We’re All Rowing the Same Boat

By Lynn Gerlach, Green Bay

On the frigid first week of November, I joined my Brown County Democratic Party friends to canvass Green Bay, seeking to discover minds that might be opened, opinions we might consider fluid, or even strong Progressives we’d not been tracking. On Saturday I entered dark, forbidding apartment buildings with stairways clearly not built to code and even a “condemned” sign on one apartment door. On Sunday I stepped up to spacious verandas complete with adorable Halloween decorations and autumn wreaths. On both days I met interesting people – mostly Trump supporters.

But I want to share with you this one befuddling experience. In that lovely Sunday neighborhood, under clear (cold) blue skies, surrounded by manicured lawns and cleverly carved jack-o-lanterns, I encountered two people on two different streets who gave me the exact same response, verbatim. Here’s a “transcript,” since that seems to be the tool of the trade these days:

Street #1:

LYNN: … So what is the one key issue you think we ought to be focusing on with the general election just a year away? What is the one issue that keeps you awake at night, that will likely drive your vote?

NICE LADY: Well, it’s everything. Just everything! I’m worried sick about everything…

Street #2, 15 minutes later:

LYNN: … So what is the one key issue you think we ought to be focusing on with the general election just a year away? What is the one issue that keeps you awake at night, that will likely drive your vote?

NICE MAN: Well, it’s everything. Just everything! I’m worried sick about everything…

And guess what, folks! The woman went on to tell me in hushed tones, “I’m a Republican,” and the man confided to me, “I’m a Democrat.” What?! She blamed it all on the Democrats, and he blamed it all on Trump and his sycophants. And yet they were both consumed by anxiety about the same thing – “everything.” Both conveyed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that our country is in terrible straits and needs major life support soon. And she’s a Republican and he’s a Democrat.

What to make of it, my friends? It seems we’re all in the same boat, rowing in perfectly opposite directions, and blaming each other for the dizzying vortex below us. We can attribute it to “polarization” and kid ourselves that installing a Democratic administration will solve all the problems and make “the other side” fall in line – or render their opposition moot. I don’t buy it. And yet I don’t know what to do about it. And that’s what keeps me awake at night.

In the summer of 2018 I read Howard Gardner’s Changing Minds, not because I was smart enough even to know the book existed, but because a nonprofit group with whom I associate asked me to join them in their summer reading experience. I even wrote an article about it for my blog: Changing Minds – a Magic Wand? You can read my article (and weep), but I’ll briefly summarize it here: It’s easier to talk about changing minds as a general concept than to actually change any one particular mind. Why? As we age, we develop strong views resistant to change. Even worse, it’s particularly hard to replace simple ways of thinking with more complex ways (and the world just gets more complex, doesn’t it?). We go to great lengths to square discrepant information with beliefs we hold dear just so that we don’t have to change our beliefs.

For one thing, it’s hard for any individual to recognize his or her own presuppositions; they’re often unconscious. And the older and more respected among us are least likely to be able even to see those unconscious presuppositions. Even birth order plays a role: First-borns are less able to embrace revolutionary tenets than their later-born sibs who lived from day one with the forced flexibility of sibling rivalry.

One who ultimately becomes a fundamentalist simply decides he will no longer change his mind in any significant way. As a community, fundamentalists pour all their resources into shoring up the beliefs they share and rejecting alien doctrines. Once that position is stated publicly, it’s even more difficult to swerve in the slightest way, even when a pet theory has been discredited. [Climate science comes to mind, eh?]

But we’re in the business of changing minds, aren’t we? So we can take ten lessons from Gardner, if we’re determined to pursue our task:

  1. Willingness to invest time in the effort is critical. In most cases, mind-changing requires much time, practice, and considerable backsliding.
  2. Put less time and effort into trying to convince the opponent, and spend more time trying to understand her. That neutralizes the resistance.
  3. Appeal first to the individual’s intelligence whenever possible.
  4. Be prepared to present this “new” position in several different ways, as that is how learning best occurs. (And, of course, since we’re taking our advice from the master of “multiple intelligences,” present each different version so that it appeals to a different intelligence.)
  5. Search for resonance and stamp out resistance. (Before you even try this, ensure you have, within yourself, an accurate mental model of your own mind.)
  6. Ask questions, listen carefully, and follow up appropriately.
  7. Avoid egocentrism; don’t get caught up in your own position.
  8. HUGELY IMPORTANT: The purpose of a mind-changing encounter is not to articulate your own point of view but rather to engage the psyche of the other person.
  9. Two important tools allow for effective mind-changing: storytelling and living the message. The most compelling stories are familiar enough so as not to be immediately rejected, but distinctive enough to engage curiosity and interest.
  10. One is often primed for a change of mind by feeling he has “hit a dead end.” Attempting the new behavior for the first time is a decisive step forward.

