Posted on 08/06/2009 12:50:14 PM PDT by Timeout
Last week I noticed an odd, inexplicable provision in the House bill.
Page 65, Section 164 sets aside $10 Billion for "eligible" health plans...for retirees. Not only that, it specifies the retirees can be as young as 55 yrs old. Now, I know very very few non-union private companies offer retirement health care plans, especially not at 55.
House Bill
So I suspected this was a payoff to the UAW and other unions. I called my Congressman and Senators but NO ONE could explain this to me.
NOW TODAY I SEE CONFIRMATION OF MY SUSPICIONS.
At the linked article, they discuss the letter John Sweeney sent to AFL-CIO members exhorting them to turn out at town hall meetings. Buried in the letter is this nugget:
Sweeney [demands] ... the legislation contain "relief for company/union funds providing pre-Medicare retiree coverage...
Freepers, this is blockbuster stuff.
WE are going to be forced to pay for union health benefits that WE DON't GET.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
If taxpayers learn about this provision it could well bring down the whole house of cards.
It's one thing to get people to understand the complexity of health care.
It's easy to get them to understand CORRUPTION!
PING
You are right. And when they pass Card Check (forced unionization) every one will retire from a union. Also union plans are exempt from single payer - I think I read.
This explains why Unions would want this bill passed.
And that means they will use violence to shut down protest.
OMG, this is nuts.
Nothing to see here. SOP.
bttt
THIS WILL ATTRACT MORE PEOPLE TO UNIONS....FOR THE BETTER HEALTHCARE!
Federal employees can retire at age 55. So can plenty of law enforcement folks.
Obama is throwing under the train the entire group of Democrats and Independents who are not part of a union, but voted for him.
To any freeper lawyer, cannot the bill be challenged for mandating separate insurance for unions and government workers (something along the lines of equal protection under the law)?
And the whole “tax your health-care benefit” section exempts union-negotiated health-care plans, so that if such a provision is included in the law, union members won’t have to pay the tax that everyone else will have to pay on a benefit we don’t get taxed on now.
mark
Hot stuff here!
BTTT
Will those people actually SEE this?
I’m sending it around to some bloggers.
NRO’s Campaign Spot
Michelle Malkin
Any others?
Absolute Insanity...folks ye best start getting prepared there is a storm coming.
Droves of Federal employees are union people also
Yes. When I was writing about this last week I wondered if this is a foot in the door to fund all those state employee health-plans-for-life....the ones the states/cities have set NO money aside for.
I don’t want to pay for all those California public retirees!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.