http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...e-of-obamacare
"LOS ANGELES — A top labor official is pushing the AFL-CIO to ratchet up its criticism of ObamaCare at its annual convention.
Terry O'Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA), on Tuesday said a draft resolution that bashes the healthcare law doesn’t go far enough..."
Damn it. I thought we just got done marginalizing, demonizing, disbanding, and blaming unions for our economic woes. Now their opinions, influence, and support are relevant again.Originally Posted by WFU71
That's a horribly presented survey question btw.
When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen
I miss the part where I marginalized, demonized, blamed, etc. unions. I find it noteworthy that a large labor group takes exception to an initiative that is designed to help the common citizen. Do you disagree?
They are upset it didn't go far enough, but it will help a lot of people.
They are pissed as it creating a whole lot of PT workers. Unintended consequences.
Hahahaha
“We are supportive of fixing parts of ObamaCare, and our primary objective is to change it. But if it can't be changed, then it needs to be repealed,” O’Sullivan said.
Yeah. That sounds like they think it is a helpful bill.
Last edited by Wrangor; 09-12-2013 at 07:42 AM.
You really are clueless about how this legislation is negatively impacting some people.
What's humorous is anyone who thinks this would have started seamlessly and without any problems. The only people who would have thought this was possible are hopeless dreamers, people who viscerally oppose it or those who have never done anything in their lives.
Whether you are starting a hoagie shop in Philly, a batting cage in NC, the TVA, Social Security or any other venture, the one thing any sensible person understands is that there will be changes from the way you thought it would happen on paper to what happens in real life.
This bigger the project the more things will be changed. That's the reality of life, business and with any sized project. Of course things will be changed. Some things will be expanded. Others will be eliminated. Some will actually be the way they are on paper.
Do you actually think the TVA was produced exactly the way it was passed by Congress?
How about Medicare do you think that was implemented 100% as the bill stated from Day One?
Do you think every road on the interstate system went exactly as designed by Ike and Congress?
Everyone who is realistic would be shocked if anything 1/100 this big has ever been put into practice 100% as drawn up or without lots of hiccups. It's just the way the world works.
Thus far many of the systems that are operational have worked well. I'd be stunned if any of them went through without some overhauls.
There will be constant changes in the ACA. There have to be or it can't work.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...lties/2793669/
"WASHINGTON — Smokers – and chewers – in some states may have to pay as much as 50% more in premiums than non-smokers if they sign up for insurance through state health exchanges that open next month, according to provisions in the Affordable Care Act...
"Tobacco disproportionately targets low-income communities," Benjamin said. "They are also more likely to die prematurely for tobacco-related conditions."
That means low-income people may be taking a harder financial hit when they may need more help, especially if they are dealing with conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or lung cancer, he said..."
Last edited by WFU71; 09-12-2013 at 09:38 AM.
You sound like lobo explaining why our option attack doesn't work.
Frankly, I have no problem with this. And I feel the same way about fatties (of which I am a member).
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...ors-criticisms
A major union announced that it would partner with the Obama administration to educate consumers about ObamaCare despite labor's criticisms of the law.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) plans to seek out the uninsured in 30 cities through door-to-door campaigns and community events.
The organization is also urging its U.S. members to talk about the law in their workplaces, where some employees may lack health coverage and could benefit from the new insurance marketplaces.
The announcement highlights continued ties between the Obama administration and the labor movement despite growing frustration among union officials about the healthcare law.
As of Tuesday, unions were on the cusp of issuing formal criticism of ObamaCare at the AFL-CIO's convention in Los Angeles, a major step intended to send a message to the White House.
At issue are unions' multiemployer health plans, which do not currently qualify for ObamaCare's tax credits. Labor argues that they should, or else employers are likely to drop the plans and shift workers into the new insurance exchanges.
SEIU President Mary Kay Henry emphasized Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act is "working for working people."
It sounds like rational thinking. It would be irrational to think any project that is set up for 300+M people would ever be rolled out to opening day exactly the way it was planned.
I agree. Perhaps the added financial incentive will prompt some to change their habits. Along those lines:
http://www.timesunion.com/news/artic...re-4807304.php
..."I'd rather have health coverage than cigarettes, if it comes down to it," Jones said..."
I bet you negotiated one or two contracts in your time. These are things that can be worked out once people see how the structure works.
Of course there will be things that have to be fixed. That's the way the real world works.
I believe the unions originally thought their plans would qualify for the tax credits. I understand why they would want to use their leverage to change it to their satisfaction. I think there will be a shit storm for the administration of they do (or don't, for that matter).
I generally don't have much sympathy for unions - even less for their benefit plans as I think they are just used to make more money for the unions. That's a personal belief that I've never taken the time to research.
I gotcha...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_bankruptcy
Looks like I was wrong about unions deriving direct profit from their health insurance plans, outside of maybe administration costs and probably some sweet jobs for individuals. This article outlines the problems (note that it's 60 days old)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...are-scenarios/
More background on the union position:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...er-the-law.php
“Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will [be] treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens,” the letter reads. “As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.”
The comparison is apples to oranges. The ACA is quite clear that workers with access to tax-preferred, affordable group coverage won’t be eligible for new subsidies that will be provided to uninsured people on the exchanges.
“If you’re eligible for a Taft-Hartley plan you’re treated as if you have employer health care, and you can’t get a premium tax credit,” explains Timothy Jost, an ACA expert at Washington and Lee University law school. “They’re not happy about that, because they want premium tax credits.”
But that would be double dipping. The ACA was designed to dissuade managers of group plans from dumping their workers on to the exchanges. It thus largely preserves existing tax subsidies for those who provide and receive group insurance — including Taft-Hartley plans. It separately establishes new pooled markets for individuals, and creates a new tax subsidy so that middle class people in those markets can afford to purchase insurance. Nobody in the exchanges gets to exclude their premium contribution from their income taxes; and nobody in a group plan gets to supplement their tax exclusion with a new exchange subsidy."
The Unions position is comical. They want access to subsidies for their members? Really?
Whats really comical is the idea that the law, like many laws, is imperfect. Sure, laws need to be fixed. But they have to be implemented first.
Last edited by CHDeac; 10-05-2013 at 06:09 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote