Unions Pissed Off With Obamacare- Say They Were Lied To

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

BLAZER PROPHET

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
18,725
Likes
191
Points
63
Well, no duh. Stand in line.

http://www.kgw.com/news/national/208791091.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Some labor unions that enthusiastically backed President Barack Obama's health care overhaul are now frustrated and angry, fearful that it will jeopardize benefits for millions of their members.

Union leaders warn that unless the problem is fixed, there could be consequences for Democrats facing re-election next year.

"It makes an untruth out of what the president said — that if you like your insurance, you could keep it," said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. "That is not going to be true for millions of workers now."


And...

But last month, the union representing roofers issued a statement calling for "repeal or complete reform" of the health care law. Kinsey Robinson, president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, complained that labor's concerns over the health care law "have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored."

"In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the act's provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it," Robinson said.
 
Last edited:
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people are just now starting to realize they were lied to about this healthcare bill. It seemed pretty obvious at the time that everybody was being lied to, but the Obama supporters refused to admit it.
 
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people are just now starting to realize they were lied to about this healthcare bill. It seemed pretty obvious at the time that everybody was being lied to, but the Obama supporters refused to admit it.

Many still do, and still claim the premiums will go down. It's silly and sad.
 
To be fair, I can understand the sheep (unions...) blindly supporting this as well as those who see this as the beginning of the end of health insurance companies and a national single paying plan.

But as a practical matter this was a true cluster-*gross expletive deleted* from the very beginning.
 
Hope & Change, Smoke & Mirrors, Bait & Switch.....the list goes on...
 
the unions that figured out ahead of time recieved exceptions from obama..man, this is only going to get worse
 
Last edited:
Unions are too stupid to know what they want.

And corrupt.

Lazy.

Racist.

And bad for Amurica!
 
No, unions don't endorse republican candidates. Most of the reasons are out dated and wrong but once a sheep always a sheep.
 
Does the Union ever really support the Republican party?

what is funny is that many used to..the end came with the advent of public unions..when we gave the power of those that earn off of those that are taxed and gave them the power to negotiate their own terms..well thats where you you get self interest in conflict with the interest of the country
 

PATCO's strike, as it turned out, was illegal. Under a provision of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, Reagan ordered the controllers back to work, giving them a 48-hour deadline. Some of the controllers returned to work, but the majority did not. Reagan echoed the words of Calvin Coolidge when he told Lewis, “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, at any time.”

As former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan writes in her book, “When Character was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan,” “What (Reagan) didn't tell reporters ... is that a strike by American air traffic controllers carried real national security implications. PATCO in effect controlled the skies, and American AWACS bombers that might on a moment's notice be ordered to head for Moscow were in those skies every day.”

These civilian air traffic controllers played a key role in America's defense system, and by walking off their jobs threatened America's potential to respond to a Soviet attack, or offer a proper deterrence through strength. Though union leaders remained silent on the issue as a bargaining tool, they no doubt understood the national security dimension of their actions.

In a show of true bipartisanship, congressional Democrats stood behind the president. Lewis phoned Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts who told him, “I'll help get you Democratic support.” To be sure, some Democrats made some unflattering noise, but no major Democratic action was taken against the president for political advantage. The president of the AFL-CIO, Lane Kirkland, also offered support to the administration.

When the 48 hours had expired on Aug. 5, Reagan remained true to his word and fired the striking controllers. Reagan said, “I'm sorry. I'm sorry for them. I certainly take no joy out of this.”......

.......Noonan writes of perhaps the most important consequence of the strike: “The Soviet Union was watching. They saw how the American president dealt with a national security issue, saw that his rhetorical toughness could be matched by tough action. They absorbed this, and thought about it. That's why George Shultz, Reagan's last and most effective secretary of state, said that the PATCO decision was the most important foreign policy decision Ronald Reagan ever made.”

...
 
Last edited:
I have no pity for those unions nor their rank and file on this issue. They made their bed; they get to lie in it.

Also, I'm reminded of one of my favorite tweets ever:
 
Unions can be like mini-countries. It really boils down to the leadership.
 
You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it!
-- Nancy Pelosi
 
I still don't know what this healthcare bill does, aside from forcing people to buy insurance, and create a standardized summary of the plans.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top