Wendell Potter pulls Choice of Care out of 'My Care, My Choice'

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | Universal Healthcare / Medicare For All | Wendell Potter pulls Choice of Care out of 'My Care, My Choice'

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #239695
      eridani
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,410

      https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1206623259698974724.html

      As a health insurance PR guy, we knew one of the huge “vulnerabilities” of the current system was LACK of choice. In the current system, you can’t pick your own doc, specialist, or hospital without huge “out of network” bills. So we set out to muddy the issue of “choice.” 3/11

      As industry insiders, we also knew most Americans have very little choice of their plan. Your company chooses an insurance provider and you get to pick from a few different plans offered by that one insurer, usually either a high deductible plan or a higher deductible plan. 4/11

      Another problem insurers like mine had on the “choice” issue: people with employer-based plans have very little choice to keep it. You can lose it if your company changes it, or you change jobs, or turn 26 or many other ways. This is a problem for defenders of the status quo. 5/11

      Knowing we were losing the “choice” argument, my pals in the insurance industry spent millions on lobbying, ads and spin doctors — all designed to gaslight Americans into thinking that reforming the status quo would somehow give them “less choice.” 6/11

      Comment by Don McCanne of PNHP: With the help of the media, the political community opposed to single payer Medicare for All has convinced us that we do not want an undesirable “one-size-fits-all” model of health care reform that takes away our choices. They have countered with an advertising campaign touting “My Care, My Choice” which supposedly protects “patient choice in health care.” In his Twitter thread, former health insurance executive and current health justice advocate Wendell Potter exposes the fraud behind this framing.

      Though the private insurance industry claims they are protecting choice in health care, they are not. They are protecting their market of private health plans in which you can choose what health care you are willing to give up by being restricted to networks that limit your choices of physicians and hospitals, limit your affordability of care through high deductibles and other cost sharing, or limit your choice to a plan offered by your employer.

      The irony is that the one-size-fits-all plan – single payer Medicare for All – is the plan that does give you your choices of physicians, hospitals and other health care services and products. It is the plan that works for all whereas the My-Care-My-Choice private plans take away many of your choices in health care.

      I don’t like to call someone a liar, but when the insurance industry tells you that they are “fighting to protect patient choice in health care,” they are flat out lying. Insurers do not provide health care, and they sharply restrict what health care they will pay for, thus taking away choices in health care.

      The Lie of the Year award just went to President Trump for his 80 false statements about the whistle-blower. But I would have voted to grant the award to the private insurers for their claim that they are fighting to protect patient choice in health care when their products are quite specifically designed to take health care choices away from patients.

      Let’s renew our fight for single payer Medicare for All – the inclusive size that really does fit all – perfectly.

      How about that for a sound bite: “Medicare for All – the inclusive size that really does fit all – perfectlyElemental hauku

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #239735
      algernon
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 539

      I don’t get it.

      Universal health care has proven its worth worldwide, and there’s a plethora of exceptional systems, and nowhere in such systems is there a populace that would even imagine giving it up for the totally 100% for-profit model designed by the USA.

      How can you not understand that, in this day and age?

      • #242072
        Pam2
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 7,699

        @algernon

        The majority of Americans want Medicare for All. We don’t have it because of political corruption- politicians taking money from the insurance industry  and doing their bidding. Get it now?

         

        • #242389
          algernon
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 539

          @pam2

          What I “get” is a lot of excuses.  Like yours, laying it at the feet of “politicians”, as if the US isn’t a democracy where politicians are finally answerable to the people.  Not that universal health care requires a democracy to work.  The USA has bombed flat a lot of countries, democracies and not, that had it, while whining that the terrorized inhabitants “hate us for our freedoms”.  No they don’t.  They just didn’t ask to be bombed and they don’t like being bombed.  But if a country hasn’t got UHC when all other civilized countries do, and HC is an essential human right and that country touts itself as a democracy with “A City on a Hill values” aka “Western Values” while spending all it’s money and energy on killing, on predator drones and hellfire missile double-tap kills and the whole arsenal, the excuses fall flat.   All the statistics citing that US citizens somehow want something more uplifting turn out to be meaningless garbage – propaganda, click bait.

          Tell me, are you one of these well-meaning “leftists” who care about issues like UHC, the environment, education, etc. and who state categorically that Elizabeth Warren is a “Vichy Dem” who’s no better than Trump and would never get their vote in a 1-on-1 with that monster?  Because I think that’s more to the point of why the US is so backward, esp. leading into 2020 – all the cultish personality politics, CT, and unreasoning vitriol.

          • #242532
            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 19,954

            @algernon I think it would be better to have a second Trump term than either a corrupt or ineffective Democrat, not because they would be worse than Trump, but because they would enable an even worse authoritarian to gain the White House in 2024 after they fail.

            Warren would be ineffective because she would not go for the throat of the opposition from within her own party. Their power absolutely must be broken. Only Bernie can do that.

            It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

            You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

          • #242594
            So Far From Heaven
            Keymaster
            • Total Posts: 8,227

            @algernon

            While I agree to the essence of the ‘support’ but ineffective voting, I disagree on how that actually comes about.

            There has been a really large amount of studies regarding how people come to terms with their world view (how their perfect world would be) against things that go against it. That plus the fact that we tend to associate with those having the same views describes how people can be religious yet deny evolution which is a proven fact of science. It’s the combination of how they perceive the best world pus the enforcement of those views as a group.

            The reason we don’t have universal care of one form or the other is based on voting. I agree. You would think that those hurt most by the current and former health systems would vote to get politicians to get another system. But here is the two major catches against it in a very large segment of the population: young people (and a boatload of middle age idiots) don’t want to pay for health care when they don’t need it, and the supposition that it becomes ‘socialist’ medical services.

            So, they bitch about it when it hits them between the eyes but never vote for it’s solution.

            It’s that simple. Until enough of the younger crowd care enough to actually vote and the middle and older crowd get over their inherant fear of socialist solutions, we will continue to have shit medicine.

            Same applies to inaction on climate change with a few different things thrown in like it’s fine until you can’t drive your car.

            • #244308
              algernon
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 539

              The reason why the US doesn’t have universal health rights is because this human right hasn’t been sold in the USA.  The USA went full McCarthy and never returned, tho’ it tried to make the deal more couth.  Still, you guys are so incredibly deep into militant capitalist absolutism there’s none of you know the way out.  I don’t think your privatized democracy can help.  I think you’re fucked.

      • #242530
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 19,954

        @algernon The OP is attacking the for-profit American health care system, not defending it. Americans have been unaware there were better options since the Republicans killed Harry Truman’s National Health Service back in the 1940s. It is only now that most of them have been made so aware and are demanding change.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        You can jail a revolutionary, but you can't jail the revolution.--Fred Hampton

    • #242517
      Mr. Mickeys Mom
      Moderator
      • Total Posts: 5,419

      @eridani As a now retired health care practitioner for 44 years, who has been through 3 iterations of our health care delivery system of reimbursement, I absolutely agree.

      Changing to Medicare for All would greatly reduced the overhead cost, which is primarily going to the administrators (insurance companies), whether it be a Medicare Advantage Plan, PPO, HMO or that with AARP Medi-gap. They’re all run by insurance industries whose return of investment is obscene, when compared to other types of insurance industries.

      Medicare for All would change the insurance company’s board of directors to that of the U.S. Congress. The overhead is reduced to that of carrying an already existing plan with opening the range of age eligibility. Yes, Medicare as funded under Bernie Sander’s idea of M4A would be fully funded and we would be spending less per capita with better outcomes.

       

      Hell, no... I'm not giving up...

Viewing 2 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.