Union Letter: Obamacare Will ‘Destroy The Very Health and Wellbeing’ of Workers

[dkf]

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will 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.

Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.

Now this vision has come back to haunt us.

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies. This is especially stinging because other stakeholders have repeatedly received successful interpretations for their respective grievances. Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

Time is running out: Congress wrote this law; we voted for you. We have a problem; you need to fix it. The unintended consequences of the ACA are severe. Perverse incentives are already creating 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.

Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens. As such, many employees will be relegated to second-class status and shut out of the help the law offers to for-profit insurance plans.

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.

On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.

We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.

We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.

We are looking to you to make sure these changes are made.

James P. Hoffa
General President
International Brotherhood of Teamsters

Joseph Hansen
International President
UFCW

D. Taylor
President
UNITE-HERE

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/07/12/union-letter-obamacare-will-destroy-the-very-health-and-wellbeing-of-workers/

[MrSlayer]

1. Of course this is a horrific corporate monstrosity.

Medicare for all. That's all you had to say. That's all you had to drum into the heads of the morons out in zombieland. Public support for it would have been overwhelming. But nooooooo, we have to have the Heritage Foundation's corporate, for-profit blowjob.

This law, while containing some good elements, sucks donkey balls overall.

[Scuba]

4. Bingo.

[pnwmom]

149. And which 60 Senators would have voted for Medicare for All?

And which members of the House?

[MH1]

154. The problem is that Medicare is perceived as fiscally unsustainable, as is.

It's a tough putt to convince taxpayers to expand the program. Even though expanding the program to include younger participants might improve the fiscal picture - younger people generally consume fewer health care services - it's not obvious enough to enough people to make it a marketable proposition.

Note that I said "perceived". I do believe it is fiscally unsustainable as is, but I might be wrong. The important thing is that MOST people believe that it is.

[ErikJ]

169. Buy-in Medicare for all

You pay according to your income. It probably would be around $50 a month for average income person.

[kestrel91316]

192. This law will allow me to buy medical insurance again.

You'd prefer I continue to do without, and not be able to get some developing problems diagnosed and treated?

Gee, thanks for wishing me, and others like me, dead.

[MrSlayer]

193. Because wanting a real system means I want you dead.

That's quite a leap of logic.

Under my plan you wouldn't have to buy anything at all. You'd just go and get treated.

I'm glad this is helping you but it could and should have been much better.

[JoeyT]

2. They never loved him anyway.

[cui bono]

94. This fits right in with the comments at the article.

[forestpath]

3. knr

[davidpdx]

5. But..but...can't he just sign an executive order

[vi5]

6. O.K. everyone, let's start digging into these guys personal lives.

We have a new target to smear. Dear Leader has been threatened with someone expressing mild anger and disappointment in him again. This may give him the sads and we can't have that.

Remember, use words like "agenda" and "self serving" and "ego". And remember to reference racism. And to post as many completely irrelevant facts about their lives, none of them having anything to do with the issue at hand.

Let's go people. We have work to do.

OBAMABOTS ASSEMBLE!!!!!!

[Scurrilous]

10. I take it you're not a morning person.

[L0oniX]

46. +1

[Locrian]

7. James P. Hoffa ?? really? n/t

[Cal Carpenter]

25. Yeah, really.

He's been the Teamsters president for years.

Why so surprised?

[Locrian]

56. just an infamous name... any relation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa

[Cal Carpenter]

58. Yes, that's his father who was also Teamsters pres

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_P._Hoffa

[Doctor_J]

64. well, look who just caught up

now, back to the holes in ACA

[Generic Other]

77. Yeah, he's my union president

You got a problem with that?

[Morganfleeman]

8. The ACA was a disaster from the get-go

It was the precise health care plan conservatives were advocating for years ago. I can't imagine many Congressional leaders read the bill nor understood many of its implications. The single payer option should have been THE option from the start, along with mechanisms to keep costs down such as negotiating drug prices with Big Pharma.

[woo me with science]

65. It was a scam from the get-go.

The mandate was the goal.

[cui bono]

95. Which is why the insurance companies were the ones with the back door deal.

The one that PBO tried to keep secret.

[uppityperson]

178. Uh huh. Cool story! Yet all my Canadian friends are very pleased with their system.

If the need is acute, they get treated fast. If not acute, they may have to wait which is difficult for those in USA who are used to Instant Service.

Who did you support for President last election? Tell us more about you. What "outright bribery" do you mean?

[The Magistrate]

180. Bless Your Heart....

"His brain could roll around on a pin-head like a pea on a four lane highway."

[JimDandy]

183. Welcome to DU. Using a moniker that is

now associated mostly with right wing endeavors and attacking Obamacare on your first spin on DU...? Well aren't you precious.

[TransitJohn]

9. They're just racist libertarian Paul-bots.

It's quite obvious to see. Time to smear!

[KG]

11. the veneer is starting to crack, the rot inside exposed.

[leftyohiolib]

12. the unions need to separate themselves from the democratic party and form a labor party

and drag working americans from the democratic party or at the least put up their own candidates and stop endorsing Dem's until they start paying attention to us

[Lee-Lee]

14. I have noticed

That for the most part the Democratic party considers union votes a given.

[Scurrilous]

16. Yeah!

Divided we stand!

[leftyohiolib]

34. we are already divided - go along to get along isnt helping

if the dems ignore unions and their concerns why support them or their candidates

[frylock]

60. because shuddup, that's why.

[Sirveri]

118. we're already divided, unity is a two way street.

[zeeland]

63. +1,000,000

[Progressive dog]

13. Isn't this the part about the outrageously expensive health plans

being taxed? Wasn't it in the law from the beginning?

And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies.

This might be a more real objection.

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.

This was argued before the law was passed and now they want to re-litigate it. With a little more effort, they can get the Rethugs to vote yet again to repeal it.

[blackspade]

18. So unions should STFU?

And what do you mean by 're-litigate' it?

And no one is talking repeal, just tweek and clarify, just like ACA cheerleaders told us would happen as time went on.

[Progressive dog]

21. No, a tweak is not removing the tax

on exceptionally generous health care plans. I favor that progressive tax.
There is no way to "tweak" the law with the number of "repeal it" Republicans in the house and even Jimmy Hoffa knows this.
It would be nice if the law were actually implemented before bitching about what it did.

[blackspade]

74. That is not a progressive tax.

It is regressive as it charges non-profit plans that are paid for by Union members.

[Progressive dog]

82. Look up progressive ta/.

It charges tax on an excessive tax free benefit. It only allows a certain amount to be exempt from income tax. So what if it's non-profit, that lowers the cost of the insurance.

[blackspade]

110. Excessive tax free benefits?

There is nothing progressive about that portion of the ACA.
This is all part of an effort to reduce health insurance coverage to the lowest common denominator.
'Cadillac' plans should be the norm not the taxed exception for all Americans.

[Progressive dog]

111. Lowest common denominator at 2x average

The tax starts at about 2x the average cost for health insurance policies. Two times average is a long ways from the lowest common denominator. If they can afford those premiums, they sure don't need the government to let them spend that much tax free.

[blackspade]

114. Your entitled to your opinion.

But whether it is 2x, 4x, or whatever, it still reduces the net coverage of all workers.
Frankly, there should be no taxes on health benefits at all.

[Progressive dog]

126. No it wouldn't, it would increase the cost of

platinum health care plans, the plans for the wealthiest people.

Frankly, there should be no taxes on health benefits at all.[/div
Yup, you can spend 5x or 10x what most people can afford on health insurance and there will be no tax. That sounds really fair to me.

[blackspade]

129. That is your opinion.

and your welcome to it.

And how did you morph this conversation into "the plans for the wealthiest people"?
We are discussing union non-profits, which are going to get hammered under this legislation.
These plans serve thousands of workers and hit them in the wallet at a time when workers need every red cent they can take home.

[Progressive dog]

130. Not an opinion, it is fact that

providing tax subsidies or credits costs money. Whether the government should spend that money to help pay for insurance subsidies at any cost is certainly your opinion to have.

[Generic Other]

79. What exactly is an exceptionally generous healthcare plan?

One that covers your needs and does not impoverish you? Not many workers have such a plan these days or if they do, the co-pays, deductibles, and restrictions have had a severe impact. Everyone I know has been complaining about changes in their plans that reflect insurance companies squeezing out more profits by providing fewer benefits.

I believe we are entitled to universal healthcare just like every other industrialized nation. It is a crime that we do not. People deserve to be in jail because of it.

Ask yourself who is who Tommy Douglas is. He is one of the most revered heroes in Canada. He has been called the "Greatest Canadian." Know why? He pushed through their single payer system.

I don't think Obama has any legacy at all to brag about compared to him.

[eridani]

112. Do you know what people in other developed countries call those "Cadillac" plans?

Just plain old HEALTH CARE, that everyone has as a right of citizenship.

[Schema Thing]

115. yep, even folks in Canada BUY their own "Cadillac" plans.

And the same thing happens in France, to mention two countries I know about.

[eridani]

125. Yes, they buy them with their taxes

In France, private insurance exists only to take care of the 30% copays on the government plan, and the government dictates costs and coverage for those plans.

[Teamster Jeff]

80. Sounds like you favor a "race to the bottom" with healthcare plans

Hoffa knows the law. He is making sure that everybody knows that this administration has listened to corporations and delayed the employer mandate. Will he give labor's complaints any consideration? Probably not.

[Progressive dog]

89. Hoffa knew the law when it was written.

There should be some limit on gold plated health insurance deductions. Just because you belong to the Hoffa family union, you shouldn't be exempt.

[Teamster Jeff]

93. What deductions?

[Progressive dog]

128. $25,200 per year for a family plan

will not be taxed, and people with low incomes get subsidies. I don't believe there is even any mention of the IBT in the ACA, but I could be wrong.

[Teamster Jeff]

132. No mention of lowlife scab assholes in the ACA either.

[Progressive dog]

133. Scab is a strike breaker

and asshole is someone who doesn't know that.

[Teamster Jeff]

139. Some people just lack the opportunity but still deserve the name

Since you can't find a picket line to cross is posting anti union bullshit a good outlet for you?

[Progressive dog]

146. What an oppressed baby.

Being anti regressive tax is not being anti-union. If I were a union member I would quickly go for health insurance costing the $10,000 or $12,000 average and get paid an extra $13,000 to $15,000 a year. It would cost the employer the same.
What kind of union leader would negotiate this kind of health plan? This isn't a normal health plan for union members.

[eridani]

113. Do you know what people in the rest of the developed world call those "gold-plated" plans?

Just plain old health care, which everyone has a right to. And on average they spend half per capita what we spend on health care while getting better results.

[Progressive dog]

127. Do you know we have ACA and the letter from Hoffa

is about making that better for the wealthy, not about other countries?. Do you know it asks to move us farther away from universal care?

[eridani]

142. Every other developed country citizen gets the equivalent of our "wealthy" plans

Dissing union members as getting paid too much is a wonderful way to keep average US wages moving ever downward. Tnanks for nothing.

[Progressive dog]

145. So what, which of those other countries does Hoffa think he lives in?

I'm dissing union members who are paid enough to get family plans costing $25,200. No developed country has plans that cost anywhere near $25,200. This has nothing to do with wages, his members would be better off if some were paid as wages.

[eridani]

148. Other countries control health care costs through global budgeting

--where government is either the main seller or the main buyer of health care. But by all means keep advocating for the race to the bottom.

[Progressive dog]

150. Again so what, that doesn't address

the issue of whether it is right or fair for Hoffa to want to avoid taxes on health insurance income. I don't think it is right or fair.
Like others, I am well aware of health care programs in other countries. You do not seem to be aware that you are not going to get this Congress to address it, and giving Hoffa and his pals special subsidies does not address anything other than Hoffa and pals' incomes.
You are advocating for a race to the stupid where we get special care for Hoffa's some and none for the rest.

[eridani]

167. And you are advocating for a race to the bottom where everyone gets worse

--health care. If unions were stronger, more people would get benefits provided by unions.

[Progressive dog]

168. No I'm not, you are advocating a tiered health system

subsidized by the government, the worst of what we had and the ACA combined.

[Jackpine Radical]

152. No other country has parasitic insurance companies gouging obscene profits

from the money spent on health care.

What the unions are pointing out is really a symptom of the Heritagefoundation/Romneycare that Obama stuck us with.

Sure, maybe that's the only thing he could get through without having the insurance companies fight him. Harry & Louise would no doubt have been resurrected as part of a billion dollar anti-Single Payer campaign as the insurance companies fought like cornered rats to keep their parasitic grip on the public.

And I will concede that there are many aspects of the existing plan, such as eliminating prior-condition exclusions, allowing those under 26 to stay on their parents' plans, etc.

Nevertheless, the plan remains highly problematic, as the unions are pointing out, and as you might expect from a plan modeled on a Heritage Foundation proposal & first enacted by Gubner Romney.

And, by the way, it will spell the extinction of the small independent provider. Only larger groups & companies will have the financial resources to meet all the very expensive technical requirements, such as the complex information systems being demanded of them as a condition of participation in Obamacare.

[Progressive dog]

153. I thought we were talking about Hoffa's special health care

subsidy which doesn't provide health care to anyone, it just costs Hoffa and his buddies less (and we get to pay) for plans that cost more than twice what most of us have.

[Progressive dog]

39. The only thing they could achieve is repea

I mean the headline condemning Obamacare "destroy the very health and well being of workers."
This isn't calling for a "tweak", this is a corporate union rep. who doesn't give a damn about anyone other than his members imo.

[blackspade]

73. A corporate union rep?

What in the hell is that?

I was referring to ACA supporters who over and over declared that the ACA was a first step and would be tweaked and strengthened over the years.

[Progressive dog]

85. James Hoffa, the writer of the piece

is a corporate union rep..

[cui bono]

97. I have to repeat the question... what the hell is that?

He represents workers, not corporations.

[Progressive dog]

98. Labor unions are corporations.

[Teamster Jeff]

99. Unions are a democracy.. We vote for our leaders.

Did you vote for the CEO of the company you work for. Did you have any say in it.

[Progressive dog]

105. There's a Teamsters for a democratic union group

they don't think members have enough say.

[cui bono]

103. *sigh*

[Starry Messenger]

134. LOLWHUT.

[Progressive dog]

135. Look it up and Hoffa is President of one. nt

[Starry Messenger]

137. Look it up yourself.

I'm in AFT. People who hate unions love to compare them to corporations. Got your number, pal.

[Progressive dog]

138. This is not about unions, this is about Hoffa

shilling for the wealthy, pal. Yeah Hoffa is the prototype of the corporate union President. He doesn't like the wealthy union members having to only get 2x as much tax free as the average insured American.
That isn't what unions used to be about, probably very few of his members will benefit but he probably will.

[Teamster Jeff]

81. You sound pretty bitter

I don't know what a corporate union rep is but I know what a corporate "democrat" is. They are all over DU

[Progressive dog]

83. James Hoffa is an nexample of a corporate

union rep. He's the guy UPS helped put in power.

[Teamster Jeff]

96. You are clueless

Take your right wing bullshit someplace else.

[Progressive dog]

100. It's the Teamsters that supported Reagan

and Bush 1, not me. They also didn't endorse Clinton in 1996, maybe you don't have a problem with RW bullshit from the teamsters.

[Teamster Jeff]

101. Obama didn't hold it against the Teamsters when they endorsed him

Go see what else you can dig up.

[Progressive dog]

104. Ok until 2008, the Teamsters supported drilling in ANWAR.

There's lots out there. There's an internal teamsters group trying to make the teamsters democratic. I always thought unions were democratic, but apparently there's a problem with the teamsters.

[Teamster Jeff]

106. Nothing about mobsters? Thugs?

A lot of corporate weenies like talking about thugs.

[Progressive dog]

107. Not yet, a lot of Kennedys liked

talking about teamster gangsters but it mostly went away until the former owner's son took command.

[freedom fighter jh]

19. How does that work?

Because it was debated before the law was passed it should not be discussed now that it's coming into effect?

My employer, a state institution, is scrambling to make sure that everyone who is part time has fewer than 30 hours per week. (Doesn't matter to me for myself -- I've never been close to getting health insurance from them anyway.) It is ugly to behold how much taxpayer-funded effort they are willing to invest in limiting the number of employees eligible for health insurance. You can blame this on the state (and I do) but it's also a matter of Obamacare creating perverse incentives.

[Progressive dog]

20. The law is in place, there is no way to change irt now.

Republicans control the HoR. That is how it works.

It is ugly to behold how much taxpayer-funded effort they are willing to invest in limiting the number of employees eligible for health insurance.

There is no question that, if we are talking about how many Americans have health insurance, there will be many more covered after the ACA than before. Period, end of story.
The real complaint of the Teamsters is the tax on the platinum part of their health care plans.

[freedom fighter jh]

22. Oh, I thought you said the "more real objection" might be

the "incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week."

But as real as that issue is, are you saying we shouldn't talk about it because Republicans control the House? I miss the connection.

[Progressive dog]

24. We should wait until the law is in place

before complaining about stuff that hasn't happened yet.

[freedom fighter jh]

26. You just said the law is in place.

Now you're saying we should wait until the law is in place.

It's not time to complain yet. The time to complain has passed.

[Progressive dog]

29. I should have said until the law is

implemented.
That's why I said this

before complaining about stuff that hasn't happened yet.

And as long as we're being cute with comprehension, I'd just like to ask why you contradicted yourself.

The time to complain has passed.

[freedom fighter jh]

32. Thanks for asking. That was rhetorical.

I was trying to say that you seem to be saying the time to protest either has passed or has not yet arrived.

[brentspeak]

27. Haven't been following the news, have you?

Employers throughout the nation are already planning on reducing hours to deal with Obamacare, with some having done so already: http://www.salon.com/2013/06/24/10_companies_that_threatened_to_cut_worker_hours_to_avoid_obamacare_partner/

Since the dog is the "progressive" one in your household, could we have him use your account instead?

[Progressive dog]

31. Already planning

already planning, that isn't quite the same as doing, is it. I'll bet some were already planning before the law even passed.
You might not think it's progressive to extend health insurance to millions of people, but I do and so does my dog. You might want to bring down progressive gains because you don't think they were progressive enough, but I don't and neither does my dog. He apparently thinks something is better than nothing, and so do I.

[Nay]

156. I've found that in many cases, "something" is NOT better than "nothing," because

the "something" (in this case, the ACA) cements into place yet another corporate-friendly rape of the public and, yet again, pushes off into the future a sane and frugal health care system like other countries have. It's all there right in front of you, in Canada, Europe, Iceland, etc. This country will do ANYTHING to avoid the sensible thing and continue the plundering of its citizens, and ACA is one way it is doing that.

[Progressive dog]

161. Wel Congress and the President thinks the ACA

is better than nothing and so do I. This country has been avoiding it for many years, but we now have a law in place.
The law does a lot of good things, but that debate is over. Mr. Hoffa's main point is that his members, even those with gold plated plans, weren't subsidized enough. He wants a two tier health system. He's already got his.

