Tag Archives: Labor

Billions in Profits from Healthcare Reform?

The Wall St. Journal reports on the new marketing plans for the health insurance companies: push health care reform, reap $100 billion in annual public subsidies!

We’ll take a look at that, as well as the GOP candidates who don’t care about cancer, the Sacramento insiders letting kids’ health fail run out, and new problems with the “Massachusetts mandate” law.

…cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association’s Breakroom Blog, as we organize for GUARANTEED healthcare on the single-payer model.

It’s like the insurance companies wrote the law themselves.  Across the country, “healthcare reform” proposals are moving forward that would leave the current broken healthcare system intact, protect the role of the insurers, AND give them tens of billions of dollars in new revenues from government funds?

Democratic presidential candidates like to beat up on insurance companies, but there is a lot for the industry to like in their health-care plans — starting with plenty of new business.

“Here’s the potential for a whole new pool of lives for them to cover, with payment behind it,” said Benjamin Isgur, assistant director of PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Health Research Institute, which examined the presidential health plans’ impact on industry. The study, a comprehensive look at health-care plans offered by candidates in both parties, also concludes that doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers would likely benefit since more patients with insurance suggest more would seek care and be able to pay their bills.

The leading Democratic candidates all propose boosting spending — by around $100 billion a year — mostly to help people buy private insurance plans.

Of course the insurance corporations are not dumb:

The early signals from the insurance industry, which played a major roll in killing health-care reform in 1994, are positive. The industry’s chief lobbyist, Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, says she is encouraged by the debate so far and says her group is focused on trying to get universal insurance enacted rather than stopping it. “At 20,000 or 30,000 feet, we have heard encouraging statements from Democrats and Republicans,” she says.

Meanwhile, the same “individual mandate” law in Massachusetts is good for insurers, but blowing a hole in the state budget.  And that hole is not fixable, since there is simply not enough public money to give protect the massive profits of the health insurance corporations.

GOP candidates who have survived cancer seem to show no compassion for other cancer survivors, at least if you trust their healthcare plans, and Sacramento insiders are showing precious little compassion for kids in that state who are about to get tossed off the healthcare rolls.

Cal Labor Fed on ABx1 1: Support If Amended

(Note: I am an online organizer with It’s OUR Healthcare!, a coalition of over 100 member organizations that includes the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO.)

Art Pulaski, the Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the California Labor Federation, posted a statement featured on the California Progress Report outlining the labor organization’s “support if amended” stance on ABx1 1, the recently released healthcare proposal from Democratic leadership in the State Legislature.

In the statement, Pulaski voiced strong support for creating a baseline on employer contributions towards healthcare for all employees and the creation of a statewide purchasing pool which he says “allows millions of Californians to pool their risk and resources in order to negotiate for more affordable healthcare.” Pulaski also noted support for the expansion of public programs and accompanying tax credits under ABx1 1.

However, Pulaski writes that “[d]espite these important advances, ABx1 1 still falls short.” Find out where and his recommendations on how to fix it below the fold.

To meet the needs of California’s working families, ABx1 1 and its accompanying financing provisions should be amended to address the following issues:

First, the individual mandate:

An individual mandate to purchase health insurance must be predicated upon guaranteeing that affordable, quality health care coverage is available to individuals subject to the mandate. While this legislation takes a first step toward addressing affordability, it does not ensure the quality of the health care benefit and it does not address the entire affordability issue. To address this problem, we recommend tying the affordability standard to the total cost of a comprehensive (a benefit of at the least Knox-Keene standard plus prescription drugs), high quality (minimal deductible, low annual out-of-pocket limit) benchmark plan. The minimum creditable coverage necessary to meet the mandate should be set and defined as a separate standard.

If the comprehensive benchmark plan is available to an individual for a total cost (including premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket maximums) that is less than a specified percent of his or her income, that person would be subject to the mandate. If it is not, the individual should be exempted from the obligation.

If an individual is subject to the mandate, he or she should have the option to buy the comprehensive plan, or to buy a more or less* generous plan, so long as the plan meets the minimum creditable coverage standard. Separating the affordability standard from the minimum creditable coverage standard guarantees that individuals will not be subject to the mandate unless there is a high quality, affordable product available to them, but still leaves them the ability to choose a less expensive plan to meet the mandate. (Ed. Note: This was a little confusing, and IOH spoke with Anastasia Ordonez of the Cal Labor Fed to clarify. There cannot be a case where there is a less generous benefit than the minimum and still meets the minimal requirements. It was an error in wording. The sentence should read: “If an individual is subject to the mandate, he or she should have the option to buy the comprehensive plan [i.e., something like Knox-Keene Act + prescription drugs], or to buy a more generous plan, so long as the plan meets the minimum creditable coverage standard.” )

To ensure that these plans offer quality coverage, the benefits and cost sharing arrangements for these plans must be outlined in the legislation. Asking Californians to accept an undefined mandate is unreasonable and unwise.

Pulaski also expressed an uneasiness with the enforcement of an individual mandate in its current form.

We are also concerned about potential enforcement mechanisms for the individual mandate. First, the enforcement of the mandate should look prospectively at the ability of a family to afford coverage, but also include protections for serious life changing events.

While we appreciate the bill’s provision for future hardship exemptions, we believe it should list basic conditions that would qualify a family for exemptions. The language should explicitly exempt Californians facing serious financial setbacks such as job loss and natural disaster. MRMIB should have the discretion to add additional circumstances at a future date. Second, families should have protections, similar to those currently afforded the uninsured facing unmanageable hospital bills, that preclude the use of collections tactics such as wage garnishment and home liens.

Noting the continuously climbing cost of healthcare and the individual mandate in ABx1 1, Pulaski writes that it “makes cost containment an even more pressing concern.”

To that end, the provisions regarding prescription drug purchasing and the creation of a public insurance option must be strengthened and clarified. Specifically, MRMIB should be empowered to directly negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers to obtain the lowest possible price for Cal-CHIPP enrollees. Additionally, the existing language regarding the possibility that public entities and other purchasers, including union trust funds, could access bulk prescription drug rates through Cal-CHIPP should be strengthened to guarantee that access. Only by directly tackling high drug costs and other health care cost drivers will this proposal deliver the cost containment that California’s working families need.

Pulaski set his sights on employer fees, stating support for a sliding scale because “it addresses the needs of truly small businesses,” but warns against the Governor recently suggesting the cap be at 5.5%, instead of the proposed 6.5%.

[..] The aggregate amount of employer fee dollars, however, must raise enough funds to purchase a quality benefit. Additionally, the graduated fee schedule could exacerbate employer incentives to evade their obligation.

These are the concerns of Cal Labor Fed but are supporting the overall frame work.

SF Chron Op-Ed: Health Deal Not Ready for Prime-Time

Zenei Cortez, RN, has been a working bedside nurse for 30 years and is a member of the Council of Presidents of National Nurses Organizing Committee and California Nurses Association…and we’re quite proud to say she’s the first Filipino to hold that office.

She takes on the Schwarzenegger-inspired healthcare deal in today’s San Francisco Chronicle with an oped called, “Hasty Health Care Deal Not Ready for Prime Time.”

While reading her words, remember the experience that Registered Nurses across this country share: every day they watch patients *with* health insurance go broke, and get sick because they can’t afford the medical treatment they are allegedly covered for.  This is a key reason RNs oppose health care “reform” built on padding forcing more patients into the arms of the insurers who messed things up in the first place.

…cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association’s Breakroom Blog, as we organize for GUARANTEED healthcare on the single-payer model.

In addition to providing the insurance companies with *BILLIONS* of dollars in new public subsidies and forced payouts from working- and middle-class patients, the proposed deal suffers from the following problems:

It’s equally evident what the deal won’t include:
— Limits – other than a vague reliance on the market which created the mess – on skyrocketing insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays, hospital charges, doctor’s bills and other fees that are rising at double, triple or more the rate of inflation and increases in worker’s wages.
— Choice of doctor, hospital or other provider. Unlike Medicare, insurers or employers will continue to be able to restrict patients to their medical plan’s network or require costly additional payments to see other providers.
— An end to insurance industry control over basic decisions about your health. Insurers will still be able to block referrals to specialists, deny needed medical tests or access to the newest prescription drugs, and can still refuse to pay for care deemed “experimental” or “not medically necessary,” even when it is recommended by your doctor. 

And if you’ve been reading that you’ll be protected from runaway costs?  Uh…

The cost protections are a mirage. Many middle-income families will qualify for state tax credits to help pay for the insurance they are required to buy. But a tax credit hardly makes up for costly monthly premium payments and other fees.
Further, the proposed annual out-of-pocket limit of 6.5 percent in costs applies only to the barebones mandatory policy. Anyone seeking coverage that includes such essentials as dental, vision, mental health, long-term care, and other needed care will have to pay much more.
The likely result will be more consumer debt for medical bills; a great boon for the banks and credit-card companies but increased financial risk for Californians and an encouragement to self-ration needed care due to the prohibitive cost.

And we’re not the only ones who see the obvious comparisons with energy de-reg….remember that was supported by just about every lobbyist in Sacramento, especially those with ties to Enron:

A decade ago, there was also a consensus for energy deregulation. The result was blackouts, higher costs for consumers, a financial calamity for the state, and open thievery by Enron and other energy corporations.
We should learn from that experience. Rather than rush through an ill-conceived plan that primarily rewards the same insurance giants, let’s adopt a more commonsense step, expand children’s health coverage with federal funds now and get real, guaranteed health care reform done next year.

Insurance Corporations Killing Kids

(Game on, I suppose. – promoted by Bob Brigham)

I hate to be melodramatic, but that’s pretty much what it comes down to.

At least according to today’s report finding that America is last among industrialized democracies in terms of infant mortality.  Because our healthcare system is set up to guarantee billions of dollars of profit to unnecessary insurance corporations, kids born here are more likely to die than they are in countries with guaranteed healthcare through the single-payer model.

…cross-posted at the National Nurses Organizing Committee/California Nurses Association’s Breakroom Blog, as we organize for GUARANTEED healthcare on the single-payer model.

One place this hits hard is Memphis, along with other cities with predominantly African-American populations.  African-American kids are two and a half times more likely than white kids to die in infancy.  Racism starts early, I guess.

This is the context in which Rudy Giuliani stated his big lie about cancer patients being better of in America than Europe.  He’s been proven wrong but refuses to apologize.  Kids are being killed on a daily basis by this system and he refuses to admit it because it doesn’t square with his bid for President.  Ezra Klein takes a look.

One of the real flashpoints for the battle over healthcare is in Kentucky and West Virginia, where nurses across the country are traveling to support their striking colleagues in the Appalachian Regional Healthcare System.  ARH is trying to bump up their profits by slashing the number of nurses caring for patients.  Profits over patients indeed.

In California, we’re working hard to stop a fake reform plan that includes an individual mandate, e.g. a requirement that every person purchase expensive, wasteful insurance products.  Fortunately, public opinion is turning against this nasty little brew cooked up by Arnold Schwarzenegger.  If we can break it here, we can break it anywhere!

(CA 80th AD) Leg. Chair of the Latino Caucus & Laborers’ Local 777 for Manuel Pérez

Another major endorsement for Manuel Pérez, who already has the strong support of last term’s Democratic candidate, Steve Clute, CA Latino Legislative Caucus Chair Joe Coto, Coachella Mayor Eddie Garcia, Imperial County Supervisor Victor M. Carrillo, Rep. John Conyers and former Congressman Esteban Torres, among others.  Manuel Perez has the strong support of LIUNA 777.   

Here’s Eddie Garcia, Joe Coto, and Manuel Pérez at La Estancia (just down Hwy 111 in Indio, great food)

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

X-posted at dKos.  Much more below.  Flip it.

I was working as a field organizer in support of a ballot measure that would preserve SEIU-UHW jobs and benefits for the last several weeks (we lost, bad scene now for healthcare workers in Hemet and Menifee), so was out of the loop regarding the Pérez campaign’s day to day happenings.  Just as I get back from fighting the good fight for one union, here’s LIUNA 777 for Manuel.  Naturally.  Manuel Pérez worked the fields with his UFW parents.  Joe Mota, former director of UFW, endorsed Manuel’s campaign early on.  The CA Assembly needs an organizer, a teacher, a local hero like Manuel, and labor knows it. 

If you’ve just heard about Manuel Pérez, the best diary that introduces him is this one by David Dayen, who came out to Indio and talked with Manuel back in September.  He found, as I did, that Manuel is the real thing.  Yes, there are other Democrats in this primary, and many of the establishment in Democratic Riverside feel that Greg Pettis, Cathedral City councilman, deserves the nomination.  They say it’s his turn, he’s the most recognizable, etc.  He has the biggest warchest for the race.  Greg is a great guy, but I don’t believe in party poohbahs assigning our candidates for us.  I believe that the best representative of the people should go to Sacramento.  And for the California 80th Assembly District, Manuel Pérez represents us best, and presents the most compelling change for a district that’s had a Republican rep for far too long. 

I was bantering with a Republican from Palm Desert last month, and he was positively gleeful at the prospect of Pettis, with his money and establishment ties, getting the nod, and then losing to whomever the GOP runs.  I think that voters from Palm Springs to Calexico already recognize that we have a charismatic working class hero, a Harvard MA, a local teacher, and a community organizer who brings women’s health care to the least served communities in the 80th available to us, and we’re going to seize this opportunity to galvanize the district.  Support Manuel Perez for the California 80th AD at his Act Blue page:  Manuel Perez – Putting People First

From the campaign:

Laborer’s International Union of North America – Local 777 endorses Manuel Pérez for the 80th Assembly District; list of supporters continues to grow

Manuel Perez, Democratic candidate for the 80th Assembly District, has received the endorsement of the Laborers International Union Association, Laborers Local 777, as well as its umbrella organization, the Laborer’s International Union of North America.

‘He is a strong and clear voice for the communities he serves, and is willing to fight for fundamental rights; fair pay; fair treatment and justice; protections and security for our families; access to health care; better education and better working conditions for the residents of the 80th Assembly District,’ said Fred W. Lowe, Business Manager/Secretary Treasurer for Laborers’ Local 777.

Laborers’ Local 777 joins, a growing number of local, state and national leaders who have endorsed Manuel Perez for the 80th District, including Latino Legislative Caucus Chair Joe Coto; Imperial County Supervisor Victor M. Carrillo, Coachella City Mayor Eduardo Garcia, Former Assembly member and Candidate for the 80th AD Steve Clute, Former Congressman Esteban E. Torres and Congressman John Conyers, D-Michigan.

‘I am excited and honored to have received the endorsement of one of the most progressive and fastest growing Laborers’ Union in the United States.  LIUNA has been fighting for working families since 1903 and I want to be part of making history with them as we tackle the 21st Century,’ said Manuel Perez. ‘I will be an ally in the quest to create more opportunities for workers and will fight for better wages, good benefits and safe jobsites.’

Working Under the Gun…Literally

(All workers deserve respect and decent working conditions. For more info, see the UFW site for this action. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Working Under The Gun
It’s Not Just an Expression

Workers of Starrh and Starrh Cotton Growers–a large cotton, hay, and almond producer in California–need your help. They need you to e-mail Cal OSHA immediately and tell them to investigate the violations at the ranch right away and prosecute the company to the fullest extent of the law. When you hear what the workers lives are like, you will be horrified…and furious. Please take a moment to help these workers by sending your e-mail today! Go to: http://www.ufwaction…

“I have been working for Starrh and Starrh for five years”, Alejandro Gil told us. “The working conditions are awful. We are exposed to a lot of dust and we do not have any protection. In the last two or three days, I have been feeling a pain in my chest and my back when I breathe…The owner’s brother-in-law always puts pressure on workers. He wants more production. The brother-in-law always carries a gun on his waist to scare workers.”

Take Action at: http://www.ufwaction…

“We never had bathrooms, fresh water or water to wash our hands. Sometimes we do not get any breaks. They put a lot of pressure on us to work faster. When I helped them packing hay, I worked up to 16 hours without breaks.” said Gerardo Negrete. “I am a sprayer and they do not give us what we need to protect ourselves from the chemicals. I have sprayed [pesticide] without gloves, masks or overalls. They only give those to us when we are close to roads where maybe some inspectors can see us…The foremen make fun of us for not having the protection we need.”

Francisco Villasaña, another 20-year employee, reports, “The foreman is abusive. Not only does he humiliate us, but he also does not provide us with fresh water–he actually drinks our water.”

Listening to these workers makes you wonder if we’ve stepped into a time warp. Really, how can this happen in 2007?

There are laws that say that workers need breaks for meals and to rest. There are laws that say that workers must have clean water to drink, and protection from sun and extreme heat. There are laws that say that workers must have bathrooms–for their own health–and that of the consumers who eat the food that comes from those fields.

Please send an e-mail to Cal OSHA–the agency responsible for protecting farm workers and enforcing these laws–and tell them to investigate these violations immediately and prosecute the company to the fullest extent of the law. Go to: http://www.ufwaction…

November 7, 2007 Blog Roundup and Open Thread

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. No categories today, but everything is pretty self-explanatory. Let me know what I missed in comments, or just use this as an open thread.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Writer’s Strike: Day 3

Other labor leaders are coalescing around the writer’s strike because they know that a hig-profile action like this will have positive benefits for them, and might actually start a conversation about union representation in America.  If the adage of “If it’s not on TV, it didn’t happen” holds true, then “If it’s stopping TV, it’s REALLY happening” holds even truer.  Joss Whedon explains:

“The trappings of a union protest…” You see how that works? Since we aren’t real workers, this isn’t a real union issue. (We’re just a guild!) […] this IS a union issue, one that will affect not just artists but every member of a community that could find itself at the mercy of a machine that absolutely and unhesitatingly would dismantle every union, remove every benefit, turn every worker into a cowed wage-slave in the singular pursuit of profit. (There is a machine. Its program is ‘profit’. This is not a myth.) This is about a fair wage for our work. No different than any other union. The teamsters have recognized the importance of this strike, for which I’m deeply grateful. Hopefully the Times will too.

I love the cross-union solidarity that this strike has engendered.  It’s not just the Teamsters; Steve Carell single-handedly shut down The Office, for example.  And now Hillary Clinton has joined other Democratic Presidential hopefuls with a strong statement of support.

“I support the Writers Guild’s pursuit of a fair contract that pays them for their work in all mediums. I hope the producers and writers will return to the bargaining table to work out an equitable contract that keeps our entertainment industry strong and recognizes the contributions writers make to the success of the industry.”

No talks have been scheduled, as the studios appear to be preferring a “bleed them out” strategy, despite the WGA already conceding on expanding DVD residuals.  While I still feel that jurisdiction and expanding membership should be a strong part of any final deal, clearly the writers deserve a fair share of the profits they are instrumental in creating.

November 6, 2007 Blog Roundup and Open Thread

Today’s Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let me know what I missed in comments, or just use this as an open thread.

To subscribe by email, click
here and do what comes naturally
.

Read This

When you have a union of
writers, what do you think you get when they strike?

What to do about McNerney?

Health Care

Mike Carona

Local

Everything Else

Further Analysis of New Healthcare Proposal

(We haven’t front-paged anything about this today, probably out of sheer depression. So let this be a conduit for the discussion. Hopefully soon somebody will come by and tell us this is “the best we can do” and we should stop whining! Wouldn’t that be great? – promoted by David Dayen)

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee said today that it will oppose the latest healthcare plan proposed by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, which would sentence patients to patients to forced insurance, threats to seize wages to pay the premiums of the very for-profit insurance companies who are speedily wrecking our health care system, and mandatory costs.

“As more details continue to emerge, it is apparent that this proposal is riddled with flaws that could exacerbate the healthcare crisis for countless numbers of California families,” said CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro.

More details below, or visit the online home of the Nationanl Nurses Organizing Committee and California Nurses Association, and join the fight for guaranteed healthcare on the single-payer model.

Here’s a look at the rest of the plan:

Individual mandate — forcing Californians to buy insurance

“No matter how you dress up this proposal it still amounts to a huge windfall for the insurance industry, millions of new customers who may get virtually nothing in return,” De Moro said. And, anyone who fails to buy insurance would face “the draconian threat” of having the cost of insurance deducted from their paychecks. “Punishing the uninsured by seizing their wages to pad insurance company profits is not healthcare reform.

No comprehensive coverage

The state’s Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board will establish the basic plan Californians would have to buy. But the plan is likely to only include a bare bones set of benefits, with probable high deductions and caps on coverage. All other medical care, such as dental, vision, mental health, long term care, and more would cost extra. “The likely result is that families with limited resources will self-ration rather than obtain needed medical care,” DeMoro said.

Affordability

DeMoro criticized claims that the bill meets affordability standards as “a sad hoax for Californians desperate for genuine healthcare coverage.”

1- Since the bill fails to set standards for basic plans, “it is likely families would be forced to effectively buy junk insurance, and have to spend thousands of dollars more for a long list of essential care needs.”
2- The plan fails to reign in skyrocketing insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pays, or other rising costs. With costs continuing to escalate, there will be growing pressure on the MRMIB board to further erode the basic plan.
3- The supposed protection for middle income families is tax credits for the cost of buying the forced insurance. But tax credits only benefit those who can afford to buy insurance in the first place, and a once a year tax credit hardly makes up for costly monthly premium payments. The result will almost certainly be more credit card debt for medical bills; “a great boon for the banks and credit card companies but increased financial and health insecurity for Californians,” DeMoro said.
4- The proposed out-of-pocket limit of 6.5% in costs applies only to the bare bones mandatory insurance policy – those with more comprehensive plans will pay much more of their income.

Employer mandate

The new bill makes the extensive problems of the earlier versions by the legislature and the governor even worse, said DeMoro. Under the bill the maximum requirement for employers would be just 6.5 percent of payroll.

But, according to a June 2007 report by the California Healthcare Foundation, California employers in 2005 paid on average 10.4% — and unionized employers paid 14.5 percent of their payroll – for health care benefits.

Especially as there are no controls on rising premium costs, what the bill thus does is create a clear incentive for businesses to sharply erode existing plans or drop coverage entire, DeMoro said.

Unionized employers, for example, would save nearly $5,000 per employee to dump their current benefits and pay the new tax.  “Get ready for more strikes and other labor battles as workers struggle to maintain decent health coverage for their families,” DeMoro said.