The 300,000-member union that was the first to endorse then-Senator Barack Obama has released a devastating Obamacare report that says Obama's controversial healthcare program will slash worker wages by up to $5 an hour, reduce worker hours, and exacerbate income inequality.
The report by Unite Here--a labor union that represents workers in the hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing, textile, distribution, laundry, and airport industries--is titled:
"Ironically, the Administration's own signature healthcare victory poses one of the most immediate challenges to redressing inequality," states the 12-page report. "We take seriously the promise that 'if you like your health plan, you can keep it. Period.' UNITE HERE members like their health plans."
The report features first-person testimonials and photos of union members describing how Obamacare is personally hurting them and their families--the same kinds of stories that Majority Senator Harry Reid said are "all untrue" and that progressive New York Times columnist Paul Krugman mocked as"nonexistent" in his piece "Health Care Horror Hooey."
Arturo Marquez, a single father with two children who works as a cook, explains how Obamacare is hurting him:
"I'm a single dad and need every penny for my kids. The best deal Obamacare could offer me would take $1,908 more than our union plan. That's like a dollar an hour pay cut. If I get really sick and wind up in the hospital, they can charge me $3,700 more out of pocket. I can't imagine taking care of my son and daughter while taking a $2.70 an hour pay cut," says Marquez.
Another union member, housekeeper Angela Portillo explained how Obamacare is hurting she and her husband:
"Housekeeping is a tough job--many of us suffer serious injuries doing this work. And Obamacare would cause my husband and I even more pain. The Obamacare website says we would have to pay $8,057.04 a year more to keep the great insurance we have now. That's a $3.87 per hour pay cut. We work hard for our insurance. Why should we have to take a cut in pay for it?" says Portillo.
Food service worker Earl Baskerville feels the same way, according to the report:
"The health care crisis hit our workplace hard. We tried three different plans in a three year contract. When the for-profit insurance companies were going through the roof, we switched our union's plan to keep good benefits. But Obamacare will give government money to those plans and not ours. Obamacare would cost me $4,855.20 a year more, or a $2.33 an hour pay cut. That's not right. We just want to be treated like everyone else," says Baskerville.
Last week, Unite Here Donald Taylor discussed the possibility of a union worker strike over Obamacare and said, "Even though the president and Congress promised we could keep our health plan, the reality is, unless the law is fixed, that won't be true."
The Unite Here report further exacerbates Democrats' already daunting electoral hurdles heading into the midterm elections, now less than eight months away.
Union members are not alone in opposing Obamacare. According to the latest RealClearPolitics average of polls, just 38% of Americans now support Obamacare.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/09/300-000-Member-Union-Drops-Bombshell-Obamacare-Report

-------------------------------------------------------

Now wait a minute Harry! Are these union members above the same folks you called LIARS, or are they the ones that violently chanted "YES WE CAN" while fist were swinging?

Libs? How is OLD Reid going to wiggle out of this one-- or will Bilary tell them"What difference does it make?" Just continue to pay them union fees, so you can pay them to screw you over! You voted for them, not once, but twice!

See ya at mid-terms Muahz

BTW I loveeeee the title of the report--"The Irony of ObamaCare: Making Inequality Worse." OH the irony is correct!

This is what happens when you are beholden to one party..

Obama knows the unions will always vote for democrats, so he decided to cut a deal with the insurance companies to insure that their campaign money didn't all go to the republicans..

Problem is that if you vote dem or gop you only get a pro provider system, not a functional system for the people. So either way it's going to be managed for profit not adapting to the needs of the people.

3rd party, preferably libertarian.

no party system sounds better...

Greens are the only party looking to reallocate the money to universal healthcare here which is possible if we have a government that doesn't dump most of the funds into a military budget (that clearly doesn't go for the troops!). Libertarians aren't going to do much but keep it pro provider too. They're still money 1st and are pro privatization to the wealthy. (They're also keeping the reaganomic deregulations we have that have enabled profit before the needs of the people.Reaganomics helped to make healthcare a business to begin with.) Functionally that system doesn't really work no matter how much they want to push their rhetoric on pricing. Problem is that the "pricing rhetoric"is like a more eloquent version of "We're a nation of haves and have not yets".

Universal healthcare would do the following:
-Be covered under taxes and would be there for citizens which means you actually get rid of bloated for profit lobbyists (Medinsurance). So it's no extra charges really, just be a citizen and you get what you will need.

-Would require audits on medical supply. We inflate costs due to the bipartisanship of Clinton and the Gingrich Senate to make healthcare solidly a business which isn't beneficial to the people's needs. (They enabled the health industry to call their own prices. They just packaged it as "We're taking healthcare to the 21st century" which just turned out to being "for profit".)

-Would put more emphasis on cures over "treatment methods". It costs more to cater to "treatment methods" which can only be funded based on what we pay due to the fact that it's run like a business. It is also more effective for profit to push treatment methods over cures, hence why we have them so widely available.

-Would put big pharmies under the supervision of the government more than enabling big pharmies to pay off our elected officials regulating them so they can do what they want.

So there is a way around this that's functional and realistic that can help every one that nobody but the Green Party is actually pushing for. Otherwise Dems, GOP and also the Libertarians would keep it as a business (That exploits the people based on the psychology of "I want to live" for it's profits), not as a need or a priority.

sure glad you think Healthcaresystems like UK or so are the answer!
If you think you have intrusive oppressive Government now,have a look at some European and other Governments!
Did you know that Sweden is getting off it's Cradle to Grave Welfare State bit by bit!
Seems no one can afford it any longer!
Good luck with your Greens,they are a Pain in the Neck,and lower down too!
And they love spending Money that ain't there,when the have run out of other People's Money!

The problem according to the Greens.....too much government control.
The solution according to the Greens....more government control.


Brilliant

It would be like trying to help alcoholic who has a pint of booze....and thinking the way to cure his alcoholism is to take that pint away and replace it with a quart of booze.

would "cure" the Jitters temporarily!

Sure, just what we need, another political "party" that knows best and can render there version of what government can control. If the government wants to control something, how about guns. The ones that put in their mouths and squeeze the trigger. Now that would be an honest "party" politician.

we told the libaturds all about how bad Obummercare really was. But the people chose to believe their dear leaders! they are getting just
what they voted for!!

But then we would have had Romney. Danged if you do and danged if you don't.