She's Like An Agnostic-- Have You Seen Her All In Gold, Like A Queen In Days Of Old
>
Yesterday, Washington Post reporters Paul Kane and Rachael Bade wrote that Nancy Pelosi is skeptical of Medicare-For-All and that she questions whether Medicare-for-all can deliver benefits as good as Obamacare. I literally have never met anyone using Obamacare who likes it and I have never met anyone using Medicare who doesn't love it. So I'm confused about what Pelosi is babbling about, when she said on Thursday Medicare-For-All might be too expensive and that she'd rather build on Obamacare. "I’m agnostic," she said slyly. "Show me how you think you can get there. We all share the value of health care for all Americans-- quality, affordable health care for all Americans. What is the path to that? I think it’s the Affordable Care Act, and if that leads to Medicare-for-all, that may be the path." Tragic! Just tragic.
You may have heard me telling this story before, so... if you have I apologize in advance. Before retiring I was a TimeWarner divisional president and things like health insurance for top corporate executives were carefully negotiated by high-priced attorneys as part of contracts. Except in the case of health insurance, attorneys long ago had done all the negotiating. Chairmen and presidents got the best package the "free market" offered. There really wasn't any negotiating to do. It was built into the deal already-- the best is the best and there's nothing better than that. So that's what I had, amazing health insurance, or at least I thought so. I was much younger and healthier and didn't use it much-- almost not at all, and certainly not enough too think much about it other than to know in the back of my mind that I had the best of the best so... no worries.
Then I decided to retire. Then I was worried. I had a preexisting condition. Maybe I was uninsurable. Maybe insurance would cost a small fortune. But then I discovered that part of my best of the best package included a golden parachute provision: the company would continue insuring me until I was eligible for Medicare. Groovy; no more worries. In the time between when I retired and did become eligible for Medicare, I grew older-- imagine that-- and less healthy, more in need of doctors' care. The insurance suddenly came in handy. I started to worry about what would happen when I was pushed onto Medicare. What would I do then? How much worse was it than the best the private market had to offer?
And the day came. It came at around the same time that I was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer. First I discovered something that apparently no one has told Ms. Pelosi. Common ole Medicare-- with the supplemental plan you need for the extra 20% of costs-- that everyone uses, high and low, is actually BETTER, BETTER, BETTER, than the best insurance the private market offers. I know... it sounds astounding and hard to believe. But... let me put it this way. When the hospital bills that I never had to pay reached the $2 million mark, I stopped looking at them. Medicare is the greatest thing that ever happened to me. When friends tell me they've been diagnosed with something, the first thing I ask them is if they're on Medicare yet.
Because I was in the music business, I know an inordinate number of people who use Obamacare to access insurance. I've never met anyone who had anything better to say about it than "it's better than nothing." The best things about Obamacare are rules for society-- like no insurance industry terrorism over preexisting conditions allowed-- but in terms of an individual's care, Obamacare is... yeah, better than nothing. Like if Medicare is an "A+," Obamacare is, more or less a "C" (at best). A "C" isn't that bad, I guess. An A+, when it comes to life or death, is a lot better.
It shocked me that Pelosi doesn't understand what either Medicare or Obamacare is, except in theory. But when I thought about it, I realized I was foolish to be shocked. You understand about Medicare when you experience it, not when you read about it. She has some kind of congressional insurance so what does she know about Medicare? Nothing real. And Obamacare? She knows how great and innovative and crucial it was for society-- but not how badly it sucks for individuals stuck with it.
There are 107 original co-sponsors for HR 1384, Pramila Jayapal's new-and-improved Medicare-For-All legislation. Pelosi isn't one of them. Nor is Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn or Ben Ray Lujan, her 3 top lieutenants. DCCC Chair Cheri Bustos didn't sign on either. Neither did Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries. That's the top leadership of the House Democrats-- and not a single one is a Medicare-For-All co-sponsor.
It's mostly progressives, with a smattering of non-progressives worried about primaries because they represent blue districts-- like Eliot Engel (New Dem-NY), Bill Keating (New Dem-MA), Vicente Gonzalez (Blue Dog-TX), Marc Veasey (New Dem-TX), Ann Kirkpatrick (New Dem-AZ), Diane DeGette (D-CO), Adam Smith (New Dem-WA), Mike Doyle (D-PA)... And not many freshmen (just 17), who have been discouraged from signing on by Hoyer's operation. These are the only freshman members who have signed on so far:
• AOC (D-NY)When Pelosi told The Post that "when most people say they’re for Medicare-for-all, I think they mean health care for all. Let’s see what that means. A lot of people love having their employer-based insurance and the Affordable Care Act gave them better benefits." People who say they like their employer-based insurance are as ignorant as I was when I thought it was great (and as she is). She's right when she says "the Affordable Care Act gave them better benefits." That's what the Affordable Care Act did for America, but those social policies are baked into the cake now-- and Pelosi and her colleagues who passed them and defended them should be acknowledged and applauded for the incremental piece of progress they made. Now it's time for a giant step forward: Medicare For All, which, of course, includes ever policy achievement Pelosi is defending regarding Obamacare. But when Pelosi said "Medicare is not as good a health benefit as the Affordable Care Act," she's just plum out of her mind. When it comes to what Medicare does for patients compared to what Obamacare accessed insurance does... no one who says Medicare is better should be in a position to influence anything to do with policy.
• Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)
• Ilhan Omar (D-MN)
• Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)
• Joe Neguse (D-CO)
• Chuy Garcia (D-IL)
• Mike Levin (D-CA)
• Andy Levin (D-MI)
• Debra Haaland (D-NM)
• Katie Porter (D-CA)
• Jared Golden (D-ME)
• Jahana Hayes (D-CT)
• Lori Trahan (New Dem-MA)
• Josh Harder (New Dem-CA)
• Vernonica Escobar (New Dem-TX)
• Susan Wild (New Dem-PA)
• Katie Hill (New Dem-CA)
Pelosi took a hand in improving the only bad part of Medicare, Bush's wretched Medicare Part D (the pharmaceuticals part of the plan) and it's a bit better now. So not an "F" anymore-- a "C." A "C" is better than an "F." Thank you Nancy Pelosi for the lovely "C." We want an "A." What the Medicare-For-All proposals do is get rid of Part D and make pharmaceuticals affordable instead. The other improvements include dental care, as well as eye and ear care-- seeing and hearing. How's that for improvements? Long overdue, in part, because Nancy doesn't understand healthcare except from the perspective of the multimillionaire she is.
Labels: Medicare, Medicare For All, Nancy Pelosi, Obamacare, Rolling Stones
posted by DownWithTyranny @ 5:00 AM
6 comments
|
Reddit
6 Comments:
Quote "Long overdue, in part, because Nancy doesn't understand healthcare except from the perspective of the multimillionaire she is".
Credit her bought & paid master corporate donors for who she is today $$$$$$.
"...what does (Pelosi) know about Medicare? Nothing real. And Obamacare? She knows how great and innovative and crucial it was for society-- but not how badly it sucks for individuals stuck with it."
I'm confused. is obamneycare good or bad according to you?
The American profitized health system sucks. It is shit because it seeks to extract massive amounts of money from its victims not for health care, but for the employment of a massive layer of paper pushers and corporate boards plus profits that are then dispersed to stockholders of that same layer. Obamneycare sucks MORE because it makes that layer bigger and more expensive, forces more hapless victims to get raped or face the IRS and does nothing about how much worse the rapes are guaranteed to become over time. It also does nothing about actual CARE except make insurance "cover" pre-existing conditions... though it certainly does not constrain what the rapists charge for the privilege of being raped.
The American system is like the rest of the American society. It rapes people who have no choice in the matter, if they get sick or hurt, they must be raped or die.
the whole idea of MFA is to nationalize CARE and constrain costs by getting rid of the corporate rapists entirely. It won't be "too expensive" because it will cost less than the ongoing corporate rape system.
DWT, instead of wasting time and space on a piece that doesn't know what it is trying to say, how about you just do something that lays out how it would be affordable, constitutional (because it will tax corporations, businesses and payrolls), and most of all, how much less it would cost all the rape victims.
You could even leave Pelosi out of it. she's a corporate whore who gets a lot of money from the rapists. we all should know that. we all should realize that is her only perspective, as 6:21 observed.
Oh, sorry. You spent a lot of time, space, energy and raised a lot of money to make Pelosi the beaver who dammed the river again.
Partly because of you, Pelosi is again able to smother all such necessary reforms in order to protect her revenue stream. When you start quoting her nonsensical double-talk, you only serve to make the idiots dumber. I get it. There's another election in 19 months.
as in all things, no vital reforms like MFA are possible until voters get rid of Pelosi and her party of corporate servants.
you can double-talk MFA all you want. It's moot. Pelosi won't ever allow it.
Move on to something else.
Whether she knows it or not, or we know it or not, she (and Steny Hoyer, James Clyburn, and a bunch of senators) are on Medicare. I think every employer and all health insurance plans REQUIRE you to go on Medicare when you reach age 65. She probably also has her "supplement" through her federal employee insurance, and Members of Congress have the very nice, convenient physicians office in the Capitol for which they are asked to pay $500 a year (but not enforced). I doubt she pays much attention to her insurance plans and how they work. Pelosi wants to get something passed that improves the flawed Obama-care. Fine. Do it. There are lots of ways to lower prescription drug costs for starters and there "should" be no reason for even Republicans to oppose it. But it is time to talk about what Medicare for All is, and find a path to get there, find the political will. During the Obamacare debate, one proposal was floated to start by lowering the age of eligibility (i.e. to 60, then 55 etc.) It didn't go anywhere, and the entire health care discussion was stunted when Obama took single payer and Medicare for all off the table, and allowed the senate to engage in their long slow study group. Those of us who support Medicare for All need to organize and keep pushing to make it happen. Or do as Canada did. They started with the provinces, we would need to start with the states. Be prepared to battle physician groups as well as the insurance industry, big Pharma, and their scare tactics. Nancy Pelosi needs to hear from people who are not using their Obamacare because of extremely high deductibles.
Pelosi just doesn't want to take any money away from the war budget. Her job is to lead us away from the things that we want. That way, not even one bullet gets eliminated for the campaign to conquer the world for private profit.
Mary Jo, Pelosi cannot hear the little people. If your family was killed by obamneycare, she won't hear or care. She only hears those waving 5-figure checks (minimum). And you should know that.
And the nonsense about Pelosi being "like an agnostic"... sheepdoggery? She's a devout, strident, fundamentalist, capitalist whore. The concept of agnosticism does not imply the kind of zealotry she demonstrates every single time she suppresses each and every progressive reflex, as few as there are, in her caucus.
And, yeah, I know that the voters on the left are probably far too stupid to know what an agnostic is... just that the word will trigger a visceral recoil in them. So... well done.
Post a Comment
<< Home