Scott Brown is endorsed by Cambridge officers. Does anyone have more info on this?

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

This is only relevant because of the upcoming MA election (which is going to affect Somerville and Davis Sq).

The SN posted: http://www.thesomervillenews.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=2&ArticleID=3007

It looks like: "The members of the Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association voted to endorse State Senator Scott Brown as our next United States Senator in Tuesday's election against Attorney General Martha Coakley."

They complain that "We do not endorse anyone who advocates changes in the health care that take away any bargaining rights or increases our cost along with our contributions. Senator Brown does not support the Comprehensive Health care Reform Bill and promises to be the 41st vote to ensure its defeat. The current leadership at the state house, as we all know and have seen over the past two years, have an agenda to dismantle all of our hard earned bargained benefits and they will continue to dismantle these until there is a complete change from the top down".

Is Brown the solution to their problems? Really? Scott Brown is their pro-Union guy? This makes no sense.

I find it disturbing that cops (with guns) act so childishly. Remember? Obama had said that they acted "stupidly" during the Gates case, and later apologized, but these folks don't seem to be able to get over it. Furthermore, I find it disturbing that they are basically saying to the rest of us: We got our cushy health plans, paid by your taxes, too bad for the rest of you (losers).

Comments

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Police officers tend to be conservative: film at 11.

This doesn't sound to me like it's about the Gates case. It sounds misinformed in my personal opinion, mind you (and for all I know healthcare reform would have a bad effect on their benefits), but not like they're trying to slight Obama.

[jovianconsensus.livejournal.com]

We got our cushy health plans, paid by your taxes, too bad for the rest of you (losers).

It's this and only this. The union looks out for its members, and its members already have health insurance. In particular, this is probably a reaction to the "Cadillac tax," even after the huge concessions granted to the unions last week.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

There definitely is something fundamentally brain-dead about a union backing a Republican. ...Especially in opposition to the health care bill.

That's why I brought up the emotional factor...

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

I assume these guys are relatively smart but have easily bruised egos.

[http://users.livejournal.com/urban_faerie_/]

Speaking as a union member, I think I can explain the reasoning behind this decision. Usually I stay away from potentially explosive topics like this on the web but I find it important to add the voice of a local union member to this conversation. I too share some of the concerns of our local police officers, although I do not share it enough to vote for Scott Brown. I'm hoping to be able to express my concern by writing letters to our newly elected Senator Martha Coakley.

This is not happening because "We got our cushy health plans, paid by your taxes, too bad for the rest of you (losers)."

I can assure you this isn't the sentiment expressed by any union members I know. I disagree with this personification of our state's hardworking union members. I find it misinformed and insulting.

Union members are concerned because this tax on so called "Cadillac Insurance Plans" represents one of the biggest rollbacks of union rights in recent history. Under the first iteration of this plan it would tax 1/4- 1/3 of union members.

Think about it this way, is it really fair to pass a tax that will disproportionately affect people in a small number of professions? (teachers, policemen, firemen, etc.) Additionally, these are all people in middle class professions. Our wages have been stagnating and our jobs have been drying up too. The tax puts an unfair burden on the middle class. I'll bet when this tax was first proposed people envisioned it punishing the wealthiest Americans, people who can afford "fancy health insurance". Those people can afford a tax, middle class union members cannot, and they will be the ones who are disproportionately affected by this tax. We are taking out our anger at corporate America on the wrong people.

Unions work because when workers band together by the thousands to negotiate the cost of our health care, etc, we are able to get a better rate from insurance companies for their services. If we didn't have collective bargaining it would cost EVEN MORE taxpayer $$ for the state to cover our "cushy healthcare plans". Union contacts go through a tedious renegotiation process every 2 years, at those points our rates for salaries, insurance, etc. are locked in for the next 2 years. Union members are upset because what is the point of having unions, negotiating contracts, paying dues (yes, we pay high union dues every year to have these privileges) if the government can just pass a law that will disproportionately tax a large proportion of our members and changes our contact mid-stream? This seriously weakens the power of unions in the US. Unions represent a large sector of the middle class, people who are struggling to hold onto their jobs and their homes. People who can't afford more taxes.

I agree with you that it seems ludicrous for a union to back a Republican. However, Scott Brown has said that he'd like to be, "The deciding vote against healthcare." If the healthcare bill doesn't pass, these new taxes that disproportionately affect union members will not exist. Some people are so worried about feeding their families, keeping their homes, etc. that they are willing to vote for somebody in a party that is not traditionally pro-union. That is what it is, plain and simple. So before you project anger, stupidity and being "brain dead" as one person on this thread did, take a moment to understand the issue fully and put yourself in the other person's shoes. And before you write people off, don't forget that these people are members of your community. They will be the people showing up when you have an emergency, and they won't ask you who you voted for before they give you help.

Easy answer there....

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

"...is it really fair to pass a tax that will disproportionately affect people in a small number of professions? (teachers, policemen, firemen, etc.)"

YES, it is fair and it is called redistribution. Similarly, it is fair to tax the wealthiest individuals "disproportionately". People in these professions have enjoyed inflated benefits, relative to the rest of us, for a long time. The problem is that now they feel entitled to such benefits, even though most of the population does not have them. You cannot hope to get sympathy with your argument. I hope you realize that.

Re: Easy answer there....

[m00n.livejournal.com]

*ahem* Investment Bankers.

While I cannot read their mind...

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

And neither can you, I would not be surprised if many members just wanted to get back at Obama for various bruised pride reasons. Not pretty, I know, but likely.

[docorion.livejournal.com]

Thank you for your reasoned and well spoken reply. As a health care analyst of sorts, though, let me point out that if the members of your (or any) union think that Scott Brown can "save" their health plans, they're fooling themselves. Health care costs, as a proportion of GDP, are rising faster than any other cost. IIRC, if unchecked, we will be paying 25 cents of every dollar in the US on health care by something like 2050 (might be sooner; definitely not later). That's 25 cents which will no longer be available to buy food, pay rent or mortgage, or do anything else.

Health reform is important because it is the only way to change that. Is the bill now in Congress the best possible bill? Oh, hell no. But it is a start. The solution is not to block it; it is to fix it. The alternative is to wait for a worse bill to come along, under even more fiscal pressure, without even the amount of public discussion we've had thus far.

(Full disclosure: I volunteer for the Martha Coakley campaign. I'm not disinterested, but this is also what I would say even if I were not volunteering).

[jovianconsensus.livejournal.com]

Think about it this way, is it really fair to pass a tax that will disproportionately affect people in a small number of professions?

Unfortunately, if you were getting a sweet deal, then any move toward fairness would require that you give something up.

As hard-working as union members may be, there are non-union employees whose employers don't provide health insurance, and the self-employed, who may in fact work just as hard. Right now, if these people want health insurance, they need to pay income tax on the money they use to pay for it (if they can find it and if it's not rescinded when they use it, etc etc). Likewise, employees, union or not, whose employer health plans are worth less than $24,000/family-year may have to pay out of their taxable incomes to cover deductibles and copays that are handled for you, tax-free.

I must point out that some of these people are also struggling to hold onto their jobs or homes; that problem is not exclusive to the better-compensated union members. Indeed, for those who have lost their homes, health care costs often turn out to be the cause.

Even if the bill passes they will still have to pay, whereas if you are affected it will only touch the last few thousand or so of your coverage -- everything under $24,000/family-year is still tax-free. Furthermore, last week it was widely reported that your plan, or any plan awarded through collective bargaining, wouldn't be touched until 2018. After docorion's comment, I think that may be the best way to preserve your situation for so long, as the current trend in health care spending has to break, no longer what Congress does.

Furthermore, I don't know if you've heard the argument, fundamental to economics, that people consume more, and drive prices up, when things are discounted. There are not enough super-rich to make health care is so expensive by themselves. It depends in large part on the actions of ordinary people. Among the middle class, those with the most expensive health plans stand out as having the most incentive to over-consume. Yes, this is essentially an argument that you, or someone with your coverage, are part of the problem. I don't know how I would react if I was told the same, and you may have already heard it and dismissed it, but as I said, the idea is fundamental.

I think an 8-year delay and a $24,000 exemption is still quite good for you, and even after that you'll be doing better than a lot of people. I am deeply sorry, and deeply concerned over what happens next in health care policy, if you can't allow even that much.

[m00n.livejournal.com]

I have to ask: Even if you are one of the union members that may be affected by this tax on "Cadillac Insurance Plans" what do you have to say to the argument that if we do nothing (as Scott Brown is basically proposing) the premiums will eventually continue to go up to the point where they cost more than this Cadillac Plan Tax would have?

I don't think anyone's arguing that this plan is perfect or in any way totally fair (although I think it would have been a lot more fair if we didn't already have a bunch of other Scott Browns in the senate), but unless we want health costs to consume our entire GDP, we need to pass *something.* Lets worry about the specifics of how to pay for it once we have a system in place to begin with.

Consider, if you will, that if we manage to make this plan work anything like health care in the whole rest of the world, we should all be able to give ourselves a tax cut (AND save some money) because we're already spending about twice as much as the rest of the world on health care. This bill, in its current form, seeks to undo that. Opposing it in full, because of a relatively modest tax increase, (even one on the middle class, which I don't necessarily agree with), is like economic suicide.

As I said, it does not make sense...

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

There is some other agenda driving this, or it could just be good old greed (at the union member or executive levels, or both). In any case, whatever happens with this election, their blatantly anti-common-good attitude will be remembered by MA folks.

[ckd]

Of course, the Senate bill is likely to pass as-is if Brown is elected, since that's the only way it'll get through; if Coakley wins, at least there's a chance that some of the House bill will get into the final result because then it might get through the Senate on the 60 votes.

So if you hate the Senate bill, voting for Brown may be counterproductive.