The First "Harry and Louise" Ads!
To me a "Harry and Louise" ad is negative health care reform advertising meant to defend a special interest's self-interest in what we all pay for health care. Whether it actually has "Harry" or "Louise" in it is for me beside the point. To qualify it just has to be trying to scare people to protect a special interest.
Yesterday, CQ's Drew Armstrong had a story with the headline, "Labor Unions' Campaign Targets Wyden's Proposed Cap on Benefits Reduction."
From his article:
The ads, called “Stop Wyden’s Health Tax,” are sponsored by Oregon chapters of national labor unions in an effort to defend their members from having any portion of their health benefits taxed. Wyden, D-Ore., has proposed a cap on the tax deduction for employer health care benefits.Ya think? Sort of like, "Was that dead horse head in the guy's bed in Godfather 1 meant to send a message?"
The $60,000 advertising buy will run in the Portland and Eugene markets. It is being paid for by local chapters of AFSCME, the National Education Association, and the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.
Labor groups on the conference call declined to comment on whether the ads were meant as a shot across the bow of Baucus and others. Instead, they said they were waiting to see the legislation.
America's labor unions have been at the front of the parade calling for everyone to come together and accomplish health care reform. They have been quick to point out the problems with insurers, drug companies, and all of the other special interests and haven't been shy about taking the moral high ground.
I doubt there is literally anyone in this debate (including these guys) that, at least privately, wouldn't agree that rich benefit programs are contributors toward our high health care inflation.
So what happens when a Senator makes a constructive proposal, thinks outside the box, reaches out to fellow Democrats and Republicans, and crafts a health care proposal an impressive number of both Democratic and Republican Senators have signed onto?
He gets a dead horse head in his bed with the clear message he won't be the last if he and his colleagues don't tow the line.
How much of a threat is Wyden’s plan to these unions' members anyway? The Healthy Americans Act would limit the amount workers could exclude from taxes to $6,025 annually for an individual. Married couples with children could deduct $15,210, plus an additional $2,000 per dependent child.
That compared to the average cost for family health insurance at just under $13,000 a year. So, families that have health plans costing more than $2,000 over the average have nothing to worry about.
Talk about taking the moral high ground.
Like the Healthy Americans Act or not you can't fault the creative bipartisan effort being made here.
This is how they reward a legislator back in Oregon who thinks outside the box and has accomplished more to date than any other member of Congress in crafting a bipartisan solution to a big problem?
4 comments:
I really, really don't like the role labor is taking in this debate. When I think of ordinary consumers and workers like myself, I really see no one on our side here.
Used to be when the battle lines were drawn on an issue, labor would stand with what was best for the ordinary folk, while the moneyed interests lined up on the other side. Sometimes the good guys even won.
This time around I have this sick feeling that we all want something to call "reform" and we are going to get something. But it will screw us all.
Bob,
I actually think that this is a good sign. It means that the AHA is being taken seriously. Hopefully there is more political pressure on Wyden and Bennett, and they stand up to it, and AHA is passed as the health care reform bill that WILL come in the next year.
After reading a prior post of yours where you mentioned they were considering hitting those with incomes > 160K for taxing health benefits I decided it would be better to hit everyone with a limit as this article mentions.
But my first thought was that unions, whose members almost certainly never get over $160K wouldn't like it.
BUT - to bring home to consumers how much their health benefits are worth and how much health care costs (and why they might do things like not demand the most newest/most expensive procedures that aren't necessarily any better) I think that everybody needs to help pay for this!
Normally I have a tin ear but ads like this make me think not.
When will the president and the congress challenge these interest groups with a simple three word question – what’s YOUR contribution? Whether it’s doctors, hospitals, insurers, trial lawyers, drug and device manufacturers, labor unions or consumers / patients in general, we are all going to have to give something up in money or power or both in order to bend the cost growth curve down toward something we can afford and sustain. For my own part, I’ve said numerous times that I would be willing to give up the ENTIRE tax preference for employer provided health insurance even though it would cost my family at least an extra $4K per year in higher taxes. I would even be willing to eliminate tax preferred flexible spending accounts for good measure. It’s downright sickening to hear all these interest groups clamor for reform, but, in the next breath say, in effect, whatever you do, don’t cut me.
Post a Comment