Written and edited by Norm Scott:
EDUCATE! ORGANIZE!! MOBILIZE!!!
Three pillars of The Resistance – providing information on current ed issues, organizing activities around fighting for public education in NYC and beyond and exposing the motives behind the education deformers. We link up with bands of resisters. Nothing will change unless WE ALL GET INVOLVED IN THE STRUGGLE!
“He may be a son of a
bitch, but he is our son of a bitch,” President Franklin Delano
Roosevelt supposedly said of one of them (though accounts vary about
whether the president was referring to American-backed dictators in
Nicaragua or in the Dominican Republic). Two generations of brutal Haitian
dictators from the Duvalier family were among a long list of strongmen
around the Caribbean, Latin America, the Middle East and elsewhere who
received resolute American support, particularly as allies against
Communism.
U.S. Habit of Backing Strongman Allies Fed Turmoil in Haiti
Washington
dismissed warnings that democracy was unraveling under President
Jovenel Moïse, leaving a gaping leadership void after his assassination.... Critics say the American approach to Mr. Moïse followed a playbook the
United States has used around the world for decades, often with major
consequences for democracy and human rights: reflexively siding with or
tolerating leaders accused of authoritarian rule because they advance
American interests, or because officials fear instability in their
absence.... Mr. Moïse’s grip on power tightened notably under Mr. Trump, who spoke
admiringly of a range of foreign autocrats. Mr. Trump was also bent on
keeping Haitian migrants out of the United States (they “all have AIDS,”
American officials recounted him saying). To the extent that Trump
officials focused on Haitian politics at all, officials say, it was
mainly to enlist the country in Mr. Trump’s campaign to oust his nemesis in the region: Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro... NYT
Trainings for the Colombian mercenaries accused of killing
Haitian President Jovenel Moïse were conducted in both the U.S. and
Colombia, some as recently as 2015.
You get it? Maduro is an undemocratic dictator, so promote other right wing dictators to try to bring them down. Let's end the fiction about democracy as the issue in trying to bring regime change, especially to communist or socialist nations. Not that even elected leftists have been immune -- see Chile, Iran, and Europe post WWII. I'm particularly sensitive after reading George Schmidt's The AFT and the CIA for John Lawhead's study group --- yes, our own beloved union has been tied up with undermining these nations. https://uftrg.files.wordpress.com/2021/06/the-american-federation-of-teachers-and-the-cia.pdf
Democracy defined: the ability to profit
The key to understand is that when they talk about democracy they don't mean the people but the ability of capitalists to control and profit from the resources of the nations that have removed that ability by taking control of resources. Thus it is not that Cubans can't vote but that the tourist industry can't profit. That the mob can't run hotels like they did before Castro. Or that the oil in Venezuela is not available for profit. The same for Iraq - it's about the oil baby. Iran too -- the biggie when the Shah was overthrown was not that suddenly an undemocratic dictator was lost to us -- but the oil went along with him.
Finally, we are seeing the Haiti story expose the hypocrisy of those calling communist countries undemocratic (true) while supporting dictators who are often even worse. I hadn't even realized until recently that the former slaves who overthrew the French in 1800 had to pay reparations to the deposed slave holders until 1947, which bankrupted the country - and the brand new United States democracy supported that and then throughout the 20th century repeatedly interfered in the affairs of Haiti -- and of course went nuts when the Soviets did similar acts on other nations.
Imagine what Mulgrew would do it we are switched from the current 5%
managed charters to 100% in NYC -- the UFT would be wiped out. This is straight out of the disgraced neo-liberal playbook of reducing government services. Also imagine if they tried to do the same to social security.
From a FB thread of working UFT members whose health plans will be next on the chopping block:
We were going to raise all the copays anyway… bullshit
“10% we will work with you to arrange payment “
It will cost you to stay with existing plan… so no it’s not as sold … "you can keep your coverage no problem"
Is there evidence that the MLC and City were going to raise copayments anyway
That’s Bs
Need to be called out loud and clear
But what are they being raised to?
Many procedures or services from 0
This thing is designed to squeeze folx out of senior care
By design
A key is the duplicity of the unions and their support of the health care industry - as is the support of the Dem and Rep Parties, So even if they lower medicare to 60 - we know that these people will be lured by the massive marketing -- money in essence out of our pockets -- of the industry.
As I've been saying -- they are making the details look good on paper. But the key is that we are going from having 20% of our care managed and controlled privately to 100%. Morally and philosophically and any other way you want to put it -- even if I get the exact same service - I am opposed. Just like I oppose any privately managed charter school controls of the school system. Imagine what Mulgrew would do it we are switched from the current 5% managed charters to 100% in NYC -- the UFT would be wiped out.
It goes into effect Jan. 1 --- UFT elections start in March -- retirees need to make them pay for this act by voting for the opposition -- as long as there is one clear opponent, not multiple slates.
The major thing I see is a truly mass rally and march not of
hundreds but of thousands in protest. This will not happen without mass
organizing and some time to do it. Sometimes impatience can be an enemy.
As someone wise once said -- Build it and they will come. Jan. 1 is
when the abomination goes into effect. October -- think of the first
UFT Retired teacher meeting and of course they are afraid to have it in
person -- I don't know the date but a Tuesday in October -- but we can
be outside 52 Broadway at 1 PM to shout our disapproval.
We also need to organize moves to enlist medicare for all friendly politicians, I think people are beginning to work on that.
And getting this issue in front of left-leaning podcasters.
NYC Unions Confirm Decision To Shift Retirees Onto Privatized Health Insurance
I don't care about what goodies they may throw in. I oppose this plan like I oppose charter schools - even of they are made of gold - I oppose the neo-liberal moves to degrade government services and turn them over to profitizing privatizeers. I also oppose the privatization of space. And the privatization of research labs which used to have much stricter controls under the government but now turned into profit machines that could lead to lab leaks -- look up the history of lab leaks in this country.
Note the union leaders argued when Bernie was floating medicare for all that Bernie wanted to take away your beloved union health plan. And how UFT people were telling people as recently as a few months ago not to take a medicare advantage plan because they suck and stick with Medicare. And then they take away our beloved health plan.
So keep your damn silver sneakers and give me back my Medicare.
UPDATE Video mentions unions collaborating to privatize NY Retirees plus United Health Care cuts emergency room visits - https://youtu.be/hdsysmFCeJk -
Host calls health insurance companies blood sucking tics -
DISCLAIMER - Even though Hartmann mentions what is happening he gets it wrong ----
I keep saying it - moving us out of a public and into a private option is the same thing as moving public school options into privatized management. And just like charters are like a long time dagger at the heart of public schools, this move is a dagger at the heart of Medicare. No politician wants to say openly they are for eliminating Medicare, so they all gang up to do this underneath the table.
We've been inundated with input, so here are a few.
Tuesday - July 12 - The PSC had a meeting of 791 people — both retirees and inservice
folks. The leadership is asking for a moratorium on the vote at the MLC
tomorrow evening. It’s unlikely that will be agreed to. Without a
moratorium, the PSC delegates will vote NO on approving the MA contract.
Apparently some other unions will also vote no, but not enough to
outweigh the DC 37 and UFT vote.
There were LOTS of questions that people asked together on the mass zoom
meeting. Some were answered satisfactorily but many could not be
because the answers just aren’t known — questions about which doctors
will accept MA (nationally, not just in NYS), pre-authorization,
hospital acceptance, etc. So much uncertainty.
Some of the MLC people are suggesting that the $600 million in costs
savings to the City — which is the entire amount the City spends on
retiree health care! — will come from the subsidy that CMS will pay to
the provider for administering Medicare benefits. But this is almost
certainly not true. Medicare spends $2.9 billion on NYC retirees. The
normal rate of the subsidy is 4%, which is about $120 million. So the writer
explains where the rest of the savings will come from. It’s not a pretty
picture.
City’s Plan Will Reduce Retiree Health Care by 24%
A Research Note
Prepared by Leonard Rodberg, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Urban Studies, Queens College/
CUNY & Research Director, NY Metro Chap, Physicians for a National Health Program
Overview: New York City is about to switch the health insurance plan of all retired
government workers from traditional public Medicare to a private Medicare Advantage
plan. Under the City’s proposal, spending on health care will be reduced by 24%. The
impact on retiree health could be harmful or deadly.
Employees of the City of New York, including such associated agencies as the City
University of New York, receive their health benefits through employer-provided private
insurance negotiated with the City employee unions. Like most Americans covered by private
employer-based insurance, they look forward to the time when, upon retirement, they can move
to the far less restrictive federal Medicare program.
Thus, upon their retirement, most City retirees join the Medicare program and look
forward to its simplicity and reliability. This federal program provides basic medical coverage
with few limitations, but it covers only 80% of the cost of outpatient care and requires
copayments for inpatient (hospital) services. The City government, through contracts negotiated
with its various employee unions, provides comprehensive coverage, called GHI Senior Care,
which covers most out-of-pocket costs.
The City government is now seeking, through negotiations with the City employee
unions, to end that program and require all retirees, if they want comprehensive coverage, to join
a private Medicare Advantage program. (The term “Medicare Advantage” was created by the
Congress in the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. Previous version of this program had been
called Medicare Managed Care and Medicare+Choice.) Medicare Advantage plans are private
insurance plans funded by the federal Medicare program. They cover the same services as
traditional public Medicare, plus some additional ones like gym memberships and some dental
and hearing services, but they may impose additional rules, costs, and restrictions.
