11 Comments
User's avatar
Keith Firestone's avatar

You have experience with a self-funded plan, the UFT Dental plan is a self-funded plan administered by Cigna. What did they do to save money, they kept the reimbursement rate so low that dentists dropped out. How do you get a 10% savings when health care inflation is going up; by paying your providers less than the usual, customary and reasonable rates. That is their plan.

Expand full comment
mea's avatar

Went to a zoom meet last night and have a different slant on the proposed healthcare. From non-medicare retires it gives them doctors across the United States. For example those who retire in Fla. and are 55 will be covered in Fla. No longer having to fly into NY for doctor appointments. Hearing from my Union Siblings who are non-medicare retired I must vote YES. It's going to be a rockin delegate Assembly. If all fails and the coverage SUCKS then it's defiantly time to STRIKE!

Expand full comment
Laura Genovese's avatar

It is true that out-of-state pre-Medicare retirees have this terrible problem -which the MLC allowed to happen! But demanding to review the entire contract is protecting everyone, including our pre-Medicare retirees. BTW, who conducted this zoom meeting you refer to Mea? I, among others, would have liked to have attended it.

Expand full comment
Patricia Dobosz's avatar

Mea you need to listen to the YouTube meeting at PSC that Jonathan sent out. It's not guaranteed that doctors will stay in or take the UHC insurance. We are not being given the list of doctors.

Expand full comment
mea's avatar

Zoom meet was with delegate liaisons yesterday. I totally agree with you Laura however, listening to our union non-medicare retirees there needs to be more doctors within the United States. Yes Mulgrew & Crew are very deceiving for sure and seeing is better than just listening to Mulgrew talk. That being said I think we need to vote YES.

Expand full comment
Goodman Peter's avatar

Voting NO places our health care into Adams hands, a mayoral candidate we did not endorse, our colleagues have one plan, threatening to strike, planning to strike and going on strike.

It’s reckless.

Remember the opposition caucuses supported Medicare For All, run by a 30 member board it trustees selected by the governor and the electeds, and we would pay for it through a graduated health tax, how much? To be determined by the trustees.

Vote YES, as we move deeper into Trumpland it’s critical that we lockdown our healthcare, not going on strike

Expand full comment
Amy Arundell's avatar

Can you come up with a response to the real concerns being raised by people instead of chastising or being dismissive. Where are the 1 billion savings in perpetuity coming from??

Expand full comment
Matt Driscoll's avatar

1. This doesn’t address the very real concerns of this piece. 2. It’s a bit strange to malign an opposition for its support of true universal healthcare— which would not only ensure that virtually everyone living in the US has access to low cost and would save lives, but would free up union resources to fight for better contracts.

Expand full comment
Harris Lirtzman's avatar

The information that is available seems to indicate that it offers active employees a better plan.

Retirees ought to let active employees and non-Medicare retirees take the lead on the decision.

I understand that UNITY has forfeited any presumption that it acts in good faith but paranoia about Michael Mulgrew ought not get in the way of adopting the plan if those who are covered by it want it.

Expand full comment
Laura Genovese's avatar

Such an comprehensive and great piece on why must see the contract. Thank you Daniel!

Expand full comment
mea's avatar

Laura - REMEMBER MULGREW SAYS HE ADDED 6 MILLION DOCTORS. HAHAHAHAHAH

IN REALITY EVERY PERSON WORKING IN THE MEDICAL OFFICE IS CONSIDERED A DOCTOR IN MULGREW'S WORLD. SO IT IS TRULY A SHITTY HAND TO BE DEALT. I understands every UFT members trepidation.

Expand full comment