Biden's And Trump's Shortcomings Aside, Why Still Bernie? Part I

I have every intention of writing in Bernie's name in November. Why? He's the best man to be president. I don't vote against people; I vote for people. Bernie and his platform were right for 2016 and he and his platform are right for 2020. Watch the video above and maybe you will decide to write him in too.

Last week, HarrisX did a Medicare-for-All poll for The Hill. They found that 69% of registered voters support Medicare-for-All. That breaks down to 88% of Democrats, 68% of independent voters and 46% of Republicans. Gabriela Schulte wrote that "Progressive lawmakers have been pointing to the coronavirus crisis to make a case for the need for Medicare for All as millions of Americans are kicked off their employee-based health insurance due to the economic fallout of the pandemic. 'Crises are moments of opportunity for policy change,' Robert Griffin, Research Director of the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, told Hill.TV... President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, Felicia Wong, believes support for Medicare for All will only grow amid the coronavirus crisis. 'These progressive policies have been popular for a long time. I think COVID-19 will make them more popular as it becomes clear just how fragile our American political economy really is,' Wong told Hill.TV."

Yesterday, Pramila Jayapal (D-WA)-- with 33 co-sponsors-- proposed the Medicare Crisis Program Act, which is meant to ensure that everyone has guaranteed access to health care during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the millions of Americans who have been thrown out of work and off their employer-related health insurance. The legislation would expand Medicare and Medicaid eligibility during the crisis, cap out-of-pocket costs for Medicare enrollees, and eliminate co-pays, coinsurance or deductibles for COVID-19 testing and related care. Pramila's office explained that "More than 26 million Americans have filed for unemployment in the last five weeks, and as a result many have lost their income and seen their health coverage disappear in the middle of a public health emergency. As COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc on our economy, it is estimated that up to 35 million Americans will lose their health coverage-- joining the roughly 30 million who were previously uninsured. By dramatically expanding the number of Americans eligible for Medicare and Medicaid-- two effective and efficient health insurance programs-- the Medicare Crisis Program Act would guarantee Americans have health care when it is needed the most."

In a written statement, Pramila noted that "Our nation’s for-profit, employment-based health care system did not make sense before COVID-19 struck, and it is proving dangerous and deadly during the crisis. Millions of Americans are losing their job and their health insurance at precisely the moment when we need everyone to be able to access care and treatment for illness. The Medicare Crisis Program Act would guarantee health care for millions of people struggling with the health and economic realities of the COVID-19 pandemic and protect Americans from outrageous out-of-pocket costs."

Her chief co-sponsor is Joe Kennedy (D-MA) and other members of Congress who have signed on are Earl Blumenauer (F-OR), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Jahana Hayes (D-CT), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), James McGovern (D-MA), Grace Meng (D-NY), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Chellie Pingree (D-ME), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Darren Soto (D-FL), Mark Takano (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Juan Vargas (D-CA) and Peter Welch (D-VT). Not one Republican or Blue Dog is behind the bill.

Doctors Justin Lowenthal and Meenakshi Bewtra, co-chairs of the COVID-19 response taskforce and members of the national board of directors of Doctors for America, issued a statement on the proposed legislation yesterday: "Doctors for America and its 20,000 members nationwide have been on the frontlines of this pandemic and we commend Representatives Jayapal and Kennedy for including critical health and life-saving measures that aim to ensure increased availability and equitable distribution of PPE and other medical equipment for all frontline workers. We also know firsthand that COVID-19 has not merely caused-- but rather, exposed-- the deep and critical problems that our patients face in affordability, equity, and accessibility of their health care. We applaud this proposal for ensuring coverage, affordability, and access to health care for all of our patients during the COVID crisis, while illustrating one of several viable approaches for moving toward universal health care in the future. This crisis shows us that, as a nation, we are all in this together: We should all have access to PPE when caring for and serving others, and we should all have insurance coverage that does not disappear when you need it nor depend on your employment status during a pandemic."

I have no idea who Dr. William Haseltine favors for president. It's probably not Trump, though, as you might guess from the Fox News interview below. Haseltine is a scientist, biotech entrepreneur, author and current chair and president of the global health think tank ACCESS Health International. He is also the chair of the U.S.-China Health Summit and was in Wuhan last November just before the outbreak there emerged. This is an OpEd about healthcare for all in The Hill yesterday.

Each day a new story of crowded hospital corridors and exhausted health care workers appears in our newspapers. But another story, equally tragic, is unfolding in the privacy of our homes. Countless Americans with chronic conditions and other serious illnesses languish in isolation without access to care. While hospitals have of course remained open for urgent care, patients with less critical needs have been relegated almost entirely to virtual visits.

Many without illness are able to cope, but countless families have been permanently broken by the hospital closures. Take, for example, the blood cancer patient in Philadelphia who was desperately in need of chemotherapy. Unfortunately, blood supplies had been rationed for COVID-19 patients and the patient couldn’t get enough transfusions to allow his chemotherapy to begin. His clinic visits were cancelled, his condition worsened and by the middle of April, he had passed away, a death expedited by COVID-19.

Stories like this are just the tip of the iceberg. Doctors across the country have been reporting concerning trends among patients, with many delaying much-needed care because of concerns about contracting COVID-19 during an emergency room visit. A survey of nine major hospitals published earlier this month in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that the number of patients presenting with severe heart attacks had dropped by nearly 40 percent since March. Vaccinations and well-child visits have seen a similar deterioration, with millions of children now at greater risk of infection of other preventable diseases due to the stark decline.

All of this reinforces the undeniable fact that the first facilities to reopen in our communities must be our hospitals. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released guidance for reopening health care facilities for non-emergent cases, but the advice included is vague at best. While it has recommendations for testing and screening of both patients and providers, it gives no concrete advice on how often to screen each group or what to do if a health care provider tests positive.

Guidance from state departments of health is equally inadequate and, in some cases, downright dangerous. Some in the hardest hit areas suggest that health care professionals can return to work after testing positive for COVID-19, assuming they have been symptom free for just three days and seven days have passed since their symptoms first developed. This despite the fact that studies have shown that some people may be infectious for up to ten days after obvious symptoms have resolved.

In the absence of more careful guidance, many medical centers have developed their own more stringent guidelines. In addition to designing their own strategies to protect health care workers, hospitals are also crafting their own plans to protect patients. Some hospital systems have created broad networks of ambulatory care centers that operate as outpatient facilities. Many hospital administrators think their best bet may be to funnel patients suspected of COVID-19 to the hospitals while maintaining a steady supply of high-quality services for non COVID-19 patients through the ambulatory care centers. This would keep hospital beds free for the worst COVID-19 patients and still provide high-quality care to other patients in need.

All of this extra effort will require additional resources, something that is becoming a pivotal challenge for all hospitals. Ever since facilities were forced to cancel these procedures to ramp up COVID-19 care, they have been hemorrhaging cash in extraordinary amounts. In New York State alone, one of the Buffalo region’s smallest hospitals has said it is losing roughly $1 million each month. In New York City, some of the major medical centers are losing as much as $450 million.

The only way these hospitals can survive is with an immediate infusion of money. True, there are some large hospitals with generous endowment funds that may be able to make it through the crisis without outside support. But smaller hospitals in rural communities and many safety net hospitals in larger cities are running out of cash already. We cannot charge patients more for the care they are receiving. A recent poll suggests that one in seven Americans avoid seeking care because of the financial burden and potential cost.

The onus is on our government to step in and support our hospitals as they reopen fully. It is quite simply a matter of life and death, not convenience or economic recovery.