SEIU Collects ‘Union Dues’ From Medicaid Recipients

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/28 ... rew-stiles


November 11, 2011 11:53 A.M. By Andrew Stiles
Outrageous. Democrats are constantly accusing Republicans of wanting to “slash Medicaid.” Meanwhile, they institute policies that allow public-sector unions to do this:

If you’re a parent who accepts Medicaid payments from the State of Michigan to help support your mentally-disabled adult children, you qualify as a state employee for the purposes of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They can now claim and receive a portion of your Medicaid in the form of union dues.

Unions are out of control, and are no longer interested in the workers, only in the $$, IMO.

Well, that's one side of the story. The other side might be that by including these parents under the umbrella of the union they get representation by said union for their interests.

Without knowing a heck of a lot more about the history of this whole situation, I'd hesitate to say whether it's an equitable arrangement or not, but this story is clearly one-sided at best.

AspenValley wrote: Well, that's one side of the story. The other side might be that by including these parents under the umbrella of the union they get representation by said union for their interests.

Without knowing a heck of a lot more about the history of this whole situation, I'd hesitate to say whether it's an equitable arrangement or not, but this story is clearly one-sided at best.

Feel free to present the other side.

neptunechimney wrote:

AspenValley wrote: Well, that's one side of the story.

Feel free to present the other side.

I think I've already spent more time than this story is worth just pointing out that your quoted story was one-sided. Anyone who cares enough to know the other side before rushing to judgement could find out for themselves, but somehow I doubt that you and others who are content to be outraged by hearing only half of it will feel too motivated to do that. Nor be influenced even if I wasted my time doing it for you.

AspenValley wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

AspenValley wrote: Well, that's one side of the story.

Feel free to present the other side.

I think I've already spent more time than this story is worth just pointing out that your quoted story was one-sided. Anyone who cares enough to know the other side before rushing to judgement could find out for themselves, but somehow I doubt that you and others who are content to be outraged by hearing only half of it will feel too motivated to do that. Nor be influenced even if I wasted my time doing it for you.

Well duhh.
Are you even serious?

neptunechimney wrote:

AspenValley wrote:

neptunechimney wrote:

AspenValley wrote: Well, that's one side of the story.

Feel free to present the other side.

I think I've already spent more time than this story is worth just pointing out that your quoted story was one-sided. Anyone who cares enough to know the other side before rushing to judgement could find out for themselves, but somehow I doubt that you and others who are content to be outraged by hearing only half of it will feel too motivated to do that. Nor be influenced even if I wasted my time doing it for you.

Well duhh.
Are you even serious?

As serious as one can be with someone whose responses tend towards "Well duhh."

AspenValley wrote: Well, that's one side of the story. The other side might be that by including these parents under the umbrella of the union they get representation by said union for their interests.

I submit that since this is a thread that you chose to comment on, it is incumbent upon you to provide the other side.
Do you have some evidence or even theory of what benefits the parents receive for the $ that is confiscated.

You might want to review this thread before you dig a deeper hole.

http://www.pinecam.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... t=outhouse

AspenValley wrote: Well, that's one side of the story. The other side might be that by including these parents under the umbrella of the union they get representation by said union for their interests.

Without knowing a heck of a lot more about the history of this whole situation, I'd hesitate to say whether it's an equitable arrangement or not, but this story is clearly one-sided at best.

And of course, you just tried to make up the other side... didn't you? Hit me with your best shot... or stop making things up.