NationStates Jolt Archive


Big Labor's Big Secret: blocking national health care.

Eutrusca
28-12-2005, 16:49
COMMENTARY: So why does America lack a national healthcare system? At least one of the reasons seems to be the resistance to it on the part of labor unions. Yes, labor unions! Your thoughts on this?


Big Labor's Big Secret (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/opinion/28fitch.html?th&emc=th)


By ROBERT FITCH
Published: December 28, 2005
AS most Americans are aware, our auto industry is in a crisis.

Workers' wages are falling, and hundreds of thousands of jobs are being sent offshore. America's largest parts supplier, Delphi, filed for bankruptcy protection, and General Motors, Delphi's main customer, may too, if a threatened United Auto Workers strike occurs next month. Meanwhile, Ford and its main parts supplier, Visteon, seem to be skidding down the same road.

How did we get here? There are many causes: poor car designs, high pension costs, increased foreign competition. But much of it comes down to the overwhelming health insurance costs borne by the auto makers. This is why the union's president, Ron Gettelfinger, has urged Congress to enact sweeping health insurance reforms.

If the government paid everyone's health insurance bills, as those in Canada and most of Europe do, Detroit's Big Three could save at least $1,300 per vehicle. Profitability would return. With deeper pockets, the auto makers could afford to pay their suppliers. Communities would be spared layoffs.

Of course, there are a lot of other compelling reasons to support a single-payer plan besides helping the auto industry. Although it is by far the most costly in the world, our health care system still leaves 43 million people uncovered. The latest World Health Organization rankings listed America's system 33rd, below Costa Rica and only two notches above Cuba.

Most advocates of universal health care focus on the opposition of Republicans and insurance companies. But perhaps the most important factor keeping an overhaul off the national agenda is one that few Democrats acknowledge: most of Mr. Gettelfinger's fellow labor leaders don't support a single-payer system either.

The reason comes down to simple self-interest. The United Auto Workers is one of the few private-sector unions that doesn't run its own health plan. Rather, most have created huge companies to administer their workers' plans, giving them a large and often corrupt stake in the current system.

Opposition to a national health care plan is as much a part of the American trade union tradition as the picket line. It goes back to Samuel Gompers, the founder of the American Federation of Labor, who railed at early Congressional efforts to pass a law mandating employer coverage as Britain had done, which he said had "taken much of the virility out of the British unions."

This line of thinking led to the notorious decision in 1991 by the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s health care committee to reject a proposal that the federation support a single-payer plan. The majority said a national system simply had no chance in Congress, but others saw a conflict of interest: government-supplied health care would put union-run plans out of business.

The deciding vote was cast by Robert Georgine, chief executive of Ullico, a huge insurance provider created by the unions. A decade later, Mr. Georgine, who was paid $3 million a year by Ullico, and several other company directors - all heads of major A.F.L.-C.I.O. unions - were investigated by a federal panel for insider trading involving Ullico stock. Mr. Georgine and several directors resigned, and this year he agreed to pay back $13 million to the company.

Let's face it: union-administered health insurance funds provide irresistible opportunities for labor leaders. First there's patronage: hiring friends and relatives. Then there are the conventions, junkets and retreats provided by the plans and the providers. And for those willing to cross the line of legality, there's the chance to take kickbacks from health care vendors.

Many officials are charged, but few go to prison, even when money allegedly winds up in Mafia hands. Last month federal prosecutors lost a criminal case in Brooklyn in which they charged that the Genovese crime family leaned on two International Longshoremen's Association local presidents to, among other things, choose a favored health vendor.

Evidently, the jury was convinced by the defense's argument that the union leaders were under duress. Even Lawrence Ricci, the principal accused Genovese figure, was acquitted, although he disappeared during the trial and never testified. (His body was found last month in the trunk of a car in Union, N.J.)

Despite shrinking membership, organized labor still has enough money and muscle to get behind a campaign for national health insurance. Last month, public-sector unions in California came up with tens of millions of dollars in a successful campaign to defeat a ballot measure that challenged their right to use union dues for political purposes.

The problem is getting American unions to fight for common concerns as opposed to narrow institutional interests. It may just be that a broad-scale union overhaul will have to precede one in American health care.

Robert Fitch is the author of the forthcoming "Solidarity for Sale: How Corruption Destroyed the Labor Movement and Undermined America's Promise."
The Nazz
28-12-2005, 16:58
You may be surprised at this Eutrusca, but I agree with you on this--unions are part of the problem on getting a national health care system. I think they're a relatively small part of the problem, compared to the opposition from Big Pharma and the health insurance industry as a whole, but they certainly aren't helping the situation any. I don't know that if they switched sides if they'd be effective enough to turn the tide--it couldn't hurt, obviously--but in terms of the overall debate, I think their opposition would be easily overcome if you can get the major obstacles out of the way.
Ashmoria
28-12-2005, 17:06
i think its a useless anti-union rant. their opposition to national helathcare is no more responsible for it not passing than mine is.
Eutrusca
28-12-2005, 17:08
You may be surprised at this Eutrusca, but I agree with you on this--unions are part of the problem on getting a national health care system. I think they're a relatively small part of the problem, compared to the opposition from Big Pharma and the health insurance industry as a whole, but they certainly aren't helping the situation any. I don't know that if they switched sides if they'd be effective enough to turn the tide--it couldn't hurt, obviously--but in terms of the overall debate, I think their opposition would be easily overcome if you can get the major obstacles out of the way.
I just think it's a national disgrace that so many people, particularly children, don't have access to health-care plans, regardless of who is fighting it.
Borgoa
28-12-2005, 17:12
I just think it's a national disgrace that so many people, particularly children, don't have access to health-care plans, regardless of who is fighting it.
That is a refreshing opinion. I read somewhere sometime ago that (I believe it was during the 1980s or poss early 1990s?), a health insurance company in California (USA) was allowed by a court to cancel the health insurance policies of some of its sickest 'customers' in order to avert the company going bankrupt.

Just one example of why the health system in the USA is insane. As the article you posted also states, the US spends more on healthcare than any other country... yet, as you also say, millions do not have access to any health provision. It's quite disgusting that such a disgrace should occur in the 21st century in the world's richest country.
The Nazz
28-12-2005, 17:13
I just think it's a national disgrace that so many people, particularly children, don't have access to health-care plans, regardless of who is fighting it.
I couldn't agree more. That's a big part of the reason I was a Dean supporter in 2004--he was the only one really talking about this in specifics and who had run a system that had worked.
Eutrusca
28-12-2005, 17:14
I couldn't agree more. That's a big part of the reason I was a Dean supporter in 2004--he was the only one really talking about this in specifics and who had run a system that had worked.
No, I will not support Dean, if that's what you were asking. Heh! :p
Wallonochia
28-12-2005, 17:15
I'd prefer state-administrated universal health care systems as opposed to a national health care system. Uncle Sam seems to have a reverse Midas touch where everything he touches turns to shit.
The Nazz
28-12-2005, 17:16
That is a refreshing opinion. I read somewhere sometime ago that (I believe it was during the 1980s or poss early 1990s?), a health insurance company in California (USA) was allowed by a court to cancel the health insurance policies of some of its sickest 'customers' in order to avert the company going bankrupt.

