Top Nancy Pelosi Aide Privately Tells Insurance Executives Not To Worry About Democrats Pushing MFA

[Surrealistik]

From the Intercept:

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05...OtpJvVDaG5Y41qExbdUBF-O2klDgYV0c_ZBhVP927170I

LESS THAN A month after Democrats — many of them running on “Medicare for All” — won back control of the House of Representatives in November, the top health policy aide to then-prospective House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met with Blue Cross Blue Shield executives and assured them that party leadership had strong reservations about single-payer health care and was more focused on lowering drug prices, according to sources familiar with the meeting.

Pelosi adviser Wendell Primus detailed five objections to Medicare for All and said that Democrats would be allies to the insurance industry in the fight against single-payer health care. Primus pitched the insurers on supporting Democrats on efforts to shrink drug prices, specifically by backing a number of measures that the pharmaceutical lobby is opposing.

Disappointed but entirely unsurprising; I anticipated and expected nothing less from a career donor courtesan like Pelosi who spends more time on her knees courting monied interests (and perversely insisting that this qualifies her to lead the House) than legislating and getting the business of the country done. Pelosi trying to argue that "the comfort level with a broader base of the American people is not there yet" despite upwards of 70% polled popular support and solid majoritarian support amongst Republicans is beyond laughable; please. She knows damn well that MFA is opposed about exclusively by committed ideological opposition across the aisle, wealthier individuals who have no need of it, Dem megadonors, and their steadfast shills in the Dem party leadership.

Again, Cenk Uygur on point:

 

[Mycroft]

From the Intercept:

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05...OtpJvVDaG5Y41qExbdUBF-O2klDgYV0c_ZBhVP927170I



Disappointed but entirely unsurprising; I anticipated and expected nothing less from a career donor courtesan like Pelosi who spends more time on her knees courting monied interests (and perversely insisting that this qualifies her to lead the House) than legislating and getting the business of the country done. Pelosi trying to argue that "the comfort level with a broader base of the American people is not there yet" despite upwards of 70% polled popular support and solid majoritarian support amongst Republicans is beyond laughable; please. She knows damn well that MFA is opposed about exclusively by committed ideological opposition across the aisle, wealthier individuals who have no need of it, Dem megadonors, and their steadfast shills in the Dem party leadership.

Again, Cenk Uygur on point:

Why do her "megadonors" oppose it?

 

[Surrealistik]

Why do her "megadonors" oppose it?

I should think that the danger posited by the passage of MFA to say health insurance companies of the like cited in the very article would be obvious... but just in case it wasn't for whatever reason, Nancy's top health aide saw fit to spell it out for them.

 

[Mycroft]

I should think that the danger posited by the passage of MFA to say health insurance companies of the like cited in the very article would be obvious... but just in case it wasn't for whatever reason, Nancy's top health aide saw fit to spell it out for them.

Do you think insurance companies are her only megadonors? Are they her largest megadonors?

I could see more large corporate donors wanting MFA for the simple fact that it shifts one of their biggest business expenses onto the government.

 

[Casper]

Just food for thought, even with Medicare you still have to buy a supplemental insurance policy.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Just food for thought, even with Medicare you still have to buy a supplemental insurance policy.

That is Medicare as it now exists - the Medicare For All plan (H.R. 676) is that all medically necessary care is "free" (at no additional out-of-pocket cost).

This bill establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care that includes all medically necessary care, such as primary care and prevention, dietary and nutritional therapies, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

 

[Casper]

That is Medicare as it now exists - the Medicare For All plan (H.R. 676) is that all medically necessary care is "free" (at no additional out-of-pocket cost).



https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

Which is highly unlikely to pass through The House, Senate, and President. My guess is that if they did manage to pass a Medicare for All Bill it would more resemble what currently exists. I would also point out that besides supplemental insurance being required, that Medicare is not free, one pays for it.

 

[Obscurity]

Single payer or bust. Pelosi is a fundraiser. Of course she is going to tell donors what they want to hear.

This is just more proof of how money ruins politics.

 

[ludin]

Primary insurance won't go away. There will still be a huge market for private insurance when doctors in the medical field refuse to take your medicare for all because they can't afford it.
they are not going to work for 40% less than what they do now with private insurance.

medicare for all would make a huge secondary market in private insurance.
more so for all the rich people that don't want to wait a year or more to see a doctor.

also it isn't free. you will be paying 20-40% more in payroll taxes.

which is why support for medicare for all drops into the 30% when you point out
that you will

1. have to pay way more in taxes
2. have to wait for medicare treatment and procedures.
3. not have access to the doctors that you want.

 

[Moderate Right]

From the Intercept:

https://theintercept.com/2019/02/05...OtpJvVDaG5Y41qExbdUBF-O2klDgYV0c_ZBhVP927170I



Disappointed but entirely unsurprising; I anticipated and expected nothing less from a career donor courtesan like Pelosi who spends more time on her knees courting monied interests (and perversely insisting that this qualifies her to lead the House) than legislating and getting the business of the country done. Pelosi trying to argue that "the comfort level with a broader base of the American people is not there yet" despite upwards of 70% polled popular support and solid majoritarian support amongst Republicans is beyond laughable; please. She knows damn well that MFA is opposed about exclusively by committed ideological opposition across the aisle, wealthier individuals who have no need of it, Dem megadonors, and their steadfast shills in the Dem party leadership.

Again, Cenk Uygur on point:

Just because the public supports MFA doesn't mean it is possible. The public also supports peace in the world but that is also a pipe dream. Did it ever occur to you that Pelosi knows that MFA isn't a viable health care solution? Hell, even California and Vermont realized it is not possible. And, another possibility is that Pelosi outright lied to these people. Maybe she wants their support to get more Democrats elected and then once in control she can stab them in the back.

 

[trouble13]

Do you think insurance companies are her only megadonors? Are they her largest megadonors?

I could see more large corporate donors wanting MFA for the simple fact that it shifts one of their biggest business expenses onto the government.

Bingo, UHC will be the largest single corporate welfare legislation in the history of this nation. Something the left claims they oppose but they sure are all in on this particular form of it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[noonereal]

That is Medicare as it now exists - the Medicare For All plan (H.R. 676) is that all medically necessary care is "free" (at no additional out-of-pocket cost).



https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

Nothing is "free"

why do people speak like this?

It really irks me.

 

[chuckiechan]

Just food for thought, even with Medicare you still have to buy a supplemental insurance policy.

That would create a two tier system and in Socialism we are all the same. Expect those who aren't.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Which is highly unlikely to pass through The House, Senate, and President. My guess is that if they did manage to pass a Medicare for All Bill it would more resemble what currently exists. I would also point out that besides supplemental insurance being required, that Medicare is not free, one pays for it.

Why bother to expand Medicare if it is neither single-payer nor for all?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nothing is "free"

why do people speak like this?

It really irks me.

Those now enjoying Medicaid benefits are not asked to pay any user fees, premiums, deductibles or co-pays - to them Medicaid is indeed "free".

 

[Casper]

Why bother to expand Medicare if it is neither single-payer nor for all?

Because it is for all and it would still be far cheaper than a private insurance policy, not to mention pre-existing conditions bring covered. I have not stated that I support the idea, simply posting the facts when it comes to Medicare as it is today. Do you prefer a single-payer system that would probably be more costly, it do you think what we have is working?

 

[Casper]

Those now enjoying Medicaid benefits are not asked to pay any user fees, premiums, deductibles or co-pays - to them Medicaid is indeed "free".

Medicaid is far different from Medicare and in some states to get it you have to make almost nothing. Medicaid was put in place for the very poor and it does not cover everything. Just so ya know.

 

[Casper]

That would create a two tier system and in Socialism we are all the same. Expect those who aren't.

How do you figure, explain....

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because it is for all and it would still be far cheaper than a private insurance policy, not to mention pre-existing conditions bring covered. I have not stated that I support the idea, simply posting the facts when it comes to Medicare as it is today. Do you prefer a single-payer system that would probably be more costly, it do you think what we have is working?

I will start Medicare in about a week, which will cost me about $1,600/year. What I have now is no insurance and pay $350 to $400/year cash for my medical care at Austin Regional Clinic in Kyle, TX.

 

[noonereal]

Those now enjoying Medicaid benefits are not asked to pay any user fees, premiums, deductibles or co-pays - to them Medicaid is indeed "free".

Is there medicaid free to you?

Are not you posting about it?

How then do you call it free.

I get taht we all have our own perspective but nothing is free.

 

[Cardinal]

People are understandably skittish at the idea of seeing their health care downgraded or disappear altogether. It's too early to consider replacing private health insurance. Much smarter is to create a public option and give people the choice to move into that if they wish.

 

[American]

That is Medicare as it now exists - the Medicare For All plan (H.R. 676) is that all medically necessary care is "free" (at no additional out-of-pocket cost).



https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/676

If you really want things to be free, then we all (every American) gives up their pay; and goes to work for nothing. Then we go to the store and get everything for free (i.e., we give up money altogether).

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is there medicaid free to you?

Are not you posting about it?

How then do you call it free.

I get taht we all have our own perspective but nothing is free.

Yep, I no longer pay any federal income tax. I suppose some portion of my state sales tax and rent (via the landlord's property taxes) goes toward offering that Medicaid benefit paid to some poor/elderly folks in Texas but I don't lose any sleep over it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If you really want things to be free, then we all (every American) gives up their pay; and goes to work for nothing. Then we go to the store and get everything for free (i.e., we give up money altogether).

It's not what I want - I was simply pointing out a bill on the matter of Medicare For All. I am tired of trying to discuss 'concepts' that lack any supporting legislation to be examined to see what the (proposed) benefits and costs are.

 

[noonereal]

It's not what I want - I was simply pointing out a bill on the matter of Medicare For All. I am tired of trying to discuss 'concepts' that lack any supporting legislation to be examined to see what the (proposed) benefits and costs are.

So "free" involves cost you say...

:2wave: