ObamaCare's GOP gift
By Charles Lane
Published: Thursday, Oct. 3, 2013, 8:55 p.m.
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 health-care 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. Now, negotiating for health benefits is 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 Democrat politicians depend.
The law does this in several ways. 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 health-care economists, 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 health-care exchanges also disfavor unions. When organizers try to recruit members today, health care is often a big selling point. What will organizers tell workers who, thanks to ObamaCare, already have access to subsidized health care?
Then there are the “Taft-Hartley” plans, which serve unions whose members work for various companies over their careers. 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. Suddenly, nonunion employers have a new competitive advantage.
Labor was blindsided this summer by President Obama's decision to delay the employer mandate by a year. Having the employer and individual mandates start simultaneously 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 health care, and some may abandon their coverage, knowing that their workers must go to the exchanges. And a worker insured by the exchange is one who doesn't need a union to get insurance.
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. 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, a former editor of The Atlantic, is a member of The Washington Post's editorial board.
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.
- Steelers to release LaMarr Woodley; Taylor apparently staying
- Penguins notebook: Heralded Russian Evgeny Kuznetsov debuts with Capitals
- NFL notebook: Jets cut former Super Bowl MVP Santonio Holmes
- Kovacevic: Big Ben’s contract clock ticking
- NHL notebook: GMs discuss possible changes to overtime
- Harper hires another attorney to handle request to reduce sentence
- Fear of building collapse closes Tarentum road
- Pirates notebook: Martin finding power stroke
- Primanti’s manager admits stealing $30,000 from restaurants
- Penn State’s Franklin cherishes memories of time spent in Pittsburgh
- Top pitching prospect Taillon’s time with Pirates must wait