Medicare-for-All Lesson Lurking in Your Cable Bill

If you think dealing with your local cable provider is hell, Medicare-for-All will be worse.

You call yourself a Democratic Socialist. You assure the American people that if we can only put Medicare-for-All in place, and get rid of the predatory private health insurance industry, our health-care costs will drop substantially, and the quality of care will be far better.

You are advocating creation of a health-care monopoly. It would be the biggest monopoly in the United States. Do you really believe your dream monopoly will be responsive to your individual needs? When you have a problem, will you be able to call customer assistance, and speak to somebody with willingness, power and incentive to deal with your complaint?

If you do, you've never dealt with your local internet, phone and cable provider, particularly one that has a virtual monopoly in your area.

What do you do if you are unhappy with your service? Let just imagine that you are reasonably happy paying for one of its packages. Then, one day, out of the blue, your rate is raised by 13 percent. When did your employer last give you a 13% pay raise?

When you call to see what can be done, after a modest wait, you get to speak to a "customer representative." You tell her you feel the new rate is unreasonable. She says it really isn't a new rate; they're just taking away a portion of your "customer loyalty discount."

You point out that it is still costing you $20 more per month. She says there is nothing she can do for you, but since you have been a customer for more than 30 years (you were charged $19.99 per month back in 1988), she'll refer you to a "customer loyalty representative."

After another modest wait, that representative finally picks up her phone. You repeat that you are unhappy about the price increase. She repeats that it really isn't a price increase; it's a loyalty discount decrease.

You point out that "loyalty" here seems to be a "one-way street." Your "reward" for being a "loyal customer" is being diminished. She advises that your "loyalty discount" will again decrease next month.

You ask, "What happens if I drop my phone service to save money?" She replies, "If you change your service, you can get a new subscriber promotional discount, but it will only be good for one year. After that your rate will go up $20."

It seems bizarre to you that a new customer will pay less than a loyal customer and that your rate will continue to go up until all your loyalty discount goes bye-bye.

You try again, "What about getting rid of channels you will never use in a thousand years?" She replies, "You probably lose channels that you do watch." 

You ask to speak to a supervisor. She insists a supervisor "will tell you exactly what I am telling you." You insist. She tells you all their lines are busy. You still insist. She tells you, "A supervisor's line just came open; I'll transfer you."

That line rings and rings. Eventually you get voice mail. You dutifully leave your name and number and briefly summarize the nature of your call. No one ever calls back.

Now imagine what happens when Medicare-for-All denies a drug or treatment for your 85-year-old parent. You call Medicare-for-All. And guess what's going to happen when "Bernie" answers? No, not that Bernie. This one is my cable company representative's brother.

When you create a monopoly, you destroy all competition. 

When I have called my health insurance provider, I have always been treated with respect. I have sensed its representatives want to be helpful. They know that a dissatisfied customer can go to another health insurance provider.

But with your cable provider, it's their way or the highway. And with Bernie Sanders' Medicare-for-All, you probably will not even have the choice of opting out and going without insurance.

There'll be no highway.

Posted: QCOline.com   September 9th, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

How about Some Reparations for Irish Americans?

Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson, interviewed on CNN, says that she wants a "reparations council made up of 30 to 50 people who are descendants of American slaves."

She also proposes that $200 billion to $500 billion be dispersed over a period of 20 years. Her council would decide how the money is disbursed, with the stipulation that the funds would be used for "economic and education renewal" -- whatever that is. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker have also indicated support for the concept of reparations.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard is a cosponsor of legislation in Congress to study and develop a reparations proposals. Sen. Bernie Sanders is a co-sponsor for the Senate version of the bill. Sen. Kamala Harris says she supports reparations.

Beto O'Rourke is "open to considering some form of reparations." Warren has gone one step further, saying that reparations for Native Americans should be a part of the reparation conversation as well.


As a former Democrat and a strong believer in "equal protection," I support and thoroughly endorse reparations for both groups -- so long as the aforementioned Democratic candidates are willing to modify their otherwise inane proposals to include reparations to the descendants of oppressed Irishmen.

That, of course, would include me, since my grandfather came from the "Old Sod." I think our government should hand out big bushel baskets of $100 bills to every person of Irish descent in America.

Furthermore, I think the government of Great Britain should also kick in. Because history is no longer seriously taught in our schools, few Americans realize the sad plight of the 19th century Irish small farmer, both before and after he came to America.

From 1846 through the mid-1850s, the Irish potato crop suffered a devastating blight. This fungus was transported to Ireland from the Eastern United States.

In 1846, three-quarters of the Irish potato crop had failed. Three million rural Irish were left to starve -- even though Ireland at this time grew abundant wheat, beef cattle and other livestock.

