Know Your Rights 1: Know the Difference Between “Consensual Encounters,” “Detention,” & “Arrests”

I was able to participate in a “Know Your Rights” workshop during a series of seminars hosted by Center for Youth Development through Law’s summer fellowship program. Law students facilitated a series of workshops, and the one I co-facilitated was regarding contacts with law enforcement.

I wanted to share the knowledge that I was able to share with the high school participants of the workshop regarding what one’s rights are when encountering law enforcement.

Firstly, knowing the difference between casual encounters, detentions, and arrests is important because it pertains to our Fourth Amendment Right in our federal Constitution. The 4th Amendment is as follows:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(Temporary and permanent) detentions and arrests constitute as seizures under the 4th Amendment. As a result, because we have a right against unreasonable searches and seizures, this means that we should not be detained or arrest “unreasonably.” Therefore, knowing what is a reasonable or lawful detention  or arrest is crucial when interacting with law enforcement.

WARNING: Safety is absolutely crucial when interacting with law enforcement. Even when asserting your rights–including refusing to answer questions in certain encounters with law enforcement–remain calm and respectful. If you feel like your rights have been violated, you can take action after the fact. This include:
-Asking for the badge number of the officer you interacted with, or a business card.
-If the law enforcement officer refuses to give their information, you can call dispatch
and  give them the geographic location you were in and the time of day you
encountered law enforcement; with that information, dispatch should be able to give
you the names of  the  officer(s) you encountered.
Especially in this political climate, its not worth one’s liberty or life to go against law enforcement who are in a position of power (and possess deadly firearm).

Now to begin. . . here is the flowchart to start the conversation. The pertinent question to ask law enforcement is if you’re allowed to leave. This will determine what kind of encounter you are in with law enforcement.

flowchart

 

  1. Consensual Encounters

consensual encounter

If you are able to leave the conversation with law enforcement, this is a consensual encounter. Consensual encounters are thought to be the least intrusive form of contact from law enforcement. The police may initiate a consensual encounter without any objective justification. An example of consensual encounter is if a police officer asks you questions. (see above for examples).  If asked, you are allowed to decline to listen to the questions. Refusing to answer should not be used against you to further suspicion against you.

If an officer asks for your identification or to have you explain what you’re doing, it is still generally considered a consensual encounter. Therefore, you are allowed to decline politely.

In a consensual encounter, the best question to ask is, “am I free to go?”
You do not have to answer any questions and if law enforcement is not giving you clear answers, you are allowed to keep asking if you’re free to go and not answer any questions you are asked.

2. Detention
detention.PNG
     Detention is usually when a reasonable person does not feel that s/he is unable to leave freely. Detention requires reasonable suspicion (which should be a specific & articulate suspicion that would narrow suspicion to the individual). If law enforcement is making a request or command, it can be interpreted as a detention.  The tone of the officer(s) can be significant. Not every order is a detention. Again, it is crucial whether a person would reasonably feel free to disregard the order.

A person who runs off at the approach of the police is not detained while being chased. However, objects thrown or dropped by the defendant during the chase are admissible, regardless of whether the police had adequate grounds to detain him or her.

3. Arrest
Arrest.PNG
There are differences to distinguish a “valid arrest” under federal law, the Constitution and California state law.  Key requirements for Valid Arrest under the Fourth Amendment are:

  •   Probable cause to arrest
  • The use of only reasonable force in effecting the arrest (note: excessive force issues are usually raised in the context of civil litigation. Overall, no case law has been established where excessive force in making an arrest results in exclusion of evidence against a suspect of a crime in their criminal law trial)

Here are the differences in establishing arrest as defined in the California state statute vs. Fourth Amendment.

  • In CA Statute elements of arrest are: “Taking a person into custody” (Pen C. § 834)
  •  “actual restraint of the person or his submission to custody” (Pen C. § 835)

“Probable Cause” for adults is the belief that the “suspect” committed the offense “in the officer’s presence.”

Detention is more temporary than an arrest. However, for both, you are not allowed to leave. Do not run away from law enforcement during a detention or an arrest.

Law enforcement is required to have reasonable suspicion and probable cause to detain or arrest an individual.  If you are a minor, if you are detained or arrested, it is your right to request for a parent/guardian or an attorney present before answering any more questions from law enforcement.

 

Hope this knowledge can be of help to someone.

 

Sincerely, in Solidarity,
The Pacifist Fighter

What is Justice & Accountability Under the Law?

Last week, my supervisor had come to a plea deal with the prosecutor in her case. In a criminal case, prior to going to trial, the prosecutor, the District Attorney (DA), and the defense attorney, in this case, a public defender, can come to an agreement to the punishment–this is the plea deal.

Her case hit home for me because of who her client is. Her client is a pimp. He was charged with murder of a bystander, a 17 year old who was in “the life” and was working in sex work when he was trying to kill another pimp. After a tumultuous year for my supervisor with this case, she was trying to plead 25 years for the crime with the DA in charge of the case. My supervisor had even spoken to the victim’s family who was okay with her asking 25 years of prison for the individual responsible for the death of their 17 year old loved one. The DA did not want to settle the matter for 25 years. He informed my supervisor,  he wouldn’t settle the plea for anything less than 35 years. In the end, with the advisement of the judge, they came to the plea of 30 years. To which my supervisor’s  client agreed to.

As someone who worked with CSEC (commercially sexually exploited children) youth, the death of the 17 year old girl who was “in the life” and was in sex work felt unnecessary. In an ideal world, she shouldn’t have been out on the track (areas of street prostitution). I felt that her struggles as a young woman who’s still a child, who is in sex work disappeared with her death. Even if she “chose” (whatever that means with limited choices to begin with…) to be in the life, I can’t help but feel that there is some type of coercion or force in play that made her feel like she needed to be in sex work as a minor. But she no longer could be helped because her life was taken away by a client of our office.

As a lawyer, I feel that I would be able to compartmentalize and be able to give the best representation that an individual deserves. That even if an individual needs to be held accountable for his or her actions, they should not be over-punished or railroaded by a flawed system created by other flawed individuals in holding other flawed individuals accountable. However, hearing the outcome of cases like the one my boss had just finished, I’m not sure how to feel. And series of questions run through my mind as I ponder on this case.

Does it matter that this guy who’s guilty of killing someone was a ‘good’ pimp? And the guy he was trying to kill was abusive as fuck? Is there such a thing as a ‘good pimp?”

I never thought to even consider if one can be a “good pimp.” As I started to introspect on why I was feeling so confused after my boss told me of the outcome of her homicide case, I texted a friend and a colleague in doing social justice work. And the conclusion I came to with my colleague was that, there is no such thing as a “good pimp.” It may be significant that this individual didn’t mean to kill the girl who was the victim, but his recklessness resulted in the death of an individual. An individual who truly didn’t deserve to die. Additionally, the exploiters/pimps that I’ve come across have all been willing to commit violence, the kindness is a demeanor; a mask like in any abusive relationship that can lull the exploited into a fallacy that they have a “good relationship.” In truth, the kindness is only an aspect of the honeymoon phase.

duluth model In understanding CSEC, I often parallel the struggle girls go through in staying in the life with the cycle of violence seen in domestic violence (DV). DV is understood as having this cycle of violence. This is often understood under the Duluth model (chart shown above). Kindness becomes a tool in maintaining a system of violence. So if someone is inherently oppressive in their relationship with another, they can’t be “good.” Right?

When I conduct trainings on CSEC, I highlight that the relationship between the girl and her exploiter is similar to the cycle of violence seen in DV. Since the 1980’s, the domestic violence movement was able to establish the language to articulate why victims and survivors didn’t “just leave” their abuser. Because in the course of this cycle of violence, it is difficult to leave an abusive relationship. It creates a dangerous, unhealthy, dependency-inducing relationship. In CSEC, the cycle of abuse is as follows: a honey moon phase. Like in DV, this is where there is “courtship” between the exploiter and the child. They build report. Sometimes, this can embody a sexual relationship or a “romantic” relationship. This is also can be the grooming period. Where the exploiter/pimp educates the child on sex, or how to be “in the life.”   So similar to victims of domestic violence, victims of commercial sexual exploitation cannot simply leave.* Statistics show indicate that victims of domestic violence needs to try 5-7 times on average to leave. I think the same can be said for girls who are in the life. Even if they chose to leave, that choice is often difficult and challenging to accomplish.

Additionally, going back to the conversation on agency: when does the autonomy of the individual come into play? I argue that there is sex trafficking in sex work, but not all sex work is sex trafficking. Children are automatically deemed to be victims of trafficking because under the law, a child cannot consent to sex until the age of 18. So if they are in sex work, they are unable to consent and therefore, the work is inherently exploitative for children because they are unable to consent to sex work itself. However, what happens to a child who has been coerced or forced to be in sex work since their teenage years, and turns 18. Under the law, they are now adults. But how can we as society not take into account the years of their trauma as a child in sex work? Would this not affect their abilities to “chose” a profession in which they make their livelihood? Does their choice become mitigated because of their trauma?

Take the victim of this crime I am discussing right now. She was 17, a minor. However, had she turned 18, she would no longer be automatically considered a victim of human trafficking/commercial sexual exploitation unless she was in sex work because of force, fraud, or coercion**. Did this child acknowledge the risk she was taking for staying in the life? Was she able to comprehend the magnitude of danger she is in? But did she think the risk of trying to leave her exploiter/pimp outweighed the risk of being on the track and continuing to be in “the life?”

Is the insight by the victim’s family any indication of justice or accountability?

The victim’s family told my supervisor, the lawyer for the man responsible for the death of their loved one that they would have been okay had the man plead to 20 years in prison. But the DA did not feel that it was appropriate. The DA represents “the People.” The crime committed, in the interest of justice, under the DA’s interpretation, 20 years was not enough. But I wondered, was it not just to sentence a man to 20 years in prison? What happens to the insight of the victim’s family? Do they have a say? What is accountability for one’s actions? Does him staying in prison for 15 extra years make a difference? Especially in our incredibly flawed prison system, is there anyway this man can be reformed in 20-35 years? Wouldn’t it be better if he was able to reform his ways and not go back to the life in which he is a pimp/exploiter? Wouldn’t that be accountability and justice too?

The more I thought about the situation, the more I questioned what justice and accountability means to me and what I idealize it to be, I juxtaposed it to what it means  in our current criminal law system. In my idealized world, accountability for perpetrators of crime is not just punitive, but also rehabilitative. But under the law, our system does not give opportunities for rehabilitation.

In the end, my supervisor’s most recent homicide case left me with a lot of questions. And if I continue to pursue this path as a public defender, I know I will have to continue searching for answers I may never find. And the human rights advocate in me wants to find the perfect answer that makes everyone happy. But as a lawyer, I’m not sure if our system will allow for such a “perfect” answer. I hope to keep pursuing these answers and never lose the conviction to keep questioning.

Sincerely, in Solidarity,
The Pacifist Fighter

Notes:
*I will write another post if anyone cares to know about my analysis on the cycle of violence CSEC youth face and its parallel to the cycle of violence discussed under the Duluth model.
**Polaris Project has a good source on current federal laws defining human trafficking. I used the “Trafficking Victims Protection Act” as the working definition for what constitutes as trafficking

Defining: “Fighting for Justice”

I SURVIVED MY FIRST YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL!  o| ̄|_

Feels like I barely survived.

After finishing my first year, law school felt very methodical. It wasn’t about what I wanted to do in the legal field but a year of teaching 1Ls (the first year students) how to learn the law.  Law is often thought to be its own language–“legalese” as they say–and sometimes it is. How you argue legally and write legally is completely different from what I was taught in undergrad.

In undergrad, it was all about how much you can word vomit onto the 10 page paper to sound as smart as possible. In legal writing,  it becomes crucial to write the legal issue you see, state the rule, and succinctly support your argument with the legal authority and to articulate your point clearly. It’s really tedious and can be boring, but the point is so that a “lay person” (someone who is not a legal scholar or in the legal profession) would be able to read what you wrote and understand the points you are making. Additionally, in the first year of law school, classes were assigned. There was no autonomy in “choosing” the classes we took because there was a core curriculum for 1Ls to complete. The school gave you the foundation for  you to build your legal knowledge. And walking out of my hellish first year of law school, I didn’t know what I wanted to do as a lawyer.

Not only did I not know what I wanted to do, I also couldn’t put my finger on what it meant to me to “fight for justice” as a lawyer.   


PRIOR TO LAW SCHOOL. . .

Going into law school, I thought I still wanted to work with the same CSEC (Commercially Sexually Exploited Children) population. However, I didn’t have any further insight into how I could better serve this population and other underserved populations in need of a legal advocate as a lawyer.

Going into the summer, I was accepted into the Public Defender’s Office. I was excited to start because the head public defender had a vision of the office he lead, which was “holistic defense.” This approach was to try to work with the community where clients who are in need of public defenders to not only give the best representation in criminal court but to see what other services and resources can be given to the community.  With this vision of “holistic defense” fighting for justice happened inside and outside the courtroom.

One of these efforts for justice is through community engagement.

Block party

As an intern, I was able to help out at the second annual Block Party hosted by the Public Defender’s Office. 600 people from the community came out where they met with other organizations who work to give resources such as job opportunities, free background checks (DOJ Livescan Fingerprinting), and understand resources for benefits like food stamps in addition to the fun carnival events like pony rides and the food.

The more work I do with the Public Defender’s Office, the more I learn, this is the environment I want to be in. Where, as a lawyer, you have the privilege of knowing how to better navigate the legal systems and to help advocate for people who are in need of a fair chance when faced with criminal charges.  The office that I am privileged to be a part of truly cares for their clients and looks to fight for justice inside and outside of the courtroom.

Public defender’s get such a bad rep. In a given “Law and Order” episode, you see the  public defender stumbling in (either depicted as a green, doe-eyed young attorney who doesn’t know what s/he is getting themselves into OR a burnt-out attorney who’s trying to get out of there as quickly as possible) to the court room. In “My Cousin Vinny” the Public Defender is stuttering through his speech and is incompetent. What I want to do is to firstly, completely negate this stereotype: in Alameda county, California, the public defenders I have encountered are the most compassionate, intelligent, and strong-willed lawyers I have ever met. In the office or at events, I often hear from our own clients and community members, “well…I was appointed a public defender, but then I got a ‘real’ attorney.” And it breaks my heart because this misnomer is still ringing true even in the communities this office is working to serve.

I also want to keep learning from this office because they are fighting injustice at the intersections of criminal law. The program I am working for works to dismiss criminal convictions of individuals who meet a certain set of requirements (see California Penal Code § 1203.4 for the criteria). And this is to help people move on from their past so that they are no longer defined by the mistakes they may have made and be held back when they are trying to be productive citizens.

Through my internship, I feel like I’m finally seeing what my future as a lawyer can be. Despite the monotony of school and the feeling of being back in an ivory tower, removed from how I can contribute to addressing social justice, I am seeing a version of my future in which there is intersectional work in addressing social justice in the day to day fights of criminal law where a person’s life and liberty are on the line while holding the powers that be accountable. I still go back and forth between trying to “fight from within” to change the systems we are part of from within, and to just smash a “broken” system (like our criminal justice system) that is so tainted with racism, genocide, slavery, and oppression since its inception and to start anew. However, this experience at the public defender’s office is opening my eyes to how there may be room for both, by tackling injustice wherever we see it and working to solve it from every direction.

 

I hope to be able to provide more insights on how I see justice is being fought throughout my experience at this office.

 

Much love & light,
the Pacifist Fighter

Human Trafficking Awareness Month

January is human trafficking month.

I wanted to write about the issue of human trafficking from the perspective of an ally.As a fighter (a human rights advocate) I can only use my voice to highlight this issue from that of an ally. I, will NEVER know or begin to understand the trauma that is associated with being trafficked and exploited.

Having the work I have done in academia in researching, speaking to victims and survivors, seeing the day to day struggles of girls that I teach Tae Kwon Do to at-risk of or have already identified as CSEC (commercially sexually exploited children) and now gaining the perspective as an employee of an organization fighting to end commercial sexual exploitation of children in Oakland, has given me a unique voice as an ally in this fight to end human trafficking. I am reminded to not contribute to the voice that “speaks for” victims and survivors but only hope to elevate their voices and needs in their struggle.

In my attempts to contribute to the continued awareness that is needed on this issue, I want this post to reflect domestic human trafficking. First in regards to the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC).
Human trafficking is a multifaceted issue. The one aspect I cover is one of many struggles in regards to this human rights violation.

On January 9, 2014, in congruence with Human Trafficking Awareness, Nancy O’Malley’s office with Alameda County District Attorney’s Office held a press conference along with MISSSEY (Motivating, Inspiring, Supporting, Serving Sexually Exploited Youth). with Clear Channel Outdoor embarked on a campaign to outreach to the Oakland community. This is to shed light onto 2 issues.

One is to the existence of domestic human trafficking in the United States that focuses on the exploitation of our children.
It is to bring light to the fact that children are coerced or forced into prostitution. This outreach campaign with Alameda County’s DA’s office, MISSSEY Inc., & Clear Channel first demonstrates that when children are being prostituted, its child abuse and under our criminal code 18 USC § 2251, it is a form of human trafficking as well. There is a need to see these children as victims of such heinous crimes and not paint them as “teen prostitutes” there is NO SUCH THING.

A child cannot legally consent to sex, how can s/he perpetrate the “crime” of prostitution when s/he is unable to consent to the act. The Bureau of Justice  Statistics’ 2010 noted that out of the 62,670 arrests made in regards to Prostitution & Commercialized Vices 1,040 arrests were against juveniles (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf).  There is still a lot that needs to be unpacked about this issue. Which also raises the awareness on the issue so that  this problem can be combated as a community & is something that anyone can contribute to (that’s subject for a whole other post).

"Buying a Teen for Sex is Child Abuse. Turning a Blind eye is Neglect"
caption reads: “Buying a Teen for Sex is Child Abuse. Turning a Blind eye is Neglect”

The billboard above is a part of the campaign that is advertised in selected regions around Alameda county.
Its to illustrate that while this crime is still occurring everyday in our community & making it a community issue.  Another purpose of this campaign has been to get our youth who were exploited or are being exploited to gain access to resources for their healing and exit from “the life.” MISSSEY is as an organization works with +90 clients per month to provide services to girls at-risk or identifying as CSEC. Though MISSSEY is currently only serving female clients at-risk or facing commercial sexual exploitation, the need is for YOUTH at large. Boys are exploited just as much as girls, but it is more of a hidden problem because the predominant narrative has been the exploiation of girls. There’s also social stigma for boys to be in a place of vulnerability and a condition in our society that doesn’t allow for them to be vulnerable unless they are to be seen as weak or emasculating. This social stigma is best captured in  a rather old, but heavily powerful, documentary titled The Tough Guise (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI).

Hoping that I’ll deconstruct the prevailing narratives that do not accurately portray the discourse around the various issues of human trafficking in another post.

Commercial sexual exploitation of children is a multifaceted fight within the fight to end human trafficking.
There is a need to:
1) Dispel any notion that children are willing sex workers. So the term teen prostitute is just so wrong on so many levels
2) Address CSEC as a problem that  happens in any community. Exploiters exploit anyone. It has been seen as a problem in Oakland among communities of color. But it can happen on any socio-economic & ethnic demographic.
3) expand resources to help children who are caught in this systemic exploitation.

Check out http://protectoaklandkids.org/ to learn more about the fight to end commercial sexual exploitation of children in our communities.

Sincerely, in Solidarity,

the pacifist fighter

Tae Kwon Do & Peacebuilding

I’ve been given the opportunity to be the Shinnyo-En Fellow for the 2013-2014 academic year. The purpose of the fellowship is to “enhance one’s understanding of how to contribute to the health of an identified community, develop the knowledge and skills necessary to become transformative community leaders, and increase one’s ability to engage in reflection”  This reflection is also speaks to fellows sense of nurturing “an awareness of how their inner and outer paths contribute to justice and peacebuilding”.

I’ll be taking on the issue of anti-human trafficking for my Shinnyo-en Fellowship. One of the things i want to accomplish through this is to further solidify the overarching anti-human trafficking movement while assisting the existing organizations and resources available to survivors of human trafficking.

Another thing I want to accomplish through this fellowship speaks directly to the nurturing of my inner and outer paths to peacebuilding.

Tae Kwon Do has been one of the few constants in my life. It’s taken me a while to realize this, but as cheesy as it sounds, the tenants (courtesy, integrity, perseverance, self-confidence, and indomnible spirit) that Tae Kwon Do schools drill you really are applicable both inside and outside martial arts.
I’ve been presented an opportunity to facilitate a Tae Kwon Do PE class to formerly incarcerated girls who are also survivors of CSEC (commercial sexually exploited children).

I hope that as Tae Kwon Do was able to give me a healthy outlet and a more positive outlook and structure in my life, I’d be able to be of some resource for recovery in their lives.

Healthcare as a Human Right

The Women’s Economic Agenda Project (W.E.A.P) facilitated a “teach-in” on July 27th on the Affordable Care Act and its implications to the current environment of healthcare in the US.

As an NGO advocating for economic human rights, healthcare is an essential part of this agenda.

Let’s start with what international human rights says about healthcare.
Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), Article 12.1 states that, “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” In subsection 2.(d), it further expands upon the steps to be taken by signatory States shall create, “…conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.
Which, in the current conditions of the US healthcare system, has not met the basic standards of these conditions to say the least.

To be technical, US is indeed a signatory in the ICESCR; however, it has not ratified this law into effect. This is often the case because politicians fear that the sovereignty of US Constitution will be trampled–which I’d argue is bs because international law is set up so that States still retain their sovereignty in our State-oriented world order. What the ICESCR does set up for the United States is a legal framework that we as a nation has agreed to its principles. We can also be like our neighbors to the north–aka Canada–and incorporate it into our existing laws to strengthen human rights for our citizens (it can mean less sick people but  I’m sure Uncle Sam is worried we’ll be a society of weak socialist hippies).

*A quick word on the Canadian system:
All Canadian citizens have health care that is funded by income taxes and sales tax. The national government has oversight for military members and indigenous communities on reserves, but the 10 provincial and three territorial governments take care of the rest. The doctors and hospitals are private entities, which distinguishes the Canadian system from the British system of socialized medicine in which doctors are employed by the government. If you want more info on how other countries run their health care systems.  Here is a link to a useful bit of info: http://people.howstuffworks.com/10-health-care-systems.htm#page=0

Now WEAP as an organization have an agenda. Most are listed out on their website. Here is the intro. WEAP was the first to host and co-facilitate a social forum called the World Court of Women. The World Court of Women was founded by Corinne Kumar to be “another civic authority.” Ms. Kumar believes that,

“The courts of women are expressions of a new imaginary refusing that human rights be defined and confined only to that which has been hegemonic (the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group). These articulations are finding new ways of speaking truth to power, challenging the different notions of power…”

 With this in mind, the conclusion of the World Court of Women resulted in the establishments of Resolutions of Action. These resolutions of actions are a statement of responses by organizations who have set forth new approaches to addressing the injustices of poverty.

Poverty rears its injustice in many forms. One of which is in healthcare.
The reality is that the US is one of the only developed countries without universal health care. The Atlantic article highlights this point to illustrate the current trends and trajectory of US on the conversation on universal health care.

Within these Resolutions of Actions (ROAs), they have a ROA on health care titled, Resolution on Healthcare for the 99%. Again, keep in mind that the ROAs are an affirmation to the vision for a” transformation of systems and governments to end poverty” (WEAP.org).

In the Resolution on the Healthcare for the 99%, WEAP sets forth numerous faults in our healthcare. This includes the unsustainably high cost to maintain or get health coverage for individuals and families, the abysmal quality of our health care–a WHO report ranked the US healthcare 37th out of 191,  the profit-based healthcare industry, and the bureaucratic mess caused by insurance companies and hospitals are only some of the things listed in the large scheme of headaches currently present in the US healthcare system.

Now, complaining about the flaws of a system is easy, but it accomplishes nothing. the ROAs on the Healthcare for the 99% proposes some means to counter these flaws. That’s one of the things that I loved learning as I work closely with an organization like WEAP is that WEAP and its allies have been fighting the fight against poverty and social injustice long enough, they know that they too also have to set forth an agenda to facilitate true change.

One of the key proposal is the Single-payer system.
This is also known as Improved Medicare for All.
One of the problems that arise with the ACA being implemented is that the new law EXPANDS the role of private health insurance. One of the mess that this causes is that there will be increased bureaucracies increases higher costs. Our current system there are hundreds, even thousands of different healthcare organizations–HMOs, billing agencies, etc. Administrative fees that goes into filing the billings for these organizations is tedious, confusing, and time consuming.  A single-payer system would be structured so that one entity–a publicly run organization–would collect all healthcare fees and pay out all healthcare costs.

Improved Medicare for All, aka single-payer healthcare is not socialized medicine. Its taking the system that we have in place and making it inclusive to our population in its entirety. Under this system doctors remain independent and hospitals continue to be run by private practice remain in private practice. People will be able to choose your own doctors and competition among providers will increase, as individuals, not an insurance company, decide where to get care.

There are numerous ways to make this sustainable.
One of the ways is through H.R. 1579.–The Inclusive Prosperity Act–aka the Robin Hood Tax. This is where a nominal tax on the sales of stocks, bonds and derivatives could raise up to $350 billion a year. This reduces speculative and risky spending seen by Wall St. that led to the economic crisis of 2008. The funds collected from these taxes could be used to strengthen social safety nets and expanding resources for child care, Social Security, affordable housing, healthcare and savings incentives.

Now, how is this different from the realities of the new Affordable Care Act (ACA)?
That itself presents numerous issues that needs to be clarified so I’ll write about that in another post.

What can be said though is that firstly, we are in desperate need to readdress how our healthcare system is structured. There is a way to make healthcare affordable to everyone and sustainable. Improved Medicare for All is also only one of the few proposed alternative to having a healthier and sustainable healthcare system. WEAP advocates that this can be the most sustainable alternative to our current system.