Gottschalk M
University of Pennsylvania, USA.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1999 Jun;24(3):489-529. doi: 10.1215/03616878-24-3-489.
During the battle over comprehensive health care reform in the early 1990s, organized labor was not only unable to put together a winning coalition but also found itself divided and on the defensive as it struggled to prevent any further erosion of the private-sector safety net of the U.S. welfare state. Labor's relative ineffectiveness has deep institutional and political roots and was not merely a consequence of its dwindling membership base. Several key institutions of the private welfare state, notably the Taft-Hartley health and welfare funds and the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) preemption, brought the interests of organized labor more closely in line with those of large employers and commercial insurers and aggravated divisions within organized labor and between unions and public interest groups. In addition, several political factors conspired to reinforce labor's tendency to stick to a policy path on health care issues that was predicated on an employer-mandate solution and that had been charted primarily by business and leading Democrats. As a result, organized labor did not emerge from the 1993-1994 struggle with its political base fortified nor with a viable long-term political strategy to achieve universal health care and to shift the political debate over health policy in a more desirable direction.
在20世纪90年代初全面医疗改革的斗争中,有组织的劳工不仅无法组建一个获胜联盟,而且在努力防止美国福利国家私营部门安全网进一步受到侵蚀的过程中,发现自己内部四分五裂且处于守势。劳工相对无效的状况有着深刻的制度和政治根源,并非仅仅是其会员基础不断减少的结果。私营福利国家的几个关键机构,尤其是塔夫脱-哈特利健康和福利基金以及《雇员退休收入保障法》(ERISA)的优先适用权,使有组织劳工的利益与大雇主和商业保险公司的利益更加一致,并加剧了有组织劳工内部以及工会与公共利益集团之间的分歧。此外,几个政治因素共同作用,强化了劳工在医疗保健问题上坚持以雇主强制方案为基础、主要由企业和主要民主党人规划的政策路径的倾向。结果,有组织的劳工在1993 - 1994年的斗争中,既没有巩固其政治基础,也没有形成一个可行的长期政治战略来实现全民医疗保健,并将关于医疗政策的政治辩论转向更有利的方向。