Official statement on State Legislature’s Health Care Bill from Mass. AFL-CIO President Robert J. Haynes - April 3, 2006 "We are particularly concerned about the implementation of the individual mandate contained in this legislation. Our concern is that it will lead to an even more precipitous decline in employer-provided health care. From 2001 to 2004 over 10,000 workers lost their employer-provided health coverage in Massachusetts. We hope our fears are wrong and that the situation will not be made worse by this bill. The genesis of the individual mandate comes from former Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich and the notoriously anti-worker Heritage Foundation. Governor Mitt Romney, the most anti-worker Governor of all, also loves the individual mandate. These are not friends of working people and it is disconcerting that our Speaker, Senate President, and state legislators would join their ranks by passing this individual mandate. We intend to work with the Speaker and Senate President to monitor the situation closely during the implementation of this legislation. The Massachusetts AFL-CIO looks forward to continue playing our integral role in the ongoing health care debate in this Commonwealth. We will wait and see if this bill will accomplish any progress in making health care more affordable and accessible for working families." Official Statement by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney on Massachusetts Health Care Reform - April 5, 2006 “Who would have thought that Massachusetts - long considered a bastion of progressive thinking - would take a page out of the Newt Gingrich playbook for health care reform? Forcing uninsured workers to purchase health care coverage or face higher taxes and fines is the cornerstone of Mr. Gingrich’s health care reform proposals. And it is unconscionable that Massachusetts has adopted this misguided individual mandate. “This legislation leaves middle-income families dangling without a safety net, jeopardizes families who currently have employer-sponsored health care, and gives employers a free ride. “The bill protects workers with the lowest incomes, but punishes middle-income families. A typical family in which the husband and wife each earn a little more than $30,000 and who have two children would be forced to purchase health care, but would not be qualified for any help even if their employer does not offer any coverage or they can’t afford their share of the premium. With the average employer-sponsored insurance premium costing more than $4,000 a year for single workers and close to $11,000 a year for working families, Massachusetts’ new requirement will bankrupt many middle-class families. “The state has promised to come up with an affordable health care plan but has been woefully short on details. While the state’s promotional materials say, ‘everyone who can afford health insurance should be required to obtain it,’ it does not define affordable or provide any guarantees. Is it affordable for a single person making $30,000 a year to spend $3,000 (the amount currently being floated) on a stripped-down health care plan? “We believe that workers have to participate in the solution to the problem, but this plan puts the entire burden on workers while letting employers off the hook. Businesses that do not offer insurance will be assessed a paltry $295 per worker per year, an amount so meager that it actually creates an economic incentive for many businesses to pay the assessment rather than provide health care for their workers. In addition, the legislation is so vague that it is not clear whether employers actually have to provide coverage in order to avoid paying the assessment, or if simply offering coverage is enough. “The Massachusetts House of Representatives had it right when they passed the original House version that carried real penalties for employers who refuse to do the right thing. But the final version of this so-called health care reform plan will undermine employer-sponsored health insurance in Massachusetts and quite possibly - if other state legislatures prove to be as shortsighted as the Massachusetts General Court - in the country. “States are passing groundbreaking and precedent-setting laws. But we hope this is one precedent no other state will follow.”