• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AARP Raises Costs for Employees' Insurance Plans

That is a talking point line directly from the DNC. It's BS. What about Union costs built into the cost of every product produced from union labor here in this country? Think that pensioning someone for 30 years at their full salary has any effect on that?

If you say so. I have no idea. But do address the point anyway. I can show my point with links, credible links.

Employers — 174 million Americans, or 60.4 percent of the population, had employment-based health insurance during 2003. A December 2004 survey of CEOs found that employee health care costs are the foremost cost concern in the minds of America’s business leaders.
Active Workers — In 2004, employers contributed $3,137 for single coverage and $7,289 for family coverage on average across all plan types.
Retirees — The 2004 Kaiser/Hewitt survey on retiree health benefits found that the total cost of providing health benefits to retirees from 2003 to 2004 increased by 12.7 percent, on average, for surveyed employers.
Local Impacts, Health Sector — The health sector is a significant source of employment for American workers, employing 6.3 million practitioners and technical workers, and 3.2 million Americans in health care support occupations in as of November, 2003.
Employees — Workers with employer-sponsored health insurance will often experience reductions in real (after adjusting for inflation) wages reductions (or wage growth) in response to health care cost growth. The empirical evidence has tended to show that health care cost increases are offset by either direct wage reductions, increased employee cost sharing, or in instances where wages are fixed (i.e., unionized contracts), by increases in the number of hours worked.

Effects of Health Care Spending on the U.S. Economy

Competitive Disadvantage
The United States spent more than 17 percent of its GDP in 2009 on healthcare, higher than any other developed nation. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that number will rise to 25 percent by 2025 without changes to federal law (PDF). Employer-funded coverage is the structural mainstay of the U.S. health insurance system. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 71 percent of private employees in the United States had access to employer-sponsored health plans in 2006. A November 2008 Kaiser Foundation report says access to employer-sponsored health insurance has been on the decline (PDF) among low-income workers, and health premiums for workers have risen 114 percent in the last decade (PDF). A March 2010 report by Thomson Reuters, a business intelligence service, found that employers' healthcare costs rose 7.3 percent in 2009 (PDF) compared with 4.8 percent in overall U.S. health spending that year. Small businesses are less likely than large employers to be able to provide health insurance as a benefit. At 12 percent, healthcare is the most expensive benefit paid by U.S. employers, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Some economists say these ballooning dollar figures place a heavy burden on companies doing business in the United States and can put them at a substantial competitive disadvantage in the international marketplace.

Healthcare Costs and U.S. Competitiveness - Council on Foreign Relations

Powered by Google Docs





Why should I trust that? Because you say so? Competition reduces cost, and increases quality every time. Single payer kills that, so no.

How's that worked out so far? Quoting mindless platitudes make some feel better, but prices have not gone down, and we have a competitive situation right now, inspite what you're told. ;)

Don't be silly. Obama had no care for his own family member in Kenya living in squaller in a shack on $20 per year, and your answer rather than bring those nations up from 50 cents an hour, is to bring us down to their level speaks volumes about where you stand.

Nice diversion, but incorrect. Business left here for cheaper wages.


they wouldn't like it. But why isn't that considered greed? huh? This country is in dire straights, and all the Union shlubs can do is cry that they don't get enough? Great.

j-mac

I suspect you're debating someone else again, ignore the argument before you. It's the genaric liberal isn't it? :lamo

Everyone wants to do well. Business owner, stock holders and employees. Both will take advantage where they can. However, I did see a compnay the other day were everyone was a full owner, no difference in position or pay, and they seemed to be doing well. Interesting concept.

But, worker and employer have to both be cooperative and combative in our system. neither can reply on the goodness and fairness of the other.
 
If you say so. I have no idea. But do address the point anyway. I can show my point with links, credible links.

give me some time to pour through them, however I have to say that I take issue with putting up figures from HHS and saying that is the only credible source. It smacks of dismissal of anything that is contrary to them.

How's that worked out so far? Quoting mindless platitudes make some feel better, but prices have not gone down, and we have a competitive situation right now, inspite what you're told.

No, we don't have a truly competitive situation right now. That is misinformation put out by the Obama supporters.

I suspect you're debating someone else again, ignore the argument before you. It's the genaric liberal isn't it?

Thank you for finally admitting that you are the generic liberal.

Everyone wants to do well. Business owner, stock holders and employees. Both will take advantage where they can. However, I did see a compnay the other day were everyone was a full owner, no difference in position or pay, and they seemed to be doing well. Interesting concept.

I work right now for a "100% Employee Owned company" Great words, Great concept, No Union.

But, worker and employer have to both be cooperative and combative in our system. neither can reply on the goodness and fairness of the other.

Why not? How is a Union going to mitigate that other than be a blood sucking middle man?


j-mac
 
give me some time to pour through them, however I have to say that I take issue with putting up figures from HHS and saying that is the only credible source. It smacks of dismissal of anything that is contrary to them.

I'm sure everything smells that way to some. Something contrary, like anything else, has to be grounded in something solid, and not just being contrary. ;)


No, we don't have a truly competitive situation right now. That is misinformation put out by the Obama supporters.

Yes, we do. What you're likely talking about will never come to be. And if it did, it wouldn't last one election cycle. ;)



Thank you for finally admitting that you are the generic liberal.

:lamo :lamo Cute, but not helpful.


I work right now for a "100% Employee Owned company" Great words, Great concept, No Union.

As it has employee input, and if you truely are, it isn't top down. I have not argued everyone needs a union. But some do.



Why not? How is a Union going to mitigate that other than be a blood sucking middle man?


j-mac

A group can speak better than an individual. It gives the work a larger voice. There's really no disputing that.
 
Don't turn all green with jealousy on me Birdy. Although, I'll concede that Wall St. had a role in the crash of the housing market that is the current catalyst of our woes, they weren't alone. If you want to be honest, they were only trying to cover their backsides after the poverty pimps like Jackson, and Sharpton, ACORN, and demo's in congress pushed them to lend to people that couldn't afford a hot dog on credit, let alone a house. And in the midst of all of this you have demo's in congress turning a blind eye to the collapse when it could have been avoided...Great.

j-mac


Ah yes, once again with one of those right wing talking points, regardless of whether or not it's true. Show us some credible proof that it was "Jackson, and Sharpton, ACORN, and demo's in congress" who "pushed" them to make make loans to people who were not creditworthy. I've heard that claim so many times, but have yet to see a shred of credible proof to back it up.
 
Ah yes, once again with one of those right wing talking points, regardless of whether or not it's true. Show us some credible proof that it was "Jackson, and Sharpton, ACORN, and demo's in congress" who "pushed" them to make make loans to people who were not creditworthy. I've heard that claim so many times, but have yet to see a shred of credible proof to back it up.



GASP…you mean you haven’t seen the ACORN VIDEO from the conservatism's second most reliable source of news, Andrew Breitbart. :shock: :lamo
 
Ah yes, once again with one of those right wing talking points, regardless of whether or not it's true. Show us some credible proof that it was "Jackson, and Sharpton, ACORN, and demo's in congress" who "pushed" them to make make loans to people who were not creditworthy. I've heard that claim so many times, but have yet to see a shred of credible proof to back it up.
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed under Carter to encourage loans to people who could not demonstrate an ability to repay the loans. It was pretty well ignored by everyone until the Clinton era, when banks suddenly found that the only way for them to get permission to open a new branch office was to demonstrate compliance with the CRA. So, thanks to pressure from Jackson, Sharpton, ACORN, Frank and Dodd, the regulators forced the banks to make loans to people who couldn't repay them. Fortunately for the banks, Fannie & Freddie were standing by to make sure the taxpayers paid the bill.

If you haven't seen the proof yet, I doubt you have been looking.
 
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed under Carter to encourage loans to people who could not demonstrate an ability to repay the loans. It was pretty well ignored by everyone until the Clinton era, when banks suddenly found that the only way for them to get permission to open a new branch office was to demonstrate compliance with the CRA. So, thanks to pressure from Jackson, Sharpton, ACORN, Frank and Dodd, the regulators forced the banks to make loans to people who couldn't repay them. Fortunately for the banks, Fannie & Freddie were standing by to make sure the taxpayers paid the bill.

If you haven't seen the proof yet, I doubt you have been looking.

I don't suppose you have a link to back up that claim, now, would you?
 
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed under Carter to encourage loans to people who could not demonstrate an ability to repay the loans. It was pretty well ignored by everyone until the Clinton era, when banks suddenly found that the only way for them to get permission to open a new branch office was to demonstrate compliance with the CRA. So, thanks to pressure from Jackson, Sharpton, ACORN, Frank and Dodd, the regulators forced the banks to make loans to people who couldn't repay them. Fortunately for the banks, Fannie & Freddie were standing by to make sure the taxpayers paid the bill.

If you haven't seen the proof yet, I doubt you have been looking.

Hhmm… pressure from Jackson, Sharpton, ACORN.Are you sure it wasn’t bushes fault as well? After all, he said this in this speech he made at the St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia in 2002.”

"We certainly don't want there to be a fine print preventing people from owning their home”.

And what we've got to do is to figure out how to make sure these stories are repeated over and over and over again in America. Three-quarters of White America owns their homes. Less than 50 percent of African Americans are part of the home-ownership in America, and less than 50 percent of the Hispanics who live here in this country own their home. And that has got to change for the good of the country; it just does.

I don’t think that Jackson or Sharpton, are a representative from acorn was in the audience. :confused:


George W. Bush: Remarks at St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia
 
Hhmm… pressure from Jackson, Sharpton, ACORN.Are you sure it wasn’t bushes fault as well? After all, he said this in this speech he made at the St. Paul AME Church in Atlanta, Georgia in 2002.”





I don’t think that Jackson or Sharpton, are a representative from acorn was in the audience. :confused:

ACORN and many other community groups were involved and, by pressuring banks who had to comply with the CRA to buy other banks open branches, etc, were allowed to set-up a lot of loans to people despite economic indicators that otherwise might have prevented the placement of the loan. On the other hand, Bush, once he had the chance, weakened the law quite a bit.

I believe there is ample evidence that the CRA, as ammended by Clinton, was responsible for some of the mortgage mess. There were, of course, a lot of other factors invovled. The CRA was but one.
 
Last edited:
ACORN and many other community groups were involved and, by pressuring banks who had to comply with the CRA to buy other banks open branches, etc, were allowed to set-up a lot of loans to people despite economic indicators that otherwise might have prevented the placement of the loan. On the other hand, Bush, once he had the chance, weakened the law quite a bit.

I believe there is ample evidence that the CRA, as ammended by Clinton, was responsible for some of the mortgage mess. There were, of course, a lot of other factors invovled. The CRA was but one.

Then let's see this "ample evidence."
 
That's a generalization. True, in some cases unions have gotten corrupt and did poor jobs. But remember what working conditions were before unions. There's no doubt that unions gave voice to the working man and allowed him to make changes he could not have made alone.

Again, I don't belong to a union. Never have. But I've read history, and understand how this all works. Employers are not always good to those who work for them, and the imbalance of power often has led to abuses in the past that were tragic for working people. Unions help change that, and part of that was voting for people who were really concerned with working man issues, too often democrats.
Yeah, in the early 1900's, but things have changed in part for the better due to what unions did in the BEGINNING, but that benefit is long over and union are just out for themselves now.
 
Then let's see this "ample evidence."

As Diogenes said, "If you haven't seen the proof yet, I doubt you have been looking." I have no desire to waste my time trying to prove something to someone that is most likely ignoring it on purpose. If Dio wants to go down the pointles path he has my condolences.

I'll just post a prior thread on this topic and be pretty well done with it:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...nvestment-act-responsible-banking-crisis.html
 
Last edited:
Yeah, in the early 1900's, but things have changed in part for the better due to what unions did in the BEGINNING, but that benefit is long over and union are just out for themselves now.

Really? What do you think would happen if the employee vioce was lost, done away with, and we returned? It is easy to say it is not needed while it is still here. But without a collective voice, the advantage changes rather quickly.
 
Really? What do you think would happen if the employee vioce was lost, done away with, and we returned? It is easy to say it is not needed while it is still here. But without a collective voice, the advantage changes rather quickly.


Not much...

In 2009, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary
workers who were members of a union--was 12.3 percent, essentially
unchanged from 12.4 percent a year earlier, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics reported today.

Union Membership (Annual) News Release


j-mac
 
And that answers what would happen if there were no unions? How?


Aww Joe, you're so silly....unions make up 12% of the workforce in this country, so needless to say that things would not change drastically.


j-mac
 
Aww Joe, you're so silly....unions make up 12% of the workforce in this country, so needless to say that things would not change drastically.


j-mac

Are you sure? Their benefits don't affect companies that don't want a union? Really? Our administraters here don't want a union, so they are very willing to work with us. How willing would they be if the power shifted? If they did have to worry about places with a union as competition?
 
Are you sure? Their benefits don't affect companies that don't want a union? Really? Our administraters here don't want a union, so they are very willing to work with us. How willing would they be if the power shifted? If they did have to worry about places with a union as competition?


I think you credit the union too much here. We are talking about an entity in this nation that is 12%, that means that 88% don't have unions. I don't think that the threat of organizing is going to do much in this piss poor Obama economy other than make the business close....

j-mac
 
I think you credit the union too much here. We are talking about an entity in this nation that is 12%, that means that 88% don't have unions. I don't think that the threat of organizing is going to do much in this piss poor Obama economy other than make the business close....

j-mac

I realize you think that. But, it can be argued they set the standard. Any employer today has to be concerned about competiting with that expectation. And while reality does sometimes force a company to ignore that, it costs them as well, as the best go elsewhere. But when they can, they ahve to give benefits and try to lure better employees.

Without this standard, they hold the power, and can simply cut benefits and salary to their whim and not need, as things were before unions. I don't argue it would happen over night, but it shift would lead to eventually hurting American workers.
 
I realize you think that. But, it can be argued they set the standard. Any employer today has to be concerned about competiting with that expectation. And while reality does sometimes force a company to ignore that, it costs them as well, as the best go elsewhere. But when they can, they ahve to give benefits and try to lure better employees.

Without this standard, they hold the power, and can simply cut benefits and salary to their whim and not need, as things were before unions. I don't argue it would happen over night, but it shift would lead to eventually hurting American workers.


This is pure opinion, and conjecture on your part Joe. Let me tell you a story. My company as I told you is a "100% employee owned" company. Now does that mean that every worker has an equal say in company operations? No. It is really more of a profit sharing thing for us, and a tax break for the company. When you get hired, (if you are lucky enough) it is clear through the Company Handbook that Unionizing, or pushing for the organizing for a union is deeply frowned upon. In fact, some of our terminals that are union already through deals made when my company bought them, are being phased out, and if they will not accept the terms, then the terminal is shuttered....Lot's of good their unionization does them eh?

So no tell me again how 88% of American businesses right now, in this economy are shaking in their boots over unions? Heck, more of them are afraid of the health care law that Pelosi said we had to pass to read than they are any insignificant union attempt.

j-mac
 
This is pure opinion, and conjecture on your part Joe. Let me tell you a story. My company as I told you is a "100% employee owned" company. Now does that mean that every worker has an equal say in company operations? No. It is really more of a profit sharing thing for us, and a tax break for the company. When you get hired, (if you are lucky enough) it is clear through the Company Handbook that Unionizing, or pushing for the organizing for a union is deeply frowned upon. In fact, some of our terminals that are union already through deals made when my company bought them, are being phased out, and if they will not accept the terms, then the terminal is shuttered....Lot's of good their unionization does them eh?

So no tell me again how 88% of American businesses right now, in this economy are shaking in their boots over unions? Heck, more of them are afraid of the health care law that Pelosi said we had to pass to read than they are any insignificant union attempt.

j-mac

First j, there's nothing wrong with opinion here.

But your example proves my point. They don't want a union, so they ahve to make things good for you keep you and unions out. What do you think happens if there is no threat of a union? Do you think they'll keep profit sharing? I suspect over time that would go the way of the dodo.
 
As Diogenes said, "If you haven't seen the proof yet, I doubt you have been looking." I have no desire to waste my time trying to prove something to someone that is most likely ignoring it on purpose. If Dio wants to go down the pointles path he has my condolences.

I'll just post a prior thread on this topic and be pretty well done with it:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...nvestment-act-responsible-banking-crisis.html

Ah, so you post a link to a previous thread - in which the OP makes the same claims WITHOUT any links to back them up? That's your evidence, along with a few snide remarks directed at me? That's downright pathetic. After all the whoppers of lies you right wingers have told, about HCR "death panels," "government takeover," etc. etc., can you blame anyone for being skeptical of ANY claims you try to make?
 
Last edited:
First j, there's nothing wrong with opinion here.

But your example proves my point. They don't want a union, so they ahve to make things good for you keep you and unions out. What do you think happens if there is no threat of a union? Do you think they'll keep profit sharing? I suspect over time that would go the way of the dodo.


I don't think that they'll keep it now. My true thoughts are that this "100% Employee Owned" stuff is really little more than a tax break. The profit sharing seems a little Enronish to me. In any case, the pay is good, and I do like the company, not because they do so under constant fear of a Union coming in, like I said, they would close the terminal in a heartbeat and re open it with non union labor. But rather, that the union is really insignificant in terms of what this company is doing.

j-mac
 
Ah, so you post a link to a previous thread - in which the OP makes the same claims WITHOUT any links to back them up? That's your evidence, along with a few snide remarks directed at me? That's downright pathetic. After all the whoppers of lies you right wingers have told, about HCR "death panels," "government takeover," etc. etc., can you blame anyone for being skeptical of ANY claims you try to make?

Maybe if you could flip the channel off MSNBC, or LINKtv once and a while, you might have seen things come out that could cause you to rethink your hyper partisan opinion here.

j-mac
 
I don't think that they'll keep it now. My true thoughts are that this "100% Employee Owned" stuff is really little more than a tax break. The profit sharing seems a little Enronish to me. In any case, the pay is good, and I do like the company, not because they do so under constant fear of a Union coming in, like I said, they would close the terminal in a heartbeat and re open it with non union labor. But rather, that the union is really insignificant in terms of what this company is doing.

j-mac

Well, the company I spoke of earlier was completely company owned, with equal shares and equal pay for all.

As they address the union at all, it has to be a concern for them. I suspect it means more than you know.
 
Back
Top Bottom