Hmm … According to AP:
About 30 unions will run a full-page ad in newspapers Wednesday announcing their opposition to the Senate Finance Committee’s health overhaul bill, a top labor lobbyist said.
Why? The AP article goes does a little throat clearing before getting to the point, but union members get just the kind of “Cadillac” health plans that Baucus wants to tax.
Labor has been a major Democratic ally in the health care debate but is unhappy the legislation lacks a publicly run insurance plan and would tax expensive policies in an effort to drive down costs.
The rubber hits the road on the phrase, “tax expensive policies.” I have the feeling we’ll soon be reading more about special health tax exemptions for union members.
One pledge the President consistently makes is that Americans will have “choice” when his brand of health reform is enacted. Like most of O’s promises, this one is meaningless.
His Orwellian definition of “choice” does not mean, for example, that seniors can spend their own money for their own health insurance without losing their Social Security benefits. Per the WSJ:
President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services had sought to dismiss the suit challenging so-called POMS rules that say seniors who withdraw from Medicare Part A must also surrender their Social Security benefits.
That’s right. If a senior would prefer some other coverage than Medicare, he must forfeit ALL of his Social Security benefits, even if he is willing to use his own money.
Moreover, this is not even written into law. It is a fiat of health care bureaucrats under Clinton, but the suit has provided a useful glimpse of what the Obama administration means by ”choice.”
The Obama Administration argued that the case should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had not exhausted the available administrative remedies for challenging POMS.
“Administrative remedies” refers to another feature of government health care. If dissatisfied, you don’t have the right to legal redress in the courts. You must appeal to … the government.
In other words, the government wants to be judge, jury and executioner on health care. It wants to foist Medicare on the plaintiffs and then deny them the right to sue.
President Obama says his plan for a “public option” wouldn’t be coercive … But here is a case where federal bureaucrats are using their power to force Medicare on seniors. Let’s hope the courts restore a genuine right to choose.
Are there really people out there naive enough to believe this kind of thing, and much worse, won’t go on under the public plan? The federal government is not your friend, folks.
+ May 2009
+ May 2008
+ May 2007