As was discussed in a previous blog post, Medicare Part C (also known as “Medicare Advantage”) puts recipients at a huge disadvantage, in multiple ways, in relation to traditional Medicare. And yet, despite this, New York City’s leadership under Mayor Adams has been trying to push the City’s retirees into a Medicare Advantage program (having fewer victories in the courts than the New York Yankees had in the World Series last fall).
One would think that there’d therefore be an effort by progressives in the New York City Council to further protect traditional Medicare for retirees from City government—something NYC Council Intro. 1096-2024 does.
And yet, as of the time of writing this, there are twice as many Republican members of the New York City Council sponsoring the bill (four) than there are members of the City Council’s Progressive Caucus sponsoring this (two). Granted, one of them—Chris Marte—is the primary sponsor of the legislation. But given that it’s usually progressives who are often associated with expanding health care coverage, it’s a pretty disappointing showing from the progressive wing of the City Council on this issue.
And the question that must be asked is…why?
We’re not even going to begin to speculate here as to why, but the question must be asked. It’s an uncomfortable question, yet also an important question. Why is the part of the City Council normally most likely to push for greater access to health care so deafly silent on an issue where they can advocate for that? Are there greater pressures or forces some of these members are feeling (just as there may’ve been some pressure some politicians felt when the United Federation of Teachers, a powerful union, supported Medicare Advantage until a few months ago)?
Council members who don’t sponsor this legislation can only answer this question for themselves. But it’s a question these council members should answer. Because without answering, the result is a lot of talking the talk, but no walking the walk.
Comments