Labor's mixed signals on single payer
The Business Journal September 6, 2002 Universally controversial By Shelley Herochik
Supporters call it Measure 23, the Oregon Comprehensive Health Care Finance Act of 2002. It's also known as the single-payer health plan.
The measure, which proposes a ground-breaking funding mechanism to support comprehensive coverage for all Oregon residents, is the only universal health care initiative on a state ballot this November.
Insurance companies such as Regence (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) say that more than money-indeed their very existence-is at stake. Under Measure 23, the need for third-party insurers would be eliminated, since the pool, and not the insurer, pays practitioners' bills.
"That's irresponsible public policy for Oregon," said Leonard Hagen, manager of legislative affairs for Regence.
One member of the progressive community, the Oregon AFL-CIO, has chosen not to endorse the measure.
"Although the federation supports a universal health care program," said research and education director Lynn-Marie Crider, "a financing mechanism that puts more of the responsibility on employers would be more appropriate."
But the American Federation of Teachers, a member of the AFL-CIO, has taken a different position.
"The cost to our members under the proposed structure may be less than the total package in their collective bargaining agreements," said Richard Schwarz, AFT's executive director. "We believe it is a solution."
http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2002/09/09/focus1.html
Comment: The opposition of the insurance industry to a single payer health plan is understandable since their very existence is at stake. But why should labor be opposed?
Health benefits have been a very important negotiating tool for labor's leadership. It is in the interests of union leaders to continue to be able to negotiate with employers the entire employee benefit package. Losing the right to negotiate health benefits risks weakening the role of unions. On the other hand, if a single payer system were adopted and equitably funded, the health care costs of union members would actually diminish. So, actually, it is in the interests of union members to end the employment-linkage of health care coverage and adopt a single payer system.
Apparently, in Oregon, the parent AFL-CIO organization is more interested in meeting the needs of its leadership, whereas the subsidiary, the American Federation of Teachers, is more interested in meeting the needs of its members.