AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka: Real Health Care Reform or Bust
The AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka talks to Alison Stewart about their new ad on health care reform. Trumka was asked if the rumors were true that Raum Emanuel put pressure the union not to run the ad. He said they were not true and that is not the way the Obama administration operates.
From the AFL-CIO Blog-Real Health Care Reform or Bust:
The health care reform legislation approved yesterday by the Senate Finance Committee is “deeply flawed.” In full-page ads in the Washington Post, Politico and other dailies, union leaders say that comprehensive health care reform that brings down costs, improves quality and guarantees coverage for all “is closer than ever.”
But we aren’t there yet. The Senate Finance Committee bill is deeply flawed.
Not only does the Finance Committee’s bill tax workers’ health care benefits, it does not include a public health insurance option. This summer, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) approved health care reform legislation that includes a public option and does not tax workers’ health care benefits. Senate negotiators are now trying to merge the two bills into a finished product for a vote by the full Senate.
The ad spells out the unions’ “bottom line” for a final health care reform bill.
•A public health plan is essential for reform.
•Health care reform has to ease cost burden on individuals and families, not worsen it.
•Employers have to pay a fair share of costs.
•Health care can’t be paid for by a new tax on middle-class benefits.
As the ad points out, a public option would lower premiums for everyone, reduce the cost of health care reform by $100 billion and set up competition to break the stranglehold of a handful of big insurance companies that have made 96 percent of metropolitan markets uncompetitive.
that we aren't talking about single payer.
a "robust" public option is better than what we have now, but the 'better' will be so marginal compared to single payer.
believe me. There is not a person contributing to C&L that would not prefer to see single payer on the table. It's pitiful that we're having to pressure them to even agree to the crappy compromise.
system would have to be scrapped and considerable time spent to bring on line a new system..The GAP could have been many years!
Trumka is wonderful..I wish people would just recognize that some or most of the 'cadillac HC plans' were the result of wage trade offs..They could either have benefits or raises!
Keep the pressure on Congress 1.800.828.0498 or 1.877.264.4226!
. . . the important thing is the FORM of the public option.
Obama's speech last month was depressing, in that he described an option only available to those who couldn't otherwise secure insurance throuh their employers. Conversely, a more robust option, i.e., Medicare for anyone who wants it, would, I think, eventually result in a de facto single payer system.
The other important issue that's not getting a lot of discussion is the idea of taxing benefits. Given that all health care insurance is not created equally, taxing benefits based on the dollar cost of a particular plan will invariably result in problems. For example, let's say that I'm employed by Wal-Mart making $10/hr., and that Wal-Mart contributes $2000 each year on my behalf to its insurer (frankly, Wal-Mart's probably self-insured) in connection with my health care plan. Now let's say you're employed by ACME Co. and make the same amount of money I do, but ACME Co. pays $3000 per annum on your behalf for health insurance, a circumstance resulting from ACME Co.'s inability to take advantage of the same kind of volume discounts Wal-Mart maintains. And let's assume the ACME Co. coverage is less robust than Wal-Mart's coverage. Notwithstanding the fact that both employees are paid the same amount of money, the possibility exists that the ACME Co. employee will be taxed more because her employer contributes more on her behalf, even though her coverage isn't as good, and despite the fact that her premiums are likely higher.
Health care is bust
http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/news-boobs-d...
Because who else would do it?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Would your to break down the double negatives in this part of your first paragraph?
Dontcha think there might be a way clearer way to put that?
Without single payer all we're doing is playing political games and wasting time.
I'll get it fixed. Thanks.
is on he got muscled heavy by Ramobama.
Here we are again parsing the "Public Option" flim flam vaporware legislation.
If it were the ideal, in other words, if anyone could buy into it and it resembled Medicare plus, that would be one thing. It isn't, the proposals are all crippled and restricted.
HR 676, Singler Payer is the minimum.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Hurray for a Union Official laying down the gauntlet for Health Care Reform. This is long over-due. It is time to stand up against the 'vested interests' who want to keep the status quo. Unfortunately, it will be drowned out by the shouting of the teabaggers, the GnOP & Bluedogs.
Single Payer is the optimal way to go altho it is bad for the insurance companies bottom line. Boo-hoo.
Comments are closed on this entry