When the middle class starts seeing extra money being withheld from their paychecks,

[rateyes]

to cover the taxes on their new "income" (benefits will be taxed), as well as having to shell out an extra $800.00 a month for mandated health insurance, do you think that we'll EVER have another Democratic majority this large?

Fixing it later won't be the fix you want. We need to get it right the first time around, because there won't be another chance if we don't.

[pnwmom]

1. Benefits won't be taxed unless they exceed limits that are much higher than

typical plans -- assuming the Senate version is in the final bill. In the House bill, benefits wouldn't be taxed at all.

[rateyes]

2. So, we are incentivizing people to buy

the "cheap" insurance--the kind with high co-pays and deductibles.

[boston bean]

5. no we are incentivizing the corporations we work for to offer us those high deductible high co pay

plans..

[laughingliberal]

12. Exactly! After years of stagnant wages in order to keep up with rising health care costs

Now we get to have either crappy policies or continuing stagnant wages to have decent policies

[jbnow]

83. I hope it does not happen but if it does I hope the limits

are raised. Currently it bill has 40% excise tax on amounts in excess of $8500/$23000

It is only the amounts OVER that base amount that gets the tax but why a crazy 40$
I have no idea why that would be considered a good idea.

I just looked for what average premiums are now and am surprised how low the average premiums are for employer based care. Rates vary by state with averages between 3,800 and 5,200. The national average is $4,386
Amount of that employee pays is average of 882 which was higher than I thought.
Now that I think of it Medicare recipients pay about 1,200 year for theirs though
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?typ=4&ind=270&cat=5⊂=67

Family coverage average total premiums vary between just under 11k to 13,700, the US average is 12,298 and average employee part of that is over 3K
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparetable.jsp?typ=4&ind=271&cat=5⊂=67

In both cases then the excise tax is on amount just under double the average premiums now.
But I didn't see the cost level that will have excise tax going up with the cost of average health insurance which would mean over time more people would be caught up in it

Also...if they taxed the employee for the "excess" at rates as though they were wages (and that amount that triggered tax went up regularly) that might be fair but a 40% excise tax is just ridiculous. It might be on insurance companies but they aren't going to eat it. Nor does it seem they will just add it to cost of those policies since the excise tax would be slapped on that too. Seems likely they would spread out that tax cost by raising premiums on lower cost policies

Just doesn't make sense to me. Why is really good coverage a BAD thing?

[Fumesucker]

9. Without high copays and deductibles people use too much health care..

Can't have people running to the doctor over every little tumor and fracture, that gets expensive.

[rateyes]

11. Sounds like the Republican Plan. If you get sick, die quickly. nt

[Donnachaidh]

36. ypu -- it's just coated with a nice layer of BLUE wash

so the proles will think *how pretty* :eyes:

[Zhade]

48. BLUEWASHED -- conservative bullshit painted as "liberal".

Fantastic term!

[bertman]

54. Fumesucker, that was a BEAUT!!!

:rofl: :rofl:

[ljm2002]

78. Strangely, in Canada people have zero copays...

...and they pay approximately half what we pay for health care, with better outcomes.

Bzzzt.

[Fumesucker]

92. My post was sarcasm or satire..

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Poe%27s_Law

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing.

[ljm2002]

95. My apologies...

...you are right, it's easy to miss satirical intent!

:blush:

[MadHound]

10. In other words those fine insurance packages that the unions worked hard to get

Excellent suggestion, piss off the union members, weaken them even further. Hopefully by this time next year I will have a teaching job, belong to the NEA or other union, and let me tell you, I'm really looking forward to having my insurance package taxed (and yes, it will qualify). Meanwhile the rich will continue to benefit, have taxpayer money thrown their way while never paying their fair share.

Sure recipe for success, continue to piss of the ones who got you where you are.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. From what I've been told the way the "Cadillac plan" tax is indexed

Within a few years a lot of plans will fall under it, forcing people to pay tax on their benefits or reduce their coverage. This will put a lot of middle class people in the position of choosing which will cost them more - the tax or the out-of-pockets for lesser coverage.

[Cicada]

24. why should employer-paid $23,000+ health insur premiums be tax free?

I get zero health insurance benefits. Why should my taxes be higher so someone else can get MORE THAN a $23,000 health insurance premium paid tax free? Taxing the health insurance premium cost provided free ONLY to the extent the premium exceeds $23,000 a year seems fair - more than fair. Plus such high ticket policies provided free encourage heath cost inflation. Taxing only the rolls royce part (over $23,000) of the premium will lower health costs for everyone.

[MadHound]

30. Well gee, if we taxed the rich and the well off instead of hard working union members

Then neither of us would have to suffer.

Why do you want to punish those who are in the union, those who worked long and hard, suffered much to get what they earned?

I'm going to be a teacher, I'm not going to be earning much and one of the few material perks of the job is that it has good benefits, including a good health insurance plan. Now under this so called "reform" I'm going to have to be paying out scare cash money for taxes on that plan. Is that right?

Let me guess, you're one of those "levelers" who wants everybody if the same boat of misery that they're in.

Why are you willing to protect the wealthy, yet more than willing to slam teachers and the union members?

[Cicada]

38. I work hard too - and dont get $23,000 benefits tax free

I won't make much more than $23,000 in 2010 so I don't have much sympathy for those who will force my taxes to be higher so they can get $23,000 of their compensation tax free. The idea that we should tax only the rich seems ok to me - and those who get $23,000 in just ONE category of their multiple tax-free benefits strike me as rich. So we actually agree.

There is no rational reason why wages in the form of employer-paid benefits should be taxed differently from other wages. If my employer paid for my food - should that be tax free? No. Or if he paid for my TV set? No. Why should his payment for one of my costs be treated differently from his payment of some other cost of mine? I can't think of a good reason for that. It's illogical. And unfair to those of us without tax-free fringe benefits. Because tax rates must rise on taxed income to the extent some kinds of income are tax-free. Should the rich pay a higher rate? Yes. And the tax-favored treatment of fringe benefits is one way the affluent avoid paying their fair share.

$23,000 tax-free is more than enough.

[flpoljunkie]

98. The income tax exclusion for employer provided insurance is worth $250 billion/yr in lost revenue.

[laughingliberal]

101. And, without that, no employers would provide benefits

I was very much hoping for a system that disengaged from the employer based system we have now and allowed people to break the chains of staying in a job due to the need for health insurance. But, we didn't get it and incentives to provide employees with coverage, in light of this, is good. There are, also, some fines for large companies who do not provide benefits.

[JoeyT]

52. I dunno.

Maybe because the union members took pay cuts or gave up planned raises to get those $23,000 health insurance plans?
That seems like a good reason to me.

[bertman]

56. Are you one of those 15-year cicadas that only comes out of the ground when Democrats

put forward a healthcare reform plan in Congress?

[pnwmom]

66. Welcome to DU, Cicada! n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

91. Your taxes are not higher because somebody else has decent health care.

So you can stop right there. Union health care plans - the ones the right has now labelled 'cadillac plans' the same way they went after 'cadillac welfare queens' - are what employer based health care plans used to be for everyone who had employer based healthcare, before Reagan, before our unionized manufacturing base was moved to asia.

[fascisthunter]

99. sickening, isn't it

the conservative ideology to eat oneself for the wealthy and the corporate. I guess eating all that shit propaganda makes that shit sandwich taste mighty good.

[laughingliberal]

100. Many policies that aren't that great are going to fall under this within a few years

Many of the workers who have these plans are union workers who negotiated their contracts. Most settled for lower raises and gave up some wages in lieu of having the medical plans. We could easily tax high income people instead of workers. That is what the House plan does. This is another hit on the working class and unions.

[debbierlus]

28. The lower cost plans have huge co-pays, deductibles and out of pockets

So, people who choose a plan that actually covers the majority of health care costs will be taxed. These are not cadillac plans. These just have small co-pays and deductibles.

The term cadillac plan is bullshit.

How wonderful for the insurance companies. They don't have to cover nearly as much for the low cost plans but they still rake in the target market for customers.

[Cicada]

41. average family health ins costs about $12,500

way less than $23,000 allowed tax free

how many people, other than investment bankers, will be taxed on the excess over 23k?

[laughingliberal]

103. Fail. A lot of union workers negotiated plans which will fall in this and they made wage concessions

to get them. Also, some smaller businesses with an older work force have high premiums for their employees. And, often, the plans are no more generous in their benefits than those in large companies with a younger work force paying lower premiums. Basing it on the cost of the premium is misleading.

[Davis_X_Machina]

31. ...and then will be payed by the firms providing the insurance....

...won't even turn up on a paystub.

[ixion]

3. I agree

when it starts to hit home in people wallets, and it will, there will be much blowback.

[sandnsea]

8. When working people start to see more in their wallets

and have health care too, there will be some blowback all right - against the left and Republicans.

[ixion]

22. well, if it goes that way, yeah, maybe so; that would be great...

but history is not on your side.

[sandnsea]

40. Yes it is, actually

If you look at Oregon and Vermont.

[Zhade]

49. It's not. Look at Massachusetts. Also, stop lying.

No one's buying your bullshit.

[sandnsea]

53. MA has 97% insured

The biggest problem MA has had with its health care plan is enough doctors to meet the increased number of people getting health care.

Just because you rant liar, doesn't make you any more correct than Joe Wilson. These programs are getting people health care and that is a fact.

[sandnsea]

4. Why would anyone shell out an extra $800 a month?

When they've already got coverage because they couldn't be paying a tax on their premium if they didn't.

Do you know who just makes shit up to attack Democrats??

[rateyes]

6. You ever heard of the self-employed?

[Schema Thing]

25. Why would the generic "self employed" pay 800 more per month?

I'm self-employed, and I suspect that the vast majority of us fall into the catagory of: "will get some help paying for health insurance that we either skipped previously, or bought, but couldn't use because it was worthless and penalized us for using it".

[rateyes]

27. #1. If you "skipped" it, you won't have that option now, and you'll pay the part

the subsidies don't cover.

#2. If you bought it but couldn't use it, what makes you think that with this bill you could use it?Your plan will still be worthless and penalize you for using it.

Hey, but 30 million more people get deal #2--how can we argue with that?

[Schema Thing]

35. No, you're wrong.

I'll have to pay. Just like I'd have to pay if I was in Canada, or any other country that has "universal" healthcare.

But what I'll get for what I pay is insurance that actually has real value, and I'll get substantial help paying for it.


Would it have more value if they cut out for-profit corporations entirely? Yes, and that has always been my preference.


But does this Senate bill give me MUCH more financial and health security than I could possibly have currently? Hell yes.

[sandnsea]

43. If they don't have insurance, they can't pay a tax

Does that not compute with you?

It's impossible for someone to pay an insurance premium tax AND a fine for not having insurance.

And nobody is going to be paying $800 a month unless they're bringing in $8,000 a month to begin with.

You are just pulling shit out of your ass, or repeating people like Jane Hamsher who are pulling shit out of their asses.

[Skittles]

7. when they actually try to use the "insurance"

and see the co-pays, deductibles - oh yeah, they'll know what has changed

[rateyes]

13. We'll all own insurance that we can't afford to use.

Brilliant! The insurance companies get the windfall of windfalls, and still won't have to pay claims.

[northernlights]

14. we have the option of paying the fine

and paying for our health care out of pocket. I plan to use that option, since I've been without health insurance most of my life and when I did have health insurance the corporations left me to die anyway. I realize that's not an option for everybody, but I believe that those who can...should. I'm writing this as a Medical Lab Tech student. Imho, you're all putting the cart before the horse.

A major bottleneck to affordable universal health care is the shortage of facilities and trained providers. And the bottleneck to that education is student funding and the critical "clinical" training. Hospitals can only take on so many students at a time given the need for close supervision with a low teacher:student ratio to prevent medical disasters.

