Most of us grew up with a soda in our hands and a twelve-pack in the pantry, but it’s time to wake up and smell the stench of empty calories. Diabetes Health reports that researchers from UCLA and the California Center for Public Health Advocacy discovered “a strong correlation between soda consumption and weight.” Specifically, they found that “adults who drink a soda or more per day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight than those who do not drink sodas.” The results were published in a study called, “Bubbling Over: Soda Consumption and Its Link to Obesity in California.”


“If we are serious about tackling the obesity crisis, cutting back soda consumption has to be the top priority,” said CCPHA Executive Director Dr. Harold Goldstein, co-author of the study.

So what he’s saying is… “Soda: It’s bad for you?”

But that’s not what you hear on TV is it? If you listen to Coke and Pepsi – and all indications are that Latino youth are listening intently – soda is happiness and soda is refreshing.

But it’s important that Latinos absorb this alternative message like a white guayabera soaks up a spilled Big Red at a carne asada:

“Soda: it’s bad for you.”

And the companies that make soda: they’re bad for you too.

As soda tax battles explode in places like New York and Philadelphia, proponents contend the measure will improve health and raise funds for public health programs. Their arguments draw on a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine recommending a tax on “sugar-sweetened beverages,” projecting that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption of soft drinks would decline a corresponding 8 to 10 percent, leading to weight loss and reduced health risks.

Sounds sweet, unless you’re in the business of selling soda, in which case the interpretation becomes, “Soda Tax: it’s bad for you.”

When Congress considered the measure, the American Beverage Association crushed it like a flimsy aluminum can beneath the heavy boot of its influence, boosting lobbying expenditures from $4.7 million in 2008 to $40.4 million in 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The ABA created the “Americans Against Food Taxes” campaign, arguing people are already struggling to make ends meet. But they forget that health problems – increasingly related to obesity – often cause families’ financial struggles.

Worse even, the ABA is attempting to manipulate Latinos, exploiting lower health awareness and price sensitivity to mobilize our largely lower-income community against its own best interests.

The ABA’s website and campaign oozes Latino imagery. A Spanish-language TV spot features a Latina mom carrying soda while lambasting Congress for considering a soda tax. She says while tax supporters dismiss the tax as “pennies,” the pennies add up when feeding your family. She indignantly asserts that a tax seemingly insignificant to legislators could overwhelm Latino families.

Un momento, señora. Last time I checked, soda didn’t add any nutritional value to “feeding” our families. We could substitute tap water or milk for soda and deliver healthier nutrition while saving money. And, if a soda tax is regressive, hurting Latino families, imagine how much more devastating the obesity epidemic is to the health of those very families.

But why imagine, when the facts speak for themselves? Latinos over-index on soda consumption, just like we do on obesity and diabetes. According to Simmons Research, while 58% of Non-Hispanic Whites drink regular cola, 70% of Latinos do so. The dynamic contributes to a tempest in a Coke cup, with Latinos in the eye of the storm. According to the CDC, 29 percent of obese Americans are Latino. That’s double our share of the general population! Prevalence of obesity is 21% higher among Latinos than among non-Hispanic whites. The most likely person to consume soda is also among the most likely to be obese: a Latino.

In this light, it’s downright predatory of the ABA to target Latinos for help in defeating soda taxes, which – by decreasing consumption – would benefit Latino health. Sadly, it’s working.

The ABA’s coalition boasts a “who’s who” of national Latino organizations, lined up like shiny cans on a shelf. From HACU to LULAC, American GI Forum to the US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, numerous groups support the ABA. Why don’t they care about the role soft drinks play in Latino obesity?  Could it be because these organizations have long slurped monetary syrup from ABA members?

Instead of protecting corporate pocketbooks, our advocates should defend Latino health, educate our community about soda’s harmful effects, and explain how these taxes are designed to reduce consumption and encourage adoption of healthier habits. We should also work to ensure that soda taxes and revenues are applied properly, with a focus on reducing minority health disparities.

