'Just False': Sanders Campaign Hits Back After WaPo Describes Pro-Labor Proposal as Change

[Uncle Joe]

to Medicare for All Plan

Sen. Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign on Wednesday emphatically pushed back against a Washington Post story that reported the senator made a "change" to his Medicare for All plan due to criticism from organized labor, a charge one Sanders adviser described as "bullshit."

The Post story came hours after Sanders unveiled his comprehensive labor platform, which includes a clause that states: "Unions will still be able to negotiate for and provide wrap-around services and other coverage not duplicative of the benefits established under Medicare for All."

The Post characterized the sentence—which was plucked out of a section in Sanders's labor platform titled "A fair transition to Medicare for All"—as a "departure" and a "seeming acknowledgment of a role for private coverage by a campaign that has railed against others for not taking a hard-enough stance against such plans."

The Sanders campaign immediately and strongly rejected that description, saying the senator's Medicare for All plan has not changed and does not leave the door open for private insurance.

(snip)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/22/just-false-sanders-campaign-hits-back-after-wapo-describes-pro-labor-proposal-change

WAPO can't even tell the difference between Bernie's Medicare for All bill which was introduced in April and his Labor plan, that's just pathetic.

[lapucelle]

1. How are "unions" going to provide wrap-around medical services?

Is there a mechanism in the latest version of the BS Medicare for All bill for the federal government providing supplemental, negotiated benefits?

If the mechanisms are already in place in the bill, why didn't BS just say so when questions first arose months ago?



BS himself changed his original 2017 bill when he relaunched it last April. Why is he so upset about the word "change"?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. Read the article. It's in there.

[lapucelle]

3. No it isn't. There's nothing there concerning specialized supplemental

insurance as a negotiated benefit.

[Buzz cook]

4. Elizabeth Warren has signed onto

Bernie's Senate plan as well as the House bill.

That being said, the article does clearly state that unionized companies, with negotiated health care plans, would have to renegotiate with unions about the monies that were formerly used for health care. Those funds would have to be used for increased wages or benefits.
Those negotiations could include anything not covered by M4A.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Not sure how the WaPo got a change to M4A out of that.

[lapucelle]

5. My husband is an FDNY 9/11 survivor. The negotiated specialized

benefits in his "regular" union-negotiated health insurance coverage (including additional coverage for heart and lung problems associated with firefighting) kept him going until he was approved for coverage under the 9/11 programs.

There is nothing straight forward about the assumption that a vaguely worded clause in a new general labor plan has a relevant statutory mechanism in a health care bill introduced first in 2017 and then revamped into a "better" bill in 2019.

And it still begs the question, if this is not a change, then why didn't BS point out that his plan addresses any gaps created by specialized negotiated benefits when the questions first arose months ago?

[ehrnst]

6. Oh LOOK! This must've slipped by Bezos....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/20/bernie-sanders-has-smart-critique-corporate-media-bias/