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

[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health insurance, they need to pay income tax on the money they use to pay for it (if they can find it and if it's not rescinded when they use it, etc etc).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.