White House, unions reach deal on taxing insurance coverage

[grantcart]

Source: Washington Post

White House, unions reach deal on taxing insurance coverage
By Lori Montgomery
The White House has reached a tentative agreement with labor leaders to tax high-cost health insurance policies, sources said Thursday. The agreement clears one of the last major obstacles on the path to final passage of comprehensive health care legislation.

The deal would temporarily exempt union health plans from a significant surtax on unusually generous health policies plans, giving union leaders time to negotiate new contracts, according to sources familiar with the talks. They spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid affecting ongoing negotiations. Additional details of the deal were not immediately available.

The so-called Cadillac tax is a key source of financing for a proposal to dramatically expand health coverage to the uninsured. But it is also an important tool for reining in skyrocketing health care costs, and President Obama has insisted that it be included in the package.

Labor leaders, nonetheless, had threatened to campaign against any health care bill that included the tax. By one analysis, as many as one in four union members could have been affected by the version of the tax approved by the Senate.



Read more: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/white-house-unions-reach-deal.html?wprss=44

---

[high density]

1. Unconstitutional

They need to give a grace period to all workers with expensive plans, not just those negotiated by unions.

[grantcart]

8. Nothing unconstitutional about giving workers who are employed under

collective bargaining a grace period, and need to have more time because their agreements are typically multi year agreements.

Workers who are not under a collective bargaining agreement are free to approach their employers at anytime and renegotiate their contracts. The bill has an overall grace period so workers who work on annual contracts have enough time to renegotiate.

This actually will not be a contentious issue because both employers and employees will be happy to renegotiate their contracts allowing to change health care providers and take more income.

[RantinRavin]

31. Actually it would fall under

The Equal Protection Clause. You are protecting one class of citizen over another.

[laughingliberal]

52. I don't think they're through yet. The full article suggests negotiations ongoing

and expected to stretch into the first part of next week. I know the unions are pushing to have the threshold raised so it affects fewer workers, overall. I know they said Tuesday evening they were interested in concessions that would protect all workers not just their own members. Nice of them to care about workers who are not their members especially as I see so many non-union workers ready to throw the unions under the bus. Without them no one would have been working to gain any concessions on this middle class tax increase.

[WHAT]

72. What class is the other 75%...

of people enjoying cadillac plans from? All anyone talks about are the union plans and I really want to know about the 75 per cent not discussed.

[JDPriestly]

47. So, the unions have to go back to the negotiating table in

the worst economy since the 1930s. What kind of solution is that? It is just a face-savings device, a way to raise the hopes of union members.

This is an unacceptable solution.

Obama tricked the union leaders. And the union leaders are trying to trick their members.

Rank and file members are not this stupid.

[laughingliberal]

53. I suppose they could have just let it pass as is. nt

[RDANGELO]

12. The great majority of what is left is probably the wealthy,

who bought the plans with all of their own money. Employers aren't going to spend that kind of money on health care if they can help. I could be wrong.

[stray cat]

14. You are wrong - some of us chose jobs with decent health care and lousy pay

[GinaMaria]

17. You are wrong

There is nothing luxurious about my health plan. I have good coverage when I need it and with a husband who is ill, I depend on this insurance to keep him alive and to keep us from being homeless. This is the reason I chose to work where I do. If benefits were not tied to employment, I would not be here. Part of my compensation is the benefits package. My salary is pretty low but the benefits are beyond what I could afford. This tax will incent my employer to reduce covered benefits, increase costs to me, and move me to a higher deductible all to fall below the taxable rate. The is all an effort to decrease utilization. Given the costs, we will have to decide if we can afford some of his medication, or a visit to a specialist or needed procedures. We are not wealthy. This results in less health care for us, but this is how the insurance companies decided to "Bend the Cost Curve".

[laughingliberal]

55. I believe the unions are working to get the threshold raised for everyone

And they are, likely, to get that. They are not through, yet.

[GinaMaria]

58. We need one union for everyone

Now that would be some collective bargaining! Wish I could join a union. I hope they are fighting to protect all workers even though we don't all pay dues or elect leadership. Although, true leadership takes the broad view. This tax is dangerous to middle class working people. With the increasing cost of benefits, I will be at the threshold when it gets enacted. We also have to stop calling these plans 'Cadillac Plans'. They are comprehensive coverage plans. This plan has kept me from going broke and living on the street. This plan allows my husband to get the care he needs when he needs it.

Thanks for your post.

[laughingliberal]

62. Yes, we should be working towards better coverage for everyone, not worse.

I do think they are fighting to raise the thresholds. The article mentioned negotiations are expected to stretch into the first part of next week so it does not look as if they are stopping with the moratorium for their members. We do need to quit calling them 'Cadillac plans.' That is as offensive to me as Ronnie's 'welfare queens.'

[zipplewrath]

73. Before you panic

I agree that you are classic case of why this plan needs to be watched carefully. However, the threshold for these taxes is based upon the sum of the premiums and the deductibles. Raising the deductible won't help your employer. They will however have to "cheapen" the plan somehow. It isn't clear to me if and how the "copays" affects the impact of the tax. The most likely effect will be that they won't allow many procedures as easily, need more referals and reviews before one can get certain tests and see certain doctors.

[GinaMaria]

96. A high deductible plan costs much less

and a high deductible plan means we can't afford health care because we can't afford to use our insurance. This is about getting less health care not more. This doesn't help anyone but the insurance companies.

[Iowa]

56. You are wrong...

Retirees who aren't old enough for Medicare, who are paying the full cost of the premium, and who barely able to afford these sky-rocketing premiums will also get caught up in this scam. And some of these folks retired due to health reasons, to spare younger colleagues from lay-offs, and a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with being wealthy.

My plan will be protected by this new "deal", by the way, and I still say it's bullshit. I'm not going to stand by and cheer while this asshole screws over other workers, when I know that it will only be a matter of time until he uses similar divisive tactics to screw me too.

This is an unprincipled and divisive tax, setting worker against worker, and none of us should fall for it - or defend it. There are other ways to pay for this - like nixing the Bush/Obama war about nothing, reigning in the trillions going to Wall Street bankers, or going with single payer. It's all a matter of setting priorities. Unfortunately, this president's priorities are diametrically opposed to the priorities of the people. That's where our anger should be focused - not on each other.

[northzax]

111. and the Administration just announced a new fee

on banks that will recoup, over the next decade, the entirety of the TARP investments. there's only (I know, 'only') $100 billion outstanding from the TARP I and II payouts that has not already been repaid. heck, the Federal Reserve made a $70b profit this year on some of these investments (and that money goes straight to the Treasury) so that's being covered.

just worth noting.

[Iowa]

117. I saw that...

Unfortunately TARP is only the tip of the iceberg, and almost nothing is being done to prevent another meltdown.

[stuart68]

60. uh, no.

[high density]

78. 14th Amendment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

[stuart68]

81. right - we'll see

i get your point, just don't see it happening.

[Captain Hilts]

2. I don't like all the behind-closed-doors deals with this bill at all. nt

[xchrom]

3. I'll have to stand with unions on this.

Too bad they have to negotiate with a crew that
should have been more on their side from
the get go.

[grantcart]

6. of course your assumption is absurd.

One of the most frequent visitors to the White House has been the President of the SEIU. Negotiations happen all along the bill's journey but this particular point could not have been negotiated until the Senate bill was in fact passed.

Expect future moves by the President to receive the same "Heads he loses Tails he doesn't care" argument. The rabid anti Obama chorus has already established that "he doesn't listen to the left" and when, following the health care bill passes, more liberal moves are made it will be "all of our protesting had a great effect".

You complain when he does something you don't agree with and now you complain when he does.

Your point of view is rather irrelevent because at no point do you make any distinctions that might be interesting.

It is just all bad all the time. You are going to have a very long 8 years full of knee jerk complaints.

[SkyDaddy7]

19. Your post are a breath of fresh air!

Thank you!

[JDPriestly]

48. grantcart, Would you say the chance that a union can

renegotiate its pay package to increase pay sufficiently to compensate for the higher tax is 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% of 100%?

This is a simple question. Please answer it with a simple answer.

[Mithreal]

64. He won't and that's for damn sure.

I do respect grantcart but not peddling this bs.

[grantcart]

107. I believe reply 106 settles the issue.

[grantcart]

106. 100% chance

And the unions agreement indicates that they do to.

Your question is framed in a way that is off point.

The unions don't have to compensate for a tax that is 10% . . . 100%.

They only have to negotiate a shift in payment (not an increase) that will bring their health care under the $ 24,000 level.

To begin with only 25% of union plans are at this level.

So if you take a plan that is currently at $ 27,000 then the union would have to negotiate a $ 3,000 shift from health care to another benefit or take home pay.

As it doesn't cost the employer to shift there would be no logical reason that they would not agree to it.

They could shift the benefit to the employers 401K or other benefit or simply increase their income.

Given that they only have to reduce the benefit to $ 24,000 and that reduction is unlikely to be more than 5% of the total compensation of the worker (a $ 3,000 reduction on $ 27,000 health care and let's say $ 50,000 take home pay)and that it won't cost the employer a dime, speculation that they will not be able to achieve a small reduction seems groundless.

[Mithreal]

119. Right, GC, Dem leadership can't give us HCR we want

but unions are supposed to be able to negotiate higher pay. Maybe you didn't know but a lot of unions are suffering now.

And off point and fantasy is what I call your sellout of unions. It's all so reasonable to you this construction of yours but others see through it.

[Generator]

51. Hey your point of view is irrelevent too

Lord, you just negated the entire point of DU! Who do you think you are dude? You are absurd. Of course-you are in the fanatic pro-Obama chorus so your point of view is just as irrelevant.

[laughingliberal]

57. I believe raising some protests about parts of the bill has had an effect

I would be hard pressed to believe they wouldn't pass that Senate bill with a minor tweak here and there to appease the House if there weren't people calling for some of these changes. Unlike the ineffective negotiating style we saw from Democrats at the beginning of the debate (who started from the weakest position and negotiated down from there) some of us do think stating your demands clearly and giving no quarter til the other side blinks is a little more effective.

Regardless, I do think that pesky little constitution does still give us the right to seek redress for grievances from our government.

[Iowa]

65. Here comes the pom-pom squad...

...where hero worship supersedes reality, holding politicians accountable is an outrage, anyone with another view is "irrelevant", and "Whatever the party holds to be truth, is truth".

[goclark]

88. grantcart ~ you get a BOW for that one nt

:hi:

[defendandprotect]

22. If the unions were right in the first place, we have to STAND by their original objections . . .

and object for EVERYONE . . . not just unions--

[grantcart]

108. the exemption for unions is to allow them time because people don't have

multi year contracts and unions do.


The unions were not 'right' in the first place. It is simple math.


The tax is to create an absolute ceiling so that health insurance companies can no longer increase plans above the rate of inflation.

What this means is that your saying that the percent of GNP that can be devoted to health care is as high as it can be.

If you do not accept that health care must, from this point on, live within inflationary growth then you have to give up something else in the GNP.

If health care companies continue to increse at a rate HIGHER THAN INFLATION then, eventually 100% of the country's budget will be devoted to health care.

[leveymg]

4. So, what about non-union gov't employees, and such? Divide and conquer corporate HCR Bill

At every turn, they've coopted the organized opposition.

[WriteDown]

7. I am wondering that myself...

Will the taxes on those have to go up to makeup for the shortfall?

[defendandprotect]

23. Excellent point: "divide and conquer" . . .

Something we need to be doing and making "deals" like this isn't promising!

[Junkdrawer]

121. Exactly my concern.

This will erode popular support for unions.

[WriteDown]

5. So since this will result in less tax revenue where will the addtl revenue come from?

:shrug:

[grantcart]

9. benefits will be shifted to income

increased income will raise income taxes.

Very little or no revenue will come from the tax itself.

[WriteDown]

10. Whose benefits will be shifted to income?

:shrug:

[grantcart]

24. unions will negotiate it for their members

non union companies will certainly offer their employees the option for more income and lower heath care plans, there would be no reason not to do so.

[WriteDown]

28. Why would they?

Why won't companies just keep the status quo and allow their employees to be taxed on their plans? Its not like they're going anywhere in this job climate.

[Nordmadr]

35. As I understand it, from the portions of the senate bill

I have read, the employers would be responsible for paying the extra, not the employees. I imagine it could still trickle down though.

Nordmadr

[WriteDown]

39. It will trickle down as less income...

This bill is a disaster.

[sabrina 1]

34. How do we know that benefits will be shifted to income?

Unless it is mandatory, according to a recent poll, employers overwhelmingly (only 16% say they would) have said they will not shift the benefits to income. That is why the Unions would not accept it. Trumka laughed at that idea. To say that CEOs will voluntarily share any money they may save with employees is pretty much a faith-based idea since the bill makes no such requirement of them. All evidence indicates otherwise.

