Latest Breaking News

Squinch

(58,920 posts)

46. Thank you. That is something I didn't know.

Reply to LiberalFighter (Reply #45)

Mon Sep 16, 2013, 08:23 PM

Sep 2013

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

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