Queer Eye star Jonathan Van Ness has come out in support of Elizabeth Warren as the next Democratic Presidential nominee.
He says that after misplacing his HIV medication, she secured his endorsement with her stance on healthcare.
Van Ness revealed to the world he is HIV positive in a New York Times profile last weekend. He talks about his diagnosis in his newly-published memoir, Over The Top.
Last night he revealed that he recently misplaced his HIV medication and had to quickly re-stock.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The moment I knew I was endorsing @ewarren was last month when I misplaced my HIV meds. It cost $3500 to replace them out of pocket with “amazing” plantinum level insurance. Healthcare shouldn’t be for profit ever, it’s a human right.
— Jonathan Van Ness (@jvn) September 25, 2019
“The moment I knew I was endorsing @ewarren was last month when I misplaced my HIV meds. It cost $3500 to replace them out of pocket with “amazing” plantinum (sic) level insurance. Healthcare shouldn’t be for profit ever, it’s a human right,” he said.
Related: Jonathan Van Ness from ‘Queer Eye’ comes out as HIV-positive
Around an hour later, he posted another tweet. This included video footage of him on a call with Warren, discussing why he was supporting her. It’s unclear if Senator Warren immediately picked up the phone to call Van Ness after being alerted to his tweet.
Let’s do this @ewarren pic.twitter.com/Q5l7feCi3i
— Jonathan Van Ness (@jvn) September 25, 2019
The full video was posted to Van Ness’ Instagram. During the call, an excited Van Ness again brought up Warren’s healthcare policies. He first let slip his support for Warren during a podcast published yesterday in which he talked with Planned Parenthood’s acting president, Alexis McGill Johnson.
Van Ness says to Warren, “What I realized, it was at the last debates and I was like, ‘This health insurance industry is a f*cking racket! I’ve had enough!’ … And then I was like, I’m Team Warren.”
Warren talks about healthcare being a basic human right and Van Ness goes on to invite her to discuss the issue further on his podcast.
He says he wants to be able to explain to his, “moderately Republican family what to expect on taxes and everything, so I can assuage their fears. Let me know the numbers, honey, I’m ready to disseminate.
“I’m looking at getting rid of stigma,” he continues. “Whatever we’re gonna do to destigmatize the idea of healthcare for all.
“Because you know what it reminds me of? It reminds me of when people want to save money, it’s like, ‘Oh, just let me drive home from the bar because I don’t want to get a cab because it’s so much more expensive.’ That’s when you get the DUI.
“That’s what not having healthcare for all is like. It’s like it’s too expensive, but this is too expensive because by not having for anyone we end up spending so much more money. If we would just take care of people upfront we could really get rid of so many of these problems.”
Related: Response to Jonathan Van Ness revealing he’s poz proves we’re winning the fight against HIV stigma
Senator Warren also posted footage of the call to her Twitter.
Thank you for your support, @jvn! Shoulder to shoulder, we’re going to fight for #MedicareForAll. No one should be able to make a profit off of denying people health care—and together, we’ll win. pic.twitter.com/8aF4Ut55jq
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) September 26, 2019
Van Ness went on to clarify his tweet about his HIV medication cost, saying he takes just one pill a day.
His original tweet about medication has prompted thousands of comments.
Some welcome the endorsement for Warren, but it’s upset many Bernie Sanders supporters. They claim Sanders has far better policies regarding healthcare and the potential cost of prescription medication.
Others have accused Senator Warren, who has voiced support for Medicare for All, to be vague on her specific healthcare plans.
Here’s hoping she accepts the invitation to sit down with Van Ness to spill the details.
Aromaeus
Such an odd decision considering she doesn’t even have the most comprehensive medicare for all proposal and whenever asked about it she can’t be direct about what she’s actually in favor of. Also her plan caps prescription drug cost at $500/MONTH whereas Bernie’s plan is $200/YEAR.
Chrisk
She now supports it but only because it’s now considered a centrist thing to do. Most of the Democratic base now supports medicare for all. Yes. Sanders has been there from the beginning. If it’s a big concern he would be the obvious choice. Hopefully she pulls it together. At least she’s better then Uncle Joe with the same ol crap.
HaydenMurphy1260
Such an odd decision considering she doesn’t….- I have nothing to add But i am here not only to discuss this article but I would like to share with you new but very cool site for gay singles only. It is still private, but you can find it easy. Use the most famous search engine to find it: “IhwwtEwjZMonK10wNfugu6lu9979362” .
Chrisk
Please. He’s a multimillionaire that comes from a very wealthy family. Silver spoon kid. $3500 for him is pocket change.
Chrisk
That said it’s total looniness that anyone should be forced to pay $3500 for a month supply of medication. This day of the pharma robber barons needs to end.
Max
is it that he’s insured and usually gets his meds at decent copay price, but if it is lost then he’d pay $3,500 to replace? because if that’s the case, he shouldn’t expect the insurance company to give a bargain for him losing his medication.
but if pays $3,500/month for his med on an ongoing basis, then it sounds like that medicine might not be covered by his plan. that’s different from what other meds might cost being covered.
Caine
HIV meds should not cost $3500 for ANYONE at ANY TIME under ANY insurance plan or for people who do not have insurance.
Vince
There was documentary I watched on Netflix called Fire in the blood about how Big Pharma blocked India from providing HIV drugs for 1.00/day to 3rd world countries for many years. Naturally Republicans leading the charge. Their reasoning was evil but simple. They didn’t want Americans to see just how cheap it really is to produce.
rh1968
Elizabeth Warren is an idiot for even suggesting that insurance to all is doable. It certainly wouldn’t be paid out of any one in Congress pockets if it were doable. I’m a gay man and neither republican or Democrat, just real. All the left is doing is all the empty promises to get in office.
Vince
BS. We all know what you throwing around the left like it’s a curse word.
What’s so wrong about expanding Medicare? She’s not even suggesting everyone do it. You’ll still have options to pay for more premium insurance.
truthseeker
@Vince
The problem is, is that our nation cannot afford it and it will lead to fraud. For instance, Jonathan Van Ness is a multimillionaire so why should he be eligible for getting on a government assistance program?
If we are to believe Warren’s plan is a good idea, should it not be only to the needy who cannot afford these things? Why are millionaires allowed to jump into the taxpayer funded program? Imagine if millionaires were eligible for food stamps.
The real solution here is to not make government bigger and make government in control of our prescriptions and healthcare. The solution should be to deregulate and open up the market to new pharmaceutical companies, new insurance companies, and new competitors on the market. Fewer barriers to entry = More competition = Lower prices. If you look at the market now, it is owned by very few which allows them to jack up the prices.
zwirad
Taxing the RICH as Bernie Sanders proposes as well as cutting off all those corporate Welfare subsidies would go a long way toward paying for Medicare For All and all this “Lefties’ stuff to me signals “Troll.”
truthseeker
@zwirad
“Taxing the RICH as Bernie Sanders proposes as well as cutting off all those corporate Welfare subsidies”
It still doesn’t pay for it. If we went even further than Sanders proposals and taxed all income over $1 million it would only raise, on the generous end, $700 billion. Sanders plan currently costs over $3 trillion a year. You’re short by $2.3 trillion for tax year 1. Those are just healthcare costs, it doesn’t include free college and the other proposals.
If we then raised the corporate tax, multi-billion dollar corporations would just shift production elsewhere because they have the capital to do so, resulting in less tax revenue generation. If you started taxing wealth and not income, the mega rich would just move their assets to a trust or overseas so they can’t be touched.
Plus, if the US government took over the insurance industry, you would be allowing the US government to dictate your healthcare. Right now, insurance companies will deny people certain medicines or procedures if they don’t think it’s necessary. In a government run program, you’d just have the US government denying you instead. Lastly, what’s stopping the big pharma companies from just jacking up the price of medicine even more if they know the US government will pay for it no matter what it costs. Same with the cost of doctors.
Constricting business constricts growth. The real answer is to allow more entrepreneurs in the game and not to force people out.
Vince
@Truthtfinder
How do we pay for it? Well, lets take a look…
• Elimination of special tax breaks: $4.2 trillion over 10 years. The main target: company-provided health benefits for employees. They would no longer be needed.
• Business payroll tax: $3.9 trillion over 10 years. Companies would pay a 7.5% income-based fee, but Sanders asserts it would cost them less overall compared to the current system.
• Household premiums: $3.4 trillion over 10 years. Families would pay a 4% income-based fee, considerably less than what they pay now.
• Higher taxes on the rich: $1.8 trillion over 10 years. Raise marginal rates to as high as 52% on the richest Americans. The current top rate is about 39.6%. Also, limit deductions and treat taxes on dividends and capital gains equally.
• A new net wealth tax: $1.3 trillion over 10 years. This new tax would apply to the wealthiest 0.1%, or 160,000 households. A 1% annual tax would be applied to net worth exceeding $21 million.
• One-time tax on offshore profits: $767 billion over 10 years. Sanders wants to tax profits of Americans companies that are earned and held in other countries. These profits are not taxed until they are returned home under current U.S. law.
• Increased estate taxes: $249 billion over 10 years.
• Fee on large Wall Street banks: $117 billion over 10 years. The six largest U..S. financial institutions would get the bill.
We already have Medicare. It’s mostly for people 65 and over and it’s working pretty good and much cheaper then private insurance. The VA is also pretty good. I don’t hear many people complaining.
As far as big Pharma raising this will help keep them in line. It’s not like the private insurance has ever stopped that.
Because of our system we have the most expensive healthcare costs and get the least out of it and you’re answer is just more of the same. Let capitalism take care of it. We need real change.
truthseeker
@Vince
Here are the problems with those numbers. First, they don’t add up. If we assume Bernie’s math / economic predictions are 100% accurate, those numbers add up to $15.7 trillion over 10 years when Sanders plan costs $32 trillion over 10 years. You’re still short $16.3 trillion!
Secondly, once you raise taxes (increased expenses), spending slows down. For example, the “Business Payroll Tax” mentioned. It would mean that companies would hire less if they have to pay an additional 7.5% on all employee income. Small business can’t afford things like that and they would be impacted the most.
“Higher taxes on the rich” / “Net Wealth Tax” – the rich have teams of accountants to lower their tax burdens and they have the financial capital to just leave the country and live somewhere else. As I mentioned above, the mega wealthy could also move their assets into a trust or begin to claim their assets are part of a charitable foundation to avoid this. Causing the US to actually lose tax revenue.
“One-time offshore profits tax” – this would tax “American companies” for international profit. When we have huge global competitors like China and others, the megasized companies will no longer be “American companies” because they’ll simply move all production offshore and then resell to America. Lastly, it would all just drive up the price of consumer goods meaning the dollar in your pocket buys less.
Also, tons of people complain about Medicare and the VA. Lots of seniors don’t even want Medicare because its terrible.
Having more competitors and more options in a market place ALWAYS drives down costs because you have more supply than demand. This is basic economics. Look at any industry that is saturated with tons of competitors and you’ll see that costs have went down as the market becomes saturated.
Vince
bullshitseeker
Oh noes. American businesses will move to places like Uganda if they have to pay a bit more. Yeah, sure some might. I’m guessing most won’t.
Nope. Most Vets love the VA. Medicare outperforms private sector plans in terms of patients’ satisfaction with quality of care, access to care, and overall insurance ratings.” So yes, Medicare needs better cost controls, but it’s already cheaper–and better–than private insurance would be for Americans.
Try again spanky. Actually don’t. I don’t like talking to GOP trolls.
truthseeker
@Vince
The only businesses that will stay will be small business and they’ll suffer the most. Your assumptions are based on guesses and emotions and not actual economic facts.
You still haven’t explained how to fund this.
Plus, those same polls you cite said most Americans are also satisfied with the quality of private insurance, so that’s a moot point and just goes back to basing your stance on opinion / feelings and not facts
rh1968
Claim down lefty, to each their (own)..
Vince
Ha. Seems that you created your newest troll name just today.
rh1968
Had some extra time on my hands
padraicj
So, people have been saying for years that medications and health care in general are too high and leading people to financial ruin… but it’s not until he’s personally affected and had to pay $3,500 for medication that he suddenly decided to get involved? Thank you, next….
jkb
If he truly cared and researched, he would endorse Bernie. He is unwavering of his support for Medicare For All.
am
Well would Bernie let him film such an idiotic video? I dunno…
quokka
HIV meds are free to anyone in Australia on the national health system. You can turn up to a public hospital, get all your bloodwork done and get your medications all for $0. Their idea is, regardless of your situation, they will take in anyone off the street to get you to undetectable status, to reduce the spread of new infections. “Medicare for all”
jlogb
Hes probably on Biktarvy… literally $3500 a month as most all insurance companies will not cover it. However, the manufacturer will supply a Rx card for monthly medicine on a sliding scale… from $0 per month on up. Just heads up for those unfamiliar with that option.
That said, heathcare needs fixed asap. Disgusting.
zwirad
Bernie Sanders has a more comprehensive Medicare for All plan; after all- he “wrote the damned bill”.
And also he does not support Israel’s Genocide of Palestinians as Warren does.
Warren is a $12milion millionaire who takes big money from lobbyists and millionaires. Mr. Sanders does not.
While Warren was a REPUBLICAN, Bernie Sanders was fighting for GLBT rights and Civil Rights since 1963.
He’s pretty but he needs to do some political homework.
Teddybtoronto
To those who say universal healthcare would be too expensive, please note that every other industrialized nation on earth has universal health care. Only the United States does not. I am a US citizen now living in Canada. I have national health care coverage, paid out of my taxes. I pay about 10% more in taxes than I paid when I lived in the US. But I also have no separate health insurance premiums, no co-pays and no other costs. And my health care coverage is not tied to my employer. The US currently has one of the most expensive, least efficient health care delivery systems in the world. A universal national health insurance program would eliminate a huge amount of billing costs, and the costs of layers of highly compensated senior executives, marketing and advertising costs, the expense of paying dividends to shareholders, etc. It should also be noted that prescription drug prices are much, much lower here in Canada than in the US. For example, insulin products are priced at about 10% of the US price for insulin products from Lily, Novo-Nordisk and Sanofi, for exactly the same medications.
am
One look at this is enough for Trump to gain hundreds of supporters. All this fake emotions and idiotic acting straight from the Farrelly brothers comedy is horrible, sorry.
batesmotel
This guy seems really weird and not the good kind of weird.
Doug
I think he’s incredibly annoying. Everything about him seems like an act.
calpoidog
Do prescription drug prices need to come down? Yes.
If I “misplaced” my HIV drugs would I expect my insurance company to fork over more at the same co-pay? No. Just as I wouldn’t expect Apple to replace my iPad if I misplaced it.
Aires the Ram
@calpoidog: Bingo!!!
Rex Huskey
bless his heart…. he is such the victim