Hillary Clinton calls for repeal of health care law's 'Cadillac tax'

[riversedge]

Source: chicago Tribune



http://www.trbimg.com/img-560b10ab/turbine/ct-hillary-rodham-clinton-20150929/750/750x422
Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks at Moulton Elementary School in Des Moines, Iowa. (Charlie Neibergall, AP)
Tribune wire reports Contact Reporter

Hillary Rodham Clinton is calling for the repeal of part of President Barack Obama's health care law, the so-called "Cadillac tax" on health insurance that's unpopular with large corporations and unions alike.

Critics say the tax will raise costs for consumers, while supporters see it as a brake on wasteful health care spending.

Clinton's effort is part of a series of changes she is proposing to "build on" the Affordable Care Act, Obama's signature domestic achievement. On the campaign trail, she often praises the law but says she wants to expand the cost-savings and coverage benefits, particularly for middle-class Americans.

"I have proposed new reforms to build on the progress we've made and lower out-of-pocket costs for families," she said in a statement. "Too many Americans are struggling to meet the cost of rising deductibles and drug prices.".

Read more: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-hillary-clinton-health-care-20150929-story.html

[LiberalArkie]

1. I thought the only people who had the cadillac plans were big executives where they had no

deductible. I know where I retired from the executives insurance covered everything dental, plastic surgery etc with no out of pocket.

Just trying to help the John Does out there.

[customerserviceguy]

5. A lot of union people

have plans that will be taxed heavily under this tax. They often have negotiated better coverage than people who are not covered by collective bargaining, and they were probably going to wield some influence in the conference committee that would have dealt with the ACA's final shape and form had Scott Brown not won the election to US Senate from Massachusetts.

At that point, the only thing that the House could do was pass the Senate bill in it's entirely, without the need to have a confirming vote on whatever came out of the conference committee, that surely would have been filibustered had it come back to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

Brown's election froze Obamacare into what it is, before it had the chance to be completely hammered out in the normal Congressional process. The Cadillac tax is now part of that, and I don't expect a GOP-controlled House and Senate to do anything to 'fix' what might be perceived as pain by any traditional Democratic constituency.

[Yupster]

17. You have a very good memory

The Obamacare bill that became law was never supposed to be the law.

It was just what would get 60 votes in the senate so it could be passed in the senate with the idea of getting it to the conference committee where the problems would be cleaned up. Everyone knew it wouldn't be the final bill so no one was too worried about what was in it.

Then the Scott Brown election made that impossible so the House had to pass the senate bill without amendment even though no one wanted it as the final bill and no one even knew what was in it. Hence Nancy Pelosi's famous line that we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.

[customerserviceguy]

26. And this is what happens

when you jam something through Congress. Had there been enough in the bill to peel off just one GOP Senate vote, we might have made it to that committee.

I expect laws that are shoved through with only one party's support to be more vigorously challenged than laws that are passed with at least a sliver of bipartisan support.

[Perogie]

2. Nice to see Bernie is having an affect on Hillary

Sounds a little more left than usual.

[zeemike]

3. Oh yes let's tinker with it a little

And start by appeasing corporations...the people who count.

[d_legendary1]

4. How about making insurance more affordable for the little guy

instead of making it less expensive to those who can afford it? A few of my friends get insurance through Obamacare and their premiums suck ass! Everything they do is basically out of pocket until they can spend at least $10,000 for the year! Its insane!

[Drahthaardogs]

7. Who can afford it?

I pay $450/month. It's like a car payment. I budget for it but consider it a necessity.

I do get significant benefits from mine though.

[d_legendary1]

13. HOLY COW!!!

I pay $180 a month for mine through the company I work for. And that's still too expensive. At my last job I didn't pay for it (which was a good thing). I was hospitalized with an infection during that time. My damage was $600 including E.R. visit and a weeks stay at the hospital for antibiotics. Without my insurance I'd be in the hole for $26,000 worth of care (I looked at what they were charging my insurance company ).

Though I can more than afford my insurance there are those out there who aren't as fortunate. We need to make basic healthcare a right in this country and get rid of the parasites (insurance companies) that live off people's misery.

