Friday, April 5, 2019

MODIFIED RAPTURE?!

In Gilbert & Sullivan's MIKADO, seen above in Jonathan Miller's famous version, Nanki-Poo (in the striped jacket) says to Yum Yum, "At last we are alone! I have sought you night and day for three weeks in the belief that your guardian was beheaded, and I find that you are to be married to him this afternoon!"

"Alas, yes!" replies the demure Yum Yum.

"But you do not love him?"

"Alas, no!"

"Modified rapture!" cries Nanki-Poo.

I wonder if that is what I am expected to cry now that I've learned that three congressman -- including Antonio Delgado -- the one from my own CD19 -- have re-introduced something called Medicare X. Delgado touted it as "a practical, robust way to achieve universal health care" in America. This is the "public option ,,,,available to all Americans" he campaigned on.  

Unlike Medicare for All, which would replace most of private insurance with a single payer (the government)  this plan would allow those who like their employer-sponsored insurance to keep it,  and it would give anyone of any age the option of buying into a Medicare-like plan which would use the doctors and hospitals currently accepting medicare, but would be funded not by the current Medicare Trust fund but by premiums being paid by those choosing it, with the aid of  government subsidies -- at least for the first 3 years -- and the aid of tax rebates to anyone whose premiums for health insurance exceed 13% of their total income. Coverage would be expanded to include obstetrics and pediatrics. It would first be rolled out in rural areas in which there is only one ACA provider or none at all, and it would be available to everyone by 2024.

Tim Kaine, a co-sponsor of the Senate version of the bill. extols what he says is the practicality of the proposal, the fact that “we preserve everything about the existing system. And we just put one additional element into it,”  But this micro-incremental approach did not go over well with a major nurses' union:
 A Major Nurses Union Calls Medicare X Plan 'Sub-Par and Wholly Inadequate to Address the Healthcare Crisis'
As far as the nurses union was concerned, this plan was merely a "Band-Aid" that does little to correct the huge systemic sickness in the current, profit-driven system, "which has left 30 million Americans uninsured and over 80 million more underinsured" and which,  "according to a Gallup report, forced Americans to borrow $88 billion to cover their healthcare expenses in 2018."

I just finished watching a recent video of Delgado explaining the proposal to Emily Burkhard on WNYT.  
                                          Delgado interviewed on WNYT
was struck  by his passion -- which is to his credit. But when he said that the proposal would provide a "baseline" of care which would be less expensive, my ears pricked up. The suggestion I heard was that the more expensive private insurance might provide more than the baseline -- but you had to pay for it. I was also struck by the care he took to distance this proposal -- and himself -- from Ms Burkhard's asking if Medicare X would lead to single-payer. "What it will lead to," he said, "is universal health care."  I wondered if he was attempting to side step any suggestion of Medicare X being a slippery slope to socialized medicine.  

He kept saying that we needed "some form" of universal health care. All this left me wondering if the "some form" he was envisioning was two-tiered: There'd be the upper tier -- the premium tier -- for those who could afford it, and Medicare X -- the lower tier -- which would provide a "baseline."  What a contrast to the New York Health Act, the motto of which is "Everybody in, nobody out." 

Medicare X would divide the population of the country into two pools: One would be able-bodied and employed by companies who offer insurance, and the other -- by and large -- older and less healthy. My guess is that the Medicare X pool -- despite Delgado's grandiose projections -- would not, by itself, be able to afford what it cost to keep them healthy, and that the government would have to subsidize those expenses, causing the Medical/Industrial Establishment to fight even more fiercely against their competition -- not by lowering prices (heaven forbid!) but through their deep pockets, to buy enough legislators to crush it outright.  

Even if  not, my guess is that in order to make the Medicare X program self sustaining, premium prices would have to be raised to a point where there would be some unable to afford them. It would be Medicare for some. Yet Delgado optimistically projected a future in which so many people would flood into  Medicare X, that the Medicare doctors would be glad to treat them despite their somewhat lower rate of  pay. My own less rosy hunch is that the network of doctors willing to see Medicare X patients would shrink, and patients in this lower tier would have to put up with spending less time with their doctors, who all too often would turn out to  be second rate. 

And meanwhile our fragmented system would go on wasting billions, a substantial share of which would be the obscene profits made by reducing access to care, or denying it altogether.

I read somewhere that Medicare X is a lot like Medicare for America -- and, for sure, it does share some of the problems cited above. But at least it had a provision that every new-born would be enrolled into it, thus enabling its promoters to claim that it was a path to single-payer.  But Medicare preserves the status-quo: a two-tiered system where the upper tier gets better treatment -- and what the lower tier gets is...better than nothing.

Now that Medicare X has been re-introduced, should I cry, "rapture"? Hardly.

How about "modified rapture"?  Less than that, I fear.

Much less.

Dio

PS: If you'd like to leave a comment -- and I encourage you to do so -- simply click on the "number of comments" area, and share your thoughts in the "comment rectangle" that appears.

PPS: We know that there are plenty out there who have stories to tell -- stories of your trying to cope with our dysfunctional healthcare system. Trouble is, we don't know what these stories are! That's where you come in. If you have a story to tell, you can email me at indivisible12401@gmail.com. You can be as anonymous as you like. Thanks!











