Some unions now angry about health care overhaul

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Some unions now angry about health care overhaul

http://news.yahoo.com/unions-now-angry-health-care-overhaul-074904729.html




WASHINGTON (AP) — Some labor unions that enthusiastically backed President Barack Obama's health care overhaul are now frustrated and angry, fearful that it will jeopardize benefits for millions of their members.
Union leaders warn that unless the problem is fixed, there could be consequences for Democrats facing re-election next year.


"It makes an untruth out of what the president said — that if you like your insurance, you could keep it," said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. "That is not going to be true for millions of workers now."


The problem lies in the unique multiemployer health plans that cover unionized workers in retail, construction, transportation and other industries with seasonal or temporary employment. Known as Taft-Hartley plans, they are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers that pool resources to offer more than 20 million workers and family members continuous coverage, even during times of unemployment.
The union plans were already more costly to run than traditional single-employer health plans.


But Obama's Affordable Care Act has added to that cost — for the unions' and other plans — by requiring health plans to cover dependents up to age 26, eliminate annual or lifetime coverage limits and extend coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.


"We're concerned that employers will be increasingly tempted to drop coverage through our plans and let our members fend for themselves on the health exchanges," said David Treanor, director of health care initiatives at the Operating Engineers union.


Workers seeking coverage in the state-based marketplaces, known as exchanges, can qualify for subsidies, determined by a sliding scale based on income. By contrast, the new law does not allow workers in the union plans to receive similar subsidies.


Bob Laszewski, a health care industry consultant, said the real fear among unions is that "a lot of these labor contracts are very expensive, and now employers are going to have an alternative to very expensive labor health benefits."


"If the workers can get benefits that are as good through Obamacare in the exchanges, then why do you need the union?" Laszewski said. "In my mind, what the unions are fearing is that workers for the first time can get very good health benefits for a subsidized cost someplace other than the employer."


However, Laszewski said it was unlikely employers would drop the union plans immediately because they are subject to ongoing collective bargaining agreements.


Labor unions have been among the president's closest allies, spending millions of dollars to help him win re-election and help Democrats keep their majority in the Senate. The wrangling over health care comes as unions have continued to see steady declines in membership and attacks on public employee unions in state legislatures around the country. The Obama administration walks a fine line between defending the president's signature legislative achievement and not angering a powerful constituency as it looks ahead to the 2014 elections.


Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Firefighters, said unions have spent more than a year trying to get a regulatory fix that would allow low-income workers in union plans to receive subsidies too. But labor leaders say they have been told it won't happen. And new legislation is unlikely anytime soon.


Both Hanson and Schaitberger said the frustration could spill over into the 2014 election cycle if union concerns aren't addressed.
"It started out with some anxiety, and I think it's translated into more anger," Schaitberger said.


Sabrina Siddiqui, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, declined to discuss the specifics of any negotiations between the administration and union officials. But she said the law helps bring down costs and improve quality of care.


Katie Mahoney, executive director of health policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said employers were concerned about possible increases in health care costs and would do what was needed to keep their businesses running and retain worker talent. The Chamber has not taken a position on the union concerns, but Mahoney said it was highly unlikely that the administration would consider subsidies for workers in the union plans.
"They are not going to offset the expense of added mandates under the health care law, which employers and unions are going to pay for," Mahoney said.


Unions say their health care plans in many cases offer better coverage with broader doctors' networks and lower premiums than what would be available in the exchanges, particularly when it comes to part-time workers.


"It's not favoritism. We want to be treated fairly," said Hansen, whose union has about 800,000 of its 1.3 million members covered under Taft-Hartley policies. "We would expect more help from this administration."
Unions backed the health care legislation because they expected it to curb inflation in health coverage, reduce the number of uninsured Americans and level the playing field for companies that were already providing quality benefits. While unions knew there were lingering issues after the law passed, they believed those could be fixed through rulemaking.


But last month, the union representing roofers issued a statement calling for "repeal or complete reform" of the health care law. Kinsey Robinson, president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, complained that labor's concerns over the health care law "have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored."


"In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the act's provisions were not fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it," Robinson said.
Oh poor poor unions, maybe now you will finally wake up and realize the Democrat party has been bought and paid for by the those evil corporations you all rant against while throwing you a bone for your vote, the useful idiots you are.


Years ago you should have broken off and formed your own party when you had the numbers to do it before NAFTA, GATT and other trade policies crippled you,

because when your Democrat puppet masters have enough Walmart/welfare votes and finally don't need you any more they will throw you under the bus too.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
The fact that the following statement was included makes me question the entire thing:
...

But Obama's Affordable Care Act has added to that cost — for the unions' and other plans — by requiring health plans to cover dependents up to age 26,

...
Why would that specifically makes insurance more expensive? It's free money to insurers.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,302
144
106
the only thing that is in jepoardy is UNION labor health benefits and health benefits contracts between UNIONS and INSURERS

big surprise some unions are upset over that.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
The fact that the following statement was included makes me question the entire thing:Why would that specifically makes insurance more expensive? It's free money to insurers.

It adds a LOT to the cost because previously the insurance company would not have had to cover that person (the 25 year old kid), the person would have had no coverage or had to buy his/her own and pay premiums. Now that person has to be covered as a dependent under the parent's coverage, which means the insurance has to cover one or more additional people without receiving any more premium.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
It adds a LOT to the cost because previously the insurance company would not have had to cover that person (the 25 year old kid), the person would have had no coverage or had to buy his/her own and pay premiums. Now that person has to be covered as a dependent under the parent's coverage, which means the insurance has to cover one or more additional people without receiving any more premium.
What are you talking about? Some plans may have a family option that doesn't charge more per dependent but others do charge more. And 18-26 has got to be the absolute cheapest age block to insure.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
What are you talking about? Some plans may have a family option that doesn't charge more per dependent but others do charge more. And 18-26 has got to be the absolute cheapest age block to insure.

That might be a cheaper block to insure, but when people have family coverage, it normally covers dependent children, which now includes those from 18 to 26. Any time you add people to be covered it's going to cost money. The premiums are not just made up numbers, the insurers spend a lot of time and resources figuring out exactly how much it costs to insure each person.

The insurers are happy when younger people (ie those not costing a lot of money) are forced to buy health insurance, because that's a very profitable segment, but adding them to existing coverage without adding additional premium is another matter.
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
That might be a cheaper block to insure, but when people have family coverage, it normally covers dependent children, which now includes those from 18 to 26. Any time you add people to be covered it's going to cost money. The premiums are not just made up numbers, the insurers spend a lot of time and resources figuring out exactly how much it costs to insure each person.

The insurers are happy when younger people (ie those not costing a lot of money) are forced to buy health insurance, because that's a very profitable segment, but adding them to existing coverage without adding additional premium is another matter.
That's just it. I think in most cases it will add to the premium.
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,749
584
126
Sounds like a lot of whining from the unions for no reason realy. Boohoo, I have better health insurance than everyone else but now there's is getting better so my employer might try to get me to use that instead. Why don't they just pull their panties up real high and use their union bargaining power to keep their better health insurance if its so important to them?

And the threat is hilarious. I'm sure the unions will be switching to the republican party tomorrow where they will get a much better deal.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Yeah but the subsidized people of california health exchanges are getting cheaper premiums than predicted. So these unions should see the success of the program and just be quiet and ask for another.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
This universal health care does not consider a spouse to be a dependent. Hope your wife works someplace she can get healthcare, or you are paying for that.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
This universal health care does not consider a spouse to be a dependent. Hope your wife works someplace she can get healthcare, or you are paying for that.
Still don't understand what even happened in your own thread, eh? Hillarious. Swing away Merrill, swing away.
 

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
That's just it. I think in most cases it will add to the premium.

It doesn't, though.

General options for coverage are:

Emp
Emp+Spouse
Emp+Dep
Emp+Family

Emp+Family includes spouse and all children. So whereas if I have 3 children aged 12, 16, and 25, I previously would have had only two children covered. Now I'll have 3 children covered, but my premiums are the same.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
It doesn't, though.

General options for coverage are:

Emp
Emp+Spouse
Emp+Dep
Emp+Family

Emp+Family includes spouse and all children. So whereas if I have 3 children aged 12, 16, and 25, I previously would have had only two children covered. Now I'll have 3 children covered, but my premiums are the same.

Well, yes.....

I think the issue is that forcing insurance companies to broaden the people they must cover in some of those groups increases the cost to the insurance company. That increased cost is then passed to the consumer, how much of a cost increase is definitely in question but covering more people obviously costs more.

There is no free lunch.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
Emp+Family includes spouse and all children. So whereas if I have 3 children aged 12, 16, and 25, I previously would have had only two children covered. Now I'll have 3 children covered, but my premiums are the same.

Add in that the more dependents you have on a family policy the easier it is to hit the family deductible and out of pocket max,
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
Hmmm, I'm not sure where it says the US government should manage health care in the Constitution....oh yea, it doesn't.
 

dali71

Golden Member
Oct 1, 2003
1,117
21
81
funny-picture-karma-never-too-far-behind-you.jpg
 

Chris A

Golden Member
Oct 11, 1999
1,431
1
76
Most unions do not have that much barganing power anymore. There are lots of people that will cross a picket line in a heartbeat.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,961
140
106
they pumped all their union dues revenue into the obama and now he's pumping Chicago rackets into the medicine. Elections have consequences.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,125
30,518
136
It doesn't, though.

General options for coverage are:

Emp
Emp+Spouse
Emp+Dep
Emp+Family

Emp+Family includes spouse and all children. So whereas if I have 3 children aged 12, 16, and 25, I previously would have had only two children covered. Now I'll have 3 children covered, but my premiums are the same.
That's one possible scenario in a sea of possibilities. What about people with only 1 kid? What about people with 2 kids aged 18-26? What about all the other people in the world that may have different options besides the 4 you listed?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
That's one possible scenario in a sea of possibilities. What about people with only 1 kid? What about people with 2 kids aged 18-26? What about all the other people in the world that may have different options besides the 4 you listed?

whaa?

those are all listed..
 

Jeffg010

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2008
3,435
1
0
It comes down to all the idiots thinking they were going to get a free ride. Now suck it up you stupid, gullible, Obama kool aid drinkers. You had your chance when McCain said his first thing he was going to do in office was repeal obamacare.

Remember obamacare care is not free.