[zipplewrath]

35. No

They modified the law to give the unions time to renegotiate their plans to bring them into line with the "cadillac" tax. The real complaint here is that people who have union based plans, but would otherwise be eligible for subsidies (due to their income levels) can't get subsidies for their health insurance because they aren't on the exchanges. They are for union members only. So the for profit companies get a credit for their being a health insurance plan, but the employees don't get a subsidy for having to buy it. So they have to renegotiate their plans to avoid the tax, but they STILL won't be eligible for the subsidy. Very progressive plan we have here.

The ACA isn't perfect, and everyone acknowledges that. This is one of the imperfections and nothing is being done about it.

They're screwed on the 30 hour schtick. There's no way to fix that mess. At best all they could do is demand that employees working less than 30 hours get some sort of suppliment to help them offset the cost of purchasing insurance on the exchanges. But since their income would be so low, they probably couldn't afford it anyway, and probably wouldn't even qualify for the subsidy.

[Progressive dog]

38. This says it all.

So they have to renegotiate their plans to avoid the tax, but they STILL won't be eligible for the subsidy. Very progressive plan we have here.

So subsidizing high wage earners is a requirement of a progressive system, especially if they subsidize insurance for those with lower incomes. I must be confused about what progressive means.LOL

[Jesus Malverde]

45. Why do you assume these workers are "high wage" earners.

Your attack on working union members is interesting, for a "progressive" point of view.

[Progressive dog]

51. Because they have expensive health plans

from wikipedia

imposes an annual excise tax on plans with premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for a family (not including vision and dental benefits) starting in 2018.[4]

[zipplewrath]

47. Those union members aren't necessarily "high wage earners"

Union wages run as low as $12/hr. Unions negotiated lower wages in exchange for better health benefits. Now they're going to have to negotiate lower health benefits, and still have the lower wages. That's what's not progressive about it. It makes no differentiation of the "generosity" of the health benefits based upon income level. It's a "flat tax".

[Progressive dog]

50. Teamsters with high priced (taxable) health insurance

are likely to be on the high paid end of union workers.
From Wikipedia

imposes an annual excise tax on plans with premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for a family (not including vision and dental benefits) starting in 2018.[4]

[zipplewrath]

54. Not anymore

There were alot of negotiations for two tiered wages scales in the last 15 years. Existing employees kept their salaries, but new employees were half of that. You've got guys working next to each other with the younger guys making $22/hr next to a guy making $40/hr.

They negotiated lower wages in exchange for better benefits, and ACA changes that whole structure. The unions are going to have to negotiate new plans, but their members won't be eligible for subsidies even if their wages would otherwise justify it.

[Progressive dog]

55. Link to teamsters contracts

would be nice. Unions who are willing to make second class members out of new employees probably aren't very progressive.

[zipplewrath]

66. So screw 'em to the wall?

Unions who are willing to make second class members out of new employees probably aren't very progressive.

Non sequitur? What, so they got a shitty contract in exchange for better health benefits and that is a reason to screw 'em to the wall?

[Teamster Jeff]

84. Scabs who trash unions

are not progressive either.

[Progressive dog]

86. You don't know what a scab is.

You sure didn't know how to use the word.

[Teamster Jeff]

88. I wanted to use asshole but though better of it

[Progressive dog]

91. Yes you are

and a childish one at that.

[Nay]

157. You go, Jeff.

[cui bono]

102. Can we get links to non-union contracts?

Why are you so against unions??? Seems like you picked your name to try to convince people you are progressive, but if you are so anti-union you can't possibly be.

[KentuckyWoman]

140. I've never understood where that $40 an hour came from

My husband retired from Ford in 2005 and never made more than $22 an hour on the line .....but there were pay and benefit concessions starting in the mid 80's. The wage concessions after 2000 his hourly was around $20. I would expect the other big unions shops to be about the same.

People doing the same work for Ford now are at $12-15 an hour I think and the benefits have degraded even more.

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to challenge you. Obviously you are pointing out the younger workers are getting a lot less for the same work .... not sustainable for supporting middle class. I'm just saying I've never understood where those often quoted high dollar wage figures come from.

Now who I will really take issue with (not you) are the folks who weren't lucky enough to get a decent union job and get on the "gold plated" "cadillac" bandwagon out of hatefulness someone managed to have anything mildly decent instead of joining those union workers to demand the same for ALL workers.


Now all that said, I can't stand ACA. I want medicare for all. That's the only thing I see that is sustainable long term.

[Life Long Dem]

40. 4 percent right now

A recent survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that 4 percent of companies it surveyed had moved to a larger, part-time workforce in response to the Affordable Care Act.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/06/will-obamacare-lead-to-millions-more-part-time-workers-companies-are-still-deciding/

[zipplewrath]

49. 4 percent of what

What percentage of the workforce? 4 percent of the companies may represent a much larger percentage of low wage workers. That's what makes this so regressive. It hits the lowest wage workers the hardest, and in the cruelest fashion imaginable. Low hourly wage workers can increase their incomes the fastest by increasing their hours. Now they get their hours cut, AND they are potentially subject to the health insuranc mandate. Can't get much more regressive than that.

Everyone including the president admits the ACA has flaws. This is one of them.

[Nay]

159. Exactly. I bet Walmart is one, and they are the largest employer in the US. nt

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

15. Everyone has their price. nt

[frylock]

62. and I guess we know yours..

It has helped me and that is all that matters.

[Fearless]

69. Not everyone.

[a2liberal]

17. Can't have the Insurance Industry Subsidy Act accidentally helping non-profit plans...

Though I suppose many here will be happy to throw the unions under the bus and call them nonsensical names for daring to question the corporatist party line.

[Safetykitten]

23. Oh, those stupid stupid Union people. Don't they know that the ACA is perfect in every way?

Really, when will they get on board the best thing EVER!

[cali]

28. the administration can't afford this loss.

[Horse with no Name]

37. I thought that the Unions were in support of Obamacare?

What changed?

[oldhippie]

41. They read it .....

Actually, their lawyers and accountants finally read it. And they thought the administration would always exempt them from any bad parts, and it is not.

[vi5]

48. If unions wanted exemptions from the ACA.

Then they should have been corporations. Then they'd get every exemption they wanted.

[Brickbat]

30. I really hope no one is surprised about this.

[ProSense]

33. Unions are opposed to anything

that appears to work against employer-based health care coverage.

Remember Senator Wyden's Employee Free Choice Act? Unions opposed it for that very reason.

<...>

So Wyden crafted a plan that would offer an escape hatch—if an employer’s insurance was too costly for a family, they could take the money their employer would have spent on insurance for them and shop in the new state exchanges that will show up in 2014. There they might find something cheaper and perhaps more comprehensive. Despite opposition from businesses, Wyden’s Free Choice Voucher plan made it into the final bill. Its life was short, however. When Congress hammered out the budget package a couple of weeks ago, Free Choice Vouchers were gone—a victim of strong-armed lobbying from both business and labor.

Hurrah for The New York Times’s Eric Lichtblau for telling us what happened. The American Benefits Council, a lobbying group for insurers and employers, didn’t like the choice plan because it would have a “destabilizing” impact on employer insurance. Unions said vouchers would create a “death spiral” of higher costs. A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said “the program was eliminated because it costs jobs—and jobs are the American people’s top priority.” It’s hard to see how giving workers a shot at cheaper coverage is a job killer, but then in Washington speak sometimes nothing makes sense.

Wyden told the Times that the ultra-powerful Business Roundtable probably killed the vouchers. “Everyone knows the Business Roundtable wanted this killed, and now they can go back with a trophy to say they protected business as usual,” he said. According to Wyden, the Congressional Budget Office said there were no implications for the federal budget since the only money changing hands comes from employees making use of the employer health care subsidy, which is already part of their compensation package.

What’s really the problem? Writing at the Huffington Post, Wyden noted that “if employer premiums continued to rise, more and more Americans would have become eligible for this option and more choice and competition would have been injected into the health insurance market. Not every employer likes this idea that Americans might be able to get good health insurance outside of their job or union.” In other words, letting people out of employer plans might undermine the clout of employers and the unions in the health care biz.

- more -

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/chipping_away_at_health_reform_part_ii.php?page=all&print=true

Health Reform’s Missing Ingredient
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/opinion/17wyden.html?_r=0

So Much for Choice and Competition
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-ron-wyden/so-much-for-choice-and-co_b_847080.html

Unions don't like the delay because they see it as weakening the the employer-employee health care contract.

Of course, those who want more people to have access to the exchanges, see this as an opportunity to strengthen them and give employees more choice.

Howard Dean: Mandate Delay Begins Shift To Government-Financed Health Care System
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023162211

HHS Ruling Helps Workers But Spells Trouble for Employer Mandate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023207327

[MH1]

155. Very interesting point. Makes the letter in the OP look like crocodile tears. nt.

[snot]

36. K&R'd!

[edhopper]

42. When the ACA was passed

it was anticipated that since Bush and the GOP screwed this country so badly, the Dems would keep their majority for a awhile and be able to tweak the law as problems arose. But since the Dems and Obama showed they had no balls to go after the criminals and villains in corporate America and Wall Street and gave no one a reason to vote for them in 2010, losing the House, we are now stuck with this terribly flawed law for years to come with no prospect of fixing it.
The result could be that we have a health care system that most people hate, setting back the goal of universal coverage by decades.
I think the repeal of the ACA in the future, leaving us with the Dickensian system we now have (with an even worse burden on the middle class) is much more likely than a single payer system.

[Nay]

162. Thank you. That's been my point for a while. The ACA is not just a diversion from the

sort of intelligent health care system that other first-world countries have developed; it is a setback even from the crap system we had already. It will not be 'tweakable' except by corporations, and it will effectively put off far into the future any rational implementation of, say, a Canadian-type system because all the anti-govt teabaggers will have in the ACA a new talking point about how "awful gubmint-run healthcare is." Repubs will be happy to tinker with ACA until it is as bad as they can make it, just to prove that a 'govt-run system' is worthless. It's a clusterfuck all the way around.

