Latest Breaking News

Adam-Bomb

(90 posts)

25. Oh, sure.....

Sun Sep 15, 2013, 11:51 AM

Sep 2013

The ACA is good enough for everybody......except folks who paid a metric
shit ton of money to help get some other folks elected AND re-elected and
of course the folks who made and passed the law in the first place.

"As long as it doesn't affect ME, personally, I'll support it...wink, wink, nudge, nudge"

It's enough to make me somewhat cynical.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

White House: No Subsidies For Union Health Plans [View all] Hissyspit Sep 2013 OP

... A creative way to drive ppl out of unions. Myrina Sep 2013 #1

hard to believe what party the white house is part of. roguevalley Sep 2013 #15

Yup. "there is no legal way" Igel Sep 2013 #17

Umm...who defines the 'rule of law'? Who writes the laws? Cal Carpenter Sep 2013 #20

I thought the goal of the ACA was to help ALL Myrina Sep 2013 #21

What am I missing? Isn't the point that the union plans are already cheaper Squinch Sep 2013 #26

There are different types of plans LiberalFighter Sep 2013 #32

But are their plans likely to cost each member more than a clearinghouse plan? Squinch Sep 2013 #35

I wouldn't think so. LiberalFighter Sep 2013 #43

Oh! This might be what I am missing. Do you mean that if my union benefit Squinch Sep 2013 #44

If I have the data right... LiberalFighter Sep 2013 #45

Thank you. That is something I didn't know. Squinch Sep 2013 #46

Not so. People forget that the ACA was primarily to help people WITHOUT health insurance. nt kelliekat44 Sep 2013 #36

Fortunately union plans are far more affordable than those without unions. SleeplessinSoCal Sep 2013 #2

Well, that's surely kowtowing to the unions zbdent Sep 2013 #3

If i understand this correct Cryptoad Sep 2013 #4

I Guess I Am Confused RobinA Sep 2013 #5

some subsidies up to 400% of poverty - for insurance sold on exchanges. Schema Thing Sep 2013 #6

So a union employee on the group plan who's making a decent wage mountain grammy Sep 2013 #8

I am in a union too, and I feel the same. Are we missing something? I don't see this Squinch Sep 2013 #27

It does seem very odd quakerboy Sep 2013 #7

I'm by no means any kind of expert Sedona Sep 2013 #9

Quite right. elleng Sep 2013 #10

Your comment makes me wonder if this is an inside out report of the actual situation - hedgehog Sep 2013 #11

Seems like it. Squinch Sep 2013 #28

Those with major employers are likely in the same boat as your spouse. LiberalFighter Sep 2013 #33

The unions will have no problem with this at all. mac56 Sep 2013 #12

They do have a problem with it.... ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2013 #23

Yeah, damn me anyway. mac56 Sep 2013 #34

But I have heard not a Squinch Sep 2013 #37

So you're accusing Trumpka of lying? ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2013 #39

I'm sorry, are you and I in a fight? That must have escaped me. Squinch Sep 2013 #42

Yeah that's not what I said. ForgoTheConsequence Sep 2013 #38

" By all means though, continue to lie and make things up. " mac56 Sep 2013 #41

Do you know what those "Cadillac" plans are called in the rest of the civilized world? eridani Sep 2013 #13

exactly a2liberal Sep 2013 #14

Exactly. Looks like this is a double whammy- discouraging hiring of union workers & forcing people suffragette Sep 2013 #31

ANTI UNIONS DEMS blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #16

+1 CountAllVotes Sep 2013 #19

+ 1000 abelenkpe Sep 2013 #30

Looks like the White House is leveraging the situation Schema Thing Sep 2013 #18

K&R woo me with science Sep 2013 #22

YEAH, He cares about ME!! DiverDave Sep 2013 #24

Oh, sure..... Adam-Bomb Sep 2013 #25

So you're against the ACA and unions? Enjoy your stay. Squinch Sep 2013 #29

Subsidies should be based on income level alone, NOT one what group plans your employer/union... Humanist_Activist Sep 2013 #40