The City now spends $600 Million per year on retiree health benefits An agreement for
health care savings signed in 2018 with the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC), representing the
City employee unions, provided that in its third year (then 2020 but delayed to 2021 because of
the pandemic) it would save the City $600 Million. The City is proposing to achieve these
savings by moving its retirees to a Medicare Advantage plan like those that have been widely
advertised to seniors since their creation in 2003.
We do not yet know the details of the plan the City will adopt. Even when information on
the plan is finally released, important features of the plan (such as when prior approvals will be
required) will remain hidden behind the corporate wall of “proprietary information”. So, in the
analysis that follows, we will use average features of Medicare Advantage plans to estimate the
financial effects this change will have on retiree health care.
Currently, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that Medicare spends an average of
$11,953 annually per enrollee in New York State. For the 245,000 Medicare enrollees that the
City now has in its program, this amounts to a total of $2.9 Billion per year coming from the
federal Medicare program. The City adds another $600 Million, so the current cost of providing
health care to the City’s retirees is $3.5 Billion. (Note that, as expected, the City’s payment is
about 20% of the total, reflecting the 20% average coinsurance required by the Medicare
program.)
Under the City’s plan, all of the funding for retiree health care will come from the federal
government. Because of Congressional support for the Medicare Advantage program, the federal
government does pay Medicare Advantage plans more than the same care would cost in the
traditional public Medicare program. These additional funds, a Medicare subsidy, has in the past
been as large as 8-10%. However, according to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission
(MedPAC), Medicare currently pays to Medicare Advantage plans, per enrollee, 104% of what is
spent by traditional Medicare. So we can estimate that,a total of whichever Medicare Advantage
plan is chosen by the City and the MLC (assuming they do continue to go that route), the funds
available to them will be about 104% of Medicare’s current spending on the City’s retirees, or
$3.05 Billion.
However, not all of these funds will be available to pay for the delivery of health care.
Private insurers providing Medicare Advantage plans spend considerable sums on internal
administrative expenses or overhead. There is a widespread belief that the private sector is
inherently more efficient than the public, government sector. However, the health care field is an
exception to this general idea. Private insurance companies have much greater administrative
expenses than do public agencies. They not only have to process claims, but they conduct
complex prior approval processes in order to limit their spending on expensive treatments and
procedures. They negotiate rates with physicians, hospitals, and other providers. They purchase
extensive advertising and other marketing tools. They pay high salaries, often in the millions of
dollars, to their administrators. And, of course, most of them are for-profit companies which
typically make at least 5% profit on their overall revenues, or 20% or more on their actual
expenses.
The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that Medicare Advantage plans have an
average overhead expense of 14% of their total revenue. If the City’s plan is adopted, that will be
a total of about $427 Million per year. So the funds available to pay for the delivery of health
care will be $427 Million less than the $3.05 Billion the insurers receive from the federal
government, or $2.62 Billion.
Before comparing this to current spending, we must note that the $600 Million that the
City currently spends on supplemental coverage for its retirees is also spent through insurance
companies. This means that a significant portion of its funds are actually spent on internal
administrative overhead. We will use the same overhead figure, 14%, for this spending as for the
Medicare Advantage plan (the same companies are generally involved.) So just 86%, or $516
Million, is actually available today to pay for the delivery of health care. Total spending on
actual health care today is then $3.45 Billion per year, not the $3.5 Billion shown earlier.
2
Finally, the reduction in health care spending under the City’s plan will be 3.45 – 2.62 =
0.83, or $830 Million per year. This is 24% of what is currently spent on delivering health care to
retirees. The following graph shows this result in visual form. The calculations are summarized
in a table on the next page.
The insurance companies will claim that this reduction in spending is possible because
they take such good care of their members that they remain healthier than they would be
otherwise. There is no evidence, anywhere, of either such savings or of any activities that would
lead to such savings. Instead, these “savings” – actually, these reductions in spending on health
care – are created by (1) the extensive use of deductibles and copays, which shift costs from the
insurer to the patients; (2) the reduction in the use of health care services when patients, faced
with financial barriers, avoid seeking care; (3) the requirements for prior authorization by the
insurance company of expensive treatments and procedures, leading to denials and delays; and
(4) paying doctors and hospitals less than traditional Medicare does. Together, they create
spending reductions approaching a quarter of all health care spending.
How many patients will have their health worsened, or will die, as a result of this severe cut
in spending on their health care? If the City’s plan is approved, only time will tell.
3
Financial Impact of the City’s Plan for a Shift to Medicare Advantage
Hell yes - look at Unity Caucus. I'd bet anything that if the opposition were to actually win an
election Unity would do exactly like Trump and Lukashenko in Belarus -
say we somehow managed to steal the election and refuse to leave power
and incite a Unity nob to storm the delegate assembly.
Let's explore the concept of one party rule on the 100th anniversary
of the Chinese Communist Party, 70 years in power, and compare it to the 60th year of one
party rule in the UFT. True that we actually have elections in the UFT,
but the system has so been set up as to assure Unity of continued
control. I'll get into the details of how that is accomplished at
another time.
If one party has total power for decades even if there are so-called opposition parties, I am suggesting that in
reality that is a one-party system. After all, Shanker modeled Unity on the foundation of some of the leftist parties he came in contact with in his youth. (A mentor was former communist and Trotskist Max Shachtman who ended up as a neocon, as did Shanker.) One party - or one caucus - systems emerged from one of the concepts of Leninism - a vanguard party of the highly conscious (the woke? elites?) who lead the workers. it is a powerful idea --- but also dangerous in how it has proven easy for the party to be captured by a strongman - and it often seems to be a man, which distorts the party into a personal cult. [My main issue with the idea of that form of socialism - even Marxist-Leninist parties in this nation often are dominated by a tiny group of leaders amountint to a cult.]
Unity Caucus has always been somewhat of a personality cult, even when led by women. (Actually, Sandy Feldman was the least cultish UFT president).
Monday, July 12, 2021
Good morning,
I've been thinking about one party systems. I've been accumulating some articles (below) on the Communist Party of China - which celebrated its 100th anniversary and has been in power for over 70 years. With all the attacks on communist countries as being failures, China represents a success for its one party system - so far - the Soviet one party system did fail around its 70th year. China doesn't seem even close and in fact the Party, which has an astounding 90 million members, seems stronger than ever. But the party under Xi seems to have become more restricted than it has been in decades and that lack of dynamic can affect a party - witness current Republicans. In so many states we in essence have a one party system and laws intended to make that permanent.
[‘Who Are Our Enemies?’ China’s Bitter Youths Embrace Mao.
The
chairman’s call for struggle and violence against capitalists is
winning over a new audience of young people frustrated with long work
hours and dwindling opportunities.... [https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/08/business/china-mao.html]
Mao-Tze Mulgrew- Can we say the same for our own lovable one party system in the UFT? Can we atrtibure bad decision making to the lack of even a hint of internal democratic dynamic?
The standard idea of democracy is two or multi-party
systems with the idea that at various times they will occupy power at
some point. Now we know that communist run countries are proud of their
one party systems. This is different from social democracies like in
many areas of Europe which have multi-parties.So if the UFT has had one party in power while the opposition at most could elect less than 10% of the Ex Bd, that is in effect a one party system.
I've come to see how one party systems can have overall benefits for a nation or a union -- think of consistency of a party line -- but at the very least there has to be some level of internal democracy in the party where issues are shared and debated in an open manner even if the Party closes ranks once a decision is made. This is known as democratic centralism and I can see it working for an organization if it is truly democratic --- if the Party is fairly open to many members instead of a small oligarchy -- democracy even if limited can work. But when one person or a small tightly woven group dominate, democracy gets distorted.
And I will claim that internally, Unity is not and has never been democratic and may be even less so than ever as Xi Jin Mulgrew seems to have consolidated power into three men and one woman in a room. I doubt that Shanker or Randi or even Sandy also didn't have their crew of non-elected henchpeople -- but this is the first time we hear rumors of internal resentment - even if one person is making the decision, at least a show of consulting others goes a long way.
Even small groups like the MORE Caucus can get distorted - and some of us lost our battle for democracy to a tightly controlled group from the ISO (International Socialists), a party that had run on many of the precepts of one-party systems and were very uncomfortable in an organization of free-flowing ideas. So very Unity like. There are signs that MORE may be moving in a promising different direction organizationally due to the influence of DSA people were are more committed to democracy than ISO people were -- which may make MORE more open -- we'll delve into that in the future. My hope for MORE is that DSA - which I am a member of and seems to have a real dedication to democracy, has a positive influence.
The CCP in China and Unity Caucus have a good chunk of members - ie. Unity has around 1000 or more and if democratic debate and decision making takes place among even an internal fairly representative body -- that would be a form of democracy - in theory. In fact MORE also has increased membership by 10 times -- which if they get to have a say would create more democracy even as the group running MORE would still be one party - or faction.
The UFT one-party system does have elections, even if rigged and set up in a way that the opposition cannot win - retirees vote for every position except the 23 Ex Bd elem, middle and high school positions. Also witness that the almost 7000 people who voted for RA in the recent election get no delegates to the DA or to the AFT/NYSUT conventions -- as one party as you can get.
The only way Unity can lose is if it loses the support of retirees, which they are risking with the move to take people out of Medicare. Given Retiree Advocate went from 18% of the chapter election vote in 2018 to just short of 30% in the recent election, that is a sign of some slippage, but probably not enough to affect the general UFT spring 2022 elections. But then again many retirees still weren't aware of the changes. We got just short of 7000 votes while Unity got around 16,500. These out of potential 70,000 votes. With the Medicare changes probably set to go through on Jan. 1, 2022, we might see further movement away from Unity and then things will become serious.
But I will point out that even if we see a united opposition -- if MORE has come to its senses - I felt the MORE "decision" to blow up the opposition in the 2019 elected was manipulated by the ISO and allies faction and opposing points of view were suppressed -- which led to my suspension.
I would also say the same about New Action too since even they resisted a united front with Solidarity Caucs last time despite strong support fot it -- and I heard from some internally that even their decision was controversial with charges of lack of democracy.
Which just gores to show that democracy is challenged wherever we roam.
I will say that so far in Retiree Advocate we have had complete democracy - consensus -- but we are mostly a dozen people -- but still we come from three different groups and have managed to help lead the resistance on the health care issue.
And RA will play a role in bringing groups tegether for the elections. But if we managed to unite we could win elem, middle and high schools with amajority and 49% of the retiree votes and still end up with at most 23 Ex Bd seats out of 100 and no officers. To me that is fundamentally a one party system. The key would be turnout - imagine if we even had 50% turnout. But I maintain that winning 23 Ex Bd seats would be revolutionary.
Can we compare Unity to places like Belarus or Hungary where they make sure that even if the other party gets more votes, they don't win. In fact compare it to the Republicans in Trump world where if Dems win in the future, they will be charged with stealing. And I'd bet anything that if the opposition were to actually win an election Unity would do exactly like Trump and Lukashenko in Belarus - say we somewho managed to steal the election and refuse to leave power and incite a Unity nob to storm the delegate assembly.
Ok - enough of this meandering. Here are the articles on China -- with an interesting one that the young people are sort of rebelling the inequality by going back to basics - Mao and his calls for working class rule -- which given his entire history of total conrol of the Party with echoes of Trump control of Republicans might cause you to lol. And Bret Stevens on why Xi will fail - also LOL - Stevens thinks the CCP will fail because they lie to the people --
missing the irony of how often our own government has lied which has
created so much mistrust our system may fall before China's does.
It
is time for cameras in classrooms. If it is good for cops it is good
for teachers. Parents should know what kind of propaganda their kids are
being subjected to.
----right wing pedophile in training.
So this guy is an ed notes reader and basically parrots whatever Tucker says he should. But just think about what they want to do -- look in on your kids and open the door to - well, I'll lead that to your imagination. I taught 4-6 grade mostly, but if Tucker and wants to look at the children in my class, I'd go back to teaching just for that.
Now I actually would have loved to live stream my teaching -- I was usually pretty proud of it but for the times I wasn't I might have gotten juiced up at the low moments. I taught with an open door -- loudly - so there were times I was asked to tone it down or close my door -- until they put me in a room so far down the hall you needed a search party to find me.
I'm listening right now to the Sam Seder show where they are talking about this issue in hour 2. https://youtu.be/7O7G9N8V1hg
This is much bigger than us -- it is part of the 30 year project to destroy medicare and public options. There's a lot of useful info in
this article and extracts could be the basis of a general leaflet for
education purposes --- we have to convince our own union members.
Both parties are complicit - this goes so far beyond Mulgrew and the UFT -- but the key is that they are part of the process of pushing public money into private corp hands -- it is really a similar issue as charters as the ed equivalent of Medicare Adv -- with the same slick advertising.
"If Medicare Advantage plans were in truth better or were better deals
financially than traditional Medicare Parts A and B, plus Part D, the
companies offering them wouldn’t be resorting to the aggressive and
costly promotional campaigns they currently employ, with sales reps
calling older people’s phones day and night endlessly and making major
ad buys on TV networks and the internet. They wouldn’t be resorting to
costly come-ons like offers of free gym memberships and dental and drug
insurance coverage either (which Congress in its “wisdom” bars
government Medicare from doing in its traditional plans). The health
care industry is the biggest advertiser on television and ads for
Medicare Advantage are a big part of that spending, especially on
networks whose viewership skews heavily toward older persons, like CBS."
Some naive UFT members think Mulgrew/Weingarten are just misinformed. They are not. They are avid supporters of private insurance over the public option -- as is the people in control of the Dem Party.
I extracted a few more quotes --
This is a biggie:
"The annual fees alone for signing up 24 million elderly and disabled
people into MA plans and keeping them or luring them off the traditional
government Medicare rolls came to $288 billion in 2020. Total spending
on Medicare that year was $776 billion, meaning that the payment to the
MA industry for patient care to their covered patients that year
represented more than a third of the total federal outlay on the
program!, not counting the fraud for subscriber medical condition
inflation."
Private insurance wants the entire $776 billion.
“Starting next year,” she warns, “the government is talking about
testing something called ‘The Deal,’ where whole Medicare-eligible
populations in certain geographical markets will be put into Medicare
Advantage plans whether they want it or not.” The idea is presented as a
test to see how that system works.
"In 2019, for instance, President Trump signed an executive order
— one that was slipped by without the usual Oval Office media show —
which allows the government to involuntarily enroll people in MA plans
rather than the old default of government Medicare. It also ordered the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to actively encourage MA plan
sponsors to offer marketing deals like gym memberships and dental plans
to attract healthy subscribers, while banning Medicare itself from
including such offerings. The order also makes it easier for physicians
to opt out of the Medicare program."
I get the joy some people are getting from the Trump gifts to employees to avoid taxes, but the reality is that many businesses, especially smaller one, engage in similar tactics and the tax laws encourage that -- workers are taxed at much higher rates than corporations or any business. That is one of the big reasons for the growing wealth inequality. Most of my income is from pension, social security, some minimal bank interest and my untaxed TDA withdrawals. I pay enormous taxes on that portion. I might have some capital gains - though I never trade stocks very much --- I'm a buy and hold guy.
But note how the mainstream media ignores the bigger issue and focuses on Trump who I actually agree with -- this is a hit job. Let's see them investigate other major businesses and see what they would find.
Over 400 people
joined the rally..,many called for their unions to
move away from privatized healthcare altogether and to support
single-payer healthcare on both a national and state level. .. CURO press release
CURO Cross Union Retiree Organizing (Committee) - or CUROC - we made a new acronym for a just formed alliance. Retiree Advocate/UFT is the main organizing force in the UFT but we now have allies in other unions - due to the amazing work of our own Gloria Brandman, who in the decades I've known her has always pushed the idea of building cross union alliances, even at the expense of tooting our own horn and branding ourselves as the moving force. It's true coalition building towards a united front -- and a model for the factions in the UFT to do the same for elections and issues of agreement.
I'm finally back in Rockaway after Wednesday's rock'n and roll'n rally through lower Manhattan by mostly us old folk. Naturally a whole bunch of us ended up at the Dark Horse bar on Warren St. and then I walked halfway uptown to Houston St until my leg gave in and I took the subway to Grand Central.
There's a lot of coverage and photos and videos -- I'm processing mine today -- so I'm going to put up a number of posts with the coverage and follow those in a few days with my analysis of the significance of the event, the organizing behind it and what the coalitions being built might hold for the future.
FAKE NEWS -- Our current health care plan is privatized so with the new one nothing changes. Fudging -- only 20% of those who choose Medicare (Some choose MedAdv) is privatized - the Emblem health part. Under the proposal 100% would be under private management. Think charter schools liiving on tax payer money.
Hottest day of the year and hundreds of municipal retirees (and some in-service) showed up: UFT, DC37, PSC, CSA, MEA, and more.
WBAI Evening News Link (story starts at 26:50). - I'm interviewed along with Bennett Fischer and Vincent Wosjnis - who flew in from his home in Ghana for the event (just kidding - he flew in to see his daughter.)
Today,
Tuesday June 30th a coalition of retired and active NYC municipal
workers held a rally and "tour" in downtown Manhattan, from Bowling
Green to City Hall, and called for the Municipal Labor Committee (MLC)
to halt negotiations aimed at selling off the administration of the
City’s Medicare plan to a private insurance company. Over 400 people
joined the rally as it started in the plaza in front of the old
Beaux-Arts, U.S. Custom House, now the home of the Museum of the
American Indian, and proceeded up Broadway towards City Hall, stopping
at various union headquarters and the NYC Office of Labor Relations
(OLR) along the way. At the rally, and at each stop, municipal retirees
called for the MLC and OLR to institute a moratorium on their Medicare
privatization plans. More than that, many called for their unions to
move away from privatized healthcare altogether and to support
single-payer healthcare on both a national and state level.
The
MLC – which is the healthcare bargaining unit for the City's municipal
unions – plans to achieve $600M in agreed-to healthcare savings for the
City in fiscal year 2021 by putting its healthcare obligations on the
auction block to the highest bidder. This switch would replace the
City’s traditional, government administered Medicare plan with a
so-called Medicare Advantage plan, operated by a private insurer.
Medicare Advantage plans are known to make a profit by charging higher
administrative costs than government administered Medicare, by
negotiating lower payments for medical procedures, and by limiting
patient care to a restricted number of in-network healthcare providers
and hospitals. Retirees are concerned that the proposed new plan will
limit their choice of doctors, eliminate hospitals and networks from
their current coverage umbrella, require burdensome referrals and
pre-approvals for medical procedures, and increase out-of-pocket
expenses for services and prescription drugs. Many are concerned that
lifesaving care they now receive under the current structure will no
longer be available on a national scale or from their current doctors,
with whom they have established deep personal relationships. They worry
that privatization will put them on a slippery slope of ever-diminishing
healthcare returns.
Retirees
are also furious that the City's healthcare negotiations are occurring
behind closed doors and only came to light in March, when retirees in
the Professional Staff Congress (PSC) – CUNY’s educators union – got
wind of the backdoor dealings and spread the word. Soon, retirees in the
United Federation of Teachers (UFT) became involved and were joined by
retirees from other municipal unions. They began to question union
leadership and demanded to know details of the Medicare changes under
consideration.
In
April, retirees in the PSC passed a resolution calling for a moratorium
of the City's healthcare negotiations. Retiree Advocate/UFT - a caucus
of the UFT's Retired Teacher Chapter - placed a motion for a moratorium
on the agenda of the UFT’s Delegate Assembly. On May 24th, they held a
news conference near City Hall in which members of the UFT, PSC, CSA,
and DC37 spoke out against Medicare privatization. They were joined by
speakers from Physicians for a National Health Plan and researchers from
the CUNY School of Public Health. In response to the growing outcry,
UFT President Michael Mulgrew held a telephone town hall in which
thousands of retirees participated. President Mulgrew, a key player on
the MLC board, said that the UFT may still decide to opt out of a switch
to private Medicare, but despite assurances the closed-door
negotiations have continued, with a decision on a winning bidder due by a
July 1st deadline.
UFT
retiree Bennett Fischer said, “Working with my union, I spent many
years pushing back against the hedge-fund billionaires and the charter
school profiteers who wanted to destroy my profession, kill my union,
and privatize public education. Why would we ever acquiesce to letting
the same frenzy of sharks devour our public Medicare system?”
Stopping
in front of the Broadway offices of CUNY's teacher union, Nancy Romer,
retired Professor Emerita, Brooklyn College, and PSC Executive Council
member, said, “The Professional Staff Congress of CUNY, the AFT local
representing over 30,000 workers at CUNY, is asking for a moratorium on
the Medicare decision by the MLC until more input and investigation
occurs. We need to fully inform our members of the possible healthcare
packages and get their input on this most important decision affecting
almost 300,000 City retirees and partners and all present City workers
who expect to retire over the next few decades.”
"The
proposal to move City retirees to a Medicare Advantage plan is a
fundamental diminishment of their hard-won retirement benefits and will
disproportionately impact lower-income retirees. I am proud to stand
with retirees in calling for a democratic and transparent process
regarding the future of their healthcare coverage. It's unacceptable
that public servants are being asked to accept reduced benefits when the
most affluent New Yorkers have only become wealthier during the
pandemic," said Sarah Crean (member of the City Council staff union
organizing committee) when speaking near City Hall.
“The
City should not achieve its labor savings by taking critical health
care options away from current retirees, many of whom are on fixed
incomes and rely on their doctors and providers,” said Council Member
Brad Lander. “We do need to find savings, but we should do that through
attrition, efficiency, and smart choices for the future, not by reneging
on promises we made long ago to the teachers, nurses, secretaries and
so many more who showed up for us for decades.”
Watch what they do - or don't do - not what they say
.... a consistent mantra from an obscure blogger
Despite the UFT President Mulgrew's call for UFT members to not rank Adams, the lack of a call to rank another choice other than Stringer that might be beneficial to members, is amounting to the same thing as Wiley trails pro-charter friendly Garcia by just a few hundred votes. Would a call for UFT members to rank Wiley 2nd have made a difference? Well, imagine if it didn't make a difference - that would be some condemnation of the UFT political op.
So if you think the UFT political machine has any validity we must assume that a call to rank Wiley second would have put her in a significantly better position that Garcia at this point and really present a threat to Adams.
Was Mulgrew incompetent - or engage in spite against pro-Wiley union leaders - or does Garcia politics mesh well with the UFT leadership even if members will suffer?
When you out the UFT position on Medicare and universal health insurance and a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporate and right wing Dems, it all does make sense. Wiley could promise 5 teachers in every classroom and drastic reductions in class size and enormous salary increases, she would still be too far left for the UFT leadership.
As that wise sage said -- watch what they do, not what they say. And what Mulgrew did was make sure Wiley was screwed.
FollowByEmail widget (Feedburner) is going away You are receiving this information because your blog uses the
FollowByEmail widget
(Feedburner).
Recently, the Feedburner team released a system update
announcement
, that the email subscription service will be discontinued in July 2021.
After July 2021, your feed will still continue to work, but the
automated emails to your subscribers will no longer be supported. If
you’d like to continue sending emails, you can download your subscriber
contacts.
Learn how
Subscribe to Education Notes on Feedblitz - High Volume - reduce volume with the digest
Let's refer to our UFT/AFT leadership as corporate Dems and question whether Big Pharma money has infiltrated the unions as an explanation for their opposition to
public healthcare management and support for the privatize for profit industry.
In mid-June, Democratic congressional candidate Nina Turner launched a
television ad campaign promoting her support for Medicare for All. Less
than two weeks later, the pharmaceutical industry’s lobbyists and its
bankrolled lawmakers on Capitol Hill are trying to block her election to
Congress through an opponent who has been publicly vilifying Medicare
for All amid the pandemic....
Good morning Medicare for all supporters and friends ---
I'm taking the 10:15 Rockaway ferry to join and film the big (I hope) rally, march (or slow walk) up Broadway to City Hall.
Let's keep in mind that the UFT/AFT/NYSUT leaderships are wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate Democrats. Even most of the squad don't use that term enough but Jamaal Bowman used it on CNN recently. And AOC has flirted with it re: Joe Manchin. It's time to use corp dems for Randi, Mulgrew and the rest of the Unity slug machine. What a contrast between Jamaal and Clyburn.
Many on the left have been triggered by the attempts to gang up on Bernie pal Nina Turner who is running in the August primary for Congress in Cleveland and scares the hell out of corp dems --- I maintain they prefer Marjorie Taylor-Greene. The day Hillary endorsed Nina's opponent, she raised the most money. Let's see what happens now as big Pharm pours it in. I think corp Dems and industry pals have decided to swat the left wing knats.
As a follow-up to yesterday's post --Are Municipal Unions Selling Out Retirees? Hell YES - Sirota has a follow-up upon the news that James Clyburn, who gets away with a lot because of his race, has joined other corp dems like Hillary Clinton to go after Bernie fave Nina Turner in her race to join The Squad.
Clyburn has vacuumed in more than $1 million
from donors in the pharmaceutical industry — and he previously made
headlines vilifying Medicare for All during the 2020 presidential
primary.
After killing a single-payer bill, the city’s
public-sector labor leaders are trying to force a quarter million people
from Medicare into pricier for-profit insurance plans. ... cost savings from Medicare
Advantage come from both higher
copayments, essentially shifting costs from the government to
individuals, as well as the fact that people receive less care either
due to high claim denials or because they don’t seek out the care in the
first place because fewer providers accept Medicare Advantage. Daily Poster -
Are New York’s Unions Selling Out Retirees?
Tuesday, June 29, 2021 8:30 AM - Good Morning - Norm Scott
In the beginning, as the firmament coalesced into the formation of municipal unions, the city gave unions control over their health plans,
with a bureaucracy and a patronnage system. Thus, the UFT Health and
Welfare fund, which is not paid by union dues but by the city, thus
giving union leaders a windfall of sort to play around with. The calls
for moving the entire process under public management threatens both the
insurance companies adn their clients, the union leaderships. When Mayor Wagner gave the sign that public worker unions were kosher c. 1960, he was not being dumb. He tied the unions deeply to the city as co-managers.
So, Yes, the unions made sure to kill the NYS single payer bill and despite claiming to support a national medicare for all plan, our own union lines up with the Dem Party right wing in supporting the privatized health care industry.
Mulgrew whines about health care costs and how we have to reduce them - savings he calls them -- as Jonathan Halabi pointed out on Sunday night's webinar -- the savings come from us. Certainly not reducing or eliminating profits -- they are in business to make money.
If Mulgrew wants savings, he should check the costs in Europe which are half ours. And those countries have various forms of universal healthcare. In essence, by opposing public options, Mulgrew and other union leaders are fighting to keep health care prices higher.
A January 2021 study by The New School found that the city could save about $1.6 billion per year
if it adopted a self-insurance program, as most major cities and large
companies have done. That would involve setting up a health insurance
plan just for the city’s employees and paying for claims directly,
rather than paying premiums to a health insurance company which tends to
be more expensive because insurance company profit margins are so
large.
But since the negotiations between the MLC and Office of
Labor Relations were held behind closed doors, retirees don’t know
whether this option was ever considered.
UFT retirees will note that our chapter leaders have never told us about this option. Now here comes a fun fact:
Retirees pointed to MLC personnel with ties to the health insurance companies that could end up providing
the new Medicare Advantage plans as potential conflicts of interest.
Gregory Floyd, President of the Teamsters Local 237 and Secretary of the
MLC, is on the board of EmblemHealth.
Holy shit! The Secretary of the MLC is on the board of Emblem Health. I've always been suspicious of the unions' slavish devotion to private insurance. Do we think the insurance companies don't lobby our union leaders? The explanation offered for why unions want to stick with privatized plans:
“For a lot of these MLC unions, the one
tangible thing that they provide, in addition to wages, are health care
benefits, and particularly the benefits that come out of their welfare
funds,” said one New York City union representative, speaking on the
condition of anonymity. “They want health care benefits associated with
union leadership.”
The reasons go deeper than this. In the beginning, the city gave unions control over their health plans, with a bureaucracy and a patronage system. Thus, the UFT Health and Welfare fund, which is not paid by union dues but by the city, thus giving union leaders a windfall of sort to play around with. The calls for moving the entire process under public management threatens both the insurance companies adn their clients, the union leaderships.
Listen to archive - 
