Unions Disappointed in ObamaCare
Unions’ complaint
[T]he Affordable Care Act has subjected union health plans to new taxes and mandates while not allowing them to share in the subsidies that have gone to private insurance companies competing on the newly created exchanges. (Washington Post)
The administration’s foot dragging
Once we realized the [Affordable Care Act] would not let us keep the health care we had, we spent three years presenting the Administration with reasonable fixes to the ACA’s problems. All of them were rejected and the proposed regulations [regarding multi-employer health and welfare trust fund and other self-funded plans] offer virtually no assistance toward any of these solutions…
…If the Administration honestly thinks that these proposed rules are responsive to our concerns, they were not listening or they simply did not care. (WSJ)
Well, I’m sure the Union vote helped get Obama elected
so… You get what you voted for.
That’s for sure. The most affected by Obamacare are those who are insured by their employers. Now they may suffer higher premium and more competitive labor market.
“We want to hold the president to his word: If you like your health-care coverage, you can keep it, and that just hasn’t been the case”
I think it is pretty obvious that he can’t keep his word on that one. The unions can fight it all they want, but it’s not going to happen.
The unions should feel betrayed since many of them heavily endorsed him on 2008. But at the same time, they are the ones who voted for it.
“If the Administration honestly thinks that these proposed rules are responsive to our concerns, they were not listening or they simply did not care.”
It is probably a little of both the former and the latter.
The government tends to be pretty good at both of those.
“…their out of pocket costs are likely to be significant, reaching into the thousands of dollars even if they are eligible for a subsidy under the act.”
It is this way for everyone receiving insurance in the exchange. Very significant costs that are likely not to be affordable.
This is a great example of Obama doing whatever he wants. The labor unions have traditionally endorsed the Democratic Party. As the article said, thanks to the unions the Democrats have had their political victories. There hasn’t been a legislation passed by the Democrats that wasn’t “approved” by the unions. This means that the Democratic Party depends on the unions. But, Obama went rogue. He wants to do whatever he wants, he is not thinking about the consequences of his actions. If the Democrats loose the unions’ support, they will have a hard time winning the elections.
Why should unions get extra benefits? It is not fair that they get benefits from everyone just because they are members of the syndicate. There must be some way to protect them from the friability of their job, the uncertainty of being temporal workers, etc. I agree. But, that doesn’t mean that their they should receive the disproportionate benefits they are asking for
Instead of unions, the headline could’ve been replaced with Americans.
Promises, promises and promises. That is what Obama has done since he was campaigning. He promised a lot of things. He was going to accomplish a set of marvelous achievements, which would make him the big reformer. But, he hasn’t. Of everything he promised he has only accomplished few things, and of those, none were done in time or have serious setbacks. Obama’s only legacy will be being the first African-American President of the United States.
His slogan for his first term run was “Change.” We have certainly had a change, not for better but the country looks much different than it did in the pre-Obama days.
If the Unions were to support Christie, it would be a major blow to the Democrats. Especially, because Christie resembles an everyday American, a common guy that appeals to the common people. Straightforward; Christie has every characteristics that typical working class Americans have and appreciate.
It is possible that the unions have become so disillusioned with the Democrats and ObamaCare that they would likely take their vote to the Republicans.
That would be something!
Although I am kind of a pro-union guy ( I read this blog with shades on), I also know something about self-funded plan.
And the union demands as I decipher them from the Wash Post seem very incoherent to me.
a. The $63 tax per person is a lot of money in a big plan, but it will not destroy any of these plans in the slightest.
b. Most union plans already have maternity benefits and drug coverage and high lifetime limits. The ACA minimum benefits will not harm them at all.
c. The idea that self-funded plans would compete for customers in the general population is crazy.
d. The vast majority of union plans are funded with an hourly amount added by the employer for each worker. Under what double counting should a union participant get the same subsidy as a person who gets no employer money whatsoever?
Again I am no union buster. But what is the old saying, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to invent their own facts.