Union Exemption From Health Insurance Excise Tax Is a Bad, Bad Idea

[Better Believe It]

Union Exemption From Excise Tax Is a Bad, Bad Idea
By Michael Whitney
Online Campaign Director, Firedoglake.com
January 14, 2010

If unions take this deal, it's a sell-out of epic proportions. I'm hard pressed to think of a deal unions could cut in health care that would cause more long-term damage to not just the credibility of the labor movement, but to the middle class itself.

The excise tax is a tax on more expensive insurance plans that is supposed to fund part of health care reform. It was branded the "Cadillac tax," but that distorts the reality of who it will effect. This isn't a tax on the rich; it's a tax on the middle class, the old, and the sick with more expensive plans. And a good chunk of those plans are negotiated under collective bargaining agreements, i.e. under union contracts.

If unions take this "deal," if the labor movement decides to fold and exempt themselves from the excise tax, they fulfill one of the worst of stereotypes of labor unions: blind self interest. By abandoning the nonunion middle class and protecting only their own, the labor movement is throwing any hope of future relevancy out the window.

The ideal of unions is to organize the unorganized, to protect the unprotected. Sure, unions should fight for their members, no question. But in the biggest public policy and political fight of a generation, unions simply cannot exempt their members from the dangerous excise tax and call it a day.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-whitney/union-exemption-from-exci_b_423036.html

-----------------------------------------------

As it turns out, the union workers exemption is not permanent. It's merely a temporary stay of execution! That will give union officials a window to renegotiate (downgrade) union health plans so that they don't meet the threshold requirements for the 40% health insurance tax.

Just what the doctor ordered! Downgraded health care plans providing reduced benefits which will enable employers to avoid paying the 40% health insurance taxes with cheaper plans and lower premiums!

How is that progress?


The union officials got a little break, some would say crumb, on the taxing threshold requirements. The 40% excise tax on family insurance policies was increased to $24,000 from 23,000 and single people will get a whopping $400 increase to $8,900 before the health insurance tax kicks in!

And how about that insurance exchanges concession. Well, not so fast now.

"Trumka told reporters that beginning in 2017, all health plans — union and nonunion — would be permitted to seek coverage in the new insurance exchanges, but White House officials disputed that, saying the issue was not settled."

http://www.ajc.com/business/health-talks-in-overdrive-274986.html

Well, organized labor did stand its ground and the government will use the medical inflation rate to index the insurance tax, right? Well, not exactly.

"The White House appears to have stood its ground, though, on the question of how to index the tax. By indexing it just above the consumer price index, the provision generates a great deal of cost-savings, which are crucial to getting a passing score from CBO.

Labor officials and progressives had suggested the index would have to be raised to keep pace with medical inflation--a tweak that would prevent the tax from ensnaring middle class people over time, but that would also eliminate the measure's savings potential. But they seem to have lost that fight."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/details-emerge-on-white-house-labor-health-care-agreement.php?ref=dcblt

So the bottom line is that the Obama Administration and Senate will keep the health insurance tax they fought so hard for and has buried the House proposal to tax the wealthy they fought so hard against.

Michael Whitney is right. This deal which temporarily exempts organized workers and not tens of millions of non-union workers, will give Republicans, corporate America and the right-wing ammunition to use against the union movement.

The anti-union corporate interests will use such a health care deal in their anti-labor propaganda. They have already begun to do that! 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 insurance industry/big Pharma bill is approved, it will encourage harmful divisions and conflicts between organized and non-union workers that can only benefit right-wing politicians, Wall Street and corporate America.

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.

It will be interesting to see what final and exact language will be in the final bill.

You and members of Congress will have 72 hours to study the 2,000 plus page document according to Congresswoman Pelosi.

All you need to do is hire a small team of lawyers who can interpret the legal mumbo jumbo for you. If any members of Congress claim that they didn't have enough time to study and understand all of the complexities of the bill before "the vote" that would be a legitimate reason for not voting!

Would any DU'ers vote for any bill they haven't had time to read and study?

I sure wouldn't.

[marshall]

1. Labor unions aren't about "the people" or "the children"

Labor unions are about "the MEMBERS".

[Better Believe It]

3. That's not what they have been and that's not what they should be.

As I pointed out, the labor movement has fought on behalf on ALL working people and the middle class in the past and should do so again.

Perhaps you just not familiar with that proud history and the issues.

I'll name just a few.

Medicare, social security, immigrant rights, civil rights, child labor, unemployment compensation, job safety, fair wages and working standards, overtime pay, higher minimum wages and many, many more.

And these key issues have affected ALL workers and improved the conditions of ALL working people, not just union members.

[amborin]

14. Pensions, 8-hour day; lunch break, OSHA, etc......... n/t

[MrCoffee]

20. And the Republicans ended slavery!

[Better Believe It]

23. Not corporate slavery! They embraced it along with Democrats after Reconstruction.

[marshall]

24. Then why have membership restricted to specific people?

I realize that by extension some of the unions' efforts benefit society at large. But they are advocates for their own people and their interests.

[Better Believe It]

30. Unions have formed broader organizations that non-union members can join.

Only workers covered by labor agreements with employers can become union members and thereby vote on matters concerning their collective bargaining agreements.

Do you think that non-union workers should have a voice and vote on union labor contracts that cover other organized workers? That would be very undemocratic to say the least.

I assume you work for a non-union employer. If that's true, do you think some union workers and their representatives should be able to march right into your workplace and dictate your wages and benefits if you and most of your co-workers have not decided in favor of joining the union? That would make just as much sense.

[marshall]

41. That seems to be my point

The unions' business, especially insofar as health care is concerned, is primarily the interest of its members.

[thunder rising]

7. Agreed! Unions are for the members. 'magin that, you get what you pay for.

The middle class sold out unions long ago.

[Junkdrawer]

8. "We got ours, go get yours" Is a bad, bad, bad idea....

Popular support of unions is critical for their future.

[amborin]

17. that was not the union

stance

do you think it was? what were they supposed to do? roll over and get trampled on?

it's more "blaming the victims" here

unions fought bravely to defend benefits they fought bloody battles to win.....

the real wrath should be directed toward DLCers, who have sold out the American middle class

[Junkdrawer]

18. Short term gain - long term loss....n/t

[laughingliberal]

35. No loss AFAIC. The people who bash the unions over this are likely the ones who bash them anyway

And they did win some concessions for all workers with benefits. They got the threshold raised and vision and dental insurance premiums exempted. They got some indexing for inflation. They were offered a deal Tuesday to exempt all benefits won in collective bargaining exempted for all time, as I read it. They rejected that because they wanted more protection for all workers.

[amborin]

37. i hope this gets publicity: the unions made a sacrifice, for the collective good of all workers

[laughingliberal]

40. Yes, they did. They had a deal that would have protected their own for all time and compromised to

get some concessions for everyone.

[Better Believe It]

21. But that's how it will be portrayed by the right-wing and that's how it will be viewed by most ...

unorganized workers.

And Trumka along with a few other union officials walked right into that trap.

I hope they back out once they see the actual language in the final bill.

[amborin]

38. has the actual language been finalized?

[laughingliberal]

39. The only backing out would be to go right back to the plan that was there before they started

It is not true they only took care of their own. They had to opportunity to get a permanent exemption for their members on Tuesday but no concessions for non-union workers. They rejected it. I believe pro-union Democrats need to arm themselves with the facts. I'm sick of us letting the RW spew crap and running in the corner to hide. Paint the RW and DLC as the worker hating organizations they are and spread the word we'd all be better off if a union was representing us.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Better Believe It]

52. You're now on ignore for suggesting I'm some sort of right-winger.

That's false and is a clear violation of Democratic Underground rules.

If you can't engage in civil debate and would rather engage in trash talk and personal attacks I suggest you find another board for your "contributions".

The bottom line is this so-called deal is giving the right-wing a hammer to hit labor unions and Democrats who support this "deal" as part of the Health Insurance Industry Protection Act.

[spoony]

61. You're the one hammering unions HERE

Then you act like you're concerned the "right wing" will do it. You either agree with them or some other grave dissonance is going on in your brain, so it's best that you do ignore me and anyone else who might call you on this utter bullshit.

[ChicagoSuz219]

42. ...who ARE people and HAVE children.

The majority of middle-class people don't have/can't afford Cadillac plans, so it's a non-issue for them.

Most of the people who have them are very wealthy &/or union members who got them in exchange for pay raises.

I don't see a huge problem with this 'deal.'

[Juche]

48. We all benefit from unions

If we had 30% of our labor force in unions, the other 70% of the labor force would be run by employers so terrified of a union forming in their own workforce that they'd be forced to offer better wages, treatment and benefits to keep the unions out. As it stands, employers have little fear of a union forming.

It is the miracle of the invisible hand. If someone sells a shitty product, you buy something else. If your competitors are paying $16/hr, offering benefits, decent treatment and vacation while you are offering your employees $13/hr, no benefits, no vacation and shitty treatment, your employees are either going to leave or form a union.

This is why we need strong labor laws. Its not just the unions that improve our quality of life, but the fear of new unions being formed that cause employers to placate employees with better wages and treatment.

As far as the argument about 'outsourcing', many of our jobs in this country (and many of the new jobs being created) are service sector jobs which generally cannot be outsourced.

[marshall]

49. But do we all benefit from the deal cut over the healthcare bill?

That's what we're talking about. Are unions going to extend their coverage to everyone?

[Juche]

50. I don't agree with this move by unions

But I was replying to someone who said unions are only out for themselves. That isn't true. Unions improve quality of life for all employees. They also are a backbone of the progressive and anti-authoritarian movements all over the US and the world. There is a reason why once a dictatorship (either left or right wing) takes over a country they outlaw or co-opt the labor movement.

[dysfunctional press]

63. members, AND THEIR FAMILIES.

[midnight]

2. You are mandated to buy insurance, and then if it is determined that it is not enough,

the IRS does an audit......

This is quit the cycle they have created in this insurance bailout....

This isn't a tax on the rich; it's a tax on the middle class, the old, and the sick with more expensive plans. And a good chunk of those plans are negotiated under collective bargaining agreements, i.e. under union contracts.

[villager]

4. this post has made some phantom unreccers upset....

n/t

[Junkdrawer]

5. I agree. K&R

[spoony]

6. Blame the right people.

If you're upset about the bill, blame the people who came up with it, not the unions for trying to improve their lot in said shit bill.

[Better Believe It]

10. The top union officials could have just said NO!

They folded without even putting up a serious public fight.

Some are speculating they surrendered on the health insurance tax, public option, Medicare at 55 and on every issue that matters because the Obama administration promised union tops an up and down vote on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) this spring.

Trumka publicly said the Senate will pass EFCA this spring! It's a promise and the Democrats always keep their legislative promises.

“I think you’ll see the Employee Free Choice Act pass in the first quarter of 2010,” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, in a Monday, January 11, speech at the National Press Club in Washington. What's he smoking?

Are they really that gullible?

I can tell you right now, it ain't gonna happen.

Why?

Because Obama and Senator Reid will claim they need 60 Senate votes to pass EFCA and the votes are not there!

Oh surprise!

They just can't seem to collect those 60 votes IN ADVANCE of a dreaded Republican filibuster to head it off.

So the EFCA will be withdrawn because they just can't seem to get 60 votes to end a phantom filibuster.

Any questions?

[Junkdrawer]

11. "That evil Lieberman. Is there no villainy beneath him?"

I can hear it now...

[amborin]

15. +10000 this post speaks to the U.S.' peculiar anti-union stance:

"pecularly USA attitude of non-union workers. They are driven by a prevailing, intra-class resentment of those earning better wages than them - unless they wear a suit, then, iexplicably, they deserve any fabulous salary thay can name.

I have heard over and over again from low-to middle wage USAns, including family members, that what they despise the most about unions is that they earn more pay and benefits than they "deserve", and they all should be making a low wage and no health benefits - this is prevalent among the well-paid petit-bourgeois coordinator class, but even low wage workers often resent union workers for making "more than I do"....."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/14-12

[bain_sidhe]

26. and +10000 for your post in pointing it out

At our Christmas family gathering this year I ran smack up against the wall of that resentment from my brother in law. To them, the answer is not to seek those "better wages and benefits" for themselves, but to force the people who have those things to give them up.

[bain_sidhe]

27. and now that I think about it

That's exactly what this "cadillac" tax is. The excise tax would be more properly termed the "I don't have good insurance so you shouldn't either" tax.

[amborin]

34. you nailed it!

i think that really sums it up

and of course throughout all this, where is the public outrage about the reluctance to tax those making $250K plus?

as that person's post noted, the elite are weirdly exempt

[bvar22]

56. There were acxtually DUers arguing EXACTLY that point on DU.

...supporting the "Cadillac Tax" because it makes everyone "more equal".
:shrug:

[FreakinDJ]

9. Fuck Off

ass holes can't reel in your own corporatist Dem leaders

[inna]

71. WTF are you babbling about??

you're not making a bit of sense.

[bain_sidhe]

12. Why are you mad at unions?

This shit middle-class tax was the ONLY thing Obama was willing to fight for. Given that he refused to compromise on shafting the middle class, unions got the best deal they could for their members - which most union charters REQUIRE them to do.

Direct your anger at those who insisted on this tax, instead of the much more progressive tax on millionaires.

[Better Believe It]

13. Who is mad at unions? I'm not at all pleased with the conduct of the union tops.

But, they are not the labor movement and I bet a lot of local officers, some international officers and many members are not at all happy with this deal .... especially once they learn all of the facts.

Trumka is not the labor movement anymore than Senator Reid or President Obama is the Democratic Party.

[amborin]

16. the article

was not really anti-union

it spoke of the perils of fighting for workers' rights, given the prevailing anti-union sentiment

given American's economism---siding with capital and elites over workers---the fact unions bravely fought for an exemption may rile further; this is the sorry case of general worker attitudes

[bain_sidhe]

28. yes, it was anti-union

in the "divide and conquer" sense. Instead of being mad at the excise tax and the people who insisted on it instead of real cost controls, everybody's now directing their fire at unions for getting a two year grace period to re-negotiate their contracts.

You know what? That's exactly what they wanted when they offered it. Workers fighting workers, instead of the corporatists pushing this piece of shit tax. I can't blame the union bosses for taking it, because it's their JOB to get the best deal they can for their members. But I can damn well blame Obama for insisting on this. It's the only thing he's really fought for in this whole mess, and I'm damn pissed about it.

[laughingliberal]

31. Agree for the most part

I'm pissed off as hell that this POS excise tax even got anywhere near the bill and double pissed a Democratic president fought for it. As for the unions, they rejected the initial offer, made on Tuesday, to exempt union workers from the tax saying they wanted to protect all middle class workers from it. I'm sure they would have preferred to kill the whole tax. As it happened they were unable to get that. They did win some concessions that help everyone who has decent employer sponsored health care. First, as has already been said, it is a temporary exemption for benefits won through collective bargaining. Second, the amount subject to the tax was raised for everyone and will not, now, include premiums for dental and vision. Third, they got it indexed for inflation; not as much as we would like but there was no indexing before.

I'm sure the right and the DLC will try to use the "they looked out for themselves' crap to further demonize them but it's BS and it would be good for Democrats to arm themselves with the facts. I give no quarter to working and middle class Americans who fight against unions. All workers would be better off with a union and the emphasis should be on making sure we get representatives who support enforcement of laws we already have against union busting efforts in corporations and fighting within the states to get rid of the abusive 'right to work' BS.

[amborin]

36. well i agree with you completely!

and believe me, everyone really pissed about it

but you raised another really ominous point: that the administration exempted the union health benefits, knowing it would cause more worker vs worker conflict

this takes the heat off the real culprits

it's just like what corporations do to their unionized employees: try to find some wedge issue that will divide them, whether it's skilled trades versus production or what have you

[Better Believe It]

43. The union officials acceptance of the temporary exemption is what will divide and conquer workers

This "deal" is giving a sledge hammer to right-wing anti-union demagogues to beat union officials and Democrats over the head with.

[laughingliberal]

46. Perhaps it would be good for a change if Democrats learned about messaging

instead of rolling over to the right wing noise machine. And the first thing we should be saying is the unions got the threshold raised for everyone and got the premiums for dental and vision care exempted, got them to agree to index the costs to inflation. They also turned down the first offer to exempt their members because it didn't do anything to help anyone else.

[Xicano]

19. WTF? Your logic is seriously flawed.

So what you are saying is: Lets weaken unions so it will make it more difficult for them to uplift union and non union benefits alike?

How do you think those hard fought for rights such as paid vacations, overtime pay, health benefits, better pay, etc., became realized in non union work places?

Non union employers having to compete with unionized employers is what made those and other employment standards realized in non union work places. Now your logic is lets tare down what unions have fought and sacrificed for, thus eliminating or reducing standards of health benefits other employers will need to offer in order to remain somewhat competitive in the employment market.

Sorry, but I am sure glad you're not a union representative.

As someone already posted in an earlier thread. Organized labor is a cornerstone of the Democratic party. Stab them in the back at your political peril.


Peace,
Xicano (member ILWU local 13)

[Better Believe It]

22. What article or comment are you responding to?

[Better Believe It]

45. Don't put words into my mouth. I wrote just the opposite of what you suggest.

"So what you are saying is: Lets weaken unions so it will make it more difficult for them to uplift union and non union benefits alike?"

Don't put words into my mouth and insist that I said things that are just the opposite of what I really wrote.

I didn't write anything like that so why do you feel compelled to distort and misrepresent my views?

I said very clearly that this deal will weaken and divide working class people because the great majority of workers, who are not union members, will not receive this temporary insurance tax exemption.

And I think it's obvious that Republicans will use this "deal" like a sledge hammer against Democrats and union officials who try to pitch it.

Now I hope you don't try to also misrepresent that observation.

And if you disagree with that opinion indicate why.

I'm listening.

[inna]

69. WTF?? You completely distorted what the OP said.

:thumbsdown:

[dionysus]

25. so let's get this striahgt. you were irate that they were going to be taxed... now you're irate that

they won't...

is it any wonder you have no credibility?

[Better Believe It]

29. Get it straight? You're deliberately trying to misrepresent what I wrote.

Your "response" has absolutely nothing to do with either my comments or those of the writer cited in the post.

So stop the sophistry and let's get down to specifics.

Which comment(s) did you disagree with and why?

No vague generalities now. Be very clear and specific in your criticism. You may even want to quote those comments you disagree with rather than falsifying posters positions! Ever thought of doing that?

If you'd rather engage in personal attacks and trash talk rather than civil debate I suggest you find a board that specializes in low level hate and trash talk.

Some time ago I had to put you on ignore because of your constant personal attacks and trash talk directed at liberal/progressive DU'ers.

In the New Year spirit of forgiveness I took the ignore off. Now don't do everything possible to disrupt discussions by launching personal attacks on DU'ers you don't like in order to get back on my ignore list.

I'm listening.

[laughingliberal]

32. "If you'd rather engage in personal attacks and trash talk rather than civil debate..."

I'd say that's well established in this case.

And a decided waste of your time looking for any clear and specific criticism.

[dionysus]

51. i am pretty sure you were part of the crew howling that union health plans might be taxed.

now you're pissed they AREN'T being taxed. simple as that.

and i find it hillarious you're suggesting i find another board.

i've been here for over 8 years and seen your type come and go.

[Better Believe It]

54. You're wrong again. I'm against taxing the health insurance of ALL workers, union and non-union.

How about yourself or would you rather not indicate what your position is on taxing the health care insurance of working people?

[dionysus]

59. i much prefered the tax on the wealthy in the house bill.

[Better Believe It]

73. Good. We agree on something.

[inna]

70. bullshit personal attack.

he does have plenty of credibility. quit projecting your own lack of credibility on others.

:thumbsdown:

[Tim01]

33. They're lookin' out for #1. nt

[Odin2005]

44. Right, because only the Investor Class is allowed to care for their own well-being.

The rest of us are supposed to sacrifice and like it!!! :sarcasm:

[senseandsensibility]

55. bingo

The divide and conquer technique is alive and well on DU.

[Kansas Wyatt]

53. I am still 100% AGAINST this HCR/DLC SHIT Bill

Obama & Democrats, Inc. can go fuck themselves for working for and representing Corporate America OVER the American People, regardless of the Chump Change Token Efforts they offer, instead of REAL Health Care Reform as promised.

Yes, that is what it all boils down to and that fact cannot be changed.

[inna]

57. who is unreccomending this?? it's just retarded. just rec'd it back to 0.

:kick:

[branders seine]

58. Read Obama's lips!

:puke:
:puke: :puke:
:puke::puke::puke:


:puke:

[Fading Captain]

60. 100 percent agreed -- Unions will be perceived as just looking out for themselves

And that's the biggest problem facing the American union movement today.

[SanchoPanza]

62. Richard Trumka sold us out he's worse than Bush!

Do yourself a favor and ignore everyone on FDL except Tbogg and Attackerman. The rest have no goddamn clue what they're talking about, and I'd find the notion that Jane Hamsher wants to be a major player in Democratic politics frightening were it not for the fact that she has no idea how Democratic politics actually works.

If you want to see how Democratic politics works, you needn't look further than the AFL. They wanted a transition period to renegotiate contracts, applied the appropriate pressure (which they could back up because, unlike bloggers, unions are an actual political constituency), and got specific demands. Everything else was theater, and it is absolutely pathetic that people who tout themselves as the smartest liberal analysts in the room, railing constantly against mainstream hacks like David Gregory and Chuck Todd, couldn't see it from the get go. Now, in order to save face, these same progressives have to do a 180 and justify their asinine position by attacking the very constituency they claimed to support.

"We must protect the unions because they're the ones who will be hit by this tax! Oh wait, the unions negotiated more favorable conditions... well... uh... they're all sellouts who threw non-union workers under the bus, and those are the ones who will be REALLY hit by the tax! Yeah, that's the ticket!"

Clownshoes.

[Better Believe It]

66. Why did brother Trumka withdraw his pledge that he would not support a 40% tax on health insurance?

[SanchoPanza]

74. Necessity

Unions have been wishing for wage/benefits parity for years, for a variety of reasons, but its a complicated trade off. Get that parity without further cost reductions and improvements in the quality of benefits, and the value of union benefits would drop along with their cost. That's a bad scenario, but you have to look at the tax in the context of the overall reform effort: there are mechanisms within the bill to increase quality and reduce cost. The tax provision, unlike a general repeal of the employer deduction (which McCain campaigned on), establishes that parity without being an undue burden on employees, because all it really does is provide a threshold above which inflating premiums becomes cost prohibitive.

The problem for unions was that, without any room for to maneuver in terms of the time frame, renegotiating contracts becomes less likely to go in their favor. A five year exemption provides that maneuverability. While it would be nice if there was a general five year exemption, you don't see the kind of premium inflation in non-union benefits that you do in union ones. Not because union plans are particularly prone to inflation, but because non-union shops are less likely to give health insurance to their employees.

While I wouldn't go as far to say that union leaders, including Trumka, issued a bluff, it amounts to pretty much the same thing. I doubt they would have walked away from HCR if the tax was included without their demands, because even Trumka was walking back his criticisms of the Senate bill after it passed.

[MilesColtrane]

64. Or, maybe people will look at this and think to themselves, "Damn,...

unions have the power to better the lives of their members. Maybe I should join one, or start one."

[Spazito]

65. So unions are now "persona non grata" to "real progressives"?

The same "real progressives" who, until now, were 'high-fiving' them for their stand.

Pathetic but, sadly, not surprising.

[laughingliberal]

67. SSDD. Keep the peasants fighting among themselves. nt

[Better Believe It]

68. Union and non-union workers lost. ALL workers will be covered by the 40% health insurance tax.

The bottom line is Senate Democrats and President Obama won their 40% health insurance tax without a serious fight by organized labor. They won and labor lost.

The union officials were given three years to downgrade their health insurance plans with greatly reduced benefits so that employers won't have to pay the health insurance tax. After that, the exemption ends. Well, it really won't be needed when cheap bare bones health insurance plans are negotiated.

Now isn't that something union workers will be looking forward to?

And tens of millions of workers who are not lucky enough to be union members will have the 40% tax take effect three years sooner.

And on top of those "wins" AFL-CIO President Trumka and a few other top union officials agreed to bury the tax on wealthy Americans proposed in the House health care bill!

Wonderful.

Now that's a huge win ..... for the insurance and health care industry.

And now the right-wing Republicans and anti-labor employers have been handed a big club to use against organized labor and Democrats who vote for this bill.

But, we can always put lipstick on that health insurance industry protection act!

[Better Believe It]

75. For Sunday DU'ers

Before or after the football games!

[Better Believe It]

76. Machinists union President doesn't like this "deal"

International Association of Machinists union (IAM)
Press Releases
January 15, 2010
Machinists Remain Opposed to Health Care Excise Tax

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Washington, D.C., January 14, 2010 – Despite the so-called agreement announced today by various labor organizations, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) reiterated its opposition to any health care reform legislation that is funded by taxing the value of workers’ existing health care benefits.

“The IAM opposes the excise tax, period. We believe it is unfair to our current members and particularly unfair to those members we hope to organize in the future,” said IAM President Tom Buffenbarger. “If a temporary exemption is the best this Congress can offer the American people after the promises of the last election, they will have earned the wrath of voters in the next election."

“By stringing this 'fix' out until 2018, our members will be pressured to agree to benefit cuts year after year in the vain hope they will be able avoid the excise tax. Companies will seek to shift costs while still cutting benefits to avoid eight years of health care premiums accelerating at fifteen to twenty percent per year.

“This is a huge ping pong ball that our elected leaders are trying to shove down the throats of hard-working Americans,” said Buffenbarger. “On the installment plan or all at once, a 40 percent excise tax on their health care benefits is hard to swallow. But the White House and the House and Senate Democratic leadership appear determined to play ping pong with this legislation until they get the votes they need.

“We will continue our opposition to this egregiously unfair tax.”

The IAM is among the largest industrial trade unions in North America, representing nearly 700,000 active and retired members in dozens of industries.

http://www.goiam.org/index.php/news/press-releases/6708...

[inna]

72. WOW. i'm still not even half through this thread, but....

this is just :crazy: