Speaking of misinformation - the corporate mouthpiece

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

Here's why ObamaCare isn't going anywhe

From today's (Thursday's) IBD, front page:
[...]

[Watch out for your sources' credibility...;-]

_________________________

...and after all this negotiation it looks like they've reached a point where no one is going to budge any further.

I think this is a good thing, the best of all possible results at this time. What they need to do is throw out the whole
1,018-page monstrosity which probably very few have actually read and even fewer really understand, and start over, settling just
one thing at a time.

So, what else have they done in this rather considerable time, even
accepting MANY basic changes offered by the Republicans who
won't even vote for it anyway "after all this negotiation"? But, I agree
now with you that the whole thing SHOULD be thrown out - but
that a proper single-payer system should then be offered and voted
on, which is what the majority of people wanted in the first place. It
was "bipartisanship" that brought this to ruin, since that approach
can only work if both sides are truly willing to engage in it instead
of having one side pretending to, but then moving behind the scenes
to kill what they ostensibly have agreed to. THIS venal behavior IS
government at its worst - not "socialism", which can work really well,
thank you (and we use rather a lot of this "terrible" thing even now
in government...;-).

Of course that would mean they couldn't bury a lot of favors for the union bosses in it, along with other special-interest treats.
The inability to do that would make Obama and a lot of congresscritters on the left profoundly unhappy, but such is life.

This is just plain STUPID! What "union bosses"? What "treats"?
You are a piece of work. The ONLY evident powerful elements
with a huge economic stake in this and enormous influence over
Congressional members are (surprise!) the lobbyists for the health
insurance companies. Even the doctors, hospitals and staffs, and
drug companies have moved toward supporting health care reform.
It is only the insurance companies that stand to lose their huge
profit percentages that oppose it, and spend vast amounts of money
to do it with generous contributions to those in Congress who
vote for their interests And they also do it with advertising designed
to mislead and scare the public. Disgusting!
--DR

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

Here's why ObamaCare isn't going anywhe

From today's (Thursday's) IBD, front page:
[...]

[Watch out for your sources' credibility...;-]

_________________________

...and after all this negotiation it looks like they've reached a point
where no one is going to budge any further.

I think this is a good thing, the best of all possible results at this
time. What they need to do is throw out the whole 1,018-page monstrosity
which probably very few have actually read and even fewer really
understand, and start over, settling just one thing at a time.

So, what else have they done in this rather considerable time, even
accepting MANY basic changes offered by the Republicans who
won't even vote for it anyway "after all this negotiation"? But, I agree
now with you that the whole thing SHOULD be thrown out - but
that a proper single-payer system should then be offered and voted
on, which is what the majority of people wanted in the first place.

No, it is not. "Single payer" means a 100% government-run program. The
people do not want that -- which is exactly why all the protests at town
hall meetings etc., and exactly why Obama's attempt at havng the gummint
take over the whole health care system is in such desperate straits.

The overwhelming majority of people are satisfied with the health care they
have now, and just want the government to keep its hands off it. They are
increasingly coming to understand that Obama's push (on again off again,
depending apparently on the weather or something) to ram the so-called
"public option" through means that it shortly won't be an option at all; it
will squeeze out private insurance and everyone will get stuck with the
government plan whether they like it or not -- and most will not.

[ . . . ]

Of course that would mean they couldn't bury a lot of favors for the
union bosses in it, along with other special-interest treats. The
inability to do that would make Obama and a lot of congresscritters on
the left profoundly unhappy, but such is life.

This is just plain STUPID! What "union bosses"? What "treats"?

It's all buried in the 1,018-page monstrosity, bunky. Why do you think the
union bosses are pushing so hard for a "public option," DEMANDING it in
fact? The way the scheme is supposed to work is that the "public option"
will set up the FORCED unionization of workers. The Washington Times had an
article detailing all of this a week or so ago. THAT is why the union
leaders are so adamant about it, so insistent that it is the one item they
will not yield on. Why else would they care?

The union bosses spent hundreds of millions of dollars getting Obama
elected. They now (not unreasonably, machine politics being what they are)
regard him as bought and paid for, and they want their payback.

"John A." wrote in message
news
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:03:46 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

Here's why ObamaCare isn't going anywhe

From today's (Thursday's) IBD, front page:
[...]

[Watch out for your sources' credibility...;-]

_________________________

...and after all this negotiation it looks like they've reached a point
where no one is going to budge any further.

I think this is a good thing, the best of all possible results at this
time. What they need to do is throw out the whole 1,018-page
monstrosity
which probably very few have actually read and even fewer really
understand, and start over, settling just one thing at a time.

So, what else have they done in this rather considerable time, even
accepting MANY basic changes offered by the Republicans who
won't even vote for it anyway "after all this negotiation"? But, I agree
now with you that the whole thing SHOULD be thrown out - but
that a proper single-payer system should then be offered and voted
on, which is what the majority of people wanted in the first place.

No, it is not. "Single payer" means a 100% government-run program. The
people do not want that -- which is exactly why all the protests at town
hall meetings etc., and exactly why Obama's attempt at havng the gummint
take over the whole health care system is in such desperate straits.

The overwhelming majority of people are satisfied with the health care
they
have now, and just want the government to keep its hands off it. They are
increasingly coming to understand that Obama's push (on again off again,
depending apparently on the weather or something) to ram the so-called
"public option" through means that it shortly won't be an option at all;
it
will squeeze out private insurance and everyone will get stuck with the
government plan whether they like it or not -- and most will not.

[ . . . ]

Of course that would mean they couldn't bury a lot of favors for the
union bosses in it, along with other special-interest treats. The
inability to do that would make Obama and a lot of congresscritters on
the left profoundly unhappy, but such is life.

This is just plain STUPID! What "union bosses"? What "treats"?

It's all buried in the 1,018-page monstrosity, bunky. Why do you think the
union bosses are pushing so hard for a "public option," DEMANDING it in
fact? The way the scheme is supposed to work is that the "public option"
will set up the FORCED unionization of workers. The Washington Times had
an
article detailing all of this a week or so ago. THAT is why the union
leaders are so adamant about it, so insistent that it is the one item they
will not yield on. Why else would they care?

Did they detail which page(s) that appears on? Or did they just lay
out some web of relationships and campaign contributions and imply
that that meant there was something for the unions in the bill?

I have the WashTimes article on another computer, and will try to remember
to look it up and post the whole thing for you.

In the meantime, here's a front-page article on Monday's Investor's Business
Daily (that's this coming Monday, Sept. 21) that covers most of the same
information:


Unions View Health Revamp As Cure For Pay, Pension Woes
________________

Obama Taps Powerful Lobby
_________________

Labor thinks the shake-up will help it secure wage gains, retirement
benefits
_____________________

By Sean Higgins
Investor's Business Daily

Big Labor is pushing for health
care reform as hard, if not harder,
than it is lobbying for changes to
union organizing rules.

Labor believes the Democrats'
health care overhaul will boost
union-run pension funds as well
as give it an edge at the negotiating
table.

Unions argue a medical overhaul
will let them take health care
benefits off the table during contract
negotiations, freeing them to
push for higher wages.

The House version of the bill
also includes $10 billion in relief
for troubled pension funds. While
not specifically earmarked for
unions, as written the relief
would be available to most union-run
pensions.

The past several years, passing
card check legislation - which
would make union organizing easier
by replacing the secret ballot
process with a public vote - has
topped Big Labor's wish list.

But with card check stalled in
the Senate - a recent compromise
by Arlen Specter, D-Pa., has
gotten few takers-Big Labor has
put more of its weight behind
President Obama's health insurance
push. Unions urged him not
to compromise too much,though.

"We know we need to build a system that
offers the care that Americans
need at a price that Americans
can afford," said AFL-CIO
President Richard Trumka at its
annual convention last week.
"Mr. President, so long as you
stand for a public option we are
going to stand with you."

President Sees Unions As Key

Obama repaid the favor Tuesday,
becoming the first president
to address the convention since
1997. He praised unions for getting
behind his push.

"You're making phone calls,
knocking on doors and showing
up at rallies - because you know
why this is so important," Obama
said, drawing cheers from the
union delegates.

Most unions provide health insurance
for their members. It's
one of the inducements for joining
a union.

If a public option were available,
therefore, it might give workers
one less reason to join.

Gerald Shea, the AFL-CIO's top
health care policy expert, told
IBD the opposite is true. He said
union health costs were rising so
fast that covering them was eroding wage gains.

"We'd be happyto get rid of arguing
over benefits because it is killing
us as far as bargaining for
wages and other benefits is concerned,"
Shea said. "We believe a
public option would provide relief
over high costs because it
would put pressure on other insurers
not to run up their rates."

Seeking Financial Aid

Pension relief is another big
issue for the unions. Many leaders
in their speeches cited ensuring
secure pensions.Though none appeared
to have addressed it directly,
many union pension funds are
badly underfunded.

A study by the conservative Hudson
Institute found that just 59%
of union-negotiated pension
funds had the necessary assets to
pay more than 80% of current and
projected liabilities, the level at
which the federal government
lists the funds as "endangered."

By contrast, 86% of nonunion
pension funds could pay more
than 80% of current and projected liabilities.

Shea blames the economic downturn.

"Our union funds, just like every
other pension fund or everyone's
401(k), took a real hit last year and
we lost a lot of equity," Shea said.
"It is significant amounts of
money."

H.R. 3200, the main House version
of the overhaul bill, includes
a provision under the section "reinsurance
program for retirees"
that sets aside $10 billion to pay
for health benefits in employer-based
pension plans.

The types of plans eligible for relief
include multiemployer pension
plans, which are commonly
used by unions.

"Employer-sponsored retiree
benefits programs are almost entirely
labor (managed) now," said
Greg Scandlen, director of Consumers
for Health Care Choices, a
program of the conservative
Heartland Institute.

"John A." wrote in message
news
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009 23:03:46 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...




Of course that would mean they couldn't bury a lot of favors for the
union bosses in it, along with other special-interest treats. The
inability to do that would make Obama and a lot of congresscritters on
the left profoundly unhappy, but such is life.

This is just plain STUPID! What "union bosses"? What "treats"?

It's all buried in the 1,018-page monstrosity, bunky. Why do you think the
union bosses are pushing so hard for a "public option," DEMANDING it in
fact? The way the scheme is supposed to work is that the "public option"
will set up the FORCED unionization of workers. The Washington Times had
an
article detailing all of this a week or so ago. THAT is why the union
leaders are so adamant about it, so insistent that it is the one item they
will not yield on. Why else would they care?

Did they detail which page(s) that appears on? Or did they just lay
out some web of relationships and campaign contributions and imply
that that meant there was something for the unions in the bill?

Or could it be that the unions just want the public option on its own
merits?

The union bosses spent hundreds of millions of dollars getting Obama
elected. They now (not unreasonably, machine politics being what they are)
regard him as bought and paid for, and they want their payback.

So *naturally* part of a health care bill forces unionization of
workers. No need to even read it, you just *know* it's gotta be there.

Here's the Wall St. Journal article:

_______________________________

Read the Union Health-Care Label

Get ready for Detroit-style labor relations in our hospitals.

By MARK MIX

In the heated debates on health-care reform, not enough attention is being
paid to the huge financial windfalls ObamaCare will dole out to unions-or to
the provisions in the various bills in Congress that will help bring about
the forced unionization of the health-care industry.
Tucked away in thousands of pages of complex new rules, regulations and
mandates are special privileges and giveaways that could have devastating
consequences for the health-care sector and the American economy at large.

The Senate version opens the door to implement forced unionization schemes
pursued by former Govs. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois in 2005 and Gray Davis
of California in 1999. Both men repaid tremendous political debts to Andy
Stern and his Service Employees International Union (SEIU) by reclassifying
state-reimbursed in-home health-care (and child-care) contractors as state
employees-and forcing them to pay union dues.

Following this playbook, the Senate bill creates a "personal care attendants
workforce advisory panel" that will likely impose union affiliation to
qualify for a newly created "community living assistance services and
support (class)" reimbursement plan.

The current House version of ObamaCare (H.R. 3200) goes much further.
Section 225(A) grants Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen
Sebelius tremendous discretionary authority to regulate health-care workers
"under the public health insurance option." Monopoly bargaining and
compulsory union dues may quickly become a required standard resulting in
potentially hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses across the country
being forced into unions.

Ms. Sebelius will be taking her marching orders from the numerous union
officials who are guaranteed seats on the various federal panels (such as
the personal care panel mentioned above) charged with recommending
health-care policies. Big Labor will play a central role in directing
federal health-care policy affecting hundreds of thousands of doctors,
surgeons and nurses.

Consider Kaiser Permanente, the giant, managed-care organization that has
since 1997 proudly touted its labor-management "partnership" in scores of
workplaces. Union officials play an essentially co-equal role in running
many Kaiser facilities. AFL-CIO President John Sweeney called the Kaiser
plan "a framework for what every health care delivery system should do" at a
July 24 health-care forum outside of Washington, D.C.

The House bill has a $10 billion provision to bail out insolvent union
health-care plans. It also creates a lucrative professional-development
grant program for health-care workers that effectively blackballs nonunion
medical facilities from participation. The training funds in this program
must be administered jointly with a labor organization-a scenario not unlike
the U.S. Department of Labor's grants for construction apprenticeship
programs, which have turned into a cash cow for construction industry union
officials on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

There's more. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has suggested
that the federal government could pay for health-care reform by taxing
American workers' existing health-care benefits-but he would exempt
union-negotiated health-care plans. Under Mr. Baucus's scheme, the
government could impose costs of up to $20,000 per employee on nonunion
businesses already struggling to afford health care plans.

Mr. Baucus's proposal would give union officials another tool to pressure
employers into turning over their employees to Big Labor. Rather than
provide the lavish benefits required by Obamacare, employers could allow a
union to come in and negotiate less costly benefits than would otherwise be
required. Such plans could be continuously exempted.

Americans are unlikely to support granting unions more power than they
already have in the health-care field. History shows union bosses could
abuse their power to shut down medical facilities with sick-outs and
strikes; force doctors, nurses and in-home care providers to abandon their
patients; dictate terms and conditions of employment; and impose a failed,
Detroit-style management model on the entire health-care field.

ObamaCare is a Trojan Horse for more forced unionization.


Mr. Mix is president of the National Right to Work Committee.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A21
September 10, 2009

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message ...
"David Ruether" wrote in message ...
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...

Here's why ObamaCare isn't going anywhe

From today's (Thursday's) IBD, front page:
[...]

[Watch out for your sources' credibility...;-]

So, what else have they done in this rather considerable time, even
accepting MANY basic changes offered by the Republicans who
won't even vote for it anyway "after all this negotiation"? But, I agree
now with you that the whole thing SHOULD be thrown out - but
that a proper single-payer system should then be offered and voted
on, which is what the majority of people wanted in the first place.

No, it is not.

It is, if you believe reputable sources, and not just right-wing
publications, "talking-heads", and Fox "news".

"Single payer" means a 100% government-run program.

"Single-payer" means "single-payer", whether government or privately-run
using government funding (as my Medicare Advantage Plan is - but *I*
paid into Medicare as a worker, so *I* helped fund it).

The people do not want that -- which is exactly why all the protests at town hall meetings etc.,

The shrill shills and the great know-nothing unwashed tried to (in an
*organized* way) disrupt and prevent from happening honest exchanges
of opinions, questions, answers, and information between citizens and their
representatives. This was reprehensible behavior instigated and organized
by the Right. Ever heard of "rabble-rousing"? We certainly saw how this
works this summer!

The overwhelming majority of people are satisfied with the health care they have now, and just want the government to keep its
hands off it.

So long as they don't actually try to collect on anything really expensive,
when "preexisting conditions", caps, and discontinued policies unexpectedly
appear. And, NOTHING in ANY bill being proposed says ANYONE is
to be forced away from their current insurance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But, the current system is killing the country economically, and it will only
get worse. The cost of our current system is in the multiple TRILLIONS
of dollars - and if we have any sense, NOW is the time to fix this. Now
is also the time to look at how other countries do health care, and how
much they spend relatively per person on it, what the results are, and what
the satisfaction rate is instead of burying our heads in the sand until the costs
further swamp us, the number of the uncovered grows greater, and service
further declines. Big surprise that all other wealthy industrialized nations
surpass us in the markers for good health care, and that they do it with
single-payer "govmint" programs. Gee.
[Your typical anti-union tirade excised...]
--DR