Well, as I said, you can read my full article – or you can read Gardner’s book (even better). Neither one is a walk in the park. According to Howard Gardner, we’re in for a long slog if we intend to change minds (but I think we have to!). The author does remind us that behaviorists teach that the most powerful incentives for changing behavior are reward and punishment. He suggests that one might be more likely to change one’s mind when embraced by a new, powerful, and resource-rich constituency that shares the new perspective. But, alas, he goes on to say that “few goals are more challenging to achieve than significant, lasting change in adult human beings.”

Ever the optimist, I continue to search for a guru who can teach me how to do my part to reduce the polarity that threatens our democracy. Until then, perhaps I will settle for the temporary commitment of an informal “think tank” that will join together to learn Gardner’s principles for changing minds and struggle together to apply them as best we can. Any takers?

Gun Control?

By Clete Delvaux, De Pere

I have read that a mass shooting occurs every day on average in the U.S. And everyday our president and the Republican-led Senate refuse to do anything to stop this slaughter of American citizens. Instead, they say they will study and debate the issue, hoping that if they delay long enough, Americans will forget about this horrendous problem.

They talk about mental illness as the cause of the problem. Or tighter background checks are needed. Or we need restrict violence on TV, movies, and video games, etc. I have no objections to these studies. But these debates and studies skirt the real issue: What we really need is a return to a ban on machine guns (ARs) and multi-round magazines.

Who, outside of the military, would have any use for these machine guns? No hunter would use them. No one would use them to protect their home or life. In short, these guns have only one purpose: to kill as many people as possible in a short time.

Americans need to pressure our president and Senate to reinstate the ban on the selling of these mass-murder weapons. If they continue to delay doing this, we must vote them out of office.

ALEC – Right Wing Bill Mill

Nancy Wakefield, Howard

ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is really, really scary. It is an organization of conservative state legislators and private sector corporations originally founded by Wisconsin native Paul Weyrich. Weyrich also founded the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Corporate representatives craft and share models of state-level legislation for distribution among state governments in the USA. Then the state can customize the legislation and introduce it for debate in their own state legislature. When we look back at the lame-duck session here, this rings a bell. The bills proposed in Wisconsin and Michigan show a pattern of similarity that cannot be accidental. Look how quickly a large number of bills were submitted by Wisconsin Republicans. This shows that they had been discussing this plan for a long time and were ready to act immediately after the election.
ALEC is funded by the extreme right and large corporations. Thousands of lawmakers pay $50 a year for membership. Corporations pay between $7,000 and $25,000 annually with some giving hundreds of thousands of dollars more. The lawmakers get “scholarships,” the New Yorks Times reported, to attend an annual ALEC convention where they work in task forces with corporate representatives. The task forces write model bills that the lawmakers introduce in legislatures. An ALEC membership brochure reported in 2012 that its legislative members introduce more than 1,000 bills a year.
I suggest that you go to the website of the Center for Media and Democracy, , and read more. Some well-known Wisconsin lawmakers have had ties with ALEC: Tommy Thompson, Scott Walker, current House Speaker Robin Vos, current Senate Majority leader Scott Fitzgerald, Rep. John Nygren, and Leah Vukmir. I urge you to really take some time to find out all that the website has found.
Rep. Robin Vos and Sen. Scott Fitzgerald have come out against Gov. Evers, the Green Bay Press Gazette reported. They are vowing to change everything that Evers wants in the budget; he will veto their bills; and then we will have a royal mess. So much for finding one thing we can work on together. It looks to me that they are going to war with the newly elected Democrats using all the skills they learned from ALEC meetings.
How can we fight ALEC for our state business and the next election? Mainly we need to expose those who have been members and hold them responsible for their behavior. Of course, we must vote them out. Another thing to do is to have a good number of people contact legislators by phone (best) or email. One or two calls will not work. We need a lot of people to be aware of what is coming up and be ready to act.
If readers have more suggestions, please write your letters. We are going to have to fight hard because these legislators are already years ahead of us.

Cómo un programa gubernamental ayudó a mi familia

By J. Brown, Green Bay, WI

Me gustaría tomarme un momento para contarles algo que sucedió recientemente en mi vida y cómo un programa gubernamental ayudó a mi familia en los meses pasados.

En diciembre, mi madre sufrió un ataque cerebral mientras trabajaba en su escuela en Carolina del Norte. Rápidamente la llevaron al hospital más cercano por avión a un hospital de primer nivel en Charlotte. En este hospital los especialistas y cirujanos realizaron cirugías y procedimientos para disminuir la cantidad de sangre en el cerebro y la inflamación. Le brindaron el más alto nivel de atención durante 7 días, hasta que mi padre tomó la difícil decisión de permitir que se fuera de este mundo.

Afortunadamente, pude estar con ella cuando falleció y tuve la oportunidad de hablar sobre su vida en su servicio religioso donde mucha gente que la conoció me mostró su amor. El fallecimiento de mi madre dejó un vacío en nuestra familia y en la comunidad. Ahora, lo tomo un día a la vez y me aferro a los muchos buenos recuerdos que tengo de ella.

Como pueden imaginarse, los costos de la atención médica que recibió mi madre fueron muy altos. Ella no tenía seguro médico a través de la iglesia que dirigía la escuela donde ella trabajaba. Mi padre tampoco nunca tuvo seguro de salud propio ya que el es un instalador de azulejos que trabaja por cuenta propia.

Mi padre es un republicano conservador y mi madre siempre votó de la misma manera, a pesar de que era una demócrata registrada. Ninguno de ellos quería obtener el seguro de salud a través del programa gubernamental creado por la Ley del Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, que a menudo se conoce como Obamacare.

Sin embargo, se inscribieron a fines de 2017 para evitar la sanción del gobierno, pagando un total de aproximadamente $ 2.50 por mes por la cobertura. Esta decisión de obtener cobertura a través del gobierno salvó a mi familia de la ruina financiera. El costo de la hospitalización de mi madre hubiera sido de alrededor de $ 150,000 sin seguro. En cambio, a mi padre le han facturado alrededor de $ 2,900. Las donaciones de familiares y amigos podrán cubrir la mayor parte de ese costo.

Nuestra familia está muy familiarizada de cómo las facturas médicas pueden dañar a una familia. En 1996, mi madre tuvo un cáncer de tiroides, que ella superó. Pero, mi padre todavía está pagando las facturas que nuestra familia recibió mientras mi madre estuvo en el hospital durante ese tratamiento. Esas facturas hicieron que a mis padres les resultara muy difícil pagar la hipoteca, comprar vehículos, poner gasolina en el auto, pagar la comida y cubrir los muchos gastos que tuvo mi familia. Enviarme a mí y a mis hermanos a la universidad era imposible porque el dinero simplemente no estaba allí. Esas deudas hicieron que todas nuestras vidas fueran mucho más difíciles y pusieron mucho estrés en mis padres.

Sin el seguro de salud que mis padres obtuvieron debido a la Ley del Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, el resto de la vida de mi padre hubiera sido mucho más difícil. Él pudo haber perdido todo o haber pasado el resto de su vida profundamente endeudado debido a las facturas médicas. Gracias a la Ley del Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio, mi padre podrá pasar a la siguiente fase de su vida sin la aplastante deuda que habría tenido sin seguro.

Por esa razón y muchas más, continuaré apoyando a los candidatos y causas progresistas. Las políticas que nosotros, como demócratas luchamos para avanzar, son importantes y por las que vale la pena luchar porque ayudan a mejorar este país y las vidas de los estadounidenses de costa a costa.

What to Believe about Medicare-for-All


By Lynn Gerlach, Green Bay

Remember when Donald Trump said that “Nobody knew how complicated healthcare is”?

We snickered, because we’d been through the long ACA struggle some years ago with the Obama administration. In fact, it is unlikely most of us truly appreciate the confusing advantages and disadvantages or even the plausibility of universal, single-payer healthcare for all Americans. My review of recent publications on the topic was head-spinning.