5 comments:


  1. See: Total Groups That Have Retained Akin, Gump et al: Total Lobbying Income: $37,705,000 https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000000162&year=2018
    Akin Gump Mixed lobbying contracts with Healthcare are substantial.


    https://maplight.org/story/democratic-senator-who-opposed-medicare-for-all-will-lobby-for-health-care-interests/

    Akin Gump has lobbied for the Healthcare Leadership Council since 2016. The trade organization’s members include health insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital interests -- industries whose profits could be threatened by a single-payer system. The firm has also lobbied for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, two powerful drug industry trade groups.


    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/01/retired-reps-find-new-lobbying-jobs-with-former-campaign-contributor/


    One young Democratic lawmaker elected during the 2018 midterm election, Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.), worked as a litigator at the Akin Gump firm’s New York City office. In his first and only congressional race, Delgado received a whopping $237,989 from individuals who work at Akin Gump,

    the most of any legislator past or present.


    Akin Gump’s second highest recipient in 2018 was Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who received $60,258 from the firm.


    Rep. Juaquín Castro (D-Texas), and his brother Julián, who recently announced a bid for the presidency, worked at the firm together before going into public service. Juaquín has received $16,950 in contributions from his former employer.


    https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/01/retired-reps-find-new-lobbying-jobs-with-former-campaign-contributor/

    ----------------------

    ReplyDelete

  2. https://maplight.org/story/democratic-senator-who-opposed-medicare-for-all-will-lobby-for-health-care-interests/


    Months after advising the Democratic Party to abandon the idea of “Medicare for All,” a former U.S. senator has been hired by a lobbying firm whose clients are leading the fight against changes to the nation’s health care system.


    Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, a Washington, D.C.-based law and lobbying firm, announced

    on Wednesday that former Sen. Joe Donnelly is joining the firm as a partner and will be counseling clients in the health care and financial industries.


    Akin Gump has lobbied for the Healthcare Leadership Council since 2016. The trade organization’s members include health insurance, pharmaceutical, and hospital interests -- industries whose profits could be threatened by a single-payer system. The firm has also lobbied for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, two powerful drug industry trade groups.

    PhRMA, BIO and the Healthcare Leadership Council are members of the Partnership for America’s Healthcare Future, a coalition created last year to oppose Medicare for All, as well as any of the weaker measures offered by Democrats to provide health care coverage or insurance to more Americans.

    https://maplight.org/story/democratic-senator-who-opposed-medicare-for-all-will-lobby-for-health-care-interests/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Medicare - X support may well create Ex-Representative Delgado in the next election. But then according to Wendell Potter, a former health insurance executive who has spent a decade investigating the industry’s predatory practices,the revolving door is very lucrative.
    In regard to the above mentioned Sen. Joe Donnelly :
    panned Donnelly’s career move.

    “Sen. Donnelly kept health care reform efforts at bay his whole tenure in Congress, and on his way out he went on national news to tell Democrats that Medicare for All was dangerous,” said Potter. “Now we see his reward: A cush lobbying gig working for the health-care industry.”
    “Color me shocked,” he said."
    https://maplight.org/story/democratic-senator-who-opposed-medicare-for-all-will-lobby-for-health-care-interests/
    Should we be "shocked" with a half baked Medicare-X?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., who defeated Donnelly in November, proposed legislation earlier this month to permanently ban former lawmakers from lobbying Congress.
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/601/text
    “Together we can end the revolving door of career politicians coming to Washington, spending time in Congress, then enriching themselves from their service to the American people,” Braun said.

    A BILL

    To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit former Members and elected officers of Congress from lobbying Congress at any time after leaving office.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. Short title.

    This Act may be cited as the “Banning Lobbying And Safeguarding Trust Act” or the “BLAST Act”.

    SEC. 2. Prohibiting former Members and officers of Congress from lobbying Congress.

    (a) Prohibition.—Section 207(e) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

    “(1) MEMBERS AND ELECTED OFFICERS OF CONGRESS.—Any person who is a Senator, a Member of the House of Representatives, or an elected officer of the Senate or the House of Representatives and who, after that person leaves office, knowingly makes, with the intent to influence, any communication to or appearance before any Member, officer, or employee of either House of Congress or any employee of any other legislative office of Congress, on behalf of any other person (except the United States) in connection with any matter on which the former Senator, Member, or elected official seeks action by a Member, officer, or employee of either House of Congress, in his or her official capacity, shall be punished as provided in section 216.”.

    (b) Technical and conforming amendments.—Section 207(e)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

    (1) in the heading, by striking “Officers and staff” and inserting “Staff”;

    (2) by striking “an elected officer of the Senate, or”;

    (3) by striking “office or”; and

    (4) by striking “former elected officer or”.

    (c) Applicability.—The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to an individual who leaves office on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    ReplyDelete
  5. [The]"... battle against “Medicare for All” that has been quietly waged throughout the year is poised to take center stage.
    Internal strategy documents obtained by The Intercept and Documented reveal the strategy that private health care interests plan to use to influence Democratic Party messaging and stymie the momentum toward achieving universal health care coverage."
    https://theintercept.com/2018/11/20/medicare-for-all-healthcare-industry/
    Lobbyist Documents Reveal Health Care Industry Battle Plan Against “Medicare for All”
    by Lee Fang, Nick Surgey (The Intercept)



    ReplyDelete

WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL, NANCY? Will the April 30 Hearing on Medicare For All Be Little More Than a Farce? That may well be the case...