS regulations added after 1998 may be on shaky legal ground… So is what several legal experts said a few years ago and I really doubt if anything has changed. So implying anything else is dishonest. because unless we are leaving these deals first, we cant.

Corporations are generally being given “certainty” in perpetuity, against so called “indirect expropriation” of policy space as well as new rights that allow them to directly sue taxpayers if we make the mistake of tryiing to regulate them when we’ve agreed not to… Trade in services agreements both existing and pending restrict governments and regulate services unless we leave these instruments, for example, by pursuing the GATS Article 21, and do not sign any new ones.

Otherwise, corporations have rights to sell healthcare now, and cannot be interfered with by countries until we withdraw these commitments formally. I’m certain that whomever wins the election they will resume this agenda full speed ahead as soon as the election is over. To expect anything else is unsupportable by fact or ignoring what “domestic regulatiion” is allowed to do now in this era of global economic governance organizations.

Thanks to badly named “FTAs” (which would more appropriately be named slave trade agreements than free) our elected officials govern the political only now, non-elected others increasingly govern the economic sphere.

I think they are free to take whatever policy positions they want and at the local level - especially when non-economic things are involved there is a good chance they could implement some, i.e. do something. Its only when issues involve economic things that their hands may be, actually, are likely tied. (unless we are asking them to deregulate more which seems to always be okay, as long as its profitable for corporations)

We might be able to have statues taken down, other ones put up, whatever.

Its just things like affordable healthcare, improvements (or preventions of privatizations, which are on autopilot) and dozens of other things that effect families survival (like the planned outsourcings of a great many jobs) that are no longer under voter control unless we unite to leave the entangling trade agreements…

So we have the freedom to eliminate the minium wage, for example, but not to raise it. We could turn work related visas over to the WTO, but not limit them further, we coud eliminate laws against discrimination and establishing 40 hour weeks or rights to vote, or possibly further deregulate chemicals, but not establish most new regulations without possibly hundreds of countries having to agree.

Unless it is a genuine emergency. We have a lot more freedom in an emergency, as long as whatever we do is clearly the least burdensome necessary, (there is a large body of necessity related legal theory, I think) for example, we could help people who were sick, but only if there was no other way to address the problem at all other than what was being done, and it would have to be limited in scope just to them and for the shortest amount of time possible, and only could help the uninsured… This is so investors dont have their investments rendered worthless by laws we have. For example, our laws are not allowed to make anybodys investments worthless, we’d have to change the laws. that means that many more laws may be removed eventually, if they impede commerce.

But they paid for us fair and square.