Some unions now angry about health care overhaul

Well surprise surprise !!

Get a load out of THIS.....

Some unions now angry about health care overhaul

Oh Oh !

Some labor unions that enthusiastically backed President Barack Obama's health care overhaul are now frustrated and angry, fearful that it will jeopardize benefits for millions of their members.

Union leaders warn that unless the problem is fixed, there could be consequences for Democrats facing re-election next year.

"It makes an untruth out of what the president said _ that if you like your insurance, you could keep it," said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. "That is not going to be true for millions of workers now."

The article talks about Union Members being part of Taft-Hartley plans.

It says those "plans" may be in jeopardy now because of "oversights" in the PPACA.

It says as many as 20 million people will be affected.

You would think they would have noticed THAT long ago

The cost is going up and coverage may be stopped by employers.

Hardy Har Har

Again more problems are cropping up like maybe somebody didn't read the fine print

Now get ready to be thrown in front of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid LOCOmotive !!.

Many Union officials are shouting.

Please read the entire story and comment on facts and merits.

warning: it's a Breitbart site (not for the faint of heart)
Some unions now angry about health care overhaul



Remember THIS
"Pelosi: we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it"

Now What ?

You would think they would have noticed THAT long ago

Exactly! These are unions for pete's sake!!!! I work for a small company, only 12 people including the owners, and the first thing I did was start asking the accountants questions about how this was going to affect us. (bad all the way around, as it turns out)
With all their money, they must have someone they could have paid to look into this long ago.
But then again, they just put their blind trust into the government.
Idiots!

And this:

Unions backed the health care legislation because they expected it to curb inflation in health coverage, reduce the number of uninsured Americans and level the playing field for companies that were already providing quality benefits. While unions knew there were lingering issues after the law passed, they believed those could be fixed through rulemaking.

Really???????

reply to post by xuenchen


The whole thing will collapse unless it is repealed.
Repeal it or we will be plunged headlong into Socialist Health Care!

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The whole thing will collapse unless it is repealed.
Repeal it or we will be plunged headlong into Socialist Health Care!

That is the goal for der fuhrer and the regime. The complaints of the "little people" mean little, or nothing. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it all away.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Indeed, dare I say I think they planned it this way. The people were hoodwinked,
they rejected Hillarys grab at it, she made the deal with Obama.

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The whole thing will collapse unless it is repealed.
Repeal it or we will be plunged headlong into Socialist Health Care!

That was the whole idea behind the 'healthcare overhaul' take something broken, and break it more so they can 'fix' it again.

Maybe those unions thought they would be exempt from the new health care laws.

It seems to me few people, and none of Obama's supporters truly understand how much the health care mandate will cost the average person.

With all these new laws, the next couple of years are going to be interesting.

reply to post by xuenchen


Yeh, they pulled a fast one. And I mean fast like it was on greased skids. And they were right about another thing: Nobody really understood what this rotten POS was until it was passed. Now every organization that can possibly get out of it--or even sue their way out of it--wants out. And no one cares who's left holding the bag, either. And that would be just us: Those who have no one backing us, no choice, and no options. It's worse than just Socialism; it's the worst kind of theft and robbery--it's boldfaced theft and robbery under color of authority....

reply to post by Ex_CT2


Well, some of us know that if we make less than x dollars a year then we will qualify for free Medicare. Something tells me a lot of people will suddenly have a huge drop in income once ObamaCare kicks in.

reply to post by xuenchen


I think you're kind of missing exactly who is angry about what;

"If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union?" Laszewski said. "In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer."

It's the union officials who are upset. Not the union members.

Better health care, for a lower cost, for more people.

Originally posted by jrod
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

Well, some of us know that if we make less than x dollars a year then we will qualify for free Medicare. Something tells me a lot of people will suddenly have a huge drop in income once ObamaCare kicks in.

That's the problem! We've been fed so much bull-dookey for so long about our healthcare that some will deliberately take a lower paying job to get the healthcare, when we should be looking at how to make healthcare affordable for everyone even without insurance!

