• What unions are upset about isn’t a flaw with Obamacare

    I know Austin highlighted this post by Avik Roy already, but I want to do the same:

    The issue at hand is the way Obamacare affects multi-employer health plans, also known as Taft-Hartley plans. These plans consist of employer-sponsored health insurance that is arranged between a labor union in a particular industry, such as restaurants, and small employers in that sector. Approximately 20 million workers in the United States are covered under such arrangements, including 800,000 of the 1.3 million members of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, whose leader, Joseph Hansen, signed the letter I described above.

    Workers with employer-sponsored coverage don’t qualify for subsidized coverage on Obamacare’s insurance exchanges. Those subsidies are designed for low-income people who aren’t offered coverage from their employers, and have to shop for insurance on their own. But the labor union leaders want those subsidies to also apply to their members with employer-sponsored coverage, even though they already get those benefits tax-free due to the employer tax exclusion for health insurance.

    There’s nothing in this that I don’t agree with. Period. Taft-Hartley plans get the employer-sponsored health insurance tax deduction. That’s their “subsidy”. The ACA was not designed in order to give such plans another tax break/credit. Avik’s right.

    Not that the unions don’t have a concern:

    “The unions think it will be cheaper for employers to drop out of the Taft-Hartley plans and go on the health exchange,” said Paul Secunda, a labor law professor at Marquette University School of Law. “This puts pressure on the unions who want to keep workers satisfied and make sure they have a reason to belong to the union.”

    Here’s why the unions think that could happen. DeFrehn says 90 percent of the employers in these plans have fewer than 50 workers. While larger employers will face penalties if they don’t offer health insurance, these smaller employers would not. At the end of a union contract, they would be perfectly free under the law to drop coverage and encourage workers to buy through an exchange.

    The exchanges could be an attractive option for another reason. In an exchange, workers with family incomes as high as 400 percent of federal poverty level would be eligible for a subsidy from the federal government.

    I understand this is a worry for the unions. But giving their plans subsidies as well as the tax breaks seems an awful lot like pandering. I’m open to arguments as to why I’m wrong, as always, but in this case I’m not seeing why this was a “flaw” in Obamacare. The crappy status quo of health insurance can’t be used as a tool to keep unions going. As I’ve said before, tons of wonks favor decoupling insurance from employment entirely, which I’m sure the unions would hate as well.

    By the way, I expect the unions to go crazy about the excise tax in the future, too. I’ll be consistent there, as well.

    @aaronecarroll

    Share
    Comments closed
     
    • The unions aren’t upset about a flaw in the ACA. The union members voted on something without knowing what was in it. Pelosi made that clear before the bill was passed: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it…” Now they know what is in it and find that the ACA doesn’t do what they thought it would do. Join the crowd. Even Harry Reid had to ask for a waiver for his state.

      The entire American public is now subject to this bill with alterations taking place on a continuous basis and portions of the bill being dropped before the the ACA officially began. The ACA is a failure and will do and is doing great harm to the nation, but why should politicians care if they get reelected? Despite the transparency promised by the President and a waiting period for this type of legislation it was passed and signed in the ‘middle of the night’ before it was even proofread.

    • R23st: you are taking a Nancy Pelosi quote wildly out of context. The people who regularly read this blog are quite knowledgeable about health care policy, the ACA and related issues. Why would you think that repeating this silly claim would impress anyone and why would you think that we haven’t already seen the same claim repeated several hundred (I’m not exagerating) times already?

    • “As I’ve said before, tons of wonks favor decoupling insurance from employment entirely, which I’m sure the unions would hate as well.”

      This makes an extremely broad generalization and treats unions as a monolithic institution. Both are big mistakes.

      For decades the United Auto Workers had the best health care plans in the nation–linked to employment at the Big Three auto companies and negotiated by the UAW. Yet the union and its leader were the strongest advocates in the nation, from the late 1940s onward, for a national health insurance program. Walter Reuther, the president, pointed to the successes those Europe or Canada. For most of that time the UAW also represented the Canadian auto workers and it wasn’t lost on it leaders that it was far cheaper to produce cars in Canada where the companies didn’t pay insurance costs.

      “The unions” have a multitude of views on health insurance. But the most powerful advocates of single payer have always been from the labor movement.

      Bob Lucore
      Former Director of Research and Policy
      United American Nurses (AFL-CIO)

    • This is Terry O’Malley, criminal defense attorney, a criminal defense attorney, a criminal professional indemnity insurance tutor steals your personal information and it is stabilized.

      Significantly, we have to evict professional indemnity insurance tutor
      that tenant. This timeline applies to banks not
      subject to the advanced approaches requirements must use the method shown here.
      Then we’ll talk a little bit of information about yourself and your business.