Single Payer is good for union workers. Obviously.

[DanTex]

Yet another paper-thin attack against M4A. And I get why union leaders do things like this. They have to play politics too, need to stay right with certain politicians, I don't begrudge them doing that.

But it's also good to keep the facts straight. Single payer would greatly benefit union workers. Yes, it's true that unions have made concessions in pay in order to get good healthcare. This is not an argument against M4A, but in favor of it. With M4A, everyone, including union workers, will have good healthcare, so they won't have to give up pay concessions in order to get that. And since corporations won't have to pay for workers' healthcare, it will in fact be easier to negotiate higher pay. It's extremely shortsighted and dishonest to pretend that the current agreements unions have negotiated are eternal.

And that's not all. When employers control workers' healthcare, it gives them more power over workers' lives. And this isn't theoretical. During the recent UAW strike, GM cut off the healthcare of striking workers. With single payer, this couldn't happen, taking away this leverage that corporations can use against striking workers.

So, fine, the leadership of the culinary union in Nevada for political reasons needs to circulate fliers attacking M4A. Just lets also not forget the facts.

[jimfields33]

1. This was the same excuse used for getting rid of pensions

Well since corporations don’t have to pay retirement benefits, they will give higher wages. Didn’t happen. Corporations basically kept the money overall. Of course we should have health care for all, but the pay by corporations going up is a fantasy for most.

[squirecam]

8. Thank you for being honest

It’s BS. Those companies that got the tax break didn’t raise wages. Or invest. They pocketed the $. Or bought stock.

Unions have bargained for their health care. They have no incentive to trade certainty for uncertainty.

[jimfields33]

13. So frustrating!

[The Revolution]

2. "since corporations won't have to pay for workers' healthcare"

"since corporations won't have to pay for workers' healthcare"

Woah woah woah... I think any sort of M4A plan is going to require that corporations continue to pay their portion of healthcare as a tax to fund M4A. Otherwise I don't know where the money is coming from.

And even if that weren't the case, I agree that any savings would not go to the workers.

However, yes, M4A would still benefit union workers, or at least probably not make things worse. But the perception that union workers are getting screwed could make it harder to pass M4A legislation.

[DanTex]

4. You're right about the perception of union workers.

That's why it's important to correct that false perception. Which isn't hard to correct. I mean, regardless of how much of the savings that union workers will be able to realize in pay increases, it still remains the case that corporations wouldn't have the threat of cutting off healthcare to striking workers.

It's hard to argue that taking healthcare out of the equation doesn't increase workers' bargaining power over wages.

[mr_lebowski]

28. This. There's no way MFA is even possibly a better deal for the general public

If employers are suddenly paying NOTHING for their employees health insurance. That shouldn't even be on the table/up for discussion. Can't just let them entirely off the hook and tax the shit out of the entire working population instead.

However ... employers could very well end being able to pay LESS than they do now overall and everyone could end up with better coverage.

[MoonlitKnight]

59. Employers don't pay as much as most people think

Some can be as little as $500 per year per employee.

For those with the really nice plans, they can achieve the same with MFA and employer provided supplemental plans to cover most or all deductibles, provide on site clinics, beef up wellness programs, etc.

[denem]

3. What the UAW and others care about is not health care,

what they care about is they have health care better than other people. They fought for it. They don't want the same as everyone else. It's a Jones' thing.

[xmas74]

42. No, they care about having health care.

There is no guarantee M4A will pass but we're expected to give up what we've earned? Can you absolutely guarantee it will pass? You can't.

Quit trying to make unions look bad.

[Celerity]

5. explain to me how we get it passed, even if we have a 53-47 Senate majority and hold the House,

both of which are unlikely with a Sanders-topped ticket. We barely got the ACA passed with 59 or 60 seats, and it is possibly going bye-bye this summer if the SCOTUS strikes it down. Even the Public Option is going to be a herculean task, and if we do not have the Senate, there is nothing from Bernie's wish-list that will ever see the light of day. Nothing from most of our candidates agendas, unfortunately.

[DanTex]

6. Whether it passes or not is a different question as to whether it's a good thing.

The flyers passed out by the culinary union are arguing that M4A is not a good thing, and that's what I'm responding to. How it gets through congress is a legitimate question, but it's a different question, and doesn't change the fact that M4A would, in fact, help union workers.

As to the separate question of whether it passes, you're right, even with 53-47, it probably wont. Same goes for the public option, or most other policies candidates are campaigning on.

One thing to keep in mind though. If Bernie does win the presidency, that will be a political shockwave that will shake up a lot of assumptions.

[comradebillyboy]

21. If it can't pass it's pretty worthless.

What rational person is going to give up a hard earned benefit for empty promises?

[MoonlitKnight]

60. Who would be giving up anything if it doesn't pass???

Sorry, but I don’t understand your argument.

[BlueTsunami2018]

7. As a union member my concern is quality of care.

I have to say that I really don’t have any idea how Medicare works. Is it whatever the problem is, it’s taken care of with little to no out of pocket expenses? Because that’s what I have now. Anything, no matter what it is, gets taken care of under my union negotiated plan. No deductible, five dollar prescriptions, five dollar doctor visits including specialists, dental, vision etc. Literally, the best there is. I won’t go into the specifics of how important this has been for my family but I will say it has been life saving. Without the level of care it provides, things would be radically different in my life.

Does Medicare just cover everything like that? If it does what my private insurance does and includes everyone at half the cost of what I’m paying, I don’t see how anyone could be against it.

The problem is, I don’t see how it’s possible to do that.

Can anyone shed some light on how this would all work? Because our main concern as union members is having our great coverage taken away and replaced with something not so great.

[DanTex]

9. M4A does cover everything like that, yes.

The M4A plans by Bernie and Warren don't just extend current medicare, they also improve the coverage above what medicare currently provides, including no copays or deductibles.

How does it work? It works because it reduces administrative costs and profits, and also allows the single payer to bargain more effectively with providers and drug companies to get lower costs. The real proof that it works is the fact that it works in many countries all over the world. If you look at Canada, UK, Australia, etc., they have lower healthcare costs, universal coverage, and generally better healthcare outcomes.

M4A is not going to immediately cut US healthcare costs in half to match the rest of the world, of course. Some cost savings would be immediate, mostly the administrative costs of having hundreds of private plans to wrangle with. But other cost savings will take some time to wring out of the system.

And, in the end, you can be confident that Bernie and Warren, of all people, are not going to sign a bill that reduces the quality of coverage that union members get. Also, M4A is probably not going to pass as-is, right away, if anything gets through congress it will probably be some kind of hybrid like in Switzerland or Netherlands.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. Existing Medicare is not that good.

There are copays. Hospitalization is covered (if you are admitted - sometimes they just treat you without admitting you and then it's not). Doctor's visits are only partially covered. You have to get a supplemental policy if you want full coverage. You have a much better deal than existing Medicare. I don't know how M4A is supposed to cover everything without breaking the bank.

[xmas74]

43. I'm union. I have a coworker who recently qualified for

Medicare. Guess what? She's sticking with our insurance until she retires.

[TexasTowelie]

10. The Nevada Culinary Union disagrees with your opinion. nt

[DanTex]

12. Like I said in the OP, I get that union leaders need to play politics and stay

on the right side of certain politicians. Which is why I don't think it's "rigged" or "corrupt" or anything like that, it's just union leaders doing what they need to do to maintain their political influence in order to serve their members.

That doesn't change the fact that M4A would actually benefit workers. We saw that clearly in the UAW strike where GE used health benefits as leverage against striking workers.

[TexasTowelie]

15. When I was employed I had great health insurance coverage paid entirely by my employer

with minimal co-pays and deductibles. Under Bernie's plan I would be subjected to a tax that would reduce my take home pay significantly. That makes it a no-go for me and a lot of other people that are in similar situations. I also don't think that Bernie has the votes in Congress to get such a proposal passed so why I would I gamble on a plan that I believe has a zero percent chance of passing?

[DanTex]

16. Under M4A, your employer would pay a tax instead of the premium.

Employer-based coverage isn't free, it costs the employer money. Either way, healthcare gets paid for. Under any M4A plan, your take-home pay would only be reduced if you are in a very high income bracket.

But if, as you say, you think the plan has a zero chance of passing, then you don't need to worry about it, right?

[TexasTowelie]

19. You're right.

I don't have to worry about it because it isn't going to happen.

BTW, you aren't stating anything that most voters don't already know. It will be opposed by all Republicans and at least some Democrats because of the potential economic upheaval. The bill will be DOA and DNR.

[aka-chmeee]

49. damned right, it isn't free

I was in rubber industry union (now USW) our coverage was good. It didn't come free; improvements and extensions to our coverage always came with a cost. Often pay raises were reduced or eliminated to get the coverage in a contract. We paid for our coverage every goddamned hour. Nothing ever came from the employer free. You think the employer will remember what was taken in exchange and return it? I'm betting NO.

[tonedevil]

24. You think a system...

where the quality of your health care is dictated by who you are employed by is a good or sustainable one? I can think of lots of reasons it is terrible. If a proposed plan doesn't get through Congress why would that affect your private plan? I get it you've got yours every one else can take the hindmost.

[TexasTowelie]

27. It also depend on where you "were" employed.

The public employee association I was a member of negotiated full health insurance benefits at retirement and those who were able to retired early have absolutely nothing to gain and plenty of income to lose with the M4A proposal.

I can also think of many terrible reasons to adopt a M4A plan, but I'm not going to elaborate on them.

If a proposed plan can't get through Congress, then why would I have a reason to vote for Bernie to begin with? His ability to get any legislation passed through Congress over the past three decades has been abysmal. I recognize empty promises when I see them.

[tonedevil]

31. As long as...

you're taken care of fuck the rest.

[TexasTowelie]

33. There are thousands of other people that are taken care of as well.

Are you going to dismiss them and their votes too?

[tonedevil]

35. Yes...

while there are millions that are not. I have reasonably good health insurance, California state employee, I would be happy to exchange that for everyone being taken care of if such an exchange were available to me.

[TexasTowelie]

37. I assure you that there are plenty of others that do not feel the same as you. nt

[tonedevil]

38. I am quite aware of that. /nt

[MoonlitKnight]

61. The "I got mine, F everyone else" mindset is strong.

And understandable. However the real problem is that it closes the mind to the facts. Single payer is the most cost effective and provides the best patient outcomes, by a substantial margin. Decades of research have proven this time and again.

It’s like arguing about climate change. Some people focus on the cow farts until it’s too late. And it’s getting too late for climate change and fixing healthcare. The Republican strategy of tax cutting into massive debt will make confronting our healthcare crisis impossible it delayed further.

This will include your fancy private plan. First the retired will get thrown off the plan. As Medicaid and Medicare cuts deepen, hospitals and medical providers have to raise revenue elsewhere. So they charge insurance companies more and more. Those insurance companies aren’t going to cut profits. So your premiums go up. Or you strike to keep that from happening. So they cut insurance until you agree to go back to work and pay more. And the cycle continues. All the while, millions of people die needlessly.

And we pay trillions to treat what could have been prevented. And that money has to come from somewhere. Time for another raise in premiums. And that $5 copay is now $25.

And forget about what happens if you lose your job, the company goes bankrupt or you want to work elsewhere.

We tried the Republican plan. They are fighting it in court. And while it made some things better it just isn’t the best solution in the long term. We will never make progress if we don’t try.

[Laelth]

65. Well said. n/t

-Laelth

[gollygee]

11. I think it would benefit everyone

but we have to actually sell it and not belittle union members and their concerns. They've fought hard for their benefits and they are going to be skeptical. That's understandable.

[DanTex]

14. I agree with that entirely.

I think that getting unions on board will be much easier when it's outside of a primary election. Right now, there's a lot of politics in play, and M4A is sort of a political football to signal support for some politicians or others. Union members are right to prize their health benefits, and the case needs to be made that M4A will maintain the same or better level of benefits.

You'd be hard-pressed to find more pro-union and pro-worker members of congress than Bernie or Warren. And I think that looking at what GE did with healthcare during the UAW strike goes a long way towards showing why it's helpful to unions not have to rely on employers for health benefits.

[MineralMan]

17. Are you a union worker?

I think I'm going to listen to the union workers and their leadership on this one.

Right now, nothing is really known about what single payer will look like and who will be paying for. Health care issues are high on the list of negotiating priorities for unions. Many workers are well-covered by the insurance that has been negotiated by their unions. So, they're skeptical about something that is not yet defined in terms of how they will be covered and how it will be paid for.

[DanTex]

18. You're not listening to union workers, you're listening to the leadership. Of one union.

Like I said in the OP, I get that union leaders need to play politics and stay in favor with certain politicians. If you listened to the striking UAW workers that had their healthcare benefits cut off by GE, you'd probably come away with a different view.

And if you look at the actual facts of what M4A does, and also of the strength of labor unions and workers in general in countries that have single payer versus the US, it's quite clear that not having to rely on employers for health insurance is a positive for workers.

[MineralMan]

20. Union leadership is elected by union members.

I rest my case.

So, your answer is that you are NOT a union member.

[DanTex]

22. And part of their job is to play politics, which is what they are doing here.

[TexasTowelie]

23. I wasn't a union member,

but I agree with the person you responded to. I was a member and officer of a non-union public employees association while I was a state employee and while they are officially staying quiet the membership isn't going to go along with the M4A nonsense when the association has fought and protected health insurance benefits for decades because the majority of the members would see a decrease in pay, particularly those who have retired but haven't reached the age to get Medicare.

[Garrett78]

53. Yeah, this article discusses that very point:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/01/why-would-a-union-oppose-medicare-for-all

[tonedevil]

25. You find merit...

in a system where you have to be employed by the right company in the right job in order to have health care? I don't.

[MineralMan]

26. No. I don't. What I said is that those union workers, like most people,

are thinking about their own situation first. There is no real information about how a single-payer system will affect their healthcare coverage and costs. No such system has been laid out in detail in those regards.

So, those union workers, and their elected leaders, are skeptical about the alternative and are taking a personally conservative position.

I'm looking at what motivates them, not praising them.

[tonedevil]

30. I've got mine, Jack. /nt

[MineralMan]

34. Uh, I'm not a union member. The last time I worked at a W-2 job was

in 1974. Since then, I've been totally self-employed. I'm an observer, not a participant in such things. I have paid 100% of my health insurance and healthcare costs by myself since 1974. Now, I have a Medicare Advantage plan that I like very much. So, I'm not really involved with or affected by this.

I am trying to explain the answer to a question that was raised, from an external perspective.

I don't have mine, Jack. I paid for mine, all by myself.

[tonedevil]

36. It remains...

a defense of a system where some people got into a shelter and are willing to lock others out to protect their perceived interest.

[MineralMan]

45. OK, but I'm talking about support for a candidate.

This is the Democratic Primaries forum, so we're talking about candidates and their supporters. I'm explaining why many union members are skeptical about Medicare for All. There hasn't been enough information about how it will affect them, so they aren't sure they want that.

[tonedevil]

46. I'm sure you are correct...

that sort of crabs in a bucket thinking is probably why we in the U.S. pay twice the price for half as much health care wise and still manage to leave millions of people in the lurch.

[xmas74]

44. I'm a proud union member.

Unless they can guarantee that M4A will pass, will lower my premiums/deductible/copay and there will be no gaps in coverage I'll be against it.

[Peacetrain]

29. Union membership both sides of this family..and keep your fingers off my health care

We worked hard for this, made concessions for this, and now you want to replace it with MFA and I have to start paying again. Please peddle that somewhere else

[Gothmog]

39. The Nevada Culinary Union disagrees

Link to tweet

[customerserviceguy]

40. Union workers

usually have better healthcare coverage than other people. They know that and they like it that way. So do the employers who bargain with the unions for those Cadillac plans, it gets people back on the job faster.

[LanternWaste]

41. You conflate facts and conclusion. They are two separate concepts.

Facts are observed and interpreted to reach a conclusion, much as numbers are used to reach a sum. That conclusion and that sum are not inherently accurate simply because the underlying numbers are.

I get that you need to reach a conclusion not in evidence, but don't pretend doing so reflects the union. That inference reflects only your interpretation.





(Critical and rational thought often appears to be much less critical and rational these days)

[Happy Hoosier]

47. Weak Argument

1) There is no guarantee that M4A will be anywhere near as good as some Union Health care deals (and in fact, it's pretty unlikely, IMO).

2) Union workers will not recover lost wage increases.

3) Bernie has no plan to recover compensation based on employer contributions, even though those are PART of your compensation. For example, my employer pays over 75% of the premium. That's over $13,000/yr. Where does that money go? Taxes? Profit? Bernie's plan is rather vague on this point.

That's why I want a public option, TBH. I want to see this plan working before I shit can what I have. What I have is not great, but I don;t want something even worse.

[Recursion]

48. People with really good healthcare will have worse healthcare under MFA. There's no way around that.

MFA doesn't magically create doctors and nurses. It means the people who aren't getting care right now are going to be able to go to the doctors and nurses that people with good insurance see without a wait.

