Unions no likey Obamacare now

[brainhulk]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...s-cause-nightmare-scenarios/?partner=yahootix

Last Thursday, representatives of three of the nation’s largest unions fired off a letter to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, warning that Obamacare would “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

The union leaders are concerned that Obamacare’s employer mandate incentivizes smaller companies to shift their workers to part-time status, because employers are not required to provide health coverage to part-time workers. “We have a problem,” they write, and “you need to fix it.”

“The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe,” they continue. “Perverse incentives are causing nightmare scenarios. First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.”

/popcorn

 

[PokerGuy]

Gasp... who could have possibly foreseen such things? Oh, just about anyone who wasn't a complete gullible moron.

Hopefully the GOP doesn't give them the opportunity to "tweak" or change anything to suit their base. You made your bed, now lie in it.

 

[michal1980]

already covered here I believe.

But I'll add

This is what the dem's want...

more unemployed, more on government funded health care.

a population that is entirely dependent on government. Dependent on the generous democrats giving them benefits, vs the evil republicans that want to take them away

 

[Slick5150]

already covered here I believe.

But I'll add

This is what the dem's want...

more unemployed, more on government funded health care.

a population that is entirely dependent on government. Dependent on the generous democrats giving them benefits, vs the evil republicans that want to take them away

Weird. I'm a Dem. I know lots of Dems. None of us want any of those things.

But clearly your ridiculous sounding generalization must be right.

 

[michal1980]

Weird. I'm a Dem. I know lots of Dems. None of us want any of those things.

But clearly your ridiculous sounding generalization must be right.

I go by your actions not by the lies coming out of your mouths.

If you don't want does things, why set up Obamacare so that it pushes part time employees?

Which then if they are part time will make less money and thus get tax payer money for health care?

 

[poofyhairguy]

Gasp... who could have possibly foreseen such things? Oh, just about anyone who wasn't a complete gullible moron.

What I love is those getting mad at the companies/people who react to these incentives:

"Well, if companies would just be less greedy and go with the option where they make less money then everything would have worked out just fine!!!!"

Its like saying:

"Well, if pigs would just fly my plan to make millions on pig flight insurance would have worked out just fine!!!"

 

[fskimospy]

Gasp... who could have possibly foreseen such things? Oh, just about anyone who wasn't a complete gullible moron.

Hopefully the GOP doesn't give them the opportunity to "tweak" or change anything to suit their base. You made your bed, now lie in it.

What's funny is that this was an explicit purpose of the ACA. Extremely generous health provisions like many union contracts have are extremely inefficient. This is actually a good thing (and you would consider it a good thing if it wasn't that the other political sports team was for it so it must be THE DEVIL).

What's really crazy about it though is that for whatever reason you think this IS a problem but you want the GOP to deliberately refuse to solve problems in order to score political points. What are you, twelve?

 

[Genx87]

Well holy fuckstain! The unions are just now realizing the path of destruction this bill is and will cause? There might be hope afterall to alter the bill or kill it and work on something that wont be a major disruption to the economy in the time of weak growth.

 

[fskimospy]

Well holy fuckstain! The unions are just now realizing the path of destruction this bill is and will cause? There might be hope afterall to alter the bill or kill it and work on something that wont be a major disruption to the economy in the time of weak growth.

What 'path of destruction' do you mean exactly? Are you now in favor of protecting the type of union health benefits that conservatives frequently blame the failure of GM and Chrysler on? Something tells me that basically none of the conservatives in this thread realize what the unions are complaining about and wouldn't support them if they did.

The bill is fine as it is. Nothing this large will go into place without problems, but this was an absolutely vital and long needed change. Hopefully it's just the first of many, but it's at least a decent start.

 

[Genx87]

What 'path of destruction' do you mean exactly? Are you now in favor of protecting the type of union health benefits that conservatives frequently blame the failure of GM and Chrysler on? Something tells me that basically none of the conservatives in this thread realize what the unions are complaining about and wouldn't support them if they did.

The bill is fine as it is. Nothing this large will go into place without problems, but this was an absolutely vital and long needed change. Hopefully it's just the first of many, but it's at least a decent start.

The path of destruction I envision right now is a reduction in the work week for the working poor, or the reduction of full time work at tweener companies getting under the 50 cap rule.

I dont need to protect union health benefits. They can do that on their own. But the fact unions are complaining about legislation they pushed for does have some delcious irony.

I think we can both agree this bill is not ideal. I think we both have the ideal of a single payer system. Though the size scope of it is vastly different

 

[1prophet]

What's funny is that this was an explicit purpose of the ACA. Extremely generous health provisions like many union contracts have are extremely inefficient. This is actually a good thing (and you would consider it a good thing if it wasn't that the other political sports team was for it so it must be THE DEVIL).

What's really crazy about it though is that for whatever reason you think this IS a problem but you want the GOP to deliberately refuse to solve problems in order to score political points. What are you, twelve?

And unions deserve it, for voting in you backstabbing Democrats who pander for their vote with speeches like this

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-promises-you-can-keep-your-health-ins/

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Aug. 11, 2009, President Barack Obama repeated a line he's used many times in describing his health care proposal: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Should have broke away from the Democrats years ago and formed a much needed third party, now they are getting their just desserts.:awe:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-democrats-betrayal-of-labor-unions/25256

 

[fskimospy]

The path of destruction I envision right now is a reduction in the work week for the working poor, or the reduction of full time work at tweener companies getting under the 50 cap rule.

That path of destruction would be awfully narrow, considering the percentage of the workforce that comprises. That being said, I think the standards currently in place for the employer mandate are poor and should be either changed or eliminated.

I dont need to protect union health benefits. They can do that on their own. But the fact unions are complaining about legislation they pushed for does have some delcious irony.

I think we can both agree this bill is not ideal. I think we both have the ideal of a single payer system. Though the size scope of it is vastly different

If you asked the unions if they would vote for it again I have little doubt they would.

 

[Lithium381]

And unions deserve it, for voting in you backstabbing Democrats who pander for their vote with speeches like this

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-obama-promises-you-can-keep-your-health-ins/

Should have broke away from the Democrats years ago and formed a much needed third party, now they are getting their just desserts.:awe:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-democrats-betrayal-of-labor-unions/25256

Don't forget the other one: It's completely funded and won't cost a dime!

 

[PokerGuy]

What's funny is that this was an explicit purpose of the ACA.

Funny, I don't remember the liar in chief stating that in his many addresses of the useful idiots in town halls and other places. He said things like "if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan", not "health plans like union members currently have area inefficient and need to go". As usual, he was lying.

What's really crazy about it though is that for whatever reason you think this IS a problem but you want the GOP to deliberately refuse to solve problems in order to score political points. What are you, twelve?

This bill in its entirety needs to be scrapped, tweaking it only placates the idiots. Short term gain, long term loss. I'd rather see short term pain so the idiots who voted for the bill get properly punished, and then the bill can get scrapped.

 

[werepossum]

What I love is those getting mad at the companies/people who react to these incentives:

"Well, if companies would just be less greedy and go with the option where they make less money then everything would have worked out just fine!!!!"

Its like saying:

"Well, if pigs would just fly my plan to make millions on pig flight insurance would have worked out just fine!!!"

LOL +1

What 'path of destruction' do you mean exactly? Are you now in favor of protecting the type of union health benefits that conservatives frequently blame the failure of GM and Chrysler on? Something tells me that basically none of the conservatives in this thread realize what the unions are complaining about and wouldn't support them if they did.

The bill is fine as it is. Nothing this large will go into place without problems, but this was an absolutely vital and long needed change. Hopefully it's just the first of many, but it's at least a decent start.

You're conflating trade unions, which in most states compete with non-union labor by adding value and which often have very good health benefits, with labor unions which typically bring nothing to the employer but the threat of economic ruination if they are not appeased. These are labor unions, and labor unions represent a lot of minimally skilled individuals who are easily replaced. This is what is happening here; employers are cutting back hours and adding part time employees to avoid the expenses of Obamacare. Thus these workers are losing benefits not because their plans are too generous, but because the cost of bringing them up to the level required by the ACA (at least in conjunction with the added accounting and compliance costs) are higher than the company can or will bear. I doubt most of these people have great insurance to begin with because the cost of replacing them is simply not high enough to give them a great deal of leverage. Now they are losing the health insurance as well as the pay for the hours they would have worked had the ACA not been passed.

In other words, read the story.

 

[fskimospy]

Funny, I don't remember the liar in chief stating that in his many addresses of the useful idiots in town halls and other places. He said things like "if you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan", not "health plans like union members currently have area inefficient and need to go". As usual, he was lying.

