They'll pull on their political clout to get the exemption. They're doing it right now, so we'll see. If I had to guess, they'll get what they want.
(RE:
http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/07/12/union-letter-obamacare-will-destroy-the-very-health-and-wellbeing-of-workers/).
When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter [our profits].
i.e. "exemption"
Like millions of other Americans, our members are front-line workers in the American economy. We have been strong supporters of the notion that all Americans should have access to quality, affordable health care. We have also been strong supporters of you. In campaign after campaign we have put boots on the ground, gone door-to-door to get out the vote, run phone banks and raised money to secure this vision.
What's their threat? Loss of future votes and campaign contributions and resources (e.g. volunteer labor) for the favored politicians. Basically, "if you threaten our profits, we'll threaten yours."
Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies.
If this is true, then it's obvious that Obama should be weighing the benefits and costs of dropping this voter market while possibly annoying his previous corporate backers. In other words, is the political profit from unions > or < the profit of the corporate donors?--caveat: this is put very simply since there's other groups involved).
First, the law creates an incentive for employers to keep employees’ work hours below 30 hours a week. Numerous employers have begun to cut workers’ hours to avoid this obligation, and many of them are doing so openly. The impact is two-fold: fewer hours means less pay while also losing our current health benefits.
Can't have pesky workers willing to work for <30 hours per week. That competition will diminish the benefits accrued to union laborers. If this factor is not significant, then still fixing this 'problem' would increase the price of unskilled laborers relative to skilled laborers (enough of which are in unions) or capital (which benefits unions if x-amount of capital is produced by them). If the 'perverse' incentive is 'corrected', then it's win-win for the unions.
Second, millions of Americans are covered by non-profit health insurance plans like the ones in which most of our members participate. These non-profit plans are governed jointly by unions and companies under the Taft-Hartley Act. Our health plans have been built over decades by working men and women. Under the ACA as interpreted by the Administration, our employees will treated differently and not be eligible for subsidies afforded other citizens.
In other words, "we want MORE!!!!" Our insurance + government subsidies = WIN.
(I thought the ACA was for helping the uninsured, right? Aren't the union laborers insured through their own non-profit businesses? If so, then what explains their 'beggar thy neighbor' policy?
In my opinion, the price of rent-seeking through the political process is low enough to justify the expected profits--since others will be paying for the sudden slack of a tax on union non-profits. Dispersed costs, concentrated benefits is a huge problem with the political process).
And finally, even though non-profit plans like ours won’t receive the same subsidies as for-profit plans, they’ll be taxed to pay for those subsidies. Taken together, these restrictions will make non-profit plans like ours unsustainable, and will undermine the health-care market of viable alternatives to the big health insurance companies.
That's a good concern--assuming the exemption would apply to all non-profit insurance companies (but that may hinder the imagined effectiveness of ACA)--it depends on how the rules of the ACA affect their pricing strategies. Of course, if the union-owned/-controlled non-profits get the exemption from this tax, then that additional money for the ACA still needs to come from somewhere. It's another example of "dispersed costs, concentrated benefits," which public choice is fond of mentioning.
On behalf of the millions of working men and women we represent and the families they support voters + funding, we can no longer stand silent in the face of elements of the Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans the alternative, profitable arrangement for our members--as mentioned in this heart-wrenching letter.
fixed
We believe that there are common-sense corrections that can be made within the existing statute that will allow our members to continue to keep their current health plans and benefits just as you and the President pledged. Unless changes are made, however, that promise is hollow.
We continue to stand behind real health care reform, but the law as it stands will hurt millions of Americans including the members of our respective unions.
In conclusion, threat of political losses + moral rhetoric.
