The latest buyoff in the health care deal

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Yay! Now joining a union is a tax dodge. As the article said, a significant victory for the unions.

So, we've got what, now? The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the Labor Union Loophole?

Don't forget the Connecticut Hospital, the Vermont-something-or-other, the Florida Medicare Manipulation....even the Governator of California is trying to get his grubby paws on some of the action....too little too late....




Oh, and if you're Amish, you're exempted as well...guess I can grow a beard...or maybe convert to Christian Science.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[lawrocket 3]

No, not really. I made it all up.

It's amazing, however, that what I made up is entirely believable.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

No, not really. I made it all up.

It's amazing, however, that what I made up is entirely believable.

Only by those predisposed to believe it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If this healthcare reform is so good for America, then why do all these entities need exemptions or political bribes, etc.

It's so hard to defend that none of the big fans of HC reform here have even tried.

From the party of:

- Let's hang Clinton for getting a BJ and lying to congress

TO

- Let's commute/pardon Libby for lying about revealing a federal agent's identy to congress

Dude, your BS carries no weight here, when ya excuse your own and want to hang others, it just falls to teh BS that it is.

You made 7 consecutive postings (another sign of your quality of life) and yet I still didn't see a defense here for exempting unions (and gov employees and self insured trade union members) from the tax changes. Do you support this move or not? Can you rationalize a defense for it?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Can you rationalize a defense for it?

Some union employees receive their health insurance through their union, rather than through their employer. My dad is on such (retired) employee.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Can you rationalize a defense for it?

Some union employees receive their health insurance through their union, rather than through their employer. My dad is on such (retired) employee.

So tax the union as you would an employer! Or is taxing a bad thing? If taxes are good, then tax everybody. If antitrust laws are good, then apply them to everybody.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Can you rationalize a defense for it?

Some union employees receive their health insurance through their union, rather than through their employer. My dad is on such (retired) employee.

So tax the union as you would an employer!

I don't think it is that easy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Why not?

Is it because it is easier to punish those you don't like than it is to punish those you do like? Isn't it the best thing "for all Americans" as we have been told over and over again?

If the purpose is to have "cadillac" health care recipients pay for it, then have them do it.

Of course, if the purpose is something entirely different than is stated, then your argument has much more merit. They cannot simply say, "We are going to punish our enemies." They've got to say, "we are going to tax all cadillac health care plans, except those that our friends are involved in."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Why not?

Because it would necessitate a lot of contract negotiations. Further, some companies might be able to legally postpone such negotiations until contracts are up, leaving union employees to fully bear the costs that are shared by the employers of non-union workers.

A temporary exemption may well be the most reasonable option.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Why not?

Because it would necessitate a lot of contract negotiations. Further, some companies might be able to legally postpone such negotiations until contracts are up, leaving union employees to fully bear the costs that are shared by the employers of non-union workers.

A temporary exemption may well be the most reasonable option.

While the rest don't get such consideration. So, now that they've fully burned the Constitution to ashes, and now we're lighting a match under the Declaration of Independence for good measure?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So, now that they've fully burned the Constitution to ashes, and now we're lighting a match under the Declaration of Independence for good measure?

Care to explain how they're doing that?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Why not?

Because it would necessitate a lot of contract negotiations. Further, some companies might be able to legally postpone such negotiations until contracts are up, leaving union employees to fully bear the costs that are shared by the employers of non-union workers.

A temporary exemption may well be the most reasonable option.

Hmmm. So, any other regular or irregular joe working pursuant to a contract does not have a contract worthy of consideration. I see.

Just unions. They are important. Everyone else can go fuck themselves. And their employers, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

So, any other regular or irregular joe working pursuant to a contract does not have a contract worthy of consideration.

That isn't what I said or implied, and I'm fairly certain you realize that.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

So, now that they've fully burned the Constitution to ashes, and now we're lighting a match under the Declaration of Independence for good measure?

Care to explain how they're doing that?

Happily by asking the following:

Where in the Constitution does it say, that as a circumstance of being a citizen, or legal resident, you must buy specific service, or be treated differently for taxation (and presumably representation), unless you're a part of a collective bargaining agreement, which exempts such circumstance?

Then, take the beginning of the second paragraph of the Declaration...that little part about all men being equal.

Then, take a look at what Rep. Weiner (D-NY) has to provide:
http://dctrawler.dailycaller.com/2010/01/15/there-is-no-disaster-so-horrific-that-it-cannot-be-used-to-justify-ones-pet-project/

If that doesn't work try this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677//vp/34851473#34851473

Olbermann:

Quote

I don’t want to turn this into something about domestic politics, but I think it’s a good frame of reference in terms of the health care issue that we always talk about. We could easily have a natural disaster, if not quite on this scale, at least in the same broad ballpark. A slightly heavier earthquake in California could do extraordinary devastation to San Francisco or Los Angeles. I was thinking about this, and maybe it’s inappropriate — and tell me if I’m inappropriate in asking — but how would survivors of something like this here fare, in terms of getting on their own feet economically afterwards, with the health care system we have in place right now?

Rep. Weiner...."...how we're going to distribute that healthcare..."

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

So, any other regular or irregular joe working pursuant to a contract does not have a contract worthy of consideration.

That isn't what I said or implied, and I'm fairly certain you realize that.

It's at least an attempt at a justification, but ultimately it's still a new form of "separate but equal."

As I said in the original post - this transition, needed or not, will be painful. If we're going to make the investment, all should be participating. Unions, Nebraska, and Louisiana shouldn't be getting extras in exchange for their support.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

So, any other regular or irregular joe working pursuant to a contract does not have a contract worthy of consideration.

That isn't what I said or implied, and I'm fairly certain you realize that.

Actually, I am fairly certain that it was exactly your implication. You wrote, "it would necessitate a lot of contract negotiations. Further, some companies might be able to legally postpone such negotiations until contracts are up, leaving union employees to fully bear the costs that are shared by the employers of non-union workers.

A temporary exemption may well be the most reasonable option. "

So the employers who share the costs - unimportant.
employees who share the costs - unimportant.
People who have bought their own - doesn't matter.
Unions - there is simply no way in hell that they are going to live by the same rules as anyone else.

It's exactly what you mean. Nobody else gets this leverage but unions.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Why not?

Because it would necessitate a lot of contract negotiations. Further, some companies might be able to legally postpone such negotiations until contracts are up, leaving union employees to fully bear the costs that are shared by the employers of non-union workers.

A temporary exemption may well be the most reasonable option.

Ah, federal taxes are not a negoiated benefit.

So your line of thinking is wrong

Well, it was until Obama and the Dems got into power

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why not?

Because it would necessitate a lot of contract negotiations. Further, some companies might be able to legally postpone such negotiations until contracts are up, leaving union employees to fully bear the costs that are shared by the employers of non-union workers.

A temporary exemption may well be the most reasonable option.

Ah, federal taxes are not a negoiated benefit.

So your line of thinking is wrong

Well, it was until Obama and the Dems got into power

Silly man, you're not in a union...you're a second class citizen and shouldn't even have a say in the matter...or wait...you don't already...please pass this message on to another lesser-class individual or family.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why not?

Because it would necessitate a lot of contract negotiations. Further, some companies might be able to legally postpone such negotiations until contracts are up, leaving union employees to fully bear the costs that are shared by the employers of non-union workers.

A temporary exemption may well be the most reasonable option.

Ah, federal taxes are not a negoiated benefit.

So your line of thinking is wrong

Well, it was until Obama and the Dems got into power

Silly man, you're not in a union...you're a second class citizen and shouldn't even have a say in the matter...or wait...you don't already...please pass this message on to another lesser-class individual or family.

Sorry

I got carried away

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

The president has told lawmakers he wants the tax on high-cost plans included in the legislation to help rein in costs. But that position courted conflict with labor leaders who feared exposing their membership to higher taxes. In a significant victory for unions, the 40 percent excise tax would not apply to policies covering workers in collective bargaining agreements, state and local workers, and members of voluntary employee benefit associations through Dec. 31, 2017.

The buy offs continue. This was a hard task to begin with, but but sacrificing any sort of integrity, he's turning into a complete disaster. The pain of this transition should be shared by all.

Yep, they are just rewriting the same old bullshit mess. Special provisions for politicl subdivisions, special provisions for unions, special provisions for employers of certain size, and on and on.

What a fucking joke!

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

If this healthcare reform is so good for America, then why do all these entities need exemptions or political bribes, etc.

It's so hard to defend that none of the big fans of HC reform here have even tried.

I'm an advocate for reform. The entire system from care delivery to financing care needs overhaul; and is much reliant on reform of tangent activities (cost of schooling, tort reform, etc).

What we are seeing isn't meaningful reform.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If this healthcare reform is so good for America, then why do all these entities need exemptions or political bribes, etc.

It's so hard to defend that none of the big fans of HC reform here have even tried.

I'm an advocate for reform. The entire system from care delivery to financing care needs overhaul; and is much reliant on reform of tangent activities (cost of schooling, tort reform, etc).

What we are seeing isn't meaningful reform.

"Change we can believe in." *

*If you're a politician in the democratic party, union official, hospital developer in Connecticut, on medicare in Louisiana, using medicare advantage in Florida, an insurance company in Michigan, a worker at Serious Materials, AIG, GM, or Chrysler.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Where in the Constitution does it say, that as a circumstance of being a citizen, or legal resident, you must buy specific service, or be treated differently for taxation (and presumably representation), unless you're a part of a collective bargaining agreement, which exempts such circumstance?

Perhaps you should read up on the powers of Congress under the Constitution, particularly the general welfare clause of Article 1, §8 and Amendment 16.

Quote

Then, take the beginning of the second paragraph of the Declaration...that little part about all men being equal.

As I hope you are aware, the Declaration of Independence is not a document of law under our present government.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It's at least an attempt at a justification, but ultimately it's still a new form of "separate but equal."

I'm not claiming that I agree (or disagree) with the exemption. I was just offering one possible explanation for its existence. Heck, I'm not even claiming that my explanation correctly identifies legislators' reasoning.

Quote

As I said in the original post - this transition, needed or not, will be painful. If we're going to make the investment, all should be participating. Unions, Nebraska, and Louisiana shouldn't be getting extras in exchange for their support.

In general, I agree. However, I also recognize that equal is not always fair, and fair is not always equal. It could well be possible that the least painful transition for everybody (considered collectively) is to exempt some groups, at least temporarily, from some aspects of the legislation.

For the record, I still favor a single payer system for at least emergency and basic healthcare. Anything less will be a big f'n compromise (and not in the good sense of the word).

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Actually, I am fairly certain that it was exactly your implication.

As the author of the comment, I'm absolutely certain that I have better insight than you do regarding what was or wasn't implied by the comment, sir. You erroneously inferred something not stated or implied.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!