The percentage of health care plans that this applies to represent a very small percentage of the whole, but yes, it is not accurate to say that everyone could keep their health plan. Again, this should be a good thing from your perspective.

This bill in its entirety needs to be scrapped, tweaking it only placates the idiots. Short term gain, long term loss. I'd rather see short term pain so the idiots who voted for the bill get properly punished, and then the bill can get scrapped.

Scrapping the bill is never going to happen. Not only would it be extraordinarily foolish from a policy sense and doing so would only placate the idiots, but from a practical sense the Democrats aren't going to allow it. Period. So now you have a choice between accepting reality and tweaking a bill you don't like so that it's better, or stamping your feet and pouting like a child.

Since you don't actually care about policy and just want to childishly rant, I'm quite sure which one you will choose.

 

[soulcougher73]

already covered here I believe.

But I'll add

This is what the dem's want...

more unemployed, more on government funded health care.

a population that is entirely dependent on government. Dependent on the generous democrats giving them benefits, vs the evil republicans that want to take them away

I dont a single dem who wants that. Unless you are counting the ones already sucking from the teet in which case they dont count. And those people are on both sides of the isle.

 

[sactoking]

If you read further into the article you get to the underlying issue:

The unions supported the ACA because it expanded availability of health insurance. Per the author, one of the most appealing benefits of union membership is the health insurance. Unions figured that their good health benefits + mandate for health insurance = more union membership. Now they're finding out that good health benefits through the exchanges + cadillac tax + subsidy + 30-hour workweek = lower union membership (since, as I've mentioned elsewhere, for low- and middle-class households the subsidy can easily outsrtip the employer's/union's contribution).

 

[boomerang]

Don't forget the other one: It's completely funded and won't cost a dime!

Just read an article the other day that the cost is at 2.6 Trillion and climbing.

 

[cubby1223]

Many critics of Obamacare before the legislation was passed pretty much said this bill's intention, while not creating a government controlled single-payer system, was to force us into creating a government controlled single-payer system by destroying the employer-based system.

We knew these problems were coming, and we know a single-payer system will be the proposed solution.

Just give it a few rough years, progressives will win in the end.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What's funny is that this was an explicit purpose of the ACA. Extremely generous health provisions like many union contracts have are extremely inefficient. This is actually a good thing (and you would consider it a good thing if it wasn't that the other political sports team was for it so it must be THE DEVIL).
/QUOTE]

During the time O'care was debated I cannot recall Democrats saying to anyone "the purpose of the ACA is to decrease the quality of your coverage, and that's a good thing. What other "good things" like this can we expect?

 

[BoberFett]

Many critics of Obamacare before the legislation was passed pretty much said this bill's intention, while not creating a government controlled single-payer system, was to force us into creating a government controlled single-payer system by destroying the employer-based system.

We knew these problems were coming, and we know a single-payer system will be the proposed solution.

Just give it a few rough years, progressives will win in the end.

Too bad a single payer system won't fix anything.

 

[fskimospy]

During the time O'care was debated I cannot recall Democrats saying to anyone "the purpose of the ACA is to decrease the quality of your coverage, and that's a good thing. What other "good things" like this can we expect?

The tax on 'cadillac plans' was widely discussed. If you don't remember it you just weren't paying attention.

 

[PokerGuy]

The tax on 'cadillac plans' was widely discussed. If you don't remember it you just weren't paying attention.

.... except this isn't about a 'tax on the cadillac plans'. The unions are not complaining about that (at least not yet), they are whining because businesses are doing exactly what any logical person would do given the framework of the obummercare fiasco. They are reducing work hours so they can escape costs and administration headaches. The workers lose the healthcare they have, and at the same time collect smaller paychecks because of reduced weeks.

Of course many intelligent people predicted that's exactly what would happen, but now the useful idiots are starting to learn that they screwed themselves.

 

[bshole]

Many critics of Obamacare before the legislation was passed pretty much said this bill's intention, while not creating a government controlled single-payer system, was to force us into creating a government controlled single-payer system by destroying the employer-based system.

I think the employer-based system was on its way out anyway - with or without ObamaCare. When I started at the company I work for now, there were NO premiums for health care (15 years ago). Now the premiums are over $400/month, the copays are much higher, etc... American corporations are eagerly waiting for the day when they can dump health care for their employees.

We are headed for rationed health care. That is the only way we as a country can control costs. Every other country is doing it and it completely inevitable that we will as well.