Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chattanooga Times Free Press)   Tennessee Senator Bob Corker (R-eally hates unions): doubles down on his lie, despite VW's calling him out on it   (timesfreepress.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Chattanooga's Volkswagen, UAW, SUV, senator Bob, syntactic doubling  
•       •       •

4645 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Feb 2014 at 11:57 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



151 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-02-22 08:01:29 PM  

whidbey: More_Like_A_Stain: The Bananadragon: the South has just shot its chances of joining the 20th century in the foot here by scaring away future manufacturing jobs.

Cue the NRA trumpeting their 2nd Am right to do so.

Maybe they should start inviting gun manufacturers down there. You know, for when the South is Gonna Do it Agin™.


Remington just announced it's building a plant in Huntsville, AL. Rumor has it they are going to close their facility in Ilion, NY, though Remington denies it.
 
2014-02-22 08:29:30 PM  

Krymson Tyde: whidbey: More_Like_A_Stain: The Bananadragon: the South has just shot its chances of joining the 20th century in the foot here by scaring away future manufacturing jobs.

Cue the NRA trumpeting their 2nd Am right to do so.

Maybe they should start inviting gun manufacturers down there. You know, for when the South is Gonna Do it Agin™.

Remington just announced it's building a plant in Huntsville, AL. Rumor has it they are going to close their facility in Ilion, NY, though Remington denies it.


Yeah and Remington was pretty much bribed with a $28 million incentive including buying the building they are moving to for them and paying for their move.  This is for 2000 jobs over a decades time.  Then there are the tax breaks.  It's more of a way for Gov. Bentley and the state GOP to "stick it to the libs, unions, & Obama" than it is an actual economic boost.
 
2014-02-22 08:43:38 PM  

The Bananadragon: My other personal favorite place for them to move is of course back to motherfarking Detroit. More likely, though, they'd go to IA or PA or something.


That would be sweet, but Michigan Republicans rammed through Right to Work and joined the race to the bottom in December 2012.  I'm sure that takes MI off the table.
 
2014-02-22 08:50:32 PM  
Senator Cock is a liar?  No way!
 
2014-02-22 08:52:06 PM  
Facts are what you feel in your heart, not what is true.
 
2014-02-22 09:01:04 PM  
So funny. Soooo much butthurt around here about workers voting down unionization despite the company allowing pro-union politicking in the factory while barring anti-union propaganda.
 
2014-02-22 09:18:51 PM  

qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.


Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.
 
2014-02-22 09:36:40 PM  

HarleyMarlboro: The Bananadragon: My other personal favorite place for them to move is of course back to motherfarking Detroit. More likely, though, they'd go to IA or PA or something.

That would be sweet, but Michigan Republicans rammed through Right to Work and joined the race to the bottom in December 2012.  I'm sure that takes MI off the table.


And to think, had Daimler been honestly interested in turning Chrysler into a good brand again (rather than funneling most of its carcass into M-B), Detroit might not be bankrupt.

Goes to show just how polar opposite two corps from the same country can be when it comes to ethics.
 
2014-02-22 09:44:47 PM  

my lip balm addiction: At this point I honestly hope that VW takes the work down to Mexico. fark the people in Tennessee for being this stupid, but fark the UAW too. Those people in Tennessee do not deserve to have such a good job and representation - take the jobs to Mexico so they can see the stupidity of their decision in stark reality.

You can be anti-union and not be stupid, but when you listen to the anti-union asshole raking in the big bucks from his billionaire backers - well you are just being stupid.


That, or New York or California.
 
2014-02-22 09:47:43 PM  

Generation_D: netringer: captainktainer: tbeatty: The chance of VW expanding in Tenn was 0% if they approved UAW.

Absolute, utter horsecrap. Further expansion of VW plants in the entire South and other so-called "right to work" states is now extremely unlikely because VW management (half of which is labor) requires that there be a work council at each plant, which in the United States must be done through a union. The unionization was partly management's idea, and now that anti-business Republicans are threatening their business if they run the way they like, Volkswagen is likely not to stay in the South. And your party is actively trying to drive away any company with a unionized workforce.

So, going to reconsider your stupid statement like a human being with an inquisitive mind, or are you going to double down on the derp?

Who would know more about what VW is going to do, Bob Corker - making up a promise from VW - or VW itself saying they never promised a thing?

Corker can keep moving his stroking hand while VW eventually closes the plant in Tennessee.

At which point the Republicans will blame the plant closure on the Unions.

And the idiot right wing asswits that vote for them will believe it.


If union organizer asswipes keep appealing to courts and NLRB such that VW has to pay a lot in both money and employee resentment, they'll just go to mexico.    So yeah, if labor unions want to be a thorn in VWs side instead of Moving On, American workers lose and the unrepresented, unemployed workers should blame the UAW.

Don't worry though, libtards blame the NRA for gun deaths even though the NRA doesn't actually sue anyone to put guns in the hands of specific killers.  UAW is specifically targetting VW and it seems their goal is to either unionize or unemploy the lot of them.  Whose interest is that?
 
2014-02-22 09:49:28 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: my lip balm addiction: At this point I honestly hope that VW takes the work down to Mexico. fark the people in Tennessee for being this stupid, but fark the UAW too. Those people in Tennessee do not deserve to have such a good job and representation - take the jobs to Mexico so they can see the stupidity of their decision in stark reality.

You can be anti-union and not be stupid, but when you listen to the anti-union asshole raking in the big bucks from his billionaire backers - well you are just being stupid.

That, or New York or California.


Huh? You would rather 1,500 Americans lose their jobs if those jobs are non-union? Even though they themselves voted to be non-union?
 
2014-02-22 09:50:50 PM  

tbeatty: Generation_D: netringer: captainktainer: tbeatty: The chance of VW expanding in Tenn was 0% if they approved UAW.

Absolute, utter horsecrap. Further expansion of VW plants in the entire South and other so-called "right to work" states is now extremely unlikely because VW management (half of which is labor) requires that there be a work council at each plant, which in the United States must be done through a union. The unionization was partly management's idea, and now that anti-business Republicans are threatening their business if they run the way they like, Volkswagen is likely not to stay in the South. And your party is actively trying to drive away any company with a unionized workforce.

So, going to reconsider your stupid statement like a human being with an inquisitive mind, or are you going to double down on the derp?

Who would know more about what VW is going to do, Bob Corker - making up a promise from VW - or VW itself saying they never promised a thing?

Corker can keep moving his stroking hand while VW eventually closes the plant in Tennessee.

At which point the Republicans will blame the plant closure on the Unions.

And the idiot right wing asswits that vote for them will believe it.

If union organizer asswipes keep appealing to courts and NLRB such that VW has to pay a lot in both money and employee resentment, they'll just go to mexico.    So yeah, if labor unions want to be a thorn in VWs side instead of Moving On, American workers lose and the unrepresented, unemployed workers should blame the UAW.

Don't worry though, libtards blame the NRA for gun deaths even though the NRA doesn't actually sue anyone to put guns in the hands of specific killers.  UAW is specifically targetting VW and it seems their goal is to either unionize or unemploy the lot of them.  Whose interest is that?


Such infromed!
 
2014-02-22 10:10:10 PM  

heavymetal: Krymson Tyde: whidbey: More_Like_A_Stain: The Bananadragon: the South has just shot its chances of joining the 20th century in the foot here by scaring away future manufacturing jobs.

Cue the NRA trumpeting their 2nd Am right to do so.

Maybe they should start inviting gun manufacturers down there. You know, for when the South is Gonna Do it Agin™.

Remington just announced it's building a plant in Huntsville, AL. Rumor has it they are going to close their facility in Ilion, NY, though Remington denies it.

Yeah and Remington was pretty much bribed with a $28 million incentive including buying the building they are moving to for them and paying for their move.  This is for 2000 jobs over a decades time.  Then there are the tax breaks.  It's more of a way for Gov. Bentley and the state GOP to "stick it to the libs, unions, & Obama" than it is an actual economic boost.


So sort of like Coker did with VW then.
 
2014-02-22 10:14:03 PM  

Krymson Tyde: heavymetal: Krymson Tyde: whidbey: More_Like_A_Stain: The Bananadragon: the South has just shot its chances of joining the 20th century in the foot here by scaring away future manufacturing jobs.

Cue the NRA trumpeting their 2nd Am right to do so.

Maybe they should start inviting gun manufacturers down there. You know, for when the South is Gonna Do it Agin™.

Remington just announced it's building a plant in Huntsville, AL. Rumor has it they are going to close their facility in Ilion, NY, though Remington denies it.

Yeah and Remington was pretty much bribed with a $28 million incentive including buying the building they are moving to for them and paying for their move.  This is for 2000 jobs over a decades time.  Then there are the tax breaks.  It's more of a way for Gov. Bentley and the state GOP to "stick it to the libs, unions, & Obama" than it is an actual economic boost.

So sort of like Coker did with VW then.


*Corker
 
2014-02-22 10:33:13 PM  
UAW acting like babies because they didn't get their way? Color me shocked.
 
2014-02-22 10:41:44 PM  
tbeatty
If union organizer asswipes keep appealing to courts and NLRB such that VW has to pay a lot in both money and employee resentment, they'll just go to mexico. So yeah, if labor unions want to be a thorn in VWs side instead of Moving On, American workers lose and the unrepresented, unemployed workers should blame the UAW.

Don't worry though, libtards blame the NRA for gun deaths even though the NRA doesn't actually sue anyone to put guns in the hands of specific killers. UAW is specifically targetting VW and it seems their goal is to either unionize or unemploy the lot of them. Whose interest is that?


7/10. High marks for the awful grammar, repetition of ideas which have already been refuted earlier in the same thread, and roping guns into it, but the guns threadjack was too late to really take things off the rails, and it's a little too cliche overall.


Krymson Tyde
*Corker

Odds are you had it right the first time.
 
2014-02-22 10:42:26 PM  
Just noticed the account was created all the way back in 2004, so I'll bump it to 8/10.
 
2014-02-22 11:39:49 PM  

my lip balm addiction: At this point I honestly hope that VW takes the work down to Mexico. fark the people in Tennessee for being this stupid, but fark the UAW too. Those people in Tennessee do not deserve to have such a good job and representation - take the jobs to Mexico so they can see the stupidity of their decision in stark reality.

You can be anti-union and not be stupid, but when you listen to the anti-union asshole raking in the big bucks from his billionaire backers - well you are just being stupid.


just curious.  can they reject the UAW and still form their own union of some sort?  how would that work?
 
2014-02-22 11:46:10 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: my lip balm addiction: At this point I honestly hope that VW takes the work down to Mexico. fark the people in Tennessee for being this stupid, but fark the UAW too. Those people in Tennessee do not deserve to have such a good job and representation - take the jobs to Mexico so they can see the stupidity of their decision in stark reality.

You can be anti-union and not be stupid, but when you listen to the anti-union asshole raking in the big bucks from his billionaire backers - well you are just being stupid.

That, or New York or California.


Same difference...
 
2014-02-23 12:01:17 AM  

rga184: my lip balm addiction: At this point I honestly hope that VW takes the work down to Mexico. fark the people in Tennessee for being this stupid, but fark the UAW too. Those people in Tennessee do not deserve to have such a good job and representation - take the jobs to Mexico so they can see the stupidity of their decision in stark reality.

You can be anti-union and not be stupid, but when you listen to the anti-union asshole raking in the big bucks from his billionaire backers - well you are just being stupid.

just curious.  can they reject the UAW and still form their own union of some sort?  how would that work?


They could form anything they like.  The UAW would oppose it though.  We have a police force with two competing unions.  One is with the AFL-CIO, the other is homegrown.  The AFL-CIO is nasty.
 
2014-02-23 12:02:23 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Republicans went past doubling-down on lies a few decades ago.  They're up to so many multiples-of-down that it has to be expressed in scientific notation.


they've tried to divide the country so many times we're now an irrational number?

/yes
 
2014-02-23 12:05:21 AM  

firefly212: Frankly, the GOP hates people who make a living by working instead of investing


yes, this is true. It's so much harder to steal money when people just don't put it into markets you can control and collude with.

yeech.
 
2014-02-23 12:23:09 AM  

sobriquet by any other name: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Republicans went past doubling-down on lies a few decades ago.  They're up to so many multiples-of-down that it has to be expressed in scientific notation.

they've tried to divide the country so many times we're now an irrational number?

/yes


well, to be fair, the population was a prime number.
 
2014-02-23 01:33:57 AM  
I have two FB friends that are very hard right wing, "pro-business anti-union" yammerers who go on endlessly about how "Liberal business hating government interference in the FREE MARKETS" is what cost us so many jobs over the years. One of them actually lives in Tennessee and is forever crowing about how farking wonderful it is there and how many jobs are coming there because "RIGHT TO WORK" blah blah blah...The other is a Republican fan boy who can spin even the most obvious GOP failures into somehow being the Democrats' fault.

Neither one of them have said ONE WORD about this on their pages. Not. One.
 
2014-02-23 01:35:49 AM  

tbeatty: qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.

Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.


Any health insurance plan made "illegal" by the ACA was so abysmal it shouldn't have really counted as health insurance coverage in the first place.
 
2014-02-23 02:30:13 AM  
rga184
just curious. can they reject the UAW and still form their own union of some sort? how would that work?

Legally, yes. In practice, it would be extremely difficult. In addition to the issues of having little or no organizational experience or funding, it's possible that the UAW would try to get on the ballot, and (unless it's different in TN for some reason) only a majority, not a plurality, can win- i.e. if 40% want UAW, 40% want the independent union, and 20% want no union, there would be no union since neither one managed to get more than 50%, even though 80% wanted some union. Still, probably worth it to try, in my opinion, as it would be ideal to see a truly member-run independent union.

This assumes that "a union" means "an incorporated organization which wins a union certification election, goes through all the NLRB bullshiat, has a contract, and takes dues to pay dedicated organizers and lawyers" which is really a model that needs to hurry up and die. When unions again base their strength on direct control by the workers and the power to strike, whether in the standard "nobody work" sense or something more creative, instead of bureaucracies that seem more interested in controlling the rank-and-file than in actually winning, then we can start to make progress.
 
2014-02-23 02:48:53 AM  
Bob Corker's Campaign ad from 2006.
His opponent, Harold Ford was black...well he still is, but he's not his opponent anymore.
Anyways, come for the straw men, stay for the insinuation of a black guy banging a white woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmu0RXTpAo

Corker is a fool and a scumbag.
 
2014-02-23 03:43:56 AM  

Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.

Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.

Any health insurance plan made "illegal" by the ACA was so abysmal it shouldn't have really counted as health insurance coverage in the first place.


The goggles, they do nothing.  The stupid, it burns.  Like 50+ married couples with a $5k deductible needed obstetric care with no deductible.  Hello?  McFly? Did anyone think that empty nest 50+ couples aren't going to have kids and can affod a $5k deductible?  That's right: "abysmal".  Faring retard.
 
2014-02-23 03:49:54 AM  

coffeeplease: Ill disclose first that I'm not a fan of unions. I don't think there's any love for the UAW and the vote showed that. But I watched an interview with this guy and he comes across as an insincere blow hard and obviously not that bright. This thing could be over but he just had to use it to get himself associated with it somehow and possibly given an opening for a redo.


I'm a little late but. . .

I like unions, just not in the current incarnation. They have no teeth. However, anytime someone seriously suggests getting rid of unions, I hear this in my head:

Which Side Are You On - Florence Reece

/look up the story, it's a good one
 
2014-02-23 04:36:56 AM  

tbeatty: Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.

Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.

Any health insurance plan made "illegal" by the ACA was so abysmal it shouldn't have really counted as health insurance coverage in the first place.

The goggles, they do nothing.  The stupid, it burns.  Like 50+ married couples with a $5k deductible needed obstetric care with no deductible.  Hello?  McFly? Did anyone think that empty nest 50+ couples aren't going to have kids and can affod a $5k deductible?  That's right: "abysmal".  Faring retard.



Well, let me first thank you for your polite, well reasoned, and coherent response- it is both easy to comprehend, and you elected not to make personal attacks, for which I applaud you.

Unfortunately, as you so kindly pointed out, I am somewhat mentally deficient, so could you possibly provide some additional information about these magically wonderful health insurance plans that became "illegal" due to the ACA?

In an attempt to be clear (though I can only hope to be so cogent and understandable as yourself), let me state that I am specifically looking for evidence of insurance plans which the ACA made illegal, and I'd appreciate citiations of the plans in questions, as well as the relevant sections of the legislation which outlaws them.  This does not include plans that were discontinued by the insurer as not-financially viable, as- at least to my own addled mind - "cause to become not financially viable" is not the same thing as "made illegal"
 
2014-02-23 04:38:48 AM  

Jorn the Younger: "cause to become not financially viable" is not the same thing as "made illegal"


And not only because they're in different tenses.

"caused to become not financially viable" is not the same thing as "made illegal"
FTFM
 
2014-02-23 04:54:28 AM  

Tegrator: Bob Corker's Campaign ad from 2006.
His opponent, Harold Ford was black...well he still is, but he's not his opponent anymore.
Anyways, come for the straw men, stay for the insinuation of a black guy banging a white woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRmu0RXTpAo

Corker is a fool and a scumbag.


I had forgotten about that ad.
 
2014-02-23 05:01:23 AM  

Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.

Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.

Any health insurance plan made "illegal" by the ACA was so abysmal it shouldn't have really counted as health insurance coverage in the first place.

The goggles, they do nothing.  The stupid, it burns.  Like 50+ married couples with a $5k deductible needed obstetric care with no deductible.  Hello?  McFly? Did anyone think that empty nest 50+ couples aren't going to have kids and can affod a $5k deductible?  That's right: "abysmal".  Faring retard.


Well, let me first thank you for your polite, well reasoned, and coherent response- it is both easy to comprehend, and you elected not to make personal attacks, for which I applaud you.

Unfortunately, as you so kindly pointed out, I am somewhat mentally deficient, so could you possibly provide some additional information about these magically wonderful health insurance plans that became "illegal" due to the ACA?

In an attempt to be clear (though I can only hope to be so cogent and understandable as yourself), let me state that I am specifically looking for evidence of insurance plans which the ACA made illegal, and I'd appreciate citiations of the plans in questions, as well as the relevant sections of the legislation which outlaws them.  This does not include plans that were discontinued by the insurer as not-financially viable, as- at least to my own addled mind - "cause to become not financially viable" is not the same thing as "made illegal"


Good luck.
I was debating a fellow the other day regarding health insurance. I tried to explain to him that am insurance company that used the ACA as an excuse to raise their rates was not the fault if the act, but rather corporate greed. He admitted that it was indeed corporate greed, but insisted it was still the fault of the act, even if nothing in it made the company raise premiums.
It's like they're allergic to logic.
 
2014-02-23 06:19:45 AM  

Krymson Tyde: Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.

Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.

Any health insurance plan made "illegal" by the ACA was so abysmal it shouldn't have really counted as health insurance coverage in the first place.

The goggles, they do nothing.  The stupid, it burns.  Like 50+ married couples with a $5k deductible needed obstetric care with no deductible.  Hello?  McFly? Did anyone think that empty nest 50+ couples aren't going to have kids and can affod a $5k deductible?  That's right: "abysmal".  Faring retard.


Well, let me first thank you for your polite, well reasoned, and coherent response- it is both easy to comprehend, and you elected not to make personal attacks, for which I applaud you.

Unfortunately, as you so kindly pointed out, I am somewhat mentally deficient, so could you possibly provide some additional information about these magically wonderful health insurance plans that became "illegal" due to the ACA?

In an attempt to be clear (though I can only hope to be so cogent and understandable as yourself), let me state that I am specifically looking for evidence of insurance plans which the ACA made illegal, and I'd appreciate citiations of the plans in questions, as well as the relevant sections of the legislation which outlaws them.  This does not include plans that were discontinued by the insurer as not-financially viable, as- at least to my own addled mind - "cause to become not financially viable" is not the same thing as "made illegal"

Good luck.
I was debating a fellow the other day regarding health insurance. I tried to explain to him that am insurance company that used the ACA as an excuse to raise their rates was not the fault if the act, but rather corporate greed. He admitted that it was indeed corporate greed, but insisted it was still the fault of the act, even if nothing in it made the company raise premiums.
It's like they're allergic to logic.


Why did the company need ACA as an excuse to raise premiums? Presumably "corporate greed" would have caused them charged the most they could before ACA.

Something about ACA (ban on lifetime limits, expanded coverage, raising dependent age from 24 to 26, etc.) causes the hike in prices. These things aren't free. It's like ACA defenders are allergic to logic.
 
2014-02-23 07:24:30 AM  
Mr. Bob Corker (R-eally hates unions): doubles down on his lie, despite VW's calling him out on it

It should be implied that, unless otherwise verified, that the default Southern position on labor unions is to kill them and impoverish any support.  Any conservative principles must go out the window.


Mr. Corker is one reason why this guy should have taken a few more passes at the South:
upload.wikimedia.org

Then again, 21st century weaponry could make up for it in a subsequent Civil War.
 
2014-02-23 07:34:06 AM  
Yes, obviously, unions are now obsolete. Obviously. I mean, look at the way income was distributed 40 years ago, compared to today. Obviously, today's patriotic job creators need no help from a union ensuring their happy happy employees are paid a wage they can live on.

/obviously
 
2014-02-23 07:37:25 AM  

HarleyMarlboro: That would be sweet, but Michigan Republicans rammed through Right to Work and joined the race to the bottom in December 2012. I'm sure that takes MI off the table.


More like "ALEC Republicans" and "rammed RTW through with insurance against an Ohio-style repeal".

That said, Ohio's lack of Right to Work law (and the general "it's not business friendly" lack of desire to pass it) would make their works council compatible with the Buckeye State.  Aside from Fuyao landing some surprise bid on GM's former Moraine plant, VW would have also had a factory that could handle their SUV line.

/one of those rare Republicans without the natural and not-conservative unionbusting reflex
//saying anything but no to one should not invite the four horses of the Apocalypse for your career
///want to live to see the day that the South's unionbusting spine is snapped for its diminishment of freedom.
 
2014-02-23 08:02:30 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Why did the company need ACA as an excuse to raise premiums? Presumably "corporate greed" would have caused them charged the most they could before ACA.


What causes you to believe they didn't raise premiums in years prior to the ACA?  Insurers raise premiums every year, it's just that this years letter explaining changes to costs and benifits had "As mandated by the Affordable Care Act) preceding whatever bullshiat they smeared on the page while they hiked up the rates again.

Something about ACA (ban on lifetime limits, expanded coverage, raising dependent age from 24 to 26, etc.) causes the hike in prices. These things aren't free. It's like ACA defenders are allergic to logic.

Something about the ACA, huh?  Got any citations directly linking requirements in the ACA to increases in premiums, or do you just know, deep down, that it's true?

Also, do you have anything to add regarding the initial claim that the ACA caused certain health coverage plans to become "illegal"?
 
2014-02-23 08:08:38 AM  

IamTomJoad: It would be great to see the gymnastics Corker performs if VW decideds to put the new production in Mexico where the workers are unionized.


The problem is that the unions there are for the company's protection in not so good ways, much like the Japanese.
 
2014-02-23 09:52:16 AM  
/Corker
//Now you farked up
///WHAT
 
2014-02-23 11:30:29 AM  

LadySusan: Excellent! Let's hope the media manages to make it clear that VW itself is on board with the union.


And then we can hope for an infestation of unicorns which we can harvest for their beautiful bones and fix our debt crisis!

/good luck with that...
//Seriously though, I would hope that with you if I thought there were any chance of it happening.
 
2014-02-23 12:38:42 PM  

tbeatty: Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.

Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.

Any health insurance plan made "illegal" by the ACA was so abysmal it shouldn't have really counted as health insurance coverage in the first place.

The goggles, they do nothing.  The stupid, it burns.  Like 50+ married couples with a $5k deductible needed obstetric care with no deductible.  Hello?  McFly? Did anyone think that empty nest 50+ couples aren't going to have kids and can affod a $5k deductible?  That's right: "abysmal".  Faring retard.


If they don't need the care then they are not contributing to that part if the risk pool.

This talking point assumes a failure to understand how insurance actually works and why these mandates are necessary. Even if insurance is mandated to cover pregnancy fir everybody, insurance likewise knows who is high risk for pregnancy costs and who isn't, so if they are charging for it it's because they are trying to fleece the consumer, not because if Obamacare.
 
2014-02-23 02:21:03 PM  

Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.

Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.

Any health insurance plan made "illegal" by the ACA was so abysmal it shouldn't have really counted as health insurance coverage in the first place.

The goggles, they do nothing.  The stupid, it burns.  Like 50+ married couples with a $5k deductible needed obstetric care with no deductible.  Hello?  McFly? Did anyone think that empty nest 50+ couples aren't going to have kids and can affod a $5k deductible?  That's right: "abysmal".  Faring retard.


Well, let me first thank you for your polite, well reasoned, and coherent response- it is both easy to comprehend, and you elected not to make personal attacks, for which I applaud you.

Unfortunately, as you so kindly pointed out, I am somewhat mentally deficient, so could you possibly provide some additional information about these magically wonderful health insurance plans that became "illegal" due to the ACA?

In an attempt to be clear (though I can only hope to be so cogent and understandable as yourself), let me state that I am specifically looking for evidence of insurance plans which the ACA made illegal, and I'd appreciate citiations of the plans in questions, as well as the relevant sections of the legislation which outlaws them.  This does not include plans that were discontinued by the insurer as not-financially viable, as- at least to my own addled mind - "cause to become not financially viable" is not the same thing as "made illegal"


Sorry for the attack.  In Q4 when the notices were sent out terminatng high deductible empty nester plans.  They weren't abysmal in any sense of the words, rather they risk pooled categories of people to keep premiums low and cut out services they don't need.   here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/29/this-is-wh y -obamacare-is-cancelling-some-peoples-insurance-plans/   and the relevant quote: "Some -- or maybe even most -- of the plans offered on the individual insurance market right now don't meet certain requirements in the health-care law. They may not offer preventive care without co-payment, for example, or leave out coverage of maternity care, one of the health-care law's "10 essential benefits." .
 
2014-02-23 03:10:41 PM  
tbeatty: Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: Jorn the Younger: tbeatty: qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.

Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.

Any health insurance plan made "illegal" by the ACA was so abysmal it shouldn't have really counted as health insurance coverage in the first place.

The goggles, they do nothing.  The stupid, it burns.  Like 50+ married couples with a $5k deductible needed obstetric care with no deductible.  Hello?  McFly? Did anyone think that empty nest 50+ couples aren't going to have kids and can affod a $5k deductible?  That's right: "abysmal".  Faring retard.


Well, let me first thank you for your polite, well reasoned, and coherent response- it is both easy to comprehend, and you elected not to make personal attacks, for which I applaud you.

Unfortunately, as you so kindly pointed out, I am somewhat mentally deficient, so could you possibly provide some additional information about these magically wonderful health insurance plans that became "illegal" due to the ACA?

In an attempt to be clear (though I can only hope to be so cogent and understandable as yourself), let me state that I am specifically looking for evidence of insurance plans which the ACA made illegal, and I'd appreciate citiations of the plans in questions, as well as the relevant sections of the legislation which outlaws them.  This does not include plans that were discontinued by the insurer as not-financially viable, as- at least to my own addled mind - "cause to become not financially viable" is not the same thing as "made illegal"


Sorry for the attack.  In Q4 when the notices were sent out terminatng high deductible empty nester plans.  They weren't abysmal in any sense of the words, rather they risk pooled categories of people to keep premiums low and cut out services t ...

I appreciate the apology, and the link, however it seems to indicate that the plans were cancelled at the discretion of the insurer.

The health law allowed plans that existed back in March 2010, when it became a law, to keep selling coverage. These are known as "grandfathered plans:" They don't meet the health law's requirements, but as long as they don't change much, insurers can keep offering them...These cancellations are, essentially, a lot of grandfathered plans exiting the insurance marketplace. From an insurance company's vantage point, grandfathered plans are a bit of a dead end: They can't enroll new subscribers and are really constrained in their ability to tweak the benefit package or cost-sharing structure. There's not a whole lot of business sense, for a managed care company, in maintaining a health plan that doesn't meet the health law's new requirements.

The insurer could have continued to sell these plans, they were specifically not illegal if they are grandfathered in, so I could see one taking the perspective that they were shunted out of existence, I wouldn't say they were made illegal as you had initially claimed.

That said, as I understand it, preventative care being covered with no co-pay saves money long term because prevention is cheaper than treatment, so it's probably a better value for the insurer to get those customers onto plans that include that.
 
2014-02-23 05:14:10 PM  

Jorn the Younger: The health law allowed plans that existed back in March 2010, when it became a law, to keep selling coverage. These are known as "grandfathered plans:" They don't meet the health law's requirements, but as long as they don't change much, insurers can keep offering them...These cancellations are, essentially, a lot of grandfathered plans exiting the insurance marketplace. From an insurance company's vantage point, grandfathered plans are a bit of a dead end: They can't enroll new subscribers and are really constrained in their ability to tweak the benefit package or cost-sharing structure. There's not a whole lot of business sense, for a managed care company, in maintaining a health plan that doesn't meet the health law's new requirements.

The insurer could have continued to sell these plans, they were specifically not illegal if they are grandfathered in, so I could see one taking the perspective that they were shunted out of existence, I wouldn't say they were made illegal as you had initially claimed.

That said, as I understand it, preventative care being covered with no co-pay saves money long term because prevention is cheaper than treatment, so it's probably a better value for the insurer to get those customers onto plans that include that.


Companies often were grandfathered but the problem was the if any terms changed they became new policies.  As the article said, most were short term policies issued for a year or two and that would not have been grandfathered  I also think there was concern that even grandfathered policies may have been open to lawsuits to provide.

Secondly, preventive care with no co-pay having a benefit presumes that people not currently using PM will use it.  People already using preventive care will likely continue to do so, while those that don't aren't going to start.

The fact remains though, that there were specific policies made illegal by provisions of ACA.
 
2014-02-23 07:22:48 PM  

The Bananadragon: IlGreven: The Bananadragon: Honestly, if I were VW, I'd start talking to Gov. Deal over in GA about this, as well as the Carolinas, VA, KY, AR, and even LA. Tell them you aren't appreciative of the anti-business atmosphere in TN and are looking for a new home for a rather impressive plant. (VW adds $12B to Tennessee's GDP, pays 1.4BN in annual taxes, injected almost another billion in plant-construction contracts and supplying dealerships with cars, and employs like 3000 people.) Make it clear that you're looking to move specifically because of the government meddling in the affairs of your worker/corporate relationship and you aren't gonna go anywhere if it happens again. GA would be especially lucrative because Dalton is only 30 minutes from Chattanooga, so you could basically keep your workforce intact - but offer your existing workers the chance to move, and pay for their relocation, because the workers shouldn't have to pay the price for this.

One thing I forgot to add: Georgia is just as bad as Tennessee on jobs, making decisions that destroy economies, like their refusal to expand Medicaid, leaving many patients unable to pay for care, and many hospitals either footing the bill for those patients or not having enough patients to justify their costs...so they're laying off doctors and nurses, or worse yet, shutting down altogether. And then, of course, their draconian immigration policy that is basically destroying a lot of farms who don't have enough labor to harvest their crops. And that's even before we talk about letting in a known union-friendly business into the state.

While true, they also just blew through a pretty massive weather crisis, and I bet they'd love to get some sweet taxy lucre their way. I agree that it probably isn't enough to accept those filthy unions, but GA and NC are the two bluest states in the south, and so are the best chances for VW to stay close to where they currently are. They'd just have to make it more than clear to GA's government that the entire reason they're leaving TN is because the government there is hostile to unions, and they are NOT gonna put up with that crap from wherever they move to, so either GA guarantees VW the right to run its business how it wants to, or they just don't even try moving there.

My other personal favorite place for them to move is of course back to motherfarking Detroit. More likely, though, they'd go to IA or PA or something.

Also, that thing about the SUV line. the TN plant has the infrastructure to build two types of car, and with a union on board in the plant, they'd almost certainly have done it (or at minimum, wouldn't have hesitated about the costs). Now they not only probably won't do it, the South has just shot its chances of joining the 20th century in the foot here by scaring away future manufacturing jobs.


Actually ga had no problem getting another German auto manufacturer, Porsche. Our politicians might indeed be crappy, but at least they have some business sense, unlike Coker.
 
2014-02-23 07:30:50 PM  

tbeatty: qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.

Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.


Nope, try again.
 
2014-02-23 08:23:33 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: Actually ga had no problem getting another German auto manufacturer, Porsche. Our politicians might indeed be crappy, but at least they have some business sense, unlike Coker.


Your economic development departments adverts in ATL lie - since it's business corruption, not business friendliness that powers GA.  That, and throw in a bit of theft, too.

What did your state do with $60 million (and almost $5 million in stimulus funding), a then-125 year old cash register company, and a big effort to keep it quiet from the city until it was done in 2009?  I'd think that such behavior with that example(amongst others) suggests that the state prefers underhanded acquisition over innovation.


The Bananadragon: While true, they also just blew through a pretty massive weather crisis, and I bet they'd love to get some sweet taxy lucre their way. I agree that it probably isn't enough to accept those filthy unions, but GA and NC are the two bluest states in the south, and so are the best chances for VW to stay close to where they currently are. They'd just have to make it more than clear to GA's government that the entire reason they're leaving TN is because the government there is hostile to unions, and they are NOT gonna put up with that crap from wherever they move to, so either GA guarantees VW the right to run its business how it wants to, or they just don't even try moving there.

My other personal favorite place for them to move is of course back to motherfarking Detroit. More likely, though, they'd go to IA or PA or something.


As I said above, how about somewhere with a sane political environment, sans RTW?  So far, that would put Ohio up top for states in that region for its long history of maintaining relative neutrality.  Giving it to Michigan or Indiana at this point would be little different, and Volkswagen's already tried Pennsylvania.  Iowa would just be a crapshoot.


Also, that thing about the SUV line. the TN plant has the infrastructure to build two types of car, and with a union on board in the plant, they'd almost certainly have done it (or at minimum, wouldn't have hesitated about the costs). Now they not only probably won't do it, the South has just shot its chances of joining the 20th century in the foot here by scaring away future manufacturing jobs.

There are some parts of the South that will not change as much as the North won't.
 
2014-02-23 09:13:20 PM  

machodonkeywrestler: tbeatty: qorkfiend: tbeatty: They "clearly spoke" that they wanted to keep their doctor and their plan.

Maybe they should "clearly speak" to the health insurance companies that cancelled their plans or altered their networks.

Plans were cancelled because ACA made the illegal to continue.

Nope, try again.


Yup.  Read the source above.  Try again.
 
2014-02-23 11:17:47 PM  

tbeatty: Jorn the Younger: The health law allowed plans that existed back in March 2010, when it became a law, to keep selling coverage. These are known as "grandfathered plans:" They don't meet the health law's requirements, but as long as they don't change much, insurers can keep offering them...These cancellations are, essentially, a lot of grandfathered plans exiting the insurance marketplace. From an insurance company's vantage point, grandfathered plans are a bit of a dead end: They can't enroll new subscribers and are really constrained in their ability to tweak the benefit package or cost-sharing structure. There's not a whole lot of business sense, for a managed care company, in maintaining a health plan that doesn't meet the health law's new requirements.

The insurer could have continued to sell these plans, they were specifically not illegal if they are grandfathered in, so I could see one taking the perspective that they were shunted out of existence, I wouldn't say they were made illegal as you had initially claimed.

That said, as I understand it, preventative care being covered with no co-pay saves money long term because prevention is cheaper than treatment, so it's probably a better value for the insurer to get those customers onto plans that include that.

Companies often were grandfathered but the problem was the if any terms changed they became new policies.  As the article said, most were short term policies issued for a year or two and that would not have been grandfathered  I also think there was concern that even grandfathered policies may have been open to lawsuits to provide.

Secondly, preventive care with no co-pay having a benefit presumes that people not currently using PM will use it.  People already using preventive care will likely continue to do so, while those that don't aren't going to start.

The fact remains though, that there were specific policies made illegal by provisions of ACA.


Unfortunately, no, you still haven't supported your assertion that the ACA made these plans illegal - indeed, your own citiation states how they specifically were NOT made illegal.

Also, plenty of people, myself included, were not taking advantage of prevenative care previously, because it wasn't covered by my insurance plan.  Now it is, and I am- I did start.  I know I'm only an anecdote, but I find it amusing that you state I don't exist.
 
Displayed 50 of 151 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report