The Affordable Care Act

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Sorry, that Isn't the reason. Most union exemptions expire in 2017, and won't be extended. So, if the "inducement / perk" of health insurance isn't magically going away in 2017, ask yourself what is set to expire in 2017. I'll give you a hint: the unions that obtained waivers are avoiding paying a huge amount in taxes that Obamacare imposes on health insurance plans from 2014 through 2016.

Healthcare coverage should have never been seen as a "perk" of employment in the first place. That notion in and of itself, makes me crazy. A "perk" is something that's nice to have, but you don't necessarily need. Paid time off, shift preferences, more vacation time and the like.

I'm beginning to believe that this uniquely American attitude that healthcare coverage is something only those who feel privileged by virtue of employment status and the type of job they have is at the root of our healthcare reform problems. What makes a union member, or anyone else for that matter, think they are more deserving of decent quality medical attention than anyone else? If people want to be rewarded for working and/or rewarded more for working harder, as the case may be, then they can seek greater monetary compensation for their services.

The attitude we have towards any attempt at healthcare reform makes me want to puke. We should be treating it as a "need", not as a "perk". Because a "need" is exactly what it is.

Dave

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by Oerets

I figure that is what the GOP's plan will be to get in the oval office again.



Barney

I will vote for any Republican that will support real Universal Single Payer Health Care legislation such as HR 676 or it's equivalent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ealth_Care_Act

In other words, I won't be voting Republican.

[MrPots]

I'm still searching the world for an honest man.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by MrPots

I'm still searching the world for an honest man.

Poor Diogenes, he is searching for his lamp.

[whell]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Healthcare coverage should have never been seen as a "perk" of employment in the first place. That notion in and of itself, makes me crazy. A "perk" is something that's nice to have, but you don't necessarily need. Paid time off, shift preferences, more vacation time and the like.

I'm beginning to believe that this uniquely American attitude that healthcare coverage is something only those who feel privileged by virtue of employment status and the type of job they have is at the root of our healthcare reform problems. What makes a union member, or anyone else for that matter, think they are more deserving of decent quality medical attention than anyone else? If people want to be rewarded for working and/or rewarded more for working harder, as the case may be, then they can seek greater monetary compensation for their services.

The attitude we have towards any attempt at healthcare reform makes me want to puke. We should be treating it as a "need", not as a "perk". Because a "need" is exactly what it is.

Dave

It became a "perk" because of the confluence of government - mandated wage controls that were rolled out during WWII, and heated competition for labor during that time. Because employers couldn't compete for labor with wages, they resorted to competing with "perks", such as company paid health insurance. Following the war, unions included health benefits in collective bargaining.

If you don't like the "attitude" about treating benefits as employer - funded health care, you should dislike Obamacare as well. Obamacare cements the requirement of employer - funded healthcare into federal law.

[Oerets]

Every argument against the ACA or reforming the HC is always from someone who can't wait until the day are able to sign up for SS and Medicare. Both Government run programs BTW!



Barney

[whell]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Every argument against the ACA or reforming the HC is always from someone who can't wait until the day are able to sign up for SS and Medicare. Both Government run programs BTW!



Barney

Really Barney? Every argument, huh?

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by whell

Really Barney? Every argument, huh?

Your secretly not?

Gonna cut cut your nose to spite your face?

Why would not want want Medicare. Everyone I know likes it.


Barney

[whell]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Your secretly not?

Gonna cut cut your nose to spite your face?

Why would not want want Medicare. Everyone I know likes it.


Barney

OK, I guess that makes you a genius. You said: "Every argument against the ACA or reforming the HC is always from someone who can't wait until the day are able to sign up for SS and Medicare." Thing is, Barney, that the ACA actually REDUCES funding for Medicare.

So, if I'm arguing against the ACA, I guess that means that I'm arguing against the defending of Medicare. So, everyone you know who likes Medicare had better join me in arguing against the ACA.

[finnbow]

It seems that the CBO has weighed in on Obamacare's influence upon employment numbers and it ain't good. They estimate that it will ultimately result in 2 million less employed people from a combination of factors, some of which could be construed as good (people not tethered to jobs they don't like/want due to health benefits) and bad (employers hiring fewer due to the mandate of providing health care).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...bd1_story.html

While this seems to be bad news for Obamacare and Democrats, it was also quite predictable, IMHO. All the more reason for a single-payer system that is not employer funded.

EDIT: I may have posted too quickly. It seems the reason has almost all to do with people not being tethered to an employer for healthcare and virtually nothing to do with employers cutting the number of employees. Of course, this hasn't stopped the GOP from claiming otherwise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-really-found/