From Mr. JONATHAN COHN At The New Republic: The Republicans Who Are Learning Io Embrace Obamacare


 

By Jueseppi B.

firefoxscreensnapz0172

 

 

The Republicans Who Are Learning Io Embrace Obamacare

 

BY JONATHAN COHN

 

Most of the Obamacare press coverage on Monday was about a pair of polls—one from the Pew Center for the People and the Press, the other from NBC News and the Wall Street Journal. Obamacare detractors seized on the fact that majorities said they disapproved of the law—and that opposition to the law seemed, if anything, to be growing. Obamacare defenders quickly pointed out that only a minority seemed to support the Republican position, which is to wipe the law off the books. Even among opponents, about half prefer that public officials work on fixing the law’s shortcomings.

 

Both the detractors and the defenders had a point. But the biggest news on Monday wasn’t about Obamacare’s poll numbers. It was about Obamacare’s reach. And there the news was much clearly better. In Michigan, Republican Governor Rick Snyder signed a bill that will expand the state’s Medicaid program, as Obamacare envisions. The signing was the culmination of a long, difficult effort by Synder and a bipartisan, statewide-coalition to overcome Tea Party resistance. “This is about the health of fellow Michiganders,” Snyder said. In Pennsylvania, Republican Governor Tom Corbett announced that he would no longer block a similar Medicaid expansion, as long as the state legislature enacts a version of the expansion that fits his policy specifications.

 

That last part is important: As in several other states, among them Michigan, Corbett wants to modify Medicaid so that it requires more payments from beneficiaries and requires the unemployed to show proof they are seeking a job. Jeffrey Young of the Huffington Post has the details and it’s hard to know, right now, whether Corbett’s demands will be more than the Obama Administration—which would have to issue a waiver—would go along. In situations like these, advocates for low-income groups worry that the restrictions officials would place on Medicaid would make it impractical, or harm people the program is supposed to help. The concern is well-founded.

 

But the two sides will negotiate, as frequently happens now when states wish to modify their Medicaid programs, and most observers I know think the result will be expansion spreading—not just to Michigan and Pennsylvania, but later to states like Ohio, where another Republican governor, John Kasich, wants to do something similar. And that suggests we’ve hit a critical milestone. As Sarah Kliff noted in theWashington Post on Monday, “if the Pennsylvania expansion does go through, it would be the 26th state to expand Medicaid, meaning that the majority of states had decided to opt into a massive health law provision that the Supreme Court decision last year accepted.”

 

Expansion in Michigan and Pennsylvania would also mean a few hundred thousand additional Americans get health insurance. And while that’s important primarily for how it will help those people, it’s also a reminder of how public feelings about Obamacare may change with time.

 

Greg Sargent got Pew to give him a breakdown of exactly which voters oppose the law so much they want officials to make it fail: Sure enough, it’s Tea Party Republicans. As Greg notes, this voting bloc is highly influential within Republican Party politics, particularly as primary voters: That goes a long way to explaining why congressional Republicans are threatening to shut down the government or allow default if Obama won’t agree to delay or defund the law.

 

But support for such extreme positions doesn’t extend much outside this group. Meanwhile, it turns out that many people opposed to (or at least ambivalent about) the law simply don’t know much about it. Many also have no health insurance, which means they stand to benefit most dramatically and immediately. This is consistent with previous polling, which showed that people supported the provisions of Obamacare but not the law itself. It’s also consistent with the present media reality: With most of the law’s coverage provisions not yet in place, the law’s critics are able to dominate the political conversation.

 

Does that mean public opinion on Obamacare will change markedly once the law is in place—and lots of these people start getting insurance coverage, sometimes for the first time and sometimes with the help of substantial financial assistance? Does it mean a push to delay or defund Obamacare, even if it means government shutdown or debt ceiling calamity, is sure to backfire? My own record on these predictions is pretty mediocre—opposition to the law has proven more resilient than I ever imagined—so I’m not sure my opinion counts for much. But Ed Kilgore knows a thing or two about politics. And he seems optimistic:

 

All in all, the defunders/delayers are representing a minority of a slim majority that is very likely to shrink in the months ahead. Perhaps they are truly motivated by their own conviction that the law will enslave Americans and wreck the economy. But if they are counting on a political bonanza outside their own ranks, they are definitely cruising for a bruising, and that’s without even taking into account the additional beating they’ll take for disproportionate blame in shutting down the government or risking a debt default.

 

Jonathan Cohn is a senior editor at the New Republic. Follow him on twitter @CitizenCohn

 

Thank you Mr. JONATHAN COHN & The New Republic.

 

ObamaCares: What Is It? Read This To Get Educated About ObamaCares. ALL Questions Answered.

 

 

Republicans Backing Popular Obamacare Provisions

 

Published on May 20, 2012

Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/…

House Republican leaders are quietly hatching a plan of attack as they await a historic Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law.

If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.

If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.

 

 

 

 

Obamacare Welcomed By Hypocrite Republican Governors

 

Published on Aug 25, 2013

“A variety of Republican governors have sought federal funds under Obamacare, many of them to expand Medicaid eligibility for more residents, a centerpiece of the law that the Supreme Court made optional for states last year.

But shhh! Don’t call it Obamacare, they say, for they despise that law.”* The Young Turks hosts Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break it down.

 

 

 

 

obamacarefacts2-logo

women_obamacare_onpage

obamacaresdoU

obamacares2

obamacare-logo2

obamacare-logo_full

 

obamacarefacts-logo

obamacare3

firefoxscreensnapz0032

alternet_obamacare_0

obamacare8

blogger4peacelogo obamacratbanner (2)

 

The Great State Of Michigan “Samuel L. Jackson’s” It’s Citizens & Unions


By Jueseppi B.

 

11michigan2_cnd-articleLarge

 

Protesters argued on the steps of the Michigan Capitol on Tuesday as state lawmakers considered right to work legislation.

 

 

Michigan House Approves Union Limit

 

By  Writing for The New York Times
Published: December 11, 2012

LANSING, Mich. — Over the shouts of thousands of angry protesters gathered outside the State Capitol here, Michigan’s House of Representatives on Tuesday approved a bill that would vastly reduce the power of organized labor in this traditionally strong union state.

 

The 58-to-51 vote was the first piece of a two-part package, that would, among other things, bar workers from being required to pay union fees as a condition of employment.

 

Recall! Recall! Recall!” union supporters cried out from the gallery.

 

Before the vote, Democrats in the state’s House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a 64-to-46 majority over Democrats, were desperately trying to offer amendments to the measures in order to derail them. Among the suggestions: Send the question to a public vote. So far, all amendments had been rejected.

 

“This is being forced down peoples’ throats,” said Jon M. Switalski, a Democrat, speaking against the legislation. “It’s being done so in a very poor way — in lame-duck with no committee meetings.”

 

Read this entire article at The New York Times.

 

 

godblessunions

 

 

 

union yes copy

 

 

 

 

 

bottomlogo

 

 

 

 

 

The Mess In Michigan: Unions Strengthen The Middle Class


By Jueseppi B.

 

union yes copy

 

 

 

Obama: Right-To-Work Laws Mean ‘Right To Work For Less Money’

 

When workers stand together it gives them an ability to negotiate for fair wages and benefits. The corporate/republican party is anti-union because employee unions are good for the middle class, but bad for corporations who are focused on exploiting American workers.

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan ‘Right-to-Work’ Bill Is the Wrong Economics for the Middle Class

By Adam HershHeather Boushey, and David Madland

 

The Michigan state legislature last week rushed through a bill to institute a so-called “right-to-work” law, which will make it illegal for workers and employers to negotiate a contract requiring everyone who benefits from a union contract to pay their fair share of the costs of union representation. If Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signs this legislation it will not only weaken unions, but also hurt workers, the middle class, and local economies in general.

 

 

The preponderance of economic evidence on the effect of labor unions on productivity and economic growth show that unions foster high-productivity, high-profit firms. Bottom line: Strong unions are good for jobs and “right-to-work” laws are not, as the evidence in this brief shows. Unions support a strong middle class and play a critical role in supporting our nation’s economic competitiveness by:

  • Supporting high-productivity workplaces where information can flow from the bottom-up to improve business performance
  • Supporting higher wages and benefits, not just for union members but across the board. High union density in a region tends to support higher wages across the region regardless of union representation, especially for workers at the lower end of the distribution
  • Contributing to macroeconomic stability by giving certainty to consumption, saving, and investment in the economy
  • Advocating for broader worker protections needed for families to make human-capital investments—strong public education, social safety nets, minimum wages, paid leave, and even civil rights and efficient regulation

 

 

A strong middle class, in turn, is what fuels competitive economies with high standards of living. Research on economic growth clearly shows the tried and true path to sustained economic growth is to build from the middle out—fostering an economy where growing economic opportunity and financial security build a burgeoning middle class. Moreover, a strong middle class is a key to all the building blocks that research says are the foundation of long-term economic growth:

  • Education, skill development, and health of the work force
  • Incentives for entrepreneurship
  • Stable macroeconomic and financial balances
  • Higher-quality governance in both public and private institutions

 

 

“Right-to-work” laws have failed to increase employment growth in the 22 states that have adopted such laws, and in states more recently adopting right-to-work, employment growth and business relocations have reversed their previous expanding trends. In other words, the economic evidence shows that unions and union membership, not “right-to-work” laws, are what are conducive to broad economic growth.

 

It is also important to note that “right-to-work” is a misnomer. While proponents frame this policy as being pro-workers’ rights, in fact, federal law already guarantees that no one can be forced to be a member of a union, or to pay any amount of dues or fees to a political or social cause they don’t support. Today in Michigan workers covered by a union contract can refuse union membership and pay a fee covering only the costs of workplace bargaining rather than the full cost of dues.

 

Michigan’s proposed legislation will allow some workers to receive a free ride, getting the advantages of a union contract—such as higher wages and benefits and protection against arbitrary punishment or discrimination—without paying any fee associated with negotiating on these matters. That’s because, by law, unions must represent all workers with the same due diligence regardless of whether they join the union or pay its dues or other fees. Additionally, a union contract must cover all workers, again regardless of their membership in or financial support for the union. As a result, right-to-work legislation weakens unions by making them provide services without being paid for them.

 

 

Please read entire article at: Center For American Progress

 

This union busting Michigan is engaging is is nothing new, 24 other states have already accomplished this or are attempting to accomplish this death of unions. American workers, especially the middle class worker, has achieved great strides in worker safety, compensation and benefits because of unions.

 

 

Don’t allow the TeaTardedRepubliCANTS, GOPretenders & conselfishservatives to bankrupt American workers.

 

 

 

godblessunions

 

 

 

 

bottomlogo

 

 

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 262,715 other followers

%d bloggers like this: