Reply #12: I was on negotiations where I work.

[tomg]

For years, we fought to keep our benefits, took less money, and worked to expand coverage ( same-sex partnerships, not hanging our retirees out to dry, etc.). Right now, I have a very good plan, and were there single-payer, or even a good public option, I would not mind getting hit.

Let's face it, they are trading on our basic instincts toward the community. The corporate interests who crafted the Senate version say "look at all those covered. Look at the end of pre-existing. look at yaddah yaddah." The progressive optimists say "it is a start." Most of us on the left do think in terms of community and we are, to some degree, optimistic about what that community can be.

I support this bill very reluctantly, simply because it helps out the really dispossessed. At the same time, - should this provision stand (and I am not so sure it will - I think it is a bargaining chip for the house) - it also means that I will never send another dime to the democrats. I live in a very blue state. Save for my rep ( Hinchey), I will vote third party ( obviously to the left).

One thing: we need to stop calling these plans "cadillac plans." Talk about framing. How about "decent benefits." As long as we call them "cadillac plans," people get the image that these are plans for CEOs and the like. The first person who ever used the term "cadillac plans" was the head of the administration negotiating team about 6 years ago when I last negotiated. In fact, he said something to the affect that all he wanted us to give up was "the seat-warmer in our cadillac." I recall my colleague retorting that we would need that seat warmer after they were done shoving that giant spike up our ass on wages.