Unions fighting expanding access to public option

[SpartanDem]

I'm sure some of you are familiar with Ron Wyden's fight to expand access to the exchanges and therefore a public option. Obviously, insurance companies were opposed, but it turns out unions have been fighting this too, because they say it lessens their bargaining power. This is something that has gone largely ignored in the health care debate, seems pretty hypocritical for unions to extol the benefits of a public option while working to prevent access to it for millions of Americans.Hopefully, the Free Choice Amendment makes a comeback in the final bill




Labor groups didn't like it because they lose control over their members' health benefits. That's not an entirely selfish concern: It is easier to bargain on behalf of your workers or members if they have no other options, and thus are guaranteed customers for the insurer.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/10/the_status_quo_wins_in_health-.html



Wyden's effort was bitterly opposed by unions, which historically have been friendly to Oregon's senior senator. Labor officials feared that Wyden's approach would weaken the bond between workers and the employers who give them health coverage.

The breach was highlighted in May when three major unions underwrote a $60,000 ad campaign in Portland and Eugene that criticized Wyden.

http://bulletin.aarp.org/states/or/2009/39/articles/wyden_withdraws_amendment_senate_panel_hashes.html

[DrToast]

1. Yep

This is something that has has gone largely ignored in the health care debate, seems pretty hypocritical for unions to extol the benefits of a public option while working to prevent access to it for millions of Americans.

I agree with you. I've mentioned this before, but being critical of unions doesn't go over too well here.

[SpartanDem]

2. You're right it's not popular

but unions are wrong about this and they need to be called out for pretending to be our ally. On the left we're so focused on opposition from the the insurers that we're not paying attention to the double cross going on with unions.

[vaberella]

4. Agreed. So much so that I didn't even know about this. n/t

[joeycola]

6. The unions are looking pretty greedy right now.

[Enrique]

9. the story says nothing about the unions being greedy

that's just your opinion about unions.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Yes they are wrong on this

But things like so called "right to work" laws make it difficult for Unions to organize and they are reluctant to give up one of the major sources of leverage they have to recruit new members.

[vaberella]

5. But how is that in any way related to health care which is not union specific. n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Employee provided health care still provides the foundation that the current system is built on.

As long as workers are dependent on employers to provide them with health insurance at a better cost than a single family could negotiate on the market individually, Unions give workers increased bargaining power with employers over the type of health beneifits employers are willing to offer. That is a major selling point that union organizers have in persuading workers in any industry of the advantages of being unionized.

[vaberella]

10. I'm sorry, I'm not quick on the uptake today.

I don't understand what you're saying. Obama's healthcare plan would enforce employer health care and if that's the case those with health insurance from employers would most likel not be allowed to join the PO. Not to mention it wouldn't benefit them to even join the PO. PO is basic care, they would get a more comprehensive plan, in most cases at least, if they stayed with employer based insurance.

[SpartanDem]

13. Unions believe people will less inclined to join

or stay in unionized if they don't control member benefits

[Mass]

8. Free Choice amendment is not necessarily the best thing in the world.

I would largely prefer the unions, lead by informed people, to negotiate a choice of two or three options (may be including a public option), than to force people to muddle through poorly defined options proposed by the exchange, particularly given that, at this point, the exchanges cannot refuse to include bad insurances who want to subscribe.

Of course, if the insurance contracts were constrained by strongly inforced rules on what they HAD to include and a limited number of options, it would be different, but, right now, the exchange are just another way to screw people with attracting marketing documents that do not turn to be real.

I had to deal with about 30 Medicare D contracts offered in our state to help my MIL find the one she wants + a few Medicare complements. Sorry, but not two contracts are written the same way and it is very hard to know if a low price is really a good option or not.

[Oregone]

12. Name an alternative amendment that opens up public option eligibility to all which is better

Another benefit of Wyden's amendment is that it doesn't stick the consumer with the bill and let the employer off the hook when free choice is exercised.

[Oregone]

11. Foolish. International unions in civilized countries aren't impotent

Those unions need to look around the world and realize that health care doesn't need to be a bargaining chip that only they are allowed to hold.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. If that's the case than the U.S. must not be a civilized country

There are two and only two checks on the power of big business in America to do whatever they want to individual workers or workers in units that they decide to come down on for being troublemakers or inconvenient to their agenda for one or another reason. Those are government oversight and worker solidarity. Given the corrosive influence of big money in American politics, workers in America would be naive to let themselves become completely dependent on the whims of government to safe guard their own interests. Unions are far from perfect, but so is government, and only the right wing thinks big business is close to perfect.

[Oregone]

16. I was using civilized in the context of healthcare

Countries with universal health care do not have impotent unions. Many have very strong union activity, perhaps stronger.

Implementing universal health care would be a boon for the workers, which should be in the interests of unions, and it would not strip them of power

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. OK, gotcha n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. +10 You should tell them that.

[JVS]

14. This entanglement of interests from so many sides is why we need a single payer system.

[TheKentuckian]

17. I wrote an OP about this a couple of weeks ago. Got 4-5 recs and sunk like a stone

Unions would be much better off to be happy to stop having to spend their capital on trying to maintain health care benefits and resume actually being able to fight for more pay and other needed benefits. I believe that at least some of the anti-union BS is fueled by their inability to improve the lot of their people because they spend all their efforts on maintaining what folks already have. Those union dues would instantly become an investment rather than an expense when unions are able to add money to paychecks rather than negotiate them away in order to maintain ever escalating premiums.

I believe the unions to be too hand to mouth on this and a little detached. Over the long term unions will be seen as less and less of a real force if they cannot bring their workers additional tangible value over time.

[Oregone]

20. Just remembered, in the early 70s the unions came out against Kennedy's single payer plan

AFL-CIO was strongly against it. Labor unions also failed to support Clinton's push.

Strange indeed. Its not something Ive really thought about before

[ProSense]

21. More smoke and mirrors

The Free Choice Act starts by setting the rules for the exchange: Within five years the exchange is open to all employers.

More

Transition to the Free Choice System:

Year 1- People who are currently in the individual market plus small employers with up to 10 workers and the uninsured have access to the exchange.

Year 2-- Add small employers with up to 25 workers to the exchange.

Year 3-- Give State Medicaid programs the choice to be in exchange.

Year 4-- Open up the exchange to medium sized employers with up to 250 workers using the Free Choice
approach.

Year 5 - Open exchanges to all employers.

link (PDF)

How is that better than the proposed availability in the existing bills:

Health Insurance Exchange is opened to small employers first (those with 10 or fewer employees in the first year, and 20 or fewer in the second year) and to larger employers over time.

Wyden has been really disingenuous throughout this process, initially mischaracterizing a public option. Yesterday he voted against the adjustment of doctors' fees.

[SpartanDem]

22. Not so

The Senate HELP exchange is restricted to those without qualifying coverage.
`
(B) EMPLOYEES WITHOUT AFFORDABLE COVERAGE- An individual who is eligible for employer-sponsored coverage shall be deemed to be a qualified individual under subparagraph (A) only if such coverage--

`(i) does not meet the criteria established under section 3103 for minimum qualifying coverage; or

`(ii) is not affordable (as such term is defined by the Secretary under section 3103) for such employee.




The House exchange is open to all individuals, but closed to businesses with more than 25 employees. After year two it would be up to the health commissioner to open it to larger businesses Wyden's amendment would guarantee that larger business can join.

[depakid]

23. Unions have been a major obstacle to real health care reform for decades

And many are on the wrong side of the issue yet again.