The Cadillac tax.

[piece-itpete]

Why, if the average family health care plan is $13k, and the tax doesn't kick in to $23k, are the unions in an uproar?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/white-house-unions-reach-deal.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

Pete

[d-ray657]

Why, if the average family health care plan is $13k, and the tax doesn't kick in to $23k, are the unions in an uproar?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/white-house-unions-reach-deal.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

Pete

One part of it is that it is the proverbial camel's nose under the edge of the tent. Benefits have not been taxed before. Once the cherry is popped, there's no reason to believe that a greater and greater proportion of benefits will not be taxed. I'll look for a few more metaphors later.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

One part of it is that it is the proverbial camel's nose under the edge of the tent. Benefits have not been taxed before. Once the cherry is popped, there's no reason to believe that a greater and greater proportion of benefits will not be taxed. I'll look for a few more metaphors later.

Regards,

D-Ray

That's good D, we wouldn't want to run out :D

Pete

[Boreas]

One part of it is that it is the proverbial camel's nose under the edge of the tent. Benefits have not been taxed before. Once the cherry is popped, there's no reason to believe that a greater and greater proportion of benefits will not be taxed. I'll look for a few more metaphors later.

Regards,

D-Ray

I agree but I suspect that the union objections are a bit less broadly focused. In recent years many unions have made significant salary concessions in order to hold onto their health coverage. Taxing those benefits would make the concessions pointless in the long run when insurance companies reduce benefits and maintain premium levels to recoup that tax.

I think the idea of taxing benefits is a terrible idea. GD Senate! A far better solution is to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top 2%. That would accomplish a lot more in terms of funding the reforms and, at the same time, reducing the deficit.

Jean

[Writewing]

Because many Union members dont have "average" healthcare benefit plans, the proof is in the Unions rage against this idea. The only way this would even be close to being fair is if they create a Grandfather clause saying current members are exempt but it is obsurd to continue the exemption for future members. If they do indeed promote unlimited exemptions for future membership that is a blatent attempt to encourage Union growth. Combined with Card Check it would further damage our economy and IMO bolster China and the like as prices would become increasingly non-competitive.
I dont think anyone should be exempt from this tax, whats good for one is good for all so either make it across the board when plans cross the threshold or find another way to fund this mistake.

[merrylander]

You seem to forget that the ones who have the costly plans has SFA to do with benefits. The older peoiple have expensive plans because the insurance companies claim we are more costly to them than younger people so this is just another way of screwing senior citizens. Whee last year I got two flu shots out of Medicare, gonna bankrupt the system.

[finnbow]

As unpopular as it is, taxing all health benefits is the appropriate course of action. Health benefits are a form of compensation which some get and some don't. Therefore, those who don't get health care are subsidizing those that do through the tax code. Secondly, when you are getting something for free, you tend to overuse it. The problem is that McCain articulated this (correct) position in the campaign and Obama had to come out against it (along with his statement about no tax increases for those earning less than $250K).

[Boreas]

As unpopular as it is, taxing all health benefits is the appropriate course of action. Health benefits are a form of compensation which some get and some don't. Therefore, those who don't get health care are subsidizing those that do through the tax code. Secondly, when you are getting something for free, you tend to overuse it. The problem is that McCain articulated this (correct) position in the campaign and Obama had to come out against it (along with his statement about no tax increases for those earning less than $250K).

I'd agree to the extent that we should tax all or none. I'm not quite there with you on the compensation part.

John

[finnbow]

I'm not quite there with you on the compensation part.

John
Let's just say that 4 employers are offering health benefits packages valued at $5K, $10K, $15K and $20K, respectively, and another offers no health benefits at all. Are they not being compensated differently? Or let's say that you could defer on the $10K package in favor of additional salary because your spouse gets health benefits for both of you. Wouldn't that $10K in additional salary be taxed?

[Boreas]

Let's just say that 4 employers are offering health benefits packages valued at $5K, $10K, $15K and $20K, respectively, and another offers no health benefits at all. Are they not being compensated differently? Or let's say that you could defer on the $10K package in favor of additional salary because your spouse gets health benefits for both of you. Wouldn't that $10K in additional salary be taxed?

Your points are valid but I'm not sure they're germane since the proposal is to tax the insurance companies and not the insureds. The insurance companies will just use it as an excuse to diddle us - again. That's why I'm not there yet.

(I do think taxing the insured was what McCain proposed but that's not what's on the table.)

John

[d-ray657]

As unpopular as it is, taxing all health benefits is the appropriate course of action. Health benefits are a form of compensation which some get and some don't. Therefore, those who don't get health care are subsidizing those that do through the tax code. Secondly, when you are getting something for free, you tend to overuse it. The problem is that McCain articulated this (correct) position in the campaign and Obama had to come out against it (along with his statement about no tax increases for those earning less than $250K).

Another perspective, however, is that those who have insurance subsidize the uninsured by paying higher costs for services, and hence higher insurance rates, to make up for ER visits and unpaid medical bills by the uninsured. Another thing is the the unions provide high value health care coverage at a lower costs through the operation of labor/management health care trusts that have just a fraction of the overhead of insurance companies because they are not run for a profit and they don't pay advertising expenses and commissions. The result of taxation would likely result in the diminution of benefits for members of organizations who have maintained benefits efficiently, and who have fought long and hard to obtain that level of protection.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

Your points are valid but I'm not sure they're germane since the proposal is to tax the insurance companies and not the insureds. The insurance companies will just use it as an excuse to diddle us - again. That's why I'm not there yet.

(I do think taxing the insured was what McCain proposed but that's not what's on the table.)

John

I'm personally against the Cadillac Tax. As you say, it should be all or none. However, if nobody is taxed, those without health insurance should probably get tax credits to make up for the subsidy they are compelled to pay (in terms of income tax) to those who do get health benefits.

Truth be told, the whole notion of employer-provided health insurance is what is bogus (full disclosure - I have good employer provided coverage). It's a silly way to provide for health benefits for the citizenry. It's kind of a silly concept that has such deep roots that's is not going anywhere.

[Boreas]

Truth be told, the whole notion of employer-provided health insurance is what is bogus (full disclosure - I have good employer provided coverage). It's a silly way to provide for health benefits for the citizenry. It's kind of a silly concept that has such deep roots that's is not going anywhere.

Now you're talkin!

John

[finnbow]

Another perspective, however, is that those who have insurance subsidize the uninsured by paying higher costs for services, and hence higher insurance rates, to make up for ER visits and unpaid medical bills by the uninsured. Another thing is the the unions provide high value health care coverage at a lower costs through the operation of labor/management health care trusts that have just a fraction of the overhead of insurance companies because they are not run for a profit and they don't pay advertising expenses and commissions. The result of taxation would likely result in the diminution of benefits for members of organizations who have maintained benefits efficiently, and who have fought long and hard to obtain that level of protection.

Regards,

D-Ray

Point taken. The system is so entrenched that it's going nowhere. I know it smacks of socialism (eegads), but I think a taxpayer funded single payer system is the right way to go. The trouble is that there are winners and losers for any such huge change (and I'd likely be a loser).

BTW, I don't fault the unions at all for their stance on this, but our "system" is such a hodge-podge of inefficiency that radical surgery may be the only truly effective option. There are, however, too many entrenched interests for radical surgery to even be contemplated. So, we'll just tinker around the edges.

[d-ray657]

I'm personally against the Cadillac Tax. As you say, it should be all or none. However, if nobody is taxed, those without health insurance should probably get tax credits to make up for the subsidy they are compelled to pay (in terms of income tax) to those who do get health benefits.

Truth be told, the whole notion of employer-provided health insurance is what is bogus (full disclosure - I have good employer provided coverage). It's a silly way to provide for health benefits for the citizenry. It's kind of a silly concept that has such deep roots that's is not going anywhere.

I think that if we did not have employer-provided health insurance, we would have a single payer plan by now, but in the interim, the health of working Americans would have suffered for quite awhile before it got bad enough to spur people to action.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Grumpy]

Bottom line is it cost those of us with health insurance even more. Oh great like we aint paying enough all ready...

Soon I will be on the opposite end of this. Not insured and whats gonna happen ? I get penalized.

[Fast_Eddie]

Bottom line is it cost those of us with health insurance even more. Oh great like we aint paying enough all ready...

Soon I will be on the opposite end of this. Not insured and whats gonna happen ? I get penalized.

It's a tough nut to crack. On the one side you have the right yelling that everything is Socialism. Then they yell "how we gonna pay for it?" They yell it far and wide until people start saying "yeah! What about that?!"

