Obamacare killing unions

[Merc14]

I love this story. I wondered, years ago, why the unions were pushing ACA? After all, with all the OSHA, ADA, and equal rights laws and regulations as well as the activist NLRB, who needs unions for anything other than outrageous healthcare plans. Well Obama and crew promised the thugs at the SEIU and UAW that they would be exempted, they just didn't say for how long and the leadership took the money and ran. Here comes reality. Goodbye SEIU.

Blowback For Obama: Obamacare Is Strangling Unionism

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carlschramm/2014/04/01/blowback-for-obama-obamacare-is-strangling-unionism/

In 1975, Leonard Woodcock, then president of the UAW, tied the labor movement to making universal health insurance a matter of federal law. It is no stretch to say that Obamacare would never have become a reality without the active support of labor for nearly five decades. But labor’s commitment to what finally took shape in the Affordable Care Act may become the textbook case of a political backfire. Obamacare is killing unionism.

The recent rejection of the UAW at Volkswagen’s Chattanooga plant presents only the latest chapter in the erosion of labor’s appeal. This election wasn’t about wages — VW pays well. Rather it was about work rules and benefits. With so much of the work place already regulated, the election was really about the only thing unions can promise any more, namely, lavish health plans.

But many VW workers recalled that last summer unions begged the President for an exemption from Obamacare’s tax penalty on “Cadillac-style” union benefits. Union members everywhere worry that their plans cannot remain immune from higher co-insurance costs and unwelcome disruptions of provider relationships. The vote in Tennessee was as much about “no-thanking” the UAW for Obamacare as it was about saying “we don’t want Chattanooga to look like Detroit.”

It is of a piece with Wisconsin’s pushback on public unionism. Sympathy for collective bargaining for civil servants gradually attenuated as legislation ensured more generous benefits with each passing year. When public union demands were reduced to more money, no accountability to the taxpayers for what members do (e.g., failing schools), and continuation of the closed shop, Wisconsin taxpayers signaled enough. Having lost the battle for compulsory membership, some public employee unions have lost eighty percent of their membership! State politics, long controlled by wealthy unions, are beginning to change in other states as well.

Rest of article follows here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carlschramm/2014/04/01/blowback-for-obama-obamacare-is-strangling-unionism/

[Likely Guy]

ACA, OSHA, ADA, NLRB, SEIU, UAW?

Does your thread come with an acronym dictionary Merc?

Edit: I got 'Affordable Care Act', 'Occupational Safety and Health Act', No Idea, No Idea, No Idea and 'Union of Auto Workers' maybe?

I'm a Canadian and I might have got 1/2?

You 'Mericans love your acronyms.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Likely Guy

[Mr.United_Nations]

For a momment i thought it said Obama Care killing Unicorns! didn't know Unicorns had their own group

[lightly]

I guess Obama forgot he is a "lefty" ? Aren't all "leftys" die hard Union supporters? PFT.

[Frank Merton]

One of the main reasons for the success of American private industry unions was the fact that premiums paid by an employer for health insurance are not taxable to the employee. This and the natural industry preference for group coverage has made it dominant and leaves small businesses and the self-employed and of course the unemployed out in the cold.

To the extent that Obamacare has the effect of putting everyone in group policies, one of the reasons for joining a union is diminished.

[F3SS]

I guess Obama forgot he is a "lefty" ? Aren't all "leftys" die hard Union supporters? PFT.

Look at it this way... It's been a 100 year progressive agenda to gain control of the health industry. Not because they care but because they want the control. 'They' being those with political power. They made the unions believe they had their best interests when all along the unions were mere useful idiots. So much so that they invested untold gazillions of dollars into the progressive agenda, acted as a mouthpiece and a goon. Look at the mob and name one goon that wouldn't get tossed in the river after they're no longer needed. Same thing. In return for their naivete the progs took the unions and put them up high on a false pedestal only to chop it down when their usefulness ran its course.

