AFL-CIO Digs In Their Heels - Won't Support Health Care Bill Without Public Option
The AFL-CIO went to bat for President Obama during the 2008 election and now they are standing their ground when it comes to one of his biggest campaign promises -- health care reform that includes a public insurance option:
WASHINGTON -- The AFL-CIO, a key ally of the White House on healthcare reform, won't support legislation unless it includes a public insurance option.
"Let me be as clear as I can be -- it's an absolute must," Rich Trumka, the labor group's secretary-treasurer, and its next president, told reporters at a briefing Tuesday morning. "We won't support the bill if it doesn't have a public option."
That could add to the pressure on the White House and Senate Democrats to pull the plug on bipartisan talks aimed at bringing Republicans along with the plan. The GOP has more or less indicated opposition to just about everything Obama wants to do with healthcare, but especially the public option. Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley, the lead negotiator for his party, wrote a fundraising letter to his constituents this week that asks for their "immediate support in helping me defeat 'Obama-care.'" His office later clarified -- Grassley only meant he was trying to defeat the public option. Read on...
In mid-August a group of 60 progressive Democrats stood their ground, collectively stating that they would not sign a health care reform bill that doesn't include a public option -- the chorus of support for the public option is getting louder and and louder and any Democrat who votes against their party and their constituents on this issue had better plan on a fight come reelection time.
The phrase gets used a lot, but it bears repeating: Elections have consequences, and the American people kicked the GOP to the curb in '06 and '08, choosing Democratic politicians and their platform. It's time for President Obama to follow suit, tell the Republicans to pound sand and give the American people what they want and more importantly, what they need.
Affordable, quality health care coverage for all Americans isn't just a Democratic talking point, it's an essential part of their official party platform.
This is really BIG! Good news for the progressives, and just the nudge Obama will need to get onboard the program!
Candideinnc
good news for sure!
no one will be happy when this is done.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
but we need to have sharp talking points---using the words that will get reactions--not lengthy explanations that cause people to turn off.
A trigger would give Insurances Cos FREE REIN FOR 3 YEARS!
A trigger would NOT CONTROL COSTS!
A trigger would NOT PROVIDE COMPETITION Till the Companies are proved to be abusive in court!
A trigger is a financial windfall to the Insurance Co's, Hmo's and Big Pharma! 46 million new customers and NO negotiations on drugs or procedures!
A trigger is the republican DO NOTHING SOLUTION!
A trigger is a copout by Blue Dogs and repubs to their Corporate donors!
I wonder if Beck is going to go after these folks next? I don't think he wants to mess with them unless he is wearing two pairs of Depends.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
tell the Republicans to pound sand
Yeah baaaby...YEAH!!!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Hurray!! Go AFL-CIO.
far left loon >.<
Unions, working people...labor.
Let the class warfare begin!!!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
The GOPers have essentially stated that everyone should look out for their own individual best interest, and screw the next guy (even if the next guy just went to Iraq or Afghanistan for all of us, a very socialist idea). So, I say, let's just let Democracy roll. Screw what the GOPers want, if we can muster a majority, let's roll over them and get what we want. If they can screw the entire nation with bad policy and ill-advised tax cuts, we can screw them by forcing our agenda forward with no concern for their opinion.
Screw them, they started this fight, it's time we grew some balls and kicked their asses.
It has been suggested as an alternative to a "public option" (i.e., a government owned and operated health insurance system) that health insurance coops be established. Some have rejected the coop as an anemic model that would not work. They rightfully point out that start up coops would not have the buying power or expertise to effectively deal with doctors and hospitals; that they would not have the capital necessary to organize; and that could not effectively compete with large established insurance companies.
Before rejecting the idea out of hand, the idea is worth a second look. The critics have a point, but with government assitance, coops seem to provide the possibility of limiting government liability for healthcare by providing a means for underwriting low cost, quality healthcare.
For those unfamiliar with coops, a coop is a not for profit, consumer owned business that provides goods and services for its members. The cost of membership is usually nominal, and the object of the coop is to provide goods and services at below market rates for its members through group purchasing power and by eliminating profit as a cost of the service or product.
Over the years, coops have effectively provided a variety of goods and services for their members. Coops have been organized for consumers providing groceries (e.g., the successful Berkeley Coop Supermarket) and electrical services (e.g., rural electrical coops). Farmer's coops both buy supplies and market farmer's products. Smaller hardware stores have pooled their buying power to compete with behemoths like Home Depot (e.g. Ace Hardware and Do It Best). Credit Unions are a form of coop providing lower cost loans and banking services for their members.
The critics of health care coops have a point that before coops can reach a critical mass in size (i.e., the ability to achieve sufficient pruchasing volume of health care), they would be in trouble. However, while I am no expert, it would seem that based on other model coops, there is a role the government could play in underwriting the growth and stability of health insurance coops. For example, credit unions are guarantied in a manner similar to that of banks insured by the FDIC. Rural electrical coops are underwritten by the federal and state governments.
Why could government not play a similar role in creating health insurance coops by providing the expertise necessary for community groups (e.g., churches, labor unions, and community groups) to establish health insurance coops? The government could provide the technical expertise necessary to start such groups, and it could provide capital necessary for their start up. The government could provide the assistance necessary to pool smaller local groups so that they could accumulate the buying power required to achieve healthcare economies of scale. Moreover, the government could provide or underwrite catastrophic health insurance to bear and spread the cost of larger losses. Coops could be listed among the providers on the exchange that is contemplated as part of the current healthcare legislation.
There is justifiable concern that the debt of the federal government is becoming too large, but in establishing a framework for health insurance coops, the government could set limits both for the kind of risk that health insurance coops could undertake and it could also underwrite their programs with government guaranties of the health insurance that coops offer. The model of Medicare of Advantage (where the government has paid private health insurance companies to provide at a cost of about $1400 per year more than the cost of Medicare) demonstrates that Republicans have not been adverse to underwriting health insurance when it is for the benefit of profit making health insurance companies. Why not do something similar for non-profit coops?
Republican critics of "big government" have thus far failed to step to the plate to provide any reasonable alternative to the idea of government acting as the health insurer of last resort. They claim that their concern is the growing government debt. Their ideology abhors more "government" participation in providing low cost health insurance, but they seem unable to articulate any true alternative to the current for profit model. If Republicans are sincere, why can't they step forward and agree to another model that provides the necessary services with cost controls, but which is operated privately?
By the same token, Democrats also need to move beyond the ideology of public ownership. While I am not an expert in this area, it would seem that over a period of years with the input of real experts, coops might well provide a reasonable alternative that could create a national consensus on this issue.
We are so close to passing a meaningful bill that will allow millions of American access to healthcare and legislative guarantees that the health insurance that they already have will provide payment when they become ill. Both sides seem to be painting themselves into a corner. Why don't we focus on the solution (providing healthcare), rather than the label?
So much wasted bits on bullshit.
Coops don't work. Proven fact. FIND ONE that operates more cheaply than Medicare.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
co-ops wont work unless they have the size to compete with the for profit company's..... what should be done, is make all health care company's non profit like they used to be.....
single payer is the only answer.
Critical mass = medicare for all
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
o controls cost
o covers everyone
o frees up providers to fight illness rather than claims departments
oh my....healthcare focus should be on the health care!
Oh my....who'da thunk it! LOL!
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Sadly, I don't think the gov't option and private options can co-exist. Govt insurance isn't reimbursing physicians and hospitals enough. But private insurance is driving up the costs to citizens. Why isn't anybody talking about REGULATING the health insurance industry? In Oregon the legistlature just APPROVED a 10-23% increase in premiums! This is outrageous!
Single payer is the only way to go. Write to your representatives. Write to CNN and MSNBC. Tell them to cover the Mad as Hell doctors www.madashelldoctors.com/
instead of that stupid Tea Bag Express.
Coops still leave us at the mercy of the health insurance pimps.
Quit cutting and pasting someone else's work.
Before enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment - chop wood, carry water.
If your comment is directed at me, Bitter Bud, the post is entirely mine. I wish you would address the substance of the question, rather than turning to the ad hominem card.
well, your desire for a national consensus in health reform thru coops gets a boost... the heritage foundation supports coops...
the ever-altruistic heritage foundation sums up their position:
"Under a true consumer-based cooperative, members would have a trusted partner to help them obtain private health insurance coverage for them and their families."
Yeah...the Heritage Foundation.
Has AIPAC weighed in on the issue too?
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
i'm waiting top hear about AEI's support too
How are nonprofit CO-OPs going to compete with the cartel of giant for-profit insurance companies and “win in the marketplace?"
The health insurance industry has consolidated so much in the last 15 years that when we talk about the "insurance industry" we are ONLY talking about 7 companies with subsidiaries. One out of every three Americans is enrolled in some kind of plan offered by just seven of those large companies. Almost all metropolitan areas in the country—and states that are more rural than urban— are now dominated by just two or three insurers. It is impossible for even one of the other large insurers to break into a market dominated by its competitors.
Look at Cigna which is based in Philadelphia. Interesting fact is that Cigna doesn't even control most of the market share in its hometown. Blue Cross and Aetna have control over the market in Philadelphia which Cigna has been unable to break into.
If CIGNA can’t overcome the huge barriers to entering that market, a nonprofit co-op wouldn’t have a chance!
Health Insurers take every opportunity to badmouth co-ops, but don't be fooled by their disingenous bullshit. Co-ops are secretly what the helath insurance industry wants because they know they won't work.
Moonsha, you are correct that the 7 sisters of health ins. dominate the field, and small independent coops will not work unless they are given the support to compete. As I note above, coops can work if the government underwrites their efforts with seed money and financial guarantees, with expertise and organization to allow small coops to compete, with reinsurance for catastrophic claims, and with a system to pool together small coops so that they can have sufficient buying power to compete with the Blue Cross and the other biggies.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Are you saying the co-ops can only be successful if the pool is large enough to have sufficient buying power to compete with the big insurance companies?
Exactly! If the government assisted coops by creating a mechanism that would put smaller coops into a larger pool, they would have sufficient buying power that they could compete. Private insurance companies do the same sort of thing through reinsurance.
Yes. That's going to be soooo cost effective having the networks within networks dealing with one another.
So much more effective than a single agency.
I worked in the insurance industries, bucko. The single most inefficient industry on the globe. Bloated, multiple system heavy, huge bureaucracies. The matrix you are describing will make US Healthcare look like a string of pet shops.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
A good argument for expanding medicare to be that option. Why reinvent the wheel. Why have them switch plans at 65? It would be cheaper and already has the buying pool and would incur no start-up costs.
as a person who worked for almost a year for the dems and then obama, #1 issue for everyone was health care, mostly single payer, but public option is the gateway to that.... if it aint in the bill[s] the base is going to go 'Beck' crazy!!!! i really think pelosi/reed and the pres. are really playing chess with the 24hour echo chamber, and putting out these red meat storys while the back room deals are really going on. they know if public option is out, they will lose control of the congress in 2010, and obama will be one term. rham and the gang, are WAY too smart for that......
let's get ready to rumble, sept. 15 is D-DAY!!!!
Oh, Lou Blobbs will be spitting all over himself tonight!
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
The real people who stand up for the working folks in America...
check out this story about Obama supporting no public option: http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/02/obama-...
And take a peek here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/
where you can lodge your dissatisfaction with that take by Obama. I've already sent him my comments. Don't know if he will read them or not, but I also asked for a response. We'll see... and while I'm waiting for Obama to do the RIGHT FRICKIN' THING!, I'll continue to cheer on the unions!
The 'Public Option' is a sales slogan.
Someone show me what EXACTLY is meant. The description so far is a crippled program whereby the government will offer coverage for a limited number (less than ten million people) and will NOT be competitive with private insurers. The price will be no less than the insurance vampires.
HR 676 is THE MINIMUM we should accept.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
have the balls to put forward a "Medicare for none or Medicare for all" bill? Let's find out where each member of Congress stands. How many Medicare recipients that oppose "government run" health care would support ending their own health care rather than extend Medicare to everyone else?
!!!
If the Democrats cannot figure out a way to write a simple bill for health care reform (instead of a 1000+ page bill that according to John Conyers one needs two attorneys to decipher!!), then I suggest NO ONE support it!!!
If Henry Paulson can write a two page piece of legislation that legislates the wholesale robbery of the U.S. Treasury for corporate America, then I think the Democrats can write a health care reform bill that the average American can understand and agree to as a "common sense" bill that DOES NOT REWARD THE CORPORATIONS WITH MORE PROFITS AND DOES NOT CONTAIN FINES/PENALTIES FOR NOT PLAYING ALONG WITH THE "GAME" AND THAT SIMPLY COVERS EVERYONE!!
And now I've just figured out that the Massachusetts legislature is about to pass a bill that will MANDATE everyone to get the Swine Flu jab and that ALL nurses...even those licensed in other states (that would be me) would be FORCED TO GIVE THE SWINE FLU VACCINATIONS!!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag...
And here is the reason I will NEVER willingly receive or give the Swine Flu vaccinations:
http://www.masslpa.org/sites/default/files/Ne...
Vancouver here I come!!!!!
And to think that it is predominately DEMOCRATS who are pushing all this garbage!!!
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Placed here seriously! To think I got poked at for a Raw Story Link which mentioned Politico as one source.
I think I lose brain cells just thinking about WND.
I'm sorry to prove the GOPers right, but the goal here, when facing massive ($$$) opposition from corporations, is to get the 'foot in the door' so to speak. Once there is a public option, eventually public pressure from those in that program will force measures to lower costs.
I wish we could just legislate the best program from day one, but it's pretty clear that the GOPers, the Blue Dogs and the Corps aren't going to let that happen, even if they have to spend every dime they have and scare every dumbass in the country to do it.
Once people see that the public option didn't "destroy" healthcare, a more reasoned debate can take place on reducing costs and covering more people for less money.
JMO
House energy panel asks 52 companies to cough up info on everyone who makes more than $500,000 a year. Insurers cry foul. Does health CEO pay matter?
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Too bad the AFL-CIO doesn't own any congressmen.
They can't even rent one anymore.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
. . .
at this point no support for any Health Care Reform. So if people don't support a bill unless it has a Public Option, Wall Street is happier then clams.
there's only one clam I've ever seen that seemed to be smiling.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
they been bailed out and are pulling the same sh*t all over now.
reform Wall Street and Big Finance?
And wouldn't be influenced by big Corps and Lobbyists?
Remember that?
until then forget it. I'm not optimistic on that happening anytime soon.
We need enforcement of the laws and regulations that we have against corporate corruption.
Without public option it's just a massive handout to the insurance companies, by requiring all to sign up for coverage, with no price controls, and no way of telling "how much the market can bear."
Why just the other day in the market I saw a bear buying toilet paper.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
On the anticipated health care bill, Obama should veto it if (a) it does not have a robust public option or (b) mandates insurance in any way.
If something passes this time around, it is a forgone conclusion it will be a lemon.
Want a solution to health care? Mandate that all congressmen be covered by whatever bill they create. End of discussion. You can then me assured that it will be good and fair.
If the co-ops really could offer low prices and could compete with the health insurance mega corporations, you can bet that the insurance companies would be pouring millions and millions of dollars in lobbying money to defeat them too.
YEAH for the AFL-CIO!!!
*
it is so annoying that the Republican "Health Care Bill of Rights for Seniors" ad runs at the bottom of the page.
Yah, I'll navigate right over there to "show my support".
Asshats.
1. The people attending these Town Hall meetings and vocally ranting against the health care bill currently before the Congress seems to be in the Social Security, Medicare age group, and when asked, they are very happy with what they receive from this government managed and operated system. As a tax payer, the last time I checked, the entire working American population was still paying their bills and providing them the freedom to speak their minds no matter how self-centered their arguments may be.
2. The fact that the US government is managing and running this national program does not mean that any of our freedoms have been taken away from us. The last time I checked, the government has never denied or deprived me from exercising any of my freedoms.
3. The attendees at these town hall meetings are telling me that as long as they get their piece of the pie--its Okay--they are happy just don't provide vital life saving health care to other Americans who need it, because it may decrease what they are currently receiving from a government controlled program.
4. As a christian, I know the Bible writes that Jesus believes that whatsoever you do to the least of his children that you do onto him (Jesus). Therefore, why is the religious community not standing up and fighting for this cause in Jesus' name?
Comments are closed on this entry