The New York City Council Doesn’t ‘Give a S#*t’ About Retirees!!
Michelle Keller [blue vest] leads fellow New York City municipal retirees in a really outside 250 Broadway on Jan. 10. Joe Maniscalco/Photos/Videos
By Joe Maniscalco
A delegation of New York City municipal retirees and supporters fighting back against ongoing efforts to push 250,000 former civil servants into a profit-driven Medicare Advantage health insurance plan emerged from a meeting with Council Member Erik Bottcher on Friday with arguably the most clear-eyed assessment of the continuing crisis delivered thus far.
“They don’t give a s- - -!” Chelsea Reform Democratic Club member Roberta Gelb told the group of roughly 75 elderly demonstrators rallying on the sidewalk outside 250 Broadway on Jan. 10. “I said to Erik, ‘What are you willing to do?’ And he said, ‘I need to get more information.’ How much more f- - - information does he need? He’s got it all. You’re suffering—they know that—and they don’t give a s- - -! They don’t give a s- - -!”
Demonstrators defied Friday’s frigid temperatures to continue urging Bottcher and his New York City Council colleagues to sign onto Intro. 1096—legislation aimed at safeguarding the traditional Medicare benefits retirees earned on the job from the ravages of a Project 2025-styled Medicare Advantage health insurance plan.
At the time of this writing, however, only eight of those City Council members have signed on. All of them, save for the bill’s sponsor Christopher Marte [D-1st District], is either a Republican or conservative Democrat.
The fight to save the traditional Medicare benefits New York City retirees earned on the job has been going on since 2021, and was sparked by couple of earlier pacts between then Mayor Bill de Blasio and the heads of the Municipal Labor Committee [MLC] who gladly opened the door to privatization as a way of offsetting long-overdue raises for active public sector workers denied them under former billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s 12-year reign.
“This should be a common sense issue,” Marianne Pizzitola, retired EMS worker and president the New York City Organizaiton of Public Service Retirees, told demonstrators on Friday. “You protect Medicare…you protect retirees…you protect your municipal workers…you protect your Medicare. We should not have to keep coming out here in the cold, in the rain, in the summer— [all] four seasons—to keep fighting to protect the federal public health benefit. And the elected officials that are in this building should have no problem—and should not be a second thought—in protecting it.”
Prior-authorizations and subsequent delays and denials of necessary care, along with an ever-dwindling pool of doctors and hospitals willing to accept the plans, have become the well-documented hallmarks of Medicare Advantage health insurance plans peddled across the country.
“I am a physician and the reason I take Medicare Advantage is only because I think healthcare is a human right,” Dr. Cheryl Kunis told demonstrators. “I want everybody to have healthcare, but I am so against [Medicare Advantage] because I spend hours [fighting Medicare Advantage insurance companies] where my patients don't get the care they need. And let me tell you something—I suffer when my patients suffer. I don't want them not to get health care. I have spent hours fighting the Medicare Advantage insurance companies because of their AI-generated letters that give misinformation so they don't have to pay doctors and hospitals.”
Dr. Kunis is a member of Physicians for a National Healthcare Program [PNHP], and was also part of the 10-member delegation that met with Council Member Bottcher this week to advocate for passage of Intro. 1096.
“I was just shocked last month,” Dr. Kunis continued, “when I found out that Mount Sinai Hospital just dropped their Aetna and Signa Medicare Advantage plan. Why? Because they were fighting those insurance companies because they were delaying, denying and not paying the doctors. So, all I can say is we need everything we can get as soon as possible. We don't want to wait until May for another trial because time is money—Benjamin Franklin said it a couple hundred years ago. We don't want to spend more time and money not getting the health care we need. We want it now.”
The New York City Organizaiton of Public Service Retirees has continually pushed back against ongoing efforts to force them into a Medicare Advantage health insurance plan, racking up 11 straight victories in court—including the New York State Court of Appeals—the highest court in the state. Mayor Eric Adams, despite dismissing the Medicare Advantage push as a “bait and switch” while on the campaign trail, nevertheless, keeps appealing the decision of judges and forcing further litigation.
“For some people, it's a life and death issue,” retired attorney and Midtown South Community Council Member Len Polletta told demonstrators after meeting with Bottcher. “Co-pays prevent people from getting help—from getting the healthcare they need. The City Council member who we spoke to said—after we told him several times that this is going to make it impossible for elderly people to get the health care they need—that he needed to think about it. The question you have to ask yourself is why? Why isn't the health care that you deserve enough to make him say, ‘Yes. I will support you.’ Why is that?
“A Sticky Problem No One Wants to Stick to Them As Long As They Can Avoid Confronting It Directly”
We at Work-Bites have long been asking that question—along with many other questions related to the Medicare Advantage push. But virtually no one in city government wants to talk about it.
We have repeatedly reached out to members of the New York City Council for comment without success. In December, we attempted to poll every sitting member of the New York City Council’s Progressive Caucus in an effort to get their position on Intro. 1096 and the Medicare Advantage issue. That attempt was also unsuccessful. We recently repeated the request on WBAI radio—and we’re still waiting.
New York City municipal retirees fighting to save their Traditional Medicare benefits from being usurped by a profit-driven Medicare Advantage plan briefly block traffic on Broadway earlier this week.
Work-Bites reached out to New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams for comment on this story, but her office declined comment. As of this writing, Council Member Bottcher has yet to respond to our requests for comment. Liz Garcia, the Mayor’s press secretary, responded to Work-Bites’ initial request for comment on this story—as well as Marianne Pizzitola’s assertion that Hizzoner has been “trying to implement Project 2025’s default Plan for Medicare eligible retirees—Medicare Dis-Advantage”—but we’re still waiting for an actual comment.
We’ve already established that the “protocol” operating within the New York City Council effectively precludes members from advancing any bill that the Speaker doesn’t want advanced.
Speaker Adams has long maintained that the ongoing fight over the future of retiree healthcare is for the courts to decide.
“We are watching the court proceedings and the way that the courts are working through the different cases coming through,” Speaker Adams told Work-Bites at a City Hall press conference held last month. “Those court processes are not done yet.”
With no other elected official willing to talk to Work-Bites about Intro. 1096 and retiree healthcare overall—we decided to reach out to the CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies for some possible insight into all the stonewalling and that peculiar “protocol” operating within the New York City Council.
New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees President Marianne Pizzitola and fellow retirees take the demonstration uptown into Council Member Erik Bottcher’s district.
“I think the convention is useful when the politics make it convenient,” Steve London, Department Chair and PSC-CUNY Welfare Fund Executive Officer, told Work-Bites in an email. “Sure, the Speaker has power to punish members by withholding perks or council committees, but most are now term limited. I doubt that there is much at stake for council members. I think on this issue, as on others, the Council is somewhat fractious. The MLC has been internally divided about how to handle medical care for both actives and retirees and the MLC and City are deadlocked on how to move forward. Meanwhile, a new budget is due and the lack of health care ‘reforms’ pose budget issues for the Mayor and the City Council. Add in the budgetary worries of the Trump Administration, and the uncertainties of City budget negotiations loom very large.”
London further added, “In this circumstance, with no clear resolution on both active and retiree medical care coming from the MLC, what is the benefit to the Speaker or other council members to stick their neck out before budget negotiations commence? The Speaker does everyone a favor by not moving the retiree medical care agenda forward.”
Huh? How’s that, now?
“The political and budgetary waters are uncertain and there is no consensus plan on health care for both actives and retirees,” London further clarified for Work-Bites. “By not bringing the issue forward for a formal discussion or a vote, advocates and opponents can maintain positions without consequence. Also, the Speaker sends a message that she is not willing to use political capital to hammer out a compromise position or that it is possible to do so at this time.”
John Mollenkopf is also no slouch when it comes to dissecting the machinations of New York City politics. He teaches Political Science and Sociology at the CUNY Graduate Center, directs its Center for Urban Research, and chairs the public policy subfield in political science.
“[The] MLC got significant wage concessions years ago in return for projected savings that would come from the shift away from traditional Medicare, in the hundreds of millions of dollars, so that if the shift does not take place, they have to figure out how to come up with those hundreds of millions of dollars in some other fashion,” Mollenkopf told Work-Bites via email. “This is the ‘budget issue’ Steve mentions below. It is a sticky problem that no one wants to stick to them as long as they can avoid confronting it directly.”
“Erik Bottcher Doesn’t Support Retirees”: New York City municipal retirees deliver a clear message on Eighth Avenue.
Well, those elected officials might not be able to get away with that for much longer. At the conclusion of Friday’s demonstration outside 250 Broadway, retirees proceeded to take the fight deep into Council Member Bottcher’s district where they leafleted and continued to call out his inaction on Intro. 1096.
According to Pizzitola, other members of the New York City Council can expect similar actions landing on their doorsteps in the weeks to come.