Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film
View Poll Results: What % of self-identified Republicans are aware of Obamacare's conservative roots?
0 to 25%
53
77.94%
26 to 50%
5
7.35%
51 to 75%
0
0%
76 to 100%
10
14.71%
Voters: 68. You may not vote on this poll

Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Old 01-15-19, 11:42 AM
  #7226  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,302
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
Below is an article about a recent mass overdose of illegal drugs in California.

But I think these two reader comments are more interesting than the actual article:
So what's your solution? Let people die? Quiz them on their worth as a human being before sending an ambulance? Who gets to decide that worth?
Draven is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 01:02 PM
  #7227  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,911
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
In every country in the world, rich people can get better health care, better food, better clothing, better housing, etc. The U.S. is by no means unique on this.
Thats the point. If you believe healthcare is nothing more than a widget, then really nothing else to discuss.

I would never be making the same arguement for most “products”. But this is people’s health. Their well being. Their just being alive. It’s not the same as a car, clothing or housing or food.

Last edited by Sdallnct; 01-15-19 at 01:27 PM.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 01:04 PM
  #7228  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,911
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
So what's your solution? Let people die? Quiz them on their worth as a human being before sending an ambulance? Who gets to decide that worth?
Transplant lists are based on immediate need and likely survival. Not on how rich or even how “moral” you are.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 01:06 PM
  #7229  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,911
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
Below is an article about a recent mass overdose of illegal drugs in California.

But I think these two reader comments are more interesting than the actual article:







Here's the article:
Again, your making an argument for single payer. In a single payer “all” pay for healthcare. I’m surprised some people support people NOT paying for care but able to get care. That makes no sense.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 04:23 PM
  #7230  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 39,122
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by ultimaton View Post
Shouldice is a private hospital and *the* world leader in non-mesh hernia repair -- in a way they're the MD Anderson or Mayo Clinic of their field -- and Paul will be paying out of pocket for his treatment. So as much as I think Rand Paul is a shithead and a fraud, this is a complete non-story.
A common argument by people on the right is that socialized medicine will force doctors to quit, or force talent to emigrate. The fact that the foremost facility for non-mesh hernia repair is thriving in a socialized medicine environment -- that the doctors and experts on its staff didn't long ago leave Ontario for someplace like Kentucky -- is evidence that the argument is wrongheaded.
JasonF is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 04:35 PM
  #7231  
DVD Talk Legend
 
cultshock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: True North Strong & Free
Posts: 11,506
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by ultimaton View Post
Shouldice is a private hospital and *the* world leader in non-mesh hernia repair -- in a way they're the MD Anderson or Mayo Clinic of their field -- and Paul will be paying out of pocket for his treatment. So as much as I think Rand Paul is a shithead and a fraud, this is a complete non-story.
Thanks for the info, I had no idea about Shouldice and I live in Ontario. Hope I never get a hernia, but if I did, this place is only 90 minutes away from me and they even have a walk-in clinic.

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
So what's your solution? Let people die? Quiz them on their worth as a human being before sending an ambulance? Who gets to decide that worth?
My solution would be to legalize it so that people can at least get safe, unadulterated product that hasn't been cut with fentanyl or worse. Because the current system sure as fuck isn't working.
cultshock is online now  
Old 01-15-19, 04:46 PM
  #7232  
Psi
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Psi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,941
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
A common argument by people on the right is that socialized medicine will force doctors to quit, or force talent to emigrate. The fact that the foremost facility for non-mesh hernia repair is thriving in a socialized medicine environment -- that the doctors and experts on its staff didn't long ago leave Ontario for someplace like Kentucky -- is evidence that the argument is wrongheaded.
JasonF! Glad to have you back. The forum average IQ just went up 2 points.
Psi is offline  
Old 01-15-19, 06:43 PM
  #7233  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
ultimaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,649
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
A common argument by people on the right is that socialized medicine will force doctors to quit, or force talent to emigrate. The fact that the foremost facility for non-mesh hernia repair is thriving in a socialized medicine environment -- that the doctors and experts on its staff didn't long ago leave Ontario for someplace like Kentucky -- is evidence that the argument is wrongheaded.
You're right. I was running on empty sleep-wise and turned my brain off (not that anyone can tell the difference) half way through that one.
ultimaton is offline  
Old 01-20-19, 04:21 PM
  #7234  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,911
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Trump could not “repeal and replace” with something better, so he is just dismantling. Never mind the ACA was working and a success. Since it was done under Obama, it must go.

But interestingly, he is taking a page out of single payer. He is trying to conteol drug prices. Now...you can’t have it both ways. Remove regulations and allow the free market to take care of AND fix prices at the government level.

This is just another case of the GOP getting caught with their pants down. The ACA is loosely based on a republican idea. And they can’t stand it.


“One of the boldest and most controversial efforts involves setting Medicare's reimbursement level for certain pricey drugs administered in doctors' offices and hospital outpatient centers based on their cost in other countries, which is typically far lower. This idea prompted howls of "price fixing" from the industry and conservative lawmakers.”

Story
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 01-30-19, 02:18 AM
  #7235  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,021
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
So what's your solution? Let people die? Quiz them on their worth as a human being before sending an ambulance? Who gets to decide that worth?

Each individual person gets to decide whether or not they put these poisonous drugs into their body.
grundle is online now  
Old 01-30-19, 02:37 AM
  #7236  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,021
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post


Thats the point. If you believe healthcare is nothing more than a widget, then really nothing else to discuss.

I would never be making the same arguement for most “products”. But this is people’s health. Their well being. Their just being alive. It’s not the same as a car, clothing or housing or food.

Even if the U.S. does adopt single payer health care, I think it's highly likely that politicians, celebrities, and rich people will continue to get better health care than everyone else.

Somehow, they will find loopholes.

I say this, because the hypocrite Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare have already given loopholes to many of their friends and supporters.

Here are some Democrats' criticisms of Obamacare. Many of these Democrats ended up giving out and/or getting exemptions from the Obamacare plan that they supported for everyone else. This is my own writing, with links to sources. Spoilerized for size:

Spoiler:
Democrats who voted for Obamacare later complained that its medical device tax would hurt job creation in their own districts




In response to the medical device tax that is part of Obamacare, some medical device manufacturers have announced plans to layoff employees, including Welch Allyn (275 planned layoffs), Stryker (1,170 planned layoffs), and Medtronic (1,000 planned layoffs).In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their own districts.






Democratswho voted for Obamacare wanted an exemption for themselves and their staff after it was passed





In 2010, Obamacare was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Obama.Three years later, members of Congress and their staff complained that Obamacare was going to cost them a lot of money, and said that this would likely cause a brain drain among their staff. In response to this, Obama made changes to Obamacare so that these things would not happen. However, Obama’s actions were illegal, because he made these changes without Congress voting on them first.The New York Times wrote of this:the language of the health care law requires Congressional employees to obtain health insurance through an exchange created by the law, but other parts of the federal legal code restrict the ability of the federal government to pay the usual employer share for group insurance programs approved by the Office of Personnel Management.A straightforward reading of the law thus means that Congressional staff members, starting in January 2014, will have to obtain insurance through the Affordable Care Act but pay for it on their own without the normal contribution from their employer — Congress. This would be a multi-thousand-dollar income hit for those affected… many… would potentially feel the pain, giving rise to concerns over a potential brain drain of Congressional staff members finding other employment.the federal personnel office initially ruled that Congressional staff members would not be eligible for the subsidies, and then changed this decision under pressure from the White House…






An entire state that supported Obamacare asked for an exemption





The people of Massachusetts were huge supporters of Obamacare when it was passed, and they voted for Obama in both elections. But after Obamacare was passed, they asked for an exemption from it.In August 2013, Obama gave an Obamacare waiver to Massachusetts.This waiver was illegal for two reasons. First, the waiver was not approved by the U.S. Congress. Second, the U.S. Constitution requires that the federal government treat all states the same





.
Obama waited until after the 2012 election to release unpopular Obamacare rules





Obama himself is so much against Obamacare that he waited until after the 2012 election to release some of its rules.In April 2013, the New York Times reported:even fervent supporters of the law admit that things are going worse than expected.the Obama administration didn’t want to release unpopular rules before the election.Everything is turning out to be more complicated than originally envisioned.A law that was very confusing has become mind-boggling… Americans are just going to be overwhelmed and befuddled. Many are just going to stay away, even if they are eligible for benefits.





Obamacare pushed millions of working people “into a regulatory health coverage no man’s land”





In February 2013, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (Democrat-Oregon) said:We’ve got millions of people — working-class, middle-class people — who are going to be pushed into a regulatory health coverage no man’s land. They are unable to afford the family coverage through their employer and ineligible for the subsidy that could be used by dependents on the exchange.




It’s “not fair” to force federal lawmakers and their aides to participate in the same health care reform as everyone else






In June 2013, U.S. Congressman John Larson (Democrat-Connecticut) said that it is “not fair” to force federal lawmakers and their aides to participate in the same health care reform as everyone else.




100% of Senate Democrats up for reelection planned to support a delay in Obamacare’s individual mandate




On October 23, 2013, CNN’s Dana Bash
:new: senior dem source tells me to expect every sen dem running in 2014 to back @JeanneShaheen proposal to delay #ACA enrollment deadline”





Jared Polis opposed delaying Obamacare’s individual mandate for the entire country, but favorsed such a delay for his own district





U.S. Congressional representative Jared Polis (Democrat-Colorado) voted against delaying Obamacare’s individual mandate for the entire country, but later requested such a delay for his own district.When Polis requested a special delay for his own district, he said:We will be encouraging a waiver. It will be difficult for Summit County residents to become insured. For the vast majority, it’s too high a price to pay.”




Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and several other Democratic Senators who voted for Obamacare, have exempted their own staff from Obamacare





In December 2013, Yahoo News reported:Harry Reid exempts some of his Senate staff from Obamacare exchangesOne of the biggest public supporters of the Affordable Care Act has reportedly decided that some of his staff should be exempted from the new law.CNN reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges.Yahoo News has reached out to the offices of all 100 U.S. senators to see if any other members have exempted committee staff from the federal exchange. So far, the offices of 42 senators have responded to our inquiry, with 37 saying that the senator and their entire staff will switch over to the exchanges in January.The offices of Ron Wyden, Tim Johnson, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Thomas Carper, all Democrats, said they were exempting some of their staff. Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, has not responded.




Democratic aides who supported the passage of Obamacare said their new Obamacare premiums were “simply unacceptable”





In December 2013, Politico reported:Older Hill aides shocked by Obamacare pricesVeteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”In the email, Ta noted that older congressional staffs may leave their jobs because of the change to their health insurance.




In New York City, thousands of Obama voting, well educated, upper class professionals complained about losing their insurance because of Obamacare




In December 2013, the New York Times reported:With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies for New York ProfessionalsMany in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it.I couldn’t sleep because of it,” said Barbara Meinwald, a solo practitioner lawyer in Manhattan.Ms. Meinwald, 61, has been paying $10,000 a year for her insurance through the New York City Bar. A broker told her that a new temporary plan with fewer doctors would cost $5,000 more, after factoring in the cost of her medications.Roy Lyons, managing director of Marsh U.S. Consumer, an insurance brokerage, said he had heard complaints from physicians, lawyers, pharmacists and optometrists.Among those affected are members of the Authors Guild; the Advertising Photographers of America; the Suzuki Association of the Americas, a music teachers organization; the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators; the New York City Bar Association; and the New York County Medical Society.It is not lost on many of the professionals that they are exactly the sort of people — liberal, concerned with social justice — who supported the Obama health plan in the first place. Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney.It is an uncomfortable position for many members of the creative classes to be in.We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild. Her insurance is being canceled, and she is dismayed that neither her pediatrician nor her general practitioner appears to be on the exchange plans. What to do has become a hot topic on Facebook and at dinner parties frequented by her fellow writers and artists.I’m for it,” she said. “But what is the reality of it?”





Six Democratic Senators who voted for Obamacare complained that it was causing voters in their districts to lose insurance






In December 2013, six Democratic Senators who had voted for Obamacare wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, complaining that Obamacare was causing voters in their districts to lose insurance.




AmeriCorps “volunteers” supported Obamacare but wanted an exemption for themselves




AmeriCorps is a federal agency that pays so-called “volunteers” to do “charity” work.In December 2013, it was reported that the insurance that AmeriCorps provided to its “volunteers” did not meet Obamacare’s minimum standards, and that, as a result, these “volunteers” may have to pay the Obamacare tax penalty for not having insurance.Abby Grosslein, an AmeriCorps “volunteer” who lives in New Orleans, said:It would be nice if the government waived the penalty.”




Nancy Pelosi gave Obamacare waivers to 38 restaurants, nightclubs, and hotels in her own Congressional district



Although Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-California) voted for Obamacare, in April 2011, she gave Obamacare waivers to 38 restaurants, nightclubs, and hotels in her own Congressional district.





In February 2015, Democrats who voted for Obamacare complained that people actually had to pay for it





In February 2015, Associated Press reported:Democrats seek relief from health law penaltiesSenior Democrats seek sign-up extension for people facing health law penaltiesThree senior House members told The Associated Press that they plan to strongly urge the administration to grant a special sign-up opportunity for uninsured taxpayers who will be facing fines under the law for the first time this year.The three are Michigan’s Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, and Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, and Lloyd Doggett of Texas. All worked to help steer Obama’s law through rancorous congressional debates from 2009-2010.Open enrollment period ended before many Americans filed their taxes,” the three lawmakers said in a statement. “Without a special enrollment period, many people (who will be paying fines) will not have another opportunity to get health coverage this year.A special enrollment period will not only help many Americans avoid making an even larger payment next year, but, more importantly, it will help them gain quality health insurance for 2015,” the lawmakers added.





In March 2015, Democratic U.S. Senators who voted for Obamacare made yet another complaint about Obamacare, and asked for yet another delay to it




A provision of Obamacare says that in 2016, employers with between 51 and 100 employees will be moved from the “large group” market to the “small group” market. In March 2015, Democratic U.S. Senators who voted for Obamacare complained that this move would make insurance more expensive, and asked for it to be delayed.




Millennials who voted for Obama and supported the passage of Obamacare did not want to purchase Obamacare insurance for themselves



In December 2013, it was reported that most of the Millennials who had voted for Obama and had supported the passage of Obamacare did not want to purchase Obamacare insurance for themselves.



Obama voters in San Francsico area complained that Obamacare did not actually give them access to a doctor



Mountain View, California, is part of the San Francisco area, where Obama won both elections by a huge percentage. In April 2014, Obama voters in this area complained that Obamacare did not actually give them access to a doctor.

And here is criticism of Obamacare from labor unions who helped to get Obama elected. Many of these unions ended up getting exemptions from the Obamacare law that they supported for everyone else. This is also my own writing, with links to sources. Spoilerized for size:

Spoiler:

After Obamcare was passed, unions that supported its passage requested and received special exemptions




Within months
after Obamacare was passed, Obama gave some organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of Obamacare. As time went on, more than 1,300 organizations received these exemptions.More than half of the people who are covered by insurance plans that received these exemptions are in union insurance plans. These unions supported the passage of Obamacare. But immediately after Obamacare was passed, these unions wanted exemptions from the very same law that they wanted to force everyone else to obey. This reveals an extreme level of hypocrisy among many of the supporters of Obamacare.In addition, these exemptions are illegal for two reasons – because Obama granted the exemptions without approval from Congress, and because the Constitution requires the law to treat everyone the same.The Washington Times wrote of this:Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny. A government empowered to determine arbitrarily who may operate outside the rule of law invariably embraces favoritism as friends, allies and those with the best-funded lobbyists are rewarded. Favoritism inevitably leads to corruption, and corruption invites extortion. Ultimately, the rule of law ceases to exist in any recognizable form, and what is left is tyranny.The now-familiar monthly trickling down of new waivers is, at best, a tacit admission that Obamacare is a failure. So far, seven entire states and 1,372 businesses, unions and other institutions have received waivers from the law. The list includes the administration’s friends and allies and, of course, those who have the best lobbyists.More than 50 percent of the Obamacare waiver beneficiaries are union members, which is striking because union members account for less than 12 percent of the American work force. The same unions that provided more than $120 million to Democrats in the last two elections and, in many cases, openly campaigned in favor of the government takeover of your health care, now celebrate that Obamacare is not their problem.




Union members quit their union because of Obamacare





The AFL-CIO was a big supporter of the passaage of Obamacare in 2010, and supported Obama in both elections.In September 2013, it was reported that 40,000 longshoremen had quit the AFL-CIO, and that they had cited Obamacare as one of their reasons for doing so.



Unions that supported the passage of Obamacare in 2010 wanted new special exempetions in 2013





Here’s more hypocrisy from the unions that helped to get Obamacare passed.In January 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported:Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They BackedLabor 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 issueTop 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 plansWe 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 HereSheet 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





Obamacare pressures unions to reduce the amount of health insurance coverage for their employees





Still more hypocrisy from the unions that helped to pass Obamacare.In May 2013, the New York Times reported:Say goodbye to that $500 deductible insurance plan and the $20 co-payment for a doctor’s office visit. They are likely to become luxuries of the past.Expect to have your blood pressure checked or a prescription filled at a clinic at your office, rather than by your private doctor.Then blame the so-called Cadillac tax, which penalizes companies that offer high-end health care plans to their employees.Although the tax does not start until 2018, employers say they have to start now to meet the deadline and they are doing whatever they can to bring down the cost of their plans. Under the law, an employer or health insurer offering a plan that costs more than $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family would typically pay a 40 percent excise tax on the amount exceeding the threshold.Tom Leibfried, a legislative director for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., one of the unions whose plans are vulnerable to the tax, says the demands that workers pay more for their care is a perennial aspect of labor negotiations. “We’re very concerned about the hollowing out of benefits in general,” he said. “What the excise tax will do is just fuel that.”




Obamacare is so horrible that even the IRS agents who run it don’t want to participate in it




Obama hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare.But Obamacare is so awful that even the IRS agents who run it don’t want to participate in it.In July 2013, the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the IRS employees who will be running Obamacare, provided a form letter to its members to send to their Congressmen. The letter stated:I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”When asked about this, IRS chief Daniel Werfel responded by saying:I don’t want to speak for the NTEU, but I’ll offer a perspective as a federal employee myself and a federal employee at the IRS. And that is, we have right now as employees of the government, of the IRS, affordable health care coverage. I think the ACA was designed to provide an option or an alternative for individuals that do not. And all else being equal, I think if you’re an individual who is satisfied with your health care coverage, you’re probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process. So I think for a federal employee, I think more likely, and I would — can speak for myself, I would prefer to stay with the current policy that I’m pleased with rather than go through a change if I don’t need to go through that change.”




Obamacare places a 40% tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans




Obamacare includes a 40% tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans. In August 2013, unions that supported the passage of Obamacare complained about this tax.




Obama tried to give illegal Obamacare subsidies to unions without Congressional approval




In August 2013, it was reported that Obama was trying to give illegal Obamacare subsidies to unions, without approval from Congress.




Obamacare encouraged 30,000 Puget Sound grocery workers to vote in favor of authorizing a strike




In September 2013, a union representing 30,000 employees at Safeway, Fred Meyer, QFC, and Albertson’s in the Puget Sound area of Washington state voted in favor of authorizing a strike. Union members said that one of their reasons for voting in favor of the strike was that their employers were trying to switch their part time employees form employer provided insurance to the Obamacare exchanges.



SEIU union went on strike over Obamacare



The Service Employees International Union supported Obama in both elections, and also supported the passage of Obamacare.However, in September 2013, member of the Chicago chapter of the SEIU went on strike over jobs cuts that were caused by Obamacare.



MSNBC host Ed Schultz supports Obamacare but wants unions to be exempt from it




After Obamacare was passed, MSNBC host Ed Schultz praised it almost every day for three years. However, on Sepotember 26, 2013, just five days before the Obamacare exchanges were to begin, Schultz said that unions should be exempt from it.



In December 2013, Obama gave unions even more illegal exemptions from Obamacare




In December 2013, it was reported that Obama had illegally exempted some unions from some of the Obamacare fees, without approval from Congress.




"Labor union officials say Obama betrayed them in health-care rollout”





In January 2014, the Washington Post reported:Labor union officials say Obama betrayed them in health-care rolloutLeaders of two major unions, including the first to endorse Obama in 2008, said they have been betrayed by an administration that wooed their support for the 2009 legislation with promises to later address the peculiar needs of union-negotiated insurance plans that cover millions of workers.Their complaints reflect a broad sense of disappointment among many labor leaders, who say the Affordable Care Act has subjected union health plans to new taxes and mandates while not allowing them to share in the subsidies that have gone to private insurance companies competing on the newly created exchanges.After dozens of frustrating meetings with White House officials over the past year, including one with Obama, a number of angry labor officials say their members are far less likely to campaign and turn out for Democratic candidates in the midterm elections.We want to hold the president to his word: If you like your health-care coverage, you can keep it, and that just hasn’t been the case,” said Donald “D.” Taylor, president of Unite Here, the union that represents about 400,000 hotel and restaurant workers and provided a crucial boost to Obama by endorsing him just after his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton had won the New Hampshire primary.Taylor and Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, laid out their grievances this week in a terse letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), saying they are “bitterly disappointed” in the administration.



Obama illegally gave unions an exemption from Obamacare’s “reinsurance” tax



Obamacare includes a so-called “reinsurance” tax. In March 2014, Obama gave unions an exemption from this tax. This was illegal for two reasons. First, Obama made this change without approval from Congress. And second, the Constitution requires that laws apply equally to everyone.



Unite Here said Obamacare “threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.




Unite Here is a union that represents 300,000 employees in the hotel and restaurant industries. It supported Obama in both elections.In March 2014, Unite Here said:If employers follow the incentives in the law, they will push families onto the exchanges to buy coverage. This will force low-wage service industry employees to spend $2.00, $3.00 or even $5.00 an hour of their pay to buy similar coverage.”“… the ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.”Obamacare will cost our members the equivalent of a significant pay cut to keep their hard-won benefits.”“… it will inevitably lead to the destruction of the health care plans we were promised we could keep.”




After supporting Obama in both elections, the National Education Association complained that Obamacare’s Cadillac tax would “unfairly cause hardship to American workers and their families”





The National Education Association is a teachers union. It supported Obama in both elections. In April 2015, it complained that Obamacare’s Cadillac tax would “unfairly cause hardship to American workers and their families.


I've posted those above examples here many times before, but the supporters of Obamacare usually ignored them.

In my opinion, the best criticism of Obamacare isn't the criticism that comes from conservatives and libertarians. Instead, the best criticism of Obamacare comes from the people who supported its passage, but later complained about it and wanted exemptions for themselves. They support Obamacare for everyone else, but not for themselves.

Now that single payer is getting more and more talk, the same kind of thing is happening with that too.

Here's a great criticism of single payer health care - not from conservatives or libertarians - but instead, from labor unions. Spoilerized for size:


Spoiler:

https://www.politico.com/states/new-...-albany-717096

City unions say they dread impact of single-payer proposal in Albany

November 29, 2018

Public-sector unions are gearing up to fight legislation that would establish New York State as the health insurance provider for all residents, worried the sweeping bill would curtail their benefits and negotiating power.

New York City labor leaders gathered in the Lower Manhattan offices of District Council 37 Monday to relay their concerns about the bill to its sponsors, Assemblyman Richard Gottfried and state Sen. Gustavo Rivera, several sources familiar with the meeting told POLITICO. The conflict puts unions at odds with an issue popular in the liberal wing of the Democratic party.

The lawmakers say they are now revising the legislation to address the unions' concerns, namely that the city’s insurance options for its 380,000-employee workforce would not be reduced. City government offers some plans that cover virtually all employee costs, but the Albany bill has a provision that would charge workers a portion of the state tax used to pay for the $311 billion initiative.

Labor leaders also worry the bill would invalidate their collective bargaining leverage around health plans, thereby nixing the city’s roughly $1,500-per-employee contribution to individual union funds. Those accounts cover a variety of expenses, including prescription drugs, hearing aids and glasses.

“Each union sets up its own welfare fund plan and it’s funded through the contributions, and if you don’t have the contributions, you don’t have the welfare fund,” Greg Floyd, president of Teamsters Local 237, said on Wednesday.

He was present at the meeting, which he estimated 150 people attended.

Gottfried said he and Rivera reached out to the Municipal Labor Committee, an umbrella group representing city unions, to collaborate on the bill.

“As Gustavo and I keep telling them, this is what our parents raised us to do. We were not raised to screw city workers. Or any workers,” Gottfried said.

The new legislation would ensure employers continue their current rates of coverage, he said. The bill would also end up providing more than city workers currently receive, he added: “More services covered, more prescription drugs covered and when the bill is reintroduced in 2019, it will be broadened even more."

“There will be no deductibles or co-pays, there will be no restrictive network and no out-of-network charges,” Gottfried added.

And any savings the city incurs — which he estimates would total $10 billion a year in reduced Medicaid expenses and payroll taxes — would replenish a fund partially controlled by unions under the proposal.

The bill has passed the Assembly for four consecutive years, but has languished in the GOP-controlled Senate. With Democrats taking control of the chamber in January and health care a top voting issue across the country, he and Rivera believe the measure stands a better chance.

It will still be a challenge to convince Gov. Andrew Cuomo to take on such a costly initiative, which would require federal funding and a state tax increase. The state would have to raise $139 billion in new tax revenue each year to pay for the plan, according to a RAND Corporation report released this year.

“It’s a conversation we have yet to have in the Senate,” Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins, the newly-appointed leader of the legislative body, said in a radio interview Wednesday. “I can certainly commit to having it heard, having it talked about.”

Harry Nespoli, head of the Municipal Labor Committee, did not respond to a request for comment.

Bill Hammond of the fiscally conservative Empire Center for Public Policy predicted an uphill battle, saying it's "really complicated" and "really expensive" and would "potentially compromise the state's economy."

“It would become a health plan with a state government attached," he added.


Given that the Democrats who supported Obamacare have already given gave special exemptions to their friends and supporters, I think it's highly likely that if Democrats ever pass single payer, they will also give exemptions to their friends and supporters.
grundle is online now  
Old 01-30-19, 02:48 AM
  #7237  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,021
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post


Transplant lists are based on immediate need and likely survival. Not on how rich or even how “moral” you are.

Unless you're a truck driver. Then you're in deep trouble:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/wellness/1993/06/22/gov-caseys-quick-double-transplant/42dcf701-2bba-4e30-b287-fc2774585385/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.054b78231504

GOV. CASEY'S QUICK DOUBLE TRANSPLANT

Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey is a doubly lucky man.

Lucky first of all to be alive, with a 34-year-old heart beating inside his 61-year-old chest. Casey is the seventh person in the world, and by far the oldest American, to receive both a heart and a liver from another human being -- in a transplant operation that took 13 1/2 hours last Monday at Presbyterian University Hospital in Pittsburgh.

But Casey, who suffers from a rare hereditary liver disease called amyloidosis, was lucky even to be in a position to receive his unusual transplant.

How many patients dial the world's foremost liver transplant surgeon, Thomas E. Starzl -- and get through directly -- as Casey did on May 24? How many could get a personal consultation from Starzl at the Westin Hotel, as Casey did June 8 while on a business trip to Pittsburgh? How many, once on the transplant waiting list, find a donor overnight?

For patients on the waiting list for a heart transplant, the average wait is 198 days. For liver transplant patients, the average wait is 67 days. For Casey, a suitable donor of both organs was found in less than 24 hours.

"We don't really have a transplant policy. We've got a concatenation of organ-by-organ decisions," said Ron Milhorn, program analyst in the federal Health Care Financing Administration, which reviews applications for Medicare certification of heart and liver transplant centers.

"Had he {Casey} been Joe Schmo the truck driver, I don't know. He might have died," Milhorn said. "But the governor of the state in which your hospital is located? Get serious. What the hell are you going to do?"
grundle is online now  
Old 01-30-19, 03:07 AM
  #7238  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,021
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Trump could not “repeal and replace” with something better, so he is just dismantling. Never mind the ACA was working and a success. Since it was done under Obama, it must go.

But interestingly, he is taking a page out of single payer. He is trying to conteol drug prices. Now...you can’t have it both ways. Remove regulations and allow the free market to take care of AND fix prices at the government level.

This is just another case of the GOP getting caught with their pants down. The ACA is loosely based on a republican idea. And they can’t stand it.


“One of the boldest and most controversial efforts involves setting Medicare's reimbursement level for certain pricey drugs administered in doctors' offices and hospital outpatient centers based on their cost in other countries, which is typically far lower. This idea prompted howls of "price fixing" from the industry and conservative lawmakers.”

Story

If Obamacare was a success when Obama was president, then why did so many Democrats and unions try to get exemptions from it when Obama was president?

Here are some Democrats' criticisms of Obamacare. This is my own writing, with links to sources. Spoilerized for size:

Spoiler:
Democrats who voted for Obamacare later complained that its medical device tax would hurt job creation in their own districts




In response to the medical device tax that is part of Obamacare, some medical device manufacturers have announced plans to layoff employees, including Welch Allyn (275 planned layoffs), Stryker (1,170 planned layoffs), and Medtronic (1,000 planned layoffs).In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their own districts.






Democratswho voted for Obamacare wanted an exemption for themselves and their staff after it was passed





In 2010, Obamacare was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Obama.Three years later, members of Congress and their staff complained that Obamacare was going to cost them a lot of money, and said that this would likely cause a brain drain among their staff. In response to this, Obama made changes to Obamacare so that these things would not happen. However, Obama’s actions were illegal, because he made these changes without Congress voting on them first.The New York Times wrote of this:the language of the health care law requires Congressional employees to obtain health insurance through an exchange created by the law, but other parts of the federal legal code restrict the ability of the federal government to pay the usual employer share for group insurance programs approved by the Office of Personnel Management.A straightforward reading of the law thus means that Congressional staff members, starting in January 2014, will have to obtain insurance through the Affordable Care Act but pay for it on their own without the normal contribution from their employer — Congress. This would be a multi-thousand-dollar income hit for those affected… many… would potentially feel the pain, giving rise to concerns over a potential brain drain of Congressional staff members finding other employment.the federal personnel office initially ruled that Congressional staff members would not be eligible for the subsidies, and then changed this decision under pressure from the White House…






An entire state that supported Obamacare asked for an exemption





The people of Massachusetts were huge supporters of Obamacare when it was passed, and they voted for Obama in both elections. But after Obamacare was passed, they asked for an exemption from it.In August 2013, Obama gave an Obamacare waiver to Massachusetts.This waiver was illegal for two reasons. First, the waiver was not approved by the U.S. Congress. Second, the U.S. Constitution requires that the federal government treat all states the same





.
Obama waited until after the 2012 election to release unpopular Obamacare rules





Obama himself is so much against Obamacare that he waited until after the 2012 election to release some of its rules.In April 2013, the New York Times reported:even fervent supporters of the law admit that things are going worse than expected.the Obama administration didn’t want to release unpopular rules before the election.Everything is turning out to be more complicated than originally envisioned.A law that was very confusing has become mind-boggling… Americans are just going to be overwhelmed and befuddled. Many are just going to stay away, even if they are eligible for benefits.





Obamacare pushed millions of working people “into a regulatory health coverage no man’s land”





In February 2013, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (Democrat-Oregon) said:We’ve got millions of people — working-class, middle-class people — who are going to be pushed into a regulatory health coverage no man’s land. They are unable to afford the family coverage through their employer and ineligible for the subsidy that could be used by dependents on the exchange.




It’s “not fair” to force federal lawmakers and their aides to participate in the same health care reform as everyone else






In June 2013, U.S. Congressman John Larson (Democrat-Connecticut) said that it is “not fair” to force federal lawmakers and their aides to participate in the same health care reform as everyone else.




100% of Senate Democrats up for reelection planned to support a delay in Obamacare’s individual mandate




On October 23, 2013, CNN’s Dana Bash
:new: senior dem source tells me to expect every sen dem running in 2014 to back @JeanneShaheen proposal to delay #ACA enrollment deadline”





Jared Polis opposed delaying Obamacare’s individual mandate for the entire country, but favorsed such a delay for his own district





U.S. Congressional representative Jared Polis (Democrat-Colorado) voted against delaying Obamacare’s individual mandate for the entire country, but later requested such a delay for his own district.When Polis requested a special delay for his own district, he said:We will be encouraging a waiver. It will be difficult for Summit County residents to become insured. For the vast majority, it’s too high a price to pay.”




Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and several other Democratic Senators who voted for Obamacare, have exempted their own staff from Obamacare





In December 2013, Yahoo News reported:Harry Reid exempts some of his Senate staff from Obamacare exchangesOne of the biggest public supporters of the Affordable Care Act has reportedly decided that some of his staff should be exempted from the new law.CNN reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges.Yahoo News has reached out to the offices of all 100 U.S. senators to see if any other members have exempted committee staff from the federal exchange. So far, the offices of 42 senators have responded to our inquiry, with 37 saying that the senator and their entire staff will switch over to the exchanges in January.The offices of Ron Wyden, Tim Johnson, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Thomas Carper, all Democrats, said they were exempting some of their staff. Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, has not responded.




Democratic aides who supported the passage of Obamacare said their new Obamacare premiums were “simply unacceptable”





In December 2013, Politico reported:Older Hill aides shocked by Obamacare pricesVeteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”In the email, Ta noted that older congressional staffs may leave their jobs because of the change to their health insurance.




In New York City, thousands of Obama voting, well educated, upper class professionals complained about losing their insurance because of Obamacare




In December 2013, the New York Times reported:With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies for New York ProfessionalsMany in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it.I couldn’t sleep because of it,” said Barbara Meinwald, a solo practitioner lawyer in Manhattan.Ms. Meinwald, 61, has been paying $10,000 a year for her insurance through the New York City Bar. A broker told her that a new temporary plan with fewer doctors would cost $5,000 more, after factoring in the cost of her medications.Roy Lyons, managing director of Marsh U.S. Consumer, an insurance brokerage, said he had heard complaints from physicians, lawyers, pharmacists and optometrists.Among those affected are members of the Authors Guild; the Advertising Photographers of America; the Suzuki Association of the Americas, a music teachers organization; the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators; the New York City Bar Association; and the New York County Medical Society.It is not lost on many of the professionals that they are exactly the sort of people — liberal, concerned with social justice — who supported the Obama health plan in the first place. Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney.It is an uncomfortable position for many members of the creative classes to be in.We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild. Her insurance is being canceled, and she is dismayed that neither her pediatrician nor her general practitioner appears to be on the exchange plans. What to do has become a hot topic on Facebook and at dinner parties frequented by her fellow writers and artists.I’m for it,” she said. “But what is the reality of it?”





Six Democratic Senators who voted for Obamacare complained that it was causing voters in their districts to lose insurance






In December 2013, six Democratic Senators who had voted for Obamacare wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, complaining that Obamacare was causing voters in their districts to lose insurance.




AmeriCorps “volunteers” supported Obamacare but wanted an exemption for themselves




AmeriCorps is a federal agency that pays so-called “volunteers” to do “charity” work.In December 2013, it was reported that the insurance that AmeriCorps provided to its “volunteers” did not meet Obamacare’s minimum standards, and that, as a result, these “volunteers” may have to pay the Obamacare tax penalty for not having insurance.Abby Grosslein, an AmeriCorps “volunteer” who lives in New Orleans, said:It would be nice if the government waived the penalty.”




Nancy Pelosi gave Obamacare waivers to 38 restaurants, nightclubs, and hotels in her own Congressional district



Although Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-California) voted for Obamacare, in April 2011, she gave Obamacare waivers to 38 restaurants, nightclubs, and hotels in her own Congressional district.





In February 2015, Democrats who voted for Obamacare complained that people actually had to pay for it





In February 2015, Associated Press reported:Democrats seek relief from health law penaltiesSenior Democrats seek sign-up extension for people facing health law penaltiesThree senior House members told The Associated Press that they plan to strongly urge the administration to grant a special sign-up opportunity for uninsured taxpayers who will be facing fines under the law for the first time this year.The three are Michigan’s Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, and Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, and Lloyd Doggett of Texas. All worked to help steer Obama’s law through rancorous congressional debates from 2009-2010.Open enrollment period ended before many Americans filed their taxes,” the three lawmakers said in a statement. “Without a special enrollment period, many people (who will be paying fines) will not have another opportunity to get health coverage this year.A special enrollment period will not only help many Americans avoid making an even larger payment next year, but, more importantly, it will help them gain quality health insurance for 2015,” the lawmakers added.





In March 2015, Democratic U.S. Senators who voted for Obamacare made yet another complaint about Obamacare, and asked for yet another delay to it




A provision of Obamacare says that in 2016, employers with between 51 and 100 employees will be moved from the “large group” market to the “small group” market. In March 2015, Democratic U.S. Senators who voted for Obamacare complained that this move would make insurance more expensive, and asked for it to be delayed.




Millennials who voted for Obama and supported the passage of Obamacare did not want to purchase Obamacare insurance for themselves



In December 2013, it was reported that most of the Millennials who had voted for Obama and had supported the passage of Obamacare did not want to purchase Obamacare insurance for themselves.



Obama voters in San Francsico area complained that Obamacare did not actually give them access to a doctor



Mountain View, California, is part of the San Francisco area, where Obama won both elections by a huge percentage. In April 2014, Obama voters in this area complained that Obamacare did not actually give them access to a doctor.

And here is criticism of Obamacare from labor unions who helped to get Obama elected. This is also my own writing, with links to sources. Spoilerized for size:

Spoiler:

After Obamcare was passed, unions that supported its passage requested and received special exemptions




Within months
after Obamacare was passed, Obama gave some organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of Obamacare. As time went on, more than 1,300 organizations received these exemptions.More than half of the people who are covered by insurance plans that received these exemptions are in union insurance plans. These unions supported the passage of Obamacare. But immediately after Obamacare was passed, these unions wanted exemptions from the very same law that they wanted to force everyone else to obey. This reveals an extreme level of hypocrisy among many of the supporters of Obamacare.In addition, these exemptions are illegal for two reasons – because Obama granted the exemptions without approval from Congress, and because the Constitution requires the law to treat everyone the same.The Washington Times wrote of this:Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny. A government empowered to determine arbitrarily who may operate outside the rule of law invariably embraces favoritism as friends, allies and those with the best-funded lobbyists are rewarded. Favoritism inevitably leads to corruption, and corruption invites extortion. Ultimately, the rule of law ceases to exist in any recognizable form, and what is left is tyranny.The now-familiar monthly trickling down of new waivers is, at best, a tacit admission that Obamacare is a failure. So far, seven entire states and 1,372 businesses, unions and other institutions have received waivers from the law. The list includes the administration’s friends and allies and, of course, those who have the best lobbyists.More than 50 percent of the Obamacare waiver beneficiaries are union members, which is striking because union members account for less than 12 percent of the American work force. The same unions that provided more than $120 million to Democrats in the last two elections and, in many cases, openly campaigned in favor of the government takeover of your health care, now celebrate that Obamacare is not their problem.




Union members quit their union because of Obamacare





The AFL-CIO was a big supporter of the passaage of Obamacare in 2010, and supported Obama in both elections.In September 2013, it was reported that 40,000 longshoremen had quit the AFL-CIO, and that they had cited Obamacare as one of their reasons for doing so.



Unions that supported the passage of Obamacare in 2010 wanted new special exempetions in 2013





Here’s more hypocrisy from the unions that helped to get Obamacare passed.In January 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported:Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They BackedLabor 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 issueTop 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 plansWe 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 HereSheet 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





Obamacare pressures unions to reduce the amount of health insurance coverage for their employees





Still more hypocrisy from the unions that helped to pass Obamacare.In May 2013, the New York Times reported:Say goodbye to that $500 deductible insurance plan and the $20 co-payment for a doctor’s office visit. They are likely to become luxuries of the past.Expect to have your blood pressure checked or a prescription filled at a clinic at your office, rather than by your private doctor.Then blame the so-called Cadillac tax, which penalizes companies that offer high-end health care plans to their employees.Although the tax does not start until 2018, employers say they have to start now to meet the deadline and they are doing whatever they can to bring down the cost of their plans. Under the law, an employer or health insurer offering a plan that costs more than $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family would typically pay a 40 percent excise tax on the amount exceeding the threshold.Tom Leibfried, a legislative director for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., one of the unions whose plans are vulnerable to the tax, says the demands that workers pay more for their care is a perennial aspect of labor negotiations. “We’re very concerned about the hollowing out of benefits in general,” he said. “What the excise tax will do is just fuel that.”




Obamacare is so horrible that even the IRS agents who run it don’t want to participate in it




Obama hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare.But Obamacare is so awful that even the IRS agents who run it don’t want to participate in it.In July 2013, the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the IRS employees who will be running Obamacare, provided a form letter to its members to send to their Congressmen. The letter stated:I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”When asked about this, IRS chief Daniel Werfel responded by saying:I don’t want to speak for the NTEU, but I’ll offer a perspective as a federal employee myself and a federal employee at the IRS. And that is, we have right now as employees of the government, of the IRS, affordable health care coverage. I think the ACA was designed to provide an option or an alternative for individuals that do not. And all else being equal, I think if you’re an individual who is satisfied with your health care coverage, you’re probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process. So I think for a federal employee, I think more likely, and I would — can speak for myself, I would prefer to stay with the current policy that I’m pleased with rather than go through a change if I don’t need to go through that change.”




Obamacare places a 40% tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans




Obamacare includes a 40% tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans. In August 2013, unions that supported the passage of Obamacare complained about this tax.




Obama tried to give illegal Obamacare subsidies to unions without Congressional approval




In August 2013, it was reported that Obama was trying to give illegal Obamacare subsidies to unions, without approval from Congress.




Obamacare encouraged 30,000 Puget Sound grocery workers to vote in favor of authorizing a strike




In September 2013, a union representing 30,000 employees at Safeway, Fred Meyer, QFC, and Albertson’s in the Puget Sound area of Washington state voted in favor of authorizing a strike. Union members said that one of their reasons for voting in favor of the strike was that their employers were trying to switch their part time employees form employer provided insurance to the Obamacare exchanges.



SEIU union went on strike over Obamacare



The Service Employees International Union supported Obama in both elections, and also supported the passage of Obamacare.However, in September 2013, member of the Chicago chapter of the SEIU went on strike over jobs cuts that were caused by Obamacare.



MSNBC host Ed Schultz supports Obamacare but wants unions to be exempt from it




After Obamacare was passed, MSNBC host Ed Schultz praised it almost every day for three years. However, on Sepotember 26, 2013, just five days before the Obamacare exchanges were to begin, Schultz said that unions should be exempt from it.



In December 2013, Obama gave unions even more illegal exemptions from Obamacare




In December 2013, it was reported that Obama had illegally exempted some unions from some of the Obamacare fees, without approval from Congress.




"Labor union officials say Obama betrayed them in health-care rollout”





In January 2014, the Washington Post reported:Labor union officials say Obama betrayed them in health-care rolloutLeaders of two major unions, including the first to endorse Obama in 2008, said they have been betrayed by an administration that wooed their support for the 2009 legislation with promises to later address the peculiar needs of union-negotiated insurance plans that cover millions of workers.Their complaints reflect a broad sense of disappointment among many labor leaders, who say the Affordable Care Act has subjected union health plans to new taxes and mandates while not allowing them to share in the subsidies that have gone to private insurance companies competing on the newly created exchanges.After dozens of frustrating meetings with White House officials over the past year, including one with Obama, a number of angry labor officials say their members are far less likely to campaign and turn out for Democratic candidates in the midterm elections.We want to hold the president to his word: If you like your health-care coverage, you can keep it, and that just hasn’t been the case,” said Donald “D.” Taylor, president of Unite Here, the union that represents about 400,000 hotel and restaurant workers and provided a crucial boost to Obama by endorsing him just after his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton had won the New Hampshire primary.Taylor and Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, laid out their grievances this week in a terse letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), saying they are “bitterly disappointed” in the administration.



Obama illegally gave unions an exemption from Obamacare’s “reinsurance” tax



Obamacare includes a so-called “reinsurance” tax. In March 2014, Obama gave unions an exemption from this tax. This was illegal for two reasons. First, Obama made this change without approval from Congress. And second, the Constitution requires that laws apply equally to everyone.



Unite Here said Obamacare “threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.




Unite Here is a union that represents 300,000 employees in the hotel and restaurant industries. It supported Obama in both elections.In March 2014, Unite Here said:If employers follow the incentives in the law, they will push families onto the exchanges to buy coverage. This will force low-wage service industry employees to spend $2.00, $3.00 or even $5.00 an hour of their pay to buy similar coverage.”“… the ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.”Obamacare will cost our members the equivalent of a significant pay cut to keep their hard-won benefits.”“… it will inevitably lead to the destruction of the health care plans we were promised we could keep.”




After supporting Obama in both elections, the National Education Association complained that Obamacare’s Cadillac tax would “unfairly cause hardship to American workers and their families”





The National Education Association is a teachers union. It supported Obama in both elections. In April 2015, it complained that Obamacare’s Cadillac tax would “unfairly cause hardship to American workers and their families.



If Obamacare was a success when Obamacare was president, then how do you explain why so many Democrats and unions tried to get exemptions from Obamacare when Obama was president?
grundle is online now  
Old 01-30-19, 08:01 AM
  #7239  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,302
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
Each individual person gets to decide whether or not they put these poisonous drugs into their body.
If a criminal shoots a cop and the cop shoots back, should EMTs take the cop to the hospital and leave the criminal to die in the street? I mean, they chose to be a criminal...
Draven is offline  
Old 01-30-19, 12:23 PM
  #7240  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,911
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by grundle View Post
If Obamacare was a success when Obama was president, then why did so many Democrats and unions try to get exemptions from it when Obama was president?

Here are some Democrats' criticisms of Obamacare. This is my own writing, with links to sources. Spoilerized for size:

Spoiler:
Democrats who voted for Obamacare later complained that its medical device tax would hurt job creation in their own districts




In response to the medical device tax that is part of Obamacare, some medical device manufacturers have announced plans to layoff employees, including Welch Allyn (275 planned layoffs), Stryker (1,170 planned layoffs), and Medtronic (1,000 planned layoffs).In December 2012, Al Franken, Elizabeth Warren, John Kerry, and 15 other Democrats who supported the passage of Obamacare wrote a letter to Harry Reid, asking him to delay the tax on medical devices, claiming that the tax would hurt job creation in their own districts.






Democratswho voted for Obamacare wanted an exemption for themselves and their staff after it was passed





In 2010, Obamacare was passed by the House and Senate, and signed by President Obama.Three years later, members of Congress and their staff complained that Obamacare was going to cost them a lot of money, and said that this would likely cause a brain drain among their staff. In response to this, Obama made changes to Obamacare so that these things would not happen. However, Obama’s actions were illegal, because he made these changes without Congress voting on them first.The New York Times wrote of this:the language of the health care law requires Congressional employees to obtain health insurance through an exchange created by the law, but other parts of the federal legal code restrict the ability of the federal government to pay the usual employer share for group insurance programs approved by the Office of Personnel Management.A straightforward reading of the law thus means that Congressional staff members, starting in January 2014, will have to obtain insurance through the Affordable Care Act but pay for it on their own without the normal contribution from their employer — Congress. This would be a multi-thousand-dollar income hit for those affected… many… would potentially feel the pain, giving rise to concerns over a potential brain drain of Congressional staff members finding other employment.the federal personnel office initially ruled that Congressional staff members would not be eligible for the subsidies, and then changed this decision under pressure from the White House…






An entire state that supported Obamacare asked for an exemption





The people of Massachusetts were huge supporters of Obamacare when it was passed, and they voted for Obama in both elections. But after Obamacare was passed, they asked for an exemption from it.In August 2013, Obama gave an Obamacare waiver to Massachusetts.This waiver was illegal for two reasons. First, the waiver was not approved by the U.S. Congress. Second, the U.S. Constitution requires that the federal government treat all states the same





.
Obama waited until after the 2012 election to release unpopular Obamacare rules





Obama himself is so much against Obamacare that he waited until after the 2012 election to release some of its rules.In April 2013, the New York Times reported:even fervent supporters of the law admit that things are going worse than expected.the Obama administration didn’t want to release unpopular rules before the election.Everything is turning out to be more complicated than originally envisioned.A law that was very confusing has become mind-boggling… Americans are just going to be overwhelmed and befuddled. Many are just going to stay away, even if they are eligible for benefits.





Obamacare pushed millions of working people “into a regulatory health coverage no man’s land”





In February 2013, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (Democrat-Oregon) said:We’ve got millions of people — working-class, middle-class people — who are going to be pushed into a regulatory health coverage no man’s land. They are unable to afford the family coverage through their employer and ineligible for the subsidy that could be used by dependents on the exchange.




It’s “not fair” to force federal lawmakers and their aides to participate in the same health care reform as everyone else






In June 2013, U.S. Congressman John Larson (Democrat-Connecticut) said that it is “not fair” to force federal lawmakers and their aides to participate in the same health care reform as everyone else.




100% of Senate Democrats up for reelection planned to support a delay in Obamacare’s individual mandate




On October 23, 2013, CNN’s Dana Bash tweeted:new: senior dem source tells me to expect every sen dem running in 2014 to back @JeanneShaheen proposal to delay #ACA enrollment deadline”





Jared Polis opposed delaying Obamacare’s individual mandate for the entire country, but favorsed such a delay for his own district





U.S. Congressional representative Jared Polis (Democrat-Colorado) voted against delaying Obamacare’s individual mandate for the entire country, but later requested such a delay for his own district.When Polis requested a special delay for his own district, he said:We will be encouraging a waiver. It will be difficult for Summit County residents to become insured. For the vast majority, it’s too high a price to pay.”




Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, and several other Democratic Senators who voted for Obamacare, have exempted their own staff from Obamacare





In December 2013, Yahoo News reported:Harry Reid exempts some of his Senate staff from Obamacare exchangesOne of the biggest public supporters of the Affordable Care Act has reportedly decided that some of his staff should be exempted from the new law.CNN reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is the only top congressional leader to exempt some of his staff from having to buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchanges.Yahoo News has reached out to the offices of all 100 U.S. senators to see if any other members have exempted committee staff from the federal exchange. So far, the offices of 42 senators have responded to our inquiry, with 37 saying that the senator and their entire staff will switch over to the exchanges in January.The offices of Ron Wyden, Tim Johnson, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Thomas Carper, all Democrats, said they were exempting some of their staff. Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, has not responded.




Democratic aides who supported the passage of Obamacare said their new Obamacare premiums were “simply unacceptable”





In December 2013, Politico reported:Older Hill aides shocked by Obamacare pricesVeteran House Democratic aides are sick over the insurance prices they’ll pay under Obamacare, and they’re scrambling to find a cure.In a shock to the system, the older staff in my office (folks over 59) have now found out their personal health insurance costs (even with the government contribution) have gone up 3-4 times what they were paying before,” Minh Ta, chief of staff to Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), wrote to fellow Democratic chiefs of staff in an email message obtained by POLITICO. “Simply unacceptable.”In the email, Ta noted that older congressional staffs may leave their jobs because of the change to their health insurance.




In New York City, thousands of Obama voting, well educated, upper class professionals complained about losing their insurance because of Obamacare




In December 2013, the New York Times reported:With Affordable Care Act, Canceled Policies for New York ProfessionalsMany in New York’s professional and cultural elite have long supported President Obama’s health care plan. But now, to their surprise, thousands of writers, opera singers, music teachers, photographers, doctors, lawyers and others are learning that their health insurance plans are being canceled and they may have to pay more to get comparable coverage, if they can find it.I couldn’t sleep because of it,” said Barbara Meinwald, a solo practitioner lawyer in Manhattan.Ms. Meinwald, 61, has been paying $10,000 a year for her insurance through the New York City Bar. A broker told her that a new temporary plan with fewer doctors would cost $5,000 more, after factoring in the cost of her medications.Roy Lyons, managing director of Marsh U.S. Consumer, an insurance brokerage, said he had heard complaints from physicians, lawyers, pharmacists and optometrists.Among those affected are members of the Authors Guild; the Advertising Photographers of America; the Suzuki Association of the Americas, a music teachers organization; the Society of Children’s Book Writers and Illustrators; the New York City Bar Association; and the New York County Medical Society.It is not lost on many of the professionals that they are exactly the sort of people — liberal, concerned with social justice — who supported the Obama health plan in the first place. Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney.It is an uncomfortable position for many members of the creative classes to be in.We are the Obama people,” said Camille Sweeney, a New York writer and member of the Authors Guild. Her insurance is being canceled, and she is dismayed that neither her pediatrician nor her general practitioner appears to be on the exchange plans. What to do has become a hot topic on Facebook and at dinner parties frequented by her fellow writers and artists.I’m for it,” she said. “But what is the reality of it?”





Six Democratic Senators who voted for Obamacare complained that it was causing voters in their districts to lose insurance






In December 2013, six Democratic Senators who had voted for Obamacare wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, complaining that Obamacare was causing voters in their districts to lose insurance.




AmeriCorps “volunteers” supported Obamacare but wanted an exemption for themselves




AmeriCorps is a federal agency that pays so-called “volunteers” to do “charity” work.In December 2013, it was reported that the insurance that AmeriCorps provided to its “volunteers” did not meet Obamacare’s minimum standards, and that, as a result, these “volunteers” may have to pay the Obamacare tax penalty for not having insurance.Abby Grosslein, an AmeriCorps “volunteer” who lives in New Orleans, said:It would be nice if the government waived the penalty.”




Nancy Pelosi gave Obamacare waivers to 38 restaurants, nightclubs, and hotels in her own Congressional district



Although Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (D-California) voted for Obamacare, in April 2011, she gave Obamacare waivers to 38 restaurants, nightclubs, and hotels in her own Congressional district.





In February 2015, Democrats who voted for Obamacare complained that people actually had to pay for it





In February 2015, Associated Press reported:Democrats seek relief from health law penaltiesSenior Democrats seek sign-up extension for people facing health law penaltiesThree senior House members told The Associated Press that they plan to strongly urge the administration to grant a special sign-up opportunity for uninsured taxpayers who will be facing fines under the law for the first time this year.The three are Michigan’s Sander Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means Committee, and Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, and Lloyd Doggett of Texas. All worked to help steer Obama’s law through rancorous congressional debates from 2009-2010.Open enrollment period ended before many Americans filed their taxes,” the three lawmakers said in a statement. “Without a special enrollment period, many people (who will be paying fines) will not have another opportunity to get health coverage this year.A special enrollment period will not only help many Americans avoid making an even larger payment next year, but, more importantly, it will help them gain quality health insurance for 2015,” the lawmakers added.





In March 2015, Democratic U.S. Senators who voted for Obamacare made yet another complaint about Obamacare, and asked for yet another delay to it




A provision of Obamacare says that in 2016, employers with between 51 and 100 employees will be moved from the “large group” market to the “small group” market. In March 2015, Democratic U.S. Senators who voted for Obamacare complained that this move would make insurance more expensive, and asked for it to be delayed.




Millennials who voted for Obama and supported the passage of Obamacare did not want to purchase Obamacare insurance for themselves



In December 2013, it was reported that most of the Millennials who had voted for Obama and had supported the passage of Obamacare did not want to purchase Obamacare insurance for themselves.



Obama voters in San Francsico area complained that Obamacare did not actually give them access to a doctor



Mountain View, California, is part of the San Francisco area, where Obama won both elections by a huge percentage. In April 2014, Obama voters in this area complained that Obamacare did not actually give them access to a doctor.

And here is criticism of Obamacare from labor unions who helped to get Obama elected. This is also my own writing, with links to sources. Spoilerized for size:

Spoiler:

After Obamcare was passed, unions that supported its passage requested and received special exemptions




Within months
after Obamacare was passed, Obama gave some organizations an exemption from some of the requirements of Obamacare. As time went on, more than 1,300 organizations received these exemptions.More than half of the people who are covered by insurance plans that received these exemptions are in union insurance plans. These unions supported the passage of Obamacare. But immediately after Obamacare was passed, these unions wanted exemptions from the very same law that they wanted to force everyone else to obey. This reveals an extreme level of hypocrisy among many of the supporters of Obamacare.In addition, these exemptions are illegal for two reasons – because Obama granted the exemptions without approval from Congress, and because the Constitution requires the law to treat everyone the same.The Washington Times wrote of this:Selective enforcement of the law is the first sign of tyranny. A government empowered to determine arbitrarily who may operate outside the rule of law invariably embraces favoritism as friends, allies and those with the best-funded lobbyists are rewarded. Favoritism inevitably leads to corruption, and corruption invites extortion. Ultimately, the rule of law ceases to exist in any recognizable form, and what is left is tyranny.The now-familiar monthly trickling down of new waivers is, at best, a tacit admission that Obamacare is a failure. So far, seven entire states and 1,372 businesses, unions and other institutions have received waivers from the law. The list includes the administration’s friends and allies and, of course, those who have the best lobbyists.More than 50 percent of the Obamacare waiver beneficiaries are union members, which is striking because union members account for less than 12 percent of the American work force. The same unions that provided more than $120 million to Democrats in the last two elections and, in many cases, openly campaigned in favor of the government takeover of your health care, now celebrate that Obamacare is not their problem.




Union members quit their union because of Obamacare





The AFL-CIO was a big supporter of the passaage of Obamacare in 2010, and supported Obama in both elections.In September 2013, it was reported that 40,000 longshoremen had quit the AFL-CIO, and that they had cited Obamacare as one of their reasons for doing so.



Unions that supported the passage of Obamacare in 2010 wanted new special exempetions in 2013





Here’s more hypocrisy from the unions that helped to get Obamacare passed.In January 2013, the Wall Street Journal reported:Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They BackedLabor 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 issueTop 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 plansWe 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 HereSheet 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





Obamacare pressures unions to reduce the amount of health insurance coverage for their employees





Still more hypocrisy from the unions that helped to pass Obamacare.In May 2013, the New York Times reported:Say goodbye to that $500 deductible insurance plan and the $20 co-payment for a doctor’s office visit. They are likely to become luxuries of the past.Expect to have your blood pressure checked or a prescription filled at a clinic at your office, rather than by your private doctor.Then blame the so-called Cadillac tax, which penalizes companies that offer high-end health care plans to their employees.Although the tax does not start until 2018, employers say they have to start now to meet the deadline and they are doing whatever they can to bring down the cost of their plans. Under the law, an employer or health insurer offering a plan that costs more than $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for a family would typically pay a 40 percent excise tax on the amount exceeding the threshold.Tom Leibfried, a legislative director for the A.F.L.-C.I.O., one of the unions whose plans are vulnerable to the tax, says the demands that workers pay more for their care is a perennial aspect of labor negotiations. “We’re very concerned about the hollowing out of benefits in general,” he said. “What the excise tax will do is just fuel that.”




Obamacare is so horrible that even the IRS agents who run it don’t want to participate in it




Obama hired 16,500 new IRS agents to run Obamacare.But Obamacare is so awful that even the IRS agents who run it don’t want to participate in it.In July 2013, the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents the IRS employees who will be running Obamacare, provided a form letter to its members to send to their Congressmen. The letter stated:I am very concerned about legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Dave Camp to push federal employees out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and into the insurance exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act.”When asked about this, IRS chief Daniel Werfel responded by saying:I don’t want to speak for the NTEU, but I’ll offer a perspective as a federal employee myself and a federal employee at the IRS. And that is, we have right now as employees of the government, of the IRS, affordable health care coverage. I think the ACA was designed to provide an option or an alternative for individuals that do not. And all else being equal, I think if you’re an individual who is satisfied with your health care coverage, you’re probably in a better position to stick with that coverage than go through the change of moving into a different environment and going through that process. So I think for a federal employee, I think more likely, and I would — can speak for myself, I would prefer to stay with the current policy that I’m pleased with rather than go through a change if I don’t need to go through that change.”




Obamacare places a 40% tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans




Obamacare includes a 40% tax on so-called “Cadillac” insurance plans. In August 2013, unions that supported the passage of Obamacare complained about this tax.




Obama tried to give illegal Obamacare subsidies to unions without Congressional approval




In August 2013, it was reported that Obama was trying to give illegal Obamacare subsidies to unions, without approval from Congress.




Obamacare encouraged 30,000 Puget Sound grocery workers to vote in favor of authorizing a strike




In September 2013, a union representing 30,000 employees at Safeway, Fred Meyer, QFC, and Albertson’s in the Puget Sound area of Washington state voted in favor of authorizing a strike. Union members said that one of their reasons for voting in favor of the strike was that their employers were trying to switch their part time employees form employer provided insurance to the Obamacare exchanges.



SEIU union went on strike over Obamacare



The Service Employees International Union supported Obama in both elections, and also supported the passage of Obamacare.However, in September 2013, member of the Chicago chapter of the SEIU went on strike over jobs cuts that were caused by Obamacare.



MSNBC host Ed Schultz supports Obamacare but wants unions to be exempt from it




After Obamacare was passed, MSNBC host Ed Schultz praised it almost every day for three years. However, on Sepotember 26, 2013, just five days before the Obamacare exchanges were to begin, Schultz said that unions should be exempt from it.



In December 2013, Obama gave unions even more illegal exemptions from Obamacare




In December 2013, it was reported that Obama had illegally exempted some unions from some of the Obamacare fees, without approval from Congress.




"Labor union officials say Obama betrayed them in health-care rollout”





In January 2014, the Washington Post reported:Labor union officials say Obama betrayed them in health-care rolloutLeaders of two major unions, including the first to endorse Obama in 2008, said they have been betrayed by an administration that wooed their support for the 2009 legislation with promises to later address the peculiar needs of union-negotiated insurance plans that cover millions of workers.Their complaints reflect a broad sense of disappointment among many labor leaders, who say the Affordable Care Act has subjected union health plans to new taxes and mandates while not allowing them to share in the subsidies that have gone to private insurance companies competing on the newly created exchanges.After dozens of frustrating meetings with White House officials over the past year, including one with Obama, a number of angry labor officials say their members are far less likely to campaign and turn out for Democratic candidates in the midterm elections.We want to hold the president to his word: If you like your health-care coverage, you can keep it, and that just hasn’t been the case,” said Donald “D.” Taylor, president of Unite Here, the union that represents about 400,000 hotel and restaurant workers and provided a crucial boost to Obama by endorsing him just after his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton had won the New Hampshire primary.Taylor and Terry O’Sullivan, president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, laid out their grievances this week in a terse letter to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), saying they are “bitterly disappointed” in the administration.



Obama illegally gave unions an exemption from Obamacare’s “reinsurance” tax



Obamacare includes a so-called “reinsurance” tax. In March 2014, Obama gave unions an exemption from this tax. This was illegal for two reasons. First, Obama made this change without approval from Congress. And second, the Constitution requires that laws apply equally to everyone.



Unite Here said Obamacare “threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.




Unite Here is a union that represents 300,000 employees in the hotel and restaurant industries. It supported Obama in both elections.In March 2014, Unite Here said:If employers follow the incentives in the law, they will push families onto the exchanges to buy coverage. This will force low-wage service industry employees to spend $2.00, $3.00 or even $5.00 an hour of their pay to buy similar coverage.”“… the ACA threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.”Obamacare will cost our members the equivalent of a significant pay cut to keep their hard-won benefits.”“… it will inevitably lead to the destruction of the health care plans we were promised we could keep.”




After supporting Obama in both elections, the National Education Association complained that Obamacare’s Cadillac tax would “unfairly cause hardship to American workers and their families”





The National Education Association is a teachers union. It supported Obama in both elections. In April 2015, it complained that Obamacare’s Cadillac tax would “unfairly cause hardship to American workers and their families.



If Obamacare was a success when Obamacare was president, then how do you explain why so many Democrats and unions tried to get exemptions from Obamacare when Obama was president?

1st. I said it was working and good for one simple factual reason; it cut in half the number of uninsured. Was the ACA (there is no such thing as ObamaCare) perfect? No. No system is. But what good is the best insurance/healthcare if you can’t get it? Let me say that again, under the ACA the number of uninsured were cut in half. HALF! That is an amazing success.

(By the way, you can search DVD talk. I was originally VERY opposed to the ACA. Very much. But when I saw how successful it was for getting people insured, I turned a 180 degrees. Again, it is pointless to talk about the advantages or disadvantages of any insurance/healthcare if you can’t get people to buy it or they CAN’T buy it).

2nd. People asking for exemptions or exceptions is no guide to how successful a program is. Every single time there is a new law or regulation, people ask for an out. Most of what you posted were dire “doomsday” predictions of small businesses going out of business that actually never happened. You know, just like how the GOP promised huge growth and pay raises by giving big business a tax break. It simply didn’t happen.

3rd. Most of those exemptions/exceptions were small temporary measures to some businesses and units more time to adapt to the ACA and learn how to budget. Also, the reason it didn’t apply to say Congress is simple. Members of Congress and their staff get their healthcare partcially paid for as a benefit. Removing them from it and forcing them to go through the exchanges, but losing a benefit. It like me. I work for a large company who covers roughly 60% of the premium cost for my insurance. So that is much less for me than to go through an exchanged (I would not qualify for any sort of subsidy).

4th. It’s ironic that most conservatives and the GOP oppose the ACA. The ACA is based “loosely” on a GOP plan. Thats why (in part) Obama picked it. Obama wanted Single Payer. But knew that was a non-starter so he went with something that would hopefully gain bipartisan support. Of course it didn’t work and we all know why. It’s also why the GOP totally failed to come up with a replacement for the ACA. The ACA was again loosely based on their only plan for healthcare. Obama took it, made modifications/changes and got implemented. That left the GOP with no replacement plan.

It’s now time for Single Payer. People like they could get insurance easily. People like they didn’t have to study a policy for coverages since under the ACA all had to cover the “essentials”. People like they didn’t have to worry about caps or limits. People liked they couldn’t be excluded due to pre-existing conditions. People liked they could get coverage even if they low income and even middle income had help.

You know, Trump my succeed in his quest to fully dismantle the ACA. But what would be ironic is if that ends up setting the stage for Single Payer...People do not want to go back to the old system. And Single Payer also gives MORE to the benefits of the ACA.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 01-31-19, 08:43 AM
  #7241  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Vibiana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Living in a van down by the river
Posts: 13,674
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

https://johnpavlovitz.com/2019/01/28...FC_dXyiQT6svLY
Vibiana is offline  
Old 02-01-19, 07:29 AM
  #7242  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 30,302
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9


The comments are filled with people from the UK and elsewhere saying that insulin is either low cost or outright free under their system. That sounds like a better system than what’s happening here. Let’s go with that system.
Draven is offline  
Old 02-01-19, 08:41 AM
  #7243  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,087
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by Draven View Post
https://twitter.com/frozensooner/sta...51362829934593

The comments are filled with people from the UK and elsewhere saying that insulin is either low cost or outright free under their system. That sounds like a better system than what’s happening here. Let’s go with that system.
Do you want government to pay for his drug? Or have the government force the drug company to lower their prices on new drugs under patent?

Sounds like from reading the comments, he doesn't mind paying more for a new drug for the benefits (slow release vs multiple shots), and knows that after he reaches his deductible, the costs become much more affordable.

I doubt the UK would cover his drug, probably the standard generic treatments.
PerryD is offline  
Old 02-01-19, 09:28 AM
  #7244  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,911
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by PerryD View Post
Do you want government to pay for his drug? Or have the government force the drug company to lower their prices on new drugs under patent?

Sounds like from reading the comments, he doesn't mind paying more for a new drug for the benefits (slow release vs multiple shots), and knows that after he reaches his deductible, the costs become much more affordable.

I doubt the UK would cover his drug, probably the standard generic treatments.
That is part (and only part) of the issue in the US. Without getting into the weeds of a single case, health care is the only industry (that I’m aware of) that charges more as the product gets older. Things like decades old MRI’s cost more now then when new and more in the US than in other countries. Why? Because they know they can charge more. Pretty much thats it. Under a single payer, yes the government would set some prices. But it not so these procedures can’t make money, its to stop being silly with it.

Think about it. Does the iPhone 6 cost more or less now than when it came out? Does a 5 year old computer cost more now or when it was new? Yet we have an issue in the US where companies can charge more for dated technology and drugs in healthcare. Because they can. Countries with single payer don’t allow them to do that. And they make plenty of money.

Another issue is complexity. That same drug might cost more or less out of pocket to different patients. Why? What state are they in? What insurance do they have? Is it in-network or out? Does that insurance company have an arrangement with CVS?

(I had typed a long, boring example of the one tiny drug I’m on for blood pressure. Brand name, loyalty card, generic switching pharmacies, etc.) Point is, it doesn’t need to be that complicated to the patient.

If someone is taking the latest and greatest or some experimental thing...great...that is always available. But every day common item, come on. Providers are just taking advantage of us.

Again, I’m a capitalist. I think our system works great for widgets. But for peoples lives? Providers could solve the issue themselves. But they have no incentive to do so. Why should they?
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 02-01-19, 09:35 AM
  #7245  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,087
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

I'm 100% for generic drugs being very low cost, and pharma companies should not be able to block drugs from going generic. Those issues are actually being worked on this year with bi-partisan support which we both should be able to agree on. I was just providing a counterpoint to the tweet that suggested that he was going to be able to get a new drug cheaply if he lived in another country, or that universal health care would allow him access to expensive new treatments.
PerryD is offline  
Old 02-01-19, 10:31 AM
  #7246  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,911
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by PerryD View Post
I'm 100% for generic drugs being very low cost, and pharma companies should not be able to block drugs from going generic. Those issues are actually being worked on this year with bi-partisan support which we both should be able to agree on. I was just providing a counterpoint to the tweet that suggested that he was going to be able to get a new drug cheaply if he lived in another country, or that universal health care would allow him access to expensive new treatments.
Agreed. But it goes beyond drug prices. MRI’s are decades old technology. But providers charge more and more because they can. If if the insurance won’t pay for it, they simply won’t accept that insurance but accept one that will pay what they want. Under a Single Payer the provider could not refuse to accept it. Oh, literally they could, but since everyone would have that plan, they would be foolish to (unless they wanted to run a cash only service and thats fine).

The pricing models on products we see on most items doesn’t seem to apply to healthcare. Yet there is no real reason it shouldn’t.

As for extremely expensive or experimental items, that is fairly easy to address.

IMO the first and foremost most important issue is getting everyone covered. Then we can fully debate individual items. I’m well aware that a Single Payer is NOT a magic wand that fixes all. That issues will still be there that they would need to be addressed.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 02-01-19, 10:32 AM
  #7247  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
GreenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,289
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by PerryD View Post
Do you want government to pay for his drug? Or have the government force the drug company to lower their prices on new drugs under patent?

Sounds like from reading the comments, he doesn't mind paying more for a new drug for the benefits (slow release vs multiple shots), and knows that after he reaches his deductible, the costs become much more affordable.

I doubt the UK would cover his drug, probably the standard generic treatments.
I know a guy that was in the same boat with the insulin and no insurance. Type 1 diabetic. Found out about the cheaper/older generic stuff at Walmart and started buying that.

I did some reading on this a while ago. Problem is that the newer insulin is a lot safer and does a better job managing sugar levels than the old cheap stuff. Meaning less complications, organ wear and tear, etc. You can google it and read a few articles on it if you want to know the difference.

It's a survivability issue. People are using the old cheap stuff and probably slicing quality of life / life length off, in the long run, to save a few bucks.

Seems pretty terrible to me.
GreenMonkey is offline  
Old 02-01-19, 11:17 AM
  #7248  
Political Exile
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,087
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by Sdallnct View Post
Agreed. But it goes beyond drug prices. MRI’s are decades old technology. But providers charge more and more because they can. If if the insurance won’t pay for it, they simply won’t accept that insurance but accept one that will pay what they want. Under a Single Payer the provider could not refuse to accept it. Oh, literally they could, but since everyone would have that plan, they would be foolish to (unless they wanted to run a cash only service and thats fine).

The pricing models on products we see on most items doesn’t seem to apply to healthcare. Yet there is no real reason it shouldn’t.

As for extremely expensive or experimental items, that is fairly easy to address.

IMO the first and foremost most important issue is getting everyone covered. Then we can fully debate individual items. I’m well aware that a Single Payer is NOT a magic wand that fixes all. That issues will still be there that they would need to be addressed.
There is new Trump backed legislation that requires hospital pricing to be publicly available. Now when you need an MRI, you can search and compare to find who has the best prices. Once it gets around that ABC Clinic has the cheapest MRIs, then other clinics will be forced to drop their prices, etc. This is the competition solution rather than just keeping the system the way it is, and throwing more money at the problem.

Going after drug prices and hospital costs will save everyone money including medicare and medicaid, once those enormous costs are dealt with, certainly it is viable to expand coverage for those recipients (say lowering age to qualify for medicare, or increasing income requirements for medicaid). Taxing young healthy people just wasn't a good solution.
PerryD is offline  
Old 02-01-19, 12:19 PM
  #7249  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,911
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

Originally Posted by PerryD View Post
There is new Trump backed legislation that requires hospital pricing to be publicly available. Now when you need an MRI, you can search and compare to find who has the best prices. Once it gets around that ABC Clinic has the cheapest MRIs, then other clinics will be forced to drop their prices, etc. This is the competition solution rather than just keeping the system the way it is, and throwing more money at the problem.

Going after drug prices and hospital costs will save everyone money including medicare and medicaid, once those enormous costs are dealt with, certainly it is viable to expand coverage for those recipients (say lowering age to qualify for medicare, or increasing income requirements for medicaid). Taxing young healthy people just wasn't a good solution.
Publishing prices does nothing. What the patient wants to know is their out of pocket expense. Which the hospital cannot predict. Thats part of the issue. Beside if the Hospital across town does the MRI for the least amount but does NOT take my insurance plan, what good is it? As an example, I’ve had at one time BCBS HMO and then switched to BCBS Group. Believe it or not, not all providers take both. And some take one, but not the other. Again, your saying “everyone will have to price match”. Why? They all do not take the same insurance and just not take one or the other.

Publishing prices only helps those paying cash. It works well on elective items such as lasik. But when you break your ankle during your weekend softball game are you really going to Google “cheap MRI” and then research if the insurance you have works at that place?

I can go right now to the BCBS website and see prices charged for many items by providers. But it does me no good. I would then have to see where I am with my deductible, where I am with my HSA, what is my current co-pay, have I met my total out of pocket expense for the year.

What do you mean “taxing young health people”? I’m not aware anyone was doing that. If you mean, young healthy people were “forced” to buy coverage, well yea. But pooling of money in insurance is NOT taxing. An easy and obvious example is the California Fires. Thousands of homes burned to the gound. Lost everything. Home, belongings AND had to pay to live in a hotel. Not a single one of those individuals paid enough premiums on their home insurance in their entire life to cover what the insurance company will pay. The millions who bought home insurance in California helped pay for those “few” people who lost everything. That is the way insurance works. So the person who never once turned in a claim for decades is helping those who lost everything. Thats the way it works.

The ACA was a good first step. But it was still through insurance companies who 1) by law are not allowed to work together and 2) don’t have the clout to really move change. Plus it just adds to the complication. It’s time to streamline the process and use the power of a single entity to move change.

I did have a thought. If Single Payer is so “big and scary” I think a Medicare for all system might work. I would modify the base Medicare to give better benefits, but still basic. Make it an emergency only plan that everyone has and paid for with taxes. Then if the individual wants to have more comprehensive coverage they buy it through private. I mean we “all” seem to think that is fine for seniors. So why not for everyone???? That private insurance should be less as it doesn’t have to cover emergencies that are covered by Medicare.

Now one draw back is it still doesn’t address people who wouldn’t buy more coverage so just show up at the ER.
Sdallnct is offline  
Old 02-01-19, 08:16 PM
  #7250  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 27,911
Re: Health Care discussion continues - part 9

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/opini...ker/index.html

Good quick article. Mentions another place to get money. Businesses right now pay a ton of money either partially or fully paying for healthcare of their employees. In a Single Payer, Medicare for all, etc, that money could go to the government to help cover cost. Just like they pay the money now.

Last edited by Sdallnct; 02-02-19 at 10:27 AM.
Sdallnct is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.