Drastic Changes in Health Care - I urge all actors to read this letter!!!

[sojoey]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 12:09pm

Dear Friends and Fellow Performers,

I'm sure we have all heard by now that AEA has increased it's
qualification requirements for health insurance by almost 70% - going
from 12 weeks to 20 weeks of work to qualify.
Additionally, they have changed providers, upped the co-pay, and
cut dental benefits.
What this means, is that those with really well paying and good,
long contracts - those working in long runs on Broadway, National
tours, bus-and-trucks - will have their already well paying incomes
supported by the regional theatre actor who can "only" manage almost 5
months worth a year.
Sounds just like SAG. And AFTRA.
What is going on?
We are members of what are arguably the most liberal unions in
the world. Our members are always on the forefront of demonstrations
to save forests, and whales, and help the poor, and advising us to send
money to any number of worthy causes. They are also out in front
politically, as they look with disdain on any politician that has a
friendly relationship with industry or appears to exploit the working
class.
Now, these same vocal and liberal members are keeping painfully
quiet on an issue that is very real and damaging to the rank and file
of their own union brothers and sisters. The issue is healthcare, and
the thousands of union members that pay into a system and get nothing
in return.
Why aren't they fighting this inequity with the same fervor and
vehemence and outraged righteousness they focus on defending the rain
forest?
The only conclusion one can come to, is that when push comes to
shove, they care only about themselves. The needs of the vast majority
of union members and their families who go without health care doesn't
even register on the radar of these rich performers.
The most deceitful and insidious part of this equation, is that,
these same actors are the beneficiaries of the monies paid into the
health coffers by those who will never see the benefits. It takes
thousands of hard working, struggling actors to insure that the rich
and successful actors get cheap health care.
We have actors - some that could afford to hire their own
physician full time - keeping silent because they demand we fall on our
swords so as not to inconvenience their lifestyles.
We have people working in the union offices, being paid by union
funds - your dues - to send you letters denying your benefits, while we
pay for their healthcare.
The argument we are all given when they dictate these horrifying
new edicts of decreased benefits, is the cost factor. Rates are
skyrocketing, and we can't afford to bolster up the lower earners.
Well.
There are solutions.
One is quite obvious.
Are you aware that there is a contribution CAP on the salary of
actors, and when that cap is reached, the producer does not have to pay
anymore into the union health and retirement benefit fund? For SAG,
that cap is $250,000. That means, for every actor you read about with
million and multimillion dollar contracts, the health benefits have
long ceased to be contributed. Where for example, 13% of the cap is
$32,500, for every million dollar contract, the union is giving up
almost $100,000 in lost contributions. Money that would go a long way
to pay for the health benefits of needy families.
Just think. Just one of the celestial beings in "Charlie's
Angels" could mean an additional $2,000,000 to the Health and Pension
Plan. Multiply that by every one of those huge actor contracts, and a
lot of people who work hard and make $10,000 a year could have decent
health care for their children.
Producers would never go for it? Withhold a few key actors and
see how fast they come around.
Another solution?
Send the actors health contributions back to them.
For the actor that made only $9,000 - having, through the year,
done a month worth of extra work , and appeared in a number of
industrial films - let them have their money back. Let them use it to
go toward purchasing their own health care since the union is not
helping at all.
Where does this all end?
With the recent rejection of merger, the current battles that
are being waged for which union will cover which work, and the
continuing disparity between what "stars" make and what the journeyman
actor makes, the unions are in serious trouble.
It isn't a stretch to see them actually disbanded or become
dispensable.
Only with solidarity and focus can it remain strong enough to
maintain as a force.
When lines are drawn and the poor see the rich getting richer as
they become poorer, it is analogous to nations that attempt to exist
the same way.
Eventually, they totter and fall.

Hopefully, we can start a dialog. Should you choose, please
send this to as many of your actor friends as you can. Let us see if
we can make some changes.

Michael Willis

[Deannaizme]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 12:33pm

I can't (and won't) speak to the union issues your post mentions. I definitely feel for you, though. I can comment on the health insurance costs and how employers try to deal with them, though (I work in employee benefits in a large company).

People who do employee benefits have to walk quite a tightrope. Health insurance costs are going up exponentially. Employers (or unions) aren't in a position where they can contain costs. Those costs are largely driven by what people demand when they go to the doctor -- an MRI, another prescription drug, etc. What they can do is change providers, up copays, tweak the provider groups available etc. to *try* to slow that cost growth. All of those steps make the employee more conscious about the choices s/he makes. "If it's costing me more, do I really need this service or prescription?" The above steps also help keep the premiums down, because employers simply can't afford to continue paying 25-30% premium increases each year.

It's the ultimate catch-22. Employers want their employees to have good health care, and want to provide good health coverage. After all, it's in the employers' interests -- a healthy employee is more productive (or gives a better performance, or can go on for all eight shows, etc., in this case). But the employees have to help absorb some of the costs. I think you'll find that your union is still paying about 75-80% of the total monthly premium. That's the same ratio they've been paying all along.

Of course, I'm speaking in really wide generalities. I don't work for your union or any of the producers so I can't know all the issues that they are facing. I just wanted you to understand what the employers are up against as well.

Deanna

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 1:11pm

This post makes me sick. (Not literally, thank God, cuz I can’t afford a trip to the Doctor.) Equity just keeps taking and taking. It is a sad “Union”.

[Sally]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 1:14pm

The cost of health care IS a big problem--for everyone who isn't makning big bucks. Starting next month, my health care premium will be my biggest single monthly expense after my mortgage payment.

[Deannaizme]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 2:15pm

The cost of healthcare is going to keep going up as long as prescription drug costs keep going up, and people keep wanting expensive procedures. I'm NOT saying that expensive procedures aren't medically necessary. But the simple fact is, if we're talking only about dollars here, is that the quadruple bypass or the liver transplant costs a bunch of money. You as the patient might only pay a small copay (if you're in an HMO). But the insurance company has to pay all of the rate it has negotiated with the providers. That insurance company is going to have to spread the cost around if it wants to stay in business. That's why costs keep escalating.

Unfortunately, that's the reality. It's not fair and it's no fun. But it's the world in which we live -- and that world is of our own construction.

Deanna

[DofB5]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 2:44pm

Funny that you all are talking about Health Care. I'm home from work today and as I type this I'm waiting on the call from my doctor to find out if I'm going to have to go into the hospital.

I agree that health care has got to be this countries biggest problem. Here in Florida the cost of malpractice insurance is so high that good doctors are leaving the state. It's scary.

I don't know what the answer is but some answer has got to found and quickly. People need to have access to quality health care processionals/centers/medications.

When an elderly person has to choose between the live saving pills they need to say alive and eating or keeping a roof over their head, something is WRONG.

We spend billions of dollars to bomb another country and then billions more to build it back up when there are folks back home that need HELP.

Am I the only person who sees something WRONG with that?

Sorry, this a pet peeve of mine. I'll back off now.

Ya'll take care and follow what E.T said: Be good.

D

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 3:07pm

DofB5, well put. I hope you are feeling better soon and do not have to go to the hospital. We'll all think good thoughts for your quick recovery.

[Deannaizme]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 4:52pm

I agree with you as well, DofB5. It's quite unfortunate.

I hope you feel better and don't have to go to the hospital!

Deanna

[sabrelady]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 9:00pm

DofB5 hope for the best! Be WEll!

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/25/03 at 9:03pm

I much prefer the health care system of Canada... get this...people can actually AFFORD health care! What a thought!

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 7/26/03 at 2:04am

Just had to bring this back to the top of the boards, cuz it is kind of important.

[John4763]

Posted: 7/26/03 at 12:32pm

Maybe I'm straying from the Broadway topic here, but I've always felt it was strange that we're all at the mercy of our employers when it comes to health care.

Why should our employers decide what kind of coverage we can have? Isn't there a better way to do this?

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/26/03 at 12:33pm

yes... Universal Health Care.

[Deannaizme]

Posted: 7/26/03 at 4:31pm

John, it's because there really isn't any alternative to employer-supplied healthcare. Individuals, for the most part, can't afford to go out and get their own health policies. Employers can (see my previous post for why).

Universal health care is certainly a good solution, and as a benefits professional (and maybe this is a heresy as I'd be out of a job), I'd support that. But it comes down the the ultimate question. How do you pay for it? Do you *really* want something this important in the hands of the federal government? I don't feel comfortable with that. The government's track record with Medicare isn't stellar. Look at all the seniors who can't afford prescription drugs! I don't like the idea of the individual states providing this insurance, either.

So something needs to be done. I think everyone would agree with that. But what?

Deanna Updated On: 7/26/03 at 04:31 PM

Posted: 7/26/03 at 4:42pm

DofB5, warm wishes for good health.

Yours for a healthy Broadway!

[broadwayguy2]

Posted: 7/26/03 at 4:54pm

deanna, Universal health Care would work if they used the Canadian form as a model. Their's works fine and costs are a lot less than here. Unfortunately, our Government and nation as a whole refuses to look at other nations' policies when deciding our own. We can learn from the mistakes and achievements of others.

[Deannaizme]

Posted: 7/26/03 at 8:53pm

Perhaps. But it would cost so much as to be prohibitive, I think. Hillary Clinton showed us that when she tried to do that when Clinton was president.

[DofB5]

Posted: 7/29/03 at 6:02pm

Just wanted to say "thank you" for the good wishes.

D