Latinos may well be the swing vote in many soda tax initiative battles. Instead of letting the soda companies pull our strings, let’s take control of our destiny, starting with the sweet realization that, yes, you guessed it:

“Soda: It’s bad for you.”

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Today, I am of a different mind.  The health “insurance reform” that the Senate has crapped out is a vile, dishonest rape of the notion that Americans will see any sort of relief from the corporate, for-profit machinery of the insurance industry.  The bill must die.

President Obama’s stated desire for a reform of our health care system was predicated on the belief that no person in America, the richest country in the world, should go without needed medical care.  No person should be unable to afford that care, and no person should be made poor by paying for care.  Those ideas are sensible and obvious, and I don’t understand how so many people have been convinced to argue against them, but we’re now beyond that point of the conversation.

Our elected representatives have done our country a great disservice in moving to finalize this piece of legislation.  Through gross campaigns of misinformation on one side of the aisle and spineless, cowardly compromise on the other, Congress has boldly pledged its allegiance to the true enemy of the American people, corporate industry.

Three crucial points have been conceded to the insurance industry that completely undermine the heart of the reform originally verbalized by the president.

First and foremost, the complete elimination of a government-run public option guarantees that insurance companies will face no outside pressure to keep costs low and offer substantial coverage.  The notion that these companies will compete with one another to control costs is absurd, and fails completely when one realizes that bigger companies will merely buy up the weaker companies until we are left with only two or three mega-corps, completely in control of the entire industry.

Second, the refusal to allow Americans to buy FDA-approved drugs from outside the U.S. at lower costs benefits no one except pharmaceutical companies collecting astronomical profits by overcharging U.S. consumers.  Our lawmakers have effectively stated that they know Americans are being grossly overcharged, and they are o.k. with that.

Third, allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines will allow those companies to relocate their corporate headquarters to states with corporate-friendly laws and fewer consumer protections.  This provides the insurance industry with another layer of armor to protect against customer complaints and legal action.

The only winner if this law goes through is the insurance industry.  They get 30 million new customers, by law.  The winner if this law doesn’t go through?  It’s still the insurance industry, as they continue doing business as usual, maximizing profit by minimizing the money they spend to heal people.  The loss in either scenario is reserved for the people, as we continue to pay top dollar for what we have now or the less-regulated, more expensive, weaker coverage that they’re allowed to sell us once they’ve been “reformed”.

This reform bill is a slap in the face.  I no longer feel that we can move forward taking anything that we can get.  The United States could and should have a national single-payer health care system for all of its citizens.  We’re not going to get it right now, but it doesn’t mean that we should let Congress get away with bending us over and violating our trust.  We must hope that some of the Congressional progressives show mercy on the American people and kill the proposal.  If the loss now equates to a loss forever, I sadly accept that loss.  A victory under the currently proposed terms is a more insidious defeat.

Jake Negovan strives to shine a light on truth and hypocrisy when the mainstream media overlooks those small details. “…For the People,” Jake’s column, is his platform to address the issues that our country faces as we continue growing toward a society of equality.

Earlier this week, the Senate’s Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nevada), stated his intent to craft a bill that incorporates a government-administered public option while permitting individual states to opt out. The details of how such states could opt out are still unclear. It is most likely, however, that states would initially be included in the reform. Legislatures could then vote to opt out, requiring final gubernatorial approval.

While many in the media have seen this development as a victory for liberal Democrats, I see it as a cop out designed to secure the votes needed in the Senate to avoid a filibuster while potentially sacrificing the needs of some of the neediest populations in our country when it comes to health coverage and health disparities.

Nowhere might this be more glaring than in Texas, the first state that came to my mind when I heard states might be allowed to opt out.

To be clear, I support a public option, based on my experiences working in communications for both private insurance companies as well as public health entities, including the Texas Department of State Health Services.

In a September 10^th column titled “Public Option: Much-Needed Insurance for Latinos,” I wrote:

“Our privately-run health care system has failed minority groups dismally for generations, contributing to deadly health disparities among Latinos and Blacks. I’m not convinced regulating the same old health insurance providers while squeezing their budgets will create the paradigm shift required to radically alter this industry’s approach to the unique challenges Latinos face. According to the Office of Minority Health, “Hispanic health is often shaped by factors such as language/cultural barriers, lack of access to preventive care, and the lack of health insurance.” Making matters worse, Corporate America faces cultural obstacles of its own in tackling minority health needs.”

