[lbo-talk] Fitch on unions & health insurance

[John Lacny]

Fitch's central argument doesn't make sense to me. The Taft-Hartleys (which 
are not union-run health plans but joint operations with representatives 
from both the union and the employers who pay into the funds) are a pain in 
the ass to run, particularly in recent years when the premiums have been 
rising sharply. In Western PA I've been in a number of meetings that 
Highmark and/or UPMC Health Plan have had with the union 
representatives --especially from the trades -- who are trustees of these 
funds, and the union leaders usually spend the meeting reaming out the 
insurers for jacking up the rates. You can critique union leaders all you 
want for their lack of a vision of change in health care, but I have no 
doubt that most of them would love to be rid of this headache. They don't 
know how, but that's a different story.

US labor's lack of a vision on health care is a good deal more complicated 
than you would know from reading this sort of vulgar-Marxist analysis that 
tries to find proximate economic causes for every failure of the movement. 
Our ideological problems are in fact much deeper and a good deal more 
depressing. Some perhaps find it comforting to see pure, simple venality 
where a much more daunting enemy can be found, but in the end that doesn't 
help us.

Also, isn't Fitch the same guy who wrote that pretty clueless article about 
SEIU and homecare a while back? I don't know much about him, but I'm not 
getting the impression that he's worth reading.

- - - - - - - - - -
John Lacny
http://www.johnlacny.com

Tell no lies, claim no easy victories