Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax

Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 6:12:29 AM)
Another promise broken. Remember, candidate Obama vowed that he would not raise taxes on the poor and middle class: quote: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax WASHINGTON – Labor leaders are pushing hard on President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats to drop a proposed new tax on high-value health insurance plans, warning of political consequences. The White House has indicated the tax may change so it hits fewer workers — but it's not going away. A Monday evening meeting at the White House between Obama and about a dozen heads of the country's biggest labor unions capped a day when two union leaders fired broadsides at Obama and Senate Democrats over their plans to pay for overhauling the nation's health care system with a tax union leaders fear could hurt their workers. The 40 percent tax would fall on employer health plans worth more than $8,500 for an individual or $23,000 for a family. Although Obama terms them "Cadillac" plans, union leaders say numerous working-class Americans who've negotiated good benefits in exchange for lesser pay would be hurt. The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, warned that Democrats risk catastrophic election defeats similar to 1994 if they fail to come up with a health bill labor likes. "A bad bill could have that kind of effect — a place where people sit at home" — as happened in 1994, when Democrats lost 54 House seats and eight in the Senate, costing them control of Congress, Trumka told reporters. Full article at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_labor

Sanity -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 6:15:56 AM)
It was a closed door White House meeting with the Union leaders as well, which isn't exactly the transparency in government we were told we could expect from this administration.

DarkSteven -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 6:39:04 AM)
Those guys work with their hands, but you could make the case that they're not middle class. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The 40 percent tax would fall on employer health plans worth more than $8,500 for an individual or $23,000 for a family. Although Obama terms them "Cadillac" plans, union leaders say numerous working-class Americans who've negotiated good benefits in exchange for lesser pay would be hurt. Cry me a river. Union members still earn substantially more than the average American. And their benefits are far superior. That said, I'm curious how the value of a health care plan is determined. quote: The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, warned that Democrats risk catastrophic election defeats similar to 1994 if they fail to come up with a health bill labor likes. "A bad bill could have that kind of effect — a place where people sit at home" — as happened in 1994, when Democrats lost 54 House seats and eight in the Senate, costing them control of Congress, Trumka told reporters. Strange wording. The unions give cash to candidates they like, and votes from members as well. The cash matters more than the votes... I suspect that Trumka is already assuming that he won't like the final bill, and that the Dems will get crunched in 2010, and is trying to make it look like lack of union endorsement will be a big factor. It won't be.

housesub4you -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 6:44:18 AM)
I have to agree with the Unions on this one, I mean some of the deals cut to get this passed are nothing short of ripping off this country. Look at Neb. the way they got that vote was to have the bill state that they will not have to pay for their states portion, the rest of the country will pay for them. hell NO, our state is having enough trouble balancing the budget without having to pay the bills for another state for a lousy vote.

Sanity -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 6:57:20 AM)
A 40% tax is extreme, regardless of how you look at it, and this applies to anyone who has a good health plan. Not just union employees. And not all union workers are paid extravagant wages, either.

rulemylife -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 6:57:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It was a closed door White House meeting with the Union leaders as well, which isn't exactly the transparency in government we were told we could expect from this administration. Do you expect everything that goes on in the White House to be televised live? As far as the issue at hand, I am not sure why the unions are opposing it. I can't imagine there are too many people who have coverage which costs that much a year.

Sanity -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 7:04:13 AM)
Good insurance isn't cheap, this just punishes anyone who can get it. And the secret meetings are a big deal because Democrats made it a big deal back when Cheney meet privately with some oil industry people and refused to release all the details regarding who was in attendance and what was said. Just more of that double standard that the Democrats are so famous for. Go into hysterics when someone else does it but there's nothing wrong when they do it. It used to be hilarious, but after so much of it its just not as funny any more. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Do you expect everything that goes on in the White House to be televised live? As far as the issue at hand, I am not sure why the unions are opposing it. I can't imagine there are too many people who have coverage which costs that much a year.

housesub4you -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 7:09:28 AM)
I think this is a double standard with a long history, whoever is not in charge complains about not being included in certain talks, so I mean this is nothing new to either party. What I do not get is why everyone is not pissed about all the closed doors meetings by both parties going back to before Nixon. Everyone should be pissed by all the backdoor deals made, and not just picking on the party in charge because their party is currently bitching and moaning about being left out

servantforuse -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 7:11:30 AM)
Unions spent millions to get Obama elected. Now they can deal along with the rest of us the mess they helped create.

mnottertail -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 7:15:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Good insurance isn't cheap, this just punishes anyone who can get it. So, how do we actually go about getting good and affordable health care out there to american citizens? dont's seem easy, and tort reform aint it and aint shit.

mnottertail -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 7:19:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Unions spent millions to get Obama elected. Now they can deal along with the rest of us the mess they helped create. It generally aint the unions themselves that are electing the Presidents, the leadership tell the rank and file who its gonna be and thats it. It aint like there is some groundswell.

housesub4you -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 7:47:57 AM)
Simple, we keep the anti-trust laws in place, make insurance mandatory for everyone, and the Honest Good Willed people at the insurance companies will do what is best for them, I mean us. Look at Illinois, we have mandatory car insurance, and yet the largest portion of the bill is for uninsured motorist protection, and some of the highest rates in the country, see how well that works. With out a public option, this bill is going to screw us and if we think insurance companies bonuses are huge now just wait

Sanity -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 8:02:25 AM)
I don't want every meeting I have with whoever televised, a person can't be real in such a meeting. Obama was naive (just as McCain said he was) to make all of the promises that he did, and his fans were naive to believe in them. Executives have private meetings, they have to... what is news about that. My point is, its just fun to see Obama squirming now that he can't live up to all of the lofty promises he made on the campaign trail. The real lesson here is, we shouldn't ever elect Jr Senators who have no executive experience to the office of president. quote: ORIGINAL: housesub4you I think this is a double standard with a long history, whoever is not in charge complains about not being included in certain talks, so I mean this is nothing new to either party. What I do not get is why everyone is not pissed about all the closed doors meetings by both parties going back to before Nixon. Everyone should be pissed by all the backdoor deals made, and not just picking on the party in charge because their party is currently bitching and moaning about being left out

Mercnbeth -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 8:04:43 AM)
~ FAST REPLY ~ The fundamental flaw in the private sector Union's political strategy is that they associate themselves with the public sector employee unions. I'm not sure, but I think in some cases they leadership overlaps. However there is no other similarity. A private sector union requires a benevolent parasitic, similar to the benevolent bacteria living in your stomach, relationship with the entity it feeds from. Without a viable auto industry the UAW is powerless. Without a viable trucking industry the Teamsters have no clout. There is no such need in the private sector. Public sector unions feed off vampires, otherwise know as bureaucrats. Themselves parasites, they are immortal, impossible to kill once their bureaucracy is created, living off the blood of productive citizens. They are secure in the knowledge that unlike their private sector counterparts in industry and the service sector, their jobs can't be outsourced to India China, or some other third world country. The Obama administration 'Iron Curtain' of transparency is necessary to prevent the private sector union membership rank and file from seeing the concessions their leadership is granting to protect their membership growth sector - public employee unions. Losing that bastion of support would be yet another group disenfranchised by this administration once the campaign rhetoric proved to be hollow promises. Look closer - "Labor" isn't angry; private sector labor is angry. They earned their benefits, and had to give back some when times got tough. They are giving back more, they are dying. The tax on 'Cadillac heath benefits' is rare in the usually targeted "tax the rich" group. It only exists in a grand scale in private sector as a benefit earned by private sector union negotiations over a long prior of time. These people aren't "rich"; most are barely holding on, but now they are being asked to pay more tax out of the little disposable income they currently generate. They can't go back and renegotiate. Compare that to public employee unions. Their entitlements are sacrosanct from any cuts, and have little fear of of dying; at least until the last drop of blood is sucked from the tax payers. They can negotiate to make up the difference because the source has no concern about the need to generate income - they can simply raise taxes. They don't need to worry about their 'industry' having a negative cash flow - their 'industry' prints money. Remember every dollar of pay and every dollar of benefits derives from tax income. There is zero revenue benefit for the government coming from any public sector employee. They are on the expense side of the ledger not income. Although fast approaching the tipping point where the private sector can no longer afford to fund the bureaucracy there doesn't seem to be any call to stop or even slow down the momentum; which, to me, indicates a goal. Nationalization of industries makes everyone a public sector 'union' employee.

Moonhead -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 8:17:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The real lesson here is, we shouldn't ever elect Jr Senators who have no executive experience to the office of president. But a the governor of a state with a lower population than a decent sized town with have made a fine VP, of course?

Sanity -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 2:46:08 PM)
Experience-wise, as a governor and former mayor Sarah Palin had more executive experience than Barack Obama did, and she was the VP nominee - not the presidential nominee. Beside that, Joe Biden, Obama's VP, is a total moron who people say serves as insurance against an assassination attempt on Obama because he's such a total clown.

housesub4you -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 2:52:56 PM)
Say what you will in her defense, but she quit and if she thinks she is going to run in a primary and not face those attacks from her own party, she is in for a big surprise. If she runs, it's who ever she is running against in her own primary that is going to rip her up. I can't see 1 GOP contender who would be willing to give her a pass on that issue and not exploit it to win

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 3:40:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven Those guys work with their hands, but you could make the case that they're not middle class. huh? middle class is based on income, not job title. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The 40 percent tax would fall on employer health plans worth more than $8,500 for an individual or $23,000 for a family. Although Obama terms them "Cadillac" plans, union leaders say numerous working-class Americans who've negotiated good benefits in exchange for lesser pay would be hurt. Cry me a river. Union members still earn substantially more than the average American. And their benefits are far superior. That said, I'm curious how the value of a health care plan is determined. quote: premiums paid by the employer The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, warned that Democrats risk catastrophic election defeats similar to 1994 if they fail to come up with a health bill labor likes. "A bad bill could have that kind of effect — a place where people sit at home" — as happened in 1994, when Democrats lost 54 House seats and eight in the Senate, costing them control of Congress, Trumka told reporters. Strange wording. The unions give cash to candidates they like, and votes from members as well. The cash matters more than the votes... I suspect that Trumka is already assuming that he won't like the final bill, and that the Dems will get crunched in 2010, and is trying to make it look like lack of union endorsement will be a big factor. It won't be. It wont be a factor because there will be a miraculous appearance of a carve out for union sponsored plans in the final version.

rulemylife -> RE: Labor angry over Obama-backed insurance tax (1/12/2010 3:51:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Experience-wise, as a governor and former mayor Sarah Palin had more executive experience than Barack Obama did, and she was the VP nominee - not the presidential nominee. Beside that, Joe Biden, Obama's VP, is a total moron who people say serves as insurance against an assassination attempt on Obama because he's such a total clown. Based on your definition of "executive experience" can you point out to me John McCain's "executive experience"? He was, after all, at the top of the ticket.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875