When I became eligible for Medicare, my monthly health insurance premium fell by roughly 80%. It was one of the best financial events of my life. So, will Medicare-for-all do the same for Americans of all ages? Probably not. Our country would struggle to afford healthcare coverage for all citizens at the rate it currently covers seniors. That said, it seems Americans would be better off under some type of Medicare-for-all or other “universal coverage” program. How do we navigate this complex issue?

The Kaiser Family Foundation (1) has found broad support for proposals that simply expand public programs like Medicare and Medicaid, but how politicians discuss these proposals directly influences the levels of support. A common theme overall is a “desire for universal coverage,” but both sides tend to be supportive of “buy-in” options, although potential tax increases or projected delays in medical tests or treatment influence those support levels.

The New York Times (2) reminds us that “universal coverage is found in every developed country except the United States… Under current law, the government estimates that the U.S. will spend about one-sixth of GDP on health care this year, with those costs divided between the federal government, individuals, employers and state governments.” Some experts believe single-payer universal coverage would be less costly due to “gains in efficiency and scale,” but critics predict huge cost increases. One complicating factor that makes cost projections nearly impossible is the fact that patients, providers and politicians will influence decisions and actions in complex and unpredictable ways.

The biggest difference in plans, these experts say, is going to be in how much hospitals, doctors and other providers will be paid. “Pay too little, and you risk hospital closings and unhappy health care providers. Pay too much, and the system will become far more expensive.” Paying the same prices that Medicare pays now will result in a cut in pay for doctors now seeing patients with private insurance. Still, the income of the health care industry is going to have to be cut in some way to create a Medicare plan that saves money. Pay all doctors what all health insurers currently pay providers (111% of Medicare), and the cost of the all-inclusive plan shoots up by hundreds of billions of dollars.

One aspect of health care and health insurance we sometimes forget is the cost of administering the programs. Every health insurer has administrative costs; every clinic and hospital does too. Logically, if you roll all that administration into one system, duplication is avoided and costs go down; the experts agree, in general, on that point. Still, the question remains: How much will the new system cost the average citizen? We must remember that, under Medicare-for-all, we’ll see a dramatic shift in who is doing the paying: you and me, the taxpayers. And so far, “none of the proposals has included a detailed tax plan.” According to the Times, “Raising revenue would require broad tax increases that are likely to be partly borne by the middle class.”

There’s another way to look at the tax-based payment system, though, as explained by Matt Bruenig, founder of the People’s Policy Project. In an April 29, 2019, letter to the editor of the New York Times (3) , Bruenig suggests we consider the health insurance premiums we already pay through our employers (for private insurance) a “tax.” Considered that way, he says, “we already have an unfair system. Middle-class workers in America are charged the same health insurance fees as upper-class workers despite the vast income differences between the two groups, and pay more of their earnings toward taxes and health care than workers in many wealthy countries.”

Moving toward a European-style system, Bruenig says, would make our health insurance payments much more progressive: Eliminating the private health insurance premiums “would more than offset the rise in formal taxes for all but the wealthy.” The fact that we don’t call our premiums for employer-provided health insurance “taxes,” he says, “shouldn’t blind us to the best lutions.”Bruenig believes that shifting the health insurance burden up the income ladder while bringing down overall health care costs would boost the fortunes of the middle class.

We have currently been introduced to about 10 major proposals to expand Medicare or Medicaid in addition to a handful under Congressional consideration now. Some of them, such as the Sanders and Jayapal plans, transition ALL costs to the federal government: premiums, co-payments for drugs, and all Medicaid expenses. Again relying on the New York Times (4) , I found that the proposals might be compared in five fundamental ways, per the panel of experts asked to review them.

Nearly all experts favored universal coverage, some calling the question “a moral issue.” But, universality has trade-offs,” the authors say. “It’s costly… Expanding coverage to a subset of the population… will be cheaper and more politically palatable.” Ellen Meara of Dartmouth reminds us that such an incremental approach is what led us to Medicare for seniors only, Medicaid for only those who qualify, and CHIP for children only. Medicare-for-all proposals are generally not incremental.

Employer-based private coverage was probably a mistake, most experts agreed. However, they also said that plans to eliminate it now “are politically infeasible.” Offer the option to add private coverage, and you generate complexity that could drive up costs. Dr. Don Berwick of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, a source I, personally, trust, believes one can meld work-based coverage into a single-payer system. “Employers could contribute to the single, common payment pool, as they do today to premiums for private plans,” he explained.

