• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Union Bosses: 'ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
430
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider

In an open letter, James P. Hoffa, Joseph Hansen and D. Taylor wrote: “Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.”

It went on to state, “We can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and well being of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans.”



Read more: Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider

Now even the Unions that once supported Obamacare are decrying how bad it is.
 

specklebang

Discount Philosopher
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
6,769
Location
Las Vegas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
I wondered if they would find Hoffa's remains and Obamacare brought him back to life.

Obamacare = immortality. Who knew? Where can I sign up?

Obama 2016. Because it's better to live than to die.

On a more serious note, sure took them a long time to change their minds. Maybe someone finally actually read the whole 2 thousand pages and the other million pages with actual directions.

I'll take a guess and postulate that the "Cadillac Plans", which are now penalized, is what the big bosses don't want to lose.



Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider




Now even the Unions that once supported Obamacare are decrying how bad it is.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,761
Reaction score
37,906
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider




Now even the Unions that once supported Obamacare are decrying how bad it is.
That's OK. King Barrack will simply use his magical executive powers to alter the PPACA implementation such that the good parts stay and the bad parts are ignored, removed or replaced with even better parts. You see, now that we have the mighty King Barrack, instead of a mere president, the law as written, and passed by our congress critters, need no longer be the final word. We have been "fundamentally transformed" as was promised numerous times. ;)
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,664
Reaction score
33,249
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's true, Obamacare is forcing me to eat baconators at every meal!
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,664
Reaction score
33,249
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"The sky is falling...the SKY is falling!!!!"

How about telling us why?
Or how. Apparently the 40 hour work week is being destroyed. Because that didn't happen already.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
Union Bosses Say ObamaCare Will Destroy Health of Americans | Fox News Insider




Now even the Unions that once supported Obamacare are decrying how bad it is.
Given the finite amount of jobs and the reality that there are far more workers than things to do because of technology shifts that have made workers much more productive or unneeded as they were when the 40 hour workweek was established as the norm perhaps it is not a health care act that is making it problematic for society? That system was formed in a time when we needed many workers for manufacturing. Things are just getting worse for employee demand on that front now that we are making newer technology leaps into things like 3D printing. There are some problems with the ACA, but the 40 hour workweek is not one of them.
 

Cardinal

Respected on both sides
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
75,683
Reaction score
55,416
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,632
Reaction score
20,383
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Americans serving overseas, either in the military or the diplomatic corps, should be on alert because the next wag-the-dog moment is surely not too far away. The disaster that is the Obama Presidency is imploding even faster than I thought possible and there isn't a chance this gang will sit by idly.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,632
Reaction score
20,383
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Given the finite amount of jobs and the reality that there are far more workers than things to do because of technology shifts that have made workers much more productive or unneeded as they were when the 40 hour workweek was established as the norm perhaps it is not a health care act that is making it problematic for society? That system was formed in a time when we needed many workers for manufacturing. Things are just getting worse for employee demand on that front now that we are making newer technology leaps into things like 3D printing. There are some problems with the ACA, but the 40 hour workweek is not one of them.
If I'm not mistaken, the need for employer purchased/provided healthcare under the ACA depends on the number of full time employees a company has, full time being defined as those working a standard 40 hr work week. The unions may be coming to the realization that many companies may be looking to move their full time employees to 39 hrs, or 38, 37, etc. in order to reduce their number of "full time" employees, thus eliminating a significant cost to their bottom lines. If these unions lose their employer provided/supplemented health care, that would do significant harm to the level of health care insurance those employees have going forward.
 

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
430
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I was listening to some talk show on our local radio station and they were talking about this. One of the callers made a good point about the law and the implementation of this law.

With all the goings on and problems coming into focus (many of those issues were being screamed about but ignored by those wanting this bill to pass) HOW the administration is implementing this law, with waivers, exemptions and delays, why did Congress pass a law if it is not being followed by the Executive Branch. The law specifically gives dates that must be met...by law. This administration is handing out exemptions to those laws.

The Constitution says that the President shall enforce the laws it does not say that the President shall hand out exemptions to those laws.

Issue #1 for me is that the law is the law, like it or not. If they werent in such a damn hurry in pushing this bill through so fast and done it right the first time, they wouldnt be sitting there with their thumbs up their butts handing out exemptions to their law.

Issue #2 for me is the exemptions themselves. The President handing out exemptions to laws of our country is insane. If he does this, what is to stop this President or any future President from exempting certain provisions of other laws...even temporarily.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If I'm not mistaken, the need for employer purchased/provided healthcare under the ACA depends on the number of full time employees a company has, full time being defined as those working a standard 40 hr work week. The unions may be coming to the realization that many companies may be looking to move their full time employees to 39 hrs, or 38, 37, etc. in order to reduce their number of "full time" employees, thus eliminating a significant cost to their bottom lines. If these unions lose their employer provided/supplemented health care, that would do significant harm to the level of health care insurance those employees have going forward.
It applies to companies with 50 or more full-time employees -- defined as 30 hours per week.
 

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
430
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Given the finite amount of jobs and the reality that there are far more workers than things to do because of technology shifts that have made workers much more productive or unneeded as they were when the 40 hour workweek was established as the norm perhaps it is not a health care act that is making it problematic for society? That system was formed in a time when we needed many workers for manufacturing. Things are just getting worse for employee demand on that front now that we are making newer technology leaps into things like 3D printing. There are some problems with the ACA, but the 40 hour workweek is not one of them.
I understand where he is coming from.

Companies can not afford to meet the requirements for healthcare provision as mandated by the law for anyone working over 30 hrs a week. Companies are cutting hours from full timers and hiring PT people to fill the voids.
People are suffering because they have less bring home pay and are now required to purchase a healthcare plan with money they dont have because their hours have been cut.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
If I'm not mistaken, the need for employer purchased/provided healthcare under the ACA depends on the number of full time employees a company has, full time being defined as those working a standard 40 hr work week. The unions may be coming to the realization that many companies may be looking to move their full time employees to 39 hrs, or 38, 37, etc. in order to reduce their number of "full time" employees, thus eliminating a significant cost to their bottom lines. If these unions lose their employer provided/supplemented health care, that would do significant harm to the level of health care insurance those employees have going forward.
People familiar with low end employment understand that restricting hours to avoid benefits has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than the ACA or even obama's political history. The ACA did not make that happen. The overwhelming pool of workers in comparison to the amount of worker hours needed by a company did that. I remember having trouble with that sort of thing back int he early 90's and it was pretty much SOP back then. being from Canada you may not be aware of how employment works in america.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I understand where he is coming from.

Companies can not afford to meet the requirements for healthcare provision as mandated by the law for anyone working over 30 hrs a week. Companies are cutting hours from full timers and hiring PT people to fill the voids.
People are suffering because they have less bring home pay and are now required to purchase a healthcare plan with money they dont have because their hours have been cut.
this was happening long before the ACA. Companies often hire their low end workers PT or through contracts to avoid benefits they established for full time workers. There are some of those benefits required by law, and others that were self imposed by business to keep their higher end employees. plus it does give managers more flexibility to have a larger pool of part time employees to call upon for emergencies. The ACA may have slightly increased the problem, but it was very prevalent long before the ACA came into existence. That is a lie being told to you by corporate america and the insurance companies.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,761
Reaction score
37,906
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
this was happening long before the ACA. Companies often hire their low end workers PT or through contracts to avoid benefits they established for full time workers. There are some of those benefits required by law, and others that were self imposed by business to keep their higher end employees. plus it does give managers more flexibility to have a larger pool of part time employees to call upon for emergencies. The ACA may have slightly increased the problem, but it was very prevalent long before the ACA came into existence. That is a lie being told to you by corporate america and the insurance companies.
I believe that the definition of full time (max hours per week) changed under PPACA and PPACA rules also change based on the total number of employees. While I agree that PPACA did not start this trend it certainly made it no better. Mandating added employee benefit costs is certainly not going to help any business do better.
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I believe that the definition of full time (max hours per week) changed under PPACA and PPACA rules also change based on the total number of employees. While I agree that PPACA did not start this trend it certainly made it no better. Mandating added employee benefit costs is certainly not going to help any business do better.
They might have been able to actually promote full time employment through the employer mandate if they included all workers. Then you would actually save money on hiring full time employees over a lot more part time employees. But the system would still suck ass considering you are filtering socialism through a capitalist enterprise.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,761
Reaction score
37,906
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
They might have been able to actually promote full time employment through the employer mandate if they included all workers. Then you would actually save money on hiring full time employees over a lot more part time employees. But the system would still suck ass considering you are filtering socialism through a capitalist enterprise.
That is exactly why Obama has "postponed" that stupid job killing employer mandate part until after the 2014 elections. Making any changes to PPACA, via normal congressional channels, is not likely since the House will demand blood to do so. King Barrack will simply do what he can to minimize the damage of the "bad parts" administratively (the labor unions will force him to). With the massive complexity of the PPACA law he can probably do a lot of alteraton without anyone actually noticing, especially since the press will not look into it - look how much he has changed current immigration law simply by making its enforcement "dreamy".
 

99percenter

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2011
Messages
7,634
Reaction score
2,085
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
If I'm not mistaken, the need for employer purchased/provided healthcare under the ACA depends on the number of full time employees a company has, full time being defined as those working a standard 40 hr work week. The unions may be coming to the realization that many companies may be looking to move their full time employees to 39 hrs, or 38, 37, etc. in order to reduce their number of "full time" employees, thus eliminating a significant cost to their bottom lines. If these unions lose their employer provided/supplemented health care, that would do significant harm to the level of health care insurance those employees have going forward.
Enjoying socialist healthcare john? Maybe you should try our republaromney care?
 

tererun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
4,905
Reaction score
1,577
Location
The darkside of the moon
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I was listening to some talk show on our local radio station and they were talking about this. One of the callers made a good point about the law and the implementation of this law.

