What’s Up in Massachusetts?

[n2doc]

by mistermix

Reader P sent me this link:

House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.<...>

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions… . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

ED has also posted about this. Maybe some of you know why this happened, but it seems like a strange development in a blue state.


http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/04/28/whats-up-in-massachusetts/

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[badtoworse]

2. I would say the state is broke, or near broke, and they need to cut costs

On a political level, raising taxes in this environment is not going to happen.

[janet118]

3. It's all about the spiraling health care costs

Welcome to Romney Care - model for our national health care reform law. The government has no real control over private and "non-profit" insurers and hospitals. Therefore, the costs and rates are becoming unaffordable for everyone. The only way the state might gain power and change the dynamic is to have a massive number of subscribers in one plan - the plan that state employees' use.

The local employees' health care costs are crushing towns across Massachusetts. It is affecting property taxes, schools and jobs. As I understand it, the town, city and county workers' unions were given the opportunity to come into the state employees' insurance system, but most declined because of higher co-pays. With this law, they are being forced to sign up.

My feeling is that, if we did have a huge number of subscribers to one system, there would be the clout to crack down on some of the insurers and hospitals. And, perhaps, and I know Gov. Patrick has said he would favor this, the ability of the self-employed, under-employed and others without company sponsored insurance plans to sign on as well. In other words, a public option.

I agree that Patrick's happy talk about Mass. health care is ridiculously inaccurate. Without any control over or an alternative to private insurance companies, there is nothing to stop the bleeding of money into insurance companies and large hospitals.

Here is at statement from a former town selectman on a Democratic message board on the So. Shore that may shine some light on what the towns are going through.

As a former Selectmen, I can tell you that the unions' protestations ring hollow. I have seen how they will sacrifice jobs (for their young members) to protect benefits (for the entrenched members). The reason so few towns joined the GIC in the recent voluntary effort was that 75% of union members had to agree. Of course, they did not. So the ad professes the unions will "bargain". They haven't to date and they won't. It is unfortunate that because this country won't attack the true cause of health care costs we must have this fight, but the present system is unsustainable and the unions need to see it. Jobs for members over benefits better than anyone else has!

[Cleita]

9. I thought so.

It hasn't been working that well in Massachusetts and won't work nationally either. It's just another give away of tax payer money to the parasitic insurance industry.

[arendt]

4. Here's a link

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/27/970535/-Betrayal-in-Massachusetts#comments

Basically, the cities are broke because the Feds shorted the state, so the states had to short the cities.

And, like everywhere else, no one would ever consider raising taxes on the rich. So, its time to bust the teachers unions here too.

This state, IMHO after ten years of living here, has never deserved its reputation for liberalism. Both parties here are corrupt. Deval Patrick is a clone of Obama, a corporate apparatchik with a good resume and the currently trendy ethnicity.

[bluestate10]

6. I could not disagree more.

My city joined the state plan early. As a result, my city has freed up funds for other uses that were going to health care expenses. The quality of health care to city employees is as good as it has been. The Massachusetts state health care plan has lower costs to participants than private plans because of the scale of the plan. Getting towns and cities into the state plan decreases expenses to all participants to lower levels and gives the plan enormous negotiating power with insurers, hospitals and HMOs. The city officials in my home city found the last sentence true, happily so for taxpayers, home owners and apartment complex owners.

[arendt]

8. Operative word: "joined"

I assume that means the *unions* agreed to join, although nothing in your glowing praise of mayors and owners actually says so.

Union agreement is completely different than a legislative taking of rights, which is the same thing that went on in Wisconsin.

[bluestate10]

5. I understand the circumstances better.

The Governor and Legislature have campaigned for a while to have local workers join a state run health care plan. The objective has been to build scale and drop costs to all participants. The situation as it now stands have the healthy state plan and a hodge podge of local plans. The local plans are putting cities and towns into financial binds. The concept is the same as happens when private companies buy into a private plan in numbers, costs to participants drop on a unit basis. The legislature is making a sound choice, but the method of getting the change done is a bit strong. The change is not union busting, it is being done to lower costs to the state, cities and towns of Massachusetts and provide uniform care to all participants.

[arendt]

7. When its dictated, not voluntary, its union busting...

You can get as lawyerly as you want.

The unions objected to having the budget balanced on their backs, but the legislators don't care. They refuse to tax the rich.

The state insurance is simply not as good. The workers are having rights that they negotiated with cities taken away by legislative fiat. That is union busting.

This is the same "whittle it down" thousand cuts strategy they use against abortion. Oh, this is just a small and reasonable change. :sarcasm:

Sorry, not buying it. The unions already offered the same financial concessions. The state just wants to bust them.