Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | Home RSS
 
 
 

MNsure can't handle paper?

December 16, 2013

To the editor: In mid-October we were informed that paper applications would be accepted to meet the Jan. 1, 2014 (health insurance) coverage date. On Dec....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(47)

JReader

Jan-02-14 9:00 AM

The Democratic leaders of Detroit should do prison time. They never will but they should.

GM did file for bankruptcy. It was well scripted and Obama unilaterally changed creditor laws by putting the UAW in front of bond holders during the re-organization. The bond holders got screwed in the deal including many pension funds. The teachers of the State of Indiana were among those who saw a drastic hit to their retirement pensions. At least the UAW was made whole though.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Jan-02-14 7:33 AM

Detroit retirees are looking at the possibility of 16 cents on the dollar for their pensions. If I was in my 70s or 80s and that happened to me after 40+ years of hard work, I would be p!$$ed!

Do some people maybe need to see prison time?

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Jan-01-14 11:50 PM

Eaglesfn - it might have been for the best to have GM declare a controlled bankruptcy and would have come out a smaller corporation. Detroit declared bankruptcy but you did not see the city disappear. Controlled bankruptcy's can be beneficial if they are done right. The problem with both the GM and Detroit situation had to do with union pension funding which had to be rectified, in the case of GM, was done with taxpayer funding. Detroit is still in question as to disposition.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Jan-01-14 11:09 AM

Had the US Government not shored up GM, we would have been down to two US auto companies, and that is if you still count Chrysler as a US company. You know that I generally don't support bailouts.

At least the government didn't just hand out money, they demanded a temporary stake in the company, so that their money could be recovered when GM stood on its own two feet again. 6 years ago, I wouldn't have considered a GM vehicle, due to the fact that I didn't know if they would be able to back their warranty. They also had many engineering and design blunders that they have improved on.

With the southern foreign auto plants, money was handed out courtesy of state taxpayers. These companies weren't in financial trouble. They built in those states because of the handouts, the cheap undereducated labor and to give the false pretence to customers that they were buying an American automobile. I would rather buy a Ford or GM made in Canada than buy a Toyota from one of these plants.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Dec-31-13 10:10 AM

Your right Eaglesfan it is debatable. It is nice that consumers still have choices when it comes to buying a car.

As for subsides, how about the 17 + billion the tax payers had to eat when the government decided to bail out GM and buy a majority interest in the company ? This wasn't done to save GM by the way it was only done to save the UAW and all of their unfunded pension commitments and their health plans.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Dec-31-13 7:29 AM

"Higher Quality" is debatable.

I bet you really like how taxpayers are subsididing these foreign automakers when we should have been increasing tariffs on them.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Dec-30-13 12:35 PM

Gopher,

My comments regarding GM were how they and the other US auto makers have lost a great deal of market share to Japanese and now Korean auto makers. It has nothing to do with what GM is doing in China. It has everything to do with building a higher quality product at a better price point. They do this without union workers to build their cars.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Dec-30-13 9:57 AM

MCW,

You can't think for yourself (you need to get all of your thoughts from your union) so don't bother trying to think for me.

I applaud all of those who work for a living and have the personal integrity to not seek handouts from our government.

I also believe unions do serve a purpose. The purpose is not always justified and they have caused harm to American workers in some cases by driving jobs overseas.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Dec-27-13 3:34 PM

JReader doesn't like people that work for a living.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GopherState

Dec-27-13 3:33 PM

Once again, you are generalizing again. Yes, I am well aware of what our management is doing, and for the most part I feel that they are doing things right. Our membership is growing. Our pensions are among the most secure in the nation and in our local, our members are working. I work full time and I serve on a committee.

How typical of you to blame an organization that represents the working class, but have you looked at the Chamber of Commerce, among other business organizations lately?

JReader, GM's expansion into China isn't sending cars to the United States, they are building cars in China to be sold in China. Many other companies are doing the same because unlike the capitalistic US, China actually regulates what can be imported and what must be made within their borders.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Dec-27-13 2:32 PM

Gopherstate, I am well aware of what the unions have done for this country - many of them good. But, the leadership has turned them into a very corrupt organization making the rank and file dependent on the leadership. The rank and file have been more interested in the pay and benefits provided but have lost sight of what their leadership has done. Look at what happened to the teachers unions in Wisconsin - many decertifications because the union was ripping them off in unjust high health insurance premiums with low benefits. Have you looked at what your union leaders have been doing, more for their benefit, then for your benefit and your dues?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Dec-27-13 8:59 AM

Yes those unions have been a real godsend to GM. The Asian Auto industry has the UAW to thank for all of their success.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GopherState

Dec-27-13 2:00 AM

Clearly Avoice has no idea on all the good things that unions have brought to the middle class. After all, they created the middle class, and when union membership started declining, so did the the health of the middle class. Yes, there are a few bad apples, but then again, I suspect that he/she feels that all priests are pedophiles, too.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Dec-26-13 3:15 PM

MCW - your union cronies have not hired lobbyists who are funneling money to legislators passing legislation to help your union and your class workers meanwhile creating more dependent low income workers and taxing the wealthy? Take the blinders off and see the world around you. Seems you feel only your kind of people can write legislation and to heck with the rest.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JReader

Dec-26-13 10:21 AM

Funny, we keep seeing extensions to the "drop dead" date for sign up.

I don't know if you were sleeping Eaglesfan but taxes have been raised to fund Obamacare. And, if you don't follow the mandate guess what you get nailed with a tax as well. So your tax the $#!+ out of them plan has already been tried. So what new ideas do you have ?

MCW, I agree everyone should be on an equal footing when it comes do getting quality health plans. Obamacare doesn't do this. In fact the opposite occurs as you are finding out. Nice to hear you hired a lobbyist to get your nice employer paid plan kept in place. Many people out there aren't as lucky as you are. I guess your union knows how to play ball with those guys in Washington and pay off the right people. I know, if those CEO's weren't so darned greedy your union shills wouldn't have to resort to such unsavory tactics to help out you little guys; oh well at least you get what you rightfully deserve at the cost to the rest of

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Dec-25-13 11:27 PM

The fact the proposed bill seeks to eliminate anti-trust laws is reason enough for the Senate to reject it.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Dec-25-13 9:33 PM

EaglesFan: Do you know what free market capitalism is? The solution you propose is not free market capitalism, but the government taking away employers' freedom to make employment decisions based on true free market principles.

MCW: You claim to know that this doctor wrote his legislation "for doctors." How do you know this? Can you cite one provision of his legislation that proves your point? Have you read one syllable of it? How can anyone take your comments seriously if make such uninformed comments?

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Dec-25-13 8:50 PM

So a doctor wrote legislation to benefit doctors and he can't find support. Interesting.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Dec-25-13 7:14 PM

Eagles Fan check your facts before you make a statement which is untrue. HR 2300 has been offered by a Republican( he is a doctor)in the last three sessions of the House and can't get enough sponsors. His plan is one of many being proposed by the Republicans but the stop point is in the Senate - Reid. Better have your daily mantra letter fact checked before you post statements like that.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

EaglesFan

Dec-25-13 12:35 PM

So, what us the solution? As always, Republicans such as yourselves are great at lip service, but once again offer no real solutions.

For starters, employers that have the means should be expected to provide full time jobs and family health benefits. Otherwise, tax the $#!+ out of them until they do. That's my free market capitalistic plan.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Avoice

Dec-24-13 9:30 AM

MCW-" I believe that the parts of the Affordable Care Act that need work should be debated among a fair and reasonable legislature." Why was this not done in the first place if the then current Congress had been capable of doing so? The 2,000+ page document may well have had good intentions but the 30,000+ pages of "bureaucratic stupidity"(plus current exec decisions) have undone any good intentions and is creating mass confusion in the insurance industry and the healthcare industry. IMHO, this was a planned policy to destroy this part of the economy, not reduce the cost of it.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Dec-24-13 9:03 AM

MCW: You say that a fair and reasonable legislature should be able to fine-tune the parts of Obamacare that don't work. That position presupposes that a national health care system can be run well by a centralized bureaucracy in Washington. It can't and never will. That is why many of us are opposed to even beginning to try to fix this monstrosity. If the Democrats want to indulge in this fantasy, we don't have to go along with them. We live in the real world, and we had the best health system on the face of the earth, developed by the free market forces of the capitalist system. The sooner we return to that system, the sooner we will stop the bleeding and start the cure.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Dec-24-13 2:49 AM

Merry Christmas MT, and thank you for your question.

I don't believe that anybody should be taxed for having good insurance that doesn't put them in the poor house, union or not. I believe that the parts of the Affordable Care Act that need work should be debated among a fair and reasonable legislature. As I said before, there is no luxury in having good insurance. It just makes good financial sense.

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MichaelT

Dec-24-13 1:04 AM

MCW: You say there should be no such thing as "Cadillac insurance," but under Obamacare there is. Are you saying you favor a repeal of Obamacare?

Another thought - You feel unions should be exempt from Obamacare's "Cadillac insurance" provision because you negotiated a "fair" contract. Based on that logic, every worker in America could claim he is also entitled to an exemption. What employee could not claim that he or she negotiated "fair" working arrangements with his or her employer? Or are union contracts the only fair employment contracts?

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Dec-23-13 9:11 PM

There should be no such thing as "Cadillac Insurance." Having insurance that pays medical bills is not a luxury, it is taking responsibility. We gave up raises to keep this plan. We pride ourselves on negotiating a fair contract for ourselves and our employer. We shouldn't be penalized for it now. That is why we hired a lobbyist to exempt such plans from the Cadillac tax.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 47 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web