Trumka on health care reform: "it's been a goal of the labor movement since the 19th century"

[ProSense]

Remarks by AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka at the Lawyers Coordinating Conference June 03, 2010

<...>

This week, you have heard and will hear from courageous public officials and genuine heroes from throughout the Obama Administration. We need only think back to the days of the Bush NLRB and the September massacre to realize what a difference it makes to have Barack Obama as our President.

I want to thank you for all that you did to call out the Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce when they were blocking Craig Becker and Mark Pearce -- for all the calls, e-mails, letters to the editor, and that terrific letter to President Obama from hundreds of you -- under the banner of "Lawyers for Working Americans" -- calling on President Obama to make recess appointments for Craig and Mark. It is so important to know that you are out there and we can count on you.

In little more than a year since President Obama took office, we have achieved more than appointments. We stood with the President and the Democratic leadership in Congress to pass historic health care reform—bringing health insurance to tens of millions of Americans, improving benefits for union members and holding insurance companies accountable—it's been a goal of the labor movement since the 19th century. That legislation is just the beginning of change in health care. And we are on the verge of passing comprehensive financial reform, including key components of labor's agenda like regulation of hedge funds and derivatives, and giving our pension funds real power in the board rooms of the corporations we own.

more

[zipplewrath]

1. Too bad they didn't get it

No seriously, I understand. Part of the Health Insurance Industry Stimulus bill was to force/coerce/encourage employers to provide health insurance to their employees. The unions and labor in general had been fighting for that for decades. So I can understand that they are happy it passed. And the White House even let them in to negotiate their way around the whole cadillac tax thingy. And both of those made the "mandate" thing a non-issue to them. I understand all that.

It's just too bad that as part of that they didn't get health care reform because their members are going to be getting health insurance from their employers that they can't use. That is if they HAVE jobs.

[ProSense]

2. "improving benefits for union members and holding insurance companies accountable"

What the hell does Trumka know?

But I understand your interpretation of his point: Labor has been fighting for it since the 19th century, and with "historic health care reform—bringing health insurance to tens of millions of Americans, improving benefits for union members and holding insurance companies accountable," it's extremely disappointing.

[zipplewrath]

3. Well, yeah, that's what I'm saying

The bill, for his constituency, contained alot of features they were fighting for years. On balance, for their members it was a gain, at least in the short run. All I'm saying is that for people who aren't union members, and efor some of the larger "labor class" this was a small gain in the short run, and many of the "benefits" will soon be overwhelmed by the increase in health CARE costs.

[ProSense]

4. "this was a small gain in the short run"

I guess some people's small gains are other people's "historic health care reform—bringing health insurance to tens of millions of Americans"

So be it.

[zipplewrath]

5. Yup

I never quite understand how people, in good concscience, can switch from health care to health insurance in the same sentence as if they are the same thing. Not to mention that even they admit that it LEAVES OUT some 25 million americans. Mostly the working poor. Those generally aren't union members though so I guess it don't matter.

[ProSense]

6. " LEAVES OUT some 25 million americans. Mostly the working poor"

The bill does no such thing. The number is 18 million and one third are undocumented immigrants, who are eligible for emergency Medicaid. No other country in the world provides coverage for undocumented immigrants.

The bill also dramatically increases the number of working poor eligible for Medicaid. So that claim is simply a mischaracterization.

[zipplewrath]

7. Acutally, I believe it's 18 plus the immigrants

the 25 million total includes the immigrants IIRC.

As such I'm not sure where the mischaracterization is. It provides medicaid for the lowest income/unemployed. However, it's right in the bill explaining that if your wage is too low, and your premiums too high, you won't be mandated to have insurance. You also won't get insurance until your wages fall low enough. Which is among the reasons there will still be so many people without insurance.

It's kind funny because prior to reform, the estimates were that there were roughly 35-50 million folks not covered. Strangely roughly 20 million of them were eligible for assistance, but didn't get it. Now we have a system that will punish you for not getting insurance, and we are left with..... about 25 million folks that won't get it. At least these will be people who honestly can't get it, not folks who were just clueless.