Throughout the famine, the British continued the export of Irish foodstuffs, notwithstanding the starvation of the Irish people. To exacerbate the situation, Irish farmers, unable to pay their rents owing to the crop failure, were evicted by their English landlords.


To escape starvation, Irish peasant emigrated to America. Coming from rural backgrounds, most lacked the necessary skills required by industrializing America. They had to take unskilled jobs, paving the streets and digging the canals, while the women were forced into menial jobs as maids and laundresses.

And there was prejudice against the Irish. America was largely Protestant. The Irish were Catholics. Many Americans believed the Irish owed their allegiance to the Pope.

Additionally, the Irish immigrants threatened to take jobs from American citizens. Fearing that they would also take political power, there was a backlash, which produced the Know-Nothing Party, whose very reason for being was anti-immigration xenophobia.

"Help Wanted" signs were modified to add, "No Irish need apply!" Then came the Civil War. As Irishmen disembarked, they were met by Union military recruiters who offered them $300 to join the Union Army. And they did.

Irish regiments were formed: the New York 63rd, 69th, and 88th and the 116th Pennsylvania. Soon they were grouped into the Irish Brigade. Over 150,000 Irish, who had never owned a slave, fought for the Union cause.

At Antietam (1862), about 60 percent of 63rd and 69th New York regiments fell; almost 600 men were killed in battle. A few months later, at Fredericksburg, 545 of the brigade’s 1,200 men were killed or wounded. Then, in July 1863, at Gettysburg, 320 of the Irish Brigade's remaining 530 were killed.

Irish losses in the Civil War and in WWI each totaled about 35,000. Irish men were "welcomed" into America to serve as cannon fodder. Unlike the immigrants crossing our southern border today, the 19th century Irish got no food stamps, no free housing and no free medical care.

And of course, once you provide people of Irish descent with reparations, don't forget the Jewish people.

I can distinctly remember as a boy the prejudice in America against people of the Jewish faith. There weren't welcomed in many of the best country clubs. A few blocks from our home, they had to build their own Jewish country club.

So, do I really believe in reparations? No. But if you are going to give them to one group, equal protection should require they be given to any group that America was not fair to at any time. But, of course, when you provide free housing, food stamps, education and medical care to any group for any prolonged period, isn't that a sort of pre-reparation?


Posted: QCOline.com   September 12th, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Democrats are Hypocrites on President Trump's Immigration Policy

Is President Donald Trump really a racist or a white supremacist for saying he is for an "orderly admission of aliens across our southern border, but that we must keep drug dealers, and criminals out?"

Every 2020 Democrat presidential candidate claims Trump is. Do you agree? Before you answer, here is what three prominent Americans said about illegal immigration a few years ago.

Prominent American No. 1:

"All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.


"In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."

Prominent American No. 2:


"We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently and lawfully to become immigrants in this country."

And, "Our message absolutely is don't send your children unaccompanied on trains or through a bunch of smugglers. We don't know how many of these kids didn't make it, and may have been waylaid into sex trafficking, or killed because they fell off a train. We have no way of tracking them."


Prominent American No. 3: 

"When we use phrases like 'undocumented workers'" we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.


Were these three racists? White supremacists? How do their positions meaningfully differ from Trump's current position? Were they speaking reasonably? Truthfully? If so, why does every Democratic candidate today stand in anal opposition to these statements made by the nation's most prominent Democrats just a few years ago?


Did these three care less about suffering children than the present crop of Democratic candidates? Or did these Americans not perceive that if the country were flooded with illegal immigrants, eventually these immigrants would probably vote Democratic and in all likelihood vote to insure irreversible Democratic control of all branches of the U.S. government?


Oh! By the way, the first prominent American quoted was President Bill Clinton from his 1995 State of the Union Address. The second person quoted was President Barack Obama. The first statement (2005) was made while he was a U.S. senator; the second (2014) while he was president. The third quote is from Sen. Chuck Schumer (2009).


Not yet convinced hypocrisy's afoot? I just received another video from a former colleague showing what four more prominent Democrats told the American people a few years ago:

Sen. Harry Reid: "If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that. Right? Guess again. If you enter our country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. Citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides."

Sen. Diane Feinstein: "I think we can enforce our borders.  To have a situation where 40% of the babies born on Medicaid in California today are born of illegal immigrants, creates a very real problem."

Hillary Clinton: "Look, I voted numerous times when I was a senator to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in, and I do think you have to control your borders."

Bernie Sanders: "I believe we have very serious immigration problems in this country. Sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants are virtually non-existent. Our border is very porous.”

Posted: QCOline.com   September 5th, 2019
Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea