AFSCME endorsed Senator Clinton earlier this year, but the Illinois branch recently splintered off from from the national endorsement--in an admittedly "unusual step"--to support Senator Obama. Earlier this week, AFSCME started mailing fliers in Illinois critical of Obama's health plan.
Obama's camp was upset that the national organization would actually support its chosen candidate nationally, so they decided to attack AFSCME. Their tactic was to call the national organization "hypocrites," because they allegedly oppose mandated health coverage--just like Obama.
In reality, AFSCME supports federal mandated health insurance. They only oppose state mandated insurance.
The fact that Obama's team still doesn't understand the distinction is troubling.
The Illinois Chapter fibbed:
The dissident union members, indeed, pointed out that AFSCME's national health care resolution passed earlier this year declared that individual mandates are "incompatible" with the principles and interests of the union membership.
And in congressional testimony last April, AFSCME President Gerald McEntee also denounced individual mandates as they would force families to "pay much higher prices" for health care policies.
As the evidence they refer to demonstrates, the Obama supporters don't understand the difference between state and federal health plans.
From McEntee's testimony that's mentioned:
The absence of action on health care reform at the federal level has forced states to pursue their own reform initiatives, largely out of desperation. Although systemic reform requires federal action, we commend states for attempting to address the issue comprehensively. However, we are concerned with the direction reform efforts have taken in some states.
For example, the Massachusetts reform model attempts to achieve near-universal coverage through the use of individual mandates that require those without access to coverage through their jobs to buy coverage in the individual market. Although there are subsidies to help low-income families, many working families will be forced to pay much higher prices for coverage. The most recent estimates for coverage under this initiative for a family with an income of $50,000 would include a $7,000 premium and a $2,000 deductible. Health care costs that approach 20 percent of total family income are unaffordable and unacceptable to working families and they will ultimately doom this plan to failure.
He's discussing state plans in the context of federal inaction. They oppose state mandates, like MA's, because it doesn't do enough to ensure affordability. Massachusetts doesn't have a public option modeled after FEHBP. They couldn't expand SCHIP and Medicaid the way the federal government can.
AFSCME, in fact, supports federal mandates. How do I know? Read a bit further down in the testimony:
Among the new health reform initiatives being discussed in this Congress, two deserve particular mention. The Medicare for All plan, proposed by Chairman Dingell, offers a viable path to attaining universal coverage. It offers the security of extending the trusted Medicare plan to everyone under age 65, but it also features attributes of choice by allowing enrollees to select any one of the health plans offered to members of Congress.
We are also favorably impressed by the AmeriCare plan introduced by Rep. Stark. This plan would build on our existing employer-sponsored system of coverage, but would also leverage the administrative efficiencies contained in Medicare to create a new system of universal coverage.
Stark's plan is a mandate that makes insurance affordable by offering a public plan while also allowing people to stay in their existing plans. AFSCE endorses the federal plan because they only oppose underfunded state mandates with no public option.
As for the AFSCME resolution:
In the absence of federal solutions, states will continue to initiate their own reforms of the health care system, especially reforms targeted to the most vulnerable populations. Some of these reforms, such the reforms adopted in Massachusetts in 2006 which rely on "individual mandates," are incompatible with AFSCME’s principles and long term interests. Others, such as proposals to expand S-CHIP, are worthy of the union’s support. AFSCME must carefully weigh its involvement in state based reform based on whether our participation advances the union towards its ultimate goal. The union's participation will be based on the following guidelines:
It's cheap and easy to pull that bolded quote out of there to try to say AFSCME opposes mandates just like Obama, but it's also completely false and intentionally misleading.
Once again, they are clearly talking about state plans in the absence of federal action.
Either Obama's people still don't get it on health care, or they're just being dishonest. Perhaps if Obama had paid a bit more attention to AFSCME and other unions, his "surrogates" wouldn't have to resort to spreading misinformation in a desperate attempt to discredit them.