Just one example of why the health system in the USA is insane. As the article you posted also states, the US spends more on healthcare than any other country... yet, as you also say, millions do not have access to any health provision. It's quite disgusting that such a disgrace should occur in the 21st century in the world's richest country.
We not only spend more per capita than any other country, we get less for our money in terms of basic care. We've got high technology out the wazzoo for people who can afford it, but an increasingly large number of people have to wait to get sick enough to warrant an emergency room visit to get any sort of care, and then when they can't pay for it, the hospital eats the cost by charging more to insurance companies for other services. Insurance companies pass the cost along to the people who can either afford to pay it or who can't afford to take the chance and go without.
The Nazz
28-12-2005, 17:18
No, I will not support Dean, if that's what you were asking. Heh! :p
Nah, I don't expect you would. You're too deeply sold on the idea that he's a nut, even though he's politically moderate.
Cannot think of a name
28-12-2005, 17:19
We not only spend more per capita than any other country, we get less for our money in terms of basic care. We've got high technology out the wazzoo for people who can afford it, but an increasingly large number of people have to wait to get sick enough to warrant an emergency room visit to get any sort of care, and then when they can't pay for it, the hospital eats the cost by charging more to insurance companies for other services. Insurance companies pass the cost along to the people who can either afford to pay it or who can't afford to take the chance and go without.
But people are more willing to pay for all that for some reason rather than "Paying for someone else's health care..." Savages.

Campaigned for this a while ago, heard that alot even after it was clear it would cost them less overall. Fuckin' savages.
Ashmoria
28-12-2005, 17:20
I just think it's a national disgrace that so many people, particularly children, don't have access to health-care plans, regardless of who is fighting it.
your state doesnt have state funded children's health care insurance for working families who dont get insurance through work?

geez even dirt-poor newmexico has that.
Nureonia
28-12-2005, 17:20
You may be surprised at this Eutrusca, but I agree with you on this--...

THIS JUST IN

HELL HAS FROZEN OVER

And in other news, pigs have been spotted moving aerially instead of on the ground!
Eutrusca
28-12-2005, 17:23
your state doesnt have state funded children's health care insurance for working families who dont get insurance through work?

geez even dirt-poor newmexico has that.
You know ... I have no idea what's available in North Carolina for those without an employer-supported health care plan. I'll have to look that up.
Eutrusca
28-12-2005, 17:24
THIS JUST IN

HELL HAS FROZEN OVER

And in other news, pigs have been spotted moving aerially instead of on the ground!
ROFLMAO! Yes, it scares me more than just a little bit! ;)
Liverbreath
28-12-2005, 17:24
I've seen a lot of one issue people in my lifetime but this guy takes the cake. Can't seem to find anything other than Union bashing articles by him for many many years.
Kecibukia
28-12-2005, 17:27
You know ... I have no idea what's available in North Carolina for those without an employer-supported health care plan. I'll have to look that up.

Illinois offers it even to low wage earners whose employers offer it. My companies plan sucks so I didn't opt in. My family is still covered by the state.
Ashmoria
28-12-2005, 17:29
You know ... I have no idea what's available in North Carolina for those without an employer-supported health care plan. I'll have to look that up.
there is at least medicaid for the truly poor.

before we can even consider going for tax funded healthcare we have to change our attitude toward treatment. we'll go bankrupt if we go into it with the same "i get whatever level of care i ask for no matter what the cost" system we have now.

im real willing to wait 5 or 10 years to see what canada and europe do about the skyrocketing cost of public health. whatever they have to do to manage cost is what we will have to do. i want to know what that is before i start paying for it.
Vetalia
28-12-2005, 17:57
For some reason, a national insurance plan seems vastly superior to the current systems of Medicare and Medicaid, which are literally breaking the bank as their costs are dumped on to states to pay. Don't forget the billions wasted as a result of medicare fraud.

I'm assuming this system would be funded by taxes; however, it might be better if people paid according to how often they use it and how much money they actually make as a means of preventing insurance fraud and abuse.
Gargantua City State
28-12-2005, 18:25
there is at least medicaid for the truly poor.

before we can even consider going for tax funded healthcare we have to change our attitude toward treatment. we'll go bankrupt if we go into it with the same "i get whatever level of care i ask for no matter what the cost" system we have now.

im real willing to wait 5 or 10 years to see what canada and europe do about the skyrocketing cost of public health. whatever they have to do to manage cost is what we will have to do. i want to know what that is before i start paying for it.

