Miriam,
I know that it doesn't change anything, but my rule of thumb is to
read, think, read again and draw, to the best of my limited abilities,
my own conclusions. I have respect for Amy Goodman and Juan
Gonzalez, and I gain lots to think about from Thom Hartman and Richard
D. Wolff. I especially gain great gooey gobs of food for thought from
Chris Hedges and also from Naomi Klein, among many others. But first
and foremost I remind myself that these are Human Type People, just
like me. They are giving me their best information, as they see it.
I can deal with differences of opinion, or conclusions that do not
make me happy, but I walk away from those who prove to be hypocrites.
There's a fellow on the ACB Chat List who insists on labeling me as a
socialist or communist, and then tells everyone how stupid communism
and socialism are. He is a lover of capitalism, and I understand why.
From what he says, if true, he earns in the six figures. He is
profiting from his loyalty to capitalism. And he doesn't seem to
know, or to care that he is doing it at the expense of the Working
Class. So, in the manner of his capitalist mentors, he uses trash
talk to put down his opponents. Anyway, I don't know of a single
person, on this list or anywhere who agrees with me 100% of the time.
Even I don't agree with me 100% of the time. But I do have great
respect for those people, like you, who have an inquiring mind. Gads!
if there's one thing I can't tolerate, it's a "Block Head".
Carl Jarvis
On 2/25/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There was a time when I could trust a number of mainstream media outlets and
journalists, and books to provide a picture of the real world. Or at least,
I thought that I could. I have been reading about and listening to
discussions about Russiagate for more than a year and I am horrified at the
number of people and publications whom I used to consider trustworthy, who
are now sounding irrational, to say the least. But this was already
happening with reporting on Ukraine and Syria. There's almost no one left
who hasn't succumbed to the propaganda. It's like watchin everyone after
9/11 when almost everyone thought that it made sense to attack Afghanistan
because Bin Ladin was hiding in the mountains between Afghanistan and
Pakistan. The fact that the Taliban bore no responsibility for the 9/11
attacks was irrelevant to just about everyone. When my Jamaican friend who
ran an adoption agency and lived in Maryland, suggested gently to her
friends that perhaps US foreign policy had something to do with why the US
was attacked, people were horrified that she would suggest such a thing. In
2018, I can no longer trust the reporting that Democracy Now does on Syria
or Russiagate. I've been shocked at their Syrian coverage which has
deteriorated over the past few years. Masha Jessen, the Russian American
who talked about Russiagate on the program the other day, in lieu of
evidence that the Russian government had anything to do with the commercial
Russian company that did advertising in the US, said that the relationship
between the owner of that company and Putin was like a clan relationship. A
clan relationship? No evidence, but a claim that Amy didn't question. She's
barely talking to anyone who is part of the real Left, no one who actually
dissents from mainstream acceptable liberal leftists. She covers the easy
stuff, women's empowerment, gun control, and she hasn't yet admitted that
The White Helmets are a US funded propaganda group, not an indigenous Syrian
self defense group. It's really rather awful.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 2:29 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Proposal Designed to Confuse Public and
Prevent 'Medicare for All'
Miriam,
A little paranoya is a good thing.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/25/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To me, what is most horrifying about what it tells us, is that the
Democratic Party leadership is still supporting wealthy corporations
over people and that the party learned nothing from the 2016 election.
CAP basically represents the powers in the party, Podesta, the
Clintons, the Obamas, Tim Kane, all of them. Remember that when you
read articles from Think Progress, they come from CAP, a Podesta lobbying
organization.
It'simportant to look at everything we read and hear with an eye to
the source and the motives of the source. I know I'm sounding
paranoid, but paranoia is appropriate at the present time.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 12:47 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: A Proposal Designed to Confuse Public
and Prevent 'Medicare for All'
We need to file this article and read it again and again over the next
several years.
Carl Jarvis
On 2/24/18, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A Proposal Designed to Confuse Public and Prevent 'Medicare for All'
Michael Fleshman / CC 2.0
The Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington-based Democratic
Party think tank funded by Wall Street, including private health
insurers and their lobbying group, unveiled a new healthcare proposal
designed to confuse supporters of "Medicare for All" and protect
private health insurance profits. It is receiving widespread coverage
in 'progressive' media outlets.
We must be aware of what is happening so that we are not fooled into
another 'public option' dead end.*
The fact that CAP is using Medicare for All language is both a
blessing and a curse. It means Medicare for All is so popular that
they feel a need to co-opt it, and it means that they are trying to
co-opt it, which will give Democrats an opportunity to use it to
confuse people.
This effort could be preparation for the possibility that Democrats
win a majority in Congress in 2018 or 2020. It is normal for the
pendulum to swing to the party opposite the President's party during
the first term in office.
If Democrats win a majority, they will be expected to deliver on
health care, but they face a dilemma of having to please their
campaign donors, which includes the health insurance industry, or
pleasing their voters, where 75% support single payer health care.
