Now Unions Upset with Obamacare

[Rupert Pupkin]

"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."

http://news.yahoo.com/unions-now-ang...074904729.html

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

"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."

http://news.yahoo.com/unions-now-ang...074904729.html

And another issue is that many may want their employer to drop the coverages. Why? Because, if you have group coverage at work, you cannot go thru an exchange, thus you cannot get a subsidy-and if you were in an exchange, it might be cheaper for you to go on your own. Employers pay a percentage of their employees health bennies, but they do not typically extend that to family members.

by the same token, younger, single people do not benefit from exchanges as health insurers are changing from five age bands to three, so younger buyers will be lumped into a group with a higher age, thus higher prices.

[GenuineRisk]

Interesting link, thanks for posting it. I'm skeptical about this though, as it's a lot of fear over what "might" happen, without any sense that it's going to.

Thing is, as much as employers would like their employees to think that health insurance is some freebie that the employer gives out of the goodness of their heart, it's not; it's part of the employees compensation package. The employee gets health insurance in lieu of higher wages, and the employer gets some pretty generous tax benefits for providing health insurance, and the more they spend on health care, the bigger the break. I'm not sure that the tax break companies get is changing; I don't think it is, as I couldn't find a link to it in my five minutes of Googling; if I'm wrong, let me know. So companies that choose not to offer health care who currently do will lose a tax break.

And they'll probably lose employees, unless they offer an increased pay to offset the loss of care. In the case of the unions, union members are, generally, better paid than non-union employees (though the presence of unions does raise wages for everyone), and they also have more negotiating power with their employer. If the employer chooses to drop coverage, they'll likely have to negotiate a higher wage to cover the cost of the union members getting their own health insurance. Again, health insurance is part of the employee's pay. Take it away, and you're basically saying you're cutting your employee's salary by at least 15 percent, probably more. If you're a highly skilled worker (the kind most likely to have good employer-sponsored health insurance) and your salary is slashed by 15 percent, what are you likely to tell your employer he or she can do with the job?

Here are a couple links, for those who want to get a bit more informed on the subject.

Tax Breaks for Employer-Sponsored Health Care

Look at ACA's Impact on Employer-Sponsored Health Care

In the end, though it's currently not expected to change the number of employer sponsored plans much, it's not necessarily a negative if more people move to individual plans. Those that do are essentially freed from the chains of their day job, in that they can take their insurance with them and the job no longer has that as a bargaining chip in keeping the employee with the company. So companies might have to pay the worker more, or offer a better working environment or any number of things they have been able to avoid because of the employee's fear of losing health coverage. It takes a lot of power away from the employer and gives it to the employee.

[Danzig]

if your employer offers group coverage, you cannot buy thru an exchange. you have to get in the group.

and theyre hoping employers keep their plans, else the cost rises for the govt, therefore, the taxpayers.

[dellinger63]

Americans and I guess now illegals who have pre-existing conditions due to their own behavior should be excluded entirely from the exchanges freeing up resources for those who need coverage with existing conditions due to no fault of their own.

A drunk, obese, smoker is a far different situation than a child born with lung, liver, heart problems even if the parents are those same drunk, obese smokers.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Americans and I guess now illegals who have pre-existing conditions due to their own behavior should be excluded entirely from the exchanges freeing up resources for those who need coverage with existing conditions due to no fault of their own.

A drunk, obese, smoker is a far different situation than a child born with lung, liver, heart problems even if the parents are those same drunk, obese smokers.

That's ridiculous. if we used your ideas about people and how they get their conditions, i guess you wouldnt want to cover pregnancy.
and illegal immigrant aren't allowed in exchanges.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Americans and I guess now illegals who have pre-existing conditions due to their own behavior should be excluded entirely from the exchanges freeing up resources for those who need coverage with existing conditions due to no fault of their own.

Dell's hero: