Thursday, November 25, 2010

Schadenfreude? Nope. "Read The BILL, Fool!!"

Yah, so, we opened Pandora's Nancy's box of chocolates, and guess what popped out?

One of the largest union-administered health-insurance funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials said. The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the state’s health department and new national health-insurance requirements....

The fund informed its members late last month that their dependents will no longer be covered as of Jan. 1, 2011. Currently about 6,000 children are covered by the benefit fund --WSJ via Legal Insurrection

That would be SEIU Local 1199.

The very same SEIU Local whose ex-Big Honcho, Dennis Rivera, was transferred from the local to a national gig: ramming ObamaCare through Congress.

LegalInsurrection worries that it's schadenfreude to post this.

It's not. It's education for Union Bozos.

And by the way: don't give us that "It's for the chillllrrrrren!" crap anymore. You just dumped 6,000 of them into the gutters of New York City.


Jim said...

Did you read the whole article or just make assumptions?

According to the article, the fund has been in financial trouble for three years and that that is the primary factor in this decision. It also has more to do with state requirements than with the Affordable Care Act. The only thing mentioned regarding ACA is the requirement to cover children up to age 26. You want to repeal that?

Dad29 said...

According to the UNION, "ObamaCare" was a component in their decision to dump the children in the street.

And yes, I think the 26-y.o. coverage mandate is ridiculous.

Jim said...

Most people disagree with you on that.

Dad29 said...

I doubt it.

College student is one thing--but that should be over by age 23 for a B.A.

neomom said...

So Jim, how long should we infantalize our adult children? Why only 26? Why not 30? 40?

Its a ridiculous requirement. Especially since these "children" can be married and still as a dependent.

Jim said...

Do you suppose that those of us who have insurance that covers children up to 26 or whatever aren't paying extra for that? It's not like companies have to cover them at no extra charge. If the union is covering the full cost, they need to renegotiate the contract.

neomom said...

Obviously, you aren't paying enough extra to cover them Jim.

But you didn't answer my question about how long adults should continue to be infantalized by parents and now the government?