I'm pushing for Bernie Sanders 1350 or so new Community Health Centers (which I understand will also be training centers) to remain in the bill to provide low-cost health care to anybody who walks in the door. Increasing the number 4 or 5-fold (over the existing 350 community health centers) will make health care more available. 10-fold would be sweet! (btw, as an aside, building 1350 community health centers is *major* economic stimulus)

And increasing the grants and loans to students -- so weeding out is based entirely on ability to do the job as opposed to ability to finance learning the job -- is critical. Personally, I'm in a situation along with multiple other students, who may be forced out with one year of training to go due to terminated education loans. It's not our doing and at least 2 of us (myself and one other student) are 4.0s. We could face financial ruin and you could be short several providers as we were blindsided by fine-print rules...that were on a financial aid web page that isn't even public!

The bottom line is that health care is a *Community Service* and should be funded by the community. That means infrastructure and training. Fund the training -- train more providers and stop burdening healthcare students with loans the size of a hefty mortgage -- and service fees will come down.

Without the infrastructure to deliver, universal health care and single payer remain impossible. The fact is that until more *health care* is available, in terms of more trained medical staff and more facilities (beds), both universal health care and single payer will remain out of reach. This is a case where supply-side economics will work.

So I strongly recommend that all of you quit whining about the "sellout," recognize where the real problem lies, and help focus on that. The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. And that first step is within reach.

FWIW, I can see a scenario in which, as more and more community health centers come on line, providing lower cost health care while training more and more students, people will start "opting out" of the insurance industry and paying the "fine" (think "tax for down payment on community centers")

[RainDog]

21. excellent post

this would be a magnificent way to phase out the insurance co. middleman that is making health care unavailable to so many Americans.

since the bill is what we have, community health care centers should be strengthened.

Students who work at them should have their student loans forgiven - this is already done in other areas of life (people who work in lower govt-funded jobs in education v private industry, in some fields that I know of, can have their student loans erased if they work for 5 years in the lower-paying public interest arena.)

[CrispyQ]

32. Community.

The bottom line is that health care is a *Community Service* and should be funded by the community.

And therein lies the crux of the problem. America is no longer community focused, if it ever was. The hyper-individual culture we have cultivated lends most citizens to be resentful of community social safety nets that provide help to those in need. We have a serious national character flaw called selfishness & an absurd concept of fairness. While the MIC & financial sector suck our treasury dry, (& soon, the health insurance industry) Americans whine like two year old brats, because our neighbor got a little something that we didn't, deserved or not. Until we grow up as a nation, we won't make any progress.

America is one of the harshest, punitive & mean-spirited of all the developed countries.

[Thickasabrick]

55. +1

[Zhade]

50. None of your well-reasoned points get around the fact that people are being forced to buy...

...inferior overpriced insurance they already can't afford.

[Lorien]

96. I'm considering dropping my insurance. My doctor's secretary isn't insured

She says that she turned down insurance because she deals with insurance companies day in and day out, and believes that they do far more harm than good. It's nearly impossible to wring payments out of any of them anymore. She just puts a couple hundred dollars into a savings account every month and pays for all of her own medical services out of pocket. Of course she'll be screwn if she ever gets in a major accident or develops cancer or some other serious illness...but the insurance companies may refuse to cover THOSE claims too, regardless.

I hear what you're saying about funding education and developing community health care centers. If we could only convince of elected officials to spend a fraction of our military budget on health care and education instead...but it's a tough sell since investors aren't the ones benefiting. It looks like all of the hard work will be up to us.

[OHdem10]

15. If you don't fix it now , our goose is cooked. Besides they are admitting

to a sorry bill if it already needs fixing and they cannot
get the votes to fix it.

[laughingliberal]

16. Am I the only one who sees these crap policies everyone will have now

are part of the cornerstone of that whole "ownership society" thing? What happened to "if you like what you have, you can keep it," what is that? "You can keep it as long as you pay a tax on in it." I'm pretty sure he didn't campaign on this. This is one area we need to pressure the house to try and get their version in there instead of the Senate. The bill is going to hit workers and middle class hard enough. Rolling this back and going with the house version would help.