The Feds pump a lot of money into the Canadian healthcare system, that's no secret.
But then, we've run a surpluses for ages, and have the money to put into what Canadians feel is most important.
I have mixed feelings about the new move towards partial-privatization. We really don't want private health to take over, cuz we see how that system doesn't work in the US. But other countries have partial-private care, which seems to work. It might help to offset some of the cost... I think I could live with that, so long as we don't go down the slippery slope to losing public healthcare.
The Nazz
28-12-2005, 18:39
ROFLMAO! Yes, it scares me more than just a little bit! ;)
Well, you know, you get it correct once in a blue moon. What am I supposed to do? :D
Equus
28-12-2005, 18:44
So, you're saying that it was the Labour Unions that flipped out when Hillary Clinton tried to reform American healthcare as First Lady?

Funny, that's not what I recall.
The Nazz
28-12-2005, 18:46
For some reason, a national insurance plan seems vastly superior to the current systems of Medicare and Medicaid, which are literally breaking the bank as their costs are dumped on to states to pay. Don't forget the billions wasted as a result of medicare fraud.

I'm assuming this system would be funded by taxes; however, it might be better if people paid according to how often they use it and how much money they actually make as a means of preventing insurance fraud and abuse.
Paying for it according to how much you use it is the problem with the current system. The people who need the coverage most can't get it, because they need it the most--the insurance companies, because they are in the business to make money, try to weed out as many risky people as possible and keep only the healthiest. It keeps their expenses down and profits up.

No one wants to cover the risky folks, but they account for the lion's share of health care costs in the country, so those of us with insurance wind up paying for it through higher premiums. But we're paying more than we have to because there's a cost that insurance companies have that a government bureaucracy doesn't have--profit margin. I figure, if we're paying for it anyway, we might as well have a system that covers more people and helps keep them healthier while doing it. Early detection can save lots of money in long term care costs.

And you wouldn't have to get rid of private coverage completely--that can be a premium for those with the means to purchase it--but there needs to be some sort of baseline coverage that will take care of everyone, regardless of their financial situation.
Sel Appa
28-12-2005, 18:52
I'm starting to wonder if I should continue supporting unions...that's it! they have one straw left!
Jello Biafra 2
28-12-2005, 18:53
Paying for it according to how much you use it is the problem with the current system. You're right that that's much of the problem with the current system, but I think they could possibly implement something like this. For instance, my labor union has an emergency room fee - but only if they don't keep you. If they need to give you something or do something, then the fee is waived. This same idea could be used to help weed out the hypochondriacs leeching off the system while still getting care to the people who need it.
It's possible that there might be people who would not go to the emergency room if they're not sure if something's wrong, so maybe this fee could be waived once or twice a year just in case of something like that, if there's nothing wrong.
Nyuujaku
28-12-2005, 19:00
Meh. Corrupt mega-unions were created by corrupt mega-corporations refusing to let any other organized labor survive. Stop crushing small independent unions, and AFL-CIO goes out the window.
Soheran
28-12-2005, 19:20
Nah, I don't expect you would. You're too deeply sold on the idea that he's a nut, even though he's politically moderate.

Indeed. It was quite laughable to watch the media tear apart an aggression and occupation apologist as some sort of anti-war hero.

What Dean did is that he attacked the Iraq War about a half-year before it was politically advantageous, and the establishment media and Democratic Party leadership skinned him for it.

Pretty much the only decent candidates for the Democratic primaries were Sharpton and Kucinich, both of whom, for what it's worth, advocated serious universal health care plans.

The notion that "Big Labor" has the capability to block universal health care is laughable. Did they block NAFTA? CAFTA? Have they secured minimum wage increases? Have they gotten rid of Taft-Hartley?