I still think it's a good idea to find a way for people who aren't getting care right now to have it, I just don't see the point of lying about what it will mean for people who currently have good private insurance: they will get a lower standard of care because the resources here are finite. There are hundreds and hundreds of counties with not enough doctors and any system we make is going to have to move some doctors to those counties. There's literally not a way around this. Practices will consolidate and hospitals will have to close and the fact that a doctor is seeing someone who used to be uninsured means that's 15 minutes she can't be seeing anybody else, and again the number of doctors is finite.

The fact that MFA advocates can't even be honest about this extremely simple fact that every country that has achieved universal healthcare acknowledges makes me think people aren't actually serious about this. People act dumbfounded that the majority of the population who have private insurance want to keep it, but they do, by a very large margin. It's political suicide to just put your hands over your ears and pretend that isn't the case.

[TexasTowelie]

50. If I recall correctly,

the M4A proposals control costs by arbitrarily cutting the payment rates on an order of 40%. How are we going to get more people to study healthcare related fields knowing that their income potential has been limited so drastically? Healthcare will inevitably be rationed.

[DanTex]

54. Please. That's only true if the transition is instantaneous.

Nobody is proposing to massively switch systems in a day. The "finite resources" argument would just as easily work against any kind of universal healthcare program, or in fact anything that expands healthcare access at all.

The question is what system of healthcare is best. Of course, there is going to be a transition to whatever it is. Arguing that MFA is bad for labor is flat-out disingenuous, it's obviously better for workers and unions not to have to rely on employers for healthcare. And using this MFA argument to try and portray the most consistently pro-labor candidate in the field as some kind of enemy of labor is also disingenuous.

[Recursion]

56. Keep in mind several unions opposed a $15 minimum wage, too

And several others sought carve-outs

[Recursion]

58. And the transition period doesn't change anything

My GP is in one of those joint practices of 6 doctors in Arlington County, VA. But there are a whole lot of doctors in Arlington County, VA: nearly 60 per 100K people. Meanwhile in the county I grew up in, Clay County, MS, there's 20 per 100K people (and it's much worse in even more rural parts of the state).

One way or another, we need to move some amount of doctors from places like Arlington County to places like Clay County. This is the difficult thing any universal healthcare program has to do. The hard part isn't the money -- we can find that, one way or the other -- it's the fact that we don't have enough GPs per capita (and too many specialists) and that they aren't located in the places where people need care.

As a political complication, the people with good insurance in places like Arlington County don't want their superabundance of doctors to go away, and they aren't fooled when we lie about it. They know that has to happen in any universal coverage plan, because they can count.

[MoonlitKnight]

62. Single payer is not nationalized healthcare

The shortages you describe happen in a national health system where they work for the government.

We have thousands of healthcare professionals who are working as janitors because of state licensing laws that are made to discriminate against those from other countries.

Single payer is really a single primary payer system. There is ample room for private pay, supplemental insurance and even cooperatives. The free market will adapt and thrive while it tries to capture the trillions of dollars that are saved.

[Recursion]

63. A nationalized system could solve that problem with less pain

MFA means we would have to do it the same way Medicare and Medicaid try to do it, with financial inducements. Those don't always work, and it does away with a lot of the savings people are talking about.

[DanTex]

66. Of course it does, you're talking about short-term problems.

The locations and practice areas of doctors is the very epitome of a short-term issue.

Also, like I said, this has nothing to do with MFA, you're making an argument against any expansion of healthcare coverage. Which, fine, if this union wanted to say "uninsured people should stay uninsured otherwise some doctors will be busier for a few years", OK then. But for them to argue that MFA is bad for labor is just dishonest.

[mzmolly]

51. I'm a union worker.

I agree. That said, not all of my colleagues would support single payer health care.

I personally prefer a public option. We need to ease people into being rational on health care.

[guillaumeb]

52. Recommended, DanTex.

Single payer, or MFA, would be better for everyone. The only downside for the rich is that their health industry profits would be decreased.

[Hoyt]

55. Both Sanders and Warren plan to tax corporations as a funding source for MFA.

So, corporations won’t be getting off hook under MFA. In fact, it’s possible their tax rate could be as high as they currently spend.

I am surprised at unions not wanting poor people to have decent insurance. But, I don’t think all unions are in opposition.

[Recursion]

57. What Unions don't want is worse healthcare access for their members

than they currently have. If they go from the employer paying everything to having to pay a payroll tax themselves, they're not going to like that. That's true of people with good private insurance in general.

[Laelth]

64. Hear! Hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth