Right now, tens of thousands of everyday Americans are in Washington fighting for real health care reform that works for working families. You can join them by sending a message to your representatives in Congress right now.

We simply cannot allow the insurance industry to hijack heath care reform again by killing the public plan option — not this time. There’s just too much on the line. We need real health care reform — including a public plan option.

Your message to Congress can help break through the lies and misinformation that the insurance industry is spreading to make sure that any reform protects only their profits, and not the middle class.

Here are just some of the stories AFSCME members will be delivering to Congress today:

“Help! I’m a healthcare provider in California. As a state worker, I just received a 9+% pay cut and may receive another 5%! I can’t continue with a 14+% cut. Health Care must reform or we will lose many workers, such as myself, further depleting an already failing system.”

“My health care need is that I have cancer and I need to continue to work no matter how sick I am, because I need the health insurance.”

“I have medical insurance, but due to a surgical complication, I was off work for a year. We could not keep up with the medical costs and filed Chapter 13.”

It shouldn’t be this way. We cannot let Congress back down from real reform, including a public plan option.

Be part of today’s rally in DC by sending a message to Congress for quality, affordable health care for all. Tell Washington we can’t wait!

Contrary to the “wisdom” of certain legislators, taxing health care benefits is a counterproductive initiative that might just kill health care reform.

Over the last decade, health care premiums have risen 10 times faster than income. Keeping up with those expenses is already costing Americans an arm and a leg. Why would you want to make them even less affordable?

Nearly 160 million Americans get coverage through an employer, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. That’s why they’re called benefits and that’s why taxing them will only place an additional burden on working families.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) recently spoke about the folly of such an initiative, pointing out how “taxing benefits at a time where people are already overwhelmed is, I think, a very bad idea.”

Others have floated a proposal to tax benefits above a certain level, affecting the so-called “gold-plated” health insurance plans. The problem is that many of these plans are expensive only because of regional cost differences and the composition of an employer’s risk pool. In other words, such a measure would disproportionally impact those who already can barely afford their plans as well as workers in high-cost areas.

There are far more equitable and fair alternatives to help provide quality, affordable health care for all. President Obama has already outlined savings for nearly $300 billion as well as proposed limiting itemized deductions for the country’s 3 million highest earners, measures that would help offset the costs of health care reform.

This is why he campaigned against taxing health care benefits. This is why health care benefits should be off limits.

This post on the Alliance for Retired Americans annual legislative conference being held this week in Washington, D.C., comes from James Parks at the AFL-CIO Now blog:

This is the year for passing real health care reform and to begin rebuilding the nation’s middle class by passing laws that give workers a free choice to join a union. And union retirees, one of the most active political groups in the country, will play a big role in bringing about change, top government leaders said.

Speaking in the opening session of the Alliance for Retired Americans annual legislative conference on Monday were U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee.

Both Sebelius and McEntee told the delegates that any health care reform must include an option for a public plan and must not tax the health benefits that workers and retirees receive through their employers.

Pointing out that President Obama received a higher percentage of votes from union retirees than any other group of voters, McEntee, who heads the AFL-CIO Political Committee, said health care reform is just one of the ways that “we’re taking back our nation for working families and retirees.”

“They [Republicans] are trying to take away our victories. George Bush stole part of the American Dream. He decimated the middle class, created the biggest gap in wealth in decades and left us with two wars.”

McEntee urged the seniors who will lobby lawmakers Wednesday to send a message to Capitol Hill.

“This is our best chance [to take back America]. We have to take it. We know what we’re up against. Go to Capitol Hill and tell them we’re kicking ass and taking names.”

Read more at the AFL-CIO Now Blog.

This entry is reposted from the Health Care for America NOW! blog.

By Jason Rosenbaum
Health Care for America NOW! blog

We’re going to see a lot of these kinds of “compromises” from now until we pass a health reform bill through Congress. First, we had the “trigger” proposal, designed to effectively kill a public health insurance option. Now, we have the “co-op” proposal.

It’s not particularly useful to keep responding individually to these ideas - we’d be playing whack-a-mole for months. Instead, let’s lay out some principles for a strong public health insurance option. If any proposal meets these principles, no matter what you call it, it is worthy of support.

1. National and available everywhere: A strong public health insurance option will be a national public health insurance program, available in all areas of the country. The insurance industry is made of of conglomerates that have national reach. In order to have the clout to compete with the insurance industry and keep them honest, the public health insurance option must be national as well.
2. Government appointed and accountable: The entire problem with private health insurance is that they aren’t accountable to you or me. A public health insurance option must have a different incentive. A public health insurance option doesn’t have to be a government entity necessarily, but its decision makers must be appointed by government and must be accountable to government.
3. Bargaining clout: The whole point of health reform is to lower health care costs. Clearly, the insurance industry has failed to lower costs when left to their own devices. As the President says, we need a strong public health insurance option to lower rates, change the incentives in our health care system, and keep the industry honest.
4. Ready on day one: The private health insurance industry has utterly failed to control health care costs or provide their customers the quality they’ve paid through the nose for. With one person going bankrupt every 30 seconds due to health care costs, we cannot afford to wait any longer for a real fix. We need the public health insurance option to start lowering prices now. That means no trigger.

Judging from the reports I’ve seen on Senator Conrad’s proposal, a co-op as currently envisioned does not meet these principles. Here is why, in Senator Conrad’s words:

And for those against a public option because they fear government control, the co-op structure has some appeal because its not government control. It’s membership control, and membership ownership.

…

What you probably need is a national entity with state affiliates, and the further flexibility so those states can have regional pools. So in our part of the country, you might have North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming go together. Out east you might have Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire together. We’re consulting with experts tomorrow about that.

As envisioned, the co-op proposal would create a bunch of member operated plans around the country, none of which would have the clout to compete with private insurance or really lower prices with providers and drug companies.

Also, another note of caution: A co-op is a legal structure. In a co-op, members of the co-op are legally liable for the co-op. That means that if a co-op was, say, sued for doing something wrong, its members might be liable for the legal bills and damages.

If Senator Conrad or anyone else in Congress can come up with a proposal that meets the above principles, we’d be happy to support it, whatever it’s called. As the proposal stands now, Conrad’s co-ops will not bring costs down, save our economy, or allow us to choose a viable public option if we don’t want to be at the mercy of private insurance. These co-ops will not solve the health care crisis, and so we oppose them.

If you agree, you can click here to call your Senators and tell them why a co-op is not the change you voted for.

Last week, AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee and several other union presidents met with Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus (D-MT). The Finance Committee is one of the two Senate committees that are writing this year’s health care reform legislation. President McEntee stressed to Sen. Baucus AFSCME’s strong opposition to capping the current tax exclusion for employees’ health care benefits, and our union’s commitment to choice in a reformed system, including a public health insurance plan option.

On Saturday, President Barack Obama used his weekly address to call for real health care reform, saying that fixing what is wrong with our current system is “a necessity we cannot postpone any longer.” In addition, the President sent a letter on June 2 to Senators Baucus and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) reaffirming the need to move forward on reform which builds on employer-based coverage and includes a choice of options, including a public health insurance plan.

From the letter:

“I strongly believe that Americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. This will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest.”

The President called for Congress to complete its work on health care reform so that it could be signed into law by October. Obama also emphasized the need to make health care coverage affordable and reiterated his support for proposals requiring employers to share in the costs of health care coverage.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers also issued a pivotal report, “The Economic Case for Health Care Reform,” explaining why health reform is vital for the future of the American economy. The detailed and in-depth report noted that without health care reform, American workers and families will continue to experience eroding health care benefits and stagnating wages caused by the pressure of escalating health insurance premiums.

In addition, increases in Medicare and Medicaid spending will lead to further strain on federal and state budgets. With reform that makes health care more affordable and expands coverage, a typical family of four would see their income increase by approximately $2,600 in 2020 (in 2009 dollars) and by nearly $10,000 in 2030, compared to their income without reform.

AFSCME is leading the charge for real health care reform that provides quality, affordable health care for all. Learn more at www.makeamericahappen.com.

This entry by AFSCME President Gerald McEntee is cross-posted from Huffington Post and Oxdown Gazette.

In recent days, two generally progressive commentators have written in favor of taxing all or part of the value of employer provided health benefits as a way of paying for some of the costs of health care reform. They’ve suggested that AFSCME might “kill” health care reform because of our opposition to taxing the value of benefits. Of course we reject that characterization of our efforts.

In fact, AFSCME plays a leading role in the effort to pass real health care reform. Our stand against taxing benefits is grounded in a conviction that regressive taxation cannot cure our health care ills. Just as importantly, we are concerned that linking an unpopular tax to health care reform could kill our efforts to provide health care for all.

The argument in favor of taxing benefits centers on two points. First, like all tax exclusions and deductions, the exclusion of health benefits from taxation is worth more to higher income individuals who are in higher tax brackets. Second, the federal government foregoes $145 billion annually by shielding employer-sponsored health care benefits from taxation. Fair enough.

But there are real risks that come with a tax on health benefits. They include the likelihood that employer-sponsored insurance will be destabilized at a time when it should be reinforced; the disparate impact a change in policy will have on people who are older, sicker or in higher cost areas; the disproportionate burden a change will have on children and families; and an erosion of benefits and shifting of risk to individuals.

Some argue in favor of a compromise that would tax only “Cadillac” or “gold-plated” health insurance plans. But that won’t work. Just last month, The Commonwealth Fund reported that “many so-called “gold-plated” health benefit premiums are high only because insur­ance costs vary according to the size of the firm, the geographic region in which it is located, and the com­position of the employer’s risk pool.” Establishing a universal cap in today’s insurance market, they noted, “will have a disproportionate impact on workers in small firms, high-cost areas, and expensive risk pools.”

In addition, we need to consider the wisdom of taxing health benefits in light of the alternatives. For example, according to the Senate Finance Committee, the favorable tax treatment afforded to Capital Gains and Dividend income costs the government $178 billion per year. However, unlike the tax treatment of health benefits which goes to a broad swath of the American public, a very narrow economically privileged slice of taxpayers benefit from this favorable treatment.

This begs the question: why levy a tax on working people when this inequitable favorable tax treatment, primarily available to the wealthy, remains in place? Many of the same progressives who advocate taxing health benefits have rightly railed against rising income inequality and the dangers it presents to robust economic growth. Why not fund health care, mostly for low income underinsured and uninsured people, while simultaneously addressing one of the biggest causes of wealth inequality?

The introduction of the health benefits tax could well be the death knell for health care reform. In the historic 2008 election campaign, then Senator Barack Obama campaigned hard against the taxation of benefits, a key component of John McCain’s health care policy. President Obama recognized the taxation of benefits is unacceptable to the American public and made it a centerpiece of his campaign. He spent tens of millions of dollars on advertisements slamming McCain on the issue.

If anything, public opposition to a tax on benefits is growing. Recent polling indicates that 80 percent of likely voters oppose taxing the value of benefits while only 17 percent support it. Strong majorities oppose a health care tax without regard to political affiliation.

AFSCME opposes the health benefits tax because it could “kill” health care reform. Is there any better way to give Republicans cover to protect the insurance industry and their right wing cronies, and vote against reform, than to let them frame the issue as opposing a very unpopular tax? Do we hear Republicans campaigning in favor of taxing health benefits? Sometimes, progressives must be saved from themselves. That’s what we are doing when we stand clearly in opposition to taxing benefits that America’s working families earn on the job.

Don Zavodny, director of AFSCME Council 72 Missouri/Kansas, is speaking out against attempts to privatize mental health services.

In a letter to the editor published in yesterday’s Kansas City Star, Zavodny writes:

Privatization has become a dirty word. And for good reason. Imagine where we would be today if George W. Bush had gotten his way and gambled away our Social Security on the stock market. …

More than 87,000 Missourians have lost their jobs in the last year. For the affected families those job losses are accompanied by a spike in mental stress and anguish and an increased demand for public services. …

Every Kansas City area resident should be able to count on mental health services in good times and bad. We cannot do that if delivery of these services is contingent on how they affect a corporation’s bottom line. That will not guarantee them in tough times.

Read more here.

The last thing families struggling in this tough economy need is to pay more for their health benefits. But Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) wants to tax the health care benefits many Americans get from their jobs – as if they were income. And his plan doesn’t include a public insurance option to ensure that everyone has access to quality, affordable health care.

Far from moving us in the direction of comprehensive health care reform, Senator Wyden’s proposal would only make the problem worse: costs would go up and fewer people would get the health care they need.

That’s why AFSCME launched a campaign this week against Senator Wyden’s plan to tax Americans’ health care. We will contact Oregon families by direct mail, phone outreach, door-to-door conversations, and through a new website at www.StopWydensHealthTax.com.

Also, AFSCME is co-sponsoring a radio ad campaign in Oregon with the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and the National Education Association to urge Congress to make quality, affordable health care accessible to all, not tax Americans’ benefits.

During a Congressional hearing held Thursday by the House Education and Labor Committee, AFSCME member and registered nurse Miguel García testified about the need to enforce federal guidelines designed to protect health care workers from pandemic influenza and other airborne viruses.

Full details from the hearing, including complete transcripts, photos and more video, can be found on the Committee’s website. Read more about García’s testimony in an Online Xtra from AFSCME WORKS.

On March 5, AFSCME participated in President Obama’s Forum on Health Care Reform. The summit was part of the new administration’s effort to gain momentum for the President’s health care reform initiatives and was attended by approximately 120 participants including bipartisan representatives from Congress, health insurance plans, hospitals, providers, consumers, business and labor.

President Obama addressed the forum, saying “[t]he status quo is the one option that’s not on the table, and those who seek to block any reform at all – any reform at any costs – will not prevail this time around.”

On the same day, the Department of Health & Human Services launched a new website dedicated to this effort at HealthReform.gov and the White House blog posted a rundown of the forum as it took place.

The immediate goal was to create a dialogue among the stakeholders and congressional representatives about the urgency for reform. In addition, broad policy themes were briefly discussed, but the emphasis at this early date in the process was to set a collaborative tone and gain consensus around the need for reform.

The administration clearly met its objectives for the meeting. Participants all agreed that reform is urgently needed and should be tackled this year. There was strong support for covering everyone, transforming the health care delivery system to promote prevention and enhance quality, and implementing information technology as funded in the recently enacted economic recovery bill.

There was recognition by the participants, and by the President, that this transformation will require substantial investment, but that the investment will reap economic dividends over the medium to long term.

While a few Republican congressional representatives voiced dissent at the idea that reform can and should be enacted this year, on this day their position was both muted and overwhelmed by the strong support for health care reform among the participants.