Two small stories from a distant state, and from elsewhere, presented mostly without comment...
The New Mexico Symphony Orchestra has notified its musicians that it has discontinued several types of insurance — including medical and dental — as of Sept. 1, the NMSO reported Friday.
Eric Meyer, the NMSO's president and CEO, cited the symphony's inability to afford the insurance coverage it has been providing under its labor contract. When that contract expired Aug. 31, those benefits ended.
The symphony and its musicians are still negotiating a new contract.
Meyer said benefits affected are medical, dental, group life and long-term disability. He said notification was sent to musicians Wednesday.
Under federal law, another NMSO official said, the orchestra was obligated to let the 23 affected musicians know within a required period that they have 60 days after the date of notification to decide if they want to elect federal COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) continuation coverage of medical and dental. That coverage would be retroactive to Sept. 1. The opportunity for continued coverage [under COBRA] applies only to medical and dental insurance, which the musicians would pay for at their own expense. However, a significant portion of the insurance premiums are subsidized by the federal government, the NMSO official said....
Public Option Tough Sell in N.M.
By Sean Olson
Copyright © 2009 Albuquerque Journal
Journal Staff Writer
While most members of New Mexico's congressional delegation support a government-run public option for health care coverage, nearly half of the state's registered voters don't want one, a Journal Poll found.
Forty-nine percent of the voters surveyed statewide said they opposed a government-run insurance program that would compete with private industry. Forty-two percent said they favored a government-run program, or public option. Nine percent said it would depend or they didn't know.
Intensity also was apparent. Respondents who "strongly opposed" a public option outnumbered those who "strongly favored" such a plan by more than 3-to-2....
Reform Opposition Is High but Easing
By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 14, 2009
President Obama continues to face significant public resistance to his drive to initiate far-reaching changes to the country's health-care system, with widespread skepticism about central tenets of his plan, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
But after a summer of angry debate and protests, opposition to the effort has eased somewhat, and there appears to be potential for further softening among critics if Congress abandons the idea of a government-sponsored health insurance option, a proposal that has become a flash point in the debate. The gap in passion, which had shown greater intensity among opponents of the plan, has also begun to close, with supporters increasingly energized and more now seeing reform as possible without people being forced to give up their current coverage. ...
Take Public Option ‘Off the Table,’ Snowe Says
By JOSEPH BERGER
Published: September 13, 2009
A key Republican senator who President Obama hopes will support his effort to overhaul the nation’s health-care system urged him Sunday to take any plan for a new government-run program “off the table.”
Senator Olympia Snowe, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, where the most-watched version of the health care bill is being written, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the so-called public option is “universally opposed by all Republicans in the Senate” and “therefore, there’s no way to pass a plan that includes the public option.”
Ms. Snowe, who has previously criticized the public option, said she thought it unwise at this juncture to be clinging to the public option because doing so “leaves open a legislative possibility that creates uncertainty in this process.” On the other, she said, scuttling the public option for good “could give real momentum to building a consensus on other issues.” [...]
I do not understand people. No, I most certainly do not.
Oh, don't mistake me: I understand the Republicans, who are as much if not much more so in the pockets of the for-profit health care industry as any Democrat. Apart from the threat to their campaign funds and semi-legal perks, they have normal partisan interest in thwarting a Democrat president. (The Democrats, blue-dog or otherwise, cannot be excused their wishy-washy behavior for any reason whatsoever.) The craven cowards of Congress will do nothing to threaten their particular status-quo.
But I do not, will not, and never shall understand how fear of change makes people at large operate so clearly and apparently contrary to their own self interest. True, Congress and the president are trying to sell us a bill of goods when they say this can all be done in a deficit-neutral way or without new taxes, but that's all part and parcel of the same tax-resistance that's led to such disasters as California now faces. People have gotten so used to being lied to that they will no longer accept that services cost money.
To be sure, the NMSO situation is in part a purely transparent labor negotiation pressure tactic. That said, in an organization with 23 performing members and some number of behind the scenes and administrative people, given fairly limited income -- seriously, how many people do you think attend the symphony in Albuquerque? the metropolitan area is only a bit over half a million people, and not the wealthiest area in the country -- the health insurance costs are probably fairly substantial. But health care should not be subject to negotiation tactics. People's actual health should not be vulnerable to an employer saying, "Well, we ain't payin' for that no more, so suck it up and deal." People's actual health should not be subject to employment or desperate poverty.
Posted by iain at September 14, 2009 01:49 PM