[WriteDown]

40. Thank you for pointing that out. nt

[Mithreal]

71. And anyone who tries to sell us otherwise, I will call a liar right now

[Mithreal]

85. You jumped the shark on this one.

[stray cat]

13. Non union workers

[change_notfinetuning]

11. If the deal is only for unions, I will sit out this election. I have never sat out an

election since I first voted in 1972. I'm not going to use the "R" word, but this is getting screwed involuntarily.

[dflprincess]

15. Don't sit it out - if you have to, cast a blank ballot

If people do that, rather than just not showing up, it can't be claimed that the voters were "too lazy" to show up.

[cbdo2007]

20. I'm with you. Gee, I'm so glad Unions could negotiate this on the backs of all of the

hard working, non-Union Americans who will still have to pay the tax.

The Unions should have spoken out against the tax for everyone, not just their members. On the other hand, maybe I'll write my congressman and say we need a "Union Tax" for people who belong to Unions....

[defendandprotect]

29. Agree . . . the union "deal" compromised everyone else on this issue .. .!!!

[cbdo2007]

42. They used their power and money just like the Health Insurance companies do...!

to save their own backs while average Joe out there is thrown under the bus.

Unions are no better than any other lobbyists, except they seem to have a bunch of liberals on their side for some reason.

[defendandprotect]

27. PLEASE . . . don't wander off alone . . .

Liberals and progressives have to come together to discuss a Plan B --

Let's find out how large this voting bloc may be????

PLUS you can always write someone in --

They didn't kill JFK and so many other liberals only to have the "people's" government

used to take back control from them -- or to have the Democratic Party investigating

assassinations and other right wing political violence.

This is fascism crossing our threshold and we have to keep fighting!!!

[dflprincess]

16. So if the unions need to renegotiate contracts does that mean that

after all the wage concessions they've made to protect their benefits, they are now going to have negotiate the quality of their health insurance down?

[change_notfinetuning]

18. Or higher wages. Yeah, that'll happen.

[defendandprotect]

21. Happy for the unions, but what does the "deal" do for everyone else . . . ???

IMO, in even making a deal simply for themselves the unions have weakened the

very argument they are making --

[grantcart]

25. non union companies are free to reduce their Cadillac plans and

increase income at any time.

Unions have multi year contracts and have to wait to the end of the contract.

[WriteDown]

30. Why would they? nt

[grantcart]

33. why wouldn't they -

Some companies will and they will be offering more personal income for the same skills, and the market will adjust.

The company doesn't lose any money so their is no incentive not to do so.

[WriteDown]

38. The amount of income raise they will have to offer to offset benefit decrease would...

be substantial and disproportionate. Easier to just allow employees to be taxed. Also, employers cannot just change health coverage on a whim. Usually they renew/negotiate the contract with the insurer each year.

[GinaMaria]

45. These are not 'Cadillac plans' There is nothing luxurious

about my health plan. It is a comprehensive coverage plan and one everyone should have access to. This is an attempt to decrease utilization and therefore increase profits. This is what insurance companies want to 'Bend the Cost Curve'. More money for them, less health care for us. Our company already sent word, that in this economy we are lucky to have jobs. Most of us will not get raises. Those that do, it will not even be a cost of living increase. To avoid the tax, employers will switch people to lower cost plans which translates to higher deductibles and copays, fewer procedures/medication covered, and lots more out of pocket for the patient. When it comes to a choice between groceries for your family or medication for yourself, what do you choose? Most will hold off on the medication, or split pills to make them last longer. This is way cheaper for the insurance companies. They keep more of the premiums. This means less health care not more. The impact on average regular middle class Americans is horrible.

[Mithreal]

77. EVERYONE should have cadillac plans

[Mithreal]

89. everyone should have cadillac plans

The New Dem plan is to encourage unions to have lesser health care.

President Obama implements part of McCain's plan and DU'ers rejoice? It was a stupid idea during the campaign and it is traitorous now.

[Better Believe It]

26. If this turns out to be true this is really bad for both union and non-union workers

Why?

Because the labor movement should speak on behalf of and for all working people, not just those who happen to be paying union dues.

If the labor movement hopes to organized non-union workers by the millions it must defend and champion the rights and interests of all workers. It has done this in the past when fighting for social security, unemployment compensation, civil rights, Medicare and other social reforms and legislation.

