Irontruth |
Anyway, in my two decades in the workforce I haven't noticed a difference between union and non-union employees and how much they dislike their bosses.
I have noticed that in non-union shops, supervisors are always underestimating how much their employees dislike them because the latter suck up, fawn over the boss, and, in general, hide their dislike.
In union shops, supervisors know exactly how much their employees dislike them because the employees' freedom of speech is covered by the National Labor Relations Act and the employees let management know how much they dislike them.
Like I said, my point is more correlation than causation.
I think it goes the other way too. In union shops, the supervisors are less concerned with winning people over, they know where the dividing line is as well, so they feel justified in being more hostile to the other side.
I've also worked at a union business where things were pretty decent between management and labor.
It's something that companies like Target have tried to combat, by calling it a team and using all sorts of strange lingo. Make everyone feel like they're all in it together to minimize dividing lines between sections and tiers of the company. Convince the cashier they're in it just as much as the CEO, even though it clearly isn't true.
But yeah, my comment is much more about the smaller scale level of interactions and how the divisions impact human behavior... not the world-wide class struggle.
meatrace |
I'm happy to provide clarification, thejeff, I've just found that providing it prior to being asked is usually pointless. I have to hammer home that I'm not talking about the same thing for a while, because people aren't exactly predisposed towards listening around here.
My comment was not in regards to a society-wide analysis, that labor unions are responsible for the class war. Rather, that when you go down to the micro level, looking at specific people or specific workplaces, there is a measurable trend. Workplaces with unions generally have starker dividing lines between worker and manager than places that don't have unions.
It isn't really a measure of causation, but rather correlation. It could be that all workers are being screwed, but union ones are the only ones fighting back, so the level of hostility is increased in those places. But when the comrade mentions a "failure in empathy", for me it makes sense. He's a member of a union and a communist. He sees the managers as the enemy, and people rarely have empathy for their enemies.
Well, like everyone on all things I can only speak for my own experiences, but at my current place of drudgery it has been thus:
My company hires almost exclusively from within (although upper management not so much, but whatever) and so I've had several supervisors that were previous workmates. When a supervisor is new, as in freshly plucked from the call floor, they're all full of optimism and spunk. They begin to see how the machine works, and they maybe make a few off-handed comments about how screwy things work and admit how messed up the office structure is; anyone who looked at it would realize where and why problems arise but nothing is done about it.
Supervisors are actively discouraged from fraternizing with CAs (that's what I am) and if word gets to someone higher up than them (which it always does, they have spies in the walls and there are literally videocameras installed everywhere) that someone is sympathizing with a CA's complaints and/or socializing with their underlings (even off-hours) they get scolded.
Slowly but surely there become two cliques: supes and CAs.
I've had a number of supervisors that started out cool and chummy and listened to my complaints diligently, and slowly they get the zest for life sucked out of them and they are no longer allowed to vocally agree with any such complaints (I've been told as much).
We're not unionized. Corporate culture is set vertically, and any firm that has a large labor/management ratio has a very anti-labor agenda and hence culture.
TL;DR- The US vs. THEM mentality, in my admittedly limited experience, appears to be dictated by the management and reciprocated by the labor, and it's there regardless of the presence of a union. Though I'll admit that it seems likely that a union would exacerbate it.
Comrade Anklebiter |
Forbes congratulates Obama for playing Trumka and Co.
For some reason, the article's title has been changed in the last 12 hours. Originally it was called something like "Obama to AFL-CIO: Drop Dead."
Comrade Anklebiter |
Not Madison. It has a well-earned reputation as a graduate roach motel; they move here for school and stay forever. I'd reckon you have a better chance of having your coffee poured, oil changed, or burger flipped by a college graduate here than just about anywhere else in the US.
Why College Graduates Are Increasingly Working Low Wage Jobs
Madison may have the most (I couldn't say) but it isn't alone.
To toot my own (and my comrades') horns:
But back in June or July we had an electoral rally for our Boston city council candidate that ended in us demonstrating in front of the BK/Wendy's in Copley Square. Our supporters got kicked out after handing out a couple of leaflets and the cops then showed up and shooed us away.
A month or two later, I turn on Democracy Now! and see SEIU and Jobs with Justice picketing the same location!
Oh yeah, we're the f~$$ing vanguard, baby!
BigNorseWolf |
Krensky wrote:All big college cities have that though.
I mean almost all recent college graduates leave Ann Arbor or State College and they're not that expensive.
Yes, I know. Or I would assume so, anyway.
I was just trying to find some substantiation of Citizen Wolf's claim above.
It can't be helping.
The problem with romneycare/obamacare is that it turns the wealth doughnut into some sort of non dimensional tesseract.
At the very low end of income, the government will provide you with stuff. A crappy apartment, enough food stamps for rice beans and water, bus fare, a tv, and free medical care by someone that may or may not be treating golden retrievers on the weekends.
Without romneycare/obamacare you would hit a point where your earned income after taxes could get you a crappy apartment, enough food for rice beans and water, bus fair,tv, and EITHER health care or some savings/pocket money. If you didn't get sick, you took the pocket money and took your chances.
With obromneycare in place you can't do that.. you're stuck. The required healthcare is so expensive that if your choices are welfare or wage slave you're better off on welfare.
The republican solution is, of course, to cut off the welfare- which will of course cost them money as they'll have to lock a lot of those people up at a cost of 30k a year.
The sensible solution is to raise the wage and have genuinely progressive taxation so that you have a gap between the two, but republicans are so busy having their anger misdirected at the people 'living it up' in the slums or the incredibly small minority of welfare cheats.
thejeff |
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:Krensky wrote:All big college cities have that though.
I mean almost all recent college graduates leave Ann Arbor or State College and they're not that expensive.
Yes, I know. Or I would assume so, anyway.
I was just trying to find some substantiation of Citizen Wolf's claim above.
It can't be helping.
The problem with romneycare/obamacare is that it turns the wealth doughnut into some sort of non dimensional tesseract.
At the very low end of income, the government will provide you with stuff. A crappy apartment, enough food stamps for rice beans and water, bus fare, a tv, and free medical care by someone that may or may not be treating golden retrievers on the weekends.
Without romneycare/obamacare you would hit a point where your earned income after taxes could get you a crappy apartment, enough food for rice beans and water, bus fair,tv, and EITHER health care or some savings/pocket money. If you didn't get sick, you took the pocket money and took your chances.
With obromneycare in place you can't do that.. you're stuck. The required healthcare is so expensive that if your choices are welfare or wage slave you're better off on welfare.
The republican solution is, of course, to cut off the welfare- which will of course cost them money as they'll have to lock a lot of those people up at a cost of 30k a year.
The sensible solution is to raise the wage and have genuinely progressive taxation so that you have a gap between the two, but republicans are so busy having their anger misdirected at the people 'living it up' in the slums or the incredibly small minority of welfare cheats.
Obviously that's a better solution, but it's not going to happen in the near future. So for a stopgap, we trying something directly related to healthcare, rather than waiting to fixall of society at once.
I notice you don't seem to place any value on the actual insurance you'll get under Obamacare, waving it off with a "if you didn't get sick". Yeah, that's the point of insurance. It's better not to waste your money on health insurance, if you don't get sick. If you do get sick and you didn't waste your money on it, you're screwed.
Though honestly, now if you're in that range and you think you won't get sick, then you won't buy the expensive plan, you'll pay the penalty and continue as you were. Or rather, if you're clever you won't pay the penalty, since there's no enforcement mechanism unless you're getting a tax refund.
BigNorseWolf |
Obviously that's a better solution, but it's not going to happen in the near future. So for a stopgap, we trying something directly related to healthcare, rather than waiting to fixall of society at once.
The stop gap was overkill. No one was actually being turned down for medical care, but because a very small percentage of the population was going bankrupt from medical bills we've added another layer of regressive taxation to cover it.
I notice you don't seem to place any value on the actual insurance you'll get under Obamacare, waving it off with a "if you didn't get sick". Yeah, that's the point of insurance. It's better not to waste your money on health insurance, if you don't get sick. If you do get sick and you didn't waste your money on it, you're screwed.
Because, as i said above, for most people it is deliberately and horribly overpriced. You'll be payinig 300 a month for .. what? 200 a year worth of services that you actually want?
Though honestly, now if you're in that range and you think you won't get sick, then you won't buy the expensive plan, you'll pay the penalty and continue as you were. Or rather, if you're clever you won't pay the penalty, since there's no enforcement mechanism unless you're getting a tax refund.
