Obama Breaks Promise on Healthcare Reform Coverage

Obama Breaks Promise on Healthcare Reform Coverage
newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Health-Overhaul-Keeping/2010/06/11/id/361776

Over and over in the healthcare debate, President Barack Obama said people who like their current coverage would be able to keep it.

But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the new law. In just three years, a majority of workers — 51 percent — will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to the draft.

Employers say it's more evidence that the law will drive up costs. Republicans say Obama broke his promise....

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

All bogus. No true reform without the public option. And over 60% are for that.

If his lips are moving he is likely lying!

An Employer I know said when this goes through-she will not give employees paid vacations anymore (they can take the time off as given now-but won’t receive pay for the time), no paid sick days, nor will they receive pay increases-even if the Cost-of-Living goes up (and it does each year), and-no more bonuses at Christmas.

“Hope and Change” will receive them.

She said: If they don’t like it, they can leave and go elsewhere. There are plenty of other people (workers) around here willing to take their place.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

I'm sure that will attract the finest, best qualified workers.

Just like the ones she has, of course (ranch work)-although, I can say this: none are illegals.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

If he or she is a politician, same holds true. Nothing new there. Does anyone really believe politicians will hold to their campaign promises? Does anyone really believe in their overstated achievements? Is anyway really impressed with their grandstanding tactics? You must if you vote.

[quote="ProVobis, post:7, topic:201742"]
If he or she is a politician, same holds true. Nothing new there. Does anyone really believe politicians will hold to their campaign promises? Does anyone really believe in their overstated achievements? Is anyway really impressed with their grandstanding tactics? You must if you vote.

[/quote]

I have a sister who clumps everyone together.

"They're all the same. Why vote?" she asks.

She too has given up. Thrown in the towel.

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You.
Love, Dawn

A lot of people in New Jersey certainly believe that Chris Christie will keep his campaign promises. Many of them are teachers and government workers. They know he’ll keep them…and they’re terrified that their gravy train is coming to an end.

[quote="DawnInTexas, post:4, topic:201742"]
An Employer I know said when this goes through-she will not give employees paid vacations anymore (they can take the time off as given now-but won't receive pay for the time), no paid sick days, nor will they receive pay increases-even if the Cost-of-Living goes up (and it does each year), and-no more bonuses at Christmas.

"Hope and Change" will receive them.

She said: If they don't like it, they can leave and go elsewhere. There are plenty of other people (workers) around here willing to take their place.

[/quote]

Sounds like her workers need a union! I can't wait for the Obama administration to come through with card check.

St. Joseph the Worker, pray for us!

I was going to respond with a short and simple :rolleyes:. But I figured that wouldn’t go over well.

So instead, I’ll note that you seem to be missing the point. A union won’t help the employer provide all the benefits you seem to think will magically appear if a union were created. Why is the employer saying that there will be no paid vacations, bonuses, etc? Is it because Obamacare will make it impossible to afford said benefits? And creating a union will cause funding for the benefits to materialize out of thin air? I think Dawn’s point was clear–it cannot be afforded.

Be real here. There are very real costs associated with implementing Obamacare that will be put on the shoulders of insurance companies, businesses, and individuals. To think that Obama signing a piece of paper will suddenly create the resources necessary fund such benefits has to be one of the biggest con jobs ever. Where will the money come from? It will either come from: less jobs, less benefits, increased costs, or increased taxes. Those that think that Obamacare suddenly made things better without affecting anything else are deluded.

Yeah, because an open ballot is an essential part of fair elections and collective bargaining. :rolleyes:

[quote="Suudy, post:11, topic:201742"]
I was going to respond with a short and simple :rolleyes:. But I figured that wouldn't go over well.

So instead, I'll note that you seem to be missing the point. A union won't help the employer provide all the benefits you seem to think will magically appear if a union were created. Why is the employer saying that there will be no paid vacations, bonuses, etc? Is it because Obamacare will make it impossible to afford said benefits? And creating a union will cause funding for the benefits to materialize out of thin air? I think Dawn's point was clear--it cannot be afforded.

Be real here. There are very real costs associated with implementing Obamacare that will be put on the shoulders of insurance companies, businesses, and individuals. To think that Obama signing a piece of paper will suddenly create the resources necessary fund such benefits has to be one of the biggest con jobs ever. Where will the money come from? It will either come from: less jobs, less benefits, increased costs, or increased taxes. Those that think that Obamacare suddenly made things better without affecting anything else are deluded.

[/quote]

I don't know if you insinuate me among the deluded, but you should not. Of course paying for health care costs money. It should be coming from the employer out of increased profit-sharing and more just compensation for labor provided. When it does not, and the government has to step in, then yes, it's going to appear to increase costs to the employer, perhaps in the form of higher taxes. The government should not have to hold your hand and make you do the right thing, but it often must.

Of course, you would probably be against it, but our private insurance system actually drives up the costs of health care. Eliminate that through a single-payer system, or at least provide true competition through a public option, and...voila! Savings! Cut the fat and lower the cost for all. Then the employer doesn't even have to meddle with paying directly for health care.

Perhaps YOU missed my point. I never said anything about Obama's health care plan having benefits magically appear out of thin air. I did, however, say that the employer-in-question's workers should have formed a union - mainly to have bargained for said benefits, including health care. That way, they would be proactively protected from an announcement of "take it or leave it - there are plenty of others who will work for me under those terms." Of course, no such ultimatum would need be offered and no hardship created, because the employer would already be in compliance or would have the means to re-distribute funds from one health care plan to another.

This is a side note, but,

Yeah, because an open ballot is an essential part of fair elections and collective bargaining. :rolleyes:

No eye roll necessary. Open ballots - open organizing - open EVERYTHING is essential to preserving democracy and collective bargaining. Societies publicly vote for things all the time. Pepperoni or sausage pizza? Raise your hand. All in favor of appointing Sally Doe to altar guild secretary, say Aye. Right now the deck is so stacked against organizing through forced anti-union propaganda in training, meetings, rewards, etc. that people out of fear of losing what they have will not openly admit to wanting a union. Yes, there are laws to prevent fearmongering, coercion, intimidation, and termination of employment, but the penalties are considered "worth it" to stop a union from forming in the eyes of managment; therefore they are little more than a slap on the wrist. The reality of the current secret-ballot voting procedure it is not democratic; it is a company-controlled election which often takes over a year for the employer to be forced into recognizing the presence of the legitimate union by the NLRB...long enough to go all out in a last-ditch attempt to stop it.

I used to work for one of the largest Local Teamsters Unions in the Country (it actually split while I was there, and I went with the Master Freight side-the other was “miscellaneous”, like Anheuser Busch and the factories). Anyway, I handled the filing of Petitions (organizing) and the typing and paperwork with Contracts, Negotiations, Strikes, Mediation Boards, etc.

When non-Union Companies felt the Union was around, they would either give their employees a raise or threaten to close if they did organize. Well, the closing was a threat to scare the workers into voting against…but that was in a different economy.

My wealthy friend, this Employer-buys, has bred (by others), has trained (by others), has raced (by others)-Thoroughbred Racehorses. Lots of people are employed by her, myself included 2 nights a week during foaling season-I mare watch and foal out her mares part-time. <I make mission Rosary money for the rest of the year ;)>

Anyway, she doesn’t depend upon the income. She can do without, after all, it’s not a widget that everyone needs. (I wonder how much-with all the costs-she actually makes-but it’s not my business!) I mean, everything is first class all the way…Anyway, she could have people grow hay on her land-keep her Ag Exemption, and just live in her mansion with her horses all around, and fly all around the world-like she does.

And they (we) can all go work somewhere else. This is what people who are “set for life” do. She doesn’t need the income from being involved with the “Sport of Kings.”

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
......No eye roll necessary. Open ballots - open organizing - open EVERYTHING is essential to preserving democracy and collective bargaining. Societies publicly vote for things all the time. Pepperoni or sausage pizza? Raise your hand. All in favor of appointing Sally Doe to altar guild secretary, say Aye. Right now the deck is so stacked against organizing through forced anti-union propaganda in training, meetings, rewards, etc. that people out of fear of losing what they have will not openly admit to wanting a union. Yes, there are laws to prevent fearmongering, coercion, intimidation, and termination of employment, but the penalties are considered "worth it" to stop a union from forming in the eyes of managment; therefore they are little more than a slap on the wrist. The reality of the current secret-ballot voting procedure it is not democratic; it is a company-controlled election which often takes over a year for the employer to be forced into recognizing the presence of the legitimate union by the NLRB...long enough to go all out in a last-ditch attempt to stop it.

[/quote]

Unless things have changed since we did it, the Union was at the Company when the Election was held.

We would file a Petition when 50% +1 signed organizing cards. <-Those could not be fired from their jobs once the Petition was filed, until after the election.

The election needed 50% +1 to vote in favor to be organized. Our Business Agents would attempt to get at least 75% to sign before filing a Petition. The reason being-the intimidation by the Company-some would be scared into voting "no."

I certainly would rather have a secret ballot-at the time of voting. Holy cow-like voting in a Voting Booth, I don't want anyone to see what I'm doing-whom I'm voting for. I mean, we're talking about peoples' livelihoods here!

I mean, these people may vote all day long, then go back out to work. I cannot imagine-if the boss man knew how I'd voted-before the results were complete. Jeepers. Makes me shiver to think.

I believe with it not being secret-most people would vote "no."
I know I would. What if the 50% +1 didn't vote yes?

Whew. Glad I'm not involved with any of that anymore (retired).

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

Hi everyone, I just want you to know I have faith in our president and believe him to be the best man for the job. I was hoping for the single payer too like some who have posted here but it looks like I have to wait until medicare kicks in at age 65. I’m a veteran not eligible for VA benefits because I’m not disabled. When the 55 year eligibility for medicare was floated I really liked that because I would have been eligible. But I have a young family and I have to believe the president signed the bill into law that was presented to him because it was the only move he could make in the right direction for the American people. I’m hopeful some of those good features presented by some of the forward and progressive minded house and senate members (age 55 medicare eligibility) that were carved out in compromise will be brought back up again in future legislation. I’m sympathetic and supportive to the change that began with our president signing the health care reform bill.

God bless and semper fidelis,

Jones boy

I owned and operated a small business for 26 years. We provided quality service to our customers at very competitive rates and managed to make ends meet without going into debt.

However, there were quite a few weeks when I didn’t take a salary so that my employees would get paid. There were also many times when I would “bet on the come” by writing checks that exceeded my bank balance hoping that A/R funds would arrive in time to cover them.

I can assure you that my circumstances were not uncommon among feloow small business owners. If I were still in business with the passage of Obamacare, I would have to close shop and add my employees to the unemployment roles.

And I can assure you that a union would not magically have created the funds to cover the increased expense.

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
I don't know if you insinuate me among the deluded, but you should not.

[/quote]

Well, you acknowledged that forming a union won't suddenly create funds to add or maintain benefits, so no, you aren't among the deluded. The deluded are the people that think that because Obamacare passed, things will be just as they were, only better.

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
Of course paying for health care costs money. It should be coming from the employer out of increased profit-sharing and more just compensation for labor provided. When it does not, and the government has to step in, then yes, it's going to appear to increase costs to the employer, perhaps in the form of higher taxes.

[/quote]

I won't argue whether healthcare should come from the employer, because that will take things far afield, but what you are proposing isn't a "should", but a "must". If you think the government "has to step in," perhaps it could so through through enticements, rather than fiat.

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
The government should not have to hold your hand and make you do the right thing, but it often must.

[/quote]

No, it musn't. It is precisely this attitude that has led to the expansion of government power. The government isn't there to make sure people are good, but to keep them from being bad. This benevolent dictator model is exactly why we have a massive expansion of federal social programs (contrary to the principle of subsidiarity), a bloated bureaucracy in every department including environmental, labor, safety, and other issues. If the government spent more time trying to prevent wrongs, rather than dictate good, it would be less expensive, more efficient, and serve more people.

More below....

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
Of course, you would probably be against it, but our private insurance system actually drives up the costs of health care. Eliminate that through a single-payer system, or at least provide true competition through a public option, and...voila! Savings! Cut the fat and lower the cost for all. Then the employer doesn't even have to meddle with paying directly for health care.

[/quote]

"True competition"? Are you serious? Competition is about providing the best service for the lowest cost. The government is neither about good service nor low cost. People complain all the time about corporate welfare, and they are right. For example, people were up in arms about the subsidies Airbus received, making it difficult, if not impossible for Boeing to compete. What you are talking about is a government version of Airbus, but on the healthcare side of things.

It isn't competition if it costs more and provides poor service. It is a subsidy.

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
Perhaps YOU missed my point. I never said anything about Obama's health care plan having benefits magically appear out of thin air. I did, however, say that the employer-in-question's workers should have formed a union - mainly to have bargained for said benefits, including health care.

[/quote]

No, I think you are still missing the point. I think Dawn's example showed what would happen when Obamacare takes effect. It forces many companies to either 1) stay in business, 2) cut benefits, or 3) cut employees. Creating a union does not change the financial outlook, and demanding benefits would cause the employer to either close shop or layoff people.

Contrary to how many employees view things, companies are not awash in cash. They don't just hoard millions of dollars they make in some secret vault where the CEO and his cronies sleep on beds of dollars, or light cigars with $100 bills. Companies have budgets. And usually they have a budget for salaries and benefits. For the sake of example, let's say a company has a budget of $8M a year for salaries and benefits. The employees unionize and demand a 20% increase in their pay and benefits. Suddenly the companies salary budget goes from $8M to $9.6M. Where is that company to get that extra $1.6M? It has to take it from some other budget. Customer service? Maintenance? Inventory? Quality control?

Now, imagine Obamacare having the same effect. My father, after he retired from the Navy, started his own boat repair business. It wasn't large, but he had, on average, about 10 employees (6 mechanics, 2 office staff, and 2 gophers). Mechanics where the highest paid (when I was in high school at a boat repair shop, they were making about $16 to $20 per hour). The shop was open 44 hours a week (Tue-Sat 8-5, Mon 1-5), and close for one week between Christmas and New Years, with a smattering of other holidays--say 2 weeks total. Let's say that the mechanics were making $20/hour, the staff $12/hour, and the gophers $9/hour (minimum wage in WA). They also received all holidays paid, plus an extra week of vacation (total of about 3 weeks). That is a weekly payroll of $7128. Given 52 weeks in a year, that is a yearly payroll of $370k. This is larger than the $250k that Obamacare sets for the threshold that mandates coverage. Note that in this example it was only the pay. It didn't take into account FICA or the employer share of Social Security and Medicare. This also didn't take into account the cost of any benefits. And this didn't even take into account my father's own salary. Nor did it consider other costs, such as B&O taxes, licensing, training, or operating expenses. (Note: My father did provide medical benefits to all the employees except the gophers, who were usually high school students.)

Were the employees to unionize, where would my father find the funds to meet any demands for increased pay or benefits? Eliminate training? Cut hours? Increase prices? And what do any of these do to the company's ability to provide quality service and a good price?

So, when Obamacare takes effect, what choice would a company like this, with no healthcare benefits, have? Where would it suddenly find the funds to provide those benefits? They could cut an employee. They could reduce hours of operation. They could raise prices. Or as Dawn said, they "will not give employees paid vacations anymore (they can take the time off as given now-but won't receive pay for the time), no paid sick days, nor will they receive pay increases-even if the Cost-of-Living goes up (and it does each year), and-no more bonuses at Christmas."

THAT is the point. Creating a union does not change any of those numbers.

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
That way, they would be proactively protected from an announcement of "take it or leave it - there are plenty of others who will work for me under those terms." Of course, no such ultimatum would need be offered and no hardship created, because the employer would already be in compliance or would have the means to re-distribute funds from one health care plan to another.

[/quote]

No, I think you are still missing the point. I think Dawn's example showed what would happen when Obamacare takes effect. It forces many companies to either 1) stay in business, 2) cut benefits, or 3) cut employees. And unionizing would force the same choices.

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
No eye roll necessary. Open ballots - open organizing - open EVERYTHING is essential to preserving democracy and collective bargaining. Societies publicly vote for things all the time. Pepperoni or sausage pizza? Raise your hand. All in favor of appointing Sally Doe to altar guild secretary, say Aye.

[/quote]

The difference is that all your examples are eye roll worthy. The worst outcome of a bad choice is indigestion or suffering from Sally Doe's heavy perfume. Unionizing has the potential to significantly change the livelihood of employees for the worse. If a company is unable to afford the demands, they either go out of business (everyone loses their jobs), increase prices (reducing their ability to compete, making it even harder to pay those benefits), or cut costs (perhaps by layoffs, eliminating some people from their jobs).

You don't mind if we come into the booth with you as you cast your vote do you? I tell you what, I'll sit in your living room with your wife and kids, while my associate accompanies you to the booth. We know you'll cast a vote for the right person.

There is a reason some elections shouldn't be open.

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
Right now the deck is so stacked against organizing through forced anti-union propaganda in training, meetings, rewards, etc. that people out of fear of losing what they have will not openly admit to wanting a union. Yes, there are laws to prevent fearmongering, coercion, intimidation, and termination of employment, but the penalties are considered "worth it" to stop a union from forming in the eyes of managment; therefore they are little more than a slap on the wrist.

[/quote]

And you don't think an open ballot would tilt things in the opposite direction? Oh sure, "there are laws to prevent fearmongering, coercion, intimidation," but will the penalties be considered "worth it" to form a union in the eyes of union leadership? They would little more than a slap on the wrist.

The private ballot is the only thing preserving the integrity of the elections. The process leading up to the elections might be problematic, but making the election open does nothing to improve that process.

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
The reality of the current secret-ballot voting procedure it is not democratic;

[/quote]

It's not? So the current secret-ballot voting for President isn't democratic? For Senator? For mayor?

[quote="ChemicalBean, post:12, topic:201742"]
it is a company-controlled election which often takes over a year for the employer to be forced into recognizing the presence of the legitimate union by the NLRB...long enough to go all out in a last-ditch attempt to stop it.

[/quote]

Be for real here. The election isn't the problem. The problem is the process leading up to the election, not the election.

I will say this, when I worked for the Teamsters, all of our Contracts were for 3 years (we also handled UPS in our Master Frieght Local).

As a side note: I worked there during deregulation of the Trucking Industry-but that's another thread (would need to be made if wanted to discuss).

Anyway, the 3 year Contracts would lay out the hourly wage (based upon tenure). Each year, there would be an increase ~and~ a COLA (Cost-of-Living-Allowance).

My sister currently is a bookkeeper for a Construction Company. The owner gave himself a 50% paycut. Everyone received a different percentage, depending upon what they make. She got a 17% paycut. She moved her son, his wife and 3 kids down here from Ohio to live with her, because he was on layoff, and there was no work up in their area (Ohio). My brother (in Ohio) does construction work, and he too is on layoff for the first time in his life.

Back to the Company my sister works for-if they don't make a profit this month (June), the 2nd biggest paycheck (after the owner) will be laid off.

If they were Union, under a Collective Bargaining Agreement-at this rate, they would all be out of a job. Eventually, the Company would be forced to go "Tango Uniform."

Unlike Obama, Companies cannot pull money out of a hat.
I saw this with the deregulation of the Trucking Industry. The Master Frieght Agreement dictated pay and benefits-and there were Independents buying trucks and under-bidding the Union Companies. Many went out of Business-those who didn't (mainly) merged with another Company. <-Many of these went out later (for one, think of Commercial and Lovelace-became Commercial-Lovelace).

I remember every time the Local attempted to organize Overnight Trucking (about once a year-they were large, and the International wanted them), the Company gave the drivers and dockworkers a raise. Were they ever successful? I don't know. But, not while I was there. Anyway...

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You.
Love, Dawn

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.