published Sunday, February 19th, 2012

Hitting employees for PACs

Most observers are familiar with the corporate mantra that unions shouldn't be allowed to collect member's dues via payroll check-offs, a transparent stab at unions' financial viability. But what about corporate masters who send in-house letters to masses of their workers appealing for "contributions" to support the corporation's political action committees? Isn't that akin to extortion in the cause of partisan politics by people who hold power over their employees' jobs?

Yes, it clearly is. And that's why BlueCross BlueShield needs to be reminded -- hopefully by employees' bold refusals to bend to that implied coercion -- that it has no business using its clout over its employees, not to mention its profits from its customers' insurance premiums, to finance political lobbying against health care reform and the Obama administration.

That is transparently the purpose of the new BluePAC that BlueCross BlueShield has created to lobby at the federal level. The new PAC comes in addition to the company's existing state TPAC, which donates to friendly lawmakers and lobbies for state legislation and that advances the insurer's interest. It's also in addition to its corporate contributions to the national federal PAC supported by other BlueCross BlueShield companies. The company already solicits donations from select employees to those PACs.

The new BluePAC fundraising letter sent by BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, the state's largest health insurer, to 2,500 of 5,300 employees statewide specifically cited the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act, which the company's CEO Vicky Gregg has publicly opposed.

"As you are well aware, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, we are in a new political environment of opportunities and challenges for our company and industry," Gregg said in the letter. "Your support of our PAC is important in giving us an opportunity to help determine who will govern us and who will set the business climate in which we operate." (Emphasis ours.)

That seems like an unmistakable reference to the corporation's goal -- or, at least Gregg's -- to help defeat Obama and dismantle the ACA, which has already put a number of valuable restrictions on the abuses of the nation's richest insurers. For example, it has banned the use of so-called "pre-existing" conditions, which cruelly denied the most needed care; it ends annual and lifetimes limits on covered care; it allows adult children to stay on their parents' company insurance plans until the age of 26, even if they are married and living away from home; it covers many wellness medical benefits; and it would require insurers to spend at least 85 percent of their premium dollars from customers in large groups on actual health care for these customers, and 80 percent of premium dollars for small group customers -- which hopefully will reduce administrative bloat and lavish pay for multi-millionaire executives.

If not repealed by a new Republican president, the ACA would establish state insurance exchanges by 2014 to ensure competitive policy prices, and it would require states to fix a floor for comprehensive care plans to be offered through those exchanges. Lastly, and most importantly, it would establish significant income-adjusted subsidies for most every middle-class family, up to four times the poverty level (about $80,000 for a family of four) to help Americans purchase quality health care that would not be dependent on employers' whims and mounting demands for high-dollar deductibles and co-pays.

These reforms are desperately needed by millions of Americans, whose current employer-based insurance is rapidly disappearing. The insurance industry's PACS will work to overturn these reforms. Employees should not be under the cloud of implied coercion to contribute to an anti-reform PAC that would demean their political independence, or ill serve the interests of their families.

BlueCross BlueShield, alas, is within its legal rights to ask administrative employees to contribute to its PACs, and it is technically barred from retaliating against those who refuse to contribute. But the risk of being identified as a non-contributor weighs heavily in the wings. It would be far better for BlueCross BlueShield to stop its solicitation for "contributions" to the company's PACs.

4
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
tipper said...

If BCBS wants money for its political pac, why not start by turning out some of the lights at night in its castle in the sky.

February 19, 2012 at 12:11 p.m.
conservative said...

I once worked for a company whereby union dues were taken out automatically from the employees paycheck. An employee could only stop his dues from being deducted once a year, in August and then within a short time frame of a one week period and in writing. Now as most people know the major elections are held in the fall. Also, as most people know unions support Demoncrats in these elections. Therefore, an employee could not stop his money from going to Demoncrats or policies or causes he disagreed with.

This is not akin to Blue Cross spelling out and being up front about their opposition and intentions to oppose policies they and their employees might disagree with and not in their best interest. Their donations could easliy be a one time deal.

There are easliy recognized differences here, the writer just doesn't like it that Blue Cross opposes Obamination care.

February 19, 2012 at 1:48 p.m.
Welcome_2 said...

"Isn't that akin to extortion in the cause of partisan politics by people who hold power over their employees' jobs?"

Yes, it is, and here's why. I worked for a company several years ago who let a lot of its workers go because they didn't sign up to have payroll deduction taken out of their checks for a major charity organization. Now, that wasn't the official excuse they gave for the mass firing, but everyone knew that's why the workers who didn't sign on were fired.

February 19, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
ChattEquip said...

I am a Blue Cross Blue Shield of TN employee and also received the letter. I am not worried about retaliation as there are too many out of the closet Obama supports up here in the castle for that to ever happen. I am more worried about ignoring the United Way Donation Drive notifications I get bombarded with.

I will not donate to BluePac because I don’t think it will push hard enough to overturn that monstrosity the socialist democrats have forced on us. In my opinion Blue Cross and it’s CEO did not do enough to push back on the Obama administration’s eventual takeover of the industry I work in.

My support will go to whoever has the best chance of defeating that incompetent idiot next November. That dumbass didn’t know the Catholic hospitals and charities he was bullying around were self insured - meaning the money he was going to now force the big bad health insurance companies to pay for birth control would still come out of the Catholic organization’s pocket.

February 20, 2012 at 3:19 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.