« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
How Unions can fix the free market health care system
Unions can be the solution to the health care crisis.
I recently read my wife's benefits folio, (she works for a large
employer - maybe 10,000 people worldwide), and found that the company
paid 2x what my wife paid in, which amounted to 20,000 a year. My
wife's health care contributions, however, were roughly $250 a month,
so collectively she and her company paid $750 a month for her health
insurance, which is very good - not top shelf, but very good.
When she was unemployed, I was shopping around for health care, and
a similar policy would have cost us $1200 or more, as far as I can
tell. I attribute the difference to the power of her employer to get a
discounted rate, in exchange for delivering the health care provider
their 10,000 employees business (which is paid for by the company, so
it's a huge assurance of income, as compared to the individual
employment situations of a similar number of individual policy
holders).
I suggest unions use the same bargaining power they use for their
members for the greater public, which will in turn give them even more
bargaining power, which could (should) result in lower costs for their
members and the general public as well. The unions would make their
current plans available to the general public, plus the cost of added
administrative costs for coordinators, claims submissions, etc.. By
adding members, of course, the unions could get better rates, which
they could pass on to their members, lowering the cost of health care
for union members.
If unions did this across the country, they could add members
nationwide, becoming the default middleman between the public and the
insurance companies, which would even out the rates everyone pays -
corporate, individual, unions, etc would all, eventually, end up paying
the lowest cost possible for the care they are receiving.
I believe once it all settled out, health care could still be run
and managed by private companies, but be delivered at a much lower cost.
Comments (4)
The problem is union health/medical benefits are usually tied to very specific projects, i.e. federal prevailing wage projects. Union jobs are not all that plentiful, (I'm married to a Union member).
A lot of times Union members seek private employment that many times offers similar healthcare benefits. These private jobs do so because the Union members (skilled tradesmen) demand that they do.
But really, since our family has been on both union and private health insurance - union is way way better, but most of them are self funded.
Unions are complex political organizations and not every Union or every local within that Union are operated exactly the same way.
We got fed up with the "Union Lifestyle" aka "Feast or Famine" and started our own construction company - now I pay for private insurance with a higher deductible, (not unaffordable) medical only for about $516 a month for our family. We employ Union members and gladly pay the additional health fringe benefit wages because it usually means a measure of accountability for the skill set of that member. In addition, I know that that member has a safety net of medical benefits that I might not be able to afford to provide if they were private.
Just my 2 cents.
September 17, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably the single best existing model: SEIU.
Check 'em out.
September 17, 2008 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comments; I looked on the SEIU website and couldn't find anything similar to my proposal though...
To be clear - I am not proposing that we all become union members (in the full sense of paying dues, having employers enter into contracts for the work we do, etc.). What I am proposing is that unions (such as SEIU or DC 37 here in NY) SELL TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC the same benefits they provide for their members, at cost + the costs of extra administrative support staff since the rates for union members or corporations are much lower than individual policies, due to their bargaining power. It would not be union membership, just access to the benefits that union members enjoy. The Federal Government could do the same thing for that matter.
September 17, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think witty hit the nail on the head (which on a job site would require two spotters and three breaks (sorry, old joke)). Often just the threat of unionization is enough to wring better wages and benefits from an employer, as most would rather pony up than deal with the alternative.
Most of my union friends and I would be alright with that. But, in a Republican world, where unions are fought with all the power of the federal government, an organized workforce ceases to be a credible threat. The result is, of course, not good for anyone working for a paycheck.
September 17, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment