Unity Has a New Health Care Narrative

And it has no truth to it whatsoever

The new Unity talking point, like many that preceded it, assumes you to be ignorant:

The UFT (United Federation of Teachers) is currently the only union that has officially opposed Medicare Advantage, despite other unions' mixed signals.

That’s false on multiple levels. First, plenty of unions voted against Medicare Advantage, including two unions of teachers—PSC and CSA. UFT and DC37 combined, by sheer size, have control over the MLC, which pushed this through. In fact, all of this diminution of health care originates from UFT Unity. They bulldozed this through with no buy-in whatsoever from membership.

Below is a list of unions that voted yes, no, and abstained. Notice that, despite their newfound happy talk, Unity voted YES, and with no input from us, the non-royalty rank and file. (Talk about “mixed signals”.)

I’ve been listening to Mulgrew, and I’ve yet to hear him plainly oppose Medicare Advantage. He claims to oppose the current plan, and he claims it’s due to how the city is rolling it out. I have not heard him issue an unequivocal condemnation of MA for city workers. In fact, In fact, he defends it, claiming it’s misrepresented.

Our RTC Chapter Leader, Bennett Fischer, wrote Mulgrew a letter, expressing shock that he still maintained allegations about the Aetna plan were false, despite their having been demonstrated credible in court. Below is Mulgrew’s reply, in full.

Dear Bennett, 

I appreciate your email and your shared commitment to retiree healthcare. As you know, by withdrawing our support for the city’s move towards a Medicare Advantage plan in early June, we have been very clear that no matter what happens in the courts, we are firmly against a Medicare Advantage plan for our retirees. We withdrew support for the Medicare advantage plan because we understand the anxiety and concern overwhelmingly expressed by UFT retirees, as well as their desire to keep the coverage they presently have.

We cannot, however, support this lawsuit, as there are many untrue allegations about the proposed AETNA plan. For example, it claimed that retirees would be denied access to doctors, prior authorizations would prevent retirees from receiving needed treatment and that retirees would be subject to high out-of-pocket costs. These allegations are patently false and the UFT would never have agreed to a plan that had this effect on our members. We cannot sign on to a lawsuit that spreads harmful misinformation.

But let’s be clear: as a union, we stand with our retirees and remain committed to fighting to preserve Medicare and social security benefits because that is what they deserve. 

Last week, we motivated a resolution for Federal legislation protecting Medicare and Social Security on a national level at last week’s AFT Convention. Our members pay into Medicare and Social Security throughout their career, and we cannot let opponents chip away at these programs. Our retirement security depends on them and we will fight to keep them safe.

Whenever someone says “but,” you may disregard whatever precedes it. Mulgrew’s message, essentially, is I appreciate your email, but….

You need to look at this closely, in context, and further examine what is not said here. It’s good that they oppose Medicare Advantage for us. But the fact is this opposition was borne solely of Unity’s overwhelming electoral loss to Retiree Advocate. Furthermore, Mulgrew’s assertions about “anxiety and concern,” which he noticed only after he lost the elections, do not remotely acknowledge the fact that the MA plan is inferior to what we now have. Before he lost the election, he regularly announced we were spouting fairy tales and conspiracy theories.

Regardless, these are mere words. If UFT Unity wished to prevent us from being forced into an MA plan, these words would have to be followed by actions. And frankly, Unity has done absolutely nothing to prevent or preclude the upcoming Adams appeal. In fact, he clearly states he does not support the NYC Retirees lawsuit.

Were it not for that lawsuit, we would have all been enrolled in Medicare Advantage years ago. If Adams is successful, we will all be dumped into an Aetna plan, despite whatever good intentions Unity awards itself. Unity has, in effect, clearly suggested that it will do nothing whatsoever to help us.

Unity claims the Aetna plan would not deny us access to doctors. In one sense, that’s true—in the sense that doctors will see you if you ask, as long as you pay the bill in full. In a more universal sense, it’s absolute nonsense. Many doctors do not and will not accept Advantage. Furthermore, hospitals need to have contracts with private insurers. Any hospital could fail to renegotiate a contract at any time, just as the current crisis with MSK indicates. Those of us with real Medicare don’t need to worry about that.

As for the claim there was no truth to Aetna denying care due to prior authorizations, that’s nonsense as well. Aetna admitted, in court, that it would deny procedures recommended by doctors. It is patently absurd that Unity would continue to maintain otherwise. The only thing more absurd would be us believing Unity.

Unless, of course, you’re paid to believe Unity.

Then there’s the claim about out of pocket costs. The fact is there would be co-pays with Aetna, and the further fact, as long-time city employees can attest, is co-pays go nowhere but up. I believe there was an $1800 annual limit to start, which doubles if you’re a couple (but that could go up as well).

I’ve seen charts where UFT compared that to our current plan, which had no co-pay ceiling. That was ridiculous because up to now there’ve been no co-pays at all. Of course, Unity, along with the MLC, has arranged to bring us co-pays in January. Many of us have concluded the co-pays were instituted simply to make MA appear more attractive.

I’ve heard Mulgrew say they were designed to be temporary, but I’ve seen no evidence to support that claim. Again, I’ve never seen co-pays go anywhere but up. While Mulgrew claims to oppose premiums, exploding co-pays may as well be premiums.

It’s true that Mulgrew made a resolution at AFT. However, said resolution is just that—a declaration of intent. It does not help us at all here in Fun City, where we are battling to retain our health care. This is a local issue, and we need local support. The only place we’ve been able to get it, so far, has been via NYC Retireess’ lawsuits.

Unity offers words, but plainly refuses to take action—the only thing needed here. While it’s great that we voted them out in RTC, it’s simply not enough. We need new leadership, and we need a voice in MLC that reflects membership rather than the Unity Patronage Cult.

We need leaders focused on working conditions and health care, not simply pulling in extra cash, privilege, and second pensions for themselves.

We still have work to do.