dagblog - Comments for "Rahm was right (??!!!) Economic recovery should have come first"

PROMISED Single-Payer (Rather

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:02:47 +0000

In reply to Rahm was right (??!!!) Economic recovery should have come first

PROMISED Single-Payer (Rather dan a pitiful pool of PPCACA circling the Poppy Bush-Hog [with Lipstick] Company tiny turlitzer bowl).

But under the ACA, employers

jollyroger — Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:25:52 +0000

In reply to Rahm was right (??!!!) Economic recovery should have come first

But under the ACA, employers face no significant penalties for abandoning Taft-Hartley coverage for their workers, thus imperiling existing systems of insurance that are valued by unions and their members.

Furthermore, Unite Here asserts, low-income employees can only get government subsidies for insurance if they abandon their existing plans to buy new ones on the public exchanges. And leaders fear the ensuing exodus may ultimately doom the availability of Taft-Hartley plans for all employees. Yet Obama, Unite Here officials say, has continued to balk.

“In the three years since ACA was passed, we met with the White House 46 times” to press the case for specific changes to the law, Taylor says. “We met with Health and Human Services Department 12 times. And we met with the Department of Labor and the IRS.”

But their hard work, he says, did not come to fruition. “After you meet 46 times and nothing happens, you get the point,” Taylor says, that the White House does not intend to aid labor unions in their efforts to protect the Taft-Hartley plans.

“There is no point in talking to this administration anymore. The White House has been blatantly dishonest,” Taylor argues. “We took the president at his word when he said that if you like your current health plan, you could keep it.”

Perhaps this sort of problem would have been avoided had Obama entered the health care reform fray fortified with the political capital he would have accrued from a truly successful eonomic stimulus...