NOW COMES THE HARD -- AND MOST EXCITING PART!
Today -- Dec. 11. at 9:27 AM -- The Gothamist published an article titled Powerful NY Unions Could Complicate Push For Single Payer Health Care. The link for it is below:
According to the article, there are two complications, actually: (1) Some unions, who have their own vested interests and concerns, and (2) A newly mobilized healthcare industry, which is now in overdrive spreading distortions and outright lies, which say that so-called "realities" of Single-Payer are to be dreaded as causes of catastrophe.
For me, these developments are very exciting, because the growing intensity of Single-Payer's opposition indicates the increasing possibility of its enactment!
These two complications -- the diffidence of some unions, and the propaganda of the healthcare industry -- are too much to cover in one blog post. So I propose, in this post, first to deal with the unions:
The good news is that, as The Gothamist says, The most powerful healthcare union in the state, 1199 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is a backer, as is the New York State Nurse Association (NYSNA), BUT two other pivotal statewide unions, New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) and the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) have yet to endorse it.
Why this diffidence? In an article in Politico/New York,
we read that the city unions fear that the coverage for their workers would be reduced, a concern that NYHA sponsors, Assemblyman Richard Gottfried and State Sen. Gustavo Rivera, say the bill is being revised to address. This concern is sensible and to be expected. But there's a second concern, which, from my point of view is much more fascinating: Up to now the union's membership has relied on their unions to negotiate healthcare benefits that are better than some others enjoy. But if all these benefits will be furnished by the NYHA, the importance of the unions would be diminished, their collective bargaining leverage around health plans nullified, wiping out the city's roughly $1500-per-employee contribution to individual union funds.
As I see it, these unions' point of view seems to be that the more employees receive benefits outside the unions, the less they need the unions. To union leaders this prospect may well seem frightening. These leaders may be struggling with the question: Which is more important -- prosperity of the workers, or prosperity of the unions? For me the answer is embodied in what Gottfried says,
“As Gustavo and I keep telling them, this is what our parents raised us to do. We were not raised to screw city workers. Or any workers,” Gottfried said.
Another union leadership objection to NYHA, according to the Gothamist, is how will the Act treat Union members who work out of state? NYHA, as currently drafted, covers only people who make their dwelling in New York State. What happens to, say, a member of a New York Electrical Union who does half his work in New York State, and the other half in New Jersey? The unions make a big deal of this. but one of the readers of the article had a simple answer: If you live or work in New York State, you pay taxes to it, because you receive benefits from it. For this worker. as for many, the issues were simple, and what I found interesting was that virtually all the scores of comments were in favor of single-payer; the difficulties seem to be only in minds of the union leadership.
My take on all this? Let me just say that a few months ago, I had an email conversation with a congressional candidate who was subsequently elected to the House. He said that he wasn't necessarily opposed to Single-Payer if, and only if, all the "stake-holders" could negotiate the required compromises. Since this was email, he couldn't see my snorting reaction: If by "stake-holders" he meant Big Insurance and Big Pharma, I could only retort that they had NO PLACE at the table! None whatever! Among my circle of friends, (all progressive Democrats), this Representative is what we call a "Corporate Democrat," and there is no doubt in my mind that the stake-holders he had in mind did indeed include Big Pharma and Big Insurance. But now, after reading this Gothamist article, I see that my Corporate Democrat was, in a sense, right! The reality seems to be that we cannot move forward with NYHA unless we take into account the interests not only of the individual worker, but also of his or her union -- corporate-like though it may seem in the worker's eyes. In this light we may view the comment of a reader:
Of course CSEA has yet to endorse it. They are the most corporation-like of all the unions that operate here in NYS.
Be that as it may, I wouldn't be surprised if there are many other perfectly legitimate entities who have a place at the negotiating table (and by legitimate, I mean NOT Big Pharma, and NOT Big Insurance)!
Is all this getting complicated? Yes!
Should we therefore drop it? NO, NO, and NO! (Did I remember to say no?) Again, no. Rather, to strengthen our resolve, all we must do is think of the Hell which is our healthcare distribution system now. True, in our healthcare reform, the devil WILL BE in the details, and we must stay on top of them to make sure they're sorted right!
And always, we must continue to show the Insurance and Pharmaceutical execs as the blood sucking Ghouls of Greed that they are, so that the public may be revolted by them! That's why I keep at this.
Dio
PS: I welcome comments. Just click on the number of commnts area, and there will appear a "comment box" in which you can share your thoughts. Don't be afraid to teach me! From your comments, I'm learning all the time.
As I see it, these unions' point of view seems to be that the more employees receive benefits outside the unions, the less they need the unions. To union leaders this prospect may well seem frightening. These leaders may be struggling with the question: Which is more important -- prosperity of the workers, or prosperity of the unions? For me the answer is embodied in what Gottfried says,
“As Gustavo and I keep telling them, this is what our parents raised us to do. We were not raised to screw city workers. Or any workers,” Gottfried said.
Another union leadership objection to NYHA, according to the Gothamist, is how will the Act treat Union members who work out of state? NYHA, as currently drafted, covers only people who make their dwelling in New York State. What happens to, say, a member of a New York Electrical Union who does half his work in New York State, and the other half in New Jersey? The unions make a big deal of this. but one of the readers of the article had a simple answer: If you live or work in New York State, you pay taxes to it, because you receive benefits from it. For this worker. as for many, the issues were simple, and what I found interesting was that virtually all the scores of comments were in favor of single-payer; the difficulties seem to be only in minds of the union leadership.
My take on all this? Let me just say that a few months ago, I had an email conversation with a congressional candidate who was subsequently elected to the House. He said that he wasn't necessarily opposed to Single-Payer if, and only if, all the "stake-holders" could negotiate the required compromises. Since this was email, he couldn't see my snorting reaction: If by "stake-holders" he meant Big Insurance and Big Pharma, I could only retort that they had NO PLACE at the table! None whatever! Among my circle of friends, (all progressive Democrats), this Representative is what we call a "Corporate Democrat," and there is no doubt in my mind that the stake-holders he had in mind did indeed include Big Pharma and Big Insurance. But now, after reading this Gothamist article, I see that my Corporate Democrat was, in a sense, right! The reality seems to be that we cannot move forward with NYHA unless we take into account the interests not only of the individual worker, but also of his or her union -- corporate-like though it may seem in the worker's eyes. In this light we may view the comment of a reader:
Of course CSEA has yet to endorse it. They are the most corporation-like of all the unions that operate here in NYS.
Be that as it may, I wouldn't be surprised if there are many other perfectly legitimate entities who have a place at the negotiating table (and by legitimate, I mean NOT Big Pharma, and NOT Big Insurance)!
Is all this getting complicated? Yes!
Should we therefore drop it? NO, NO, and NO! (Did I remember to say no?) Again, no. Rather, to strengthen our resolve, all we must do is think of the Hell which is our healthcare distribution system now. True, in our healthcare reform, the devil WILL BE in the details, and we must stay on top of them to make sure they're sorted right!
And always, we must continue to show the Insurance and Pharmaceutical execs as the blood sucking Ghouls of Greed that they are, so that the public may be revolted by them! That's why I keep at this.
Dio
PS: I welcome comments. Just click on the number of commnts area, and there will appear a "comment box" in which you can share your thoughts. Don't be afraid to teach me! From your comments, I'm learning all the time.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/401169-fearing-blue-wave-drug-insurance-companies-build-single-payer-defense
ReplyDeleteFrom THE HILL: By Peter Sullivan
"The formation of the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future is a sign of the health-care industry’s alarm over growing support for a single payer health-care law within the Democratic Party.
Health insurance and drug companies, who are often at odds on policy issues, banded together to form the group, which lobbyists say could run advertisements against single-payer plans and promote studies to undermine the idea.
Industry groups are worried that support for single-payer is quickly becoming the default position among Democrats, and they want to push back and strengthen ties to more centrist members of the party to promote alternatives."
"The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future, which was formed in June, includes a wide range of major players in health care: America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the American Medical Association and the Federation of American Hospitals."
Adam Gaffney, president-elect of Physicians for a National Health Program, an advocacy group for single-payer, said industry’s alarm is “clear evidence that we are making progress.”
Single Payer Health Care Member Interest Group
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aafp.org/membership/involve/mig/single-payer.html
Join the Single Payer Health Care MIG Community
Visit the Single Payer Health Care online community and click on "Join Group" to connect with other AAFP members who share your professional interests.
Objectives
Advocate for a publicly funded, single payer financed health care system in the U.S. as the most effective way to provide comprehensive, equal, and affordable health care for all
Advocate for the ability of family physicians to take a central role in providing high-quality, cost-effective health care through a single payer health care system
Promote education on comparative health care financing systems (and their effects on individual and population health) among AAFP members, family medicine residents, medical students, and other health care professionals
(more)> https://www.aafp.org/membership/involve/mig/single-payer.html