No post about unions getting special backyard deals?

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
What is this ******** about unions being exempt until 2017? Seriously? If this is supposed to lower costs for all there is no reason to exempt all union works (aka vote for me). Explain, discuss.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Perhaps you could provide a link as a jumping off point for discussion, rather than vague right wing talking points about the evil unions?
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,543
8,168
Colorado
It stinks like 2 week old fish. These sweatheart deals (Landrieu, Nelson, Unions, etc.) are nothing short of outright bribery, and the Democrats are being so blatant about them. I hope they come back to haunt the Democrats in the November elections.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
This pile of **** plan keeps smelling worse every day.
Union leaders pressed their case for the changes on the high-end insurance tax at two White House meetings this week, including a two-hour session with Mr. Obama.

The dispute threatened to drive a wedge between the White House and unions, which strongly backed Mr. Obama's presidential campaign. The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, this week suggested that without changes to this provision, unions might be less likely to help Democrats on the ballot this fall and Republicans could take back the House. Another union threatened to pull support for the health bill, Mr. Obama's top legislative priority.

After Thursday's agreement, labor leaders had warmer words for the president and said they would promote the deal among Democrats.

Under the Senate bill, health insurers would have paid a 40% tax on premiums that exceed $8,500 annually for individuals, or $23,000 for family plans. The agreement reached Thursday raises those thresholds slightly, to $8,900 for individuals and $24,000 for families, with annual increases tied to one point above the Consumer Price Index, labor and White House officials said.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Sounds like the unions were looking out for their interest, same as any lobbying organization. I don't recall conservative outrage when energy companie were cutting still-secret deals with the Bush WH. Or the massive influence the health care industry has had with their army of lobbyists and million plus per day they've dropped to influence the debate. Sounds like one of those double standards cons are so agains this week.

Sure would be nice to curb the power of lobbyists though, wouldn't it?
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
Yes it would. Didn't President Obama promise to do that?
Yes, we always know to take a politician at their word. They would never lie to us.:rolleyes:

I guess getting votes for the party are more important than the people.
 

CaptMurdock

Suspended
Jan 2, 2009
577
1,966
The Evildrome Boozerama
The problem is this deal affects every american.
What doesn't affect every American? When are we going to have a decision come out of Washington that affects, oh, left-handed Episcopalians exclusively?

Again, wake me when you have something important to bitch about. Unions cutting a sweet deal? Yawnski. And I don't even belong to a union.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
What doesn't affect every American? When are we going to have a decision come out of Washington that affects, oh, left-handed Episcopalians exclusively?

Again, wake me when you have something important to bitch about. Unions cutting a sweet deal? Yawnski. And I don't even belong to a union.
Why should anybody be getting sweetheart deals. I should not have to pay more for insurance because I am not in a union.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Yes it would. Didn't President Obama promise to do that?
Well, let's see... Considering the starting point is secret meetings where we don't even know what the he'll kind of deals were cut, I'd say he's made an improvement. Is it perfect? Nope but you'd rather criticize for not acheiving perfection, despite not being concerned what deals were cut under Bush.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
Well, let's see... Considering the starting point is secret meetings where we don't even know what the he'll kind of deals were cut, I'd say he's made an improvement. Is it perfect? Nope but you'd rather criticize for not acheiving perfection, despite not being concerned what deals were cut under Bush.
How can you call this a improvement. The whole bill is crap and keeps getting worse.

Obama said no lobbyist or sweetheart deals at all. How can he yell at the banks for sweetheart deals and then cut one with the unions.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
How can you call this a improvement.
Do you not remember the energy task force meetings?

Personally I'd prefer no deals, just a straight single-payer system. And I agree, this bill is crap; the product of far to much conservative corporate cash. But all I hear from the right is how awful unions are for their effective lobbying, yet nothing from them about how awful the health care corporations are for being even more effective than the unions at lobbying.

Let's not forget that the health care industry has managed to cut backroom deals to kill the public option and Medicare buy-in, not to mention managed to score a mandate to buy their product with no price control mechanism. That's a hell of a lot better deal than anything the unions ever dreamed of. Cutting this deal to put off paying the Cadillac tax is small potatoes compared to the wealth the health care corporations just managed to transfer to thmselves.

But rest assured, conservatives will once again get their priorities all wrong because they simply despise unions.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
I don't see how costs will be cut when the price to pay for this system keeps going up. Where is the relief, insurance companies will keep getting richer and the people that really need insurance will still be left out. Everyone has to pay their fair share into the system for this to work. We can't be giving select people lower rates and then expect everyone else to pick up the tab.

If everyone was paying an equal amount this system would work.
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
I don't see how costs will be cut when the price to pay for this system keeps going up. Where is the relief, insurance companies will keep getting richer and the people that really need insurance will still be left out. Everyone has to pay their fair share into the system for this to work. We can't be giving select people lower rates and then expect everyone else to pick up the tab.

If everyone was paying an equal amount this system would work.
Single payer does all these things.
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Most people don't even have insurance and those that do are paying way to much.
What? Last I heard, we had about 50 million uninsured in this country, and some 300 million people. By no stretch does 50 million count as "most" of 300 million.

And second, you're dodging the question: Does everyone pay an equal amount for healthcare now?
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,550
7,802
CT
What? Last I heard, we had about 50 million uninsured in this country, and some 300 million people. By no stretch does 50 million count as "most" of 300 million.

And second, you're dodging the question: Does everyone pay an equal amount for healthcare now?
If we have 300 million people the number has to be higher then 50 million uninsured. I haven't seen the numbers but that seems low. No people do not pay an equal amount. And what they do pay still doesn't cover anything. So the questions is where is the money going. If I pay 400 a month and then still don't get covered what happened to my money.

If 250 million are insured and lets say they pay on average 500 a month, why are people not being covered? There should be enough money to go around.
 

bobber205

macrumors 68020
Nov 15, 2005
2,182
0
Oregon
If we have 300 million people the number has to be higher then 50 million uninsured. I haven't seen the numbers but that seems low. No people do not pay an equal amount. And what they do pay still doesn't cover anything. So the questions is where is the money going. If I pay 400 a month and then still don't get covered what happened to my money.

If 250 million are insured and lets say they pay on average 500 a month, why are people not being covered? There should be enough money to go around.
If you are denied coverage then 1) That's bad and should be fixed and 2) it's because they haven't deemed your treatment "cost effective" or some BS so they deny it.

If you just didn't need coverage then that's how insurance works of course. ;)

The uncovered number is about 50 million from what I've heard. Though I wonder what it would be if we counted people with REALLY bad plans that are almost like having no insurance.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Yes, bring up the past because as long as we hop along the bar of failure we must be succeeding right? Where the hell did the American spirit go?
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Sounds like the unions were looking out for their interest, same as any lobbying organization. I don't recall conservative outrage when energy companie were cutting still-secret deals with the Bush WH. Or the massive influence the health care industry has had with their army of lobbyists and million plus per day they've dropped to influence the debate. Sounds like one of those double standards cons are so agains this week.

Sure would be nice to curb the power of lobbyists though, wouldn't it?
When the hell is everyone going to learn that we cannot win this battle by looking out for our own interests? ****ing ****, I am a libertarian and I am willing to work with you guys to get health care system that functions properly, yet you keep plugging away at these ******** deals to gain money for next election. **** unions, **** the democratic party, and **** the president for allowing this **** to go on after promising not to.

Change indeed.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
If you are denied coverage then 1) That's bad and should be fixed and 2) it's because they haven't deemed your treatment "cost effective" or some BS so they deny it.

If you just didn't need coverage then that's how insurance works of course. ;)

The uncovered number is about 50 million from what I've heard. Though I wonder what it would be if we counted people with REALLY bad plans that are almost like having no insurance.
When your side's bastardized corporate welfare plan goes through i will not pay a dime, Id rather go to jail, better yet ill probably be out of country by that time.