On the question of replacing individually purchased ACA plans and Medicare Advantage plans, the experts could not agree. Some say choice drives innovation while others suggest that choice generates inequality and complexity. Then there is the “hassle for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers” introduced by variations in approaches to quality and costs. We now have 1700+ distinct quality measures and a wide variety of billing requirements in our U.S. system due to the large variety of payers.

Most experts believed a “no premiums” approach is politically unrealistic. While they like a tax-financed system without premiums, the numbers convinced them this might not be feasible. Some say this might nearly double what the country needs to collect in personal income tax.

All but two of the Times’ panelists supported some type of cost sharing. Still, one pointed out that collecting co-payments and deductibles just adds to the administrative cost of health care. Others explained that co-pays deter excessive use of the system. What to believe?

With 20 Democrats now in the 2020 race, and everyone scrambling to create winning policies, the universal health care situation really is getting hard to follow. In addition to the expansive Sanders and Jayapal plans mentioned above, we have Medicare for America (DeLauro and Schakowsky), which covers all Americans AND continues employer-based insurance. That plan does include premiums along with funding through a tax increase, and it also includes government regulation of health care prices.

The Urban Institute’s Healthy America proposal is the next-most far-reaching program, including all of the above EXCEPT coverage for all Americans. Choose Medicare, offered by Merkley and Murphy, has been called a “glide path” to true single-payer Medicare-for all. The plan gives employers the option to allow their workforce to leave the plan they offer in favor of the new public plan.

And we have The CHOICE Act, which offers Medicare buy-in only to small employers currently eligible to buy insurance through the ACA marketplace, with workers at larger firms shut out. (I should add that, according to a March 20, 2019, Vox article (5), the current system offers a huge incentive to employers to pay health care benefits. “Those benefits are completely tax-free,” creating an uneven playing field in which “Fortune 500 companies get, in effect, a huge federal subsidy to insure their workers.”)

Medicare X (by Bennet, Kaine and Higgins) would also offer buy-in to small employers only. In fact, it would be dramatically limited in its first few years and would gradually expand to the individual market nationwide. And then there’s Stabenow’s Medicare-at-50 plan that simply lowers the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 50.

Are you confused yet? It could be that the most reliable statement Donald Trump ever made was that health care is complicated. We just might have to give him that.


1 – Public Opinion on Single-Payer, National Health Plans, and Expanding Access to Medicare Coverage, Kaiser Family Foundation, March 27, 2019.
2 –  Would ‘Medicare for All’ Save Billions or Cost Billions?  The New York Times, April 10, 2019. 

3 – Build your Own “Medicare for All” Plan. Beware: There are Tough Choices, The New York Times,
February 27, 2019.
4 –  We Read Democrats’ 9 Plans for Expanding Health Care: Here’s How They Work , Vox, March 20, 2019.

Tax Time Thoughts

Bill Loving
Green Bay

It is tax time.

I don’t mind what I pay to the state and federal governments even if it means writing checks for additional taxes some years. That’s because taxes are the price of civilization (Justice Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr., wrote that in 1927 when a foreign corporation objected to paying taxes.).

The taxes we pay give us roads, water and sewer systems, schools and public safety. Taxes created the interstate highway system, commercial aviation and public health systems Everywhere you look, you can see something paid for with the taxes that people have paid over the decades.

Not everyone agrees about paying taxes.

People say, “I made the money, I should keep it,” and “the government has no right to take my money and spend it on (fill in the blank).”

A lot of people who object to taxes do so because they say they built their own businesses and the government should not take away the fruits of their labor.

Are they really self-made? Have they done it all on their own?

If they have employees, taxes paid for the hospitals where those employees were born, the public health systems that made it possible for them to grow healthy, and the schools where they learned skills that the business would need.

Taxes that other people paid built the roads that brought in raw materials and carried away finished products (keep in mind that it costs between $2million to $5 million to build a single mile of road). If it is an Internet business, remember that taxes paid for the Defense Department program that created the Web.

Today’s business owners and entrepreneurs rely on things that our parents paid for through taxes. But some people aren’t willing to pay taxes to build the things that our kids will need to succeed.

People who fight taxes the hardest are those who have made the most using what other people’s taxes paid for. Still, they can be persuasive and sometimes manage to get candidates elected who argue for lower taxes and claim that they are protecting taxpayers.

But which taxpayers are they protecting? Is it regular people whose kids are in schools that lack resources; the student whose university has had its budget cut; the driver who needs to pay for new tires or suspension because roads aren’t being maintained?

Democrats must stick together

From Laura Kiefert, Howard, WI

Donald Trump is a threat to American democracy, and we are fortunate to have a vast and historically diverse crop of candidates running against him bringing big, new ideas to a demanding and divided base.

To defeat Trump, we must all agree the 2020 Presidential election is – first, last and foremost – about defeating an unfit, corrupt and destructive incumbent. Therefore, we need to abandon the idea of finding a 2020 presidential candidate who is “perfect.”

In true Goldilocks and the Three Bears fashion, Democrats have a history of looking for a presidential candidate that is “just right.” Some are “too old.” Some are “too young.” Some are “too progressive, others “too centrist.” Some are “too white,” some are “too black” and others are “too female.”

Democrats tend to want to be swept off their feet in a fit of electoral ecstasy and for some, once they make their own personal “just right” choice, all others are deemed inadequate or somehow all wrong for the party or the times.

This mindset cost us the last election because, for many, if their “one” didn’t win the nomination, then they preferred not to vote for the person who did win or simply not vote at all. We must join together right now to vow to support whoever the Democratic candidate is to insure this costly mistake isn’t repeated.

Of course, leading up to the convention, we’ll all promote our favorite candidates and talk smack about the others. However, our allegiances are going to have to shift as the field narrows, and once the party settles on a nominee, we must accept that person is “just right,” circle our wagons and make an all-out effort to get that person the keys to the White House.

One story of why we need the ACA

From J. Brown, Green Bay, WI

I would like to take a moment to tell you about something that happened in my life recently and how a government program helped my family in the months since.

In December my mother suffered an aneurysm at the pre-school where she worked in North Carolina. She was rushed to the nearest hospital and then airlifted to a top-tier hospital in Charlotte. The medical professionals there performed surgeries and procedures in order to decrease the amount of blood on the brain and decrease the swelling. They provided the highest level of care to her for the next 7 days until my father made the difficult decision to allow her to move on from this world.

I was able to be there when she passed away and had the opportunity to speak about her life at her memorial. So many people who knew her showed their love to me. My mother’s passing left a void in our family and in the community. I’m taking it one day at a time and holding on to the many good memories that I have of her.

As you can imagine, the costs of the medical care my mother received were very high. She didn’t have health insurance through the church that ran the pre-school where she worked. My father is a self-employed tile installer and never had health insurance through his business.

My father is a conservative Republican and my mother voted the same way he did even though she was a registered Democrat. Neither one of them wanted to get health insurance through the government program created by the Affordable Care Act, which is often referred to as Obamacare.

However, they signed up in late 2017 in order to avoid the penalty. They paid a total of about $2.50 per month for coverage. Their decision to get coverage through the government saved my family from financial ruin. The costs of my mother’s hospitalization would’ve been around $150,000 without insurance. Instead, my father has been billed around $2,900. Donations from family and friends will be able to cover most of that.

Our family is all too familiar with how medical bills can burden a family. In 1996, my mother had thyroid cancer, which she overcame. My father is still paying off the bills that came while my mother was in the hospital back then. Those bills made it difficult for my parents to pay the mortgage, buy vehicles, put gas in the car, pay for food, and cover the many expenses that families have. Sending me and siblings to college was out of the question because the money just wasn’t there. Those bills made all of our lives much more difficult and put a lot of stress on my parents.

Without the health insurance that my parents got because of the Affordable Care Act the rest of my father’s life would’ve been much more difficult. He could’ve lost everything or spent the rest of his life deeply in debt because of the medical bills. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act my father will be able to move into the next phase of his life without the crushing debt he would’ve had without insurance.

For that reason and many more I will continue to support progressive candidates and causes. The policies that we as Democrats fight to advance are important and worth fighting for because of how they help improve this country and the lives of Americans from coast to coast.

Letters To Everyone

The Brown County Democratic Party has a wealth of members that have opinions worth sharing. Now we have a mechanism for doing just that! Our new ‘Letters To Everyone’ will publish curated and edited letters to our website blog with filters and tags in order to locate the content you are interested in. These letters will have resource links included so you can research the topic more fully if you choose. We may post some of these to our FaceBook Group in order to allow comment by FaceBook Group members.

If you have something you want to get off your chest or want others to think about, please submit here: LTE@browncountydems.com