Folks, we are all focused on how we are going to pay these outrageous healthcare costs (enter Obamacare) when we should have been focusing on how to lower the costs in the first place!

reply to post by beezzer


My hero! How many times does a hospital have to charge fifty dollars a night for a $3000.00 hospital bed? After the first sixty days it is completely paid for. I know about the cost of the bed because we had to buy a hospital bed for my mom after she had her second stroke.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I think you're kind of missing exactly who is angry about what;

"If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union?" Laszewski said. "In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer."

It's the union officials who are upset. Not the union members.

Better health care, for a lower cost, for more people.

""Better health care, for a lower cost, for more people.""

well um but....

can you show some exact verifiable numbers ??

charts, graphs, etc would help.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by xuenchen

 

I think you're kind of missing exactly who is angry about what;

"If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union?" Laszewski said. "In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer."

It's the union officials who are upset. Not the union members.

Better health care, for a lower cost, for more people.

""It's the union officials who are upset. Not the union members.""

how 'bout when the members get chopped down to part time and have to pay for the insurance
with a smaller paycheck ??

these problems could lead to strikes later.

Originally posted by xuenchen
"It's the union officials who are upset. Not the union members."

how 'bout when the members get chopped down to part time and have to pay for the insurance
with a smaller paycheck ??

these problems could lead to strikes later.

Let's follow the logic of that scenario; state exchanges offer cheaper and comparable health insurance, union members drop their employer subsidized coverage, employers now make more money by not having to cover the cost of their workers, employers then chop workers down to part time (?!), union members go on strike.

You kind of start to miss the idea that the less money you make the greater your insurance is subsidized by the state exchange. Even if you're chopped down to a part-timer you'll still have affordable health insurance.

The only reason the union officials are upset is because they're seeing that when workers are gainfully employed there's no reason for a union. If there's no reason for a union, there's no reason for six figure union bosses (I'm looking at you SEIU, UAW, et. al.).

I wish we didn't have to have unions, not because it hurts the companies bottom line, but because companies exert their will over their workers in terrible ways because of their bottom line.

reply to post by links234


well let's look at some possible real life examples.

this is some kind of calculator that might give a pretty good idea of what could happen....

Subsidy Calculator Premium Assistance for Coverage in Exchanges

play around with some real numbers and see if a worker really gets screwed or comes out ahead.

remember that the workers we are discussing are already covered by employers and stand to lose coverage without a raise to make up the differences.

add that to possible reduced hours, and you get a nightmare that ends up being a pay cut.

not to even mention the endless red tape.

this kind of explains how those subsidies and tax credits might work, and as you will see, it could be a lot of back and forth red tape.

How will health care reform subsidies work?

I find this one point a bit alarming, especially for people who HAD employer coverage and lose it.....

If your income is between 300 and 400 percent of poverty level, you will be required to spend only 9.5 percent of your income on insurance.

[gee wiz.....thank you too...in advance !!!]

it looks like a massive pay cut to me.

reply to post by xuenchen


The Oregon exchange has a note about employer coverage:

There will be some exceptions if the employer coverage is deemed "unaffordable."

If unions realize they can drop their coverage for the cheaper exchanges then I don't see why they wouldn't do that in their negotiations. I don't understand where you get the idea that employers would still cut hours.

The point remains; union officials (paid through union membership dues) are upset because unions may negotiate their employer based insurance out of contracts. That's a major part of union memberships, health insurance. If that's gone, these union officials lose out, big time.

reply to post by links234


Another problem is eye, dental, and prescription plans.

I don't think PPACA addresses that does it ?

Union negotiations could get stymied and still workers will lose pay somewhere.

Anytime people have to do something alone, there will be trouble.

Especially with professional hustlers giving advice and selling "products".

The part time thing will affect big employers who will be required to provide insurance with 50 or so full time employees.

Small employers could easily just stop all coverage and not give raises to make up the employees' losses.