LETTER: Culinary union opposition to “Medicare for All” is shortsighted
I see that the Culinary Local 226 has come out against “Medicare for All” (Feb. 9 Review-Journal). The union wants to keep its hard-won medical insurance. This definitely sounds reasonable, but you don’t have to dig very deep to understand why the union’s position is not a great idea.
What if Culinary workers go on strike or lose their jobs? These workers will lose their insurance. With Medicare for All, they’ll have insurance.
What about their children once they turn 26? These kids will be hard-pressed to find good health insurance at affordable prices. With Medicare for All, they’d be covered.
The Culinary seems to have forgotten its millions of brother and sister workers who have no insurance or have to pay outrageous prices to get insurance. With Medicare for All, all American workers will be covered.
Finally, I’m hearing unions spend too much time trying to negotiate health care benefits. If we were all covered, union time would be freed up to be spent negotiating better wages, better working conditions, livable work schedules and other issues to improve workplace conditions and operations.
I’m not sure why the Culinary union is so dead-set against Medicare for All. Most industrialized countries have this system. Isn’t it time the United States joined them?