I thus believe the public option is the best way to ensure that this national health reform truly make strides in addressing the needs of Hispanics – as well as other – minority communities.

All you have to do is look at the glaring health disparities affecting these groups – and their higher rates of uninsured – to know they need new options. Nationally, 30.7 percent of Hispanics, 19.1 percent of Blacks, and 17.6 percent of Asians don’t have health insurance, compared to 10.8 percent of non-Hispanic Whites.

In Texas, matters are even worse. According to a New York Times analysis of Census data: Texas leads the pack of states likely to opt out of the public option – Red states that voted for John McCain and have two Republican senators – with the highest rate of uninsured: 26.5 percent. Of particular relevance to Texas’ Hispanic leaders and elected officials is that within Texas, a whopping 42.4 percent of Hispanics are uninsured. That’s nearly 3.5 million Texan Hispanics. (Source: US Census Bureau, Small Area Health Insurance Estimates)

Tragically, in the states most likely to opt out, the uninsured – predominantly minority – populations are concentrated in districts that typically vote Democratic while their overall state goes Republican. It’s like the doctors, insurance executives and government leaders are walking through the crowded hospital waiting room determining the fate of America’s future and they’re not stopping to listen to the overwhelmingly Hispanic patient population in places like San Antonio, Laredo, El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley. Maybe it’s because they don’t speak “español.” Maybe it’s because we’re so far away and can’t drag our sick, uninsured bodies to the steps of Capitol Hill to protest. Maybe it’s because the liberal Democrats know they’ll get our votes no matter what and the Republicans know they won’t. Whatever the case may be, this is the time our elected Representatives in Congress need to stand up and fight for the right kind of public option, one that does not allow Texas’ Republican governor and legislature to rob our communities of the full benefits of national reform.

If anyone is not sure whether this should be the fight of Texas Hispanic leaders in Washington, consider this excerpt from a piece in the Houston Chronicle:

The Texas congressional delegation holds an ignominious honor: It has more congressional districts with more uninsured people than any other state in the country. Texas, which has the nation’s highest rate of uninsured, has four districts among the highest 10 in the country for constituents who lack coverage, including two in South Texas represented by Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo, and Ruben Hinojosa, D-Mercedes.

Hinojosa’s district in the Rio Grande Valley holds the double-distinction of being the highest in the state and the country — with 46.4 percent of residents with no health-care coverage…Other Texas districts in the bottom 10 nationally are represented by Cuellar in Laredo, sixth highest, and Silvestre Reyes, D-El Paso, ranked eighth highest.

I’ve already heard Governor Rick Perry decrying the public option as “socialism” on FOX News. We can all see the writing on this border wall. If the “liberals” in Congress cop out via an opt-out public option, declaring national victory, it is the uninsured in places like Brownsville, Texas that will lose once again. It’s up to our representatives to ensure the “opt-out” gets cut out of the final bill sent to the President. So, got get ‘em team. Let’s make sure we win one for the “gente.”

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

We tax cigarettes, gasoline and alcohol to dissuade their use and help pay for the damage they cause. So why not tax unhealthy food to reduce its appeal as well as pay for the health care costs generated by the growing burden of obesity? For added convenience and speed, I’d start by ordering up such a tax on fast food, pronto.

Let’s face it, two/thirds of Americans are afflicted by the obesity epidemic. Our expanding national waistline correlates to our bulging health care budget, accounting for $147 billion a year in medical bills. Experts at Johns Hopkins project that by 2015, 75% of Americans will be overweight or obese, calling the trend “a public health crisis.” Rather than accept it, why not fight the fat? It starts and ends with taxpayers, so why not grease the wheels with a fat tax?

The biggest reason people are obese is the way they eat. And cheap, fast food is at the congested heart of the matter. According to TIME Magazine, it is the largesse of taxpayers that enables McDonald’s to offer a Big Mac, fries and a Coke for under $5. Our tax dollars underwrite USDA subsidies to corn farmers. Cheap, abundant corn feeds our obsession with beef and pork, whose mass production relies on low-cost, unsanitary methods masked by antibiotics. All to feed America’s insatiable appetite for self destruction. Seen the glut of commercials touting bacon cheeseburgers lately? Given that the industry spends $10 billion in annual advertising, I reckon so. Heard of Burger King’s new “Enormous Omelet Sandwich?” Or Hardee’s “Monster Thickburger,” weighing in at 1,420 calories and 107 grams of fat? Yes, they chose those names, not me.  And their branding gurus make fat sound cool. According to MSNBC, the fun and games are a result of a “race among fast-food companies to lure customers with bigger, fattier and more filling menu offerings.”

Well, I’m glad someone’s running. Unfortunately, the only fast track the people buying this value-priced smorgasbord of excess are currently on is a one-way to the ER preceded by a pit stop at the newly expanded Big & Tall section of their friendly, accommodating, neighborhood Wal-Mart.

Sadly, our culture of obesity – in which fat is the new normal – is costing us dearly and will likely kill us unless we come to terms with the fact that it’s not healthy and it’s not good, not for individuals, not for our country, and certainly not for taxpayers.

You see, after our tax-payer subsidized corporate agriculture industry enables fast-food giants to ply us with sinful delights for some denomination of 99 cents, our obesity bloats our health costs, which in turn must be underwritten in some way or another by guess who? Taxpayers, the go-to item on the Congressional drive-thru menu. So as taxpayers fund the subsidies for the cheap entrees and pick up the tab for the care and drugs for the generously included sides of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, sleep apnea, etc., I’m left wondering: who’s profiting?

When I diagrammed the cycle of profiteering, I came up with: agribusiness, pharmaceuticals (70% of anti-microbial drugs are administered to animals, not humans), food manufacturers, fast-food/restaurants, and finally health care and pharmaceuticals (again) trying to clean up the mess. Perhaps I should include leather goods companies benefiting from selling longer belts or lumber companies supplying extra wood for super-sized coffins?

Interestingly, when I cross-referenced the beneficiaries with the ranking of Top 50 Congressional contributors I discovered a Double Whopper: Health Professionals (#2), Insurance (#6), Pharmaceuticals (#11), Hospitals (#21), Crop Production (#22), Food & Beverage (#39), and Food Processing/Sales (#50). How’s that for a Monstrous Combo Meal?

Apparently, our tax dollars and special interest contributions have engendered subsidies to a system designed to make us sick at our own expense. So, as we consider how to pay for health care reform, we should consider this tasty approach:

Tax fast food and high-fat, processed foods. Place a surtax on companies profiting from the sale of such foods. Shift subsidies away from corn towards the production of fresh fruits and vegetables as well as organic, sustainable farming so that healthier, more natural food becomes as affordable and accessible as Chicken McNuggets.

While we’re at it, let’s regulate fast food advertising so our kids aren’t brainwashed to seek out happiness in a vacuous meal by age 3.

Finally, I respectfully suggest that the First Lady build on the success of her organic garden to lead the fight against fast food as a fundamental component of the White House’s proposed health care reform.

After all, the best place to start reforming our broken health care system is by first nourishing a healthier America. How’s that for a Big Mac Attack?

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

There are approximately 46 million uninsured Americans. About 1/3^rd of those are Latinos. And according to the White House, 34% of Latinos lack health insurance.

“Latinos are by far the largest group of uninsured,” President Obama said. “Passing reform that addresses the vulnerability of this community is a critical pillar for a new economy.”

So how do we ensure reform meets not only the exigencies of reluctant Republicans and balking Blue Dogs but also the urgencies of the Latino uninsured?

Digging into the numbers and my experiences as a public policy communicator, I believe the Public Option is crucial to meet the needs of underserved communities.

Our privately-run health care system has failed minority groups dismally for generations, contributing to deadly health disparities among Latinos and Blacks. I’m not convinced regulating the same old health insurance providers while squeezing their budgets will create the paradigm shift required to radically alter this industry’s approach to the unique challenges Latinos face. According to the Office of Minority Health, “Hispanic health is often shaped by factors such as language/cultural barriers, lack of access to preventive care, and the lack of health insurance.” Making matters worse, Corporate America faces cultural obstacles of its own in tackling minority health needs.

My skepticism is informed by my experiences at Interlex, the advocacy marketing agency I co-founded in 1995, through which I’ve worked with the American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, numerous State health departments, and over a dozen hospitals.

At one point, Interlex was engaged by an insurance company specializing in illnesses that severely impact Latinos. The company – devoid of Latino executives – required assistance connecting with our community. We flew into action. The first obstacle was that they had not allocated time for developing culturally relevant materials, forcing us to merely translate their CMS-approved copy to hit their launch date. Accustomed to creating in-culture communications, we were chagrinned but determined to introduce Latinos to this important resource for their prevalent conditions. We overcame the content challenge via imagery and a grassroots team penetrating barrios and churches with the potent air cover of a multimedia campaign. Response exceeded the client’s goals. Then the second obstacle emerged. Insufficient leads were converting into customers. Among those enrolled, retention suffered. What was wrong? We discovered the answer speaking with patients. The health insurance company with the plan designed and marketed for Latinos had failed to hire bilingual salespeople, customer service representatives and clinicians to sell the plan and deliver the care. How did they correct this? Did they hire and train new personnel? Did they regroup and reengineer their approach to be more culturally relevant? No. Instead they pulled the plug on their Latino effort altogether. Servicing Latino customers – given their special needs – was more costly than projected and the returns less lucrative than anticipated. Latino patients were simply not “good business.” So, adios, amigos.

Welcome to traditionally underserved communities. If they were easier to serve and if corporations better understood how to profit doing so, they wouldn’t be neglected. Health disparities might become a distant memory of vanquished social injustice.

That’s why the Public Option is vital. It will provide a recourse for those not adequately – or equitably – served by private insurers. Through my work with government health agencies, I’ve found they’re largely comprised of fair-minded civil servants with a genuine concern for traditionally underserved audiences. They draw on extensive experience conducting outreach and purveying assistance to low-income Latinos. In Texas, when Interlex served the Department of Health, 66% of WIC’s client base was Latino. You better believe we were developing in-culture, in-language materials and they were providing service in Spanish. Public health professionals with this base of experience can build on the effectiveness of programs like Medicaid and WIC to cover and serve the 15 million uninsured Latinos. And they don’t operate under the pressure of hitting profit goals to earn bonuses at the expense of patients.

The President – buoyed by Latino leaders – should champion a Public Option within health care reform.

According to the National Hispanic Medical Association’s president, Elena Rios: “Hispanics have the worst record in terms of [health disparities.] We have the most to gain in terms of health reform.”

I couldn’t agree more. While I’m fortunate enough to be covered, I’d welcome a little insurance that health reform will truly help all people in need, including Latinos.

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.

Health Care. Yes, capital letters. That’s what we’re all talking about and it’s what they want us to talk about. Because we are being asked to debate the merits of “socialized medicine” against the ever-wise and just “market forces” so half of us will be able to chalk up another win for our favorite team. Instead of participating in the puppet-show argument that we’re told to believe is actual debate, though, I’m going to spell out the real story.

If we get health care reform this year, it is because the combined health care industries will make a lot of money off of the plan that is implemented. There will not be a plan that causes a net reduction in the profits of hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, or insurers, yet the only truly beneficial reforms for the average citizen would come at the expense of at least one, if not all, of those businesses.

The elected officials that are supposed to represent you do not care about you. They don’t. Unless you are on the board of a wealthy and powerful corporation, that is. But, I bet you’re not. They care about themselves. They care about their power and they care about their pursuit of wealth. We don’t have national health care because they care about those things more than they care about you or me.

As we saw with the Bush administration’s rush to war and fast-tracking of the PATRIOT Act, hasty legislation is a bad idea. The legislative process envisioned by the nation’s founders was deliberately slow, allowing for careful and extended debate. Now, following in Bush’s footsteps, President Obama is urging a quick ram-through of a health care reform bill. Despite his claims that he wants this to pass now because of all the people currently living without coverage, the reason for his urgency can only be that a proper and extended debate would expose enough flaws and logical fallacies that the bill would not maintain support.

Many people in the medical industry are not interested in your health. They are interested in money. As a doctor, it’s a lot easier to make money off of people being sick than to make money off of people being healthy. Those doctors don’t want a national health care system because they recognize the reduced revenue that would result from carefully regulated costs and a focus on preventative medical practices. There are plenty of doctors out there that are interested in your health, and really do seem to want what is best for you, regardless of how much money they make, but if the median income of a doctor were reduced at this moment to, say, $90,000 per year, I bet you’d see a lot of medical school drop-outs.

Insurance companies are not your friends. If you, for one second, believe any of the rhetoric being issued by American insurance companies about the dangers of socialized medicine, you’re being played. Insurance companies, like all other types of companies, care about only one thing: separating you from your few dollars that they may add to their own over-flowing coffers. They aren’t genuine when they tell you that competition between insurance providers creates lower costs and better care.

The power of the consumer to benefit from competition exists only when true choices are available to the consumer. For the most part, Americans are not provided that choice. We get the health insurance that our employer offers because to do otherwise is often cost-prohibitive. That isn’t going to change even if a public option is created because the insurance you get through your employer is not paid for with taxable income. Your public option would be. The end-consumer’s choices are not competitively empowering.

There is only one wealthy, industrialized nation on Earth that does not have a universal health care system. That country is, of course, the United States of America. According to a World Health Organization report from 2008, the U.S. spends 15.2 % of its Gross Domestic Product on health care. Out of 193 countries detailed in that report, only one spends a greater percentage – the Marshall Islands. Without researching, I am confident in stating that their GDP is dwarfed by that of the United States.

So, if we don’t have universal health care, but we spend more of our GDP on health care than Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, or the United Kingdom, all of which do have universal health care, why are we spending so much? Critics will likely point to government inefficiency and fraud, and claim they are plagues of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. I won’t make any claims that those problems don’t exist. But the problems of those programs are more easily fixed and pale in comparison to the problems created by bloated corporations.

According to a recent report, true health care reform in the United States as a single-payer system covering all Americans at no out-of-pocket expense to the patient would create 2.6 million new jobs. That number is equal to the number of jobs that dissolved in our country’s recession during 2008 across all industries. Not only would the single-payer system be an economic benefit to the country and its citizens, see the last page of that report to see how the cost compares to the other recent attempts that have been made to bolster our economy.

Ideally, we would have legislation introduced in Congress that would seek to cover all Americans under Medicaid. Guess what? It has happened in every Congressional session for the past six years. Representative John Conyers, Jr. originally introduced the Bill in 2003, but current debate won’t even allow mention of a single-payer plan as an option. Why not? Because we, the people, would benefit more than for-profit enterprises.

Sometimes, politicians wage wars of attrition against one another. They compromise and dilute to get something passed and claim the accomplishment, even if the end-result is a weak specter of the original intent. Other times, the point of the debate is to reframe the argument from “good option vs bad option” to “bad option vs worse option” (such as the recent cap-and-trade debate). I don’t appreciate my leaders asking me if I’d prefer to be punched in the face or punched in the gut without offering me the option of not getting punched. You can ask for single-payer coverage to be a part of the national health reform discussion, preventing politicians from playing these kinds of games.

It’s right. We have the ability. The greed of the few is preventing the good of all. We can not abide.

I supported your candidacy and am proud that you are our President. But I’m very worried about your proposed healthcare reforms and their potentially negative impact on our faltering economy. I am hoping you may reconsider your approach to put first things first.

As a communications and media entrepreneur I co-founded and have grown a successful company over 15 years. Starting with nothing more than a concept, some talent and my education, today I employ over 30 people, provide them with healthcare in which my company shares the cost 50-50, generate revenues of over $40 million annually, pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes a year, and provide hundreds of thousands of additional dollars in pro-bono services and contributions to non-profit organizations. Throughout all of this, my family and I have always believed that we could “give” more, that we could pay more taxes for the greater good of our country if it would help us live up to our potential as a society and a nation. But today, facing the burden of increased taxation and costs on multiple fronts due to your proposed healthcare reform, I finally have to ask myself, “How much is too much?” And as an entrepreneur who studied economics at Harvard, I also have to wonder, “Before we spend more money and make more investments as a country, shouldn’t we turn our economy around first? Before we increase government budgets, shouldn’t we look to cut elsewhere first? As a prudent, strategic leader thinking systemically (which you promised you would), doesn’t it make sense to put “first things first?”

Let’s look at the our national economy like a large business. Our business is losing money. Many say it’s because our manufacturing base lost its competitive edge. Some have blamed it on the unions and the high cost of labor here compared to the low cost of labor in places like China and India. There are, however, sectors of our economy that are often seen as beacons of hope: the small business sector is one of these. However, as a small business creator and owner, I can assure you that burdening small businesses with additional overhead costs as your healthcare reform proposes is going to stifle competitiveness and growth. Many small businesses are struggling already without access to credit and capital amidst decreasing sales and cash flow during this recession. How can the federal government justify burdening them further with health insurance requirements? More fundamentally, in the country that has led the capitalist world and encouraged entrepreneurship by making it relatively easy to create businesses, wouldn’t these requirements severely curtail the freedom of entrepreneurship? What kind of message would such an action send to America and the world: that while the federal government bails out the billionaires of Wall Street, it punishes the small business owners toiling in their shadows? Wouldn’t it be sound economics to erase the deficit and get the engines of our success back on track, before we go shopping at the trillion dollar healthcare mall?

When trying to balance a budget, I’ve always looked at two ways to eliminate deficits: making more money and spending less money. The federal government should do both, but it should not confuse raising taxes for making more money. If our economy becomes more productive we could keep taxes even and still bring in more tax revenue.

Secondly, what about cutting costs as the flipside of the coin? There is a lot of vague talk about savings to be derived from overhauls of Medicaid and Medicare tied to this reform. But if those savings are so obvious why haven’t they been made already? I’d like more details or to at least see the savings being made somewhere in the government budget over a period of time before we commit to more expenditures. Furthermore, during your campaign you talked a lot about the daily squandering of millions of dollars with our wars abroad. Why not bring the troops home, cut military costs, turn the economy around, and then invest in healthcare?

I keep asking myself, why this approach and why now? What’s the rush given the dire economic circumstances? Why not take care of first things first?

Some pundits say it may be a matter of time. Former Congressional Staffer John Freehey writes for CNN.com that:

A new administration has a little less than a year to pass its big-ticket items, mostly because it is very hard to get major initiatives done in an election year.

So, maybe you’re feeling the pressure to get this big, promised healthcare reform off the ground. But you made that promise before our economy collapsed last Fall! I’m sure many of us out here still contributing to that economy might actually feel a bit more comfortable if you and Congress focused on fixing the economic mess first, before you ask us to pony up a trillion more dollars for a nationwide experiment with universal health coverage. First things first, Mr. President. You’ve been strategic and methodical you’re whole career, so please don’t let the ways of Washington change you when you went there to change them. Take your time. Don’t feel like you’re on some pre-ordained clock. If you can help us get the economy back on track, your political capital would grow rather than run out, and then healthcare reform might be more feasible and sustainable. Caring for our fellow Americans should definitely be a top priority but it’s a big and expensive dream, why not take solid, orderly steps in ramping up our ability to pay for it to become a reality?

Rudy Ruiz has been hailed as a cultural visionary. A published author and multicultural advocate, Ruiz is an acclaimed multicultural communications entrepreneur. He founded Red Brown and Blue as well as Interlex, one of the nation’s leading advocacy marketing agencies ranked by Ad Age as one of the Top US Agencies across all disciplines. Prior to that, Ruiz earned his BA in Government at Harvard College and his Masters in Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.