A Union Run Healthcare with Facts. If you disagree with anything here, copy and paste a section or the whole thing and say no to your representatives. I suggest fact checking the information in the Healthcare Bill. At least, if anyone questions you, you are prepared. This information will give you an in depth look into the Unions involvement in this Healthcare Bill.

Read Below:

The various health care “reform” proposals being discussed in the U.S. Congress have a number of flaws -- so many, in fact, that the majority of Americans would prefer that Congress do nothing rather than pass any of the proposals being discussed today.

Among those flaws, buried within the thousands of pages are provisions that would greatly expand forced unionism in America, give Big Labor $10 billion of the taxpayers’ money, and pay for it all by taxing non-union workers.

The Union Non-Membership Tax

The most outrageous aspect of the whole scheme is how President Obama and the Senate Democrats plan to pay for it all.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus plans to raise the money by taxing American workers’ existing health care benefits.  That would be bad enough on its own, but according to a report issued by Baucus’ Finance Committee, his plan is far worse.

Senator Baucus wants to exempt unionized workers from this new tax.

Everything about forced unionism is wrong, but the unfairness of taxing Americans extra for not joining a union is truly a new low, even for Big Labor’s most ardent proponents.

If Senator Baucus is allowed to implement his payment scheme, non-union workers will end up stuck with the bill.

Public Option Puts Union Bureaucrats in Charge

The so-called “Public Option” is among the most controversial aspects of the health care scheme.  Many fear that a government-run plan would drive all others out of business.

But whether the government takes over all, most, or merely a large portion of the health insurance industry, it will put union bureaucrats in charge of the health care of millions of Americans.

The forced-unionism scheme is built deep into the very details of the mechanism for “public option,” “employer mandates,” and “cooperative health care associations.”

A handful of (union-label) bureaucrats would be making health care decisions for all of us.

In addition to a unionized bureaucracy making day-to-day decisions involving which medical procedures any particular American could receive, the House and Senate bills explicitly guarantee Big Labor’s involvement in:
 
The Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans and standards, chaired by the Surgeon General (H.R. 3200, sec. 123(a));
The Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment to, among other things, recommend policies for the “retention of the health workforce to ensure quality and adequacy of such workforce” (H.R. 3200, sec. 2251(a), (b), & (d));
The Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel for the purpose of examining and advising on workforce issues related to personal care attendant workers, including their salaries, wages and benefits (Senate Bill, sec. 3209(c));
The National Health Care Workforce Commission to serve as a national resource for information about the health care workforce, including the recruitment, education, training, and retention of the health care workforce that is fiscally sustainable, and to oversee the administration of grants under the program (Senate Bill, secs. 411 & 412);
The review and modification of a “nursing home compare” Medicare website (HR 3200, sec. 1413(A)(2));
Providing recommendations on the selection of individual or composite quality measures for the use in reporting performance information to the public or for use in public health care programs (H.R. 3200, sec. 1443(d)(2) & (6).

The cost of health care would REALLY skyrocket when Big Labor bigwigs pad payrolls with more and more layers of support staff and medical bureaucracy -- all at taxpayer expense.

Union Exemption Would Pressure Employers to Force Their Employees Into Unions

Furthermore, the whole scheme is set up so as to give Big Labor yet another advantage in the broader economic marketplace, by exempting unionized workforces from all the provisions of the new health care system.

Section 154 of H.R. 3200 states that “Nothing in this division shall be construed to alter of [sic] supersede any statutory or other obligation to engage in collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of employment related to health care.”

This provision would most likely grandfather all collective bargaining agreements, no matter how small or large the health benefit packages.  Section 154 would, further, seem to allow for all future collective bargaining agreements to supersede the requirements of the act.

Thus, even a relatively small negotiated health benefit package by a unionized employer would supersede the requirements and penalties of the act.  And even a gold-plated package by a unionized employer would certainly be cheaper than a statutorily-mandated policy requiring the employer to pay for unemployable terminal patients with preexisting conditions consuming massive amounts of health services -- and required by section 111 to be insured on a non-discriminatory basis.

This means that a union-negotiated health benefit package would be exempt from all the new requirements federal law would place on every other health benefit package in the country.

Those requirements are estimated at near $20,000 per employee -- even for full-time employees making the minimum wage.

If H.R. 3200 becomes law, employers would have four choices:

1)  Fire the employee;
2)  Absorb the extra cost of this estimated $20,000 government-mandated insurance package;
3)  Pay a fine which could well exceed the cost of the government-approved policy;
4)  Try to force their employees into a union, so they can negotiate a cheaper health care plan.

Firing their employees is not an option for companies that want to stay in business, and with the massive cost of options 2 and 3, it is virtually guaranteed that most businesses will have no choice but to pick option 4:  hand their workers over to the union bosses in order to avoid the massive new costs.

So the only way to stay in business and escape the reported $20,000+ per employee costs of the House bill is through forced unionization and monopoly bargaining.

This language exempting unionized employers from the tax is in all three versions of the bills being discussed -- not merely the House bill.

Big Labor’s Goal:  All Medical Professionals Forced Into Unions

AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney tipped his hand at a health care forum held by Kaiser Permanente on July 24, 2009, declaring that his goal is to impose Kaiser’s unionized health care model, innocuously named “integrated care,” on the entire American health care system.

Sweeney said the unionized Kaiser system “provides a framework for what every health care delivery system should do….”

The Kaiser plan covers roughly 96,000 Kaiser employees represented by 11 national unions across the country, and organizes health care workers into unit-based “teams.”   Kaiser currently has 1,793 unit-based teams throughout the country with some 55,516 union employees involved.   The company’s ultimate goal is to have all employees represented by a coalition union in a unit-based team by 2010.

John August, the Executive Director of the Coalition of Kaiser Permanente Unions, admitted that a provision in their collective bargaining agreement calls for the roles of stewards, management, and physicians to change, with stewards and managers [union bosses] becoming leaders and physicians becoming participants.

It couldn’t be more clear that these union officials’ goal is to force doctors and other medical professionals to work under Big Labor supervision.

If Sweeney, SEIU President Andy Stern, and incoming AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka have their way, this system of compulsory unionism could be forced onto the entire nation through bureaucratic regulation.

Section 124(b)(1) of the House bill states that, “[n]ot later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary [of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius] shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards.”

There are virtually no limits to what Sebelius can require under that paragraph.  True, section 124(a) provides that she will be informed by a package of recommendations forwarded by the Health Benefits Advisory Committee.  But (1) if she doesn't like the recommendations, she can send them back and do what she wants, and (2) at any rate, 17 of the up-to-27-member committee will be appointed by President Obama, presumably on the basis of Sebelius' recommendations and without confirmation by the Senate.

In addition, under section 225(a), “[t]he Secretary shall establish conditions of participation for health care providers under the public health insurance option.”

Sebelius could force a Kaiser-style unionization scheme on medical professionals everywhere through bureaucratic regulation, without the House and Senate even voting on it.  And there’s little doubt that Sweeney, Stern, and Trumka will demand that she do so.

California-Style Forced Unionization of Home Health Care Workers

California and other states have begun to impose forced unionism on many different classes of home health care workers by re-classifying them as public employees for the purpose of collective bargaining, forcing them to join unions and pay dues, under the false pretext of making sure they are compensated fairly.

The Senate bill appears to be heading in the same direction.  Section 3205(b) provides cash benefits under the CLASS Independence Benefit Plan for the Life Independence Account on behalf of each eligible beneficiary to purchase “home-maker services,” “personal assistance services” and “home care aides” and the regulations of such benefits.

Section 3208(b) further provides that within two years of the passage of the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, the States must assess the extent to which providers of home care and home health services to individuals eligible for medical assistance are receiving employment-related benefits and the States must create such entities to provide employment-related benefits for such workers to ensure an adequate supply of the workers.

Scheme Also Includes $10,000,000,000 Giveaway to Existing Union Health Care Plans

As Congress was preparing to leave for the August recess, Sweeney sent a letter to union members telling them what to demand of their members of Congress during town hall meetings.

One of those demands was relief for company/union funds providing pre-Medicare retiree coverage.

Sweeney’s allies in Congress seem happy to oblige.  The House bill’s Section 164 requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “establish a temporary reinsurance program (in this section referred to as the ‘reinsurance program’) to provide reimbursement to assist participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees.”

Any plan that “is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations, or a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association, or a committee or board of individuals appointed to administer such plan,” and which provides heath benefits to retirees 55 years of age or older, would be eligible for this $10 billion giveaway.

The vast majority of such plans are union plans, and are facing economic calamity due to their having promised benefits far in excess of what they are able to support.  No doubt Sweeney, Stern, and Trumka are happy to have the taxpayers picking up the tab for them.

Grant Program to Train Nurses -- Non-Union Operations Need Not Apply

Nor is that the only giveaway to Big Labor.  Buried deep in the behemoth bill is Section 2531, creating a grant program to fund programs that help recruit and educate nurses.

Sadly, the bill requires that any participating health care employer “provides wages and benefits to its nurses that are competitive for its market or that have been collectively bargained with a labor organization.”  And since the phrase “competitive for its market” is left undefined, it’s a sure thing that the Obama administration will be free to define the phrase according to Davis-Bacon standards, making it virtually impossible for non-union employers to qualify.

Furthermore, state training partnership programs face even more explicit unionization requirements.  Subsection (c)(3) states that “a State training partnership program that consists of nonprofit organizations that include equal participation from industry, including public or private employers, and labor organizations including joint labor-management training programs….”

This section requires the states to include Big Labor in any training programs they develop, or be denied access to funding through this grant program.

From Janna Legg