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)• 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)
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.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.
