Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone notice that no one came to defend the unions in this thread ?
There is no reason to defend Unions. What does it matter if the Unions bargin for the best health care cost or if Obamacare bargins for the best health care cost.
Anyone notice that no one came to defend the unions in this thread ?
The unions was part of the Obama machine. They thought they were going to benefit. Looks like Obama didn't keep his part of the agreement so far. It looks like Obamacare will help undermine the unions.
There was also a backroom deal between the Clintons and Obama. Clintons job was to go out and help Obama get re-elected and if Hillary runs Obama part of the agreement is to promote Hillary. We already saw part of it play out when Obama and Hillary had the love fest on Benghazi on 60 minutes.
It seems to me the OP is supporting this union's complaint that the ACA will make it more competitive for union-staffed contractors when bidding for work ... because of the premium clients pay when using union contractors (due to health and welfare payments.) Romney would support ACA in this instance. Not oppose it. After all ... the ACA was his idea in the first place.
The unions thought they were going to be unaffected by this and are now finding out they are in the same boat as everyone else..they will have to shell out more money to cover their members.
Those "waivers" weren't forever.
All they did was put themselves at a greater disadvantage than they were before.
There is no reason to defend Unions. What does it matter if the Unions bargin for the best health care cost or if Obamacare bargins for the best health care cost.
half a dozen or six which is better?
The roofers union wants it repealed now.
Other unions want in on the subsidized exchanges.
If they want the best healthcare for their members then they need to just shut up and open their bank accounts and pay up.
The roofers union wants it repealed now.
Other unions want in on the subsidized exchanges.
If they want the best healthcare for their members then they need to just shut up and open their bank accounts and pay up.
They finally figured out that free was not so free after all. Here is what union leaders are saying
Our concerns over certain provisions in the ACA have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored. In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the Act's provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer sponsored coverage could keep it.
These provisions jeopardize our multi-employer health plans, have the potential to cause a loss of work for our members, create an unfair bidding advantage for those contractors who do not provide health coverage to their workers, and in the worst case, may cause our members and their families to lose the benefits they currently enjoy as participants in multi-employer health plans.
Remember President Obama's promise that “If you like your health-care plan, you 'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period?
The biggest political problem faced by so-called “liberals” and so-called “progressives” in Obama’s second term is how to prevent voters from holding them politically responsible as the public comes to realize how badly they were lied to during the first Obama term to win passage of Obamacare.
Just wait until the broad realization dawns that the harsh reality of Obamacare is that tens of millions will lose their employer provided insurance. Even the establishment CBO admits that at least 7 million, and as many as 20 million, will lose their employer coverage. In February, CBO reported that “in 2019 [5 years after Obamacare is implemented], an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law.”
Employers can terminate their employee coverage, give their workers a raise with part of the savings, and let the taxpayers bear the cost of subsidizing their coverage in the Exchanges.
Romney lost when the doctor cut his umbilical cord. He was born a dope. If his old man wasn't of some prominence, he'd be sweeping floors at a paper plant.
Besides, what did "jobs, jobs, jobs" even mean coming out of his mouth? Since when do presidents create jobs? I thought you wingers believed that government (president is part of the government...in case you didn't know) doe not and can not create even a single job.
But I guess you're gonna say that Romney was to be the first to do it, huh?
lol, so first comes the insult of course
jobs, jobs, jobs does not mean that government will create jobs. Are you really that stupid to believe we thought Romney meant government creating jobs. Of course those of us who don't look to the government from cradle to grave understood.
No wonder you couldn't understand the rest of what he said. he was talking to stupid. And then you wonder why he wanted to spend his campaign money on people who understand how the economy works.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) doe not and can not create even a single job.