Okay, so Socialism is the work of the Devil and we can't have Universal Health Care like damn near every other country on Earth. Thanks a lot right wing. Appreciate that. But the left, wanting to do what they can and trying to respond to what they people are asking for say, okay, we'll work within the private insurance industry and make it happen. Won't be as good, but if that's what you want, fine. But to make that work you still have to get everyone in the pool. That's how it works. Everyone pays and everyone gets covered. Only we have to whittle a big hunk out for the Insurance Company because it would he Socialism otherwise. So we've fucked it up. Then they say, okay, we'll make some folks pay taxes and such, since that's how we get money and all, and *that* folks, is how we pay for it.

So the left does *exactly* what the right said they wanted. And what do they get for their effort? The right yells more.

The left isn't perfect- far from it. But on this deal they tried. They tried to get something done that would make America a better place to live. And the right, for purely political reasons, did everything they could to kill it. They didn't give a crap about Americans, they just wanted the Democrats to fail. In this case, the Republicans really screwed us. And despite it all, we *will* get reform and it *will* be a step in the right direction.

[noonereal]

Okay, so Socialism is the work of the Devil .

A quick look at the worlds religions would show that capitalism is the work of the devil.

just sayin

[mpholland]

Kind of reminds me of neutering your dog to keep from having grandkids. Just not quite the correct way to resolve the situation. High medical costs are the real problem here. A person should be able to afford healthcare without insurance. Between pharm. companies making billions in profits, hospitals charging 100's of dollars per minute for services, overpriced insurances (not just medical, but malpractice, litigation, etc.), and multi-million dollar lawsuits, this problem will likely never see a fit resolution. Sure, lets tax another benefit, why not? Can't get away with raising the rates on everything else that's already taxed, so lets keep creating new taxes instead of fixing the problems.

[Fast_Eddie]

Kind of reminds me of neutering your dog to keep from having grandkids. Just not quite the correct way to resolve the situation. High medical costs are the real problem here. A person should be able to afford healthcare without insurance. Between pharm. companies making billions in profits, hospitals charging 100's of dollars per minute for services, overpriced insurances (not just medical, but malpractice, litigation, etc.), and multi-million dollar lawsuits, this problem will likely never see a fit resolution. Sure, lets tax another benefit, why not? Can't get away with raising the rates on everything else that's already taxed, so lets keep creating new taxes instead of fixing the problems.

Well, the right wingers won't get behind any regulation either. So there you have it. "We all agree something needs to be done" they tell us. And then they do everything in their power to make sure absolutely nothing *is* done. Really, I understand that the solution we're getting is far from perfect. But it is absolutely staggering that some progress is going to be made.

[d-ray657]

Kind of reminds me of neutering your dog to keep from having grandkids.

Now that is a new one for me. Are you the proud originator of that analogy? :) If so, do you mind if I borrow it sometime?

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

I will wait and see how badly they are going to screw up this soi-disent reform, if it gets bad enough we can sell out and move to Canada

[piece-itpete]

Point taken. The system is so entrenched that it's going nowhere. I know it smacks of socialism (eegads), but I think a taxpayer funded single payer system is the right way to go. The trouble is that there are winners and losers for any such huge change (and I'd likely be a loser).

BTW, I don't fault the unions at all for their stance on this, but our "system" is such a hodge-podge of inefficiency that radical surgery may be the only truly effective option. There are, however, too many entrenched interests for radical surgery to even be contemplated. So, we'll just tinker around the edges.

Agreed. And their tinkering looks a lot like a (very expensive) joke at this point (they HAVE to pass something!)


I will wait and see how badly they are going to screw up this soi-disent reform, if it gets bad enough we can sell out and move to Canada

How much will you give us for Ohio? :)

Pete

[Twodogs]

The dems are in power, so any new taxes would not surprise me. I wonder if they will eventually tax us for exhaling pollutants?:eek:

[d-ray657]

The dems are in power, so any new taxes would not surprise me. I wonder if they will eventually tax us for exhaling pollutants?:eek:

You talking about the pollutants you suck in through that burning paper tube?:D

Actually, TD, I kinda figured we'd be on the same page with this one. This is one tax that most of the GOP would love to vote for - one that goes after union benefits. To many battles over those bennies to give em up without a fight.


Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Actualy D they also go after senior citizens whose policy premiums are high because of their age, not because of their benefits. One reason for the high cost could be because of Pharma, the medication my wife takes for hiBP recently hit a high of $518.99 from its original price in 2005 of $350. As she says when she picks up her prescription "Whose golden parachute am I paying for today."

Welcome back TD