Politico recounts a story in the new issue of Vanity Fair about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and what makes him tick:
WOWZA —Vanity Fair’s Joe Hagan is out with a buzzy profile of ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR. through the lens of his close friends and family, who describe the presidential candidate as a man whose life story is “marked by personal trauma and addiction to drugs, sex, and, perhaps most perniciously of all, public adulation.”
In some of the more alarming stories, Hogan’s report includes …
An on-the-record allegation of sexual assault from ELIZA COONEY, who was a young woman Kennedy had hired in the late 1990s to work as a babysitter and personal assistant.
A photo of Kennedy posing with the cooked remains of a dog while traveling in Korea. “The photo was taken in 2010, according to the digital file’s metadata — the same year he was diagnosed with a dead tapeworm in his brain.”
Allegations that he sent friends sexually explicit photos of women that may not have been taken consensually.
Writes Hogan: “Theories about Kennedy’s reckless behaviors abound. Long before it was reported, members of the family knew about the brain worm … But more often his family points to Kennedy’s 14 years as a heroin user.”
In the first post today, I wrote that people in Arkansas were trying to collect enough signatures to get a state referendum on abortion. They did it! Under the malign leadership of Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders and a Republican legislature, the state government passed a highly restrictive abortion law.
They did it. They did it on a shoestring budget, with no organizational support from national groups. Just Arkansas women with clipboards, hustling.
With 100,000 signatures in hand and more still being counted, backers of the Arkansas Abortion Amendment say they’ve got the numbers they need to put reproductive rights on the November ballot. And so far 53 counties reached the qualifying minimum, more than the state’s required 50.
Arkansans for Limited Government, the group behind the Arkansas Abortion Amendment, will turn in petitions at the Arkansas Capitol today.
They’ll be bringing roughly 10,000 more than the 90,704 required to get on the ballot, although the number will certainly change as employees with the Arkansas Secretary of State’s office cull duplicates and weed out names of people who aren’t registered voters. There’s a cushion built into the calendar that gives volunteers another 30 days to collect more signatures to make up for any that are nixed by the state.
It’s easy to feel gloomy about politics in a red state that only seems to get redder. But today there is genuine cause to celebrate. It is only a first step in the process of restoring reproductive rights. But what a step! This is how you claw your state back from the tsk-tsking forced birthers who would gladly stand by while rape victims, pregnant children and women carrying non-viable pregnancies suffer unspeakably.
And they did it without glamorous celebrity endorsements or the financial muscle of major national groups. This effort was driven by smart and tireless Arkansas women who weren’t dissuaded by naysayers or the failure of national groups like Planned Parenthood or the American Civil Liberties Union to send them any cash.
On Friday morning Lauren Cowles, executive director of Arkansans for Limited Government, told supporters to celebrate a little bit, but be ready to work a lot between now and November:
We are grateful for and inspired by Arkansans, across all 75 counties, who signed the petition to put this amendment before voters in November. We believe that healthcare is personal and private. Bodily autonomy and the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship are values that transcend party politics, economics, and religion. Healthcare decisions, including decisions about reproductive health, should be made between patients and their healthcare team.
Right now, Arkansas is the most dangerous place in the country to be pregnant. Not only does Arkansas have the highest maternal mortality rate in the nation, nearly half of Arkansas counties are maternity healthcare deserts, meaning they have no obstetric providers or options for delivery care. Arkansas deserves better than that.
This campaign is made up of Arkansas women and mothers, Arkansas healthcare professionals, and Arkansas faith leaders. We are grateful for their support. I want to recognize our 800+ courageous volunteers. Despite frequent harassment and intimidation, they worked tirelessly for months to ensure that we could reach interested signers in every corner of the state. Their relentless efforts, unwavering dedication, and unyielding passion inspires hope for a better Arkansas.
We are proud of our fellow Arkansans for rejecting the state’s extreme abortion ban and taking the first, important step towards protecting pregnant women now and in the future. We celebrate our accomplishments today, but on Monday we get back to work because women’s lives are at stake. The hardest job is ahead of us, and we will not fail.
The Arkansas Times warns that anti-abortion groups will pull every trick in the book to smear and derail the referendum. Great thing about referenda is that they allow voters to speak out on issues where politicians don’t listen. That’s why every state referendum on school vouchers has failed.
The Steward Corporation, which owns 31 hospitals, declared bankruptcy a few weeks ago. In addition to the hospitals it owns in Texas, it also has eight hospitals in Massachusetts.
I have a personal interest in these events because one of the Steward holdings is St. Joseph’s, where I was born. It is the oldest hospital in Houston. At the time of my birth, St. Joseph’s was a Catholic hospital, staffed in large part by nuns wearing habits.
In recent years, the hospital has been owned by a series of private equity firms, who envisioned ways of making a profit while delivering high-quality healthcare.
Steward’s troubles in Massachusetts have drawn the ire of political figures including U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Edward Markey, who have said the company’s previous private equity owners “sold (Steward) for parts” and “walked away with hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey said Monday that the state had been preparing for a possible bankruptcy filing. Despite the filing, she said, Steward hospitals will remain open and patients should keep their appointments.
“This situation stems from and is rooted in greed, mismanagement and lack of transparency on the part of Steward leadership in Dallas, Texas,” Healey said Monday. “It’s a situation that should never have happened and we’ll be working together to take steps to make sure this never happens again.”
No such outrage in Texas, where state leaders worship at the shrine of the market.
On Tuesday, the day after filing for Chapter 11 protections, Steward said in court documents that it plans to sell all of its hospital properties, which include St. Joseph and 30 other hospitals throughout the U.S. According to court documents, the company is “exploring a reorganization around a smaller footprint of hospitals.”
Representatives for St. Joseph and Steward could not immediately be reached for comment.
Upon announcing the bankruptcy Monday, Steward said day-to-day operations are expected to continue without interruption during the bankruptcy proceedings…
St. Joseph is Houston’s only downtown hospital and the oldest general hospital in the city. The hospital has more than 700 beds, officials previously told the Chronicle, and many of its patients are covered by Medicaid and Medicare. In addition to St. Joseph, the bankruptcy affects hospitals in Odessa, Big Spring, Port Arthur, and Texarkana…
St. Joseph has changed hands multiple times over the last two decades. In 2006, the hospital was sold to North Carolina-based Hospital Partners of America, Inc., after the previous owners, Christus Health, said it couldn’t afford to modernize the hospital’s aging buildings, according to earlier reports in the Chronicle. Hospital Partners initially invested heavily in the hospital but declared bankruptcy about two years later.
In 2011, a Tennessee-based company, Iasis Healthcare, acquired a majority interest in the hospital as part of the bankruptcy process. Iasis merged with Steward in 2017.
Scott Maxwell is a regular columnist for Tthe Orlando Sentinel. In this article, he discusses the meanest, most heartless, most inhumane law passed by the legislature. How about letting workers have a water and heat break in Florida’s hot, humid climate? Employers don’t want workers to take time off. They prefer to let them struggle under a fiery sun, even if they collapse.
Maxwell writes:
I’ve written a lot of pieces about a lot of cruddy bills in Florida.
But I can’t recall one that generated more universal disgust among readers than the one lawmakers passed a few months ago banning cities and counties from making sure outdoor workers get shade and water on blistering hot days.
Miami-Dade was discussing local regulations that would guarantee roofers, farmworkers and others who toil in Florida’s blistering sun basic things like water breaks, shade and first-aid treatment for heat stroke — the kind of precautions most people with a conscience would provide for their dog.
Yet Florida’s big business lobby didn’t want to be forced to provide any of that. So they got their puppets in the Legislature to pass a law making it illegal for any local government to pass heat-safety regulations. Yes, their target was water and shade.
I described it as “The most shameful law Florida passed this year.” And readers overwhelmingly agreed. The disgust came from Republicans, Democrats and independents all around the state.
“This is so wrong in so many ways,” said reader Ingrid, who noted that, as a homeowner, she offers shade, water, seating and bathrooms to workers painting the outside of her house. “It is the American and right thing to do…”
And multiple conservative and independent readers said this was the kind of bill that made them think the pendulum of one-party power has swung too far. “So often, I no longer support Democratic legislators because I feel they are too far left,” Bruce said. “After reading this, I must vote for them anyway because others are too far to the right.”
But a question I also received over and over was: Why?
Why would lawmakers — most of whom have families and many of whom claim to be people of faith — support a bill that denies guaranteed access to things so fundamental as water and shade?
Well, here’s the remarkable reality: They normally wouldn’t. In fact, they didn’t.
Just two years ago, Republican legislators joined Democrats to unanimously pass a bill out of committee that would’ve guaranteed similar heat-safety protections to workers across the entire state.
At the time, GOP legislators described the heat protections as simply humane. One said it was “heartwarming” to see everyone agree on such a basic concept. The bill’s sponsor, Miami Republican Senator Ana Maria Rodriguez said: “It’s really about health and wellness and making sure people are protected.”
But then, as the Seeking Rents website that tracks the way money influences public policy in Florida recently revealed, the state’s homebuilding and business lobby got involved. And the bill died.
Then this year, the business lobby put the push on steroids. The Florida Chamber of Commerce not only wanted to make sure that no state laws guaranteed workers heat-safety protections; they wanted lawmakers to pass a law that banned counties from doing the same.
The chamber even warned lawmakers that if they didn’t do as instructed, the politicians’ scores would be docked in the business group’s annual “How They Voted” report card. The chamber told lawmakers that their votes on this one issue would be counted twice.
That is how badly the chamber — which is funded by companies like Disney, Publix, U.S. Sugar and Florida Power & Light — wanted to make sure no companies in this state would be subject to local heat-safety regulations.
We’ve all watched ugly politics transpire in Tallahassee. But this was uglier than usual. Veteran Tallahassee journalist Bill Cotterell — who has covered Florida politics for more than half a century — wrote that this was an example of how “the pay-to-play system goes beyond regular back-scratching and turns into cruelty.”
Mark Wilson, the president of the chamber, disagrees. He says readers who are outraged and observers like me and Cotterell don’t understand the issue.
He says the reaction is union-generated “hysteria,” that the chamber is “working to make Florida the safest state in the nation,” that the U.S. division of Occupational Health and Safety Measures already requires companies to protect their workers and that most companies want to do so anyway.
You probably don’t need me to tell you how silly that last argument sounds. If all companies were already doing all these things, they wouldn’t have been so frantically lobbying against them. House Bill 433 bans counties from requiring employers to provide things like “water consumption,” “cooling measures” and “appropriate first-aid measures.”
OSHA does not regulate these things the same way. Instead, it has something called a “general duty clause” that broadly says employers shall provide a work environment “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.” Its website explicitly says: “OSHA does not have a specific regulation regarding heat stress.”
And while Wilson said OSHA is working on more specific heat-safety provisions, the simple fact is they don’t exist now.
The reality is that businesses in Florida have gotten so used to having their way, they don’t want anyone telling them what to do — even when it has to do with worker safety. And this state has a political majority willing do whatever they’re told, so that they can continue getting endorsements and campaign donations. Even it means opposing basic safety measures they previously supported.
That’s something for you to remember the next time you see a campaign mailer telling you that some politician has an “A-plus” business rating. This is the kind of thing they had to support to earn it.
There’s an old saying that “you can’t fight City Hall.” Public service retirees in New York City just proved that you can fight City Hall and win. You can fight City Hall and your own union and win. With a passionate leader and small donations from retirees (mostly teachers), the retirees prevailed because they had the law on their side and they never gave up.
For the past three years, New York City retirees have been fighting a plan hatched by City government and some union leaders to compel retirees to leave Medicare and enroll in a for-profit Medicare Advantage plan. The retirees, led by Marianne Pizzitola, a retired EMT in the NYC Fire Department, have won multiple lawsuits and won control of the UFT Retiree Caucus (the first time in its 64-year-old history that the Unity Caucus that controls the UFT ever lost an internal election.) This story appeared in City & State, a publication about public employees.
Yesterday, UFT President Michael Mulgrew announced that the UFT was dropping out of the effort to push retirees into an MA plan. He blamed the city, not the retirees’ objections to MA.
In a dramatic reversal, Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation Teachers, notified the Municipal Labor Committee on Sunday that it was withdrawing its support of a controversial Medicare Advantage plan as well as from “the current healthcare negotiations for in-service and pre-Medicare retirees” with the Adams administration.
The bombshell news came in the form of a letter that Mulgrew sent to Harry Nespoli, the chair of the Municipal Labor Committee and leader of the city’s largest Department of Sanitation union.
“It has become apparent that this administration is unwilling to continue this work in good faith,” Mulgrew wrote in the letter. “The city has delayed our current in-service and pre-Medicare retiree healthcare negotiations for months, and we no longer feel that it is in the interest of our members to be part of that process. This administration has proven to be more interested in cutting its costs than honestly working with us to provide high-quality healthcare costs to city workers.”
Mulgrew also sent a separate letter to retired UFT members explaining his decision.
“The city’s losses in the courts and the needless anxiety created among retirees has made it clear to us that our support for this initiative cannot continue … You did not deserve the angst and fear you went through as we worked toward our goal of improving our health care in an increasingly difficult national landscape,” he wrote in the letter. “I have heard your voices. And as we have all grown increasingly frustrated with this process, we will use our strength in the MLC to push for a new strategy moving forward.”
Following the news, a spokesperson for the city’s Law Department defended the city’s Medicare Advantage plan.
“We have been clear: the city’s plan, which was negotiated closely with and supported by the Municipal Labor Committee, would improve upon retirees’ current plans and save $600 million annually. This is particularly important at a time when we are already facing significant fiscal and economic challenges,” the spokesperson said.
Going back several years to the de Blasio administration, the Municipal Labor Committee – which includes representatives of every municipal union – had been working collaboratively with the City of New York to try to reduce the city’s health care costs while maintaining the quality of coverage and ensuring that city workers would still not have to pay health insurance premiums.
As part of that grand bargain during the de Blasio era, the Municipal Labor Committee agreed to shift New York City ‘s 250,000 retired civil servants from their current Medicare plans to a Medicare Advantage plan managed by a private, for-profit health insurance company. Boosters of the controversial Medicare Advantage plan that insisted that it would save the city $600 million annually.
Almost instantaneously, a racially and economically diverse coalition led by retired FDNY EMT Marianne Pizzitola formed the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees. With close to 50,000 members, Pizzitola’s organization helped fund a successful legal challenge to the plan that has already won several rounds in the courts. State court judges have consistently ruled in favor of the retirees, finding that under the legal doctrine of promissory estoppel, the city’s past commitments to its retirees as active employees were still binding….
In his letter to the Municipal Labor Committee announcing UFT’s withdrawal from the Medicare Advantage plan, Mulgrew did not mention the recent leadership election for the Retired Teachers chapter – a fact that upset Bennett Fischer, who won that election by running on an anti-Medicare Advantage platform.
“President Mulgrew should have acknowledged that he is changing his position because elections have consequences,” Fischer wrote in a statement. “He could have acknowledged that he is taking these steps because Retiree Advocate wrested control of the 70,000+ Retired Teachers Chapter from his Unity caucus, and because he sees that his control of the UFT is slipping away. … Until now, Michael Mulgrew and Mayor Adams have been on the same page.”
In a free-ranging interview with City & State, Mulgrew said that the decision to pull the plug had been coming long before the recent electoral rebuff by his retirees, though he conceded it was part of his final calculus.
“About eight weeks ago, I started talking to people at the MLC that this was ridiculous with the courts clearly saying over and over again through all the appeals that this [Medicare Advantage] was not going to work,” Mulgrew said. “And when I read this latest decision out of the Court of Appeals of New York State, half of the decision was about the incompetence of the city’s attorneys.”
Mulgrew continued. “At the same time, we were getting nowhere, I mean nowhere with the negotiations for health care for our in-service active members,” he said, adding that when some of the unions wanted to meet with Mayor Adams to jump start the talks, they were rebuffed by management’s representatives at the table.
“This has got to stop – the members have spoken, the courts have spoken – so why are we continuing to do this?” Mulgrew asked. “Why would the city continue to put its retirees through this process anymore?”…
Pizzitola, the president of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, said that the city should finally give up on its attempt to force retirees to Medicare Advantage plans.
“For three years, an ad-hoc coalition of retirees has been fighting this illegal scheme in the courts and in the City Council,” she wrote in a statement. “And while retirees have been continuously successful – winning 9 victories over three separate lawsuits and thwarting an attempt to change the law – the City still can’t seem to get the message: enough is enough!”
Pizzitola continued. “It is time for the City to come to its senses and end its senseless, illegal war on retirees. If retirees are forced off of traditional Medicare and into the City’s new Medicare Advantage plan, thousands will be denied access to the doctors they depend on and the medical care they desperately need. And, as the director of the NYC Independent Budget Office testified, City taxpayers will not save a dime.”
Steve Ruis raises an interesting question: Why did four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court agree to take the abortion pill case, then rule unanimously that the litigants had no standing to sue? Wouldn’t the four who wanted to hear the case know that in advance? Why did they waste everyone’s time?
Steve has a suspicion that the six justices who voted to strike down Roe v. Wade were sending instructions for the next legal challenge to the pill: try again but avoid these pitfalls. Find a plaintiff with standing.
Just as he predicted, the plaintiffs are lining up to challenge the pill again. They are taking their cases to the same far-right judge in Amarillo, Texas, who previously said the Federal Drug Administration should never have approved the pill.
US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk will have to decide later this summer if three conservative states that want to continue the fight against the drug can do so in his court. The decision is one of several in coming weeks that will determine whether – and if so, how quickly – the case against mifepristone makes it back to the Supreme Court.
Before Trump appointed him, the judge was an attorney for a Christian advocacy group. He is known for his anti-abortion views.
Three conservative states—Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas—want to block access to the pill, and they plan to file their case in Amarillo, knowing that it will be heard by a friendly judge.
An immediate question for Kacsmaryk is whether the states can continue to do so in his court. Generally, parties must be able to justify filing lawsuits in a specific federal court. The doctors and anti-abortion groups who sued over mifepristone incorporated a group called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in Amarillo months before their lawsuit.
The groups’ move to bring the case in Amarillo, a far-flung court division in Texas’ panhandle, was among the most controversial aspects of the lawsuit. Kacsmaryk is virtually guaranteed to hear every case that is filed there, and his courthouse has become a favorite option for conservative litigants and states seeking to halt the Biden administration’s agenda.
Just as they did when the Supreme Court managed to reject the utterly outlandish independent state legislature theory in Moore v. Harper, too many credulous court watchers rushed forward last week to praise the high court for its “reasonableness” in rejecting a half-baked claim to restrict access to mifepristone, the medical abortion drug. It gets no brownie points for knocking down on technical standing grounds one of the more outlandish opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and antiabortion activist District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
Despite headlines that the court was saving or preserving mifepristone, it did nothing of the sort. Worse, Americans have plenty of reason to fear what the most radical and aggressive Supreme Court since Dred Scott is up to.
The majority found that the respondent, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, lacked standing because the group’s members were already spared from any obligation to perform medical abortions by federal conscience clause protections, had only the most speculative injuries, and had to do more than prove it devoted resources to the issue to qualify for “associational” standing. (Plaintiffs cannot “spend” their way into standing, the majority held.)
As a preliminary matter, Justice Clarence Thomas (under fire for yet more unreported lavish gifts from right-wing billionaire Harlan Crow) filed a concurrence that was downright scary. He argued that no organization or association should ever be allowed to assert organizational standing. Here, he went after a nearly 50-year-old precedent.
As Reuters explained, “Thomas essentially attacked a long-recognized legal doctrine relied upon by associations ranging from the nation’s biggest business lobby — the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — to environmental groups and gun rights advocacy organizations to challenge government policies by suing on behalf of their members.” By depriving the most able plaintiffs from challenging statutes, Thomas would give the federal government and states license to run roughshod over individual rights without necessarily changing the substantive law.
Following his attack on Brown v. Board of Education in the South Carolina redistricting case and his assault on Griswold v. Connecticut in the Dobbs case, Thomas once more reveals just how radical the Supreme Court, with the addition of more radical justices, might become in the future.
What was hyperbole is now a road map straight from the concurrences of one of the most radical justices. In the upcoming election, Democrats would do well to focus on the extremism of the Supreme Court as they explain how even more extreme the court would become with more MAGA appointees.
One could simply substitute Thomas for Robert Bork, the radical nominee whose appointment was scuttled in 1987, in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s famous denunciation:
[Clarence Thomas’s] America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.
What was hyperbole is now a road map straight from the concurrences of one of the most radical justices. In the upcoming election, Democrats would do well to focus on the extremism of the Supreme Court as they explain how even more extreme the court would become with more MAGA appointees.
Drilling down on the majority opinion, one finds that the court says nothing that would restrict states from banning all abortions, medical or otherwise. As Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern remind us, “It remains unlawful to prescribe in states that criminalize abortion; it has even been deemed a ‘controlled substance’ in Louisiana.” Moreover, Thomas and other radicals’ pet theory for banning all abortions — expansion and contortion of the Comstock Act to prevent use of the mail to send abortion devices or literature — “will roar back with a vengeance,” the authors note, if Trump prevails and the Supreme Court, freed from worries about a national backlash, decides to take the issue on squarely.
Furthermore, while this particular plaintiff was denied standing, another party, such as a state or individual doctor, might easily establish standing to take another crack at outlawing mifepristone. Jenner & Block, a litigation firm, explains on its blog:
First and foremost, this decision does not spell the end of the mifepristone litigation. While this case was pending at the Supreme Court, three states — Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas — successfully intervened at the district court. Now that the case has been remanded, these three states will continue their challenge to the FDA’s regulation of mifepristone, and based on their complaint, they intend to make many of the same arguments as the Alliance. Specifically, the three states have challenged the FDA’s decisions to expand access to mifepristone from 2016 onward, including the ability to have mifepristone dispensed via telehealth services and distributed by retail pharmacies. Given the district court’s willingness to enjoin the FDA’s approval entirely and the Supreme Court’s failure to reach the merits, it is likely that the states will prevail on at least some of their claims. This would mean another year or more of appeals to the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court, with continuing uncertainty surrounding the regulation of mifepristone in the interim.
Mifepristone, therefore, has not been “saved” in any sense. If anything, it’s on life support, pending an election that would give the court a green light to go wild and/or offer felon and former president Donald Trump the chance to add to the ranks of the most extreme justices.
The United Federation of Teachers in New York City is the largest chapter in the American Federation of Teachers. The UFT was created in 1960. It represents nearly 200,000 city employees, including about 60,000 retirees.
Since 1960, the UFT has been run by the Unity Caucus, which controls the officers, the executive committee and the delegate assembly. The president of the UFT is a powerful figure in New York City, New York State, and national politics. Its best known leaders were and are Albert Shanker and Randi Weingarten (Sandra Feldman served between their tenures, first as UFT president, then AFT president; she died of cancer at age 65). Shanker was president of the UFT from 1964 to 1985, then president of the AFT from 1974 until his death in 1997. Randi Weingarten was president of the UFT from 1998-2008 and became president of the AFT in 2008. The NEA has term limits, the AFT does not.
Weingarten was succeeded as president of the UFT by Michael Mulgrew. Since the union’s founding, the Unity Caucus has won every internal union election by large margins. Splinter groups came and went. Some persisted, but none ever won an election.
Until last week. Until June 15.
The UFT retirees rebelled. At the union’s annual internal elections, a dissident faction called Retiree Advocate upset the Unity slate. The retirees are angry because Michael Mulgrew made a deal with former Mayor DeBlasio to switch the city’s 250,000 retirees from Medicare to the for-profit Medicare Advantage. This switch was supposed to save the city $600 million a year.
The city government and the UFT told the retirees that the MA plan was better than Medicare.
The retirees were skeptical. How does a for-profit deliver make a profit while delivering better care than Medicare, many wondered. The answer, they soon discovered, were these two tactics: One, the person cannot use a doctor who is out of network; but even more important, the healthcare company may deny services. MA is very profitable for its executives.
Medicare accepts all licensed doctors and does not require the patient to get prior approval before they can get the treatment or surgery recommended by their doctor.
The retirees found a leader in a retired Emergency Medical Technician in the Fire Department named Marianne Pizzitola. She began posting videos on YouTube against the switch and collected a large number of retirees who agreed with her. She founded the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, Inc. She posted more videos, explaining that the city had broken its promise to retirees. Their contract promised Medicare, not MA. She argued that the city and some (but not all) unions were collaborating to deceive retirees. The city’s two largest unions—UFT and DC 37, which represents the city’s lowest paid workers—agreed with the city.
Marianne and her allies met with elected officials, organized rallies, and most consequentially, filed lawsuits to block the switch from Medicare to MA. All this activity was funded by retirees’ donations. Despite the huge disparity in resources, the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees won every lawsuit. Judges agreed with them that the city had broken its promises to provide Medicare and a low-cost secondary plan.
The Retiree Advocate slate won 63% of the vote at the June 15 meeting. A majority of the retirees voted against the Unity Caucus slate because of the Medicare/MA issue. They poked a hole in the ironclad dominance of the Unity Caucus (which still has all the officers, 94 of the 100 members of the executive committee, and the vast majority of the delegates. But the retirees now control the retiree caucus.
I have a personal connection to this battle. I wrote an affidavit for the court case. In 2021, I was told by my cardiologist that I had to have open heart surgery to repair a damaged valve. People with this condition are walking time-bombs. I arranged to have my surgery done at New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell by an excellent surgeon. I got a second and third opinion. I did not need prior approval because I was covered by Medicare and my wife’s secondary (she is a retired NYC teacher, principal, and administrator). If I had been on Medicare Advantage, I would have been denied coverage because I was asymptomatic. I had no pain, no shortness of breath, none of the symptoms associated with a serious heart problem. But without surgery, I would have died. (P.S.: Al Shanker was a close personal friend. Randi Weingarten is a close personal friend.)
I wrote about the retirees’ most important victory in court here. Just a month ago, the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees won a unanimous decision in the New York Appellate Division. The city will likely appeal to the State Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court. I wrote “The NYC retirees’ group sued the City, on the grounds that the City was withdrawing benefits that were promised to its members when they were hired. Many had accepted lower pay because of the excellent benefits, especially the healthcare.”
NEW YORK, May 21, 2024 — Today, the New York Appellate Division issued a unanimous decision holding that the City of New York cannot force its roughly 250,000 elderly and disabled retired municipal workers off of their longstanding Medicare insurance and onto an inferior type of insurance called “Medicare Advantage.” Unlike Medicare—a public program that has protected City retirees for the past 57 years—the City’s proposed new Medicare Advantage plan was a private, for-profit endeavor that would have limited retirees’ access to medical providers, prevented retirees from receiving care prescribed by their doctors, and exposed retirees to increased healthcarecosts.
The Court confirmed what retirees have been arguing for months: that they are entitled to the healthcare they were promised for over 50 years. The Court wrote: “The City has made clear, consistent, unambiguous representations – oral and written – over the course of more than 50 years, that New York City municipal worker-retirees would have the option of receiving health care in the form of traditional Medicare with a City-paid supplemental plan. Consequently, the City cannot now mandate the proposed change eliminating that choice.”
The Court permanently enjoined the city from forcing the retirees to leave traditional Medicare and to transfer to a MA plan.
Here is a brief explanation of why the retirees fought against privatization of their healthcare.
Arthur Goldstein, who worked as a high school teacher for 39 years, celebrated the victory in a post called A New Dawn. He followed up with a description of the meeting where Randi spoke and the Retiree Advocate group won control of their caucus. He is a long-time critic of Unity; he’s now vice-president of the UFT Retiree Caucus.
The members and leaders of the Retiree Advocate group are passionately pro-union. They wanted their voices to be heard. The UFT’s acquiescence in the Medicare-to-MA was the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back. They could not believe that the Union would join with the city government to save money by puttting them into a for-profit plan.
Here is Marianne Pizzitola talking about the ramifications of this victory on “Medicare for All.” About half of the nation’s retirees are in Medicare Advantage plans. MA represents the privatization of Medicare and will block Medicare for All.
It’s a shame that the retirees had to fight their own union to preserve their health care. It’s rumored that the city (and the unions?) might go to Albany to try to change the law. The unions should pay attention to their retirees. They may be old, but they are smart and relentless. They will not give up. And I will be with them every step of the way.
Michelle Davis writes a blog called Lone Star Left, where she opines on the struggle to reverse the hold of fascists on the state of Texas. She previously reported on the state convention of the Texas GOP, which cherishes the “right to life” for fetuses but wants to impose the death penalty on women who seek or obtain an abortion. Women who want an abortion apparently have NO right to life.
In this post, Davis reports on the Texas Democratic Party platform, which is the polar opposite of the GOP. She loves it!
She writes:
Okay, we’re finally to it. The Texas Democratic Party Platform and the proposed changes went through the Platform Committee. The Texas Democratic Party (TDP) platform is a critical document that outlines the party’s values, principles, and policy goals. It serves as a roadmap for Democratic candidates and elected officials, providing a clear vision for the future of Texas. The platform reflects the collective voice of party members and sets the agenda for the party’s legislative priorities.
The platform also plays a significant role in mobilizing voters. It provides a comprehensive guide to what the Democratic Party stands for, making it easier for voters to understand its positions on critical issues. (Or at least that’s how it’s supposed to work.)
If you missed the previous articles about the TDP’s updated rules and resolutions:
Personally, I love the Texas Democratic Party Platform and have kept up with its evolution over the years. The previous platform is online, which you can see here:
Earlier this week, I was mindlessly scrolling on TikTok, and I came across some dipshit from Los Angeles who has several hundred thousand followers; her video was all about how “both parties are the same,” and she was discouraging people from voting. The privileged position of living in a blue state, right?
People like this piss me off because NO Democrats and Republicans are not the same.
While the Republican Party of Texas debated giving women who have abortions the death penalty, this week, the Texas Democratic Party added a platform plank that says, “Restore the right of all Texans to make personal and responsible decisions about reproductive health.”
Republicans want unfettered end-stage capitalism with no healthcare, no public education, no Social Security, no Medicaid, and vast wealth inequality. Democrats want universal healthcare, well-funded public education, robust social safety nets, and economic equality.
The Texas Democratic Party platform is a testament to our commitment to creating a fairer, more just society for all Texans. Seeing such misinformation spread online is frustrating, especially when it can lead to voter apathy. However, our platform represents a clear and progressive vision for the future.
It’s a comprehensive document outlining our priorities for a better Texas. We must continue to show these differences between the blue and the red to counteract the cynicism and misinformation that is prevalent today.
What are some of the positive highlights?
Education:
The platform changes maintained the emphasis on protecting and improving Texas public education. They also retained strong language prohibiting school choice scams, such as using vouchers, including special education vouchers, and opposed these programs. The platform kept the requirement that every class have a teacher certified to teach that subject. It clarified that teachers should not be expected to provide financial support through classroom supplies and other essentials at their own expense.
Offer dual credit and early college programs that draw at-risk students into vocational, technical, and collegiate careers.
Ensure all public school children are provided free school meals.
Higher education:
The TDP platform includes several favorable planks in higher education to make college more accessible and affordable. These include advocating for student loan debt relief, providing free college tuition for low-income qualified students, and offering paid internships and debt-free apprenticeship programs. Additionally, the platform supports eliminating standardized testing requirements like the SAT and ACT for college admissions.
Voting and elections:
The platform supports electronic voting systems that utilize paper backups and an auditable paper trail, ensuring election integrity. This particular plank led to some debate. While some supported it for ensuring election integrity, others were wary of potential vulnerabilities and preferred more traditional voting methods. Ultimately, it passed.
Another fundamental plank supported the establishment of a limit on campaign donations in Texas elections to ensure fairness and transparency. We badly need campaign finance reform in Texas. Democrats see this need and are taking it seriously.
They also supported establishing a code of judicial ethics for the Supreme Court of the United States and efforts to recalibrate the court by tying the number of justices to the number of federal circuit courts (13).
If you missed my previous article, the Texas Democratic Party Resolution supports universal healthcare. This has also been part of their platform for several years. Unfortunately, we’re still fighting for basic healthcare access in Texas, so it’s a part of the Texas Democratic Party platform that doesn’t get enough attention.
Here are some (not all) other interesting planks added this year:
Protect doctors and hospitals from politically motivated attacks that hinder them from providing the best care possible.
Legalize and expand access to harm reduction supports such as fentanyl testing strips, Narcan, and safe syringe programs.
Support policies that reduce pollution and protect clean air and water.
Ensure that veterans have access to high-quality mental health services and support for substance use disorders.
Reproductive healthcare:
We all know what the GOP is doing. Besides restoring the right of Texans to make personal and responsible decisions about reproductive health, other new TDP platform planks include:
Protect the right to access in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.
Uphold the right to travel to another state for legal medical services.
Offer comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education.
Hold medical providers accountable for withholding information about a pregnancy based on their presumption that the pregnancy would be terminated.
Safeguard reproductive health and gender-based care patient privacy, including protection from law enforcement.
The environment and climate.
Sometimes, I wonder if we spend enough time talking about this issue. It’s terrible right now, and the next several months could bring devastating weather.
The new planks, which add to the TDP’s previous commitments to clean energy, address many of these concerns. Including supporting policies that develop clean energy resources, promoting alternative fuel vehicles, promoting more energy-efficient buildings and appliances, streamlining the permitting process for building new electric transmission lines, and adding charging stations for electric cars at all state highway rest stops.
Dawn Buckingham, the Texas Land Commissioner, and oil and gas shill has promised to fight the federal administration from connecting offshore windmills to Texas. However, the TDP platform supports federal legislation to share offshore wind lease and production revenues with Texas and other states, incentivizing state and local governments to facilitate successful siting processes and funding coastal infrastructure and flood resiliency projects.
They also emphasized creating and enforcing stringent state and federal regulations on oil and gas operations, including methane release monitoring and enforcement without exceptions.
The TDP platform includes significant changes in the criminal justice reform plank, stressing a more humane approach to law enforcement. The platform proposes raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 13 years, ending the prosecution of juveniles in adult courts, and closing the remaining youth prison facilities while investing in community infrastructure to support children. Additionally, it aims to enforce the constitutional mandate against imprisoning individuals for debt, promote alternatives to incarceration for non-threatening offenses, and eliminate mandatory minimum sentences to allow for judicial discretion—notably, the platform advocates for abolishing the death penalty and instituting a moratorium on executions.
There is more. Open the link to finish her post.
What happens in Texas doesn’t stay in Texas. It spreads to other GOP extremists. Stay informed.
For more than 50 years, New York City recruited new employees with an offer that included strong healthcare benefits in retirement. Recently, the City government decided that it could save money by forcing some 250,000 retirees to abandon Medicare and enroll in a for-profit Medicare Advantage Plan administered by Aetna. Retirees had no choice, and most of their unions sided with the City, not their own members.
One incredibly persistent, bold, fearless retiree refused to accept the deal that took away her Medicare and supplementary plan. Marianne Pizzitola, a retired Emergency Medical Technician with the Fire Department, created a group called the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees. The City had promised her those benefits, like other city employees, and she was not going to let the City take them away without her consent.
