"Affordable" Health Care - or Insurance - in MA
Primary tabs
Mike the Mad Biologist has the graphs.
Basically, people in the second fifth (from the bottom) in income get hammered the hardest by their medical bills. And as he observes:
If this is the standard that is being used for the current healthcare reform legislation, this is both a policy and political disaster in the making. Atrios always points out, people have to like this shit. As I noted two years ago, forcing people to purchase healthcare plans which do not provide them the healthcare they need (which is what the above figures indicate) is not popular--nor should it be (does that even need to be written?).
Sadly, it looks like the Senate bill (and that's what will pass) is very similar to the MA bill. This is a program that will rightly be perceived as helping the poor at the expense of the lower-middle and middle class (the upper-middle and upper class can take care of themselves). It plays directly into the hands of Republicans, and it does so because Democrats were too concerned with the shibboleth of cost reduction* to pass a plan that would be broadly popular.
This is not affordable, at least as the term is used by decent human beings.
*I would argue the primary healthcare goal over the next five to ten years should be to ensure that everyone gets the healthcare they need, regardless of income, not deficit reduction. Of course, the more universal proposals actually would reduce costs more than the Senate monstrosity. Even if that weren't the case, deficit reduction should not be the first priority, given the suffering and death a crappy healthcare system causes.
Amen to that last part. Amen.
I'm also appalled by this, which seems to play right into the hands of union-haters. Why any Union member should support wuch a deal that screws over non-unionized people, I can't imagine. I'm waiting with baited breath to see what my own Union has to say about it.
- a little night musing's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
The answer
to why any Union member should support such a deal that screws over non-unionized people, I get is because we as Union members pay dues for them to represent us, not you. So, the view is they are a paid special interest group.
Okay, but this is on the federal level, not an issue of a conflict between the union and a particular business. It involves a law that impacts all labor. So my question in response is: how much do you believe in solidarity? You serve yourself because you pay dues? Fine. But then don't expect us to respect your picket lines. Or your political agendas (like cardcheck). Since you don't care that much about me. Why should I care a flip about you? Solidarity can't be a one way street, or it's just another excuse for exploitation.
I won't beat up on unions
for protecting their contracts. This is more of the Obama campaign/administration's slice-and-dice of the former Democratic base.
As a Union member
I'm afraid it will encourage anti-union sentiment.
I actually want to see my Union oppose this mess. (I had some back-and-forth with them months ago when they were urging us to go demonstrate "for health care reform", even before we got to see the truly horrendous bills we now have - and it led me to believe that I was not the only member they were hearing from who thought that signing onto "some bill any bill" was a bad idea.)
Good heavens, I'm not beating up on unions. I'm just appalled at what has come to be and hoping I won't be expected to support it. Because I can't. There was a time when unions stood at the forefront of positive social change. I think. (It's getting so hard to recall.) My Union got some flak from some members for certain positions that were not strictly about our contracts. And I think that those sorts of positions are, yes, an appropriate use of our organizational force. But this, no: We should NOT be settling for crap like this.
Nor should they
have settled for a deal to enact a law federally that basically screws the rest of labor. Where's the solidarity? The only basis for respecting Unions picket lines or supporting their political agendas is solidarity. That committment to solidarity often costs non organized labor in access to jobs and political opportunities as it would hurt unions. Now if the Unions take the tact that they will serve themselves and piss on the rest of us regarding the establishment of federal law, then it's fair to perceive solidarity is broken and piss on them when they want our sacrifice to support them. Any Union will experience lessened strength when they contribute to a social context where non organized labor neither respects nor supports them. Good luck with the picket lines. Good luck with political support for any strike, or agenda like card check. Heck, a free association of labor can undercut labor negotiations in any contract negotiations between a union and a managment with ease in an employment situation like the current. It's been done before, and often.
I think this agreement is a terrible strategic error. Sure they might win this minor battle for time to renegotiate (although that too might be in question), but the overall war will be very much in doubt without continued support from non aligned groups.
As an aside, a comment was made today over at TL by Jedimom that the ping vote by the house if it's rushed to rubber stamp the Senate version, won't include the Union agreement. I don't know if it is true. If it is true then Trumpka has really put his foot in it.