Unions Collect A Health Care Payoff

[Dukes]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=518190

Big Labor carved out a tax exemption for union members' health plans on Thursday, paving the way for passage of health care reform. Call it what it is: a bribe to cronies in an increasingly corrupt overhaul.

With Nebraska winning "free" coverage of its Medicare costs in the Senate version of the bill, and Louisiana getting a tax exemption of its own, what's one more bone to a favored political group on a bill Democrats are determined to pass no matter what?

That's what made it easy for labor leaders, following a sit-down with the White House, to carve out a special set-aside for union members' gold-plated health benefits acquired under collective bargaining agreements. Nobody gets more special treatment from Democrats than Big Labor.

So if the bill passes, unions pay nothing on their health care for years until they can negotiate new contracts, while the rest of us plutocrats shell out a 40% tax on plans worth $8,500 for individuals and now $24,000 for families. No wonder the public is liking this odious legislation less and less?

"This is a policy designed to benefit elites," said AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka in a speech Monday, demanding his union exemption. And yes, it started as a plan to stick it to the rich, targeting benefits "like the ones that the executives at Goldman Sachs have, the $40,000 policies," as White House adviser David Axelrod says when he plays the class warfare card.

The whole concept blew up in unions' faces, however, when they realized as many as a quarter of their own members — about four million and their families — had such plans. But instead of working toward a fair system for all, they sought and got a set-aside.

They knew the 40% tax on the "evil" insurers was not really a tax on companies, but a cost that would be passed on to them. But instead of coming up with an economically viable plan for cutting health care costs and extending it to more people as they claimed to want, they opted to stick it to the public, carving out a special exemption for themselves.

This is nothing more than another a political payoff for the $400 million in campaign contributions unions have forked over to elect Democrats since 2006.

With a health care overhaul that will scarcely pay for itself, ordinary Americans will end up footing the bill for the union elites with "Cadillac" plans. Which calls into question what this "reform," coming in the middle of an economic crisis, is really about. In other words, has it been a plan to bail out unions all along?

A year ago, unions' top priority was card-check legislation designed to increase their membership. But in April, Big Labor shifted its focus to health care. One union leader after another stopped in at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to discuss the issue.

Anna Burger, president of the Change to Win confederation, a rival to AFL-CIO, visited 32 times; Service Employees International Union boss Andy Stern darkened White House doors 28 times, and AFL-CIO's Trumka scored eight meetings, all in an unusual display of influence.

For the SEIU, whose members include health care workers, the big benefit of the overhaul was that government-determined health care "exchanges" for insurance plans could easily mandate union-only hospitals and politicize the kind of care offered.

Unions also were keen for a public option, given how badly they'd mismanaged their members' pension funds. The United Auto Workers plan was Exhibit A. Unions wanted an overhaul so they could take expensive liabilities off their hands.

Now there's the tax exemption carve-out that amounts to yet another bailout for unions. In recent years, unions have won lavish health care plans for their members as a substitute for higher wages. They don't want those benefits cut and then have to answer to angry members.

This special exemption only papers over union mistakes while making the rest of us poorer. It is yet another example of the corruption that permeates this process and another reason to oppose the radical "reform" it has spawned.





Just another day in Washington.

[Garcia Bronco]

I read this the other day. It's a complete ****ing joke and violates the 14th amendment...sort of...the spirit of it anyway.

[ant1999e]

But, but bush, neo-cons, repukes are evil.

[Dukes]

I love the BS healthcare commercials they are running on tv. "If you like the insurance you currently have, you can keep it" They just forget to say that it's going to be so ****ing expensive you won't be able to. One way or another, everyone will be on single payer.

[TexanBob]

Unions rail against "the rich" without it dawning on them that several unions ARE "the rich". So when laws are drawn up by Democrats to "punish the rich", unions have to go running up to Capitol Hill and yell "soak the rich but just not us!"

It should not go unnoticed that while private sector jobs are dropping, these are salad days for public sector employees who are getting big raises - while trying to shame the private sector into being more frugal.

[Garcia Bronco]

I love the BS healthcare commercials they are running on tv. "If you like the insurance you currently have, you can keep it" They just forget to say that it's going to be so ****ing expensive you won't be able to. One way or another, everyone will be on single payer.

Or that once you leave it for som reason you have to enroll in governemnt "approved" plan.

[yavoon]

Unions want to create two classes of citizens with different sets of rights. those in unions and those not in unions. unions are awful and destroy america.

[Dukes]

Or that once you leave it for som reason you have to enroll in governemnt "approved" plan.

Yeah, just what I would not expect to hear from a left wing propaganda commercial.

[barryr]

Notice how liberals stay far away from this one. How the hell is this even remotely fair? First, we have Nebraska that doesn't have to pay and now unions don't either? Guess who makes up the difference? All the rest of us. How wonderful someone has decided for me that I decidedd to pay healthcare costs for others who don't have to since Obama and the democrats bought their vote. How can anyone with any reason and sense defend this crap? We're told our current system isn't fair and this is the solution? How the hell is this any fairer than what we have right now?

[yavoon]

Notice how liberals stay far away from this one. How the hell is this even remotely fair? First, we have Nebraska that doesn't have to pay and now unions don't either? Guess who makes up the difference? All the rest of us. How wonderful someone has decided for me that I decidedd to pay healthcare costs for others who don't have to since Obama and the democrats bought their vote. How can anyone with any reason and sense defend this crap? We're told our current system isn't fair and this is the solution? How the hell is this any fairer than what we have right now?

what and stop the buffet of bribery, pork, and special favors?

[peacepipe]

Unions rail against "the rich" without it dawning on them that several unions ARE "the rich". So when laws are drawn up by Democrats to "punish the rich", unions have to go running up to Capitol Hill and yell "soak the rich but just not us!"

It should not go unnoticed that while private sector jobs are dropping, these are salad days for public sector employees who are getting big raises - while trying to shame the private sector into being more frugal. Oh really, dumbest F***ing post you have ever posted I actually should say one of due to fact that you seem to out do yourself with every post. There are no rich unions.

[yavoon]

Oh really, dumbest ****ing post you have ever posted I actually should say one of due to fact that you seem to out do yourself with every post. There are no rich unions.

I believe he was talking about unions being able to exempt themselves from the cadillac insurance plan tax. once the democratic party realized that their confiscatory tax on the rich would actually hit the unions they immediately just gave unions an exemption. as just one example in a long line of open bribery, and complete contempt for fairness and honesty that the democratic party has shown as it rams through whatever it can.

[peacepipe]

The power unions have are in the number of votes they bring to the table. Corp. bring alot of money but can't say with any real certainty that they can bring voters. You can pull some weight when you can back up your position with votes.

[yavoon]

The power unions have are in the number of votes they bring to the table. Corp. bring alot of money but can't say with any real certainty that they can bring voters. You can pull some weight when you can back up your position with votes.

unions gave 75 million dollars in campaign contributions in 2008 alone. unions are also a great propaganda outfit, they can advocate for certain candidates with incredibly biased campaigns in the hopes that the union members will go out and become pawns. the UAW engaged in this activity for decades, which is of course only ending the destruction of american jobs at the hands of the UAW. unions are not powerful for their votes nationally, since most union members are concentrated in states the democrats roll over anyway(california, new york and illinois) unions are powerful because of advocacy and money.

the level to which your ignorant is freakishly large.

[barryr]

unions gave 75 million dollars in campaign contributions in 2008 alone. unions are also a great propaganda outfit, they can advocate for certain candidates with incredibly biased campaigns in the hopes that the union members will go out and become pawns. the UAW engaged in this activity for decades, which is of course only ending the destruction of american jobs at the hands of the UAW. unions are not powerful for their votes nationally, since most union members are concentrated in states the democrats roll over anyway(california, new york and illinois) unions are powerful because of advocacy and money.

the level to which your ignorant is freakishly large.

Yep, probably thinks this sort of thing is ok since it's done all the time, so it's ok, fairness isn't important.

[Spider]

so unions cut a sweet deal for themselfs and members , so now we got bedwetters cryin foul ..... yet Bedwetters are ok if a person is billionaire buying his way out of taxes and other things , as travis tritt said , the fat man dances , while the skinny man pays the band .....
But ot sum this up , if you are Billionaire getting special favors , it is ok , if you are billionaire union getting a sweet deal for your members , it is highway robbery .......
LOL Love the bedwetters way of thinking .............. ok I am not kidding anyone bedwetters dont think

[TexanBob]

There are no rich unions.

Your typical longshoreman (Teamsters) earns $70K - $120K per year.

Your typical auto worker (UAW) up to $56K. Your typical mail carrier up to 60K.

Your typical commercial airline pilot earns $60K and up.

And I won't even get into such occupations as major league baseball players or professional actors - all unionized.

The stereotype of the poor unionized worker being paid a pittance for their labor is an outworn cliche, a lazy sterotype fed by the unions themselves. In reality, unions are big business and take billions in dues that they use to campaign almost exclusively for Democrats and to lobby for sweetheart deals like the one that started this thread.

[Spider]

Your typical longshoreman (Teamsters) earns $70K - $120K per year.

Your typical auto worker (UAW) up to $56K. Your typical mail carrier up to 60K.

Your typical commercial airline pilot earns $60K and up.

And I won't even get into such occupations as major league baseball players or professional actors - all unionized.

The stereotype of the poor unionized worker being paid a pittance for their labor is an outworn cliche, a lazy sterotype fed by the unions themselves. In reality, unions are big business and take billions in dues that they use to campaign almost exclusively for Democrats and to lobby for sweetheart deals like the one that started this thread.

so stop your cryin and get a different job ............

[peacepipe]

unions gave 75 million dollars in campaign contributions in 2008 alone. unions are also a great propaganda outfit, they can advocate for certain candidates with incredibly biased campaigns in the hopes that the union members will go out and become pawns. the UAW engaged in this activity for decades, which is of course only ending the destruction of american jobs at the hands of the UAW. unions are not powerful for their votes nationally, since most union members are concentrated in states the democrats roll over anyway(california, new york and illinois) unions are powerful because of advocacy and money.

the level to which your ignorant is freakishly large.

YOU GOT US FIGURED OUT!! 16.1 million union members in this country each putting in a whopping $4.65,YES, four dollars and sixtyfive cents, to get that 75 million I didn't realize it would make us rich. And here I am, wasting my money buying lottery tickets.

[peacepipe]

Your typical longshoreman (Teamsters) earns $70K - $120K per year.

Your typical auto worker (UAW) up to $56K. Your typical mail carrier up to 60K.

Your typical commercial airline pilot earns $60K and up.

And I won't even get into such occupations as major league baseball players or professional actors - all unionized.

The stereotype of the poor unionized worker being paid a pittance for their labor is an outworn cliche, a lazy sterotype fed by the unions themselves. In reality, unions are big business and take billions in dues that they use to campaign almost exclusively for Democrats and to lobby for sweetheart deals like the one that started this thread.I never claimed we were poor, I just said we were not rich.

As far as those salaries go we work damn hard to get that. It's all middle class wages.....Pro-sports, what can I say.

Well when republicans become pro-labor/union you'll see us campaign for them. But both of us know reps will never be pro-labor/union.

I can work non-union & have no retirement,****ty health ins.,bad working conditions, make 15-25 dollars an hr less.

or

I can continue to work union get a great retirement, also get an annuity, great HC which I don't come out of pocket for except a co-pay. If I die for whatever reason my family gets $12,000 to cover funeral cost.What I do ranks in the 10 of most dangerous jobs.I got 4 yrs of schooling through the union for no cost outside of the 30.50 I pay a month. I can work anywhere in the country,as well as canada knowing my benefits follow me wherever I go.

Why woudn't anyone go union.

[yavoon]

I never claimed we were poor, I just said we were not rich.

As far as those salaries go we work damn hard to get that. It's all middle class wages.....Pro-sports, what can I say.

Well when republicans become pro-labor/union you'll see us campaign for them. But both of us know reps will never be pro-labor/union.

I can work non-union & have no retirement,****ty health ins.,bad working conditions, make 15-25 dollars an hr less.

or

I can continue to work union get a great retirement, also get an annuity, great HC which I don't come out of pocket for except a co-pay. If I die for whatever reason my family gets $12,000 to cover funeral cost.What I do ranks in the 10 of most dangerous jobs.I got 4 yrs of schooling through the union for no cost outside of the 30.50 I pay a month. I can work anywhere in the country,as well as canada knowing my benefits follow me wherever I go.

Why woudn't anyone go union.

because unions cause america to lose jobs? just for example, there are successful car plants in america, but none of them are union.

I mean given your childish and petulent morality why not just demand 200$ an hour for working at mcdonalds. union compensation packages are enormously expensive, yes the union as a tactic to fool the stupid tries to keep take home pay somewhat down. but on the other end they jack up the other costs through the roof.

tho ur right in as far as unions rape other americans for special benefits, special breaks that become burdens on non-union americans it's good to be in a union. then again when is it not good to be the guy that's ****ing over his countrymen for cash?

[Bronx33]

Unions promote laziness ( i have seen it)

[yavoon]

Unions promote laziness ( i have seen it)

the first thing any union does when it sets up shop is demand seniority for everything. merit, hard work and pride as american values are essentially the first things that become obsolete in a union environment.

the reason seniority is so important is seniority promotes loyalty. and unions want to start establishing political loyalty among its workers(regardless of the effect on productivity or quality) since unions don't exist in a capitalist mindset but in a socialist one. all union "gains" will come politically.

[Spider]

ROFL! ........... what a load of **** ............ But if it helps you bedwetters cope ...........

[cutthemdown]

I love the BS healthcare commercials they are running on tv. "If you like the insurance you currently have, you can keep it" They just forget to say that it's going to be so ****ing expensive you won't be able to. One way or another, everyone will be on single payer.

Basically the stimulus money went mostly to unions so they could not suffer so bad in down economy. Either everyone will form unions I guess, or move to Nebraska, or the dems lose power.

[cutthemdown]

Someone on this thread uses the same old B.S everytime to explain away anyones argument. He has this thing with nocturnal enuresis and probably is the cause of that, just not to anyone on this board.

[TexanBob]

When communists dismantle capitalist economies, they leave the unions intact. That should tell you all you need to know. Unions are a way to control the masses - something communists use to their advantage.

[rastaman]

When communists dismantle capitalist economies, they leave the unions intact. That should tell you all you need to know. Unions are a way to control the masses - something communists use to their advantage.

Hey Chicken Little The Sky is Falling, can you prove this has ever happened in America since its founding?

[rastaman]

When communists dismantle capitalist economies, they leave the unions intact. That should tell you all you need to know. Unions are a way to control the masses - something communists use to their advantage.

Can you also explain how Predatory Capitalist or Economic Hitmen are expert at destroying middle classes and increasing poverty where ever their involvement takes them?

[rastaman]

Basically the stimulus money went mostly to unions so they could not suffer so bad in down economy. Either everyone will form unions I guess, or move to Nebraska, or the dems lose power.

Bush just gave away his half of the bailout money to all his wall street and big banker buddies to the tune of 375 billion dollars. And just think, GW and Hank Paulson coluded to ensure it will not be paid BACK! Not one Red Cent!

Who said Corporate Republican PIMPING wasn't easy.:sunshine:

[cutthemdown]

Bush just gave away his half of the bailout money to all his wall street and big banker buddies to the tune of 375 billion dollars. And just think, GW and Hank Paulson coluded to ensure it will not be paid BACK! Not one Red Cent!

Who said Corporate Republican PIMPING wasn't easy.:sunshine:

At least a lot of the tarp money will be repaid. Stimulus just gone.

Also most of that TARP money was left over for Obama to spend. Also it's more the govt job to protect the banks. Less so IMO to pay for states unemployment, teachers etc etc.

[cutthemdown]

Also Congress only passed TARP because it had provisions to tax tarp participants at a later date. That was a key provision for many in Congress.

So now Obama can legislate them to payback when those firms start to make money again.

[peacepipe]

At least a lot of the tarp money will be repaid. Stimulus just gone.

Also most of that TARP money was left over for Obama to spend. Also it's more the govt job to protect the banks. Less so IMO to pay for states unemployment, teachers etc etc.

FYI, only about 25% of the stimulus bill has been spent.

[rastaman]

At least a lot of the tarp money will be repaid. Stimulus just gone.

Also most of that TARP money was left over for Obama to spend. Also it's more the govt job to protect the banks. Less so IMO to pay for states unemployment, teachers etc etc.

So what do you mean the Stimulus money is just gone? Gone how? Where did it go?

[cutthemdown]

FYI, only about 25% of the stimulus bill has been spent.

I know I keep hearing that which is weird because they promised it would all be spent quickly to really affect economy. Another big screwup.

My point is the people getting the stimulus money, if and when they get it, and spend it, will not be paying it back.

TARP is more a loan that might get paid back. So many firms/banks etc will pay back. Others like AIG never.

Also though remember Bush didn't agree to spend TARP on the auto unions. That happened under Obama if I remember correctly.

[cutthemdown]

One thing that cracks me up is the OBAMA working on a so called job creation bill. If only 25% of stimulus still available why put another chunk into system until that gets spent?

Seems like a huge cluster**** to me. Dems lose that Mass senate seat and it could send moderate dems running for the hills on healthcare. White house is pressuring pelosi to just pass the senate bill as is. She says she won't do it. This is getting good.

[barryr]

Amazing how liberals can defend the special deals only some in this country are going to get, while the rest who don't belong to unions or Nebraska, are going to have their taxes increased to make up the difference. For as much as the left spouts about fairness and they see nothing wrong with any of this? Unbelievable how much some can just accept any and everything a long as its from a party they like. We'll see once their taxes go up how great this all is. Of course all they need to hear from a liberal commentator is it's somehow Bush's fault and that'll suffice. What sheep.

[rastaman]

One thing that cracks me up is the OBAMA working on a so called job creation bill. If only 25% of stimulus still available why put another chunk into system until that gets spent?

Seems like a huge cluster**** to me. Dems lose that Mass senate seat and it could send moderate dems running for the hills on healthcare. White house is pressuring pelosi to just pass the senate bill as is. She says she won't do it. This is getting good.

Cutty you do realize that the Govenors of each state are responsible to spend the stimulus money to create jobs! So once Obama releases the Stimulus money to the states, what happens when the Gov. miss appropriates the monies? Is that Obama's fault?

[rastaman]

Amazing how liberals can defend the special deals only some in this country are going to get, while the rest who don't belong to unions or Nebraska, are going to have their taxes increased to make up the difference. For as much as the left spouts about fairness and they see nothing wrong with any of this? Unbelievable how much some can just accept any and everything a long as its from a party they like. We'll see once their taxes go up how great this all is. Of course all they need to hear from a liberal commentator is it's somehow Bush's fault and that'll suffice. What sheep.

Its amazing how conservatives like you and your ilk can defend Predatory Capitalism allowing your corporate masters to enrich themselves to become the uber wealthy while all you guys receive back is Trickle down pennies on your tax returns. Remember, Reagan placed the burden of taxes to be paid annually on the backs of the U.S. workers who earn btwn minimum wage and $150K in this country so he could give his weathiest donors huge tax breaks.

Also Barryrrrr! You and your band of Republican supporting Corporate slaves need to educate yourself on is the Working Person’s Tax Effect...by Thom Hartmann.

Most working people spend pretty much all of what they earn – their “disposable/discretionary” income is close to zero. Savings rates in the US among working people typically are small – one to five percent – and during the last few years of the W. Bush administration actually went negative. So the take-home pay that people have after taxes – regardless of what the taxes may be – is pretty much what they live on.

As economist David Ricardo pointed out in 1817 in the “On Wages” chapter of his book “On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation,” take home pay is also generally “what a person will work for.” Employers know this: Ricardo’s “Iron Law of Wages” is rooted in the notion that there is a “market” for labor, driven in part by supply and demand. So if a worker is earning, for example, a gross salary of $75,000, his 2008 federal income tax would be about $15,000 ($802.50 on first $8,025 of income;$3,687.75 on income from $8,025 to $32,550; $10,612.50 on income from $32,550 to $75,000), leaving him a take-home pay of $60,000.

Both he and his employer know that he’ll do the job he’s doing for around $60,000 a year in take-home pay.

So what happens if his taxes go up, cutting his take-home pay to $55,000 a year (even though his gross is still $75,000)? Over time (typically one to three years) his wages will rise enough to compensate for the lost income.

Alan Greenspan used to be hysterical about this effect – he called it “wage inflation” – and The Wall Street Journal and other publications would often reference it, although the average working person has no idea that if his taxes go up, his wages will eventually go up. Similarly, when working-class people’s taxes go down, their gross wages will, over time, go down so their inflation-adjusted take-home pay remains the same. We’ve seen both happen over the past eighty years, over and over again.

When I was in Denmark last year doing my radio show from the Danish Radio offices for a week and interviewing many of that nation’s leading politicians, economists, energy experts, and newspaper publishers, one of my guests made a comment that dropped the scales from my own eyes.

We’d been discussing taxes on the air, what the Danes get for their average 52% tax rate (free college education, free health care, 4 weeks of vacation, being the world’s “happiest” country according to research reported on CBS’s “60 Minutes” TV show, etc.). I asked him why people didn’t revolt at such high tax rates, and he smiled and just pointed out to me that the average Dane is very well paid with a minimum wage that equals about $18 US (depending on the exchange rate from day to day).

Off the air, he made the comment to me that was so enlightening. “You Americans are such suckers,” he said, as I recall. “You think that the rules for taxes that apply to rich people also apply to working people. But they don’t. When working peoples’ taxes go up, their pay goes up. When their taxes go down, their pay goes down. It may take a year or two or three to all even out, but it always works this way – look at any country in Europe. And it’s the opposite of how it works for rich people!”

The other point about taxes – which Obama leveraged with his “no tax increases on people earning under $250,000 a year” pledge – has to do with the fact that our tax structure in the US is progressive.

Here’s how it breaks out for a single person from the 2008 federal tax tables:

10% on income between $0 and $8,025

15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550;

25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850;

28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550;

33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700;

35% on the income over $357,700.

Note that our $75,000/year worker has two full tax brackets above him, which, if they go up, will not affect him at all. (This is also true, of course, for the median-wage and average-wage American workers who earn in the low to mid-$40,000/year range.)

The top tax rate that a person pays is referred to as their “marginal tax rate” (in our worker’s case 28%). So what happens if the top marginal tax rate on people making over $357,700 goes up from its current 35% to, for example, the Eisenhower-era 91%?

For over 120 million American workers who don’t earn over $357,700/year, it won’t mean a thing. But for the tiny handful of millionaires and billionaires who have promoted The Great Tax Con, it will bite hard. And that’s why they spend millions to make average working people freak out about increases in the top tax rates.

[Garcia Bronco]

I don't ever want to hear any of these clowns ever talk about fair again, but this bull**** will hopefully end tomorrow.

[Spider]

I don't ever want to hear any of these clowns ever talk about fair again, but this bull**** will hopefully end tomorrow.

Knock it off , seriously ............. Just like a cooperation or a person has the right to pursue money ,so do unions , no ****ing difference , so cram it

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Unions rail against "the rich" without it dawning on them that several unions ARE "the rich"....blah, blah, blah...

Whereas this is the status quo TexanBob is defending:

A Predatory System: The Health Insurance Monopoly

Like pathetic knights of another era jousting at windmills, industry shrills attack health care reform, claiming it "tramples individual liberty" and stifles "free enterprise."

Far from protecting individual liberty or promoting free enterprise, these forces uphold monopoly control of health care insurance that has a stranglehold on American consumers. And they pay huge sums to control the debate and twist legislation to their advantage.

Since 1998, over 400 mergers left two conglomerates in control of the huge health care insurance industry. Mergers allowed insurers to raise prices, buy influence in Congress, and redistribute cost savings to shareholders. Consolidation increased rapidly. Between 2004 and 2005, 28 health care mergers, valued at $53 billion, outpaced the number of health care mergers in the previous eight years combined.

Low interest rates, leverage and lax anti-trust enforcement by the Bush Administration allowed conglomerates to take control of the health insurance in the U.S. A 2009 report from Fortune Magazine reveals that the revenue of the top two companies account for $142 billion or 36 percent of the health care insurance market, while the top four gross $202 billion, almost three quarters of all health insurance.

"During the Bush administration, there were no enforcement actions against health insurers' anticompetitive, deceptive or fraudulent conduct," David Balto, senior fellow, Center for American Progress, told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation in July 2009. "There was tremendous consolidation in the market, and the Justice Department simply required minor restructuring of two mergers. There were no cases against anticompetitive conduct by health insurers."

Health insurance monopolies do business under pseudonyms to hide their identities and project a false impression of competition in the industry. The largest, UnitedHealth Group, reported $81 billion in revenue in 2008 and sold products under such names as OptumHealth, Ovations and AmeriChoice. WellPoint, the second largest, has revenues of $61 billion and insures 35 million people under Unicare and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Concentration is even greater on a state-by-state basis.

A 2006 study by the AMA found that health insurance is "highly concentrated" in 94 percent of the states, and in a majority of the nation's largest metropolitan areas a single insurer controlled more than half the business. A 2007 study by Health Care for America Now found that in 38 states, the top two insurers control 57 percent or more of the market, and in 15 states one insurer controlled 60 percent or more of the market.

Facing the monopoly power of UnitedHealth Group and Wellpoint, smaller firms cannot compete: Aetna ranks third with $31 billion in revenue, and Humana is fourth with $29 billion. Of the 14 health care insurers, the smallest eight have yearly revenue of less than $12 billion.

Such concentration stands in stark contrast to a "free enterprise" system where companies compete to lower costs and provide consumer choices. Instead, monopoly control raises prices unilaterally and controls every aspect of clients' health care. No wonder insurance premiums increased an average of 87 percent in the past six years, according to FamiliesUSA.

Economists point out that most wage increases went to pay for health insurance from 2000 to 2009. For example: In New York, the cost of health insurance increased 93 percent, while wages increased 14 percent; in California, health insurance increased 109 percent, while wages increased 26 percent; and in Texas, health insurance rose 80 percent, while wages rose 11 percent. Insurers also have "monopsony" power to dictate prices and coverage terms to hospitals and doctors, with profits redistributed to shareholders. Profits increased apace.

According to SEC filings, the major health insurers increased their profits over 400 percent from 2000 to 2008. Overall, profits rose from $2.4 billion in 2000 to $13 billion in 2007. CEOs were paid accordingly; their pay reaching 468 times that of the average American worker, with money left over to lobby against reforms.

According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the health care industry paid almost $400 million to politicians in state governments in the past six years. The Center for Responsible Politics discovered the industry spent over $1 billion in the past two years to oppose real reform. As the debate progressed, important consumer protection provisions were whittled away.

"Although the overwhelming majority of the American people support it, there's no public option, no end of the anti-trust exemption for the health insurance industry, no option for people over 55 to buy into Medicare, no ability of the government to negotiate drug prices or import cheaper drugs from Canada, and no real regulation of health insurance premiums," said Zack Kaldveer, spokesman for the Consumer Federation of California. "Yet, Congress is mandating everyone to purchase an overpriced product from a corrupt system. If premiums continue to rise, we'll be stuck wasting money on an unsustainable health care system."

The insurance monopoly is pouring millions of dollars into creating misleading catchwords, carefully chosen to guide our opinions. Reforms are needed to protect consumers from a vast monopoly, slowly draining our paychecks into for-profit conglomerates. Without strict controls over these monopolies, we will be stuck with the same old predatory system.

[Garcia Bronco]

Knock it off , seriously ............. Just like a cooperation or a person has the right to pursue money ,so do unions , no ****ing difference , so cram it

LOL. Don't ever talk to me about "fair" ever again. It's a healthcare solution for all. Not some. And you can add Nebraska to that as well.

[Spider]

LOL. Don't ever talk to me about "fair" ever again. It's a healthcare solution for all. Not some. And you can add Nebraska to that as well.
So it is ok for wal mart , or Rush or anyone else to make all the money they can but not unions ...........Why ?
socialist bastage

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So it is ok for wal mart , or Rush or anyone else to make all the money they can but not unions ...........Why ?
socialist bastage

That is the critical question, isn't it? :yep:

Further, what do average Joes like GB get out of blowing people like Rush and the Waltons?

Is there a paycheck in it?

[Garcia Bronco]

So it is ok for wal mart , or Rush or anyone else to make all the money they can but not unions ...........Why ?
socialist bastage

LOL. Don't complain about fair ever again. I think you understand the difference between a Union and a Company that pays taxes.

[Spider]

LOL. Don't complain about fair ever again. I think you understand the difference between a Union and a Company that pays taxes.

LOL way to dodge a question ........... See you finally got nailed down found out you was spewing bull**** , blah , blah ........... Keep skatin GB :D

[Spider]

That is the critical question, isn't it? :yep:

Further, what do average Joes like GB get out of blowing people like Rush and the Waltons?

Is there a paycheck in it?

:D GB hasnt experienced life or the real working world yet ........