With all the goings on and problems coming into focus (many of those issues were being screamed about but ignored by those wanting this bill to pass) HOW the administration is implementing this law, with waivers, exemptions and delays, why did Congress pass a law if it is not being followed by the Executive Branch. The law specifically gives dates that must be met...by law. This administration is handing out exemptions to those laws.

The Constitution says that the President shall enforce the laws it does not say that the President shall hand out exemptions to those laws.

Issue #1 for me is that the law is the law, like it or not. If they werent in such a damn hurry in pushing this bill through so fast and done it right the first time, they wouldnt be sitting there with their thumbs up their butts handing out exemptions to their law.
Something needs to be done about insurance companies, or to get them completely out of the mix. That was a huge thing at the beginning of Obama's first term. unfortunately he has no spine, and he had to pass something no matter how much it did not work to prove he had a legacy. He was not willing to go to bat for his own ideas of government health care, so he let the republicans do with the idea what they wanted to which was this crazy stuff that doesn't work. given obama is pretty much a republican stooge it is not surprising to find the bait and switch is a huge part of his administration. He got it passed and he could say he got something passed. he also guaranteed his insurance company masters that they would stay in business and get a lot of new customers.

Issue #2 for me is the exemptions themselves. The President handing out exemptions to laws of our country is insane. If he does this, what is to stop this President or any future President from exempting certain provisions of other laws...even temporarily.
Nothing considering it is actually within the executive's power to decide how to implement the law. he is not the first or the last one that will do these things. Again, bitching about obama is avoiding the problem which would be in this case that the executive has this power. of course, i am not really sure what you want done because giving congress the power to administer the executive branch would screw things up much worse. Congress makes the laws, the president enforces, and the judicial interprets. This is US government 101. Since the executive gets to enforce the laws they also get to decide how they are enforced. If this bothers you then you need to work on changing the fundamentals of the constitution, and probably physics as there are finite resources you can apply to enforcement.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,632
Reaction score
20,383
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It applies to companies with 50 or more full-time employees -- defined as 30 hours per week.
Thanks for the clarification Maggie - perhaps then they are concerned that their work week will be redefined below 30 hours. Certainly, for those businesses that currently have less than 50 full-time employees, they will not be hiring more full-time employees to push above the 50 number - it's why the past few jobs reports have shown a drastic increase in part-time hires.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,632
Reaction score
20,383
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
People familiar with low end employment understand that restricting hours to avoid benefits has been going on for a hell of a lot longer than the ACA or even obama's political history. The ACA did not make that happen. The overwhelming pool of workers in comparison to the amount of worker hours needed by a company did that. I remember having trouble with that sort of thing back int he early 90's and it was pretty much SOP back then. being from Canada you may not be aware of how employment works in america.
I can appreciate that - it's only natural that businesses will do anything they can to reduce costs while still attracting both customers and employees. In a time when the US and the world is recovering from a severe financial hit and economies are struggling, usually governments don't do things to even further exacerbate those problems. Regardless of what you think of Obamacare, passing it in the midst of a lingering recession was foolish, but then there's no great time to radically impact an economy.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,632
Reaction score
20,383
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Enjoying socialist healthcare john? Maybe you should try our republaromney care?
:yawn: - you're a one-trick pony just like your hero.

Keep misrepresenting our healthcare by referring to it as socialist, not understanding anything about it or all its aspects, and you'll never have anything close to it and you'll continue to be stuck with the horse's ass you've got.

You must be proud - as a liberal in Chicago, you're particularly responsible for the Obamacare monstrosity - congrats!!
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
15,465
Reaction score
20,323
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
:yawn: - you're a one-trick pony just like your hero.

Keep misrepresenting our healthcare by referring to it as socialist, not understanding anything about it or all its aspects, and you'll never have anything close to it and you'll continue to be stuck with the horse's ass you've got.

You must be proud - as a liberal in Chicago, you're particularly responsible for the Obamacare monstrosity - congrats!!
I LIKE the Canadian healthcare system. I think Obama wanted something like that when he first proposed it. He got backstabbed by his own party when key Congressmen refused to support it and demanded Big Pharma, Insurance, and the AMA develop the plan. Obama should never have accepted this, and let the idea die rather than push a boondoggle he never wanted simply to save face on his promise.
 

Imnukingfutz

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
1,152
Reaction score
430
Location
Kingdom of Nigh
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
this was happening long before the ACA. Companies often hire their low end workers PT or through contracts to avoid benefits they established for full time workers. There are some of those benefits required by law, and others that were self imposed by business to keep their higher end employees. plus it does give managers more flexibility to have a larger pool of part time employees to call upon for emergencies. The ACA may have slightly increased the problem, but it was very prevalent long before the ACA came into existence. That is a lie being told to you by corporate america and the insurance companies.
It isnt a lie they are telling us, we are seeing it happen. Granted it has always been an issue, I am not going to even try and say that it wasnt, but the ACA is putting the problem into over drive and speeding it along at a much faster pace.
 
Top Bottom