White House Considers Awarding Obamacare Subsidies, Intended For The Uninsured, To Labor Unions

A few weeks ago, I discussed the fact that labor unions have been increasingly vocal about their objections to certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare will “shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class,” wrote three labor leaders in July. Now, according to a report from InsideHealthPolicy, the Obama administration is considering offering insurance subsidies—intended for the uninsured—to labor union members who already have employer-sponsored coverage.

The issue at hand is the way Obamacare affects multi-employer health plans, also known as Taft-Hartley plans. These plans consist of employer-sponsored health insurance that is arranged between a labor union in a particular industry, such as restaurants, and small employers in that sector. Approximately 20 million workers in the United States are covered under such arrangements, including 800,000 of the 1.3 million members of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, whose leader, Joseph Hansen, signed the letter I described above.

Workers with employer-sponsored coverage don’t qualify for subsidized coverage on Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. Those subsidies are designed for low-income people who aren’t offered coverage from their employers, and have to shop for insurance on their own. But the labor union leaders want those subsidies to also apply to their members with employer-sponsored coverage, even though they already get those benefits tax-free due to the employer tax exclusion for health insurance.

read more:


Views: 693

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

UNBELIEVABLE !!!!!...Is there ANY end to the corruption of OBAMA and his administration ??????....Everyday, it's something new !!!!!.....This Communist Dictator Muslim has over stepped his bounds time and time again, yet Congress does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING !!!!!....What a contemptable scumbag OBAMA is !!!!!!....If ever a human being needed to be destroyed, he is the one !!!!!!....IMPEACH THIS PIECE OF S**T NOW !!!!! or arrest and prosecute this animal......CONGRESS ARE YOU LISTENING ??????

Everyone ready...in unison...1 2 3...CONGRESS, ARE YOU LISTENING?????!!!!!

The Constitutional responsibility falls on the House of Representatives - the founders gave them the power of the purse so they could stop a usurping executive from operating outside the powers of his office . . use it House or lose it . . cut off the DOJ, EPA, IRS, BLM, USFS, NSA, DOE, and the other agencies promulgating rules and regulations that exceed the limits of the Constitution and the actual Statutes passed by congress and signed into law.

Cut off the money . . no money for extra constitutional activities . . 

Millions of people who take advantage of government subsidies to help buy health insurance next year could get stung by surprise tax bills if they don't accurately project their income. This is an article about the ACA in April of this year, but good idea for "buyer to beware".

Read more here: http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-credits-could-trigger-surprise-tax-...

In my opinion if the medical profession and the insurance companies wouldve been kept in check years ago and not let run amok with charges and premiums we may have been able to head this disaster off at the pass and not even had to worry about this BS. Now Im all for making a profit but when it runs into the millions and maybe even billions of dollars ayear something has to give, everyone complains about big Government what about Big Business I believe they are in bed together and the only way to stop it is to topple one or the other

where do we begin Mangus?

Visit this library link it maps the entire process from the bottom up we the people get it done . .


It's not legal for the government to keep in check anybody, we live in a free enterprise society it is charge everyone is willing to pay so it is the government medicare, insurance and welfare fraud that jacked price up. The cost of everything goes up when the price of gas goes up, if it travels by truck, train or airplane and is harvested by farmers in the field which takes fuel the price goes up. When a company has to pay more for something the price of the product they sell goes up, this includes the minimum wage.

The democrats have always wanted $10/gal for gas because in their stupidity they think we will drive less and go green, no we just raise the price of things everyone buys to cover the cost. Back in 1920 a $20 dollar bill and a $20 dollar gold piece bought the same thing, now gold is worth $1800 of our new dollars. Did gold go up or did our dollar drop. In 1950 gas was $.25 cents a gallon a loaf of bread cost  the same $.25 cents and minimum wage was $.75 cents per hour cokes were $.05 each a movie was $.10 popcorn $.10 so for $.25 cents I could go to a movie eat a box of popcorn and drink a coke and there was NO WELFARE  but we all made it work. Now 50% of the people work and pay for the 50% that don't soon it will be no one will work and we will be a socialist country depending on the government to save us.


It's called 'medling'.  Government medls in everything, and can't figure out why (pick a topic).  The 1950 numbers you show are correct.  But government wanted to 'help' the less-well-off.  So they raised the minumum 'wage'.  Mind you, the 'Mn. Wage' did not apply to people outside the District of Columbia, but nobody knew that.  Anyway, the minimum wage went up.  So, in order to stay even, the gas price went to .27.9, the coke went to .06, the loaf of bread went to .30.  And on and on.  And so the minimum wage was raised again, and prices went up again, ETC.  Government seems to think that those PAYING the 'new' minimum wage have a bottomless pit of 'money', and so are not hurt by the minimum wage increase.  But where does the business mans 'money' COME from?  Does it magicly appear?  Of course not.  It is sourced from the same place he is paying.  His workers.  In order to pay them more, he must CHARGE more.  And they now are strugling as much as they were before the 'raise'.  People don't live within their means, and government can't fix it by artificially raising their pay, because prices must go up to make up for the raise.

So, the wage payer is not to blame for higher prices.  Government is.  Government 'borrowing' (16 TRILLION?)  is how come your ounce of gold now carries an enormous price.  Check it out.  150 years ago an ounce of gold would buy a man a fine suit of clothes.  100 years ago an ounce of gold would buy a man a fine suit of clothes.  50 years ago (if you had kept it past Roosevelt) an ounce of gold would buy a man a fine suit.  And TODAY an ounce of gold will buy a man a fine suit of clothes.  Go figure.


Good post - it is just as you laid out I remember all the events . .  and the many more since . . same result every time - food and energy prices increase reducing the standard of living of the poor = government must increase welfare to offset the loss . . call it spiral . .  

Who in the White House decided to do this?  Couldn't be Obumbum...  He's too busy rattling his sabre and declaring (illegal) war.





Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich


‘Breaking: Supreme Court Sides With Trump Over Sanctuary Cities In Deportation Case

 The US Supreme Court sided with President Trump over sanctuary cities today in a 5-4 decision.

The court ruled the government has the power to detain people who are facing deportation because of the crimes they committed.

Chief Justice John Roberts joined justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh in the majority.

Bloomberg.com reported:

A divided U.S. Supreme Court bolstered the government’s power to detain people who are facing deportation because of crimes they committed, siding with the Trump administration in a clash with implications for so-called sanctuary cities.

The case focused on non-citizen legal residents who serve a criminal sentence, get released and later are arrested by federal immigration agents.

The 5-4 ruling Tuesday said those people aren’t entitled to a bond hearing, and the possibility of re-release, while the Homeland Security Department presses its case for deportation. The ruling reversed a decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In announcing the decision from the bench, Justice Samuel Alito said the lower court had made a “policy judgment” using reasoning that “makes a mockery” of the federal immigration laws…

…Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority, but they splintered in their reasoning.

Thomas and Gorsuch didn’t agree with all of Alito’s opinion. They said courts lack power to consider issues involving the detention of non-citizens until those people are facing a deportation order.

TRUTH - New Zealand Shooting

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service