September 16, 2013
State Labor Council highlights objections to Obamacare
The Washington State Labor Council (WSLC) left no doubt about its preferred presidential candidate last year, slamming Romney and praising Obama frequently. Election years, though, have a let's-all-stick-together mentality.
It's after the victory that divisions surface, and the WSLC is joining many other labor voices in publically complaining about Obamacare's effect on labor-supported multi-employer health plans. Two months ago, we noted the national IBEW's ad campaign to change the offending provisions in the law. Last week, the AFL-CIO, of which the WSLC is a part, passed a resolution calling for changes to Obamacare at its national convention.
Earlier today The Stand, the WSLC's news site, highlighted the Obama Administration's decision to deny labor's request for a waiver that would allow these multi-employer plans to still qualify for subsidies that are only available to plans that are included in the upcoming insurance exchanges. Noting that the administration is exploring options to make the plans conform with exchange rules instead of granting a waiver, The Stand wrote that many in labor don't care for that alternative: "It means giving up the advantages they get by being associated with employers, and it will entail significant disruption for their members."
Even more notable than what The Stand wrote is the fact that they included a story from The Hill last week, "Disapproval of ObamaCare reaches new high, poll finds," and a popular meme of a laughing Obama, pictured below. The question remains if any of this public pressure by labor on the Obama Administration is going to have any real effect.
Posted by Adam Faber at September 16, 2013
03:28 PM | Email This
Adam: Since when do you care what labor unions want?
Labor unions want a special subsidy and the Obama administration says no. That should make you happy because you despise unions. I'm generally supportive of unions and this doesn't bother me one bit.
For a policy wonk, you sure have a confused agenda. I assume your overall agenda is to improve the electoral prospects of the GOP in Washington state -- and that's fine by me. Can you give me a profile of the voter who currently votes Democratic that you hope to switch with this kind of nonsense?
I don't know. I'm more interested in the fact that all the previous comment threads have been turned off. Troll control? The poor man's spam filter? Or has Jim Miller stolen Adam's password again ;-)
Come on, fess up! Curious minds want to know...
3. RE #1: ScotttD, I would think that just in the interests of basic fairness you would not want unions to have a special favor. And that's what's wrong right now. The Feds (Obama Administration specifically) dishing out special favors left and right to those that mean something to them. That really leaves average people like me out in the cold. I don't swing enough Big Meat to get nice big special favor or break.
The facts remain,regardless:
We were all told that if we liked our current health care, we could keep it.
Even the unions are beginning to turn against Marx Obama.
Obamao would never turn against his so-called legacy. He is an odd duck - he acts like a colonialist, even though he claims to be an anti-colonialist.
He is everything that he says he is not - he is skilled at being a liar and looking you straight in the eye. Assad is similar, as is Morsi and all of the other totalitarian rulers. People are waking up to realize that the Manchurian candidate is real and he is out to screw us too well off Americans, as a citizen of the world. Just bringing about fairness in his own world, he would tell you.
The best way to make Obamacare financially affordable is to remove all of the mandates, but no Democrats would never do that, because besides being all lawyers, they want as many beholden to the government as possible and . The GOP would be wise to let this crap sandwich called Obamacare collapse under its own weight, but it will require rolling the dice and gambling that subsidies from the unsustainable Government coffers will not entice the masses.
6. Actions have consequences. The union bums backed Obama, now they get to live with their mistake. Waking up from a Progressive hangover is really bad.
#5: We were also told everyone would save $2500 (a year?) on our medical insurance premiums. I don't know about yours, but mine went up. I'm betting yours did, too, however. Obama was dishonest or just plain clueless when selling this travesty to the american people. I'm not sure which is worse. But neither would surpise me. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell also forgot to tell everyone how many would lose their jobs, their hours or their/their spouse's medical coverage with this turkey. Somehow they, along with the lefitst trolls here, are all okay with that. Suzan DelBene makes excuses for all that, as well, claiming the law 'is not perfect'. Wow, she and her leftist ilk are willing to pay FAR TOO HIGH a price for this junk law. Why did people have to have their hours cut back for this junk? Why did they have to lose their or their spouses' coverage? Was that what was being sold to the american people back before this travesty passed? Hardly.
We, however, are NOT okay with that.
scottd: the point is that the unions *knew all along* this was a bad deal for everyone else, but they thought they could get an exemption by supporting it.
So no, it should not make us happy that the unions helped give us a raw deal and are now unhappy about it. We should be angry at the unions for working with Obama to screw us.
10. Don, I was going to blame YOU.
And exactly how is Obamacare "screwing" you over pudge? Or are you just stating right-wing hyperbole?
As for the Unions, they are also blowing smoke. They can still offer their gold-plated health-plans, but they will have to cough up the dough for it, instead of living on other people's dime. The goal of Obamacare is to provide a broader range of healthcare, especially to those who don't have it. Its goal wasn't to provide everyone everything on the the table. The Unions knew this when it was first debated. To think they can change the rules after the fact is arrogant. Not going to happen.
@12: Or are you just stating right-wing hyperbole?
I think that's a good assumption if you see him writing anything.
@9: 9. Congratations Lefties! You too are members of this club of ACA idiots!
So I guess this guy belongs to the club of former anti-ACA idiots?
14. pudge@10: That might be your point -- it wasn't made by Adam. Adam doesn't actually seem to have a point.
Since the entire point of a union is to get a better deal for the workers it represents, neither the unions' efforts nor their result should surprise anyone. Only Adam seems surprised; this seems strange, in that he wanted to be someone's Policy Director.
And pudge has already declared ACA to be a bad deal, and that the unions knew it. Since he always confuses his groundless declarations with actual verified facts, don't bother asking him to provide examples; you'll just get abuse.
16. @11 Oh sure Pudge, blame ME for the false flag operation.
tc - interesting. You believe people keeping their own money is living off other peoples dime. I believe you have rejected the assertion that all money belongs to the government, but they let us have it. Do you not believe that?
Again, why do we have the ACA? To lower costs and insure 30 million Americans. It is doing neither and in the process is making all American's lives harder.
BTW - how do you like Pres. Obama's economic policies? His policies are making the top 1% richer, though he says he's for the "middle class". How is that? Anyone know when we'll win the war on poverty? Maybe O should just pull out of it like Iraq an can call it a win. In Iraq the terrorists win....in the war on poverty the poor win.
The Union's want their gold plated (expensive) plans with everything included. The current state is that all the costs of those plans are tax deductible (i.e., health care premiums before taxes and companies can deduct full amount of their portion of health care premiums). Thus, you the taxpayer is subsidizing these plans in loss tax revenues. Under Obamacare, there is a maximum threshold for company plans and plans that exceed this pay a penalty to make up for the loss tax revenue. So, the Union's gripe is that companies will reduce their gold-plated plans to meet the max thresh-hold for plans, or their members will have to pay taxes on the unsubsidized portion. Obamacare doesn't care which way the Unions and Companies decide, it only states that we the taxpayer won't subsidize the select individuals that have these plans.
You also stated that ACA goal was to lower costs and insure more Americans and that it was doing neither. The actual evidence that is building is demonstrating the reverse of your statement. While it is too early to draw definitive conclusions, the trends are overall health care costs are lowering (rate-wise -- i.e., instead of growing yearly at X% they increase has slowed to about X/2% or X/3%). The trends also show more Americans with healthcare already by having children being able to be enrolled under parents plans until Age 26. The rest of the enrollment numbers won't be known until the Health Exchanges kick in. The right wing media wants to trumpet the mistakes and problems, they don't speak to the the "good" stories and how things have turned to the better.
See the following article for a more realistic analysis of what really is happening.
On page 2, the money quote rebutting your argument:
"And health experts increasingly expect the reforms will bear fruit. "The ongoing slowdown in the health-care growth rate defies historical post-recession patterns and is likely to be sustained," concluded PricewaterhouseCoopers in June. "It appears that the reforms will stick and health-care exchanges and other policies will bring competitive pressure to markets," says Randall Ellis, a professor of health-care economics. "Although the proof for this point of view is not yet definitive," reports the Health Affairs blog, "the depth and breadth of change suggest that significant transformation in the nation's delivery system is under way." Among health-care wonks, this is no longer a controversial assertion: The evidence thus far suggests Obamacare's cost reforms are a staggering success."
The unions wanted that moron, now they've got him.
Tough luck, chumps. Sometimes you're the windshield... and this time..
... you're the bug.
Have you ever stopped to notice how much more empassioned Obama(o) is when he attacks Republicans than when he speaks of terrorists ? To you leftists in denial, it's as plain as the nose on your face - to quote H. Ross Perot.
The inmates are running the asylum and their blog activists are trying to manipulate this blog...
So, the GOP finally has come up with an alternative to ACA (Obamacare), but as Bloomberg Op-Ed (see link below) notes, it isn't really an alternative because it never addresses one of the components of ACA (Obamacare), which is the number of people covered.
Money Quote from Bloomberg OpEd:
"What's not helpful is to try to fool Americans with semantic games. Republicans like to talk about the importance of making hard choices. The hardest choice of all may be making their position more explicit: that universal health care is not a worthy goal for government. Today's proposal shows they have yet to find the courage of their convictions. "
@22 - tc. I see where you are going, however the media and the Democrat party is being dishonest about that. Various GOP alternatives have been proposed over the last 3+ years, but they were rebuked by the majority party (the Dems) when the bill was being crafted. This is mainly because their cost saving provisions would not lead to a single payer system, but rather a free market system.
There will be alternatives from the GOP once again, but it is an exercise in futility until at least parts of Obamacare get repealed. It should have been done differently and for all you and I know, alternatives have actually been proposed, but the anti-GOP media hid that story & yes they pull s**t like that every day and give the Democrat party and the president cover - their narrative. I'd like the GOP to show some guts short of shutting down the government - which I don't want. It's up to them to figure out how to do this and make a difference in the implementation of this crap sandwich.
Bloomberg gave phony numbers themselves - there are close to 30 M who will not be covered by Obamacare - funny they did not say that. They are just another one of the culprits who hide some of the important facts.
I agree that ACA (Obamacare) is not universal healthcare. I only tries to address the issue for a large pool of the previously uninsured. Outside of non-Americans, per the below article, the largest pool of citizens appears to be in the lower middle income range, which is always the hardest to reach without expanding Medical Aid Program, which the GOP is dead set against. They make too much to get fully subsidized, but not enough to fully pay on their own. My guess is that you will also find this group has less other insurance also (car, renters, and life). The GOP ignores this crowd, for the most part. For example, the GOP wants to cut back College Grants and other Post-HS funding, which would most benefit this group and help them possibly get higher paying jobs to afford health insurance. They (GOP) balk at Medical Aid and other government support programs expansion to help this group. A final example is the fact that when it comes to taxes, the GOP was more concerned about upper income folks and not this group.
WA Post Article on the Post-ACA uninsured:
The bottom line, however KDS, was this group in addition to the additional people that will be covered under ACA would not be covered under the GOP plans. Therefore, instead of 30M (as you allude to), it would be more like 50-55M uninsured under GOP plans. The GOP demonstrate they really do not care about universal coverage.
What the GOP ought to do is vote for a 1-year delay in the individual mandate, where some Senate Dems would vote against it (they have already voted against it in the House), drop the defund dance and go to conference - get some kind of delay, then put it on Obama, the weasel's desk for signature and call his bluff, and avoid government shutdown in the process.
50-55 M with GOP plans sounds like a made-up number. There is no credible research that backs this up. The WaPost does not make it credible either. The Democrat party has wanted universal health care (i.e. single payer) all along and that's why they never included the GOP amendments which were mostly free market ideas, that would have served to lower the costs of Obamacare. As a result, the ACA is a giant cluster f**k. This also proves that the Democrat party did not care about the consequences. People are waking up to this stark reality.