Obamacare’s GOP gift

 

The Washington Post

Say what you want about Republicans’ obsession with destroying Obamacare. One thing they can’t be accused of is acting in calculated, partisan self-interest.

If all the GOP cared about was hurting Democrats, Republicans might support the healthcare law — because it threatens a core Democratic Party constituency: organized labor.

Collective bargaining in this country developed under a system of employer-based health insurance, which government encouraged via generous tax breaks. In European nations with state-run universal coverage, unions focus on pay and working conditions. Here, they have the added function of negotiating for health benefits.

By now, that’s much, if not most, of what unions do in return for members’ dues.

Obamacare undermines this function and, therefore, labor’s already diminished power to attract and maintain members, whose dues fill the campaign treasuries upon which many Democratic politicians depend.

The law does this in several ways. The first is the 40-percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans — employer-provided insurance costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. This cost-control measure, widely hailed by healthcare economists, takes effect in 2018 and will hit many union plans. Over time, it will create a de facto cap on the benefits for which unions can bargain.

Obamacare’s individual healthcare exchanges also disfavor unions. When organizers try to recruit members today, healthcare is often a big selling point. What will organizers tell workers who, thanks to Obamacare, already have access to subsidized healthcare?

Then there are the “Taft-Hartley” plans, which serve unions whose members work for various companies over their careers, rather than for one firm. These plans, common in the hospitality and construction industries, gather contributions from employers and buy insurance for 6.2 million active participants, according to the Labor Department.

Obamacare menaces these affordable, portable plans by providing both workers and employers an affordable, portable alternative — the exchanges — that requires no union middleman and is partly subsidized by the tax on union plans. Suddenly, nonunion employers have a new competitive advantage.

Laborers’ International Union President Terry O’Sullivan is so upset that he has threatened to support repeal of Obamacare unless the administration gives tax subsidies to Taft-Hartley plans, like it does for individuals on the exchanges. Alas for O’Sullivan, there appears to be no legal way to do so.

A natural question: If Obamacare has so many provisions bad for unions, why did most of them support passage?

It’s a bit of a mystery. The answer seems to be that Obamacare was a progressive goal, unions are progressive, ergo unions were for Obamacare.

They did negotiate changes, such as a lower “Cadillac tax” with a later start date. Perhaps labor thought it could go back to Congress after the bill passed for relief on the tax and other issues, such as Taft-Hartley plans. If so, that became impossible after the GOP took back the House by campaigning against Obamacare.

Labor was blindsided this summer by President Obama’s decision to delay the employer mandate by a year, to 2015. Having the employer and individual mandates start simultaneously was crucial to labor’s support for the bill, as it kept the employer-based system — from which unions benefit — on an equal footing with Obamacare’s new individual-based market.

Now, however, there’s only an individual mandate until 2015. Employers are under no mandate to provide healthcare, and some may abandon their coverage, knowing that their workers must go to the exchanges.

Again, a worker insured by the exchange is one who doesn’t need a union to get insurance.

In truth, there was always tension between the interests of organized labor and the goal of universal health coverage, regardless of employment status.

A 2009 AFL-CIO resolution backed government-run single-payer healthcare — as long as it did “not diminish the hard-fought benefits currently enjoyed by our members” and permitted unions “to collectively bargain supplemental coverage.” Translation: Unions want healthcare for all, plus more for them.

In reaction to the unions’ clash with Obamacare, Republicans offer little but rhetoric, the gist of which is “we told you so,” and continue demanding total repeal, as if the unions’ objections were additional valid reasons to oppose the law.

What they seem not to grasp is that the features of the law that the unions hate are those that many Americans, including many who do not currently vote Republican, might like: the end of health insurance “job lock,” say, or bending the cost curve through limits on Cadillac plans.

If Republicans were smart, they might support those aspects of the law, instead of total repeal. But, as we have seen in recent days, that is a very big “if.”

Charles Lane is a member of The Washington Post’s editorial board.

© 2013, The Washington Post

Read more From Our Inbox stories from the Miami Herald

  • ‘Poor doors’ inevitable in Manhattan real estate

    Everybody’s mad about the “poor door.” This is the name critics have bestowed upon the separate entrance for the affordable-housing units at a planned new luxury building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Those who pay market rates would have access to extra amenities – gym, pool, Hudson River views – as well as their own doors and lobby.

  • 3 ideas from Paul Ryan’s poverty plan that liberals can love

    Liberals are used to hating Rep. Paul Ryan.

  • Ignoring climate change could sink the US economy

    Good economic decisions require good data. And to get good data, we must account for all relevant variables. But we’re not doing this when it comes to climate change — and that means we’re making decisions based on a flawed picture of future risks. While we can’t define future climate-change risks with precision, they should be included in economic policy, fiscal and business decisions because of their potential magnitude.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category