As Nancy Pelosi had promised, once we passed the bill we are now actually finding out what is in it. And, we are discovering, everything Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama promised about the bill was a lie.
But Michelle Malkin has discovered the ultimate irony. The massive labor union, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has lost the very benefit they touted as the major reason for passage, insurance coverage for children. The SEIU paid millions of dollars in hard earned union dues lobbying for this bill. Today, that very same union cancelled all health insurance benefits for children BECAUSE they can no longer afford the price of that insurance under the ObamaCare mandatory guidelines.
READ THE FULL and very tragic STORY AT MICHELLE MALKIN'S BLOG:
Here's a tiny excerpt:
Late last month, the Service Employees International Union informed dues-paying members of its behemoth 1199 affiliate in New York that it was dropping its health care coverage for children. That’s right. A radical leftist union, not an evil Republican corporation, is abandoning the young ‘uns to cut costs.
More than 30,000 low-wage families will be affected, according to The Wall Street Journal. Who’s to blame? SEIU 1199 benefits manager Mitra Behroozi singled out oppressive new state and federal regulations, including the much-ballyhooed Obamacare rule forcing insurers to cover dependents well into their 20s:
“…(N)ew federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Behroozi explained in an Oct. 22 letter to members. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”
12 comments:
Hugs 2ya Wizard. I think we could have had an excellent health care plan had the GOP not censored Hillary Clinton down in 1993.
Obama "negotiated" with the GOP to create bipartisanship. To reward him, none of the GOP voted for even the revised Bill.
The nightmare continues...
Wow Stella. Which planet are you living on? Show me the provisions the Republicans got in these negotiations. Oh wait, you can't, because there are none! Republicans were never consulted, and all their attempts at input ignore. That is why they didn't vote for it. That was one of the huge complaints about the whole process was the extremely partisan nature of it.
You "progressives" have a strange view of bipartisanship. Your idea of bipartisanship is that Democrats author the bills with no Republican input, and then graciously allow Republicans to vote for it.
When Bush was President, he worked with Democrats in Congress, even when they were in the minority, to craft legislation. Remember No Child Left Behind? Authored by Ted Kennedy. The Medicare Prescriptin Drug Benefit? That was true bipartisanship.
I may disagree with you, shoo, but always admire you for your intellect. As far as what planet I'm living on these days... let's just say it's not one of my better years, so perhaps I'm in some metaverse somewhere.
And please don't get me started on "No Child Left Behind." This bill only taught children to study for a test and constrained teachers to a specific curriculum rather than encouraging children to think. In this matter, I am vehemently against a program that stifles creativity and intellect. And I don't care whether the provisions rested solely on the GOP or the Dems. In terms of education, this bill is terribly flawed.
Now, shoo, if, as you assert, that the GOP had no input on health care reform, it's not for lack of effort on Obama's part. But Sen. Chuck Grassley disagrees.
"Senator Chuck Grassley ... acknowledged that the health care bill being debated this week by the Senate Finance Committee was done with GOP input — an admission that will make it tougher for Republicans to claim Dems didn’t opt for a bipartisan approach on health care.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bipartisanship/grassley-admits-health-care-proposal-has-republican-input/
Facts are facts: Democrats accepted 721 Republican amendments to the health care bill: but received no votes from every GOP Congressional Rep, with one abstaining:
(~more~)
(~continued~)
Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.
You can visit the New York Times Caucus Blog for further confirmation and commentary: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/senate-committee-approves-health-care-bill/#comment-1495065
Perhaps you might be surprised to know I agree with the following quote from the American Spectator. A critical point made is, "What alternative options did the Republicans offer?"
In 1994, Republicans defeated President Clinton’s health care proposal and took back Congress. But once that happened... for 15 years Republicans made no major effort to overhaul our over-regulated mess of a health insurance market. To the extent that they did act on health care, it was to pass the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society in the form of the Medicare prescription drug plan.
For the past several months, the Republican critiques of President Obama’s health care plans have centered on issues such as “death panels,” coverage of illegal immigrants, subsidies for abortion, and proposed Medicare cuts. Taken together, these criticisms have helped to weaken support for and build opposition to Democratic initiatives, but they have done nothing to advance an alternative vision for the health care system.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/02/gops-health-care-strategy-is-s.
Indeed, some GOP suggestions deserved careful consideration and inclusion. :Mr. Obama stated: "he's interested in several Republican suggestions... allowing private "health savings accounts"... addressing disparities among the states in Medicaid reimbursements to doctors; authorizing another $50 million in medical malpractice grants to the states; and using undercover investigators to ferret out waste in the Medicare and Medicaid programs."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/obama-considers-gop-ideas-for-health-bill/
NewsMax' "Liberal Whoppers," publishes an opinion closer to your perspective: http://www.liberalwhoppers.com/2010/01/04/obama-reid-and-pelosi-refuse-to-allow-republican-input-on-merging-of-house-and-senate-health-care-bills/)
Interesting Op-Ed from the NYT: http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/10/the-rockefeller-republican-health-care-bill/
As always, the truth is somewhere between our respective views. THAT is true bipartisanship. Nice to cross swords with you again, shoo. And, yes, I mean it.
(~continued~)
And, Wizard, I disagree with your citation from Malkin whose viciousness is untenable and unreliable. Her bias against those who disagree with her renders her suspect as a viable source. She stated Meghan McCain "talks like a 17-year old girl." Such bashing is debased. McCain retorted: Malkin "rounds out the trifecta of extreme female conservative pundits, following Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter, who believe that I, and Republicans like me, need to shut up and get out of the party."
All I glean from Malkin's writings are bias.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/08/11/meghan-mccain-lashes-out-at-michelle-malkin-and-ann-coulter/
Amendments are authorship?
Amendments need an author or group of authors collaborating. Someone has to write them. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are authored, so are amendments thereto.
But, you are right. Amendments are not authors. Must have been on a writing jag myself.
Nice to see you, too, Lee. Yes, really. I hope you and yours are well.
Stella,
I am deeply honored you spent so much time here and wrote a lengthy, fact filled and logical response to both Shoo and to my original post.
I would love to have a long discussion with you about Michelle Malkin and your (I believe) really strained logic in attacking her. Let me just say that if you dislike Malkin for her very mild rebuke of Megan McCain you must absolutely detest Keith Olbermann for his mysoginistic, x-rated, vile and contemptable attack on Malkin (look it up - I refuse to use such language here).
But I am already getting off track. Michele Malkin not withstanding, the facts in her article are 100% correct and have been reported on by The New York Times, the AP and The Huffington Post. The New York Branch of the SEIU has been forced to drop health care for their member's children. Thirty Thousand Children are affected.
This health care bill is a disaster.
Hello, my friend Wizard (AND Lee and shoo),
Believe or not, I am not a huge Keith Olbermann fan anymore. Unfortunately, I consider both Keith and Michelle over the top... different sides of the same coin.
My respect for Meghan McCain stems from her common-sense approach to open exchange of ideas. I disagree with much of her political ideology, but admire her willingness to be inclusive.
Some progressive may assert that she did not author the article. If she did, the
GOP may find themselves with a viable political candidate for whom I might consider voting.
Constructive dialog is far more important than mudslinging.
The health care bill is a disaster from both sides of the aisle. The GOP had far more input than the Dems. I place the blame on both sides of the aisle.
Yes, the health care bill is a disaster, and much of the problem concerns Medicare for seniors, also.
"The current age to retire and receive Social Security benefits is 65, but House Republican Leader John Boehner proposed pushing the retirement age back to 70. If approved, the new age would only affect those not set to retire for another 20 years."
http://www.kmov.com/news/awake/New-proposal-would-push-retirement-age-to-70-for-Social-Security-benefits-97462554.html
~more~
~continued~
Bohener's disgregard for children also affects education: "A uniform 21.7 percent cut applied to federal education programs would leave $16.3 billion less in funding in 2011 than proposed in the budget request and take the level of spending back to 2005, not 2008. In 2005, 1 million fewer kids attended public schools and 1.1 million fewer students attended public colleges than do so today. If the cut is not applied uniformly than some programs would be reduced by an even greater amount in order to minimize the cuts to other programs."
http://www.edvoices.com/blog/2010/09/28/boehner-takes-education-funding-back%E2%80%A6to-2005-and-earlier/
The GOP has also engaged in discussion regarding cuts in museums, including the Smithsonian, public television, and children's after school programs.
When 300,000 educators’ jobs are on the line, something has to be done to protect the children they teach, right? Not so, said Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) this evening, calling an effort to save teachers’ jobs an attempt to ‘pad the education bureaucracy.’
http://www.educationvotes.nea.org/2010/05/14/boehner-says-no-to-teachers-jobs-childrens-future/
The harm to the millenials is a pawn for political power. Education and health are not political issues, they are humanistic issues. And without civil exchange, I am concerned as to whether America will continue as a Democracy or an Plutocratic Theocracy. I'm afraid it already has.
As always, Wizard, thank you for allowing me to express my long-winded opinion.
nice thank you for your sharing like it very much
Post a Comment