The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.co...-bad-bad-idea/

C. Mor Butts wrote:
The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a


Thanks for noticing, Tom. Now...go back into hibernation.

On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:15:21 -0500, C. Mor Butts
wrote:

The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.

actually it excludes union members.

C. Mor Butts wrote:
The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.co...-bad-bad-idea/
It is all get eveninsm
Union members are not the only ones with good reasonable health care
plans. Premiums are paid for the extent of the coverage.
Nobody gets a freebie. It is part of their pay or compensation.
So the writers of this legislation want to cut their compensation by
making them pay a sin tax because they have good health coverage.
How many thousands in a pay cut/ tax will mollify the socialists??
If they can't make their mortgage payments because, of it will that
satisfy them?
They are not talking about five dollars a week.
Their Constituents will get free health care and the ones with
fair/good/excellent health care will pay a lot more or they can give up
the Insurance and obtain lesser coverage and pay for it and pay a lot
more for inferior coverage. Either way people with whatever they deem
Cadillac Coverage will suffer. The ultra Rich or whatever they want to
target won't be affected, in the least.
Many most with formerly good coverage are having it taken away by the
ultra Rich of Wall Street. They are gutting their American Employees
compensation/health care to fill their Swiss bank accounts.

bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:15:21 -0500, C. Mor Butts
wrote:

The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.

actually it excludes union members.

Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?

On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:18:04 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?

The argument goes, unions bargained for improved health care coverage,
instead of wage increases. Taxing their coverages would mean they would
be paying an overall higher percentage than other working stiffs. Labor
contracts generally run 5 years, meaning the present ones will have
expired, by 2017. Then there is politics.

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:18:04 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?

The argument goes, unions bargained for improved health care coverage,
instead of wage increases. Taxing their coverages would mean they would
be paying an overall higher percentage than other working stiffs. Labor
contracts generally run 5 years, meaning the present ones will have
expired, by 2017. Then there is politics.

Correct, Mr. T, and it also depends upon the employment sector. The
scenario you describe most closely fits industrial and service sector
employees, who indeed gave up significant pay raises in order to get
better health care and sometimes pension benefits. In most of the
construction unions, the $$$ negotiations are over the hourly rate,
which the union members then decide how to divvy up between health care,
pension, savings accounts and net paycheck. In the last six or eight
years, the hourly rates have been pretty flat, but the amounts coming
out of that hourly rate for health care have skyrocketed.

lil abner wrote:
C. Mor Butts wrote:
The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.

http://workinprogress.firedoglake.co...-bad-bad-idea/

It is all get eveninsm
Union members are not the only ones with good reasonable health care
plans. Premiums are paid for the extent of the coverage.
Nobody gets a freebie. It is part of their pay or compensation.
So the writers of this legislation want to cut their compensation by
making them pay a sin tax because they have good health coverage.
How many thousands in a pay cut/ tax will mollify the socialists??
If they can't make their mortgage payments because, of it will that
satisfy them?
They are not talking about five dollars a week.
Their Constituents will get free health care and the ones with
fair/good/excellent health care will pay a lot more or they can give up
the Insurance and obtain lesser coverage and pay for it and pay a lot
more for inferior coverage. Either way people with whatever they deem
Cadillac Coverage will suffer. The ultra Rich or whatever they want to
target won't be affected, in the least.
Many most with formerly good coverage are having it taken away by the
ultra Rich of Wall Street. They are gutting their American Employees
compensation/health care to fill their Swiss bank accounts.

That is how equality works under socialism.

D.Duck wrote:
bpuharic wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 08:15:21 -0500, C. Mor Butts
wrote:

The Senate health care bill, which Martha Coakley supports, contains a
massive tax on the middle class which will hit union members
particularly hard. The tax on so-called "Cadillac" health plans is
opposed by organized labor, and could be a big reason why union
rank-and-file members in Massachusetts vote for Scott Brown.

actually it excludes union members.

Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?
YKW doesn't want it going into effect on his watch. Apparently he is
thinking on buying reelection.

HK wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 02:18:04 -0500, D.Duck wrote:


Why are union members excluded until 2017? Any rational reason except
politics?

The argument goes, unions bargained for improved health care coverage,
instead of wage increases. Taxing their coverages would mean they
would be paying an overall higher percentage than other working
stiffs. Labor contracts generally run 5 years, meaning the present
ones will have expired, by 2017. Then there is politics.

Correct, Mr. T, and it also depends upon the employment sector. The
scenario you describe most closely fits industrial and service sector
employees, who indeed gave up significant pay raises in order to get
better health care and sometimes pension benefits. In most of the
construction unions, the $$$ negotiations are over the hourly rate,
which the union members then decide how to divvy up between health care,
pension, savings accounts and net paycheck. In the last six or eight
years, the hourly rates have been pretty flat, but the amounts coming
out of that hourly rate for health care have skyrocketed.

Po babies. It ain't just the union lackies that have seen their
lifestyles erode.