Yes, I understand that some people will get coverage when they had none before. That's good. But many more will be paying the penalty instead. The end result, taken as a whole, will not be good.

[Kingofalldems]

43. So should we get behind the republicans?

I'm sure they have wonderful things in store re health care.

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

44. I guess if you meet the criteria Hoffa has put forward.

I don't, so I don't really give a fuck about his concerns with Obamacare.

It has helped me and that is all that matters.

[frylock]

61. It has helped me and that is all that matters.

It has helped me and that is all that matters.

[pa28]

194. As my out of pocket expenses spiral ever upward I'll take solace in what you wrote.

It helped you and that is all that matters.

[kestrel91316]

52. It's sure not gonna hurt MY life. Access to healthcare via decent insurance

is always better than NO insurance.

[Starry Messenger]

53. Adjuncts are already being hit with hour reductions.

I'm glad the Teamsters have ACA on blast over this.

[Trekologer]

57. The UFCW spent years selling out part time employees

I should know, I was a member of a UFCW local and a part-time supermarket employee for 8 years (while I was in high school and college, then a little bit after). During that time there were 2 contract renewals and in each one, they kept giving back pay scales and benefits for part time members (who were, by far, the majority of members) to maintain levels for a few full time ones and at the same time no effort was made to increase full time positions. At the same time, many part time employees (such as myself) were regularly working nearly full time hours, save for one week every six to keep the average below 36.

Now, for the UFCW to complain about an incentive to keep hours below 30, when they themselves were negotiating contracts for years which already had similar incentives, just strikes of arrogance.

I'm pro-union but I have to wonder if some of the unions are really pro-worker.

[Doctor_J]

59. But we'll blame them for next November's catastrophe

The president has not done one fucking thing for organized labor in 4+ years.

[Rex]

67. A letter from Jimmy Hoffa's son

who is POTUS of the Teamsters union? OMG! NM...better shut up, he is an attorney.

[Fearless]

70. Wow, just wow

[Fearless]

68. So who wants single payer now?

Or is that still "unnecessary".

[Rex]

71. Always wanted single payer option and saw the writting on the wall

when they said NO. Still would be the best option for us working poor types.

[Fearless]

72. It would

And sadly we will have to fight for it.

[roamer65]

90. Me! Me! Me!

I live near Canada and don't buy the BS propoganda. The Canadian system is good.

[Cali_Democrat]

120. Sure. Let's do it

So how do we get it through the House?

[Fearless]

123. By getting them to stand against it

And making them take unpopular positions. Weaken their support and vote them out. Or we could wait around for problems to solve themselves.

[Teamster Jeff]

75. Corporations recieved consideration regarding the employer mandate

These Union leaders are right to throw that in the administrations face and ask for some considerations. It is only going to worse as employers try to negotiate away from "Cadillac Plans" to avoid the tax. (BTW there is a hint that a Republican wrote this steaming pile of a law. Tax the best union healthcare plans).

[dkf]

76. That is odd IMO. Why only give concessions to opponents?

At least be even handed.

[Teamster Jeff]

78. It is odd isn't it. But not a surprise

I imagine that delaying the employer mandate was one of the main reasons that they wrote this letter.

Most disconcerting of course is last week’s huge accommodation for the employer community—extending the statutorily mandated “December 31, 2013” deadline for the employer mandate and penalties.

[dflprincess]

109. "a hint that a Republican wrote this steaming pile of a law"????

The whole thing was originally an idea from the Heritage Foundation.

[roamer65]

87. The fix for this steaming pile of dog duty...

...will have to be single payor universal Medicare.

Simply no other alternative.

[AzDar]

92. K & R &

GodIsThereNoEndToTheDisappointment?

[Safetykitten]

108. Soon there will be only seven Democrats in the US that have not been...

tossed under a bus.

They will meet at a Denny's and exchange President Obama action cards.

[Nay]

165. Exactly. When are we going to wise up? I'm beyond disgusted, into fire-breathing territory. nt

[kenny blankenship]

116. First they suppressed wages, now they are gutting benefits.

Administration to Let Employers Avoid Mandate By Offering Worthless Insurance
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/07/16/administration-to-let-employers-avoid-mandate-by-offering-worthless-insurance/

By: Jon Walker Tuesday July 16, 2013 10:09 am

The Obama administration will allow employers to effectively avoid much of the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act by offering basically worthless insurance. From Politico:

But some companies plan to offer “skinny plans” designed to duck the biggest penalties anyway, according to industry consultants. And the Obama administration has extended its blessing to this limited coverage, even though it would not protect individuals from medical bills that could cause financial ruin in the case of severe injury or illness. [...]

Skinny plans will have to cover preventive services like vaccines and cancer screenings without any cost-sharing — a requirement of all insurance under the health law. They can’t put a cap on annual benefits, as limited benefit, or mini-med, plans typically do now. But the lack of a cap is largely symbolic because the plans don’t cover the services that run up medical bills.

Basically these skinny plans will be insurance in name only. Since the “insurance” will not actually insure against any real medical problems it will cost the companies very little to offer. This will allow the company to cheaply avoid the bulk of the penalty by technically claiming they offer some form of coverage.

[Capt. Obvious]

117. So now you like Unions?

Mark your calendars everyone!!!

DKF is for the working man!!!

[uppityperson]

122. Seriously. eom

[Cali_Democrat]

141. LOL

[dkf]

147. Case by case basis...sometimes unions overreach and sometimes their issues are completely legitimate

They are dead on with this letter.

[Capt. Obvious]

170. Spot on - you are fucking laughable

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/07/unions-attack-obamacare-in-push-for-special-treat-under-the-law.php

Here's a better explanation for this letter you supposedly agree with.

[dkf]

171. I do agree with the letter...

The government benefit can't be such that union employers decide to dump their coverage. These benefits are part of the reason unions exist. There needs to be SOME consideration for these needs.

[JaneyVee]

121. Riiiiight. Tell it to THIS girl

[B Calm]

144. K&R

[ChazII]

124. kick n/t

[progressoid]

131. kick

[1-Old-Man]

136. Union bashing in half the responses on a supposedly Democratic website. Astonishing.

Union bashing on a website that is clear in its focused support of the Democratic Party, its philosophy, candidates, and Office holders - astonishing, simply astonishing. Has the right really been this successful in its brainwashing and denigration of working men and women and their unions.

[pa28]

191. Stunning isn't it?

Good thing I had a really light lunch.

[B Calm]

143. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

recommended their members to vote for Reagan.

[Jackpine Radical]

160. They also supported Vietnam.

And before that, Bobby Kennedy went after the Teamsters big time when he was AG, at least partly because they were a Republican union.

So? That was then and this is now.

[Deep13]

151. One partial solution is to define 25-hrs./week as full time. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

158. Then there will suddenly be a lot of service workers

at Mall Wart, Olive Gouger, Horseapplebee's, McDeathburger's etc. working 24 hrs per week

[Deep13]

164. Maybe, but a lot of places can't run with just pt help.

Love the derisive names, BTW.

[tsuki]

163. But...But...But...private enterprise can do

it so much better than the guv'ment. That's why guv'ment employees and the military get health insurance and working Americans get the bill and no insurance.

[MotherPetrie]

166. Obama to Union: $orry, I'm too busy cajoling Repugs to accept chained CPI to read your letter.

[Orsino]

172. Forgot Dear Leader Boehner. Fail. n/t

[The Magistrate]

174. Cool Story, Bro....

Or, in plain English, what a pile of fucking bullshit.

[uppityperson]

182. He's a Libertarian. FRP, eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023270612#post179

[The Magistrate]

184. Shocked I Am, Ma'am, Stunned To Learn It, I Tell You....

[uppityperson]

185. I got chided for my alert.

"the poster should be squashed after being interrogated as to his allegiance? Grow up."

I am going to have a sad.

[The Magistrate]

188. Sounds Like Some Real Duds And Duffi Drawing Duty Today, Ma'am....

Still, eventually at least four got it right at once.

[The Magistrate]

186. And An Epic Jury Fail, Too, Ma'am

At Sun Aug 4, 2013, 02:41 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Just repeal it already!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3403358

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

obvious troll is obvious

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sun Aug 4, 2013, 02:58 PM, and voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I see no reason to hide this post - the poster is expressing their opinion based on their experience. If you don't agree with what they say, either ignore it or ask them for evidence backing their claim. The ignore button is a wonderful tool - if this post bothers you, there are individualized solutions without requiring a post be hidden to the entire community.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: pearl clutching alerter is clutching pearls
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Poster is a little crying bitch but post is within standards. When the going gets tough the weak quit. The profession is probably better when losers like this take their ball and go home.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: we have enough horseshit on du without this

Thank you.

[uppityperson]

175. Uh huh. Huh. Tell us, who did you support for Pres last election. And uh. huh.

[uppityperson]

181. FRP. This is Democratic Underground, not RP underground. FRP. eom

[Rowdyboy]

187. Jury + MIRT solves another problem in record time!

[The Magistrate]

190. Not One To Crow About, Sir, This Episode: Took Three Swings, Shouldn't Have Taken More Than One

[Rowdyboy]

195. Luckily I was just one of the jurors and am not on the MIRT team....

We do asbestos we can....

[NoOneMan]

177. ACA will save $300 billion a year by 2020

Just imagine how many cancer patients we can save from MMJ by fighting the drug war with those savings!

[pa28]

189. The entire law is a Republican concept. Now we're shocked it's being used as a tool to hurt labor.