[ProSense]

8. "You also won't get insurance until your wages fall low enough."

That is inaccurate.

The reform isn't about Medicaid only. Also, the reason that there will still be uninsured has nothing to do with the bill. There will be people who will opt out. The point is that the bill covers 95 percent of the population. For a first-ever universal health care bill that is an excellent start.

[vaberella]

9. Prosense you're always a wealth of knowledge.

Thank you.

[zipplewrath]

10. Health insurance bill

They'll have health insurance. Not necessarily health care. And roughly 95% were already covered, or at least eligible for assistance in being covered. All this kerfluffle was for about 3 - 5% change in the numbers of people covered with insurance, and very little to change the cost of health CARE.

Heck, I know employed folks right now that are covered and still can't afford to use the insurance they have. And the costs just keep rising.

[ProSense]

11. "They'll have health insurance. Not necessarily health care. And roughly 95% were already covered"

The 32 million people who will gain coverage will not have health care?

"roughly 95% were already covered"

Completely inaccurate or bad math. About 50 million Americans are unisured. That is a hell of a lot more than 5 percent of the population.

[zipplewrath]

12. Moving numbers

I can see we're going to have a data problem.

The number of uninsured has always been an estimate. You can find numbers anywhere between about 35 and 50 million. In a population of roughly 300 million, that's between 12% and 16%. Roughly half of that (regardless of which number used) was an estimated population of people that was already eligible for assistance in obtaining health insurance, or otherwise qualified for health insurance through the goverment. That leaves you about 6%-8% of the population that didn't have, and couldn't get, insurance. This bill will leave it some where around 20 - 25 million. That will be somewhere around 5 - 7% uninsured.


So this "historic" bill has basically managed to lower the number of people covered by somewhere around 3%.

And folks will still have trouble actually getting health CARE.

[ProSense]

13. "I can see we're going to have a data problem."

The number of uninsured has always been an estimate. You can find numbers anywhere between about 35 and 50 million. In a population of roughly 300 million, that's between 12% and 16%. Roughly half of that (regardless of which number used) was an estimated population of people that was already eligible for assistance in obtaining health insurance, or otherwise qualified for health insurance through the goverment. That leaves you about 6%-8% of the population that didn't have, and couldn't get, insurance. This bill will leave it some where around 20 - 25 million. That will be somewhere around 5 - 7% uninsured.

You claimed that 95 percent are already covered.

Now you are claiming the unisured numbers are only estimates, that the number is between 12 percent and 16 percent. You go on to point out that the bill reduces the number to 5 percent to 7 percent.

So 12 percent and 16 percent = 5 percent to 7 percent?

Yeah, there's a "data problem" alright.

[zipplewrath]

14. Nice try

Read a tad slower. Of the 16%, half ALREADY WERE ELIGBLE FOR ASSISTANCE/COVERAGE. They were eligible but not involved in an insurance program for whatever reason.

The numbers that couldn't get insurance before, and are now going to get it are around a change of 2%.

[ProSense]

15. Reconcile

You: "And roughly 95% were already covered"

You: "Of the 16%, half ALREADY WERE ELIGBLE FOR ASSISTANCE/COVERAGE. They were eligible but not involved in an insurance program for whatever reason."

"already covered" = "eligible but not involved in an insurance program for whatever reason"?

You should really rethink your argument.

[zipplewrath]

18. No, you should read better

The whole issue is that the health insurance industry stimulus package only increased the numbers of people who will be able to get coverage by about 2%. The only additional folks will be those who were already eligible, but didn't get covered anyway. It is presumed they will under this new bill, because of the mandate, we shall see. It isn't yet clear how this will be enforced and it is a very real probability that they will continue to avoid arranging for coverage. But these people were already eligible and this bill didn't particularly change that.

So the historic achievement was an increase of around 2%.

[ProSense]

19. "The only additional folks will be those who were already eligible, but didn't get covered anyway. "

Why do you keep trying?

[zipplewrath]

20. Sorry

thought I was talking to someone who could understand.

Never mind.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

16. I'm an example of someone who was insured but didn't have health care

because my insurance premiums were too high for my income. (They still would be, even under HRC. In fact, the "exchange" package I would be offered would be WORSE than what I had before I dropped it in disgust.)

I am struggling to pay for an injury that I sustained while I was insured because it didn't meet my $5000 deductible and it occurred while I was already suffering a (thankfully temporary) loss of business.

It made me angry, because if I lived in almost any other Western country, I would not have had a deductible.

After that, I dropped my insurance, because I realized two things:

1. If I had just put my premium money in the bank for the past six years, I could have easily paid my doctor bills on the spot.

2. Getting a serious illness would bankrupt me anyway with a $5000 deductible, $25,000 deductible for out of network treatment.

Fortunately, I will not be far from Medicare eligible when the mandate takes effect, so I plan to just pay the fine. If your beloved Obama's handpicked "fiscal conservative" (=cut all the benefits but keep the wars) commission decides to eliminate or cut Medicare, well, I can always follow the example of some of the older people I know who are retiring to Mexico or Thailand, which are already destinations for medical tourism.

[ProSense]

17. "If your beloved Obama's handpicked "

If you are insured, you do not fall into the category of the uninsured.

"I am struggling to pay for an injury that I sustained while I was insured because it didn't meet my $5000 deductible and it occurred while I was already suffering a (thankfully temporary) loss of business."

I am sorry for your situation. Still, you are saying that you were insured and couldn't pay so you had to drop the coverage. That means you are uninsured, not insured without health care.

Your issue is with costs, not care.

[zipplewrath]

21. Health CARE costs

His issue will be all of our issue soon. This bill did little to control health CARE costs. Which ultimately is the real problem.

Great for the insurance companies though.

[ProSense]

22. "His issue will be all of our issue soon." News

It's already all our issue, hence the need for reform.

[zipplewrath]

23. Yes, the bill didn't do much

hence the need for health CARE reform.

Health CARE cost continue to rise at rates well above inflation. This bill did little if anything to address this problem. And it constrained the government from taking direct action to control perscription drug costs. It also inhibited access to Canadian drugs.

Soon, we'll all be arguing about how to fix it, much like we argue today about fixing NAFTA, or DADT, or DOMA.....

[ProSense]

24. Tell it to

NH, ME, CA and TX





The majority of the country recognizes that this was a significant step forward.

[zipplewrath]

25. Those are mostly about the cost of health INSURANCE

There is little in the bill to actually reduce the rate of increase of health CARE costs. Yes, it will save money in the long run for the federal government because it allows the to get control of health INSURANCE costs. It will save people money (all 2% of them) that previously didn't have health insurance. (Well, those that actually get sick). And many folks will have cheaper health INSURANCE, which will save them money, if they don't get sick.

However, if you actually get sick, the cost of health care for the vast majority of us is going up much faster than the rate of inflation, and has been for a long while. And this bill did little to nothing to change that. Furthermore, the cost of health insurance is going to go up, quickly and that is going to result in another kind of crisis real soon. And this bill does little if anything about that.

Oh, and it established health insurance as an obligation for all of us, and did nothing to establish health care as a right. It was also a bill designed by the GOP 15 years ago to inhibit nationalized health care.

[ProSense]

26. Oh my!

There is little in the bill to actually reduce the rate of increase of health CARE costs. Yes, it will save money in the long run for the federal government because it allows the to get control of health INSURANCE costs. It will save people money (all 2% of them) that previously didn't have health insurance. (Well, those that actually get sick). And many folks will have cheaper health INSURANCE, which will save them money, if they don't get sick.

It will "save money in the long run for the federal government because it allows the to get control of health INSURANCE costs" and "will save people money" and "many folks will have cheaper health INSURANCE, which will save them money," but "there is little in the bill to actually reduce the rate of increase of health CARE costs."

Oh my!

[zipplewrath]

27. We'll see in about 10 years

Be cavalier if you want, but those health care costs are what drive the health insurance costs. And the minor cost controls that were achieved with this bill will be overwhelmed by health care costs soon.

It benifitted relatively few compared to the number that are still being hammered by health care cost increases. And it will get vastly worse soon. The number of people who "qualify" to avoid the mandate will grow as their premiums exceed the allowables and their salaries don't keep up.

But hey, Obama got a "win".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. And we will be affected by health CARE costs because most of the alternatives

in the upcoming exchanges are high-deductible, in other words, a license for the ins. co's to collect hundreds of dollars a month from every American and rarely have to pay out anything. The"bronze" policies, which are what I would be able to afford, would be WORSE than what I had till a couple of months ago, since they have deductibles AND cover only 60% of costs after the deductible.

This is abominable and my biggest complaint about the current bill.

I can think of other countries that have co-pays, but NONE that have deductibles.

(In Japan, you have a 30% copay, BUT if your outlay exceeds a certain percentage of your annual income, you get a refund from the government, and catastrophic care is free.)

This is truly the insurance corporate welfare act, and I refuse to be part of it.

[ProSense]

30. "The 'bronze' policies"

The subsidies are based on the silver policy, which provides coverage at 70 percent of costs. That is only five percent less than Medicare.

Cost across the board go down.


"In Japan, you have a 30% copay"

Yes, I can see that being palatable to Americans, especially since the current health bill eliminates copays.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. I'd much rather have copays than deductibles

Eliminating copays is NOTHING if one has a huge deductible. That's one of those moves that SOUNDS GOOD if you have no experience with the individual insurance market.

If I'd had a 30% copay on my recent injury, I'd have it paid for by now. But with my $5000 deductible, I've had to pay every penny.

I actually lived under a copay-with-no-deductible system for the ten years that I was covered by Kaiser-Permanente in Oregon. (Sad to say, they don't operate in Minnesota.)

I NEVER hesitated to get my suggested diagnostic tests or immunizations or eye exams or anything, because it was just a $25 copay for each office visit and each test.

I have not had any screening tests since I moved here nearly seven years ago. For instance, colonoscopies cost more than my monthly rent.

So yeah, I'm in a pissy mood when people apologize for Obama's health care bill. He didn't even try to pass single-payer, nor did he marshall all the enthusiastic volunteers who had just gotten him elected. Instead, he listened only to the corporatists, who care about nothing but watching the dividends roll in.

[Cha]

28. Yeah, Richard Trumka knows what he's talking

about. Thanks for getting the real news out, Pro Sense..there's so much denial and fear on the internet.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. From the same speech:

On this bill, like so many others, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have faced a wall of Republican opposition. But I wish I could say this is wholly a matter of Republican obstruction. That would not be true.

Today the unemployed are losing health care and teachers are facing layoffs because too many Democrats decided that when the going got tough they were not for jobs. And some of those Democrats were the same Democrats who deserted the President on health care reform, and they were the same Democrats who wouldn't support workers' right to organize. And so now we have some decisions to make about consequences. I intend to ask my sisters and brothers in November to support elected officials who stand with working people. I intend to be able to do it with a straight face and my head held high. And I can't say that I will be unhappy to see some of these anti-worker Democrats lose, and I don't intend to spend a penny of workers' money or ask any union members for a minute of time to save them.

The problem goes further than the Congress. We also have the problem of some voices within the Obama Administration – not Christina Romer, whom you will hear from tomorrow, and who has been a strong voice for policies that will help working people. But there are some within the Obama Administration whose counsel is, "Do nothing" -- or worse. The press talks of "ambivalence" in the White House toward jobs. My friends, there is no time for ambivalence."

[ProSense]

32. "some of those Democrats were the same Democrats who deserted the President on health care reform...

and they were the same Democrats who wouldn't support workers' right to organize."

Yeah, there were and are those.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. You think I did not read what I posted? I am a Union member.

Are you?