Patterico's Pontifications

1/15/2010

72 Hours

Filed under: Health Care,Obama — DRJ @ 3:21 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Now that the White House has cut a deal that delays the tax on union (and government?) “Cadillac” health care plans, Steny Hoyer says the Democrats will have a health care deal in the next 72 hours:

“House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said today he expects a deal within the next 72 hours.

“I think we’re getting very close. I would certainly hope that within in the next 24, 48, 72 hours that we have a general agreement between the Senate and the House,” Hoyer said on CNBC this morning.”

I suspect ObamaCare will make a lot of Americans sick.

— DRJ

40 Responses to “72 Hours”

  1. within in the next 24, 48, 72 hours

    They are SOOOO trying to get something BEFORE the election on Tuesday.

    They can’t stand the thought that Brown may just win…

    kimsch (2ce939)

  2. 72 hours until the feeding trough is closed. Hoyer is signaling this is the last chance for the rest of the pigs to pick the final scraps off the husks of the taxpayers.

    Sooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    MU789 (514c52)

  3. When Scott Brown wins by 15 points Tuesday, there is going to be the world’s worst traffic jam at the doors out of the Democrat caucus room. Trampled will not be word for it. It will be Animal House all over again.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  4. Trying to get something passed, just before the people get to vote on new leadership, is not something you would expect people called “Democratic” to do.

    Don’t they understand? If they need to rush it through like this, it’s not in their political interest to do so, and it’s not democratic. I don’t believe in absolute democracy, but this is something the people should have more of a say in.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  5. …and now we just form a legally defined union to nominally “negotiate” health care benefits…and only health care benefits…to be exactly what already exists and/or the employer can provide and voila’ instant tax exemption!

    What do you think the over-under on that happening in some of the more lucrative career markets is?

    MJN1957 (6e1275)

  6. Nelson is now asking that the special deal he got for Nebraska be taken out of the Senate bill.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/15/inevitable-ben-nelson-asks-for-bribe-to-be-removed-from-obamacare-bill/

    Does this mean they would have to resubmit for cloture and a vote?

    Dr. K (adb7ba)

  7. The Gang That Couldn’t Legislate Straight.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (a18ddc)

  8. did you see how the little president man’s Associated Press propaganda whores reported how he shafted our little country for his fat-ass union thug pals?

    In a major breakthrough, union leaders bowed Thursday to White House demands for a new tax on high-cost insurance plans as part of landmark health care legislation taking final shape in intensive negotiations.

    that’s more pravda than pravda I think.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  9. Dr. K,

    There are no rules with this congress. Obviously, they can just refuse to obey Nelson (who is not going to get out of this pickle that easily). Or they could just have it struck in a court or signing statement or any other way they can think of.

    I don’t think they will take any risks for Nelson’s help. They already got his vote.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  10. Ben Nelson is a really strikingly craven and dishonourable person especially by Nebraska standards. If he wants to be a flagrant whore and get away with it he needs to move to Louisiana.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  11. you gotta admire the sheer unadulterated gall of it though.

    this is something straight out of the pages of “Atlas Shrugged”, with only the names being different…..

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  12. “that’s more pravda than pravda I think.”

    The unions just accepted to support a tax on something they have bargained for — and given up other things for — for years. Pravda?

    imdw (8f8ead)

  13. The Associated Press whores don’t report it straight up… these uneducated, unproductive thugs are getting a free ride at the expense of the rest of us.

    But they still expect us to buy their faggy camaros and thugtastic cadillacs.

    Not gonna happen, and the loser UAW children are gonna have to grow up in the dirty socialist backwater their loser mommies and daddies bequeathed them. And they’re going to have some questions.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  14. The unions just accepted to support a tax on something they have bargained for

    They have? What is that something?

    Subotai (34e1b4)

  15. Usually the health care plans are part of the contract between management and the unions.

    In such cases, the health care plans are something the unions have bargained for.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  16. “The unions just accepted to support a tax on something they have bargained for”

    Uh, I thought the compromise was no tax on collectively bargained cadillac plans prior to 2018, which effectively exempts them unless they have eight year contracts. New contracts can be negotiated to avoid the provisions.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  17. Yet another deal that screws the citizen in favor of Obama’s insiders.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  18. Steyn, calls him ‘ a twisted husk of a man’ feets, you’re right Pravda, under new leadership, is much more aware of the path we’re on, and they don’t like it.

    ian cormac (dfb136)

  19. How pitiful the lefties look when they try to justify these crooked deals. The unions will be exempt for taxes that anyone else has to pay. When this gets widely known, GM and Chrysler car sales will take another dive. The irony is that Obama attacked McCain’s health plan which would….

    Tax expensive health plans and give tax credits for everyone who was self employed.

    Funny how that happens.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  20. I call shennanigans. I’m going to fearlessly predict this is nothing but a ploy to drive up turnout in the Mass election on Tuesday. By Monday the story will be they are ALMOST there, they are SO CLOSE they just need a little more time to deliver. Oh, and Martha Coakley’s vote, as well.

    Sean P (4fde41)

  21. I still think Coakley will win. The Democrats simply cannot let her lose.

    It will play out as a parody of the Minnesota Senate election, except probably a lot quicker.

    But back to the subject at hand. I have never seen — ever, and I live in Texas — such an overt display of abject, craven subjugation of the legislative process.

    This pay off to the unions rivals anything ever thought of, or committed, by the likes of Tammany Hall.

    And everybody knows it. Of course, the left and the media consider it clever maneuvering. But the people who will pay for it know exactly what it is: the mackerel in the moonlight.

    Ag80 (76c798)

  22. That two hundred thirty and some odd year old scrap of paper sure has some Obamanation burn-holes, don’t it? And to think, he swore multiple oaths to defend that scrap of paper against all enemies, foreign and himself. Not going so well.

    What are the odds that federal courts and SCOTUS will strike down huge chunks of this travesty? I hate dealing with last lines of defense (Corregidor) because those last lines are not trustworthy. But that’s what it’s looking like it will boil down to. Hoping Corregidor will hold against the onslaught to our freedom.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  23. Watch the Stossel show on Fox Business tonight, all about crony capitalism. Awesome. I am so glad we have an alternative media in this country. It’s our only hope of educating people about economics and government. The schools are merely indoctrinating, not teaching.

    Patricia (b05e7f)

  24. Nelson…
    When was the last time we heard of a Senior Senator, a member of the Presidential/Majority Party, being booed out of a restaurant in his home town…with his wife in tow?

    AD - RtR/OS! (bc0057)

  25. “Uh, I thought the compromise was no tax on collectively bargained cadillac plans prior to 2018, which effectively exempts them unless they have eight year contracts. New contracts can be negotiated to avoid the provisions.”

    Exactly. So all that they’ve bargained for in the past is now lost and they’re coming at the negotiations from a position where they are facing taxes in their health care. And it is “pravda” to describe their *support* of this how?

    imdw (8f8ead)

  26. “So all that they’ve bargained for in the past is now lost and they’re coming at the negotiations from a position where they are facing taxes in their health care.”

    imdw – Wrong. Those contracts will expire before the taxes kick in and they will have the opportunity to negotiate new benefit packages well before 2018. Certainly you are able to count.

    Also, why do you believe unions are different than nonunion workers merely because of a collective bargaining agreement? In considering where to work, most rational people consider the entire compensation package, which includes pay and benefits. To differentiate between union and nonunion is a red herring.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  27. That little bit of bribery should certainly put the union thugs who will try to fix the election in MA on Tuesday in a cheerful mood.

    M. Scott Eiland (c552ec)

  28. “imdw – Wrong. Those contracts will expire before the taxes kick in and they will have the opportunity to negotiate new benefit packages well before 2018. Certainly you are able to count.”

    That’s the point indeed so they have a chance to negotiate with this knowledge. But i think’s crazy to call it “pravda” that they’v been told to eat shit sandwhiches here. They’re going to *support* of taxes on something they previously had untaxed — and which they are now going to have to ask for more pay to offset!

    “Also, why do you believe unions are different than nonunion workers merely because of a collective bargaining agreement? In considering where to work, most rational people consider the entire compensation package, which includes pay and benefits. To differentiate between union and nonunion is a red herring.”

    Because they’re under collective bargaining agreements. I don’t know about you, but I have never negotiated the employer’s contribution to my medical benefits. I think this is standard for most working people except those who have collective bargaining power.

    imdw (8f8ead)

  29. “I don’t know about you, but I have never negotiated the employer’s contribution to my medical benefits.”

    imdw – I don’t think you’ve ever worked for a living so I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I’ve never negotiated contributions to my medical benefits with an employer, but again you completely miss the point. I have set contribution levels for employees to medical plans because I had to compete against other employers to hire people and people compare benefit packages across employers. When I have changed jobs, I have done it myself. If you ever get a job you may find it an important part of the process.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  30. “… And it is “pravda” to describe their *support* of this how?…”

    Did you really mean to use “pravda” in this sentence?
    Wouldn’t it be more grammatical to say “and it is news to describe their support of this how”?

    news…izvestia
    truth…pravda

    The Russians were fond of saying:

    Their is no izvestia in Pravda, and no pravda in Izvestia.

    AD - RtR/OS! (98852f)

  31. “Did you really mean to use “pravda” in this sentence?”

    Someone used “pravda” up above. That’s what I’m referring to.

    “I have set contribution levels for employees to medical plans because I had to compete against other employers to hire people and people compare benefit packages across employers.”

    And so you can continue to do that, free of any collective bargaining agreements, and now with the knowledge of tax effects. The problem of collective bargaining is two-fold: one they’re locked into agreements that take a while to renegotiate, and two they actually do bargain over and negotiate over the entire compensation range, from health benefits to wages. This isn’t to say that other companies don’t set their benefits competitively. But it is to say that workers they hire are not making bargains over howo to structure the compensation package. At least not to the level that collective bargaining agreements do.

    imdw (684244)

  32. Daleyrocks’ tack:

    Also, why do you believe unions are different than nonunion workers merely because of a collective bargaining agreement? In considering where to work, most rational people consider the entire compensation package, which includes pay and benefits. To differentiate between union and nonunion is a red herring.

    I have no issue with this tack at all. In fact, I support it. I also believe the Constitution supports the tack daleyrocks used. A specific set of citizens are being treated differently specifically because they are a different set of citizens. And that is unconstitutional.

    John Hitchcock (3fd153)

  33. The first use of “pravda” in this thread was by ‘feets’, when he posted:
    “…that’s more pravda than pravda I think…”
    Comment by happyfeet — 1/15/2010 @ 4:08 pm

    Then, in your next comment you questioned his use by asking “Pravda?”;
    though I can understand a usage that ways “that’s more truth than (what would appear in) pravda I think”.

    Did this mean that you were unsure of the meaning of the word, or of its’ usage, or both?
    And, if you are unsure of its’ meaning, why would you use it later?

    As I posted above, its’ meaning is “Truth”,
    and the Russian readers of the paper Pravda knew – and openly joked about – that there was no truth in Pravda.

    AD - RtR/OS! (98852f)

  34. “A specific set of citizens are being treated differently specifically because they are a different set of citizens. And that is unconstitutional.”

    Oh boy. Didn’t we just have a big thread on equal protection?

    “As I posted above, its’ meaning is “Truth”,
    and the Russian readers of the paper Pravda knew – and openly joked about – that there was no truth in Pravda.”

    Indeed. So that is how it is being used by both of us. I am taking issue with feets.

    imdw (f7b257)

  35. “But it is to say that workers they hire are not making bargains over howo to structure the compensation package.”

    imdw – Once again you avoid the basic issue. Since benefits packages can amount to a very large portion of compensation, which is why the unions are so hung up on them, comparing overall benefits packages between companies is something most rational job seekers engage in. Whether they are in a unionized environment is irrelevant to the exercise. The numbers can be quantified in the same fashion.

    As John Hitchcock points out, Congress is expressly agreeing to treat classes of people differently, union members and federal and state employees, all of whom coincidently happen to be big supporters of and contributors to, Democrats, whereas the other poor sclubs who might have Cadillac health plans implicitly traded wages for those plans at the entities where they work.

    Think about it before embarrassing yourself again.

    NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  36. imadimwit is incapable of not embarrassing itself.
    It is, after all, what it does
    (I would say “does best”, but I can’t think of any other thing that it is capable of doing).

    AD - RtR/OS! (98852f)

  37. “Since benefits packages can amount to a very large portion of compensation, which is why the unions are so hung up on them, comparing overall benefits packages between companies is something most rational job seekers engage in.”

    Rational job seekers these days are probably doing very little comparing of offers.

    But the idea is that rational job seekers have a take it or leave it approach to benefit packages, and don’t negotiate the share of their compensation that will be in health care vs. other pay. They may negotiate over pay, but not the detailed structure of their health benefits and the employer’s contribution towards them.

    Plus their renegotiation, if any, is much easier as it doesn’t have to be collective.

    “As John Hitchcock points out, Congress is expressly agreeing to treat classes of people differently, union members and federal and state employees, all of whom coincidently happen to be big supporters of and contributors to, Democrats,”

    Yeah as if nobody had noticed….

    imdw (017d51)

  38. “But the idea is that rational job seekers have a take it or leave it approach to benefit packages”

    imdw – How is that different from when they join a union shop?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  39. It just seems to me that there has got to be something UN-Constitutional about giving goverment union employees & other union employees breaks that 87% of Americans cannot get…it just must!

    Jaded (1f19fe)

  40. Jaded – Reverse discrimination, a hate crime, reverse bill of attainder?

    daleyrocks (718861)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4889 secs.