Thats one loophole they'll be quick enough to close, along with the low price of the fine atm.
thejeff |
TheJeff wrote:Obviously that's a better solution, but it's not going to happen in the near future. So for a stopgap, we trying something directly related to healthcare, rather than waiting to fixall of society at once.The stop gap was overkill. No one was actually being turned down for medical care, but because a very small percentage of the population was going bankrupt from medical bills we've added another layer of regressive taxation to cover it.
People were and are being turned down for medical care. Sure, you can go to the ER and they have to treat you, but they only have to stabilize you, then you're out on the street again. If you need any longer term care, you're screwed. Even if it's relatively cheap maintenance drugs or other care that lets you function normally. Until you have another crisis and use up more incredibly expensive ER care.
Quote:I notice you don't seem to place any value on the actual insurance you'll get under Obamacare, waving it off with a "if you didn't get sick". Yeah, that's the point of insurance. It's better not to waste your money on health insurance, if you don't get sick. If you do get sick and you didn't waste your money on it, you're screwed.Because, as i said above, for most people it is deliberately and horribly overpriced. You'll be payinig 300 a month for .. what? 200 a year worth of services that you actually want?
For the chance that you'll need $50,000+ worth of care that you don't expect.
Much like all the money I've wasted on car insurance. Or on life insurance. That's how insurance works.BigNorseWolf |
For the chance that you'll need $50,000+ worth of care that you don't expect.
Much like all the money I've wasted on car insurance. Or on life insurance. That's how insurance works.
But thats not how it works here.
The odds of a 25 year old needing that much care are low, FAR lower than justifying their 300 a month payment. That payment is going to fund older, more expensive segments of the population.
It has all the coercion of government with all the profit and fairness of a private company.
dmchucky69 |
Obviously, many of us would prefer a public option or even better, single payer. Heck, if it wasn't for turncoat Lieberman, we might have gotten reduced age Medicare.
Obamacare is a stopgap, and not a perfect system. But at least it gets rid of pre=existing conditions and insures a whole lot of folks that couldn't get insurance otherwise.
If the Teapublicans had their way; these poor, uninsured folks would stay that way (plus lose their food stamps too!)
It's amazing how the GOP used to be covert about their disdain for the less fortunate; now they just don't even care how inhuman they look.
Jess Door |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, no, the health "insurance" we have isn't catastrophic. It's like buying car insurance that will fill up your tank, change your oil, replace your windshield wipers, and pay you the value of the car in the case of a total loss. Also, every time you change jobs, you have to get your insurance through your employer to get a reasonable rate, or pay through the nose for a private plan you can take with you.
Health care insurance, before and after Obamacare, is the problem. Insurance in other economic sectors isn't for basic maintenance, it's for big things 98% (all numbers are totally made up) of people can't really save for.
If car insurance worked the way health insurance did, the people with expensive gas guzzlers and expensive foreign made parts would love it. It would save them tons of money - subsidized by everyone else. The responsible car owners start to go "Why the hell am I trying? I'm still paying for that jerk's 10 mi/gallon gasoline bill. Hell, I'll get one of those next!" Pretty soon everyone getting inefficient cars, because the cost is hidden behind the insurance bill. Everyone starts charging more for gas - because as far as the customer at the point of sale is concerned, it's free!
the problem isn't the profit motive - the problem is a hybrid system where part of the system uses the profit motive (hospitals have to pay doctors. Pharmaceutical companies want to show a profit. doctors have to be paid enough to pay off their schooling debt.), and part of the system doesn't (customer doesn't shop for health care with an eye to efficiency / cost / benefit analysis, because they don't see the effect of bad decisions).
If everyone owned their own health insurance policy for life, rather than having it tied to a job, it would probably help too. Your rates stay lower over your lifetime if you grab insurance young, because you're paying over your life. Grabbing it late in life, when you think you are more likely to need it, makes it more expensive then. It would free a lot of workers and give them more power in the employment marketplace too.
If insurance was personally owned rather than tied to employment, and covered catastrophic care instead of basic maintenance, consumers of health care would be more efficient in the health care they purchased. This would force prices down as some companies try to attract price conscious consumers with slightly lower prices, and the injection of actual cost / benefit analysis into the point of sale health care industry would force some sanity throughout pricing in the system.
