Friday Reads: Double Standards

Related image

Georgia Rooks Dwelle… Pioneering Doctor Dedicated To Black Women’s Health

Good Morning Sky Dancers!

I keep noticing the distinct difference between coverage of the male and female candidates and that of the white candidates and the candidates of color. I’m just going to point the obvious blaring one today and let you follow the links to the suggested health care policies of the top three women candidates in the race for President.

LSU Professor Robert Mann asks a good question on the day Senator Elizabeth Warren offered up her plan for Universal Healthcare to answer the questions about how you’re going to pay for that. Unlike Trump, she had a real economist working on this. So, now today, it’s talk about the points of a plan while tearing up the woman. And, she’s not alone.

Today, every one is all over it. Here are some few links to read about it to include this one from Ryan Lizza ar Politico: The issue that Obama alums think could doom Elizabeth Warren .

or this one offered by Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner: Elizabeth Warren may as well have said Mexico is going to pay for ‘Medicare for all’

Okay …

in March 1915 recently qualified Dr Isabella Stenhouse took the opportunity of joining the staff of a French Red Cross hospital behind the Front

In March 1915 recently qualified Dr Isabella Stenhouse joined the staff of a French Red Cross hospital behind the Front

But, I’m going to quote from this one from the Washington Post: ” Elizabeth Warren proposes new taxes to fund Medicare-for-all but says middle class would be spared”

In her plan, Warren assumes Medicare-for-all will be a $34 trillion program, but because some of the costs can be handled through existing spending or new savings, it would require $20.5 trillion in new spending over 10 years.

After being attacked by multiple candidates for not offering voters any detail about how she would pay for the plan, Warren took the unusual step last week of announcing she would release a plan but initially did not say what it would include. That set off major speculation among policy wonks and competitors about how she could come up with the funding for such a proposal, because outlining specific payment methods for her policy ideas has been a point of pride for Warren.

Her Democratic rivals who suggest less sweeping ideas, like making a Medicare-type program optional for everyone, have jumped on the cost issue as a way to criticize Warren as unrealistic and overpromising.

“There is no one that I’ve observed who suggests any possibility of paying for Medicare-for-all without radical a increase in taxes across the board,” said Biden, talking to reporters in Fort Dodge, Iowa, on Thursday, before the details of Warren’s plan were made public. “I’m looking forward to it. Looking forward to seeing the plan.”
South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) has also pressured Warren to explain how she would pay for the program, attacking her in the last debate with the zinger: “Your signature, Senator, is to have a plan for everything — except this.

Some had speculated Warren would back away from key parts of Medicare-for-all and bring down the cost by offering a less generous plan. She addressed that concern head-on in her proposal.

Ann Preston 1867.jpg

Ann Preston was the first woman dean of a medical school, the Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania

Senator Kamala Harris introduced her Universal Health Care Plan at the end of July and yet, the only questions she gets asked are why she decided to allow people to keep their private insurance when she originally didn’t. Plus, most of the coverage–this one from Vox– was to compare and contrast it to Bernie Sanders. Her’s is a gradual transition.

Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-all proposal — has been central to the current Democratic debate over health care, though Harris’s responses have been somewhat muddled until this point. Her health care plan, importantly, helps clear a few things up.

In laying out her proposal, Harris notes that she supports the same end goal as Sanders, but draws some distinctions in how she would go about getting there.

Unlike Sanders’s, Harris’s plan would include a substantive role for private insurers, which would still be able to offer plans under a tightly regulated system, similar to the way that private insurers currently do through Medicare Advantage. Additionally, it would transition Americans from the existing system to Medicare-for-all in ten years, instead of four. And finally, it would use a slightly different payment mechanism: Harris backs several of the methods Sanders has suggested, including higher capital gains taxes, but would only impose taxes on households making $100,000 or more. Sanders’s plan, meanwhile, would impose taxes on households making $29,000 or more.

Experts say that Harris’s approach enables her to continue supporting universal coverage — a major priority for progressives — while also making the plan a bit more politically palatable to folks who are concerned by how disruptive it could be. With a longer transition period and an ongoing role for private insurers, it means more time for people to adjust and the appearance of greater choice.

“At the end of the ten-year transition, every American will be a part of this new Medicare system,” Harris writes in a Medium post. “They will get insurance either through the new public Medicare plan or a Medicare plan offered by a private insurer within that system.”

And how about Senator Amy Klobucher? Media? Media? Oh, look I found this one in Elle Magazine

While Klobuchar has not signed onto Medicare for All, CNBC reports that she does support universal health care, starting with a public option for people to opt into government-run plans. She supports expanding Medicaid and Medicare and lowering drug prices, including allowing Medicare to negotiate prices, according to PBS.

