His idea of ethics is writing a propaganda piece in The Atlantic which insinuates that Bernie Sanders's Medicare For All ("messy care") proposal is politically impossible, because Americans are like battered women trapped in a toxic relationship. Citing the results of recent push-style polling which conclude that the 70 percent of respondents who initially claim to be in favor of single payer health care suddenly change their minds when (falsely) told they'll lose benefits under a government-run system, Emanuel says the real enemies of single payer health care are not Republican think tanks and politicians, but the US citizenry.
As much as Americans hate insurance companies in general, they want the right to have a love-hate relationship with their own insurer. During the battle over the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama promised, “If you like your plan, you can keep it.” When a handful of Americans lost their plans, the backlash was tremendous—even when the cancellations had nothing to do with the new law. The polling data today are clear: When Americans are told they might have to give up their current insurer, fewer than 40 percent support Medicare for all. That’s nowhere near enough to override the entrenched interests in health care.Emanuel is so ethical that he doesn't stop at simply debunking the vicious Republican propaganda about socialized totalitarian medicine and death panels. He sets up a brand new straw man with which to gaslight his audience and attack Medicare For All. If we get sick and die because we are uninsured, he explains, it'll be our own damn fault for getting obliquely lied to by push-pollsters. We cannot blame our poor beleaguered congress critters for failing to pass a true universal guaranteed health care payment system. We can only blame ourselves and our neighbors who listen to nasty right-wing talking points and watch insurance industry-sponsored Harry and Louise-type TV commercials.
Needless to say, Emanuel's bioethics do not include informing people that true single payer is not only simple, but that coverage would be guaranteed and that private insurance would not only be rendered superfluous but people would end up with more money in their pockets by not paying premiums, co-pays and deductibles and their employers would save money and hopefully pass the savings on to their workers in the form of better pension plans as well as higher wages. He doesn't explain that the taxes to be collected would be much lower than the premiums charged by the insurance industry.
But to give him credit where it's due, Emanuel does nonchalantly and ethically inform readers toward the end of his piece that
Between Bernie Sanders and a buy-in are two more practical and politically appealing plans. One is Medicare for America, a proposal drafted by the Center for American Progress. (Full disclosure: I helped design it. I’ve also received speaking fees from groups representing insurers, hospitals, doctors, and employers.)That little snippet is so inconsequential that he puts it in parentheses so you get the message that his grifting activities have nothing at all to do with his true concern for his gaslit audience.
Just as, if not more, important as guaranteed universal coverage from cradle to grave, Emanuel thus concludes, are the guaranteed and continuous windfall profits for the predatory and admittedly abusive-at-times private insurance industry. One way to improve and expand upon Obamacare would be to implement Medicare Advantage For All, and allow private companies to impose their narrow restrictive networks and suck up even more exorbitant profits from the myriad services which would be deliberately excluded from coverage under any new government plan. Medicare drug coverage plans already are privately run, and the prices of many drugs therefore would still be kept artificially high under the plan Emanuel helped design.
Although named Medicare Extra For All, not everyone will pay the same premiums, which will be based on income. Subscribers would still have to fork over co-pays and deductibles, again based on income, with discounts offered if services are rendered at a "center of excellence."
And all this would be available gradually, over a period of eight (!) years.
It's a lot more convoluted than true single payer. There's a lot more space for watering down and tinkering by lobbyists.
The whole point is to keep cut-throat competition as the health care marketplace's driving force, and to keep treating health care as a privilege or lottery and not as a basic human right. Capitalism is so slick and smooth and well-groomed compared to "messy care for all" as envisioned by messy old Bernie. Giving people immediate relief and peace of mind simply does not meet the requirement of "efficiency" -- code for keep it unnecessarily complicated, and maybe it'll all just go away.
Emanuel's plan, with no apparent sense of irony, also adds reams of paperwork and whole new layers of bureaucracy to the already messed-up system, and thus is almost guaranteed to garner complaints, with much justification. He explains to the bewildered:
There are also good policy rationales to preserve a role for private insurers. While progressives often claim these companies do nothing for the health-care system but add paperwork and extract profits, this view is anything but universal. Medicare Advantage plans offered by private insurers currently enroll about a third of seniors and are the fastest-growing part of Medicare. The evidence—only 2 percent switch back to regular Medicare— suggests that seniors like these plans and, by implication, the private insurers that offer them. In addition, having multiple payers adds competition, which can improve performance and prevent the government’s health plan from ossifying.The fact that even old people stay in abusive relationships does not mean that victims love their abusers. It means that they're afraid of their abusers. It's human nature to be afraid of change. They're afraid that if they stop giving in to blackmail and extortion and protection rackets, they'll be left with nothing at all. They might even die.
Emanuel does not explain this, or attempt to set the record straight or soothe any manufactured fears. He does not ethically explain what he even means by the dreaded "ossification" of a government-run single payer health system. I suppose he wants to impart the notion that Medicare For All isn't sexy enough. Our lives are not precarious enough. We need constant intrigue and excitement. Why be bored and complacent knowing that the good old stodgy reliable government will always be there to promptly pay for our medical care, when we can enjoy seductive and dangerously titillating trysts with Cigna or Aetna or Blue Cross-Blue Shield?
Never knowing when or even if they'll show up is half the fun. What's your phone for, after all, but to spend countless hours trying to locate an insurance company adjuster and beg them to reverse a claim denial? It's as emotionally appealing as trying to track down a cheating or inattentive or missing spouse or partner.
And what an aphrodisiac it is when they finally do deign to talk to you or show up and make up for your bruises with a bouquet of flowers (or a surprise partial reimbursement check.) Abusive relationships are to die for.
Ezekiel Emanuel hasn't been this persuasive about the joy of pain since 2014, when he wrote in The Atlantic that since he doesn't want to live past the age of 75, neither should selfish old you -- Medicare Advantage plan or not.
I wrote a critique of that slimy bit of neoliberal propaganda, cross-published in Truthout, which up to then had been regularly running my pieces. "Medicare, Dr. Mengele and You" apparently was not, I heard from a reliable source, well-received from on high, because the liberal site suddenly dropped me like a hot potato. An ossified, unpaid hot potato.
Granted, my critique of Zeke was fairly brutal. An excerpt:
If Ezekiel Emanuel, M.D. can’t live forever in a young body, then neither should you. If Ezekiel Emanuel’s attack of male menopause freaked him out, then you should freak out too. If Ezekiel Emanuel fears a decline, then the rest of the aging population should just quietly disappear, even before they get sick or senile.Sad to say that judging from his most recent "Messy Care" narrative, Emanuel is as ossified in his tomb of a capitalistic belief system as ever. The continuing neoliberal message is that if you can't learn to survive within an abusive, cutthroat market-based health care system and cannot appreciate all the Advantages accruing thereto because you have no money and no clout, then you might as well just die already.
Ezekiel Emanuel has decided that if he can’t function like a rich jerk forever, he would just as soon die before he reaches 75. Therefore, nobody else should live past 75 either. Once you stop being entertaining or remunerative, you should just check the hell out.
Emanuel is really, really bad at bioethical gaslighting. If there was such a thing as journalistic malpractice, he'd be sued. His shameless propaganda should make us more determined than ever to keep agitating for single payer health coverage for everybody.
ReplyDeleteThe Atlantic has a reputation for being a liberal publication. And it often does publish well-written leftish articles––of relatively minor import (identity politics and such). Big money issues, foreign policy and war, however, get different treatment. The Atlantic, for instance, was all in from the outset in 2003 when Bush-Cheney wanted to invade Iraq.
On big issues of reform the Atlantic regularly serves as a smooth set of brakes to slow down hard driving lefties in or out of the Democratic Party. Medicare for all is one of those ideas that really must be slowed down. Speed limits on instituting healthcare for all were long ago set much lower than, say, Canada or the rest of Europe, Taiwan and a few other advanced countries. The Atlantic––you can count on them when it really matters––argues for respecting those traditional go-slow speed limits.
There was a similar application of the brakes in an article from the December 2018 issue. Wunderkind Atlantic Rhodes Scholar contributor Peter Beinhart argued in a special piece that those new radicals swelling the left side of the Democratic Party had better be careful. They were moving too far too fast.
The New Democratic left's successes lately in turning the party to the hard left (which "successes" Breibart enumerated and exaggerated) might work for a time. But, as in the Thirties and Sixties when leftists forced other big gains in economic and racial justice, usually through violence and disorder (Breitbart's interpretation of leftist tactics), they also generated a backlash by moderates and the more zealous right.
Bottom line: The left must never push too hard, otherwise they will generate a backlash eventually making things worse for everybody. So argues the Atlantic time and again.
On a related subject, why don't we take Truthout down from the Blog Roll? You can more often get as good or better elsewhere, including from PhD's who don't write in deadly dissertation style.
ReplyDeleteDuring the early years of Obama's reign, a college classmate gave me a year's subscription to The Atlantic. Notwithstanding the column in that by another classmate, James Fallows, when offered to have my subscription renewed, I declined.
I found The Atlantic too incessantly and nauseatingly establishment entrenched to read.
This unctuous barf job by Ezekiel Emanuel is a perfect example of that tedious and tragically dominant world view.
Regrettably too many will read The Atlantic and blindly believe that to be reasonable, and too few will read Sardonicky and see it for the fraud it is.
So, nevertheless, thank you for putting it in its place.
Add me to the list of those who stopped reading the Atlantic years ago, right around the time I stopped reading the Washington Compost and the NYT. I've thought of them as fake news long before Trump ran for president, but because they are neoliberal/neoconservative rags, abd because recently they've thrown out what little remained of their credibility becoming partisan voices for the Democrats the way Fox News and Brietbart are for the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteI think those who live in the real world, can predict what would happen with a single-payer plan that allowed employees to keep their employer's plans. In a flash, most employers would decide to no longer offer plans and would dump the employees (from their point of view) into the single payer system. So much for choice. The exception would be some top execs who would be given special plans by their companies.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI thought 'choice' in this context referred to which doctor you could choose, or which pharmacy, which hospital, etc. Those choices are still pretty much able to be chosen within Medicare or a universal single payer system without Catch-22s baked in.
Take a close look at 'choice' in the US system we've got now. Do patients insured by employers have any choice about which plan(s) and which private insurance company are chosen by human resources down the hall? Green eyeshade people in HR, closely following corporate directives, make the big choices for employees about which insurance company and which plan.
Guess whose interests are topmost in HR's mind. Take it or leave it seems to be the case, even as HR keeps cutting back in coverage and increasing employee contributions to the plan.
After that, you're stuck within the confines of the chosen private insurance company's limiting choices of doctor, HMO group, geographical limits, and shrinking menu of what's covered. If you can afford it and if you can unpuzzle all the choices of ancillary private insurance plans, you may be able to land some pretty good private insurance to shore up your employer's insurance plan.
Here's the first question that needs to be answered in such discussions: Is healthcare a right for everybody? Or should the healthcare you receive be strictly a matter of luck at birth, where you may or may not be born into money, may or may not be blessed with good genes, and may or may not have a quick brain or agile reflexes to land in the lap of an appreciative and generous employer who will happily choose the cadillac plan for you and your dependents? Based on statistical analysis, 90% of the embryos in the US have made the wrong choice of egg, sperm and womb.
The health system now in place favors the lucky born into the great big US marketplace, the same marketplace that looks down with disfavor upon the unlucky poor, the unlucky sick and the unlucky unemployed. What do you suppose the unlucky 90% should chose to do about that?
Jay, remember when there was something called a Personnel Department, back in the olden days when humans were still considered to be people and not resources to be exploited?
ReplyDeleteHere's my scatterbrained thoughts to Krugman piece 'Don't Make Healthcare a Purity Test':
Americans are first and foremost customers, not citizens. Under the for-profit health insurance system established by the ACA, we're now chained to the for-profit health care Marketplace, waiting our turn to be gutted financially. It's like we're one big factory farm and we're the piggies.
As Marine Gen. Smedley Butler attested to personally ('War Is A Racket'), our government has a very long sordid history of assisting corporate profiteering, exploiting military personnel (aka 'human resources') to do the dirty work to open and expand so-called free markets.
The ACA essentially drafted us all into the ranks of civilian human resources to expand the free market. It always comes home, doesn't it? The ACA made us all conscripts serving the healthy profits of the Marketplace. It's ironic that President Obama put us in those chains.
We must support Medicare For All as if our lives depend on it. Anything less is akin to New Hampshire's state motto: 'Live Free (of Health Profits) or Die"
People Over Profits - Medicare For All
No surprise that Krugman is shilling for the corporate-funded Center for American Progress's Medicare Maybe Someday for Some People plan. My comment got so-so recommendations and some push-back which sounded suspiciously like it came from insurance lobbyists, as in "I appreciate Choice!" Who talks or thinks like that in the real world? I won't republish my comment because it covers the same territory as this post does.
ReplyDeleteThe ammunition that Krugman and Emanuel and the rest are using is that people are so enamored of their employer-based coverage, why discompose them for the sake of tens of millions of have-nots? Whenever you hear these types chide us about imposing a "purity test" on politicians for health care policy, you can rest assured that they themselves are extremely well-covered. It's not that they all get together in a dark room and plot their strategy or anything, they just read each others' propaganda and decide what's safe to lie about while feigning concern.
Is Rahm Emanuel a relative of this poor excuse for a human or is it just an unfortunate naming thing? I have UHC which is in Atlanta as my supplemental (different account numbers are kind of confusing even to United Health Care "professionals") and a New Yawk denizen (she lives in Pearl River) tried to twist my arm into having Medicare Advantage. Perhaps I should look into that. But $6 for a cancer surgery? No complaints. Yet. Although I do pay UHC over $2400/year for the privilege of being with them. What's with the fact of having paid into medical care all my 70 years? Should we have more undeclared wars on that nickel? The woman who did my surgery is a wizard. She was terrific!
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted, without surprise, that Ezekiel Emanuel is the older brother of Rahm Emanuel. Accordingly, we should not refer to "the Democrats" as if there is a cohesive Party. In fact, we're seeing a serious and significant fissure separating progressives from regressives. The ruling elites in that latter camp are beginning to panic and will try to maintain their control of the status quo by any and every means.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteOn March 23rd in The Intercept, Glenn Greenwald exposes yet another example of The Atlantic's grossly irresponsible and chronically unethical journalism:
The Crux of the Accusations Against David Sirota From the Atlantic’s Edward-Isaac Dovere is False --
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/23/the-crux-of-the-accusations-against-david-sirota-from-the-atlantics-edward-isaac-dovere-is-false/
Moreover, Greenwald notes:
"It’s hard to overstate how many other media outlets uncritically repeated the Atlantic’s false timeline with no attempt made to verify whether it was true."
It's bitter irony that the "mainstream" corporate media indeed broadcasts "fake news" with clear intention of manufacturing a skewed consciousness to give consent for continued establishment control.