AFL-CIO Calls Obamacare "Highly Disruptive"
Fears loss of affordable coverage
As Republicans in Congress debate their strategy for obstructing the implementation of Obamacare, some of President Obama's closest allies are airing their grievances over the law's negative consequences.
At a convention in Los Angeles on Wednesday, the labor organization the AFL-CIO passed a resolution declaring that the Affordable Care Act will drive up costs of union-sponsored health plans to the point that workers and employers are forced to abandon them.
While the resolution is strongly worded -- it calls implementation of Obamacare "highly disruptive" to union health care plans -- some unions wanted to take the resolution even further. A draft originally offered by Sean McGarvey, head of the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, said the AFL-CIO could no longer support the health care law and called for its repeal unless changes were made to protect union multi-employer plans.
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
..."called for its repeal unless changes were made to protect union multi-employer plans."
So if they get their free shit, screw everyone else?
What was AFL-CIO's position on the issue when that hag was ramming it through congress?
They put their money and political muscle in backing it. The law should be modified where everyone is exempt from it except its original supporters.
"The law should be modified where everyone is exempt from it except its original supporters."
Agreed, *including* an exemption regarding paying for it.
In fact, in a just world, that hag would be presented with the entire bill.
They supported the bill to find out what is in it.
Caveat emptor!!