Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiDoes the leadership of the AFL-CIO favor a single payer, Canadian-style, Medicare-for-all, health insurance system? They do not.
The California Nurses Association, which joined the AFL executive council earlier this year, supports single payer.
More than 350 other union locals support single payer.
More than 80 members of the House of Representatives support legislation that would create a single payer system in the United States (HR 676).
But the leadership of the AFL-CIO does not support single payer.
They may say they support it.
But yesterday, at a press conference at the National Press Club, it became clear that AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and his fellow labor union bosses are actively working to derail the rank and file movement for single payer.
Sweeney and leaders of the SEIU, UFCW, Bricklayers, Laborers, and Teamsters - along with DLA Piper partner and former Congressman Dick Gephardt - yesterday put their stamp of approval on a employer-based state health insurance reform plan by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D).
The Illinois plan is similar to one introduced by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) for California and Governor Ed Rendell (D) for Pennsylvania.
These employer based "reforms" have been roundly criticized by Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) and the California Nurses Association (CNA) as undermining the nationwide drive for single payer.
"We should get rid the employer-based health insurance system," said PNHP's Dr. Don McCanne. "It's a regressive method of funding health insurance. There are all kinds of problems with them. All of these reforms are inadequate measures that will only postpone the day that we actually fix the system with single payer."
In the past, the CNA has been critical of the SEIU for supporting reforms like those proposed by Governor Blagojevich.
In June, for example, CNA president Rose Ann DeMoro told Corporate Crime Reporter that "rather than being on the side of the workers, SEIU continues to be on the side of the bosses."
"And it's a disgrace," DeMoro said.
But yesterday, CNA did not return calls seeking comment.
At the press conference, Blagojevich was asked why he didn't support single payer.
"So much of what you do in government is done through political realities," Blagojevich said. "The art of politics in government is the recognition of what is possible. The choice is between whether you take an existing structure - an employer-based health care system and build on that, shore that up - or whether you scrap the whole thing and create a whole new system that historically has not taken root in the United States."
"And while it has been done in other countries, it has not been able to get a beachhead in our country," he said. "And my reading of history in the United States is that when change happens in America, it generally happens by building on existing institutions and existing structures rather than tearing them down and building something completely new and different. So, in a perfect world and in theory, the single payer system is one that I could certainly support. Whereas as a practical matter, I don't think it is something we are going to achieve in the near future."
Especially with that kind of leadership.
Sweeney was asked whether the AFL supports single payer, and if so, why is he working to undermine it.
"I recognize that there is tremendous support for single payer," a subdued Sweeney said. "But as the Governor has said, it is important that we move on health care coverage now with what we have the political will to achieve. That doesn't mean we aren't going to continue to strive for a single payer health care system."
Yes it does.
The press conference was pulled together by America's Agenda: Health Care for All.
By the way, here's a new rule of thumb for Washington: when you hear the words "universal health care" or "health care for all," wait a few seconds and a health insurance industry lobbyist will walk to the mike.
Yesterday, leading off the press conference was Ken Thorpe - introduce as the nation's leading health policy expert.
Thorpe called the Illinois proposal - "the most promising health care reform legislation enacted anywhere in America in the last 40 years."
After the press conference, I sought out Ken Thorpe and asked him who he worked for.
"I'm a consultant for America's Agenda - Health Care for All," he said. "I also teach at Emory University."
Do you also work for the health insurance industry?
"Do I work for them?" he asked.
Do you consult for them?
"I've done studies for them," Thorpe said. "I don't consult for them."
Have you been paid to do the studies?
"Oh yeah," he says.
Who were you paid by?
"Blue Cross Blue Shield Association."
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. He is co-author with Robert Weissman of The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy.
© 2007 Corporate Crime Reporter
39 Comments so far
Show AllThere is, maybe, a inside to this. Maybe Rendell, Bogovitch (SP?) and Schartenegger (SP) plus Big Labor want to something with foriegn investment. Some Foreign Companies are starting to refuse to invest in the United States due to the high health care costs. Or maybe they are waiting for Federal action on this issue. Who knows.
I keep telling you drones, Maybe you'll listen more closely.
1.) Nationalize energy!
It removes a massive amount of money from the elites' operating / politician buying capitol. It'll provide all the money we need to jet-propel research into alternative fuels. MORE than pay for a state of the art healthcare system, educational system, political reform/election funding system.
2.) Nationalize Communications!
This will bring an END to swine like Rupert Murdoc's type of "journalism". It will also
move the U.S. from mediocre midway standing as it pertains to the internet and wireless speeds. Realize when traitorous Reagan took office, there was still about 25 corporations controlling the media. It is down to about 5 now. and they all own our "leaders". You no longer hear the truth. You hear what THEY want to to hear,....read.
maybe it's time you woke up, DEMMAND what's right, just and fair or simply TAKE it.
Anybody who thinks that Hillary or Obama is going to go to bat for them on health care should think again. They're both still funding the Iraq war aren't they.
There is no "Democratic Party" in Washington; there is only the corporate party.
Real change in Northern Ireland only started to come when the IRA stood up for the people.
Sorry, above link doesn't seem to work. I'll try again, but title at wired.com is "Reistant Bacteria: Go Kill Yourselves"...yes upbeat, though, as mentioned above...word up re last paragraph.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/news/2007/10/bacterial_suicide
Yes, GT...he's electable. Why not?
Basic anthropology power dynamics, PB?
That's true. We are the victims and will go under the mounds (of debt).
Not to worry, the rich cats might die themselves even if they steal what should be our beds in hospital...because the absurd medical system they have championed for nigh on nigh on is long on hype but short on hygiene. See last paragraph in this "Wired" article.
What a dumb union. Think of all the hospitals that should be re-built. And all of them that should be removed. Spray it good and then haul it off...isn't that a job for someone? Also, we'll need quite a few million foot operated faucets in the future. Ah but...crisis what crisis (?)...no radical solutions need be applied.
Sweeney is not on our side. This guy should be launching a major media offensive in favor of single payer and only endorsing candidates in favor of single payer. He has the biggest single weapon on his side, American public opinion, and he is throwing that away.
If you had an all star football team and you wanted to lose the game, you'd hire Sweeney as your coach.
Single payer universal health care would do two things this country needs health care and reduced labor costs. This would be a spectacular success especially if it was paid for by a tax on corporation gross receipts. If the only deduction allowed was other taxes paid to US or state and local governments.
That way the Chinese products would carry the same cost that American products carry for health care, waste disposal etc.
Of course this makes way too much sense for the over paid jerks in our government. If they got paid for performance they would owe BILLIONS.
Daniel David November 9th, 2007 6:42 pm
"The "big" union we should all belong to is having a solid DEM majority in Congress and a DEM president in The White House, all at once. Then, you have an opportunity to demand consideration of single-payer, demand employee-friendly legislation, demand citizen-oriented judges and cabinet members, possibly even demand a legislative challenge to the mother-load of conservative coercion: The doctrine of Employment at Will."
Just like the Democrats are listening to the demands to get us out of Iraq and impeach Cheney and Bush. Right DD?
Lobo Gris
I worked for unions for 20 years. Don't trust Johgn 'Elmer Fudd' Sweeney for a second. He is a mobster. Local 32B-J! Crooks. Now a new version of crooks sanctioned by Andy Stern. They steal your dues. I lived off workers for years. The leadership loves that money. Have you heard this before???
Well Blago, considering the Green Party got 11% of the vote in Rich Whitneys campaign, I would say there is a changing "political reality" you may want to pay attention to.
Point taken. The thing is that the health system in Cuba supplies all of the basic and comprehensive needs of the people without anyone having to pay a fee after treatment. Jean Zeigler, the UN's representative, was just in Cuba for a ten day working visit and he stated after his visit that Cuba was an example to the world in providing the right to food. He also stated that Cuba was the only country in the world to have fulfilled the Goals of the Millenium to which 191 countries aspired. So, obviously, some quality system must be working in Cuba that is better than the systems operating in capitalist countries.
jmacneil,
Politics probably can't help with genetics, but it can help with lifestyle, eating habits, stress, vacation time, the hourly work week, etc. My point was that life expectancy is one definite metric, as is work week, paid maternal/paternal leave, etc. Probably every doctor on earth will argue that more personal time for relaxation, exercise, hobbies, family, children, sleep, etc. is conducive to better health.
Don't worry about the Wikipedia's accuracy. Use it as a first resource, verify/corroborate elsewhere. I didn't mean to pawn it off as gospel. No source offers that sort of assurance.
In any case, the discussion here is on the capitulating nature of big labor. It's clear that they're asking for less than what their members want. Ordinarily, one would ask for MORE. Since the name of any bargaining/haggling game is meeting in the middle. That is, if I wanted to sell my old pop-up camper for $2,000, I'd ask $2,500. I'd then "go down" to $2,000. If I was representing a union, I'd ask for more than what was desired. Mountain/mole-hill dynamics.
That the unions are asking for so little from politicians is illustrative of how low some management's sights are set, and to whose advantage and disadvantage.
Great comments. My 2 cents in regards to health care is more a question: What would a good system look like? The question comprises both the funding aspect and the delivery aspect. I feel that a focused discussion on what we would like in place would help in clarifying positions and then we can assess that position and be able to develop a strategy for implementation.
My initial contributions to this is to suggest a greatly expanded school base to be a core component of a new, evolving national policy. Set up attainable goals for expansion of the % of health care workers, in all fields, to the population. Open more med schools, fund more students with a work for scholarship program, open more hospitals and clinics.
As for funding we already pay the bill for universal health care. The total amount of money that the many levels of government currently pays to privately insure our workers is more than the total amount of money that the insurers paid out nation wide. And that doesn't include the employee's contribution.
As for the union leadership I have a question: How do they get elected? How can the voting system be restructured so that it is more responsive to the rank and file? How are union leaders being educated?
It does remind me of the ancient Chinese saying about all it takes is a coopted leadership and the rest will follow. And they follow dependably through the mechanism Paul notes in his "basic anthropology power dynamics" comment. Democracy seems to me to have been an initial attempt to set up a system of checks and balances to mitigate against this vulnerability. So how can we counter, using democratic principles, this tactic throughout the whole of our social system?
For people who are not concerned about their health care because they feel it is a given right-look out life insurance is next.
They are starting to downgrade and charge excessive rates. Could it be another thing people will be paying top dollar for and not recieve the benefit in the end?
If buying your own health insurance is such a great deal, how come our politicans and ceos do not buy their own?
C'mon, Paul. Life expectancy cannot be used as a quantifier of a health-care system. Life expectancy is, above all else, a result of DNA and genetics. The Cuban healthcare system provides free and comprehensive healhcare to all of it's citizens from birth to death.
And to reference such a corruptible source as "wikipedia", which any secret service organization in the world can alter to their heart's content, doesn't reinforce your misguided point.
jmacneil,
"Health care" cannot be easily quantified/ranked. There is one metric which can be ranked cleanly: life expectancy.
Obviously, this figure is impacted by more than just health care, but there are 37 countries above the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
You'll note that Cuba is better (ranked at #37, just above us).
As for the AFL-CIO consistently picking the furthest right candidate under the Democratic Party label, I think it's time for a populist takeover just about everywhere. People need to start standing up, on their own two legs, and organizing within organizations, dumping corrupt leadership like a sack of potatoes gone bad.
Using the Canadian healthcare system as an example of a progression is unwarrented. The system in Canada is a little better than that in the U.S. but there are still hundreds of thousands of people living on the streets and under overpasses in Canada and they are refused service if they don't have an insurance plan. The Health card provided by the Canadians is little more than a voucher for getting someone into a doctor's office to be evaluated, but if the person doesn't have aditional health insurance they will be refused optimum service or, if it is an emergency situation, they will be treated but will be subject to making large payments.
There is only one Country in the world which has a healthcare system which stands out markedly above all others and that is Cuba, although some countries are working to attain such exalted status.
"All of these reforms are inadequate measures that will only postpone the day that we actually fix the system with single payer."
The AFL-CIO band-aids must have a logo of a hand with the middle finger pointing up.
How many jobs have been shipped out of this country over the past 6 years while millions of workers are contributing monthly dues to the AFL-CIO? Time for new leadership!
Universal Heathcare
It's free for everyone
The "big" union we should all belong to is having a solid DEM majority in Congress and a DEM president in The White House, all at once. Then, you have an opportunity to demand consideration of single-payer, demand employee-friendly legislation, demand citizen-oriented judges and cabinet members, possibly even demand a legislative challenge to the mother-load of conservative coercion: The doctrine of Employment at Will.
If we had this, some might believe it good for "unionism" as we've known it in the past. Maybe, maybe not. The AFL-CIO leaders and others might well feel threatened with obsolescence and irrelevance.
Old-time unionism may be gasping last breaths because of the ability of employers to skirt it via globalization. Employers, however, cannot skirt the entire USA, and that's the "bargaining unit" we ought to be seeking to control--the whole country and every corporation in it via the whole federal government in Dem hands. Dems aren't perfect, but only they have the chance to actually win in the numbers we need. Please help them do so.
militantliberal {quote} "In India poor people sell their kidneys. That's actually the best plan because an organ you don't have won't malfunction. Where's your sense of initiative?"
You're a RIOT!! Thanks for the belly laugh.
Nothing new here. As long as there is pay-to-play, 'political realities' will be what determined by healthcare profiteers and executives with huge compensation packages.
Univeral healthcare --- not healthcare for some, but healthcare for all --- is fiscally impossible and technically unachievable absent single-payer funding. Insurance companies will not relinquish the rights to reject applicants and deny care approvals unless the purchaser agrees to pay through the nose for risk. The Dems are blowing smoke on this issue and the Repugnicons are doing another tax incentive boogie.
The UK NHS model made the mistake of owning the brick and mortar. Control of a healthcare system requires centralized payment mechanisms and accountability for access, cost, quality and safety.
Universal healthcare gets derailed when single-payer is confused with the 'socialized or government-run' model like the UK. Universal healthcare requires centralized funding. Let the government negotiate fees and reimbursement with private providers of care. Competition on both cost and quality will result.
Insurance companies are unnecessary cost drivers. They are the 2000 lbs. elephant on the backs of healthcare consumers and purchasers (individuals, government and employers).
hoghungry1 wrote: "My self pay when I am unemployed is $900 a month. Who in the hell can afford this?"
That's easy, sell drugs or become a sex worker. In India poor people sell their kidneys. That's actually the best plan because an organ you don't have won't malfunction. Where's your sense of initiative?
But seriously, if the Democrats don't feel up to taking on their paymasters in the insurance industry, couldn't they at least put together a public plan for the unemployed? And then another for the self-employed? These are folks the insurance industry aren't profiting from anyways.
Some unions are HMO's and are evidently making money being HMO's. Those unions/HMO's aren't going to kill the goose that's putting golden eggs in thier pockets.
I've been wondering why unions and their members haven't been expressing strong support for Kucinich.
Have you noticed that "He's not electable" is like a mantra in NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN collective?
Of course he's electable.
What hogwash from Rod Blagojevich! I live in Illinois, and for him to lecture on the "art of politics" is like Robert Mugabe lecturing on human rights. We have a Democratic governor, Senate, and House, and nothing gets done because of Blagojevich's grandstanding and stubborn refusal to work with his own party leadership.
Then he tops it off with his patronizing remark about how "in a perfect world" he would support single-payer. And a likewise remark from John Sweeney. I guess with such underwhelming incrementalist pukes like this posing as leaders, we'll never know if their support for single-payer health care is anything more than lip service. If we had a "perfect world", we would HAVE single-payer. Then they'd be for it--i.e., they can only support the status quo.
