Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Union Letter on ACA

Posted 4 years ago on Sept. 29, 2013, 6:51 p.m. EST by IrishRevolt (5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement



After shipping all the manufacturing jobs to China with no regulations, it looks like the Clinton/Bush connection got its way with health insurance as well.

Just force them to buy it. If they don't, fine them. Win-win for insurance companies.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 4 years ago

The unions' biggest complaint is that companies will switch 40 hour workers to 30 hour workers to avoid the ACA Disney just switched 400 30 hour people to 40 hours Yes - your read that right. Do you know of ANY companies that switched FROM 40 TO 30 specifically for this reason ? ANYONE ?

[-] -1 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

Get a clue Bensdad, at least understand what you are posting. Offering a fulltime position to 437 out of 37,000 employees is meaningless, and just another PR move. Apparently Disney is in with some insurance cartel ceo's, do them a nice little pr move.

And there you are, posting it and proclaiming, the intent of such a small move with a big release.

Read the story before flapping your mouth about your Romneycare:


[-] 1 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago


More corporate mandates to come as the corporate takeover continues, coming to a city near you if it isnt already there.

If you feel you live in a city where corporate takeover hasnt happened a long time ago, please notify the post so we can do an analysis and see what worked.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 years ago

while the republicans play us for fools by making no attempt to suggest public health care is the solution of most first world countries

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 4 years ago

UNIONS have already provided health care insurance for their members (it's the first thing they do ~ HINT HINT!), that the teamsters ~ WHO SUPPORTED FUCKING RAYGUN ~ are blabbing for $$ is not a surprise at all!

[-] -1 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

What do think about the UFCW putting their name on it? Apparently they have some serious concerns over the 30hr a week cut off.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 4 years ago

Here's what I think IR: UNIONS like SANE PEOPLE have to push back against a lot of insane saboteurs, infiltrators, and enemies. ACA isn't perfect and there is a lot of misinformation and LIES being pushed by 1%-MSM & their Con-Cult about it. Go figure!

[-] -1 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

I'm not sure what giving insurance companies more customers was suppose to accomplish besides increasing their profits.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 4 years ago

this may or may not increase profits.
adding millions of customers is offset by
foring the companies to cover adult children ,
eliminate "pre-existing condition" restrictions
eliminate caps

wanna bet that Hillary will try for single payer

[-] 0 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

"wanna bet that Hillary will try for single payer"

Well, this is the plan she was vouching for in the 08 primaries. That being said, Dems have been "trying" for single payer since forever.

Its all those pesky insurance company donations that make it impossible.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 4 years ago

see HJR29 & support it

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 4 years ago

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you had no access whatsoever to News for the better part of twenty years and missed the whole Hillary Care and then Obama Care debates in which the 1%-owned Big Insurance-GOP fought tooth and nail ($pending Billion$) to defeat. The choice came down to doing nothing or making a compromise that retained the Big-Insurance middlemen (with restricted profits) and included almost all the Uninsured Americans. Like all our great social service programs, it starts out small and then builds. The goal is to institute Public Healthcare like the rest of the modern world and tell Big-Ins to fuck off.

I still don't get How You Don't Know This, you're on a computer, haven't you discovered Google?


[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 4 years ago

Countdown to (possible/probable) shutdown

Updated Sept. 30, 2013, 9:50 p.m.

Keeping track of the federal budget [GOP hostage crisis] negotiations in Congress.


[-] 0 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

Some Americans will ignore the truth even when its put right in front of them.

A politicians speaking of how something is bad to win an election, then explaining its good, and all the seals clapping along to it all. Terrifying. A nation desperate for leadership is destined to be misled.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

I put the truth in front of you and you ignore it.

Then you lie about stuff and quote the Wallstreet Journal.

What I can make of that, is that you are a puppet of someone else.

Someone, who's been on this forum in the past.

Now who could that someone be?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

Murdock's, Wallstreet Journal and youtube.

All I can say is LOL.

Let's play follow the puppets.

[-] 0 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

This clip appears to be straight from the president's own mouth, puppet masters behind him still hidden no doubt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FknJLMc84bo

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

Perhaps, but you never fessed up to your own personal puppet master.


You are no better. In fact, even worse.

It's not like you've commented on the fact that those "masters", as you like to call, them have been NAMED in the States.

Indeed, your lack of comment on that fact, lends credence to your own personal puppethood.

How's it feel to be a puppet?

[-] 1 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

Do you vote for these people? Thats some serious strings on that machine.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

What's that got to do with you being a puppet?

What's it got to do with your love of the Wallstreet Journal?

I guess it's you who is the "machine".

[-] 0 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

"What's that got to do with you being a puppet?"

This may need a bit more deeper thought than a quick reply. We are all guilty in one way or another, its what bonds us.

Calling posters puppets who are showing specific politicians going against their word is something that one expects out of other users, not moderators.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago


That is very much a part of my job.

To point out puppets.

The only one guilty, is apparently YOU, so please don't attempt to paste your personal issues on others. It's disingenuous, to say the least.

So, who's puppet are you anyway?

It's not like you've ever had anything positive to say about unions anywhere else.

to quote them from the WallStreet Journal , is just so very, very wrong.

[-] 0 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

Did they not write that letter?


No one is looking for hostile confrontations, simply some thoughts on perhaps why the unions would be penning a letter like this. WSmith said that some of the unions supported Raygun in the 80s, that was news to me.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

Uh huh, so you can find it elsewhere.

It doesn't change knowing where you first looked to find it.

But since you're not going to address the fact of your own puppethood...........

How would you expect unions to react?

They've been misaligned, misjudged, misquoted, beat up, lied about, had their jugular cut and anti-unioned, almost to death.

One of the biggest valid complaints to me, is how many concessions they have given up to secure health benefits, among other things.

And now a Cadillac tax, as yet another concession to the (R)epelican'ts?


How about a comment from you on Michigan getting "right to work" bullshit shoved down their throats??

All for the Koch's

No, you bringing this "union" issue up in this manner IS confrontational.

So why lie about it?

It's a MUCH bigger issue than this single point.

One that you've ignored, so far.

[-] 0 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

"No, you bringing this "union" issue up in this manner IS confrontational."

Its not confrontational, its a legitimate concern. If these three groups penned their names on this letter, and we support these three groups, then this discussion needs to happen.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

If your aim was not confrontational, and discussion your aim, then why have you once again, ignored the information I provided?


Your attempts at insult, and your refusal to explain yourself, prove your confrontational stance.

[-] 0 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

If you had ended your statement "How would you expect unions to react? They've been misaligned, misjudged, misquoted, beat up, lied about, had their jugular cut and anti-unioned, almost to death. One of the biggest valid complaints to me, is how many concessions they have given up to secure health benefits, among other things."

If it was ended at that, it would be the start of a discussion. But for some reason you have to throw an attack at the end of every post, and it takes the whole thing into the gutter.

In regards to the first part of your statement, This is how I would expect them to react. They see some concerns in this law, and they are voicing their concerns. The restuarant workers in terms of the 30hrs a week clause are going to get crushed by this apparently.

They have been maligned and beat up, and the anti union pressure is very strong against them. That being said, they have to fight back, and some of that blame has to fall on their leadership. Its very hard to speak out against the ones that help and benefit, a conflict of interest of sorts.

Money in politics, the root of almost all of today's economic problems.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 4 years ago

"how many concessions they have given up to secure health benefits, among other things."

How is that an attack on you?

It was you who insulted me in another thread.

In fact, your entire comment shows no understanding of how unions came to be in the position they are in today, nor is it a comment on the information provided.

I find that confrontational.


[-] -1 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

And that in there leads to the problem, because there is a very cozy relationship between those in the major unions with power, and those in politics (who claim to support them) with power. With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake going both ways.

Power. Humans just love power. More than money? That would be a nice test.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 4 years ago

Oh yes, the Unions are soooo Powerful and in Control!!!


[-] 2 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 4 years ago

At a certain point,most of the large flagship unions became infiltrated by the Cosa Nostra.Or at least,that was the public perception.So they lost their credibility and also became-unappealing?This is only one of many,many ways The Deep State has used The Cosa Nostra to attack the workers,to destroy Democracy and spread every conceivable form of corruption as far and wide as possible.People who belonged to unions were respected community leaders until they were tainted by association with the dirty,disgusting drug dealing, murdering Dirtbags who constitute the American Cosa Nostra.And you can't really undo the damage by swearing up and down that you aren't associated with the underworld.That's like trying to convince people you aren't involved with witchcraft.Once suspected-that's it.Ingenious AND diabolical manipulation of perception.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 4 years ago

Rebels Without a Clue

By PAUL KRUGMAN | Published: September 29, 2013

This may be the way the world ends — not with a bang but with a temper tantrum. [ Like the 2010 Voter tantrum! ]

O.K., a temporary government shutdown — which became almost inevitable after Sunday’s House vote to provide government funding only on unacceptable conditions — wouldn’t be the end of the world. But a U.S. government default, which will happen unless Congress raises the debt ceiling soon, might cause financial catastrophe. Unfortunately, many Republicans either don’t understand this or don’t care.

Let’s talk first about the economics.

After the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996 many observers concluded that such events, while clearly bad, aren’t catastrophes: essential services continue, and the result is a major nuisance but no lasting harm. That’s still partly true, but it’s important to note that the Clinton-era shutdowns took place against the background of a booming economy. Today we have a weak economy, with falling government spending one main cause of that weakness. A shutdown would amount to a further economic hit, which could become a big deal if the shutdown went on for a long time.

Still, a government shutdown looks benign compared with the possibility that Congress might refuse to raise the debt ceiling.

First of all, hitting the ceiling would force a huge, immediate spending cut, almost surely pushing America back into recession. Beyond that, failure to raise the ceiling would mean missed payments on existing U.S. government debt. And that might have terrifying consequences.

Why? Financial markets have long treated U.S. bonds as the ultimate safe asset; the assumption that America will always honor its debts is the bedrock on which the world financial system rests. In particular, Treasury bills — short-term U.S. bonds — are what investors demand when they want absolutely solid collateral against loans. Treasury bills are so essential for this role that in times of severe stress they sometimes pay slightly negative interest rates — that is, they’re treated as being better than cash.

Now suppose it became clear that U.S. bonds weren’t safe, that America couldn’t be counted on to honor its debts after all. Suddenly, the whole system would be disrupted. Maybe, if we were lucky, financial institutions would quickly cobble together alternative arrangements. But it looks quite possible that default would create a huge financial crisis, dwarfing the crisis set off by the failure of Lehman Brothers five years ago.

No sane political system would run this kind of risk. But we don’t have a sane political system; we have a system in which a substantial number of Republicans believe that they can force President Obama to cancel health reform by threatening a government shutdown, a debt default, or both, and in which Republican leaders who know better are afraid to level with the party’s delusional wing. For they are delusional, about both the economics and the politics.

On the economics: Republican radicals generally reject the scientific consensus on climate change; many of them reject the theory of evolution, too. So why expect them to believe expert warnings about the dangers of default? Sure enough, they don’t: the G.O.P. caucus contains a significant number of “default deniers,” who simply dismiss warnings about the dangers of failing to honor our debts.

Meanwhile, on the politics, reasonable people know that Mr. Obama can’t and won’t let himself be blackmailed in this way, and not just because health reform is his key policy legacy. After all, once he starts making concessions to people who threaten to blow up the world economy unless they get what they want, he might as well tear up the Constitution. But Republican radicals — and even some leaders — still insist that Mr. Obama will cave in to their demands.

So how does this end? The votes to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling are there, and always have been: every Democrat in the House would vote for the necessary measures, and so would enough Republicans. The problem is that G.O.P. leaders, fearing the wrath of the radicals, haven’t been willing to allow such votes. What would change their minds?

Ironically, considering who got us into our economic mess, the most plausible answer is that Wall Street will come to the rescue — that the big money will tell Republican leaders that they have to put an end to the nonsense.

But what if even the plutocrats lack the power to rein in the radicals? In that case, Mr. Obama will either let default happen or find some way of defying the blackmailers, trading a financial crisis for a constitutional crisis.

This all sounds crazy, because it is. But the craziness, ultimately, resides not in the situation but in the minds of our politicians and the people who vote for them. Default is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 4 years ago

This situation truly beggars the imagination and provokes reasonable people beyond endurance.And it seems the citizenry are expected to accept all of this Smiling Whiskey Pete Buffoonery as normal.

[-] 0 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 4 years ago

Worked for the Raygun Revolution which we suffer the consequences of to this day!

[-] 1 points by trashyharry (3082) from Waterville, NY 4 years ago

I really don't think it did work the last time-if my memory serves correctly,the GOP lost control of the House in the next election.Even if I completed some research on the subject,I am not able to post links to anything to back up an argument.As for Reagan,clearly that administration instigated policy shifts which have brought us to-Shit Creek w/o paddle?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 4 years ago

affluent control aid will pass

and we'll be glad not because it is good

but that because repubs opposed it

[-] 1 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

What happens to all the taxes that come in on a weekly basis when the debt ceiling is not raised?

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 4 years ago

66 questions and answers about the government shutdown


17.) If the nation hits the debt limit, will government shut down? That's a big unknown question. The Treasury Department has said the most likely scenario is that it would delay payments, paying only those bills it can afford, using daily tax revenue.

[-] 0 points by IrishRevolt (5) 4 years ago

2 out of 3 bills will be paid. Who gets left out when the shtf?

Bureaucrats or people? Will Congress forfeit their pay? Highly unlikely.

[-] 1 points by WSmith (2698) from Cornelius, OR 4 years ago

Bill Maher New Rules - California is leading by example [ Let's follow! ]