[Drahthaardogs]

14. And thanks to Obamacare

I now get to pay more so I can help subsidize those who "cannot afford it". My prescription plan sucks ass now. And no, I am not happy to help others. I am middle class. I do not need to be subsidizing shit for anyone else.

When ObamaCare passed, a coworker said how happy she was because now her brother could get insurance, and he was forty eight and had not had any. I asked what he did for a living, she told me "he plays in a band". I told her that was not job, that was a hobby.

Yeah, a dickhead move on my part I know, but I am tired of the middle class footing the bill for everyone. The rich don't pay and the poor cannot, so it falls on us.

[Doctor_J]

6. anything to avoid cutting the owning class out of their largesse

How about a public option for those of us who don't think billion dollar CEO bonuses should be part of our healthcare costs?

And this is her starting point. After she "meets the republicans half way", I can't wait to see how much this costs working people.

[onenote]

21. That fellow who's picture is in your post -- he endorses the same thing.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/254842-sanders-top-dems-urge-repeal-of-cadillac-tax

[Doctor_J]

24. The fellow in the picture in my post

Believes the US should have single payer healthcare. As opposed to the candidate mentioned in the OP

[onenote]

25. Non-sequitur. If you think what HRC's proposal is bad

why isn't also bad when Bernie sponsors the same thing?

[Lychee2]

8. This is an example of how she will tinker with things if she is elected.

A little adjustment here, a little lubrication there, and finally, voila! Third Way perfection!

[Xithras]

9. That will win her a lot of support.

The health care plan at my last job qualified for the tax. No management or corporatists there...just a bunch of teachers who were going to get taxed for having a strong, effective union. The numbers solidly show that the "Cadillac Tax" was aimed at middle class union members.

The Cadillac Tax only exists to destroy properly negotiated comprehensive healthcare plans, so that the masses who DON'T belong to strong unions won't have anything to compare their own shitty, overpriced plans against. Rather than bringing all of America UP to the level of strong, comprehensive, low cost health coverage that strong unions have negotiated for their members, Obamacare tries to "level the playing field" by undermining those union negotiated plans and bringing them to par with the overpriced, limited coverage plans that it foisted on the rest of America.

I know a LOT of Democrats who oppose Obamacare specifically because of the Cadillac tax, and two who voted for Republicans in our last House election because the Republicans are the only ones calling for its repeal. This move by Clinton is a direct attempt to woo middle class union voters...and it will work.

[WestSeattle2]

10. My employer's plan is considered to be a "Cadillac

plan" compared to most other employer plans, and the medical portion is $9,100 per year - well under the ACA threshold. Dental/Vision brings the cost to my employer up to $10,400. I'm curious just how many plans will actually be affected.

For comparison, the basics of my medical plan are:

Annual Deductible = $300 per person/$900 per family
Annual Out of Pocket Max = $800 per person/$1,600 per family
$7 co-pay per prescription
No referrals needed to see specialists
33 chiropractic visits per year
No annual limit on how much the plan will pay

[karynnj]

11. If it costs $9100, how is it a cadillac plan?

It is clearly a good plan from your description, but whether it is called a cadillac plan depends on the cost.

Here is a link on what the "tax" is. It would tax the amount above $10,200 at 40 %. The tax would be paid by the insurers or the group that is self insuring. IF the cost of the plan you have is $10400, the cost to your company would be .4 * 200 or $80 more. http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-cadillac-tax-excise-tax-on-high-end-plans/

In essence, what the ACA did was a complicated way to put a limit on the amount of money they would give a company a tax deduction for. When you have employee paid insurance, it really is partly paid for by the government. It is very possible that the reason we do not have single payer like other countries is that long ago, companies were given the chance to give their employees something (health insurance) where the real cost to them was far less than the value - due to the tax break they got and their ability to get a better price than an individual could.

When the Democrats were looking for a way to get additional revenue for ACA, they created this tax - not on the employee, but on the provider of the plan. It became politically more difficult when the Finance committee lowered the limits to get more money to make other things balance. When it was first pushed, it affected only super gold plated executive policies.

As to how it could affect a person, consider what would happen with that $80 tax - because the plan was $200 over the limit. The insurer might eat some of the cost or pass all of it on to your employer. Your employer would then either pay the extra amount OR there would be a negotiation with the insurer to get a get a plan where the cost is what acceptable to the employer.

Where things REALLY get interesting is with plans that are really exorbitant. In that case, the executive perk will be much more expensive for the company.

[WestSeattle2]

12. What I'm curious about, is how many will actually be

affected? The plan that covers me is considered one of the best, and still falls below the ACA threshold. How many plans actually exceed the threshold? Is this really an issue?

[haele]

18. Unions, people who work for major corporations, and possibly government employees

My employer based the benefits package on Union benefits packages because much of the workforce that is employed got their experience at either union or federal worksites.
They started ratcheting down the quality of our cafeteria plans as soon as they saw the threshold levels when the ACA passed.
None of the plans were free - nor had ever been free, but I've seen over the past 15 years I've worked for the company, there had been a significantly larger number of services covered at a set price (not the "you pay 20% - 40% of the negotiated cost for 3/4 of the services available&quot , prescriptions and medical appliances were tiered to set prices with no deductible (at the time), and the premiums and co-pays were around half what they are now. In 2009, my premium for medical, dental, and vision for myself, spouse and "family" (didn't matter how many dependents)was around $500 a month. Now, it's over $1000.

The deductible might have been higher for individuals ($3K vice $2K), but out of pocket was more manageable because we knew up front how much something would cost. Now, I have a prescription deductible on top of that; we've got a $2500 "doughnut hole" to start the year off on before our prescriptions become "free".
Honestly - bring back the tiers!


According to the benefits blurb with all the healthy, smiling faces plastered on the PowerPoint, we can now "take charge of our own health costs" - and apparently not bother a doctor over "frivolous" medical issues that a little bed-rest or OTCs can take care of. If we just keep to our scheduled check-ups, eat right, get plenty of exercise, and a good night's sleep - and if we don't have any problems out of the ordinary, we should be all right. If we think something's wrong, well, call the tele-Nurse, and ask for advice. Maybe go to Urgent Care if the person on the other side of the phone thinks it's bad enough, or if we wait out our discomfort and it's still bad after a couple days. Because just going to a doctor or asking to see a specialist is expensive, not something to just be taken lightly or abused anymore.

Ultimately, the company is no longer going to be kicking in the same amount of monthly premium as they used to; they're just "matching" now. That means that the insurance premium for me, a spouse, and two dependents is actually around $2K a month between me and my company, along with a $6K family deductible and a $2500 prescription deductible - but I'm still stuck with nickel-dime out of pocket for certain medical costs that aren't covered under the insurance plan any more - but used to be.
Woohoo, they offer an HSA and a health FSA for dental/optical. Which means I can give them up to $7K a year pre-tax on top of the premium that gets taken out of my paycheck.

Just so they won't be considered "Cadillac". And so the Republicans and Blue Dogs can feel good that the general public doesn't get some sort of un-American, Socialist boon-doggle that will weaken our Glorious National Can-Do Spirit and Moral Compass.

Sigh. Just Ranting.

But yeah, large companies that compete for an educated workforce, unions, and large organizational plans are affected, because they aren't the same level of plans that the general individual pooled market is in. I suspect that Medicare, Tricare, and the various federal and state plans are exempt, but the private market is being hosed.

Haele

[WestSeattle2]

23. There is no rhyme or reason to the rates charged. I totally

do not understand the medical insurance industry. It operates like a huge scam. I would support single-payer in a heartbeat.

[Calista241]

15. Why should the Repubs do this?

They already hate Obamacare, might as well make sure everyone else hates it also.

[riversedge]

19. And Sanders wants Universal health care. Why should the Repubs do that?

[Calista241]

22. i don't know. I can't see them being any more helpful to Bernie or Hillary than they are to Obama.

[harun]

16. Don't worry 1%'rs, HELP IS ON THE WAY !!!!!

[onenote]

20. This thread contains good examples of the old adage about those who "assume" things

It seems as if the immediate reaction of some of the posters, who haven't bothered to inform themselves about this issue, is that because this is something HRC supports doing, it must be good for the 1%ers and bad for everyone else.

The reality is that, if anything, HRC is throwing her support to a proposal that Bernie endorsed a week or so ago.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/254842-sanders-top-dems-urge-repeal-of-cadillac-tax