EMPLOYERS VS. HEALTH AND WELLBEING OF WORKERS AND UNIONS
by Don McCanne, M.D.
The recent decision by the Obama administration to delay by one year the Affordable Care Act’s requirement mandating employers to offer health insurance to their full-time employees is one more broken promise to many millions of Americans. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was intended to keep insurance obtained through employment intact, while adding coverage for the uninsured through new state insurance exchanges and through an expansion of Medicaid. Among the programs to be protected were the multi-employer Taft-Hartley plans that were collectively bargained between unions and employers. Yet an unintended consequence of ACA seems to have put these plans at risk.
Why? The provision of ACA that exempts employers from a requirement of providing coverage for part-time workers - those working less than 30 hours per week - has provided an opportunity for employers to escape the burden of their health benefit programs by merely rearranging the work schedules of their employees. It is already happening even though the employer requirement does not go into effect for another one and a half years.
Employers can assuage their guilt to some extent since they know that the government will subsidize the plans when their newly part-time employees switch to the insurance exchanges. These subsidies are not available for the Taft-Hartley plans (though employers are able to deduct from taxable revenues the cost of these plans - a tax expenditure).
Another motivation for employers to attempt to reduce the Taft-Hartley plans is that ACA includes a tax to be assessed against so-called Cadillac plans. Little does it matter that these are not plans with some kind of gilded benefits. These are merely standard health plans that have not had benefits stripped out nor have they shifted excessive costs to patients through higher deductibles and other forms of cost sharing. Yet health care costs are now so high that the cost of the standard benefits offered exceed the Cadillac threshold.
Union members gave up major wage increases in order to have secure health care coverage. If they lose their Taft-Hartley plans, it is unlikely that employers would grant the wage increases that they would have received had they not had to spend so much on the health plans, even though economists consider these plans to be paid for by forgone wage increases. The reality is that the economic model we have today transfers much of the productivity of the workers to the wealthiest one percent of our society.
Taft-Hartley was designed as anti-union legislation, though allowing collectively-bargained health benefit programs. Now even those programs are at risk. The anti-union one-percenters are winning the war.
We should remove responsibility of providing health benefits from the employers, but not in a way that shafts their employees. We need to replace our current dysfunctional health care financing system with one that works for everyone, while sharing the costs equitably - a single payer national health program. The solution is so obvious. Why isn't it catching on?
TAGS: ACA access to care Accountable Care Act Accountable Care Act (ACA) Affordable Care Act Affordable Health Care Cost of Illegal Immigration David M. Gimlett Don McCanne M.D. Employee Medical Benefit Employers Medical Coverage employer-sponsored health insurance Fee-for-service (FFS)