Pizzitola began to organize. She gathered research, allies, and funds to fight the City and some of its biggest unions, including the United Federation of Teachers. She set up a Facebook account and used social media to recruit other retirees and to explain why the deal was a sell-out. She frequently gave ZOOM briefings to members of her group, whose numbers continued to grow. MA plans, unlike Medicare, require patients to get prior authorizations before allowing major procedures; members of MA plans must use in-network doctors. MA plans have overbilled the federal government by billions of dollars.
The Chief-Leader, a publication for city employees, wrote about her battle with the City in April:
Pizzitola’s enterprise began on Aug. 13, 2021, a Friday, the city still under a Covid cloud, when 17 of the 40 people she had invited to hone opposition to the city’s proposed plan joined a Zoom call. Five would volunteer to mount a challenge to the city’s proposal. At the conclusion of the two-hour call, the New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees was launched, and Pizzitola was chosen to lead it as president.
“In a few hours, we had a name, a mission, an attorney, a bank. And then that weekend, I started a PayPal, a YouTube, a Facebook, and I drafted our first website,” she said.
The organization, funded by donations, most of $25, has since grown to include a board of directors and an administrative board along with advisors and volunteers, some of them former city and union officials.
Since that August day, over hundreds of emails, at rallies, on YouTube, Threads, Twitter and TikTok, in strategy sessions with attorneys, at gatherings with retirees, and during court hearings, Pizzitola has parlayed her passion, belief and deep knowledge of sometimes opaque policy points and obscure legislation to, so far, preserve what she adamantly believes the retirees, herself among them, are due.
The NYC retirees’ group sued the City, on the grounds that the City was withdrawing benefits that were promised to its members when they were hired. Many had accepted lower pay because of the excellent benefits, especially the healthcare. The group won in the first court that heard the case. The City appealed, and yesterday the State Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of the retirees and “permanently” barred the City from reneging on its promises to retirees.
Marianne Pizzitola proved that one person can win in the face of overwhelming power and money by recruiting allies, gathering sound research, and communicating effectively. Google her name and you will find numerous videos on YouTube where she explains why Medicare is better than Medicare Advantage and why other retirees should support the fight.
Yesterday, the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees issued the following press release. The full decision is attached.
Retiree Update
WE WON!!!
On March 21, 2024 we had oral arguments and today, May 21, we were given a unanimous decision. We thank all of you for believing in us and our legal team. Without all of you, we would never have got this far. The Court said, the City cannot take away our Medicare Supplement.
This is the exact decision, “Accordingly, the judgment (denominated an order) of the Supreme Court, New York County (Lyle E. Frank, J.), entered September 19, 2023, which, in this hybrid proceeding-class action brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted the petition complaint to the extent of permanently enjoining the City respondents/defendants from eliminating petitioner/plaintiff retirees’ existing health insurance, automatically enrolling them in a new Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan, enforcing a June 30, 2023 deadline for retirees to opt out of the new plan, and implementing any other aspect of the City’s new retiree healthcare policy, should be affirmed, without costs.”
Helaine Olen wrote in The Atlantic about the quiet transformation of veterinary care. You may have noticed that vet bills are high. She blames it on the takeover of large number of independent veterinary practices by private equity. Many once-local vets are now part of big corporate chains.
I see an analogy to privatization in education. Granted, independent vets are private, not public. But I think it’s only a matter of time until private equity invests in charter chains and religious schools. They are a safe investment, backed by a steady stream of government revenue. Private investors will look for ways to cut costs and maximize profits. One obvious path: replacing teachers with computers and AI. Machines don’t care about pensions or healthcare or working conditions.
Olen writes:
As household pets have risen in status—from mere animals to bona fide family members—so, too, has owners’ willingness to spend money to ensure their well-being. Big-money investors have noticed. According to data provided to me by PitchBook, private equity poured $51.6 billion into the veterinary sector from 2017 to 2023, and another $9.3 billion in the first four months of this year, seemingly convinced that it had discovered a foolproof investment. Industry cheerleaders pointed to surveys showing that people would go into debt to keep their four-legged friends healthy. The field was viewed as “low-risk, high-reward,” as a 2022 report issued by Capstone Partners put it, singling out the industry for its higher-than-average rate of return on investment.
In the United States, corporations and private-equity funds have been rolling up smaller chains and previously independent practices. Mars Inc., of Skittles and Snickers fame, is, oddly, the largest owner of stand-alone veterinary clinics in the United States, operating more than 2,000 practices under the names Banfield, VCA, and BluePearl. JAB Holding Company, the owner of National Veterinary Associates’ 1,000-plus hospitals (not to mention Panera and Espresso House), also holds multiple pet-insurance lines in its portfolio. Shore Capital Partners, which owns several human health-care companies, controls Mission Veterinary Partners and Southern Veterinary Partners.
As a result, your local vet may well be directed by a multinational shop that views caring for your fur baby as a healthy component of a diversified revenue stream. Veterinary-industry insiders now estimate that 25 to 30 percent of practices in the United States are under large corporate umbrellas, up from 8 percent a little more than a decade ago. For specialty clinics, the number is closer to three out of four.
This is an excerpt. You might want to read the story in full by subscribing to The Atlantic.
Diane Ravitch's blog 