SHOCK... Dems favoring unions again????

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/15/another_rank_deal_99912.html

"But pressure from the unions has now forced the White House to agree to raise the $23,000-per-household threshold of the tax slightly and - more importantly - exempt insurance plans that are the product of collective-bargaining agreements until 2018. This Labor Loophole stands in the finest tradition of the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback. With no possible public-policy justification, it puts the awesome power to tax and spend at the service of nakedly political ends."

If the bolded is accurate... this is complete bullshit... how can they legally say that everyone who is hit by this tax has to pay EXCEPT for union employees?

This reeks of corruption.

Soc... definitely interested in your take on this from the legality perspective.

 

[DamnYankee]

And except for residents of a certain state....

I'm not sure why you're concerned about the legal aspects. Its legal if the President says its legal.

 

[Chapdog]

I wish I was in a Union.

 

[The Dude]

The Dude sees it as FAT CAT UNION GUYS = GOOD
FAT CAT BANKERS & OIL EXECS = BAD


THE DUDE ABIDES

 

[DamnYankee]

I wish I was in a Union.

You are. Its called the You Ess of Fucking Aye.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And except for residents of a certain state....

I'm not sure why you're concerned about the legal aspects. Its legal if the President says its legal.

Perhaps I should have said Constitutional, rather than legal.

 

[Bonestorm]

Perhaps I should have said Constitutional, rather than legal.

How is it unconstitutional?

And I think the exemption is for 2 years, not through 2018.

 

[DamnYankee]

Perhaps I should have said Constitutional, rather than legal.

Since when has the SCOTUS prevented Congress from usurping the COTUS?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How is it unconstitutional?

And I think the exemption is for 2 years, not through 2018.

To be clear... I am not saying it IS Unconstitutional... I am ASKING if it is.

To give an exclusion based on 'collective bargaining' seems to violate equal protection under the law. Again, to be clear, I am in no way certain and thus asking Soc for his opinion. (and anyone else who may know)

Why should one person with an income of say $60,000 with a $24k insurance plan under collective bargaining not pay the tax, when someone else with a $60,000 income and $24k insurance plan received without collective bargaining IS forced to pay the tax?

Obviously it isn't right/justifiable/fair.... so my question came up... IS it legal and/or unconstitutional?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Oh and as for the exclusion period... you may be right. I do not know and was just quoting the article.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003040695279432.html

Another article on the same topic (though admittedly, not one Dung will like as a source)

Another point brought up by this article....

In addition to softening the tax on high-end plans, Democrats plan to increase subsidies for lower earners to buy health insurance. To pay for such changes, Democrats are considering levying an additional $10 billion in fees on medical-device makers, for a total of $30 billion over 10 years. But it wasn't a done deal as the House was showing resistance.

Could someone explain why it is they want to charge medical device makers?

To me it seems rather silly to use this as a way to help 'pay' for their health care bill. If they charge the medical device makers $30b. The medical device makers pass that $30b on to consumers via higher medical charges for their products. Which means the $30b would offset itself.... would it not?

 

[Bonestorm]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003040695279432.html

Another article on the same topic (though admittedly, not one Dung will like as a source)

Another point brought up by this article....



Could someone explain why it is they want to charge medical device makers?

To me it seems rather silly to use this as a way to help 'pay' for their health care bill. If they charge the medical device makers $30b. The medical device makers pass that $30b on to consumers via higher medical charges for their products. Which means the $30b would offset itself.... would it not?

Just to respond to your assertion that I won't like the source, nothing could be further from the truth. The Wall Street Journal news pages are absolutely first-rate (for now, anyway). It's the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal that are complete shit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Just to respond to your assertion that I won't like the source, nothing could be further from the truth. The Wall Street Journal news pages are absolutely first-rate (for now, anyway). It's the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal that are complete shit.

just jerking your chain....

 

[Chapdog]

You are. Its called the You Ess of Fucking Aye.

mark my words.. ill get into a govt job at some point. perhaps my next job. I just need to make enough money now to pay off house then i can take the paycut and easy life.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

How is it unconstitutional?

And I think the exemption is for 2 years, not through 2018.

it favors one group over others. in other words, discriminatory.

This guarantees that any health care bill passed with this kind of amendment is destined to be ruled unconsitutional.

 

[Bonestorm]

just jerking your chain....

Fair enough. There are lots of people that don't distinguish between the editorial pages and the news pages, most notably NY Times bashers.

 

[Bonestorm]

it favors one group over others. in other words, discriminatory.

This guarantees that any health care bill passed with this kind of amendment is destined to be ruled unconsitutional.

There are all sorts of laws that pass constitutional muster that favor some groups over others, particularly within the tax code.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Fair enough. There are lots of people that don't distinguish between the editorial pages and the news pages, most notably NY Times bashers.

There is little difference between the editorial and news pages of the Times. It is equivalent to the National enquirer in terms of quality through and through.

 

[DamnYankee]

mark my words.. ill get into a govt job at some point. perhaps my next job. I just need to make enough money now to pay off house then i can take the paycut and easy life.

Do what my sister did and wait until you're 55. She walked into a Mass job and after ten years will have 85% pension and full benies. After the first week they told her to slow down, stop taking work home and leave the damn building at 5 like everyone else.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There are all sorts of laws that pass constitutional muster that favor some groups over others, particularly within the tax code.

The above is why I asked if it was or not. This one just seems so unbelievably blatant. Oh, you gave us hundreds of millions in campaign contributions... ok... you are protected for five years. Obviously I think it reeks.

Non-union workers should let their representatives have it.... email, phone, snail mail.... remind the idiots in DC that unions make up about 12-15% of the labor force. Remind them that the other 85%+ also vote.