The public is aware that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) protects the
profits of the medical-industrial complex (private health insurers,
Big Pharma and for-profit providers) and not the healthcare needs of
the public. "Fixing the ACA" is not popular. Last year during repeal
attempts, people made it clear at town halls and rallies that they
want a single payer healthcare system such as National Improved
Medicare for All (NIMA). By offering a solution that sounds good to
the uninformed, "Medicare Extra for All," but continues to benefit
their Wall Street donors, Democrats hope to fool people or buy enough
support to undermine efforts for NIMA.
This is an expected development. If we look at the phases of stage
six of successful social movements by Bill Moyers (see slide 8), we
see that as a movement nears victory, the power holders appear to get
in line with the public's solution while actually attacking it. If
the movement recognizes what is happening, that this is a false
solution and not what the movement is demanding, then we have a
chance to win NIMA. If the movement falls for the false solution, it
loses.
Our tasks at this moment are to understand what the power holders are
offering, recognize why it is a false solution and reject it.
"Medicare Extra for All" versus National Improved Medicare for All
The basic outline for the new proposal is that people would be able
to buy a Medicare plan, a form of 'public option,' including the
Medicare Advantage plans offered by private health insurers. People
who choose to buy a Medicare plan would pay premiums and co-pays, as
they do now for private health insurance. The new Medicare system
would replace Medicaid for people with low incomes.
Private health insurance would still exist for employers, who
currently cover the largest number of people, federal employees and
the military.
While workers would have the option to buy a Medicare plan, it is
unclear how many would do so given that most employers who provide
health insurance have their own plans and that private health
insurers are experts at marketing their plans to the public.
NIMA, as embodied in HR 676: "The Expanded and Improved Medicare for
All Act," would create a single national healthcare system, paid for
up front through taxes, that covers every person from birth to death
and covers all medically-necessary care. NIMA relegates private
insurance to the sidelines where it could potentially provide
supplemental coverage for those who want extras, but it would no
longer serve as a barrier for people who need care.
Here are the flaws in the CAP proposal:
1.CAP's plan will continue to leave people without health
insurance.Instead of being a universal system of national coverage
like NIMA, coverage under the CAP plan relies on people's ability to
afford health insurance. Only people with low incomes would not pay,
as they do now under Medicaid. Just as it is today, those who do not
qualify as low income, but still can't afford health insurance
premiums, would be left out. Almost 30 million are without coverage
today. There is no guarantee that health insurance premiums will be
affordable.
2.CAPS's plan will continue to leave people with inadequate coverage.
Under NIMA, all people have the same comprehensive coverage without
financial barriers to care. The CAP plan allows private health
insurers to do what they do best - restrict where people can seek
health care, shift the cost of care onto patients and deny payment
for care. This is the business model of private health insurers
because they are financial instruments designed to make profits for
their investors. People with health insurance will face the same
bureaucratic nightmare of our current system and out-of-pocket costs
that force them to delay or avoid health care or risk bankruptcy when
they have high health care needs.
3.CAP's plan will continue the high costs of health care. NIMA has
been proven over and over to have the best cost efficiency because it
is one plan with one set of rules. It is estimated that NIMA will
save
$500 billion each year on administrative costs and over $100 billion
each year on reduced prices for pharmaceuticals. As a single
purchaser of care, NIMA has powerful leverage to lower the costs of
goods and services. The CAP plan maintains the complicated
multi-payer system that we have today. At best, it will only achieve
16% of the administrative savings of a single payer system and it
will have less power to reign in the high costs of care.
4.CAP's plan will allow private health insurers to continue to rip
off the government. NIMA is a publicly-financed program without the
requirement of creating profits for investors. With a low overhead,
most of the dollars are used to pay for health care. The CAP plan
maintains the same problems that exist with Medicare today. Private
Medicare providers cherry pick the healthiest patients and those who
have or develop healthcare needs wind up in the public Medicare plan.
This places a financial burden on the public Medicare plan, which has
to pay for the most care, while private health insurers rake in huge
profits from covering the healthy with a guaranteed payor, the
government.
5.CAP's plan will continue to perpetuate health disparities. NIMA
provides a single standard of care to all people. Because all people,
rich and poor (and lawmakers), are in the same system, there are
strong incentives to make it a high quality program. CAP's plan
maintains the current tiered system in which some people have private
health insurance, those with the greatest needs have public health
insurance, some people will have inadequate coverage and others will
have no coverage at all.
6.CAP's plan will continue to restrict patients' choices. NIMA
creates a nationwide network of coverage and consistent coverage from
year-to-year so that patients choose where they seek care and have
the freedom to stay with a health professional or leave if they are
dissatisfied. CAP's plan continues private health insurers and their
restricted networks that dictate where patients can seek care.
Private plans change from year-to-year and employers change the plans
they offer, so patients will still face the risk of losing access to
a health professional due to changes in their plan.
7.CAP's plan does not guarantee portability. NIMA creates a health
system that covers everyone no matter where they are in the United
States and its territories. CAP's plan maintains the link between
employment and health coverage. When people who have private health
insurance lose their job or move, they risk losing their health
insurance.
8.CAP's plan will perpetuate physician burn-out. NIMA creates a
healthcare system that is simple for both patients and health
professionals to use.
Under the current system, which the CAP plan will perpetuate, health
professionals spend more time on paperwork than they do with patients
and physician offices spend hours fighting with health insurers for
authorization for care and for payment for their services. This is
driving high rates of physician burnout. Suicides among physicians
and physicians-in-training are higher than the general population.
The new proposal is a 'public option' wrapped in a "Medicare for All"
cloak.
It is a far cry from National Improved Medicare for All. And,
contrary to what CAP and its allies will tell you, the CAP plan will
delay and prevent the achievement of NIMA.
Co-founders of Physicians for a National Health Program**, Drs.
Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, explained why the public
option would not work in the last health reform effort:
"
"The 'public plan option' won't work to fix the health care system
for two reasons.
"1. It forgoes at least 84 percent of the administrative savings
available through single payer. The public plan option would do
nothing to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of
hospitals, physicians offices, and nursing homes, which would still
contend with multiple payers, and hence still need the complex cost
tracking and billing apparatus that drives administrative costs.
These unnecessary provider administrative costs account for the vast
majority of bureaucratic waste. Hence, even if 95 percent of
Americans who are currently privately insured were to join the public
plan (and it had overhead costs at current Medicare levels), the
savings on insurance overhead would amount to only 16 percent of the
roughly
$400 billion annually achievable through single payer - not enough to
make reform affordable.
"2. A quarter century of experience with public/private competition
in the Medicare program demonstrates that the private plans will not
allow a level playing field. Despite strict regulation, private
insurers have successfully cherry picked healthier seniors, and have
exploited regional health spending differences to their advantage.
They have progressively undermined the public plan - which started as
the single payer for seniors and has now become a funding mechanism
for HMOs - and a place to dump the unprofitably ill. A public plan
option does not lead toward single payer, but toward the segregation
of patients, with profitable ones in private plans and unprofitable
ones in the public plan."
What we must do
The movement for National Improved Medicare for All experienced
tremendous growth in the past few years. All of the flaws of the
Affordable Care Act are becoming reality as people are forced to pay
high health insurance premiums, face high out-of-pocket costs before
they can receive care and have their access to health professionals
or services denied. There is a strong demand for NIMA that has
resulted in more than half of the Democrats in the House of
Representatives signing on to HR 676 and a third of the Democratic
Senators endorsing the Senate Medicare for All bill. Medicare for All
is becoming a litmus test for the 2018 elections and 2020 Democratic
presidential nomination.
Power holders are feeling threatened by support for NIMA. They are
looking for ways to throw the movement off track and allow lawmakers
who don't support NIMA to support something that sounds like NIMA.
This is why they invented "Medicare Extra for All." It is common for
the opposition to adopt our language when we have strong support.
This is the time when the movement for NIMA needs to remain focused
on our goal of NIMA, resist compromising and escalate our pressure
for NIMA. We are closer to winning, it's time to increase our efforts
to pass the finish line.
Here are our tasks:
.We need to expose the reasons for CAP's proposal. It is designed to
protect health insurance industry profits.
.We need to educate ourselves and others about the reasons why CAP's
proposal is flawed and deficient.
.We need to educate and challenge lawmakers and candidates who speak
in favor of CAP's proposal and push them to support NIMA.
.We need to be loud and vocal in our demand for nothing less than
NIMA, as described in HR 676.
.We need to make support for HR 676 a litmus test in the upcoming
elections.
We need to practice "ICU" - being independent of political party on
this issue by not tying our agenda to the corporate agenda of major
political parties, being clear about what will and what will not
solve our healthcare crisis, and being uncompromising in our demand
for National Improve Medicare for All.
With a concentrated effort for NIMA, we can overcome this
distraction*** and win National Improved Medicare for All. This is
the time for all supporters of single payer health care to focus on
federal lawmakers from both parties.
Movements never realize how close they are to winning and victory
often feels far away when it is actually close at hand.
The fact that the Democrats are proposing something that sounds like
NIMA means we are gaining power. Let's use it to finally solve the
healthcare crisis in the United States and join many other countries
in providing health care for everyone. NIMA is the smallest step we
can take to head down the path of saving lives and improving health
in our country.
*The 'public option' dead end occurred during the health reform
process of 2009-10. Faced with widespread public support for National
Improved Medicare for All, and 80% support by Democratic Party
voters, the power holders had to find a way to suppress that support.
They created the idea of a 'public option,' a public health insurance
for part of the population, and convinced progressives that this was
more politically-feasible and a back door to a single payer
healthcare system. Tens of millions of dollars were donated to create
a new coalition, Health Care for America Now (similar in name to
Healthcare-Now, a national single payer organization - this was
intentional), that organized progressives to fight for this public
option and suppress single payer supporters (they were openly hostile
when we raised single payer). Many single payer supporters fell for
it, and the movement was successfully divided and weakened. Kevin
Zeese and I wrote about this in more detail in "Obamacare: The
Biggest Health Insurance Scam in History."
** Read more about this from Dr. Don McCanne of Physicians for a
National Health Program in his Quote-of-the-Day.
*** Read more about intentional distractions through incremental
approaches to prevent National Improved Medicare for All in this
presentation.
