Pro-Hillary union flips flops on health care mandate

[antiimperialist]

Tell me if this isn't a Romney-esque flip-flop.
The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), endorsed Hillary in October this year. The union criticized Obama this week in a flyer that can be seen here: http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/071220_AFSCME.pdf regarding the lack of forced mandate in his health care plan. This is what the flyer said:

John Edwards has said, "as many as 15 million Americans would be without coverage..."Obama took the timid way out, offering yet another band-aid solution."

As we know, Hillary and Edwarda believe the 15 million estimate is a direct result of the lack of mandate in Obama's plan.
By the way, did you notice how the pro-Hillary union made it look like a piece coming from Edwards? Nown let's get to the flip flop:

This is what Gerald McEntee, the international president of this union, had to say in April, in a meeting with Congress:

The Massachusetts reform model attempts to achieve near-universal coverage through the use of individual mandates that require those without access to coverage through their jobs to buy coverage in the individual market. Although there are subsidies to help low-income families, many working families will be forced to pay much higher prices for coverage. The most recent estimates for coverage under this initiative for a family with an income of $50,000 would include a $7,000 premium and a $2,000 deductible. Health care costs that approach 20 percent of total family income are unaffordable and unacceptable to working families and they will ultimately doom this plan to failure.

Even in 2006 the union http://www.afscme.org/resolutions/13722.cfm">made it one of its core principles for the period of 2007-2008 that mandates are ""incompatible with AFSCME's principles and long term interests."

Some of these reforms, such the reforms adopted in Massachusetts in 2006 which rely on “individual mandates,” are incompatible with AFSCME’s principles and long term interests. Others, such as proposals to expand S-CHIP, are worthy of the union’s support.

The leaders of this union are hypocrites that in the words of the progressive site Motherjones, are "Playing politics with health care".
By the way, the Union refused to answer questions about the flip-flop (see motherjones article).

[TeamJordan23]

1. The only explanation for the flip flop is that they are playing politics. nm