Edited April 5, 2014 by F3SS

[Gromdor]

As a member of a union, I have to say that there is a bit of truth to the article. The things that made people join the unions in the past (middle class pay, a retirement, health insurance, and advocacy) have all been diminished as time went by. Illegal immigrant labor and out sourcing has put a big squeeze on the pay aspect. Retirements are being eliminated or reneged on. Health insurance was sky-rocketing and making outsourced labor more attractive (especially to countries with socialized medicine -like Mexico). And with all the alphabet agencies and diminished union powers the advocacy has been lessened as well.

So people are lacking interest in joining or supporting unions. Heck, it seems that the guys we have been getting lately that actually want to join the union are the guys that have been listening to Rush Limbaugh and think they are getting into a free ride scam.

So yes, the implementation of Obamacare probably is weakening the unions more. But to be honest, I don't think unions have been fooled into it. Trying to fix the health insurance system for working class Americans is actually something the union should stand for. And unlike certain political parties that start with the letters "R" and "D", I think the unions will support something that will hurt themselves in the long run but will help working class Americans as a whole.

[lightly]

Look at it this way... It's been a 100 year progressive agenda to gain control of the health industry. Not because they care but because they want the control. 'They' being those with political power. They made the unions believe they had their best interests when all along the unions were mere useful idiots. So much so that they invested untold gazillions of dollars into the progressive agenda, acted as a mouthpiece and a goon. Look at the mob and name one goon that wouldn't get tossed in the river after they're no longer needed. Same thing. In return for their naivete the progs took the unions and put them up high on a false pedestal only to chop it down when their usefulness ran its course.

I'll agree that 'They' want control . But disagree on who 'They" are . I think "They" are the people that make money off the Health Industry . Number ONE being the drug companies. Lobbying Politicians is how they accomplish their goals.

There's nothing "progressive" about any of it.

Edited April 6, 2014 by lightly

[Merc14]

I'll agree that 'They' want control . But disagree on who 'They" are . I think "They" are the people that make money off the Health Industry . Number ONE being the drug companies. Lobbying Politicians is how they accomplish their goals.

There's nothing "progressive" about any of it.

Progressives are big government wannabe socialists that are afraid to admit it in public. Here is Maxine Waters slip of the tongue

Hugo Chavez was a hero to them. Of course his country is collapsing now because socialist governments can't run an oil company any better than the democrats can reinvent healthcare. Just glad to see the most militant of unions getting the shaft big time.

[Frank Merton]

A company that has to comply with a politically imposed social agenda is not going to do very well competing with one that can concentrate on making money and reinvesting it in the business and attracting further investment. The only way socialist companies make it is with legally enforced monopolies, and this tends to lead to corruption and waste (it's not my money).

On the other hand the need to make money and nothing else (necessary because the competitors are doing that) leads to abuses and pollution and more corruption.

[Merc14]

A company that has to comply with a politically imposed social agenda is not going to do very well competing with one that can concentrate on making money and reinvesting it in the business and attracting further investment. The only way socialist companies make it is with legally enforced monopolies, and this tends to lead to corruption and waste (it's not my money).

On the other hand the need to make money and nothing else (necessary because the competitors are doing that) leads to abuses and pollution and more corruption.

Well said sir.

[Gromdor]

A company that has to comply with a politically imposed social agenda is not going to do very well competing with one that can concentrate on making money and reinvesting it in the business and attracting further investment. The only way socialist companies make it is with legally enforced monopolies, and this tends to lead to corruption and waste (it's not my money).

On the other hand the need to make money and nothing else (necessary because the competitors are doing that) leads to abuses and pollution and more corruption.

Here in the US healthcare is tied to companies vs healthcare tied to the government in most other parts of the world. I truly do think that this American social policy is hurting companies compared to their competitors. (On a side note, because companies provide income, health insurance, and retirement here in the US, I think that a lot of Americans are more loyal to their company than their country.)

