Karma time: Unions figure out Obamacare is a nightmare

Feb. 5, 2013

By Chris Reed

As I noted in a CalWatchdog post last week, the California media are covering the state government’s aggressive attempts to lead the nation in the early implemenation of Obamacare without bringing up its immense fundamental problems.

Beginning next Jan. 1, most companies with at least 50 full-time employees have to offer health insurance. But if they don’t, the fine is a pittance -– $2,000 per employee per year –- compared with the cost of providing health insurance. This creates a gigantic incentive for businesses to drop health coverage and push their employees toward getting insurance though government-run exchanges set up by Obamacare. If a struggling company could swiftly become a prosperous one by offloading 70 percent or more of the cost of providing health coverage, many thousands are going to do it. Some might face shareholder suits if they don’t.

“Also beginning next January, individuals without employer-provided health insurance will face fines under an income-based formula that mandates a penalty of less than $1,000 for those making under $40,000 a year. That $40,000 is significantly higher than the median household income for adults younger than 35, a subset that’s much healthier than older adults. All adults will have an incentive to only buy health insurance when they get sick; under Obamacare, they can no longer be rejected for pre-existing conditions. But these young, healthy adults will have a gigantic incentive.”

Now the fact that this law is the worst piece of legislation since the Indiana legislature voted unanimously for a bill to change the numerical value of pi is beginning to sink in with a Democratic interest group that was one of its hugest supporters: labor unions. This is karma on many fronts, and vindication for the many who said the law was larded with regulations that would have unanticipated negative implications.

It will ‘make union workers less competitive’

This is from the Wall Street Journal:

“Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.

“To offset that, the nation’s largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance. …

“Contacted for this article, Obama administration officials said the issue is subject to regulations still being written … .

“Top officers at the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the AFL-CIO and other large labor groups plan to keep pressing the Obama administration to expand the federal subsidies to these jointly run plans, warning that unionized employers may otherwise drop coverage. A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans and onto private coverage subsidized by the government. But dropping insurance altogether would undermine a central point of joining a union, labor leaders say. …

“The Teamsters’ Mr. Hall said his union has no plans to eliminate workers’ insurance. Instead, he worries employers will have an incentive to drop coverage in collective bargaining if they can’t tap the subsidies.”

Some of the policies that unions object to may actually be defensible for forcing an acknowledgment of how the heavy cost of health care escapes compensation taxation, which encourages higher spending on health care. But the larger gripe of unions, the idea that they had no idea how sweeping this would be and how it would rock their world, is hilarious in context. Obamacare’s critics weren’t just ideologues. They were serious policy people. And on nearly every front, their warnings are being validated. But supporters aren’t being held to account for their willing blindness.

When will the ideologues who pretend to be neutral Sacramento journalists point this out?

The over-under is May 1, 2018.

When George Skelton sets the agenda, the real world is ignored.


Write a comment
  1. Hondo
    Hondo 5 February, 2013, 07:57

    The unions and the politicians who supported this horrific 2500 page document didn’t read it. They only supported it because the republicans were against it.
    The rupublicans could have destroyed Obama in the last election if they simply ran against Obummer care. I mean, in detail. Americans ain’t stupid. That bill was.
    But the republicans nominated the only candidate who couldn’t run against Obamacare. Mitt Romney. He wrote the dam thing. Obamacare was modeled in many ways to Romneycare in Mass.
    Obamacare, which will start in 2014, an election year, will be a catastrophe for the dems because there are so many fundamental problems, simply try to amend it is impossible.
    But the republicans will find a way to blow this election, too.

    Reply this comment
  2. Dyspeptic
    Dyspeptic 5 February, 2013, 08:00

    “the California media are covering the state government’s aggressive attempts to lead the nation in the early implemenation of Obamacare without bringing up its immense fundamental problems.”

    That’s their job. The corporate infotainment industry is an extension of the political elites. Their salient function is to help the politicians scam the legion of doofus voters with happy talk propaganda. Fact free “news” keeps the masses distracted, ignorant and satisfied with the status quo.

    “When will the ideologues who pretend to be neutral Sacramento journalists point this out?”

    Sometime after hell freezes over.

    Reply this comment
  3. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 5 February, 2013, 12:06

    My life with increasing medical insurance premiums is already a nightmare. How could OCA make things any worse? I won’t be able to opinonate on the OCA until I experience what it entails.

    Reply this comment
  4. Rex the Wonder Dog!
    Rex the Wonder Dog! 5 February, 2013, 14:43

    My life with increasing medical insurance premiums is already a nightmare.
    Why, you dont pay for it.

    Reply this comment
  5. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 5 February, 2013, 15:33

    Oh, yes I do. My out-of-pccket to my former employer, every month for the ABC Medical Insurance premiums, which are secondary to Medicare, for me and my spouse, is $1341/mo. Then we are also out-of-pocket for the Medioare premiums. My employer’s coverage for me is capped and the premium has doubled since I retired five year’s ago. The ABC premium currently takes 38% of my CalPERS, monthly take-home. And then the Medicare premiums are above that. What do you mean, I don’t pay? You will take what I just said here, ignore it, and continue going on these forums to tell your gigantic lies about how public retirees are all millionaires!!!!!

    Reply this comment
  6. Sean Morham
    Sean Morham 6 February, 2013, 12:18

    Hondo, The republicans will be blamed for the bad effects of Obamacare by the Big Daddy, and the media will gladly go along with it.

    Reply this comment
  7. doug
    doug 6 February, 2013, 12:48

    how can it be blamed on repubs? its called “ObamaCare”
    its based on the saviors plan for equal distribution and right to healthcare.
    or will it be more of blaming the medical insurance companies being evil?

    now i’m left wondering if my current employer will offer healthcare to me next year.

    not a good feeling and i work in California, the most “business-friendly” state in the Union.

    Reply this comment
  8. SeeSaw
    SeeSaw 7 February, 2013, 12:23

    The insurance companies are evil, Doug. They are pocketing all the fees and the Drs. are getting a pittance. There is an ongoing dispute between ABC and my local hospital, because ABC refuses to pay what it owes to the Hospital. My hospital, the largest non-profit hospital in the area, is no longer signing any contracts with ABC–a bad situation for those of us who want an alternative to Kaiser.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply

Related Articles

CA Dems Always Blame Wall Street

Steven Greenhut: What’s wrong with California? The answer is pretty obvious to any sane person. It’s a gorgeous state, great

Obamacare: Not enough doctors in CA, FL

Feb. 26, 2013 By John Seiler An axiom of Econ. 101 is: Lower cost increases demand. That’s what’s happening to

Paywatch: $200,000 Lifeguard Salary

John Seiler: In better days, lifeguards were young guys and gals who pulled hapless folks out of the drink. It