“On ‘Medicare for All,’ I think it is something we should look at, but I want to get there quicker and I don’t want to do any harm,” she said in an interview with CNBC. “There, I actually am not on that bill because I support a public option and improving the Affordable Care Act and keeping those protections in place and doing something about pharmaceuticals.”

In 2017, she also spoke about improving upon the Affordable Care Act, telling CNN, “We can do something quickly to fix the Affordable Care Act. That’s why we can’t afford to let them ram through a bill that’s going to make things worse by cutting millions off of health care, jacking up premiums, and doing nothing about skyrocketing drug costs.”

She’s released a $100 billion plan to combat drug and alcohol addiction and improve mental health care. The plan is focused on prevention, treatment and ongoing recovery. The issue is personal to Klobuchar, who has spoken openly about her own father’s alcoholism.

So, of course, Mayor Pete gets tons of Media Kudos for sniping at Warren. We get tons of stuff on Bernie’s plan despite lack of information on funding and can watch Biden tag on to Obama care, but I have a question.

Can women every get a break here?

I’m kind of struggling with life here atm so this is about all I’m up today. What’s on your reading and blogging list today?


27 Comments on “Friday Reads: Double Standards”

  1. dakinikat says:

  2. quixote says:

    This is where I go all Pelosi and worry about what’s practical.

    Warren’s plan is great … and gives so much ammunition to every vested interest and the Repubs that she may well have just killed her candidacy.

    — Increase taxes by 2 trillion per year. I can see the ads now. They won’t mention that she’s getting it from billionaires (good!) and a financial transaction tax (excellent! necessary! brilliant!).

    — The latter points mean all of Big Finance is going to gear up even more against her.

    — Reduce payments to hospitals and doctors. Again, pretty good in the details, but she just got everybody in medicine against her.

    — Doing away with private plans in relatively short order. One more where the ads will write themselves. She’ll lose a good chunk of the very middle class who’d actually benefit, as well as some of the unions who expended energy bargaining for health plans.

    Honestly, what is she thinking?

    Much better to go the Harris route where you have a ten-year transition, have a public option, let people keep their plans for now so they don’t freak out. Also the Klobuchar route.

    My head is just full of a depressing mantra going around and around and around: Are the Dems and the media really going to throw away all the good candidates and hand the country to a Dump? Really?

    • quixote says:

      Reducing payments to Big Pharma is also good. That’s one where she might actually be able to get her side of the message through.

    • bostonboomer says:

      • NW Luna says:

        I have no sympathy for the leeches in insurance companies who live off denying patients the meds and treatments they need. Should we still use coal so the coal miners have jobs? Should we go back to clearcutting endangered species habitat so the millions of loggers who used to work in the industry can have jobs?

        Start retraining programs for them.

        • bostonboomer says:

          Of course, that’s the point. Warren doesn’t have a plan for that. Also, a lot of ordinary people work for insurance companies in support jobs. I have sympathy for them.

          • NW Luna says:

            Yeah, I understand what you say. Still not a reason to keep a callous industry going. One of the fastest-growing job fields is clean energy. So, retraining programs.

  3. bostonboomer says:

    Warren’s plan is kind of irrelevant since it would never pass Congress. As for Kamala Harris, she has already been erased by the media and white Democrats.

  4. bostonboomer says:

    I keep noticing the distinct difference between coverage of the male and female candidates and between the white candidates and the candidates of color.

    Only one woman candidate is even treated seriously–Warren. Didn’t you see that video where a bunch of male Democrats laughed uproariously at the notion that Amy Klobuchar’s public statements should be taken seriously? All candidates of color have already been erased, and Democrats need to start thinking about what that will mean for Black and Hispanic turnout.

  5. bostonboomer says:

  6. bostonboomer says:

    • bostonboomer says:

      Warren is relying, for example, on a wholesale immigration reform plan (something that frankly does not seem politically attainable) to generate hundreds of billions of dollars (above and beyond revenue going to state and local governments). At some point, this fails the straight-face test.

      • bostonboomer says:

        I really hate to say this, but this is starting to look more and more like a replay of 1972. If Trump doesn’t get impeached and removed, resign, or die before the election, we could be looking at the death of our democracy.

        • palhart says:

          President Pelosi. If only. There’s no Democratic challenger who can beat Trump, IMO.

          • quixote says:

            Harris could. She’s sharp enough and fast enough on her feet. Which in my tin foil hat moments is why I think they worked so hard to erase her from the get-go. In my less foily moments, I think it might just be sexism and racism kicking us *all* in the throat once again.

  7. bostonboomer says:

  8. dakinikat says:

    • NW Luna says:

      Kurt’s been exposing Trump corruption for years. He didn’t used to be so outspoken against rank-and-file Republicans, but that’s changed since Jan. 2017.

  9. dakinikat says: