In America, No One Should Go Without Health Care
Unions. Yes, we're the folks who brought you the weekend. And we're the folks whose collective bargaining has maintained upward pressure on wages and benefits for all workers -- union members and nonmembers.
We're also the folks who fought for and helped win legislation that has brought out the best in America: civil rights laws, the 40-hour week, Medicare and Social Security, overtime pay, workplace safety, family and medical leave and more.
So it's painful this Labor Day to look around and see America isn't working the way it should. Dissatisfaction is growing with an economy that benefits the wealthy but leaves regular working people behind. One of the greatest economic burdens working families face today is the insane, out-of-control cost of health care. One in four Americans say their family has had a problem paying for medical care during the past year. The cost of health care -- rising far faster than workers' wages or inflation -- is a major factor in housing problems and bankruptcies. In fact, every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.
Meanwhile, insurance and drug companies are making stunning profits, health insurance CEOs averaged $8.7 million in 2006 compensation and pharmaceutical company CEOs pulled down an average of $4.4 million.
The rest of us aren't faring so well. The annual premium cost for a family health plan has close to doubled since 2000, from $6,351 to an astonishing $11,480. Soaring health coverage costs are crippling U.S. companies' ability to compete internationally -- health benefits accounted for an estimated $1,300 of the cost of a new car made by the Big Three in 2005, for example. As costs grow higher, fewer employers are providing health coverage for employees--and fewer workers are able to afford their share of the costs or to buy policies on their own. The outrageous price tags on insurance policies are driving increases in the number of people without coverage. The federal government just let us know that another 2.2 million people -- including 600,000 more children -- lost health insurance last year, meaning 47 million of us now cannot afford to get sick.
In the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, that is just not acceptable. In America, no one should go without health care.
The AFL-CIO is turning Labor Day 2007 into the start of a drive to win quality health care for all in 2009. With 10 million members and nearly 3 million union retirees, we intend to make the 2008 elections a mandate on health care. The union families who made up a quarter of voters last year are going to mobilize as never before to elect a Congress and a president who will enact the kind of real health care reform America needs.
You don't have to look far to see that winning health care for all is going to be tough. President Bush has vowed to veto legislation that would extend health care to millions more children -- now, that's cold! He's protecting insurance interests rather than children's health, saying this could be a dangerous first step toward health care for all. He's right -- getting this legislation passed and overriding a Bush veto is the first step.
This fall and throughout 2008, union members will be mobilizing in their workplaces, in their neighborhoods and in their communities to demand that candidates and elected officials at every level commit to work for working families.
Labor Day 2009 will be a great day.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you, John Sweeney!
One of the few people of influence actually speaking up for people who work for a living.
We need stronger unions now more than ever. Because of the DLC, the forces of Capital have both major parties in their grasp. The Democrats needs to become more pro-Labor to balance our system out.
A fusion-party in New York, the Working Families Party, (bad poll tested name, but good policies) is reinvigorating the Democratic Party electorally. The Democrats are at their most electable when they are fighting for the causes of working people in this country, and not pandering to the same corporate campaign contributors as the Republicans.
Even though there is not a union where I am, I am a big supporter of the AFL-CIO. At least someone with influence is speaking up for the economic plight of the working and middle classes.
Nice history lesson, Mr S but what have unions done for us lately? One union, the UAW, can't even care for its members, both active & retired, old benefits like health care, good wages, retirement benefits or job security. Most other unions are powerless too.
I'd drive to Wal-Mart in my old Hyundai on Labor Day to buy a Big Mac & a Coke to celebrate if I had the money to buy gas. I'll have a table spoon of dried rice for breakfast, a cup of water for lunch & swell up for supper, thanks to the AFL-CIO of 2007 to celebrate Labor Day.
I'm a critic of unions, I think they kind of amount to a legacy labor support thing that's more or less outlived its' usefulness in the day and age of automated production, and I have Many Reservations about the current marketing of healthscare. 6-7-figure doctors that fake their records, pharmacy companies that profit while your overmedicated elderly relatives teeter on the edge of life and death, and 'the government' trying to soften up the public for a tax that will pay for all. Including your local union representatives' new Lexus....Hmmmm....
Never say that a country of voters cannot be brainwashed.
Several comments on this page and repub blogs show the brainwashing the medical establishment and the insurance companies has done on the mentality of most Americans.
The other countries that have universal health care look at us in awe of out stupidity as Americans being controlled by corporate America.
If there is a dumber group of people than Americans when it comes to universal health care I have not found them and I have traveled most of the industrialized world that has universal health care.
Brainwashing works we Americans are living proof of that. National disgrace to have 50 million Americans without medical care. And we call ourselves a Christian nation?
We go to church and pretend to pray for the poor and don’t take care for the medical needs out own. Selfish hypocrites all of us for letting this happen in America.
Call GOP contributor Rite Aid Pharmacy at 1-800-325-3737 ask for the manager and tell the manager to get your CEO to get the Republican party to enact HR 676 Single payer universal health care into law and repeal Medicare Part D and place the prescription drug benefit in Medicare Part B covering 80 percent of all medication with no extra premiums, no extra deductibles, no means tests, no coverage gaps, and remove the means test for Medicare Part B and until you do, we will not buy consumer products and prescription drugs from your company.
1) Insurance costs are based on the risk pool. In general the bigger the risk pool the lower the costs. A national healthcare system would make the risk pool as large as it can be.
2) Malpractice lawsuits do not add to the cost of healthcare as much as fighting them does. Malpractice insurers spend 72% of revenues fighting settlements.
3) Pharmaceutical companies risk no more than did the high tech companies of the 1970-80s. Neither Apple Computer nor Microsoft needed to have profitability assured by government.
4) Non Profit Hospitals are an incorporation scam used to hide how exorbitant profits are distributed among the principles, board of directors, high level management and law firms specializing in mergers and acquisitions.
5) Hospital mergers and acquisitions never, ever lower costs as they are purported to do. M & A of non profits is always done in order to eliminate regional competition, paving the way for baseless price increases.
6) Hospital M & A results in the loading of M & A debt on top of existing costs. Once, twice, ten times and the debt service, just like our national debt, becomes a major contributor to the cost of hospitalization.
This system is extremely sick, ransacked for profit, and doomed to collapse. What perturbs me the most about our national dialogue on the issue is the focus on insurers rather than the true engine that drives costs, non profit hospitals. Insurers just take a slice, arguably unnecessary slice, of the healthcare cash flow. They are actually hostage to the pricing schemes of non profit hospitals, although admittedly they have little motive to challenge them. Americans need to examine the economics of healthcare more carefully. Such examination would reveal why your hospital bill is never itemized, because you might quibble about the 80% of it that goes to pay for M & A.
As an aside, any time you hear the term non profit corporation, assume that it is not. Our society is riddled with this public relations and tax scam from charities to debt counseling companies.
Two Words: John Edwards!
As I peruse through these comments I am completely amazed by the comments supporting a 'government run health care system'.
I'm shocked, shocked I say, that the same people who constantly complain they are being spied on by the evil government, would be more than happy to turn over their entire medical history to that same government. Just so their neighbor would be allowed to pay their medical costs.
The term 'free lunch' comes to mind. Does it with you?
What constitutes health care? Regular checkups? Chemotherapy? Breast enhancements? Sex changes? This is the problem with the 'government' system. To get elected the politician will include all of these procedures - regardless of the cost. Don't believe me? Look at Social Security and it's financial foundation and the expansion of its benefits. Looks more like New Orleans than Topeka.
Please clarify your position. Do you support Medicare and Medicaid? Both are government run programs. Is it your position to get rid of both programs?
If you do support Medicare explain how you justify that government run program and do not support government run insurance for everyone.
Simple. Medicare and Medicaid are for the elderly who have spent a lifetime working, and for the needy. But neither program covers, in any sense, what is referred to as 'universal coverage'.
What about my main point - what constitutes health care? Please define it for me.
How about only providing health care to citizens and LEGAL immigrants? We spend BILLIONS on health care for ILLEGALS. We need to use that money on our own citizens.
First things first.
How about cracking down on the *illegal employers*, which is the real problem, not the immigrants themselves.
Prior to Reagan there were only about 2 million illegal immigrants in this country compared to over 12-13 million (or so) now.
But again, I don't blame the people, I blame the employers looking to exploit cheap labor and not provide benefits, safe working conditions, etc, all while driving down wages for American workers.
As I've said before, I don't know why (it seems) most progressives ignore these facts.
I think we should levy a healthcare fee and let the unions manage the funds. All the problems will go away immediately.
Thank goodness we have unions; somehow they main above all the foibles of human nature, greed, deceit, self interest.
I can't believe we are advocating the government do healthcare. If you believe that, you should start sleeping under bridges like the one in the river in MN.
All you need to know about opposition to goverment administered universal healthcare is who's against it. People that will no longer profit from it and people who already have "cadillac" plans. When American companies can no longer stay in business because of their healthcare burden, it will be shifted to the government. Not likely a moment before that. The auto makers are already there, but their Republican CEOs just can't seem cross that ideological barrier. They'll have to soon. Doctors, hospitals, and big pharma do not have an OPEC style cartel that would manipulate the price down when trouble is on the horizon.
"Unions. Yes, we're the folks who brought you the weekend. And we're the folks whose collective bargaining has maintained upward pressure on wages and benefits for all workers -- union members and nonmembers."
Sir, you must not be familiar with the American Federation of Musicians local 802 (AFL-CIO affiliate). Most venues here in New York have no problem getting a cabaret license to have live bands, but laugh in the face of paying scale. They laugh in the face of paying anything at all. What does the big bad union do about this? Abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING!
In New York you have to work at least 3 months a year in a union venue to even qualify for their (still) expensive group coverage. For anyone who knows or cares, that means you have to be one of the hand full of players out there that land a broadway, off-broadway, or touring gig. There are a few more, but we're talking about literally 100,000 plus members paying dues, and a tiny fraction of that lucky enough to partake in union benefits. Needless to say, more and more "musicians" are opting out of joining, and playing for peanuts (or free) here in the city. You think the venue owners care?
I think your plan and ideas for health care are good, just don't be surprised to find more than a few of your members already have a bad taste in their mouth where the AFL-CIO is concerned.
Of the top three Democratic presidential candidates, John Edwards is the only one who has a health care proposal that will bring immediate help to working people. Under his program, people will get a tax credit for the money they pay for health insurance - spend $4,000 on insurance and deduct $4,000 from your tax bill. Assuming this credit is available to all people of moderate income and below, that would be an enormous and immediate financial benefit for working people.
John Edwards also includes a plan to set up regional groups which individuals can join, and which will contract for group rate discounts on healthcare. Another potentially huge money savings for working people.
Hillary Clinton, amazingly enough (or maybe not) has a health care "reform" proposal which provides no financial relief whatsoever for working people. To the contrary, her "reform" envisions the healthcare giants - the insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies - being given taxpayers' money. You've got that right. More of our money given away to the major corporations.
Under Clinton's plan, we the uninsured taxpayers will be giving millions away to the giant healthcare corporations to help them with new billing technology systems. I suppose theoretically Clinton would suggest that if the biggies spend less on billing they might give us a break on what they charge us. History would prove her wrong. They would just increase their obscene profits by even more.
Obama's plan is too vague to analyze clearly, but it also includes absolutely no relief for working people.
I hope the AFL-CIO will endorse John Edwards, endorse his health care reform proposal, and also push to the gradual transition to a full national healthcare system which eliminates the health insurance industry.
I agree that Edwards has the best healthcare plan *and* the best foreign policy (good overview of it in the link below) of the Big 3.
He'd also be the strongest candidate in a general election IMO.
theyoungturks.com/story/2007/8/27/112911/833
Based on your explanation, Edwards plan is just a variation of the status quo. It will still be run by the healthcare insurers. His plan is just a window dressed version of the status quo.
People do not have health insurance because they cannot afford the premiums, copays and deductibles. Some who have insurance goes bankrupt because of the large copays and deductibles. And besides if you are enjoying a healthcare policy under you employer plan you are already paying you premiums pre-tax. The poor who are not covered by an employer healthcare plan will only save at the most about $1000 from Edwards plan. Where will they get another $10,000 plus co-pays and deductibles to get insured.
The only candidate who has a true single payer healthcare plan is Dennis Kucinich. He already co-sponsors HR 676 with 72 others in congress.
Dennis is great but he isn't going to win.
I know the practical truth in that statement bothers a lot of people (understandably) but it is what it is.
This is where someone becomes enraged and talks about principle over pragmatism, which is fine, except that the current situation is dire and anything that could bring about another neocon administration is just too risky.
Especially when you consider the possibility of a retiring supreme court justice.
NABNYC: Hillary hasn't unveiled her healthcare plan. You are reading something old. She took her time because she wanted to interview medical professionals around the country while she is campaigning and incorporate some of their idea.
Bionic Woman: You are incorrect. Hillary Clinton has an extensive description of her proposed health care "reform" at her presidential website. She includes broad sweeping proclamations such as we should all eat better and exercise more; big tax giveaways, as I discussed, for the corporations to have the taxpayers buy them new billing systems; and not one penny for us, the working people.
Go to her website and read it. It is an enormous disappointment. No relief whatsoever for working people. It's as if Clinton thinks the real "crisis" in healthcare is that the corporations don't make even more money.
In a democracy every person is supposed to be considered equal - yet - there is a disparity when we look at health care being available to all members of our society.
We cannot have equality as long as the right to live is available to only a priviledged few.
It is the responsiblity of government to assure healthcare for all - it should be an interpretation of the constitution.
In American Democracy, everyone is “Equal Under The Law”, NOT equal.
Not even there.
I agree.
But I know some people will respond to say that your particular interpretation of the constitution is wrong.
Ok, fine, maybe it is wrong.
But it's clear the document doesn't rally against universal healthcare and polls show a *majority* of Americans would be willing to pay more taxes (shocking to some, I know) for it.
The USA got on the wrong track many decades ago (the 1940's? earlier?), when the meme somehow became generally accepted that health care was a commodity, not a public service (and still less a "right").
By now, the wrong track has become the fast track to hell. But can we stop the train before it goes off the end of the broken bridge?
Not by electing a pharm-friendly Pug or Dim you won't... They all want the power and influence, but the road is long and expensive. Who pays the bills? Big Corporations. Who's owed all the favors? Big Corporations. Who's really running the joint? Big Corporations.
To roughly paraphrase a scholarly writeup I saw some months ago, US companies started offering employer-paid medical as a benefit in lieu of higher salary during the post-WWII consumer boom. This was initially very cheap, and achieved an increase in employee loyalty. "The Blues", Kaiser, and the other constructs grew out of this.
Canada started to allow a parallel insurance-structured medical concept (think Windsor, across the bridge from Detroit), but came to its senses and "drowned the kitten" as I heard it described. Now we have a tiger--full grown and not so easy to subdue.
Personally, I favor a massive switchover, like the day Belgium switched from driving on the left, like Britain, to driving on the right, like the rest of the continent. One frantic transition, lots of aftershocks, minimum net dislocation. Think about switching sides gradually...!
Sorry, make that Sweden.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
