White House: No Subsidies For Union Health Plans

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

WHITE HOUSE: NO SUBSIDIES FOR UNION HEALTH PLANS

By SAM HANANEL
— Sep. 13 8:01 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Low-income workers on union health plans are not eligible for the same federal subsidies available to those who buy insurance in the new state health care marketplaces, the White House said Friday.

The decision is a disappointment for labor unions, coming shortly after top union officials met for more than an hour with President Barack Obama to press their case that subsidies could be extended to union-sponsored plans.

Labor leaders have complained for months that without the subsidies, the Affordable Care Act would drive up the cost of some union plans, leading employers to drop coverage and jeopardizing health coverage for millions of union members.

The White House cited a Treasury Department letter saying there is no legal way for union members in multiemployer group health plans to receive subsidies. In a statement, the White House said it would work with unions and encourage them to offer their multiemployer plans "through the marketplace, on an equal footing, to create new, high-quality, affordable options for all Americans."

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-meet-union-leaders-health-care

[Myrina]

1. ... A creative way to drive ppl out of unions.

The Kochs must be proud.

[roguevalley]

15. hard to believe what party the white house is part of.

[Igel]

17. Yup. "there is no legal way"

Who does the president think he is, actually following the law instead of doing what unions want?

Next thing you know, people may confuse Democrats for people who actually believe in the rule of law instead of structuring society based on the views of one man and a few oligarchs.

[Cal Carpenter]

20. Umm...who defines the 'rule of law'? Who writes the laws?

The irony in your post is glaring. "...one man and a few oligarchs..." indeed.

The law is not some absolute passive thing that exists in nature. The ACA was touted and written and passed by particular people. Guess which ones?

[Myrina]

21. I thought the goal of the ACA was to help ALL

... americans get healthcare. Not "all Americans - except union members".

[Squinch]

26. What am I missing? Isn't the point that the union plans are already cheaper

than the ones that will be offered on the exchanges, therefore the tax exemptions aren't needed to make them accessible?

I am in a union, and I must be missing some element of this because I'm not getting the problem.

[LiberalFighter]

32. There are different types of plans

I came from one where the single employer provided and managed the plan for the employees.

There are local unions that represent employees from a group of employers. An employee could work for employer A, B or C depending on the available job. Employer A, B or C are all part of the same group. Something that is likely found in the construction or trades industry.

Someone else might be able to better explain this. I think the union members have more control of the plan.

[Squinch]

35. But are their plans likely to cost each member more than a clearinghouse plan?

Or more than a clearinghouse plan coupled with the tax break? My understanding is that they are not likely to.

[LiberalFighter]

43. I wouldn't think so.

The issue might be if they are classified as Cadillac plans which I believe would have a tax.

[Squinch]

44. Oh! This might be what I am missing. Do you mean that if my union benefit

plan is good enough to be equivalent to a Cadillac plan, I could face an extra tax?

[LiberalFighter]

45. If I have the data right...

you would not pay the tax. Your employer would pay a 40 percent tax on amount above $10,200 for an individual or over $27,500 for a family. If your plan results in total premiums paid of $10,522 for an individual there would be a tax on the difference of $322.

It is not suppose to be effective until 2018. IMO what employers with/without unions need to do is negotiate for a plan that provides nearly the same coverage but at reduced costs. With the cost of premiums on the exchanges being lower than many current coverage and better coverage this should be feasible. With almost 5 years to implement costs should be driven down.

[Squinch]

46. Thank you. That is something I didn't know.

[kelliekat44]

36. Not so. People forget that the ACA was primarily to help people WITHOUT health insurance. nt

[SleeplessinSoCal]

2. Fortunately union plans are far more affordable than those without unions.

Somebody ought to frame this point so that it gets through some thick skulls.

I know the pharmaceutical industry and for profit insurance companies have blocked bulk buying up until now. Time to go back at that full strength. Calling Tammy Baldwin!

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/04/tammy-baldwin/uncle-sam-barred-bargaining-medicare-drug-prices-s/

[zbdent]

3. Well, that's surely kowtowing to the unions

like the good fascist communist Muslin we've been told Obama is ...

[Cryptoad]

4. If i understand this correct

that they can cancel their union insurance and still buy their insurance on the ACA ,

[RobinA]

5. I Guess I Am Confused

I am covered by a union plan which is excellent for this day and age. I'm not what you would consider low paid, but I don't get why I would be offered a subsidy if I were. I have great insurance at a reasonable price. Aren't subsidies for people who have to buy on exchanges and don't make enough to afford anything?

[Schema Thing]

6. some subsidies up to 400% of poverty - for insurance sold on exchanges.

[mountain grammy]

8. So a union employee on the group plan who's making a decent wage

and is happy with his/her insurance doesn't get the subsidy someone making about the same income would get on the exchange? But the union, the employer, is subsidizing the employee while the employee pays a share, just like someone at 400% poverty level will pay a share. Idea is affordable care, not free care, and it worked ok until insurance companies decided no one would ever touch them and started gouging and killing people while amassing enormous wealth into a few hands. What other industry gets away with raising rates while cutting benefits and denying life saving care to their customers.
Insurance companies are out of control and all Obamacare does is regulate them.

Personally, I believe Medicare for all is the only sane answer.

[Squinch]

27. I am in a union too, and I feel the same. Are we missing something? I don't see this

as a diss of unions. I see it as a confirmation that the characteristics of union plans - large block buying from single offerers - are the way to go.

The unions tried to get a little more money and it didn't work. OK, worth a try, but it didn't seem all that legit to begin with, so I'm not sorry about the "no" vote.

[quakerboy]

7. It does seem very odd

If the unions can negotiate a lower price than the exchanges, that's a problem the exchanges need to address. I dont understand why any citizen would be denied access to subsidies that they are financially eligible for.

If the exchanges can negotiate a lower price than the unions, thats a whole different issue. But at that point it seems to make sense for the unions to change that aspect of their operations and buy into the exchanges, or better yet, send their individual members to do so.

[Sedona]

9. I'm by no means any kind of expert

just sharing my experience.

My SO is a teamster working in the entertainment industry in Hollywood and he pays ZERO premiums and ridiculously tiny ($2-10) co-pays now. I can't see how it could get much better than that.

If it ain't broke...

[elleng]

10. Quite right.

Thanks for the info.

[hedgehog]

11. Your comment makes me wonder if this is an inside out report of the actual situation -

sort of like a story I saw posted yesterday about how upcoming reforms will prevent people from taking out mortgages they can't repay. What's next, a story about how teaching kids to read deprives them of illiteracy?

[Squinch]

28. Seems like it.

[LiberalFighter]

33. Those with major employers are likely in the same boat as your spouse.

Cost of insurance is part of the wage package. Those in the construction and trades are operated differently but costs may be lower when negotiated.

There might be an issue with plans that might be considered platinum level and a tax may be involved on amount that falls in that range. That is something that needs to be looked at and see how to change. Most likely when new contracts are negotiated or current contract reopen for the purpose of making changes so the tax impact can be reduced further.

[mac56]

12. The unions will have no problem with this at all.

I worked for The Teamsters for many years. They want to be the ones to bring benefits such as affordable health coverage to their membership, and rightly so. That's as it should be.

This is a non-starter. Nothing to see, move along...

[ForgoTheConsequence]

23. They do have a problem with it....

Thus the meeting in the first place......

“On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and well-being of our members, along with millions of other hardworking Americans,” the Teamsters, UFCW and UNITE HERE wrote in a joint letter this summer.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/white-house-labor-obamacare-exemption-96793.html#ixzz2evjnvFK7




By all means though, continue to lie and make things up.

[mac56]

34. Yeah, damn me anyway.

Guess I lied and made up those four years I worked for them.

[Squinch]

37. But I have heard not a

peep from my union about this. And I don't see it as a defeat that we aren't going to get something that was designed to make others have similar access to a health plan as I have as a member of a union.

This is some spin job someone is doing.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

39. So you're accusing Trumpka of lying?

Who's doing the "spinning"?

[Squinch]

42. I'm sorry, are you and I in a fight? That must have escaped me.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

38. Yeah that's not what I said.

But what your union had and negotiated for doesn't apply to anyone else. Obviously this isn't a "non starter" and obviously it is something of importance if the AFL-CIO and Teamsters signed a joint letter, and felt the need to go straight to the President with it.

[mac56]

41. " By all means though, continue to lie and make things up. "

You called me a liar and accused me of making things up.

Hard to misread that.

[eridani]

13. Do you know what those "Cadillac" plans are called in the rest of the civilized world?

Just plain old "health care." Covering everyone, and costing a little more than half per capita of what we are paying.

[a2liberal]

14. exactly

I think the demonization of in the debate, and extra taxation of, in the law, of "cadillac plans" is exactly the wrong direction to be moving in. Encouraging high-deductible, low-coverage plans that people are forced to buy just results in people spending money for insurance they can't afford to use.

[suffragette]

31. Exactly. Looks like this is a double whammy- discouraging hiring of union workers & forcing people

into substandard plans.
And that whole naming these plans as "Cadillac plans" (plans that as you note are the standard elsewhere, but which unions had to work and bargain hard to create here) was a Reaganesque move to fuel resentment against the unions that have actually managed to negotiate decent health care (generally by trading this for higher wages).

From the article:

Unions claim the new law will increase costs for health plans that are jointly administered by unions and smaller employers in the construction, retail and transportation industries. That could encourage employers to hire fewer union workers or abandon the health plans altogether and force union members to seek lower-quality coverage on the new health exchanges.

[blkmusclmachine]

16. ANTI UNIONS DEMS

[CountAllVotes]

19. +1

Thanks for your sanity.

[abelenkpe]

30. + 1000

[Schema Thing]

18. Looks like the White House is leveraging the situation

to try and get these "multi-employer" plans out onto the exchanges. I wonder if it includes some of these big insurance companies which have turned down the opportunity to sell in many states?

[woo me with science]

22. K&R

[DiverDave]

24. YEAH, He cares about ME!!

Another "9th dimension chess move" right?


Bah, flame me, hide it, it's what people that are blinded have done here.

[Adam-Bomb]

25. Oh, sure.....

The ACA is good enough for everybody......except folks who paid a metric
shit ton of money to help get some other folks elected AND re-elected and
of course the folks who made and passed the law in the first place.

"As long as it doesn't affect ME, personally, I'll support it...wink, wink, nudge, nudge"

It's enough to make me somewhat cynical.

[Squinch]

29. So you're against the ACA and unions? Enjoy your stay.

Also, do re-investigate the situation being discussed here. You are mischaracterizing it.

[Humanist_Activist]

40. Subsidies should be based on income level alone, NOT one what group plans your employer/union...

While at the same time, we need to discourage employers and unions from offering health plans, so we can forever divorce employment and health coverage.

I make approximately about 150% above poverty level, and would qualify for a LOT of subsidies, but my employer offers a bronze level plan that barely squeaks under the minimum requirements to be "good enough" for me to not be allowed on the exchanges. End result, no subsidies for me, a plan that costs, in premiums alone, 9.5% of my income, and one that is so shitty, I can't afford to use it. No wait, correction, I can use it, but I better not own anything of value, because bankruptcy court will take it.