We told you so!

From THE WALL STREET JOURNAL:

Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Care Law They Backed

By JANET ADAMY and MELANIE TROTTMAN

Labor unions enthusiastically backed the Obama administration’s health-care overhaul when it was up for debate. Now that the law is rolling out, some are turning sour.

Union leaders say many of the law’s requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents’ plans until they turn 26.

To offset that, the nation’s largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.

In early talks, the Obama administration dismissed the idea of applying the subsidies to people in union-sponsored plans, according to officials from the trade group, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans, that represents these insurance plans. Contacted for this article, Obama administration officials said the issue is subject to regulations still being written.

More at the link.

Some of us would call this karmic justice: the unions helped to force Obaminablecare on the public, and now the unions are finding out that, amazingly enough, there is no free ride, that their own health care plans will cost more, just like everybody else’s, and just might cost unionized workers their jobs.

It didn’t take a rocket scientist — or a PhD in economics — to understand that a mandatory-participation health care plan which eliminated obvious cost-containment provisions such as lifetime benefit caps and non-coverage for pre-existing conditions would increase the costs that the health insurance companies would have to bear. Nor did it take a brain surgeon to understand that if the outgoing costs to health insurers were going to be increased, the premiums that they would have to charge their customers would have to increase as well. Nor should it have required a conservative to understand that adding thirty or forty million people who couldn’t afford to pay for health insurance themselves would wind up costing taxpayers and people who already paid for their health insurance more money . . . but apparently it did. Of course, we told them so, all along, but they weren’t willing to listen.

Your Editor has said it many times before: if a liberal really understood economics, he wouldn’t be a liberal. And now we have the spectacle of some of the most diligent supporters of the wholly-misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act bemoaning the higher costs imposed on workers due to the law they supported. Did they somehow think that this wasn’t going to cost anything? Are they really that stupid?

Well, they supported President Obama mightily in his election and re-election campaigns, so yes, it is very possible that they really are that stupid.

William Teach quoted from an Associated Press article on the same subject:

The Obama administration says its hands were tied by the way Congress wrote the law. Officials said the administration tried to mitigate the impact. Families that can’t get coverage because of the glitch will not face a tax penalty for remaining uninsured, the IRS rules said.

Your Editor is unsure how the Infernal Revenue Service can just decide to treat people differently under the laws, but supposes that wouldn’t bother the Obama Administration in the least. The Republicans in Congress should absolutely refuse to pass any legislation which would change the law to help those union members. The changes the unions want would increase government spending on health care, would create yet another ever-growing entitlement, at a time when we have trillion-dollar annual deficits and a national debt of over 100% of our yearly gross domestic product, and growing all the time.

But the fact that the very people who foisted this terrible law on us in the first place will be the ones who will suffer the most from it does not displease me in the least.

6 Comments

  1. Your Editor has said it many times before: if a liberal really understood economics, he wouldn’t be a liberal.

    And I have said, many times, that economics per se is not the primary concern of the liberal, or, more properly, the left winger. Left wing ideology is about politics, not economics. It is, as Morpheus said to Neo about the Matrix, a system of power and control. It’s meant to turn a human being into a termite, a member of the Borg. And they, the left wingers, will be our masters.

    THAT is what they really want. Let’s stop deluding ourselves that it’s about anything else.

  2. Well, they supported President Obama mightily in his election and re-election campaigns, so yes, it is very possible that they really are that stupid.

    Perhaps they weren’t so stupid.

    Remember, it was the union BOSSES who most supported ObaminableCare, not necessarily the rand and file workers. And the bosses want political power more than they really care about their members. The bosses support Obama, and they get to dine at the White House. They get to become political players.

    Of course, at some level, they have to support their members. Which is why some are complaining now. But it’s the same mistake the Catholic Church made in supporting ObaminableCare in the beginning. Maybe they, too, just wanted political influence. But they found out that, when dealing with a snake, the snake has no real loyalty. The snake will turn around and bite you in the ass. And that’s exactly what the Church found out when Onama shoved his contraception/abortificant mandate down their throats and against their principles.

    In short, never trust politicians who are in it only for the sake of power. IOW, never trust a left winger, especially when he says he’s doing something “For your own good”.

  3. The bankruptcy of the Obama-Pelosi ‘progressive’ agenda
    By Peter Morici

    Published January 30, 2013 FoxNews.com

    No one can accuse the Democrats of being the party of personal responsibility. Confronted with an economy that contracted in the fourth quarter, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi blamed Congressional Republicans for obstructing the president’s agenda and creating uncertainty.

    In the wake of the financial collapse, the Democrats took full control of both the Congress and the presidency in 2009 and were presented with an historic opportunity to put their ideas into practice. Unfortunately, the newly elected President Obama and then-Speaker Pelosi treated the situation as a political opportunity to build a Democratic majority rather than an obligation to fix what’s broken in the economy.

    Shrewdly, President Obama cobbled together a broader Democratic coalition by delivering to women free health care services, to Hispanics amnesty for young adults, to younger folks overly generous student loans, to teachers and civil servants subsidies to protect their jobs, to labor unions a rebuke of Simpson-Bowles recommendation that the retirement age be raised, and to his political friends generous subsidies for solar panels, windmills and other whimsical projects. Meanwhile, he cut defense, raised taxes on small businesses, and imposed unproductive regulations on manufacturing.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/30/bankruptcy-obama-pelosi-progressive-agenda/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2JaRLjTP8

  4. Eric wrote:

    Remember, it was the union BOSSES who most supported ObaminableCare, not necessarily the rand and file workers. And the bosses want political power more than they really care about their members. The bosses support Obama, and they get to dine at the White House. They get to become political players.

    While the union leadership certainly does not command 100% loyalty from the union members, every one of those union leaders was actually elected by the membership. And the states where trade unionism is stronger were the states carried by President Obama. I don’t see that there’s a lot of reason to try to distinguish between the union leadership and the union members.

    President Obama ran a brilliant campaign, in which he managed to persuade a lot of working people that mean old Mitt Romney and the wicked Republicans were going to throw the working man to the wolves. Now those working men are finding out that there is no free lunch, never was, and never will be, but it’s too late: we’re saddled with that nincompoop for another four years.

  5. I don’t see that there’s a lot of reason to try to distinguish between the union leadership and the union members.

    Oh, I do. The union bosses are all almost exclusively Democrats. I don’t have actual figures, but I”ll bet the members are considerably less so.

Comments are closed.