Trumka has the right tone here.

But is anyone listening?

Would the Senate healthcare bill have helped Obama’s mother?

Back in the day, Candidate Obama told a touching story about his mother’s struggle to pay her medical bills while battling cancer. Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, died of ovarian cancer at the age of 53, an event Obama said in part inspired him to tackle healthcare reform.

But what kind of coverage would Dunham receive today under the Senate bill as it stands right now?

In this experiment, Dunham is still 50-years-old (her age in 1992 when she received her Ph.D. from the University of Hawaii). She is the single mother of two grown children, so she no longer has dependents. In this model, she has just been diagnosed with ovarian cancer.

She is employed as an anthropologist with USAID, the United States federal government organization responsible for most non-military foreign aid. In 1999, the federal government starting annual salaries for anthropologists were $37,744 for persons with a Ph.D., so for the sake of this experiment, I’m going to assume that she earns an annual salary of $37,744.

(Dunham may have been working with USAID to supplement her income– a common practice for anthropologists– but for the sake of this example, this is her total income. I know this model income will be an area of contention. On the one hand, a Ph.D.-holder earns much more than an average worker. However, Dunham worked as a consultant in non-military foreign aid, hardly a position of great power in a booming market. Nonetheless, I address the possibility that she earned much more than $37k later.)

I’m taking the estimates of her healthcare costs from the CBO’s report on premiums for people at different income levels. A single person like Dunham earning an income of $38,300 ($37,744 isn’t an option on the CBO chart,) would pay $3,900 (healthy years) up to $5,800 (sick years) in premiums, and could expect to pay $1,900 in out-of-pocket expenses. The government would cover 25% of Dunham’s premium.

(Here is a point of disagreement for Progressives: Nate Silver calls these figures “affordable,” while RJ Eskow thinks they’re “harsh.” Most Progressives appear to agree that cost subsidies need to be improved. Personally, I make less than Model Dunham, and consider the base premium, $3,900, a hefty chunk of change.)

Kill The Bill Baby Kill the BILL!@!@!

I just called these 2 organizations.

Omaha Steaks 800 228 2778

Nebraska Beef Council 800-421-5326

and told a person in both organizations, one a beef seller and the other an organization that promotes Nebraska beef that

I communicate with thousands of people on the net and that

UNLESS their CEOs get Senator Ben Nelson to get all Anti abortion language out of the health care bill they can forget me doing business with them and also forget about me buying Nebraska bred beef at the Supermarket which I will make sure that the local Supermarket does not sell.

Now it appears your turn to call them.

Thank you.

http://www.democratz.org

and spread the word please.

Demand congress fix the prescription drug benefit

go here http://bit.ly/drug_benefit

Send a message to traitor Joe Lieberman demanding he help enact a strong single payer public option into law.

http://bit.ly/traitorjoe

Send this message wide and far. Thank you.

Trunka is so much stronger than Stern. Trumka is a true progressive.

If Democrats pass this bill as is they will loose 10 Senate seats in 2010.

aside from this statement, I don’t think he’ll do shit and will wind up supporting this shit as “a start” “better than nothing” and blah, blah, blah. At least that’s how I’m feelin’ lately. Seems nobody really is gonna stand up and oppose this. Bernie sanders??

that many ya think. I haven’t done any analysis but I’ll buy that. Fer sher they’re gonna get their asses kicked.

And much stronger than Sweeney was.

I don’t know why Trumka’s so impressed with the House bill. Its public option is hardly robust. It’s a made-to-order dumping ground for the unhealthy; it won’t do much to break the stranglehold. And while the House bill lays more stress on employer-based coverage, why is that good for labor? It will only maintain the higher cost of goods, keeping up or adding to the pressure to move US jobs offshore.

I know AFL and SEIU are treading water because they don’t want to lose EFCA, but that’s a carrot they should have been handed by now. We should welcome the outrage but not miss the element of compromise and allow it to define acceptable down.

wasnt Lieber or,”Liber” the Romanized version of the god of intoxication? He was a god of the grape harvest and also i beleive he covered all acts done in a hysterical state like murder, treachery, rape, etc. and those acts were frequently spotaneously committed during his secret mystery rites.

The pop tarts in my kitchen pantry are stronger than Sweeney ever was.

zing!

Where Trumka is in DC relative to others, going for the House bill is a good move. Not as strong as he can or should be, but it’s good for the president of the AFL-CIO.

HA!

In the end, none of these leaders can be strong enough if they cannot mobilize the rank and file. I think Trumka knows that, but whether he can turn the ship to make it happen is another matter. I would hope that they can see that campaign contributions and lobbying are a loosing strategy when they are not backed up by grassroots organizing. The weakness of Labor is similar to the weakness of the Democratic Party – it depends on the disconnect between the grassroots and the leadership.

“it’s a made-to-order dumping ground for the unhealthy”

isnt that what health care is for? OH! wait i forgot, this isnt about health care. its about big dollar boondoggles and political opportunism

I’m not as hard on Sweeney overall as that comment may have implied.

He helped turnaround AFL-CIO on immigration, was the first AFL president to stand up against an unjust war, and broke new ground on GLBT rights. These were very real accomplishments.

Lose the creep stache. How the fuck can anyone take a douche bag like Trumka seriously?

All true. Point is, its not just about the individuals. For example, the AFL-CIO changes with respect to immigration were also driven by the organizing efforts of unions like UNITE HERE and SEIU in places like LA. They were growing their unions by organizing immigrants, showing that it could be done and that this could be a route towards labor revival.

We have had multiple waves of reform in the labor movement where reformers made increased efforts at organizing a key part of their appeals. Yet these reformers often did not bring anywhere near the kind of change that their rhetoric suggested they would. I suspect that this sort of change cannot happen solely from the top down.

Quite so.

I tried to choose my words carefully on Sweeney and immigration. I don’t think he was the prime mover, but, as you say, was responding to pressure from some of the large unions with big Hispanic memberships (SEIU, UFCW, UNITE HERE, etc.). I also think his own personal Catholic beliefs were a big influence. But I don’t think his efforts to paper over differences within labor were entirely successful, and that these differences will come to the fore if a new immigration bill gets debated next year.

Trumka is a man of the people – unlike most of the industry whores sitting in Congress.

These democrats cannot be thinking right now knowing full well that it was the “women” in this country who made the difference and brought them and Obama into office.

It was the women Democrats and I’s who slaved during the day while their husbands worked to bring about change they could believe in.

I don’t believe it’s ever been clearer precisely “whom” these frauds in congress answer to and, for all intents and purposes, work for.

There will be no denying their actions and no defense they can offer because they’ve drawn a line in the sand between representing the people and representing the corporations.