They have multi-employer plans that work under the current system. Most construction companies are quite small, so most will be exempt from any employer responsibility requirements. It will lock in the cost advantage of non-union employers and incentivize even more union construction employers to try to bust their unions and quit paying into the multi-employer plans.
In addition, multi-employer plans are NOT the same as insurance companies, yet they are treated like insurance companies under the law because the law makes no provisions whatsoever for any kind of insurance plans except for public ones (e.g., Medicare, Medicaid) and private insurance companies (e.g., Aetna, Blue Cross). Since multi-employer plans are not either, they are being treated on a tax and regulatory basis the same as Aetna. This also disadvantages them and will help lead to their dismantling.
More collectively-bargained plans will fall under the "cadillac tax" even though the workers won't be able to afford to pay a 40% tax on their plans because they don't have "cadillac" incomes.
As for the remainder of the complaints, what you will have is a number of union employers who have low income employees (think justice for janitors campaign, some retail/food employees, some health aides, etc.) who managed to get decent healthcare by virture of being in a union and getting a collective bargaining agreement with decent, employer-provided healthcare. Many of these employers will do what Trader Joe's just did: dump health insurance for those of their employees who would be eligible for subsidies in the exchange, perhaps even giving them a cash allowance. In the end, these low-income workers will end up with more expensive, less comprehensive than that they had before with employer provided coverage (note: this is because the way these plans were designed, it is clear that the silver and bronze levels of coverage are WORSE -- meaning cover less for more money -- than most collectively bargained plans, and low inocme workers won't be able to afford gold level plans).
You can argue that this isn't true and that employers currently providing coverage do not have any more or less incentive to drop coverage than before the law. But that is the basic argument.
And I do think it is true that the law was written without collectively bargained plans in mind. It seemed to assume that all insurance was a "gift" from generous employers rather than negotiated by employers and their employees. It also seems likely that those who had been successful at negotiating good coverage will lose much of it as a result of the taxes and other financial incentives in the law.
= new reply since forum marked as read
