SEARCH
Standing Room Only for Labor Council Meetings on Health Care Reform |
 |
|
From New York City to the Quad Cites on the Illinois/Iowa border, AFL-CIO central labor councils are getting the word out to local union leaders and activists that fixing our nation’s broken health care system promises to be a pivotal issue that spurs working families to the polls in November.
So far this month, more than 200 labor councils have dedicated their union meetings to helping local unions mobilize their members around health care reform for the coming elections. The turnout for these special sessions has been overwhelming. Most recently, some 300 union members turned out in Baltimore, 200 in New York City and the Quad City Federation of Labor saw a standing-room-only crowd.
Central labor councils also are getting strong commitments from local unions to join the union movement’s Labor 2008 mobilization to push working family issues to get the country on the right track and Turn Around America.
In Georgia, Rep. John Lewis put it bluntly (video):
Health care is a right, not a privelege, in a country such as ours.
Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.) told the Quad City crowd that meaningful health care reform that ensures quality care is
something we owe everyone….We have to be loyal to the American people and the priority of providing health care.
At that meeting and others around the country, local union leaders—who know firsthand through contract bargaining how out of reach health care coverage is becoming—examined the results of the AFL-CIO/Working America 2008 Health Care for America Survey. Of the nearly 27,000 people who took the survey, 79 percent of respondents said health care will be a key issue when they cast their ballots, and 97 percent say they plan to vote this fall.
At meeting after meeting, local union leaders say they will get the health care message out to their members through worksite leaflets and discussions and also are signing up for Labor 2008’s first big nationwide action.
After the New York City Central Labor Council’s presentation, Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 3 signed up to take 10 busloads of union volunteers to knock on doors in Pennsylvania as part of the nationwide May 17 mobilization to get the word out about Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s flawed health care proposals.
In more than 100 neighborhood walks, union members will go door to door to let union family voters know that McCain’s plan is a rehash of President Bush’s failed proposal. It won’t cut costs, won’t cover more people and would raise taxes on employers and employees alike, pushing workers out of job-based plans and leaving them at the mercy of the private insurance market.
For more on the AFL-CIO’s drive for health care reform, click here. Click here to become a health care activist. Also click here for information on the AFL-CIO Turn Around America Online Video Competition.
2 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The Erosion of Employer-Provided Health Care
By Jared Bernstein and Heidi Shierholz
The Economic Policy Institute
Tuesday 22 April 2008
It is widely recognized that the means through which most working-age Americans receive health care coverage-the employer-based system-is undergoing fundamental change. Though a majority of workers and their families are still covered through employers, a variety of factors, most prominently increased costs, have led to a steady slide in coverage.
This decline has occurred in good economic times and bad, implying a structural, as opposed to cyclical, shift. For example, though the current business cycle has been both highly productive and profitable, the share of workers nationwide with employer-provided health insurance (EPHI) from their own job fell each year, from 51.1% in 2000 to 48.8% in 2006-a decline of 2.3 percentage points. In California, this share declined even further, 2.8 percentage points, from 49.0% in 2000 to 46.2% in 2006.
This report examines what role changes in the composition of employment have played in this decline. To what extent, for example, has this negative trend been driven by the loss of jobs with high rates of coverage? Conversely, what has been the role of diminished coverage rates within existing jobs?
To take a simple example, imagine an economy with two industries, one with very high rates of EPHI and the other with low rates. Next, assume that changes in the nature of demand and production in the global economy lead to job losses in the high-coverage industry and job gains in the low-coverage industry. This change in the composition of jobs would lead to lower overall coverage rates, even if rates of coverage remained the same within both industries. This report will refer to this type of decline in coverage rates as the decline from moving “between” industries. Of course, coverage could also decline within these industries, regardless of each industry’s share of total employment. In this paper, we quantify how much of the decline in health insurance coverage can be attributed to “between” losses-those caused by changes in the composition of employment-and “within” losses-those caused by declining coverage within job sectors.
The above example will likely lead some readers to think about the long-term, ongoing shift from manufacturing to services. While we show that the loss of manufacturing jobs has indeed played the predicted role in the loss of coverage, we find that changes in the likelihood of coverage within jobs have been a much more important determinant of the loss of EPHI coverage, both nationally and in California.
In fact, the statistical analysis in this report suggests that over the last decade, the composition of jobs has had a relatively minor effect on changes in EPHI. Industry shifts have had small negative impacts on coverage both nationally and in California, while occupational shifts have had small positive effects nationally and small negative effects in California. But the big story is taking place within sectors: regardless of which industries or occupations have been adding or losing jobs, changes in EPHI are driven by employer decisions as to whether to provide coverage or not. Similarly, when we look at worker characteristics, we find that, while there have been some “between” gains in worker demographics that have led to higher EPHI (namely, educational upgrading along with the workforce getting older), we also find that there have been significant declines in coverage within categories across the entire age and education spectrum.
The conclusion of this report stresses the policy implications of these findings. The fact that within-sector and within-demographic changes (and not changes in the composition of jobs and workers) are largely driving EPHI trends underscores the need for a national approach to health coverage. Even were we to somehow radically change the composition of jobs toward sectors with higher coverage rates, or change the composition of the workforce through dramatic educational upgrading, the decline in coverage within job sectors and worker demographic categories would still lead to further losses.
This report examines changes in EPHI over the years 1995-2006, both nationally and in California. Though the decline in coverage is a long-term trend, the latter 1990s saw a pause in the trend, as slower growth in the costs of health care provision coincided with very low unemployment.1 In fact, the share of workers covered by EPHI increased nationally from 1995 to 2000, from 49.6% to 51.1%, before resuming its decline in the 2000s. Note that the loss of coverage in the 2000s more than offset the 1995-2000 gains, such that the coverage rate in 2006 was 48.8%, about a point below the 1995 level. California experienced a very similar overall trend, but with bigger declines in the 2000s, putting its coverage rate in 2006 about a point and a half below the 1995 level.
——–
The Economic Policy Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to broaden the public debate about strategies to achieve a prosperous and fair economy.
With over 400 unions, 33 state AFL CIOs endorsing HR 676, single payer health care, CLCs all across the country should be pushing for the National AFL CIO to endorse it, and urge Congree to get it initated.
Employer provided schemes is costlier to employees every yr. Many employees can’t afford it and have to make decisions, whether to make the mortgage or rent payment or buy medicine.
That is SiCKO!
Dear True Democrat -
No need to add too much to what you’ve written.
HR 676 is the solution!
Those refusing to support the solution are part of the problem. That goes for bought-and-paid for politcians as well as those in labor who carry their water. All US residents have a role to play. They must educate themselves about HR 676, support it, and then DEMAND that their union leaders and lawmakers do the same.
It’s a life and death issue.
Go to either UFHC.org or Healthcare-Now.org for more details about HR 676.
P.S. My union endorsed HR 676, and included the call for national health care in our collective bargaining agreement!