I am retired from the Transportation/Communication division of the IAM. I just received the magazize and found out that IAM has made a dual endorsement for President: Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee!
AARRGGHH....
We are being screwed right and left by our "friends" from the Democratic Party and the Labor movement.
There was a time in American history when the likes of Sweeney and Blagojevich would have counseled remaining part of the British Empire: "It's not perfect but it's better than the other monarchies in Europe. And besides we could never prevail against the world's greatest military power and revolution is just alien to our nature." There are certainly numerous other examples.
Our "friends" simply refuse to fight for what is right and good. It's been said many times that "the perfect is the enemy of the good." What we have now sure ain't perfect and it also sure ain't good...and it keeps getting worse.
Time to step up and work for change. Not the kind of incremental, give us a few more crumbs, kind of change that we are expected to accept by the MSM, the labor bosses, the Dems, but real, fundamental change for the better. Cindy Sheehan for Congress.
When my retiree dues come up again I'm going to send the money to the IWW. Yes, they're still around and still fighting.
My health care is now at $5.25 per hour worked as a portion of my IBEW negoiated wage . My self pay when I am unemployed is $900 a month. Who in the hell can afford
this?
Our leadership votes for each and every raise in H&W because theirs is paid as part of their salary. No skin off their asses!
The manager of the fund makes over 100K per year.
I, for one, am sick to death of it!!!!!
They aren't willing to give up their cozy little fiefdoms and all the monies it involes. As far as I am concerned, they are STEALING.....
The co-option of leadership everywhere seems to be nearing that tipping point. The soothsayers are finding it increasingly difficult to justify their inaction, co-option, or whatever you want to call it.
The whole house of cards is built on people trusting slots rather than action. That is, there's a GANTT chart in people's minds and they express loyalty to the leader of X because s/he is the titled "leader" (ascribed status), not because s/he has demonstrable accomplishments in executing that charge (achieved status). Basic anthropology power dynamics.
Last summer in Chicago at the labor sponsored Democratic debate hosted by Keith Olbermann, the rank and file roared their approval with Dennis Kucinich's every line---especially single payer health care and getting out of NAFTA et al. So who did the UNion's leadership endorse? Let's see...well I'll givbe you a hint. It wasn't Dennis. Guess that maybe tells us how out of touch labor bosses are with the rank and file. Has it ever been different in my lifetime? NOT!
Didn't see AFL-CIO members walking the line with the WGA, SAG and AFTRA. How's that for brotherhood? And, most overlook the fact that the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees (IATSE) has, for decades, encouraged "runaway" production because they also rep Canadian workers and, hence, get paid whether Americans are working or not. How many IA members on the strike lines? 0?
Unions pretending to fight for "us" is not a new trick.
Nothing stopping them from real organizing now. They just need to organize along the glue of solidarity, not dues.
Maybe all the unions in America should be busted so that the people can organize real unions.
Union leadership was demonstrably co-opted sometime between the IWW hey-day of the wobblies and the rise of Reagan.
Like Dem enablers, their job is to placate their underlings with soothing talk, preventing any real change.
Our labor unions are a threat to globalization. A threat because they have historically demanded a decent living wage. US labor, with few exceptions, now has to compete with labor internationally. U.S. factory jobs are now part of a globalized labor market. Jobs being outsourced, and jobs being filled by H1B Visa applicants, is shrinking the job market in America. Is it surprising that the exceptions to labor competition in America are doctors and lawyers.
Hoa binh
Remember the lack of support for the air-controllers when Reagan was prexy?
Beginning of the end of real union activities.
Why be surprised at the actions of national leadership now?
The role of the AFL-CIO for a long time has been to quash any drive for real change coming from the labor movement. The leadership of the AFL-CIO protects the status quo. They do this job rather well, and they become quite wealthy while doing it. When was the last time you saw a broke labor leader?
If you want change, don't expect someone who's gotten rich from the current system to just give it to you.