The union label: ObamaCare is a turkey
“The unintended consequences ... are severe. Perverse incentives are causing nightmare scenarios.”
It's not the statement about ObamaCare that's surprising. What's surprising, and ironic, is whose it is.
The statement comes from a July 11 letter that the international presidents of the Teamsters, United Food and Commercial Workers and UNITE-HERE unions — leading advocates of ObamaCare's passage — sent to two of its chief legislative architects, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Writing for Forbes, Avik Roy, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow who advised Mitt Romney's campaign on health policy, explains why these unions are demanding ObamaCare fixes:
• They don't like employers cutting workers' weekly hours below 30 to avoid required coverage for full-time staff.
• Other mandates will raise costs of some unionized industries' “multi-employer plans,” whose members are ineligible for subsidized coverage via “exchanges.”
• Once union contracts end, smaller employers likely will drop coverage entirely.
• And ObamaCare means less union say about health benefits overall, which means less reason for workers to join and pay dues.
Mr. Roy says unions “had every opportunity to take the bill in a different direction in 2009. That they didn't is no one's fault but their own.” That speaks volumes about unions, their Democrat puppets in Washington — and why ObamaCare must be stopped in its tracks.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The flood of illegals: Misplaced blame
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Same old Cuba
- The Box
- The federal budget: Here we go again
- ‘Diversity’ or discrimination?: A step back