Latest Updates
Posted by Kari Chisholm on Sunday, June 10, 2007
Universal Health Care: Tell Senator Wyden what you think.
Universal health care. It's a nice bumper sticker, but Senator Ron Wyden has actually produced a plan to get us there.
His plan guarantees every American universal, affordable, comprehensive, portable, high-quality, private health coverage that is as good or better than Members of Congress have today. And with the independently-reviewed cost containment measures, it's entirely paid for—with the $2.2 trillion that we're already spending today.
You can learn more about the Healthy Americans Act (surely more than you ever wanted to know), but here's what Senator Wyden and I would like to know: What do you think? Does the plan make sense? Tell us what you like. Tell us what you don't like.
It's going to be hard work passing this critical legislation, and - for all Americans - it'll take some getting used to. How will it make your life better and more secure? Will it be worth it?
Let's start a conversation about health care for all Americans.
Your health care bill makes sense to me. Thank you for supporting sponsoring it.
I'm puzzled by AFSCME's attack ads. We get a lot of them because my wife is a member of AFSCME and I usually support its positions on legislation.
Their ads claim your bill would tax health benefits. In in fact, it would create a standard deduction greater than the total (employer-employee) cost of our existing negotiated plan. Managers and professionals who currently have high-end plans would be taxed on the high-end portion of their plan. Very few union members would pay taxes on any part of their benefit. The only new tax would be paid by employers.
If AFSCME's charge reflects its preference for a "pay or play" scheme where employers would be taxed only if they don't offer health benefits (as incentive to do so and an advantage of union membership), my question is, would their alternative raise enough revenue to pay for the subsidies to low-income workers?
AFSCME's attack ads also charge that your plan would force us to give up our union-negotiated plan. In fact, we'd keep it for the term of the contract, which expires next year. When the contract expires, we could choose a plan with similar benefits. As I understand your bill, the amount the employer currently pays BlueCross would show up on my wife's pay slip in two places: as a health benefit and (partially or entirely) as a deduction paid to the plan of her choice. IN future negotiations, AFSCME could still negotiate the amount of the health benefit. It could also inform members about the merits of alternative plans.
What would like to know, though, is, why you oppose an amendment that would create public health insurance option. Is there a cost issue, or is it just a matter of getting enough votes to prevent a filibuster in the Senate?