Labor Union Health Fund Drops Children's Health Coverage, Blames ObamaCare
How do you know when your fancy new progressive health law ain't working so well? Even health funds run by big labor unions blame decisions to drop kids' coverage on the law's new health insurance burdens:
One of the largest union-administered health-insurance funds in New York is dropping coverage for the children of more than 30,000 low-wage home attendants, union officials said. The union blamed financial problems it said were caused by the state's health department and new national health-insurance requirements.
The fund is administered by 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union….The fund informed its members late last month that their dependents will no longer be covered as of Jan. 1, 2011. Currently about 6,000 children are covered by the benefit fund, some until age 23.
The problem? One of the law's new "consumer benefits"—the requirement that health plans cover dependents (children) up until age 26—is just too daggone expensive:
New federal health-care reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26," Behroozi wrote in a letter to members Oct. 22. "Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible."
Supporters of the overhauls have shrugged off cost-concerns by saying that, well, they're not that expensive. After all, the increased age requirement for dependents only drives up average plan premiums by about one percent. That may not sound like much, but any new costs at all can spell trouble for a financially strapped health fund. And in this case, it looks like the union health plan was in trouble before the health overhaul passed (it also ended up in a dispute with state health regulators). So while the PPACA's new regulations don't account for all the fund's coverage reductions and fiscal trouble, they certainly aren't making the situation any easier.
More on the PPACA and children's health coverage here and here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
When I became a man I put away childish things (but stayed on my parents' health care plan halfway to my 30's).
Winner!
Bah ha ha ha ha ha!
Pass the popcorn.
This one is better than the touted "green jobs" solar panel plant in California fleeing the state.
This crap is going to blow up in so many faces. You *have* to love it.
Our task is to make sure it lands on the responsible faces.
No, I want it blowing up in everyone's faces. I want the lesson taught hard and long and deep once and for all. Everyone is still waiting for Big Daddy Government to "fix the economy"... somehow. The collective nose of the citizenry needs to be rubbed in the stinky turd pile for as long as it takes.
Someone pass the rolled up newspaper.
A straight jacket for the puppy would work much better.
Oh man... there are no words that can properly express the "we told you so" of this.
God what dopes the Democrats are. When they passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote, they bought the health care system. Now every time something bad happens, people are going to blame Obamacare and by extension the Democrats. They are fucked.
The only bad thing about this is that you kind of worry that it is such a political boon for Republicans they will have no reason to repeal it.
Do you honestly think that more than a very small handful of Republicans are even the slightest bit interested in repealing Obamacare?
They don't want to repeal it, they want to improve it (which is likely to be a cure that's worse than the disease).
Only government can take a colossal fuck and make it worse.
With Obamacare, count on it.
What's the law? Consequences that can be forseen are not unintended. So, a union gets to offload what looks like at least 10% (30,000 workers; 6,000 children; probably not more than 24,000 spouses) of their insurance burden to the federal government.
I'll bet they're real sorry.
Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.
Pithy, people. Pithy!
Brett, I don't see how the feds pick up any of these workers or their kids. I'm guessing the vast majority will just be charity cases when it comes to medical care.
And, of course, they are still on the hook for their union dues.
Fuck you and your kids.
Now pay your dues.
I thought SCHIP covered up to 300% of poverty. If these people are making $10-15/hr they should qualify.
Then again,
What is the point of the union? I could negotiate that raw deal on my own.
Foreseeable consequences are not unintended.
Pithy, people. Pithy!
This reminds me of Trespassers'z Law
If you should, by any reasonable standard, be able to determine what's going to happen as, like, some kind of side effect of something you do, then you can't really say that you didn't mean for it to happen, can you, sunshine?
So, by my grasp of American policy, history, and the electorate meant that to me it was not only forseeable but blindingly obvious that a policy of not putting new prisoners in Gitmo would mean more assassinations by drones. In fact, it should have been perfectly forseeable to anyone that it was the result of a campaign specifically about Gitmo.
Therefore, by R C Dean's principle here, libertarians and others who focused on Gitmo as an issue intended to increase assassinations by drone.
Pretty much, yeah, unless the libertarians in question were advocating (as many were) withdrawal from those theaters where drones are being used.
You heard it here first kiddos. A different set of rules will be written one by one for all union orginizations and all large corporations. Soon it will only apply to smaller outfits and unpopular corporations who don't please the government. Just one more legislative hurdle to keep competitive forces from pulling down the prices of the politically connected.
The one thing Statist Progressives won't do "For the Children?" -
Math.
Nice. Consider that lifted.
Like I have said before, and my good friends at the Unions have conveniently demonstrated, the private sector has failed at providing healthcare, and we need a single payer government run system.
Barry, are you posting to Reason again? Turn off that laptop and get in here and rub my feet, dammit. Oh, by the way, I need to take the jet fleet to Paris, tomorrow.
Loopholes and exceptions. Sounds like a bad movie but it's just health care reform at work.
Hopefully the two sides can get together and take the best of the bill and start over.
I guess in your zest, you missed this: http://1199seiu.org/media/press.cfm?pr_id=1493