A union's distress
ObamaCare “threatens the middle class with higher premiums, loss of hours, and a shift to part-time work and less comprehensive coverage.” That rhetoric isn't surprising, but its source is: a national labor union's new report to pro-union members of Congress.
Unite Here says ObamaCare will effectively cut the pay of the 300,000 low-wage hospitality workers it represents by up to $5 an hour, The Washington Examiner reports. The union says ObamaCare incentivizes employers to push members onto ObamaCare “exchanges,” where more expensive health-insurance premiums could cost as much as half their pay.
Unite Here also contends that ObamaCare's at odds with one of President Obama's major political themes: “Only in Washington could asking the bottom of the middle class to finance health care for the poorest families be seen as reducing inequality.”
And that comes from “the first union to endorse then-Senator Obama,” as Unite Here's head says in a note with the report. The union even charges that ObamaCare breaks the president's promise about being able to keep plans by sending union-provided health insurance into a “death spiral.”
Unite Here urges “smart fixes,” but a piecemeal approach would be as dumb as ObamaCare itself. Better to entirely scrap ObamaCare — which even this president's ardent supporters now recognize as the monstrosity it is — and start over with a solution that doesn't hand one-sixth of the economy over to government.
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.
- American contrasts: Post-Ferguson
- Thanksgiving briefing ...
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- U.N. Watch: Cheering on Iran
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: The Pa. attorney general’s credibility is gone
- Obama’s amnesty: Abuse of power
- The Wounded Warrior scandal: Fire Philip Burdette
- Saturday essay: Prelude to thanks
- The Hagel ‘resignation’: Toadies need apply