Hollywood Pushes Senate on Health Bill: No to Taxes
The presidents of the Screen Actors Guild, the Writers Guild of America and the Teamsters local are pressing Senate leaders to remove a tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans.
My colleague Dave McNary reports that WGA West president John Wells, WGA East president Michael Winship, SAG president Ken Howard and the Teamsters' Leo Reed sent a letter to Senate leaders asking them to back off the plan, given that it will impact the prized benefits long offered in guilds and unions.
The letter said, "We applaud your efforts to expand affordable health care coverage to more Americans and to reform the health insurance industry. However, we are deeply troubled by the provisions of the bill passed by the Senate Finance Committee that would levy a new tax against so-called 'Cadillac plans.' The individual unions and guilds of the entertainment industry have struggled and sacrificed for decades to negotiate and defend their own Taft-Hartley health insurance plans."
Update: It should be noted that the Directors Guild of America did not join in the letter, although you can be assured that they were asked. It reflects the different mentalities on when to push lawmakers and when not to.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Oh, that's precious. The monolithic Democratic left Hollywood elite are worried that they'll lose a few bucks. Let the "little people" pay more for health care - not them.
Hypocracy, thy name is Hollywood.
Posted by: K | November 11, 2009 at 08:40 AM
Maybe these retard, uniformed hateful, intolerant, liberal, fascist Hollywood types should re-think their blind support of the left-wing liberal nut-jobs in congress that want to take over health care. If it bothers you wealthy entertainment types that Obama wants to tax your healthcare plans, how do you think it makes those of us that have a wife and son to support on a $29,000 a year salary feel?
Posted by: Fred Porter | November 11, 2009 at 08:47 AM
Unions are at the top of the list of special interest groups that have put the U.S. in the situation we are in. I have no problem with a union negotiating wages and benefits with employers (unless it's a "public employees union"). I have a problem with unions claiming they act on behalf of Amerian "workers". They don't act on my behalf, and have no interest in me or my family.
If I am going to be forced to pay $15,000 for health care(more probably, as nothing the govt ever does costs what they estimate) when I don't make enough to pay $5, why shouldn't the union workers pay a very small amount (they'll be taxed on the value of their benefit package........a small percentage of the value)?
I'd go farther than the Senate proposes and would tax every fed, state, and local govt employee's health care benefits, and their retirement benefits too, to pay for this fraud being imposed on America. But then I'd vote against any health care plan that does anything other than make insurance easier to buy and suppliments families (not young single persons) that cannot afford any form of insurance.
Posted by: senorlechero | November 11, 2009 at 09:04 AM
And why is health insurance portability and competition across state lines not in the bill. Because it would tempt union workers held hostage by their benefits to finally escape the grip of Big Unions.
Not only do the Screen Actors Guild, the Writers Guild of America and the breathlessly out-of-touch industry players not know when to pick a fight they seem to not know how fragile the marketplace is becoming for their products.
Harvey's Compass may point to two sets of standards but that hardly makes biting the hand that feeds you a good PR move.
Posted by: Duke | November 11, 2009 at 11:48 AM