The anti-union corporate interests would certainly use such a healthcare deal in their anti-labor propaganda. They will tell unorganized workers: "See, the union bosses really don't care about you, they just care about their own members and collecting membership dues money from more workers".

If this proposal is accepted by union officials, that will encourage harmful divisions and conflicts between organized and non-union workers and that can only benefit right-wing politicians, Wall Street and corporate America.

[Lasher]

32. So union members get a delay but get their screwing when contracts expire.

The stay of execution is denied for everyone else who will be affected. Surely this will exacerbate the bad taste already in many people's mouths.

[progressoid]

37. Yep - and we get to go to the front of the line to get screwed.

Yippee!!

[high density]

44. It serves no purpose other than to make people mad

Union members will be screwed when the time runs out and the plan gets taxed, and in the meantime everybody else is pissed that union members are getting special tax treatment. In the end the union member either gets taxed on the income or they get taxed on the health plan.

[change_notfinetuning]

66. Bingo! You are the smartest kid in the class. n/t

[inna]

36. Lame and ridiculous (and counterproductive) half-measure. Tax the wealthy, not good insurance plans.

[pundaint]

41. Why is every interest willing to accept so little to get behind this piece of garbage?

If this is true, screw the unions for contributing to this sell-out of the People's interests.

[Mithreal]

99. Face time with the President or Rahm is persuasive.

Come on, you have seen the sweet talker promising the world a rainbow.

[northzax]

112. maybe because they don't think the same way?

maybe, just maybe, people look at the bill and see a lot of good, and a beginning of even better? maybe they see this as laying the groundwork for increasing access and affordability of health care for all Americans, and they understand it's not going to happen in a day (as much as we might want it to) maybe they see the end of pre-existing condition discrimination, the end of recissions and the end of unreasonable caps on coverage as a net win, and a pretty decent start?

[GOTV]

43. Why talk to the WH? I though Obama was powerless to affect the legislation in any way? ...

... or so we've been told

[Romulox]

50. LOL. +1. nt

[Mithreal]

69. It's what I have heard a hundred times if I heard it once, must be true

[harun]

76. Ding ding ding.

[JDPriestly]

46. Horrors! Do the unions really think they will get anything

acceptable if they try to renegotiate their contracts. This is the absolute end of the union movement in America. We might as well start over.

Obama is finishing off the union movement. This is the final blow.

I had such high hopes for Obama and he just crushes every one.

[stuart68]

59. Hang in there...

Unions will need to renegotiate and benefits will be shifted from HC to wages (Obama wins with more taxable income and headlines of "Real wages on the rise"). Remember, your HC plan paid by the company is not viewed as a taxable income source.

Once other non-union workers see they are getting hosed by addiitonal taxes, they will move to unionize, in order to get similar benefits (Union wins with more members, aka, higher dues and salaries for union bosses and headlines "Union membership rises sharlpy").

Bottom line is when Obama and the union heads get to gether to negotiate, it is a win-win, for them. The loser, the rank and file worker ! They get to feel like they got something for it, except when they go to cash their paycheck, there is less to cash.

Meanwhile, Obama and union bosses celebrate at the white house...

[Mithreal]

68. That is such fantastical spin I can't help but think you are an insider

to try and peddle such foolishness.

[stuart68]

75. Mark this date

come back in 6 months and if I am wrong, I will eat my words.

I heard this laid out several months ago, and since then, all the indicators were the person who briefed me was full of crap, but now it is playing out exactly as described.

and not an insider - just have seen these type of negotiations first-hand in the past.

[Mithreal]

82. No skin off your back, am I right? Stop holding union health care hostage

and using it as some kind of pawn.

That is what you are arguing, am I right? Obama and Rahm are the grand chess players.

[stuart68]

86. don't shoot the messenger

but yes, Rahm and Abama are the chess masters.

And frankly, it is a problem for me. I think people should be presented with the cold hard facts and be allowed to decide their own fate (for those with the capability to do so). Some folks need to be taken care of based on issues they did not choose.

[Mithreal]

90. Who made you messenger, come clean

[stuart68]

94. you seem aggravated

I am simply expressing an opinion and attempting to validate it with some observations. You call me foolish, but offer nothing else, or any specifics.

Maybe you can offer something to this conversation ?

[Mithreal]

95. I sense shill. If I am wrong, then fine but I trust my instincts.

You want me to point out why I think what you said that was foolish but all you did was build a house of cards.

Some of us have union benefits that will be affected. I resent Dems of any stripe telling people they should solve their problems by choosing less health care.

Remember this guy? Makes some good points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px5YXs788uM

[stuart68]

97. Sorry - but this time your instincts are wrong

I am not gov't, not union, not insurance - just an outside observer.

I know a lot of benefits will be affected, and I believe that is wrong. I actually believe union leadership and RahmBama are setting up the union rank and file under an ends-justifies-the-means scenario.

The fact is, they need a high rate of participation and the public will never accept people being arrested for lack of participation.

The ONLY people who are sympathetic to Obama's plan are the union heads, and they need new members. That is my two-bit conspiracy theory. Obama gets participation, union heads get members, union members get hosed.

Sure, it is a house of cards, but I am an amatuer just making a few prognostications.

Nice video - if your point is to say that he is going back on his word, I am with you on that ! Problem with Joe is he is just too honest for his own good.

[Mithreal]

102. Biden called out McCain/Palin for a host of problems

that Team Obama has embraced today and added a couple angles to the argument that haven't been mentioned here in this discussion. All make the Dems look bad.

I get this really weird feeling you are in marketing, not entirely comfortable talking like a Democrat but trying your best to sell the New Dem agenda. Or you could just be an open and enthusiastic person. Anyway, I either like you or you irritate me, not sure.

Ok, I will take you at your word for now.

I know this tells much more about me than you. The last thing you said really bothers me though.

[stuart68]

103. You're pretty good...

part of what I do 9-5 has a lot of marketing impact / content, but in the software industry. Maybe that's why I try to decipher the "master plan".

Actually, not trying to sell their agenda, just predict it. I really think they are trying to manufacture a complex scenario that gets to the proper end state, but there are a lot of moving pieces which means it will likely be a disastrous failure.

Would have been wild to see someone introduce a bill with two provisions 1) catastrophic coverage for all 2)specific prohibition of side ammendments and deals.

It would be impossible for anyone to be against that and woudl implement at least one critical component of universal coverage.

[Zhade]

98. Can we choose your dipping sauce?

NT!

[stuart68]

104. see you in 6 months !

[Zhade]

116. I guarantee it. You will be proven wrong.

I've unfortunately been proven correct too many times. I wish it weren't so.

[stuart68]

120. So you think

I will be wrong, ie Obama is not going to hose the union rank and file ?

[stuart68]

80. think about it

they can;t get universal coverage in unless everyone participates (young and old). the young want their money for beer, not insurance, so you cannot give it to them in a paycheck and ask for it back (and no one is going to support jail time for not buying insurance). So that means you have to get business owners to agree to cover everyone - that won't happen. What's left ? Force business owners to cover everyone. How, not by law - that's too messy and would risk elections, so you expand the union base, get helathcare from the corporation for all unionized employees, and now you have full participation.

[Mithreal]

83. How do you not see your foolishness?

[stuart68]

87. enlighten me

but, please be specific. What am I saying that you think is foolish ?

[JDPriestly]

113. Unions have very little clout these days.

Many employers are laying people off. There will be no additional compensation in any form to make up for the additional taxes placed on the union members.

Rather than negotiate in good faith with unions, employers simply close their facilities.

Obama has, once again, double-crossed union members. Obama is not from a union family or a union culture, and any sympathy he shows for unions is strictly political expediency.

If he were pro-union, he would require that charter schools hire union teachers. He is not doing that. He is doing all he can to break the teachers' union -- and he will pay for that in the next election.

[Romulox]

49. I find it hard to believe any major union "agreed" to assist in their own dismantling. Unrec. nt

[stuart68]

61. they didn't

this will be used to drive non-union workers to organize.

It makes perfect sense. "hey, we'd like to unionize", "not me, I'm against unions", "well, what if you could save $500 on your taxes?", "sign me up !"

[Mithreal]

67. That is ridiculous. It is a temporary exemption and where is our EFCA?

[stuart68]

74. EFCA will be watered down

to get passed in the middle of the night, but it will get passed. All the repugs will think the union is mad at Obama and let it slide.

Did you ever really believe the union would allow a tax on one of their biggest benefits ? Did you really believe Obama would actually penalize a union ? It was a diversion. It will then get significant coverage, which will turn into a marketign campaign for unions.

It makes perfect sense.

[Mithreal]

79. And they lived happily ever after.

That is how you should end your posts.

[change_notfinetuning]

70. Really? And how do you feel about alchemy? They did it. Whether they know

it or not is another story.

[Romulox]

91. I'm a fan. Btw, who's "they"? The article doesn't say...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_x7sS-g2JriA/SQF4IqJx7XI/AAAAAAAAANE/N2dQlMs5MHs/s400/Richard+Lloyd.jpg

[Zhade]

100. Are you kidding? Have you SEEN the Screen Actors Guild's latest contract?

Or the dipshit they voted in as head?

[jgraz]

54. Wait... why is the White House negotiating this? Doesn't Congress control legislation?

:sarcasm:

[Mithreal]

93. Should repeat that at every opportunity. At some point the backstabbers are

going to collapse under the weight of their nonsense.

Nothing like shining a light on it too, good disinfectant.

[Mithreal]

63. Not Good Enough. It's a union tax. Enough!

[blackdot]

84. ARGH!!!!

This will be yet another reason I can add on why I despise unions.
Man I wish they would just ban them.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rasputin1952]

115. You may not know this, but if it were not for Union activism...

in the past, that often proved deadly for those activists, you would have nothing at your workplace, except work...and a lot of it, at a much lower rate of pay.

You would not have a 40hr workweek, overtime, paid holidays, a safe working environment, a minimum wage, paid vacations, child labor laws, unemployment insurance, health insurance, a right to work at all; or a host of other work protections and benefits. Those that paid for these progresses, often with life and limb, did so that others could find protections under laws and collective bargaining.

Conservatives have been trying to destroy organized labor for decades...just so they could return to slave wages and no benefits...for their beloved corporations.

Unions have their faults, but the good they have done far outweigh the faults that need to be corrected.

Nothing, and mean nothing under Federal or State law that protects workers would be in place without those brave men and women who fought desperately for that which you benefit from today.

[Mithreal]

92. Beware people suggesting anyone should have less than a "cadillac" plan

or create a tax system to persuade people to give up better coverage.

The bad is the enemy of the good.

[grantcart]

109. A "Cadillac Plan" in the US is 500% more than that of Canada

With your line of thinking $ 23,000 for a family is good then $ 50,000 would be better.


This is the type of soft thinking that allows health insurance companies to increase HIGHER THAN THE RATE OF INFLATION.


Obviously you believe that there should be no limit to what the insurance companies should charge because bigger is always better.

[northzax]

114. exactly so

the tax system is set up to increase the rate of inflation in health insurance over and over again. because benefits are untaxed at any level, it is cheaper for employers to pay higher premiums (and have workers pay higher premiums) than to pay them more money. it's cheaper to spend another thousand dollars a year on insurance than to spend it on wages. therefore, companies have a negative incentive to hold down health care costs, while they bitch and moan about them, it's still cheaper to pay them than pay workers. this bill removes some of that incentive and increases the incentive for employers to use their negotiating leverage with insurance companies to lower costs. you don't think that GM, for instance, with a million employees, can't wring more concessions out of insurance companies if it wants to? that's a lot of business for an insurance company to turn down. even a fifty person company has more power to negotiate with an insurance company than an individual, right? this bill creates an increased incentive for those companies to keep insurance costs down.

how is that a bad thing?

[Mithreal]

118. Fine, GC, cadillac coverage not cadillac costs

BUT how much cost reduction is in the plan? Bernie Sanders said nearly zero.

Your assumption about what I believe is a fail.

[hollowdweller]

110. This "deal" is an example of why people don't join unions much anymore

I'm a 25 year union member but over and over I see the unions support democrats who turn around and screw them.

[alarimer]

122. Who else is left to betray the worker?

We've been by Democrats, including and maybe especially by the betrayer-in-chief, who is apparently more interesting in just passing anything than in doing anything to help the people, and now by unions. Fuck them all.

God, I hate Obama almost as much as Bush. And, now I will never join a union because those fuckheads got themselves a sweet deal which non-union people will ultimately foot the bill.

Fuck them all.

[stuart68]

124. I predicted it

Obama won, the union heads won, the workers get screwed.

Thanks RahmBama !

[natrat]

123. i don't think i like unions any more