Granted, the health care bill has not been passed yet, but last week's announcement that unions will be given an exemption on their health care benefits has me scratching my head about how this will mesh with BHO's stated goal of the bill lowering health care costs. I also see it lowering overall patient care.

Article

I've worked in two different non-unionized hospitals my entire adult professional career. At both hospitals, a concerted effort has been made by the human resources departments to keep unions out, primarily to keep down wages, and ultimately, the price they charge patients for care.

It seems obvious to me that unions will target hospital employees to unionize using this tax exemption as fodder to show how much money hospital employees will save if they are union members.

Once their workers are unionized, hospitals will be forced to raise their patient care prices to offset the higher wages being earned.

If hospitals want to stave off the unions, they will need to find incentives that employees see as more financially benefitting than what the union offers claim to be. Again, this will add more expense to the overall hospital bottom line resulting in higher patient care costs.

In both scenarios, I most definitely see hospitals reducing staff, as they are prone to do during financially stressed times, thus lowering the quality of care and the number of patients they are able to treat.

In both scenarios, I also see hospitals cutting costs in every other expense category in order to stay financially stable. Departmental budgets will be slashed across the board. I'm not saying it will get this bad, but images from the TV show M*A*S*H come to mind of Radar ringing up Sparky to trade toilet paper for a special OR instrument.

I may be looking at this with a fair share of naivety, but I do not see this sweetheart deal with the unions doing anything but increasing the price of healthcare and decreasing the amount of care patients receive. Hospitals, especially small non-unionized Children's hospitals, are really going to get the shaft.

But let's be honest, at least the unions will be happy, (and growing!), and they will continue to support the party who gave them the deal.

Giving unions an exemption is BHO trying to buy more votes. HOPE AND CHANGE OH YEA!!!

Giving unions an exemption is BHO trying to buy more votes. HOPE AND CHANGE OH YEA!!!

This is ALL you need to know about this topic.

Exempting union "Cadillac" plans is (A) no surprise, (B) more evidence this health care bill is a sham, and (C ) that the Dems are still in bed with organized labor.

Change we can believe in.

ccrunner609 wrote:If you are going to have to get shitty insurance to avoid the governments bullshit wouldnt most people just not carry insurance at all?

Not possible. The Dems thought of this in their transparent closed-door negotiation sessions by making it unlawful to NOT purchase health care insurance.

The Dems call forced health care "choice" but that's not surprising since they also see the killing of innocent unborn human beings for purposes of convenience as "choice".

See how that works?

Wow, could this guy get any more socialist? Taxing existing health benefits could certainly make the marginal difference in the cost advantage of a union. I know places that have voted down unions have often done so on the basis that they don't feel the benefits justify the dues. But now you could be talking a $1500-$2000 tax benefit.

I thought Obamanomics would be bad, but I never expected to abhor it so much. Beyond disastrous. His subservience to unions has to be surprising to even the most jaded right-winger.

believer wrote: that the Dems are still in bed with organized labor.

They've gone from being in bed with the unions to having full on orgies.

Anyone who believed the health care bill would lower costs anyway is an idiot. This is no surprise. Obama is a joke.

gut wrote:His subservience to unions has to be surprising to even the most jaded right-winger.

He's from Chicago. What's to be surprised about?

This is what they meant by "transparency".

I've never seen (in my political lifetime) so many political buy-offs made public as I have with this administration. They're not even trying to keep their buy-offs hush hush. They're going [size=large]LIVE AND IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!!!![/size] with them.

= Transparency haha

believer wrote:

gut wrote:His subservience to unions has to be surprising to even the most jaded right-winger.

He's from Chicago. What's to be surprised about?

Yep. It's "the Chicago way" in action.

Nobody, but nobody, should be surprised by this crap. His history was there, you just had to believe it (most Americans who backed him were too stupid to either research him or believe he'd continue these tactics in Washington).

I don't watch the news, but are they covering this? I doubt it, but the fact that Unions are going to be exempt should piss the American public off. I'm not surprised by anything this White House, or any other, does anymore. The leadership for this country is pathetic, that the public let's them get away with it is even more.

tk421 wrote: I don't watch the news, but are they covering this?

Discussed at length on Fox News Sunday. They lambasted BHO on politics as usual despite his pledge to change Washington...which we all knew was bullshit.

believer wrote: Discussed at length on Fox News Sunday. They lambasted BHO on politics as usual despite his pledge to change Washington...which we all knew was bullshit.

Yes, but per the Obama admin Fox is not a news organization.

This is clearly a kickback to the union designed to strengthen their position for membership drives. I don't know how you could think anything else. There is no reason for exempting them in the first place (especially since the UAW was already bailed out in a major way).

This is outrageous. They really need to be taken to task for this.

believer wrote:despite his pledge to change Washington...which we all knew was bullshit.

Most who voted for him didn't know that. The Obama apologists are increasingly quiet.

November can't get here quickly enough.

I figured Fox would cover it, but I wonder if it's getting any play on the other stations.

believer wrote: November can't get here quickly enough.

yes but Tuesday will be here in a matter of hours and there's a good chance the people of Mass. will fire the second shot heard round the world!!!

Apple wrote:

believer wrote: November can't get here quickly enough.

yes but Tuesday will be here in a matter of hours and there's a good chance the people of Mass. will fire the second shot heard round the world!!!

God, I really hope so. I would love to see the panic and back room deals that are tried if the Dem in Mass. loses.

Apple wrote: yes but Tuesday will be here in a matter of hours and there's a good chance the people of Mass. will fire the second shot heard round the world!!!

I swear to you that would make me one happy camper.

However, the Dems are threatening to use every option available to them to sign the bill into law prior to Brown taking the seat (assuming he gets elected).

If the results are close you can rest assured there will be recount after recount until the bill is passed. If Brown wins with a reasonable margin, the Senate majority leadership will use whatever delay tactic they can find to delay seating Brown until after the bill is passed.

One thing is certain is that the union exemption deal coupled with the Massachusetts race is setting the the Dems up for one huge FAIL.

How anyone can now say they support this admin is beyond me.

CenterBHSFan wrote: This is what they meant by "transparency".

I've never seen (in my political lifetime) so many political buy-offs made public as I have with this administration. They're not even trying to keep their buy-offs hush hush. They're going [size=large]LIVE AND IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!!!![/size] with them.

= Transparency haha

This, too, has me shaking my head. :s

Are the BHO supporters (average voter) actually for this? Are most of them even aware this is going on?

Capt. Cav,

No, I'm not for it one bit. My post was a little tongue-in-cheek humor/sarcasm

CenterBHSFan wrote: Capt. Cav,


No, I'm not for it one bit. My post was a little tongue-in-cheek humor/sarcasm

At ease there BHS.

Not sure if I sent the wrong message. I was agreeing with you on your statement. I've had discussions before about how blatant this admin. is. Are the ones that put him in office aware this stuff is happening?

Captain Cavalier wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote: Capt. Cav,


No, I'm not for it one bit. My post was a little tongue-in-cheek humor/sarcasm

At ease there BHS.

Not sure if I sent the wrong message. I was agreeing with you on your statement. I've had discussions before about how blatant this admin. is. Are the ones that put him in office aware this stuff is happening?

I would say YES. Only because in order to get what you want, sometimes the means justifies the end. Which, in this case, is the course that is being taken.

In my humble opinion.... legislation to favor organized labor in this fashion has to fall under the category of being completely unconstitutional.

This will be challenged and defeated somewhere in court. It simply doesn't pass the smell test to me....and is entirely unfair to those that are non union workers.

But what might pass......a progressive Cadillac tax based on income levels. Any surtax, health care plan related or not, flies directly in the face of Obama's pre-election promise....that those making less than 200K will pay higher tax.

That would be eerily similar to GHW Bush and his "no new taxes" read my lips statemet years ago.

So relax everybody...I wouldn't get everybody's panties all twisted up. It ain't gonna pass legislation as stands. The red challenge flag will be tossed on the field.