Unions - Win with Healthcare Reform

chestnut

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Messages
1,222
Just another bailout. This time for Unions that gave Obama so much in campaign contributions and helped get him elected.

Insights: Economics
Government healthcare to bring windfall to unions
If government-provided health care coverage through insurance exchanges passes, then taxpayers--not consumers--would foot the bill for health costs

by James Sherk Monday, September 07, 2009

Print
Discuss
Unions strongly support President Obama's health care reform, which includes a plan for a government-run "public option" that would crowd out private health insurance. Labor publicly argues that the current health care system serves Americans poorly. However, unions also have self-interested motives for promoting government-run health care:

The legislation includes a $10 billion bailout of union retiree health plans;
Nationalized health care would lead to millions of new dues-paying union members as government employees unionize more frequently than private sector workers; and
National health care would also reduce unionized companies' competitive disadvantage.
However, unions do not support all health care reform plans. When Senators proposed taxing health benefits to pay for health care reform--a tax that would disproportionately fall on union members--the labor movement threatened to derail the legislation. Union support for health care reform is highly self-interested.

Unions Pushing for Government Health Care

Unions strongly support health care reform and have made supporting a "public plan" that would lead to a government-run single-payer system their top priority. In fact, after opponents protested at town hall meetings this summer, the AFL-CIO spent $15 million to stage counter-demonstrations with union members.[1]

Why has organized labor made government-dominated health care such a priority? The AFL-CIO publicly argues that the "real-world toll of soaring health care costs, lack of insurance and systemic flaws in our health care system must come to an end."[2] They further state that their goal "is to win secure, high-quality health care for all."[3] Many union leaders and activists do genuinely believe this. However, the labor movement has not spent such large sums of money campaigning for health care reform out of disinterested concern for the common good: Unions will benefit immensely if the government takes over the health care system.

Taxpayer Bailout

The most obvious benefit President Obama's health care plan provides to organized labor is a $10 billion taxpayer bailout for underfunded retiree health benefit plans. Many unions negotiate benefit packages that allow workers to retire early and collect health benefits until they qualify for Medicare. Many of these plans they are underfunded because unions mismanaged them.[4]

The healthcare legislation transfers $10 billion to these accounts, in the form of a reinsurance program that pays most of the cost of claims for workers in these plans.[5] Like the GM and Chrysler bailouts, the health care legislation requires all taxpayers--including low income workers without retirement plans--to pay for benefits for already well-compensated union workers.

Government Health Care Facilitates Unionization

Government-dominated health care would transform union organizing. Whether or not the government explicitly nationalizes the health care industry, government funding and government-dictated standards eliminate competition. Under health care reform, unionized hospitals would not face a competitive disadvantage because no competition would exist. All health care workers would become quasi-public employees. Whatever costs unions increased would be passed on to the taxpayer and not threaten union members' jobs. For instance, taxpayers would cover the costs of reduced productivity due to inflexible union work rules. Prospective union members would know this and, as a result, become more likely to unionize. Every step toward government-run health insurance vastly simplifies the process of organizing new union members and keeping existing union members employed.

This is precisely what happened in Canada, a nation culturally and economically similar to the United States, but with government-run single payer health care. While only 18 percent of nurses belong to unions in the United States, 78 percent do in Canada.[6] A full 61 percent of all Canadian health care workers belong to unions, well above the 11 percent in the United States.[7]

Given these figures, it is no wonder that the Service Employees International Union supports government-dominated health care so strongly. The SEIU represents health care workers. Under a government-run health care system, the SEIU could easily organize millions of new members who would then pay billions of dollars in mandatory dues. For example, if unions organized nurses at the same rate in America as they do under Canada's national health care system, they would bring in two million new members paying roughly $1.8 billion a year in dues.[8] Whatever its effects on the overall quality of health care, government health care would bring a financial windfall to the labor movement.

Reduce Unions Competitive Disadvantages

Unions who do not represent health care workers will also benefit from this law because it reduces competition. Unions negotiate gold-plated health benefits for their members that raise their employer's costs. Such expensive benefits, however, put unionized firms at a competitive disadvantage.

However, if the government provided health care coverage through insurance exchanges, then taxpayers--not consumers--would foot the bill for health costs. This would reduce unionized companies competitive disadvantage.

Unions Oppose Legislation They Must Pay For

Union support for health care reform does, however, have its limits. In particular, organized labor does not support health care reform for which it might have to help pay.

For example, Senate Democrats considered paying for the health care reform through taxing employer-provided health benefits. Such taxes would have fallen heavily on union members, since both private and public sector unions have negotiated expensive health benefit plans.

When news reports leaked that the Senate was considering such taxes the labor movement moved to quickly derail that idea. A coalition of 30 major unions sent letters to the Senate expressing their "strong opposition to any proposal that would pay for this reform by altering the tax treatment of employer provided health care."[9] Behind the scenes Organized Labor made it clear they opposed and would defeat any health reform that taxed employer health benefits.[10]

Organized labor supports health care reform only insofar as it benefits unions and their members. Despite their public arguments that the "real-world toll of soaring health care costs, lack of insurance and systemic flaws in our health care system must come to an end," the union movement will not sacrifice its own interests "to win secure, high-quality health care for all."[11]

A Financial Windfall for Unions

Unions claim that they support health care reform out of concern for workers' well-being. Many union leaders genuinely do, but the labor movement as a whole fights for government-run health care out of self interest. The health care reform legislation includes a $10 billion bailout of underfunded union health plans. More significantly, a government takeover of the health care sector would ease union organizing by eliminating competition and turning health care workers into quasi-public employees, as has happened in Canada. Unions would collect billions of dollars of new dues from millions of new workers. Government health care also reduces the competitive disadvantage unionized companies face in the marketplace.

Health care reform means a financial windfall for unions. However, unions oppose health care reform for which they must pay. Congress should not pass any "public plan" that would lead to the government directly or indirectly controlling health insurance at the behest of self-interested union lobbying.

James Sherk is Bradley Fellow in Labor Policy in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
 
Werbung:
What is wrong with this picture? Politicians who deliberately exempted themselves from being forced to sign up for the mandatory Obamacare healthcare tax scheme are gloating over the fact that only 19 million more Americans signed up for the plan that by law Americans are forced to sign up for whether they like it or not? How is the Obamacare mandate not fascist by nature, and why must Americans be forced to sign up if the health tax plan is so wonderful?
 
Werbung:
You make an excellent point. Democrats stole the election for Al Franken in 2008 specifically to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate needed to pass the leftist fascist Democrat Affordable Care mandate. Fortunately for Americans the mandate was removed under Trump. Some Democrat states have passed their own unpopular fascist healthtax mandates, but that is how Democrats think.

What Is the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Individual Mandate? - GoodRx

Homechevron_rightInsurancechevron_rightAffordable Care Act (ACA)

What Is the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Individual Mandate?

Written by Tamara E. Holmes

Updated on December 14, 2023

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) had an individual mandate that required consumers nationwide to have health insurance coverage or pay a penalty.
Advocates argued that the mandate helped to control health insurance costs. Opponents said consumers should be able to decide whether they wanted to buy health insurance without consequence.
Congress voted to remove the ACA individual mandate in 2017. Since then, some states have enacted their own mandates, but not all of them carry a financial penalty.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare, is the sweeping health-reform law enacted in 2010.

One of the most controversial aspects of the Affordable Care Act was the individual mandate.
The mandate aimed to encourage people in the U.S. to maintain health insurance coverage. This meant that most people who were not signed up for health insurance faced a financial penalty. The mandate drew widespread criticism from those who believed having a health insurance plan should be a personal choice.

Why was the individual mandate included in the ACA?

The individual mandate was a provision within the Affordable Care Act that required individuals to purchase minimum essential coverage or face a tax penalty, unless they were eligible for an exemption.
Mandate supporters argued that a penalty would increase the number of people who had health insurance. They also said the mandate would help to control costs, because a larger pool of younger and healthier customers would offset the healthcare system’s expenses for those who were older and sicker. Mandate opponents argued that no one should be forced to buy health insurance.

What were the requirements for the ACA individual mandate?

The individual mandate required adults and their dependents to have health insurance. ...

Is the ACA individual mandate still in effect nationwide?

No, the ACA individual mandate is no longer in effect. From the moment the Affordable Care Act went into effect, the public had a divided opinion about the individual mandate and penalty. And a 2017 report by the Urban Institute’s Health Policy Center found that 39.3% of adults ages 18 to 64 surveyed wanted to repeal the individual mandate. By comparison, 29.6% wanted to keep it and 30.5% were undecided.

The mandate was particularly unpopular among Republicans. In 2017, a Republican-led Congress eliminated the penalty (effective 2019) for people without health insurance by passing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. ...

In California, where residents have a penalty for not having coverage, the amount varies annually. For the 2022 tax year, the penalty was at least ...

In New Jersey, the penalty is assessed based on how many months people in the household did not have minimum essential coverage or a coverage exemption. For the 2024 tax year, the amount ranges between $695 and $3,960 for an individual taxpayer and increases based on the number of additional uninsured people in the household as well as household income.
In Rhode Island, the penalty is whichever of these amounts is greater:
2.5% of annual household income
$695 per adult and $347.50 per dependent under 18
In the District of Columbia, the penalty for the 2023 tax year is the greater of:
2.5% of household income over the federal tax filing threshold
$745 per adult and $372.50 per dependent under 18, with a cap of $2,235 per family
States that require health coverage information
In Vermont, there is no financial penalty, as mentioned. However, residents must report whether they have health insurance when they file their state taxes. Similarly, Maryland asks residents about health insurance status when they file taxes as an avenue to enrollment.

Why do some states still mandate healthcare coverage?

According to a report by USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy, some states still mandate health insurance coverage in an attempt to reduce costs for everybody. The argument is that healthy people buying coverage not only gives them access to care but also offsets costs for less-healthy people who access services more frequently.
States also mandate coverage to ensure health insurance policies meet certain standards and to increase revenue.
Reporting mandates as a path to health insurance coverage
While most states don't mandate coverage, some use creative ways to entice residents to buy health insurance. As mentioned, Maryland asks residents about their health insurance status on state tax forms. Then, the state notifies residents if they are eligible for Medicaid or subsidized insurance from the state’s health insurance marketplace.
What is the employer mandate and how is it different from the Obamacare individual mandate?
As mentioned, the Obamacare individual mandate required individuals in the U.S. to have health insurance. The employer mandate is a part of the Affordable Care Act that requires businesses of a certain size to offer health insurance to their employees. Employers with 50 or more full-time employees must offer minimum essential coverage to 95% of their full-time staff or pay a penalty. While the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate has ended, the employer mandate is still in effect.
The bottom line
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) individual mandate encouraged consumers to have health insurance by imposing a financial penalty if they did not have coverage or an exemption. Congress removed the ACA individual mandate in 2017 and the change was effective in 2019. But some states have their own healthcare mandates that impose financial penalties. Other states ask about insurance status on state tax filings, but do not impose a penalty. This information is then used to usher uninsured residents who qualify into options such as subsidized ACA marketplace coverage or Medicaid.
References
Abend, C. (2023). What do individual healthcare mandates look like in your state? Equifax Workforce Solutions.
Congress.gov. (2017). H.R.1 - An act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018.
 
Back
Top