Georgia’s Two US Senators: Unions Shouldn’t Get Special Treatment Under Obamacare

Georgia’s two US Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson joined 31 fellow Senators in writing a letter to President Barack Obama telling him that union members shouldn’t get special treatment under Obamacare via subsidies to offset the rising costs of health care.  The waivers do nothing to help offset the rising costs of non-union members:

“This administration’s blatant favoritism toward labor organizations undermines the hard work and efforts of small business owners and non-union individuals across America,” said Chambliss. “While we must address the skyrocketing costs of health care, we must do so for all Americans, not just labor-union members. I hope President Obama will realize that taxing many to pay for the privileges of a few is unacceptable.”

“With each passing day, more and more Americans are feeling the terrible effects of Obamacare, including the rising costs of health care. It would be extremely unfair and, even worse, illegal, for labor unions to receive special treatment by receiving taxpayer dollars to subsidize their health care plans because they are unhappy that Obamacare caused their premium costs to rise,” said Isakson. “The American people should be outraged that the president is considering a special exception for his friends at the labor unions from what he has mandated for the rest of the country. I will continue to work to repeal Obamacare and its many terribly flawed provisions to ensure that health care more accessible and affordable for all Americans.”

You can read the letter in its entirety here.


  1. Rick Day says:

    we are trying to figure out as desperately as we can how we can shift the 2014 Obamacare burden from our small business to some outside labor pool resource.

    This is going to be the only way ‘successful’ small business ($1-6 millions in revenue annually) can stay that way.

    Taking proposals for 35 employees.

  2. saltycracker says:

    Prior to positioning this begs the question to ask how the Senator’s taxpayer paid health plans and pension programs relate to private industry.

  3. novicegirl says:

    Generally, the labor unions have gone out and negotiated great, private healthcare benefits. The premiums their members pay, in exchange for broad benefits, are extremely low. Obviously, somebody realized that they don’t want any part of the mediocrity of the future American healthcare system; otherwise known as Obamacare. Sure, if you want a bandaid or icepack it will be “free,” but if you actually want something better than Fidel Castro’s, 1950s medical technology, then you’re going to have to pay out the wazoo.

    • saltycracker says:

      Not exactly – the healthcare coverage was negotiated with employers that are now being penalized/taxed for Cadillac plans. Before the plans were an expense and not taxed. Now the companies want to either reduce the plans or pass the costs on to employees.

      It would be better if the cost of lobbyists was a taxable event.

      • saltycracker says:

        Unintended consequences: Ironically a substantial number of Republican middle managers benefit from union agreements as they get passed on to non-union employees.

          • saltycracker says:

            My….got to be a great story on the management bunch that cut that deal and cut middle management out…..are your parasites are indispensable ?

            • Daddy Got A Gun says:

              No but they have powerful friends (Obama and the media). When big companies negotiate the contracts, the Labor Relations Board et. al. put intense pressure on the companies to cave, including the threat to ban the company from government contracts.

              • saltycracker says:

                Having negotiated from the management side, the odds are your top management had a lot to gain by causing employees to believe it was out of their control. Bluffing, threats, red herrings, smoke & mirrors are part of negotiating.

  4. Nonchalant says:

    My semi-serious legal argument of the day: anything the Federal government does that ends up making it more attractive to be union than being non-union by giving union members a competitve advantage independent of any agreements worked out with employers is an infringement of the equal protection clause and the right to free association, in this case, a right to non-association.

    I argue that the government can allow unions to exist but that it cannot privilege them in the marketpkace, nor try to influence people to join them via favorable regulations unavailable to non-union members, an influence that could end morphing to economic coercement.

  5. Ramblinwreck says:

    Maybe I missed something but didn’t the House and Senate exempt themselves from Obamacare as they do with most other oppressive legislation? So these two are arguing that some group shouldn’t get special treatment when they’re members of a club that excludes itself from just about everything except they they benefit?

Comments are closed.