Hypocrite unions that supported the passage of Obamacare three years ago are now complaining about its negative effects
This is hilarious!
Some of the unions that backed passage of Obamacare three years ago are now saying they are worried about the negative effects that it will have on them.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed
Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.
Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.
Some 20 million Americans are covered by the health-care plans at issue
Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage. A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans
“We are going back to the administration to say that this is not acceptable,” said Ken Hall, general secretary-treasurer for the Teamsters, which has 1.6 million members and dependents in health-care plans. Other unions involved in the push include the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Unite Here
Sheet Metal Workers Local 85 in Atlanta, which has about 1,900 members. Next year it must lift the $250,000 annual cap on the amount it will pay for medical claims. The law’s requirements will add between 50 cents to $1 an hour to the cost of members’ compensation package
These are the “low information” voters who backed Obamacare without knowing what was in it – and who chose to ignore the critics who pointed out these problems before the law was passed – the very same problems that the unions are now complaining about. The critics pointed out that these problems were timed so as to not take effect until after the 2012 election.
This reminds me of the Simpsons episode “Last Exit to Springfield” from season 4 where the union at the nuclear power plant agreed to give up their dental coverage in exchange for a keg of beer.
Consumer Reports implies that a part time job with Obamacare is better than a full time job without it
First of all, I understand that Consumer Reports is big on protecting its copyrighted material. However, fair use does permit me to quote small excerpts for the purpose of commentary and criticism. I will keep these quotes down to the bare minimum that is necessary.
On page 15 of their March 2013 issue, a reader expresses concern about
“CEOs claiming that Obamacare will force them to reduce employees’ hours due to the cost of insuring them”
Consumer Reports responds by saying
“even if that happens, those low-paid employees will, for the first time in 2014, have access to good insurance they can afford”
Before I get to my main point of criticizing Consumer Reports on their response to the reader, I’d first like to address their statement of “even if that happens.”
It’s not a question of “if.”
In the real world, it is already happening.
I cited real world examples of it happening in these two previous blog posts: Obamacare is encouraging restaurants to replace full time jobs with part time jobs and Obamacare supporters are shocked that its opponents’ predictions of job destruction are coming true.
Therefore, Consumer Reports comment of “even if that happens” is an attempt at denying that Obamacare is definitely and has already caused some workers to be switched from full time to part time.
Given that the alleged mission of Consumer Reports is to help people, this denial on their part is disgusting and shocking.
Now, on to my main criticism.
Although Consumer Reports doesn’t specifically say that a part time job with Obamacare is better than a full time job without it, they do imply such a thing, based on their complete and total refusal to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, some workers might be worse off as a result of this policy.
In the real world, this reduction in hours may cause some workers to be unable to pay their rent – but Consumer Reports implies that such a thing is OK, because at least they’ll have health insurance.
In the real world, if someone thought that having health insurance was a bigger priority than being able to pay the rent, they are perfectly capable of acting accordingly on their own, without the government making this decision for them. What Consumer Reports is saying in its response, then, is that people are too stupid to prioritize how they spend their own money, and that the government must make this decision for them.
Shame on Consumer Reports for glossing over and dismissing the readers’ concern for and the real world evidence that Obamacare is causing workers to switch from full time to part time.
And more importantly, shame on Consumer Reports for implying that people are too incompetent to prioritize how they spend their own money.
One interesting thing about Obamacare is that even though it became law in March 2010, its main provisions were written so as not to take effect until after the 2012 Presidential election. This was no accident.
Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democratic hypocrites ask for delay in Obamacare tax that they themselves voted for!
Two and a half years after voting for Obamacare, 18 Democrats have written this letter in which they ask for a delay in one of the Obamacare taxes.
What a bunch of hypocrites!
Wal-Mart employee says he “can’t afford” $15 a week for health insurance, but has no trouble paying for cigarettes
Wal-Mart Stores’ U.S. employees will pay between 8 percent and 36 percent more in premiums for its medical coverage in 2013, prompting some of the 1.4 million workers at the nation’s largest private employer to say they will forego coverage altogether.
“I really can’t even afford it now, so for it to go up even a dollar for me is a stretch,” said Colby Harris, who said he makes $8.90 per hour and takes home less than $20,000 per year working in the Walmart store’s produce department in Lancaster, Texas.
Harris, a 22-year-old smoker, was set to see his cost per paycheck rise to $29.60 from $25.40. He says he has decided not to sign up for coverage.
The same article also refers to Wal-Mart’s “two-week pay period.” So this guy is saying that he “can’t afford” to pay $15 per week for health insurance, and yet he somehow manages to pay for his cigarettes.
I wonder how much he spends on cigarettes each week. The article doesn’t say – but I’m guessing it’s more than $15.
The Orlando Sentinel reports:
In an experiment apparently aimed at keeping down the cost of health-care reform, Orlando-based Darden Restaurants has stopped offering full-time schedules to many hourly workers in at least a few Olive Gardens, Red Lobsters and LongHorn Steakhouses…
… many other companies, including the White Castle hamburger chain, are considering employing fewer full-timers because of key features of the Affordable Care Act scheduled to go into effect in 2014. Under that law, large companies must provide affordable health insurance to employees working an average of at least 30 hours per week. If they do not, the companies can face fines of up to $3,000 for each employee…
“I think a lot of those employers, especially restaurants, are just going to ensure nobody gets scheduled more than 30 hours a week,” said Matthew Snook, partner with human-resources consulting company Mercer…
At a new Olive Garden in Stillwater, Okla., former busboy Keaton Hasty said employees were routinely limited to 29 1/2 hours. “It was 29 1/2, and they’d kick you out,” said Hasty, a college student who now works at a pharmacy. “They’d always print off a little slip every day and say who was getting close.”
This article from CBS is a great example of the mindset of the people who run the city of Chicago.
Chicago set up a government run health care clinic inside a garbage truck garage. Only after the media reported on it did the government decide it was a bad idea.
The mindset that says it’s a good idea to run a health care clinic in such a filthy environment, is the same mindset that is in charge of running Chicago’s public schools.
Well what do you know – it’s actually a bad idea to take sleeping pills before driving.
I never would have guessed.