[Sundew]

I guess Obama forgot he is a "lefty" ? Aren't all "leftys" die hard Union supporters? PFT.

The Unions are just the latest victim of the law of unintended consequences. When Nancy Pelosi said, "We must pass the bill (ACA) to find out what's in it," there were a lot of consequences intended and unintended that took place. Some think the real goal is to get us to a single payer system. I personally think it's about control. There an old saying, "When they have you by the b****, your hearts and mind will follow." If the government completely controls your health care from cradle to grave, that is vast control over you as a person.

If I remember correctly, we had about 30 million uninsured in the country, some like young adults were not covered by choice (why spend money on health insurance when you feel young and invincible) but of course there were many who desperately needed coverage. But also many Americans were perfectly happy with the coverage they had and now find themselves having inferior coverage at higher cost, something Obama assured us would not happen. Americans are a generous people, surely there could have been a way to help the 30 M uninsured without potentially destroying the health care and health insurance of 350+ million to do it. I personally know people who have been deeply affected by "Obamacare" like cancer patients and also one man who will soon be permanently leaving the U.S. because he has had enough of our governments nonsense in general and this may have been the final straw: over thirty years without a claim, thousands of dollars paid in and now his insurance company is dropping him, all because of the ACA.

BTW this latest announcement that 7.1 million people have suddenly signed up at the eleventh hour is laughable: it may make for a good photo op but the real question is how many have paid into it? I'm betting that will be a considerably smaller number and one the administration will not be touting any time soon.

I hope this November voters will not forget that not ONE Republican voted for the ACA and many tried to warn the public of some of the consequences. This is purely the Democrat's albatross and a lot of people are really ticked off.

[Jeremiah65]

Well...

I have said before that I am a fan of collective bargaining. I have many family members that were coal miners and UMW workers and they benefited greatly from the union's support.

However...as time has gone on, a lot of unions are full of corruption...taking people's union dues and really not giving much in return. They don't really police their own members that well either anymore. There was a time you had to be "good" at what you do to be in a union...now just pay your dues and they'll prob get you into a job you are overpaid and unqualified for.

As with all things, you have to change and adapt with the times or become extinct. I think that is more the problem for unions than ACA.

But...I hate ACA. I will never welcome this thing with open arms. If the GOV was really-really concerned about the healthcare of the population, they would have went single payer...aka...socialized medicine route. But they didn't. They are still "insuring" that the big pharma, hospitals and big healthcare conglomerates still make their money...plus it also props up Wall Street as most health insurance companies are backed up by securities.

This is crony capitalism at it's finest...force the people to buy a product from a private supplier...damn I wish I could get a deal like that for my line of business!

I have insurance through my wife's employer. If it had not been available, we would have thumbed our nose at the "law"...it's not all that affordable and the rates have gone up...deductibles have gone up and the "network" of providers has gotten smaller...oh yeah, what a great thing this ACA has done...

Edited April 8, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[Yamato]

Well said sir.

It's not well said when it's said about the military, but the waste in military spending is incredible just the same.

[Yamato]

ACA, OSHA, ADA, NLRB, SEIU, UAW?

Random spoons of alphabet soup yield federal department acronyms >64% of the time.

[+DieChecker]

But...I hate ACA. I will never welcome this thing with open arms. If the GOV was really-really concerned about the healthcare of the population, they would have went single payer...aka...socialized medicine route. But they didn't.

I always find it funny that the Democrats will today say that they actually favored a single payer universal healthcare system, but they didn't think it could pass. WHAT? Didn't Obama have a bullet proof Congress for two years?

Few if any Dems actually wanted universal healthcare. They actually just want to talk a good game and get reelected while piling up money for themselves, and their paymasters. Republicans are not any better, but at least they are open in their support of their paymasters.

Edited April 9, 2014 by DieChecker

[Frank Merton]

I think most countries have a national health plan, sometimes a merge between public and private offerings, with insurance for the poor subsidized in some way. I am not informed to comment on the American plan except to say from what I have been able to see it seems jury-rigged and therefore bound to need a lot of adjustments.

[Frank Merton]

When I show up at a doctor's office with some ailment, it always astonishes me how expensive things are in the States compared to everywhere else. There is something fundamentally haywire with the pricing system.

[Merc14]

When I show up at a doctor's office with some ailment, it always astonishes me how expensive things are in the States compared to everywhere else. There is something fundamentally haywire with the pricing system.

Absolutely and it needed to be straightened out but not in the way the democrats went about it. There were several things we could've done that wouldn't have cost much and would've saved billions of dollars but the democrats chose to blow it all up.

I know when the republicans tried to make some changes the media and democrats howled in outrage and squashed the whole thing. Things like tort reform, competition across state lines for insurance companies, rooting out medicare fraud and punishing teh frauudsters, etc. Try those and if you haveto enact a few new laws then so so but don't destroy what we have built over the years.

It always comes down to the media being an adjunct arm of the democrat party and the cover that buys them. How many massive, impeachment level scandals are boiling away right now and teh media barely mentions them?

I've lost faith in the republicans as well though. They will probably win the senate this fall but wil they punish the democrats and root out the criminals behind the above scandals? Doubtful.

Edited April 9, 2014 by Merc14

[aztek]

, it always astonishes me how expensive things are in the States compared to everywhere else. .

it may have something to do with their highest salaries\expenses, compared to everywhere else. and despite that avarige american doctor is a horoble doctor, not really a doctor but buissnesman in med field, thus we have millions of deaths due to doctor mistakes, hospital infections, side effect of meds,..... which is also multibillion dollar industry by itself, paid by us.

[+DieChecker]

When I show up at a doctor's office with some ailment, it always astonishes me how expensive things are in the States compared to everywhere else. There is something fundamentally haywire with the pricing system.

In my opinion, high costs was the single most problematic issue in US healthcare. Whenever the USs "bad healthcare" is brought up, it is always framed in the terms of Expense versus Results. Our healthcare was fine. It was the high expense that was causing the US to have "bad healthcare". That and obesity.

If the costs of healthcare could be lowered, you'd see insurance costs lowering, and you'd see people who were living on the bare minimum insurance, or no insurance, buying into that much cheaper insurance. But, as is typical, the US FedGov tries to fix the issue by tossing taxpayers money at the symptom, rather then dealing with the injury itself.

[MiskatonicGrad]

If you look at what Obamacare really is it doesn't do a lick to help the healthcare system. all it tries to do is force people who don't need insurance get insurance to help pay for the people who are actually using their insurance.

so now instead of insurance being a choice it becomes an indirect tax. is there something in the act that will lower the amount charged by hospitals and doctors offices to the insurance companies and does it also prevent them from charging the patient the difference? you want to fix healthcare do away with insurance companies for about three years. then when the hospitals and doctor offices are empty because nobody can afford to step foot in them then maybe the hospitals and doctors will adjust the prices so we can afford it.

[ninjadude]

Didn't Obama have a bullet proof Congress for two years?

No. Another meme that's wrong. In actual fact, the super majority was about 31 days IIRC.

[+DieChecker]

so now instead of insurance being a choice it becomes an indirect tax. is there something in the act that will lower the amount charged by hospitals and doctors offices to the insurance companies and does it also prevent them from charging the patient the difference?

As far as I know, NO, there is no direct legislation to lower costs. It is argued to be indirect, I think, in that supposedly those who are uninsured will stop using the ERs which are more expensive and somehow pay their own bills.

To my thinking, even if a person has insurance, but has no cash reserve, or credit account, then they will Still not be able to afford to go anywhere other then the ER...... except purhaps for preventative care. And preventative care involves a doctor's visit, which 75% of people don't have time for in their day to day lives.