We would still have the problem of those with pre-existing conditions that may not rise to the level of "catastrophic care" - but getting the entire health care system's pricing back into whack with economic reality can only help prices come down there. Maybe that's where gov't assistance should step in.
I don't know. All I know is Obamacare is not an improvement in health care. It's looking like it's not even an improvement in health care access. It's mandated insurance purchase - on the individual level only, at this point, as company enforcement has been delayed. I think it will exacerbate the problems in the system, rather than improve them.
meatrace |
Irontruth wrote:The sensible solution is to hospitals to STFU when they want to charge $25 for a single aspirin.they're trying to recoup the costs on the surgeon pulling bullets out of someone in the ER who walked out without paying.
If only there were some system by which we could ensure everyone paid for their own healthcare so doctors didn't have to pad out everyone else's bill.....
BigNorseWolf |
BigNorseWolf wrote:If only there were some system by which we could ensure everyone paid for their own healthcare so doctors didn't have to pad out everyone else's bill.....Irontruth wrote:The sensible solution is to hospitals to STFU when they want to charge $25 for a single aspirin.they're trying to recoup the costs on the surgeon pulling bullets out of someone in the ER who walked out without paying.
There isn't. Many people can't afford 600 bucks to walk into the emergency room to get an antibiotic. The vast majority of people don't have and can't have 50,000 dollars on hand in case of a serious illness, much less a cool million in case of cancer or the like.
meatrace |
Clearly that went right over your head.
Obamacare forces everyone to pay for their own insurance, as you like to continually begrudge, so that that guy who walked into the ER without paying...is actually paying.
I dunno man, give it a few weeks and shop around on the exchanges. My friend Mike, who has been having some health problems since hitting 40, is already set to save a few hundred bucks a year by shopping to another provider.
You will probably be able to get catastrophic care which satisfies the requirements of insurance for ~100-150/mo.
Irontruth |
Irontruth wrote:The sensible solution is to hospitals to STFU when they want to charge $25 for a single aspirin.they're trying to recoup the costs on the surgeon pulling bullets out of someone in the ER who walked out without paying.
Now apply your theory to why drug companies charge more for pills here in this country than in other countries. Pfizer doesn't operate an ER. No one is just walking out the door with their product. Why does it cost more to buy their product in this country than it does in others?
Your theory also doesn't hold for hospitals that charge high prices, but don't have an ER. Not every medical facility has an ER, are you predicting that these will charge the actual value of an aspirin?
meatrace |
The specific reason for the higher cost of medicine is that other countries bargain for the entire country.
Stuff like, I dunno, cancer drugs are incredibly price inelastic, meaning that when they jack the price we won't buy less of it, we'll just g$!!@@n find a way to pay for it.
Which is only an issue because individuals, and by extension companies, compete in bargaining rather than there being a united bargaining unit for prices that can therefore actually effectively bargain.
Sorry to butt in, but at least that's how I understand it, though there are certainly other factors.
BigNorseWolf |
Clearly that went right over your head.
It did not. Your argument is flawed. Disagreeing with you is not the same as not understanding your point.
Obamacare forces everyone to pay for their own insurance
There are two problems with that
1) it does not. That guy who can't afford 600 bucks to walk into the ER probably can't afford monthly premiums either, so other people are paying for his insurance
2) If you are young and working you are not just paying your own insurance, you're paying for insurance for old sick people. To reiterate, I have no problems with the government paying for old sick people I just have serious problems with their funding scheme.
I dunno man, give it a few weeks and shop around on the exchanges. My friend Mike, who has been having some health problems since hitting 40, is already set to save a few hundred bucks a year by shopping to another provider.
My current health care plan is superglue, exacto knife, with the occasional trip strait to the specialist for some antibiotics (along with the my last employer broke it my last employer bought it workers comp)
BigNorseWolf |
Now apply your theory to why drug companies charge more for pills here
Its a different theory.
My mom works in hospital doing supply. A patient uses up so many small time items that aren't tracked, but they do add up. The stuff you see on a bill really is billing theatre.
They need to find some way to pay for the doctor (if they're not seperate), the building, the nursing staff, the administration, electricity, the machine that goes ping, grounds staff, sanitation, sterilization, and the overpayed CEOs sitting on top.
in this country than in other countries. Pfizer doesn't operate an ER. No one is just walking out the door with their product. Why does it cost more to buy their product in this country than it does in others?
Because there's no free market.
I HAVE to take a drug or i die. I'll pay whatever they're charging me because there's no other choice.
Other countries bargain in that situation, ours doesn't.
If my insurance company is paying the bill, why should i care what the price is? What they charge me doesn't cost anything so i don't care.
meatrace |
There are two problems with that1) it does not. That guy who can't afford 600 bucks to walk into the ER probably can't afford monthly premiums either, so other people are paying for his insurance
2) If you are young and working you are not just paying your own insurance, you're paying for insurance for old sick people. To reiterate, I have no problems with the government paying for old sick people I just have serious problems with their funding scheme.
1)It does though. Whether he's being subsidized or not, he will be paying for and be covered by insurance. Important part: hospitals not having to eat costs or put them on your bill.
2) You are correct which is one reason why is is broke as f+#$. Having only sick people paying for insurance makes insurance crazy expensive. Insurance works by spreading costs around, it's like reverse gambling where you're betting against yourself. Guess what, when the government pays for it, it still gets spread around. I mean, you're seriously complaining that you're no longer allowed to game the system. Personally I think we should have medicare for all, but having medicare subsidize people up to 400% of the poverty line is a pretty decent compromise. I mean, my taxes area already paying for old people: it's called social security, medicare, and medicaid. Do you begrudge paying for those things since you're not seeing a benefit right now?
Bottom line: I will be able to get on insurance next month for cheaper than it would be to get on my girlfriend's insurance with comparable coverage. Like significantly cheaper. Obamacare will save me money.
If a couple hundred a month (tops) is really more than you can afford, and you're the kind of "manly man" who refuses to go to see doctors anyway, I'd look into crossing the border to Canada.
Irontruth |
Irontruth wrote:
Now apply your theory to why drug companies charge more for pills here
Its a different theory.
My mom works in hospital doing supply. A patient uses up so many small time items that aren't tracked, but they do add up. The stuff you see on a bill really is billing theatre.
They need to find some way to pay for the doctor (if they're not seperate), the building, the nursing staff, the administration, electricity, the machine that goes ping, grounds staff, sanitation, sterilization, and the overpayed CEOs sitting on top.
Quote:in this country than in other countries. Pfizer doesn't operate an ER. No one is just walking out the door with their product. Why does it cost more to buy their product in this country than it does in others?Because there's no free market.
I HAVE to take a drug or i die. I'll pay whatever they're charging me because there's no other choice.
Other countries bargain in that situation, ours doesn't.
If my insurance company is paying the bill, why should i care what the price is? What they charge me doesn't cost anything so i don't care.
I'm not even sure what we're arguing now.
I want socialized medicine. Obamacare isn't socialized medicine, but socialized medicine got defeated. Hopefully this will help push us towards socialized medicine.
I'm sorry if you're sad that you're going to have to buy health insurance now and you don't want to. My recommendation would be to start calling/writing any republican politicians for where you live and telling them that you want socialized medicine. You don't have to of course, you're free to do what you want.
Comrade Anklebiter |
I want socialized medicine. Obamacare isn't socialized medicine, but socialized medicine got defeated. Hopefully this will help push us towards socialized medicine.
It seems to me that socialized medicine wasn't defeated, it was taken off the table before it even got on the floor. By the Democrats. Who were working for the pharmacapitalists.
I think that all of you who think this is some kind of incremental change towards socialized medicine are delusional.
BigNorseWolf |
If only there were some system by which we could ensure everyone paid for their own healthcare so doctors didn't have to pad out everyone else's bill.....
vs
1)It does though. Whether he's being subsidized or not, he will be paying for and be covered by insurance. Important part: hospitals not having to eat costs or put them on your bill.
He could be getting entirely subsidized and thus is not paying for insurance.
A young person is not JUST paying --->for their own healthcare<---- they're radically overpaying to cover for other peoples healthcare.. which is the exact same thing that happens NOW. Instead of padding out the bill you get when you go to the hospital they're padding out the premium they charge you for insurance: the only thing thats changed is that the taxation has gotten LESS progressive because instead of coming out of government coffers its now coming directly out of working peoples pockets.
Insurance works by spreading costs around, it's like reverse gambling where you're betting against yourself.
And what you have here is the government forcing people into the system that don't want to be and rationally shouldn't want to be, without the usual benefit of easing the pain by tossing in some cash from the people on top who can afford it.
I mean, you're seriously complaining that you're no longer allowed to game the system.
I saw the game was rigged and saw no reason to play. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
I mean, my taxes area already paying for old people: it's called social security, medicare, and medicaid. Do you begrudge paying for those things since you're not seeing a benefit right now?
Yes actually, because they're 1) regressive income taxes and 2) I am not going to live long enough to see the benefits.
Comrade Anklebiter |
I hesitate to wade into the young people paying for old people argument, but I will say that, in a rational society, instead of the young and unionized taking a hit to pay for the old and uninsured, it would be the rich pharmacapitalists taking that hit.
But that was scuttled by Max Baucus and co. before it even got into committee.
Go incremental change!
Irontruth |
Irontruth wrote:I want socialized medicine. Obamacare isn't socialized medicine, but socialized medicine got defeated. Hopefully this will help push us towards socialized medicine.It seems to me that socialized medicine wasn't defeated, it was taken off the table before it even got on the floor. By the Democrats. Who were working for the pharmacapitalists.
I think that all of you who think this is some kind of incremental change towards socialized medicine are delusional.
Obama wanted a single payer system. I didn't say it was defeated in a floor vote, I just said it was defeated.
A piece talking about how Max Baucus killed proposals of single payer plans.
thejeff |
Irontruth wrote:I want socialized medicine. Obamacare isn't socialized medicine, but socialized medicine got defeated. Hopefully this will help push us towards socialized medicine.It seems to me that socialized medicine wasn't defeated, it was taken off the table before it even got on the floor. By the Democrats. Who were working for the pharmacapitalists.
Technically correct I suppose. Because of the unanimous opposition from Republicans, the most conservative Democrats (and "independents" like Lieberman) were able to shape the plan. I suspect it even went a little farther than that, in an failed attempt to blunt Republican opposition.
Which is a little different than "This is the plan Democrats really wanted". If they were just trying to get a majority of Democratic votes, it would have been a much stronger plan.
Comrade Anklebiter |
I was under the impression that the Republicans unanimously opposed Obamacare anyway.
In which case, we've got the Democrats, who allegedly wanted single payer watering down a bill Republicans wouldn't vote for, for a bill that Republicans didn't vote for.
Meanwhile, Baucus sheds crocodile tears over killing single payer, but his pharmaplutocrat pals get to rake it in.
I still think you lefties, and the unions, were played.
meatrace |
He could be getting entirely subsidized and thus is not paying for insurance.
I suppose that's true...for now. With the exception of a small minority of corner cases, people that are getting a 100% subsidy are likely in a temporary position, much like recipients of foodstamps. And they're also the same people who are already getting subsidized, so it's not any different from right now, I guess I figured we were talking about prospective new customers, not being upset about how some poor people get free healthcare already.
As to your point about not seeing the benefits of SS or Medicare...well whaddyaknow Obamacare gives you the opportunity to take advantage of it now via subsidies for insurance premiums!
Irontruth |
I was under the impression that the Republicans unanimously opposed Obamacare anyway.
In which case, we've got the Democrats, who allegedly wanted single payer watering down a bill Republicans wouldn't vote for, for a bill that Republicans didn't vote for.
Meanwhile, Baucus sheds crocodile tears over killing single payer, but his pharmaplutocrat pals get to rake it in.
I still think you lefties, and the unions, were played.
I think it was a failure too.
I think it's better than nothing and at least opens the door to future changes. For example, the challenge by republican's in the courts wasn't good because it helped the ACA survive, but it sets good precedent, the government can get involved in sweeping mandates over health care.
The ACA isn't the cause of a declining middle class or decrease in unions though. It's pretty hard for it to be responsible for things that have been going on for two decades, when it isn't even fully implemented. Unions have been dealing with declining membership, they've been under attack from republicans for a long time. I agree, the ACA isn't doing them any favors, but it's far from their biggest problem.
Even if the ACA had never passed, they'd still be looking at declining health care benefits. From 2007 to 2009, 2% of union members lost health care benefits.
Comrade Anklebiter |
The ACA isn't the cause of a declining middle class or decrease in unions though. It's pretty hard for it to be responsible for things that have been going on for two decades, when it isn't even fully implemented. Unions have been dealing with declining membership, they've been under attack from republicans for a long time. I agree, the ACA isn't doing them any favors, but it's far from their biggest problem.
Even if the ACA had never passed, they'd still be looking at declining health care benefits. From 2007 to 2009, 2% of union members lost health care benefits.
I agree with most of this and am kind of surprised that you felt it was necessary to spell it out for me. I know you think nobody on here listens, but we've been in enough threads together.
My reference to the unions getting played stems from my observations in another post in a similar thread a whiles back. In it I stated, and still believe, that the unions were the groundtroops in the health care reform movement. The only public forums that I ever saw on the subject were invariably sponsored by the SEIU or some nurses' associations.
They were mobilized and enthused for single payer. They thought Obama was going to give them single payer. I think the evidence pretty clearly demonstrates that they were stabbed in the back.
This latest go-round with Obama and the AFL-CIO convention only, imho, confirms it. Not that the union tops are blameless. They were only too happy to back Obamacare even after single payer got nixed and deliver the votes for the Democrats. Their protestations now that they didn't realize how it was going to backfire on them strike me as ridiculous and self-serving.
BigNorseWolf |
I suppose that's true...for now. With the exception of a small minority of corner cases, people that are getting a 100% subsidy are likely in a temporary position, much like recipients of foodstamps. And they're also the same people who are already getting subsidized, so it's not any different from right now, I guess I figured we were talking about prospective new customers
You're not a customer when you have to buy the product, you're being taxed. (this is the legal justification the supreme court had to use for the bill, because the individual mandate was outside of the federal governments authority otherwise)
not being upset about how some poor people get free healthcare already.
Dishonest knee jerk reaction. This is not my objection. This has never been my objection. I have stated several dozen times this is not my position.
To reiterate, I have no problems with the government paying for old sick people I just have serious problems with their funding scheme.
The sensible solution is to raise the wage and have genuinely progressive taxation so that you have a gap between the two, but republicans are so busy having their anger misdirected at the people 'living it up' in the slums or the incredibly small minority of welfare cheats.
I would need neon to more clearly point out that I have no problem with poor people getting free healthcare.
I've been that broke myself a few times and realize that a hard head and a mutant immune system are the only reasons i didn't need a few grand in medical bills. As to gaming the system, I think what I paid into medicaid medicare and insurance when i had it are more than enough to cover the low odds of me getting seriously ill.
As to your point about not seeing the benefits of SS or Medicare...well whaddyaknow Obamacare gives you the opportunity to take advantage of it now via subsidies for insurance premiums!
Which makes it sound like someone else is footing the bill for my healthcare when what they're really subsidizing is my insurance company... which are NOT the same thing.
thejeff |
I was under the impression that the Republicans unanimously opposed Obamacare anyway.
In which case, we've got the Democrats, who allegedly wanted single payer watering down a bill Republicans wouldn't vote for, for a bill that Republicans didn't vote for.
Meanwhile, Baucus sheds crocodile tears over killing single payer, but his pharmaplutocrat pals get to rake it in.
I still think you lefties, and the unions, were played.
The Republicans did unanimously oppose Obamacare. As I said "failed attempt".
Because of that, the Democrats had no margin of error. They needed every single Democrat (and Independent) on board. Any single Democratic Senator could have killed it. Which meant in practice that the most conservative Senators, like Baucus & Lieberman, got to dictate terms. If there had been a couple more votes (either willing Republicans or more Democrats), then there would have been more bargaining room.It's possible that a completely different tactical approach might have gotten more. Starting with a single-payer/Medicare for all approach might only have gotten bargained down to an exchange with a public option. Or it might have overreached and shot down the whole deal. Obama is much criticized on the left for bargaining himself down, starting with what he sees as a fair compromise and then having to give away even more to reach a deal. He's gotten better at it.
thejeff |
Irontruth wrote:The ACA isn't the cause of a declining middle class or decrease in unions though. It's pretty hard for it to be responsible for things that have been going on for two decades, when it isn't even fully implemented. Unions have been dealing with declining membership, they've been under attack from republicans for a long time. I agree, the ACA isn't doing them any favors, but it's far from their biggest problem.
Even if the ACA had never passed, they'd still be looking at declining health care benefits. From 2007 to 2009, 2% of union members lost health care benefits.
I agree with most of this and am kind of surprised that you felt it was necessary to spell it out for me. I know you think nobody on here listens, but we've been in enough threads together.
My reference to the unions getting played stems from my observations in another post in a similar thread a whiles back. In it I stated, and still believe, that the unions were the groundtroops in the health care reform movement. The only public forums that I ever saw on the subject were invariably sponsored by the SEIU or some nurses' associations.
They were mobilized and enthused for single payer. They thought Obama was going to give them single payer. I think the evidence pretty clearly demonstrates that they were stabbed in the back.
This latest go-round with Obama and the AFL-CIO convention only, imho, confirms it. Not that the union tops are blameless. They were only too happy to back Obamacare even after single payer got nixed and deliver the votes for the Democrats. Their protestations now that they didn't realize how it was going to backfire on them strike me as ridiculous and self-serving.
I don't know why anyone ever thought Obama was going to deliver single-payer. The votes weren't there. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Even if he'd come out stridently for it, there was no way it was getting through the Senate.
Even the link in your previous post shows little more than that he liked the idea, but didn't think it politically possible. It was never a campaign promise and rarely mentioned as a goal.The SEIU and the nurses were pushing for it, fighting against Democrats as much as for them, but it wasn't going to happen. I would have been very happy back at the time just to see it get a serious proposal, enough to get it scored by the CBO, just so the public could see how much it would save overall.
Comrade Anklebiter |
Even the link in your previous post shows little more than that he liked the idea, but didn't think it politically possible. It was never a campaign promise and rarely mentioned as a goal.
Yes, the link was for Irontruth's claim that "Obama wanted a single payer system."
I guess trying to weave a post together from responses to two different positions didn't work out.
So, to recap: the Democrats didn't want single payer and came up with a bill that rewards the pharmaplutocrats at the expense of workers who already had decent health care coverage in an unsuccessful attempt to get some Republicans on board. The union tops went along with this because they are inveterate stooges of the Democrats, misled their memberships and are now crying foul.
Anything else?
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:Even the link in your previous post shows little more than that he liked the idea, but didn't think it politically possible. It was never a campaign promise and rarely mentioned as a goal.Yes, the link was for Irontruth's claim that "Obama wanted a single payer system."
I guess trying to weave a post together from responses to two different positions didn't work out.
So, to recap: the Democrats didn't want single payer and came up with a bill that rewards the pharmaplutocrats at the expense of workers who already had decent health care coverage in an unsuccessful attempt to get some Republicans on board. The union tops went along with this because they are inveterate stooges of the Democrats, misled their memberships and are now crying foul.
Anything else?
Depending on what you mean by "Democrats". It's not like they're monolithic. Obama's stance was pretty consistent, at least until he really buckled down to selling the ACA: He would prefer single-payer if he was starting from scratch, but didn't think it was possible. I don't what the mean position of Democratic Senators was, but at least some wanted single-payer and some were opposed to it. Since every Democratic vote was needed, we got something much closer to the conservative end of the Democratic spectrum than to the midpoint.
If to you that translates as "Democrats didn't want single payer", I don't know what to say.
Comrade Anklebiter |
The party leadership was divided between those who didn't want it and "lefties" willing to go along with kow-towing to the right-wing of the party. Regardless of individuals' personal wishes and desires, the Democrats, not the Republicans, nixed single payer.
That does, in fact, translate to "the Democrats didn't want single payer" to me. I'm sure this isn't the first time I've left you speechless.
thejeff |
The party leadership was divided between those who didn't want it and "lefties" willing to go along with kow-towing to the right-wing of the party. Regardless of individuals' personal wishes and desires, the Democrats, not the Republicans, nixed single payer.
That does, in fact, translate to "the Democrats didn't want single payer" to me. I'm sure this isn't the first time I've left you speechless.
Fair enough. The leadership was willing to go along to get something instead of nothing. Therefore they nixed single-payer, which didn't have a chance of passing anyway.
I think more Democrats would have swung the balance more towards single payer and more Republicans certainly wouldn't have. Probably would have killed even the little we got.