[Schema Thing]

26. compared to now, there will be no "crap" policies.

[laughingliberal]

34. Really? No policies that pay 60% with a high deductible and high out of pocket expenses? Great!

Cause 2 years ago when I lost my job my policy paid 80% with a $500 deductible and $2000 maximum out of pocket expenses annually. It's been sounding as if they now think that's a 'Cadillac' plan leading me to believe most coverage will be quite a bit worse than that.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laughingliberal]

71. Those are the reports I've been reading on the policies. It doesn't make me a "freeper"

It makes me someone who is concerned people will pay for policies they can't afford to lose. Many people on the plan in MA are in that position. And, last I read, it is still against the rules to call people 'freeper' on DU.

[sandnsea]

44. My subsidized insurance has a $500 deductible

and minimal co-pays, as well as free check-ups. I use it all the time. And it costs me and hubby $60 a month.

[laughingliberal]

69. Well, we're 54 and 62

and our Cobra was $1200 per month. A couple with over 58,280 per year will not qualify for a subsidy

[sandnsea]

72. Buy something cheaper on the exchange

You won't be stuck with that Cobra in a few years.

[laughingliberal]

76. Well, we had to drop it as soon as my husband completed cancer treatment

but I don't think the premiums will be lower for people in our age group under the Senate bill. I hope they will be but a 3 time multiplier is steep. The House bill only allows 2 times. Obviously we can't get the PO from the house bill in but we should push to get their multiplier and the tax on the wealthy in instead of the tax on "Cadillac Plans."

[Thickasabrick]

57. 60% Really? Is that something about these bills I missed?? nt

[laughingliberal]

70. I think I've been seeing there will be policies paying at the 70% rate and, some, at 60%

with out of pocket expenses of $5000-10,000. Those with subsidies will get some to that covered, I think but it will not be really affordable for those who fall just outside the FPL for subsidies.

[laughingliberal]

77. Found something on that. Looks like 65% is what the bronze plan covers

with out of pockets between over $5000 for an individual and $11,900 for families. This is from September but I'm not sure this part of the bill has changed much. Would like to hear if it has.

Definition of levels. The bronze benefit package, which would represent MCC, would be equal to the actuarial value of 65 percent with an out-of-pocket limit up to the HSA current law limit ($5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families in 2010) indexed to the per capita growth in premiums for the insured market as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. (For a refresher on “actuarial equivalence,” see my learned colleague’s previous post.)

The silver benefit package would have an actuarial value of 70 percent with the out-of-pocket limits for MCC.

The gold benefit package would have an actuarial value of 80 percent with the out-of-pocket limits for MCC.

The platinum benefit package would have an actuarial value of 90 percent with the out-of-pocket limits for MCC.

A separate “young invincible” policy would be available for those 25 years or younger. This plan would be a catastrophic-only policy in which the catastrophic coverage level would be set at the HSA current law limit, but prevention benefits would be exempt from the deductible.

http://healthcare-legislation.blogspot.com/2009/09/bronze-benefit-package-would-be-minimum.html

[Hello_Kitty]

17. But...but...but....31 million people will be covered!! Why do you hate poor people??!?

Yeah, seriously, the proponents of this cruddy bill have taken to attacking the middle class. I had one tell me the other day that $44K a year was "rich".

[fascisthunter]

102. no shit... what an absurd talking point

"...we are screwing you all, but look on the bright side folks!"

[frazzled]

19. The tax is on insurers, not on individuals

You have so many facts wrong in this it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, as I said, the tax is not on individuals but on insurers. So nothing--nothing--is going to come out of your paycheck:

It's true that this might bounce back onto some consumers in the form of higher premiums. But remember, too--the tax wouldn't be on the entire cost of the policy, just the amount that exceeds the limit (e.g., for a family plan the excise tax would be on any amount over $21,000). So you are dead wrong and misleading to say "benefits are being taxed."


The average cost of a plan for a family is currently $13, 375 ... so the $21,000 "cadillac" plan is substantially higher.

The unions oppose this because their tactic for the last years has been to negotiate higher benefits as opposed to higher wages. This in itself has driven the cost of policies up -- as some say, with little extra health outcome benefits.


The excise tax (which can be fixed and tweaked, by the way, to avoid hitting certain classes of policies, like union plans) has the potential to really keep the cost of insurance down, to raise revenues to pay for mandates for poorer citizens, etc. It's worth a try, in my book, and a lot of liberal senators supported it (I believe Kerry was the instigator).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/health/policy/21insure.html

[Thickasabrick]

59. It's my understanding that this is a difference between the house bills

and the senate. The senate bill taxes employers.

[frazzled]

61. No, the House bill doesn't have a tax on cadillac plans

The Senate one does, and the tax is on the insurers.

The House bill raises revenues by taxing the wealthy (individual income tax).

[Thickasabrick]

62. Oh...thank you. I'd still rather go with the house one. The insurers

will simply pass it to the employers who will then pass it to the employees. There was a poll somewhere that said they would do exactly that "pass it on to the employees"

[notesdev]

20. It is amazing, isn't it?

There will be only one chance to get this substantially right in the next decade, at least, and they're willing to blow it on a corporate giveaway. Shows you where they really stand.

It's almost as if this legislation was crafted to punish people who wanted real reform.

[lib2DaBone]

23. The new plan says Employers must provide Insurance.. but the employees will pay for it..

Once the employers find out that they can drop the cost on the backs of their minimum wage workers... they will drop health insurance like a hot potato. It's a race to the bottom and the starting pistol has just fired.

[treestar]

29. Most of the middle class already has insurance

That's why we have to let them keep their plans. They don't want change.

[amborin]

74. they'll get change: taxes on their health benefits--what McCain had wanted

and now is in the HCR bill

and---the tax will apply to a broader and broader swath of middle class taxpayers each year, reaching further down the income levels....

this is all on the backs of the middle class

[Warren Stupidity]

86. Most of us have crappy employer insurance that doesn't qualify for the tax.

The tax is only applicable to decent insurance plans.

[amborin]

93. the tax on employer-provided ins will apply to crappier & crappier plans each year

according to several articles

[Warren Stupidity]

97. possible, but for now it is just going to make the few good plans crappy

And in doing so alienate union workers even further from the Democratic Party leadership. That Obama adopted the rightwing framing 'cadillac plans' is very telling. Like his predecessor Clinton, Obama is demonstrating just how far to the right the leftwing of the duopoly has drifted.

[MineralMan]

33. Here's news: The middle class that already has insurance

through their employers are quickly discovering that they're paying more for it these days. Most businesses have changed things up and are either paying less of their employee's insurance or dropping it altogether. There's no penalty for them, so why not? With jobs scarce, employees don't dare threaten to quit over this, so, there's no penalty there, either.

Everyone's paying more, now, and those who are not employed by companies who provide part of the health insurance bill are just doing without.

You pay in your taxes or you pay in reduced income. I'm self-employed. Between my wife and I, we pay over $15,000 per year for high deductible policies. We get to declare some of it on our tax forms, but not all, and it's a deduction, not an exemption.

The bottom line here is that everyone will be affected in some way by this bill. The majority will see an improvement in their coverage and its cost. The minority will have other things happen. So far, we don't know which is which, since the final version of the bill doesn't exist.

I'll wait to see how it looks in the final version, then discuss it. Until then, we're discussing angels on pinheads.

[Thickasabrick]

60. Excellent point. I need a get a new hobby. nt

[mzmolly]

39. If one has health care benefits there is no $800 dollar mandate.

:shrug: Also, the cost of coverage is income based under the new legislation.

[yodoobo]

42. Same was said about social security and fica witholding

But Dems are doing quite fine and SS is a perfectly accepted and appreciated part of everyones lives.

[LostInAnomie]

45. Wouldn't extra money have been taken out with Single Payer?

[AllentownJake]

46. Single Payer might be a net increase in income

Because companies could cut their insurance expense and thus offering benefits would no longer be a thing sought by job seekers. You get a 3% raise and your premiums increase by 10% and are passed onto you...your 3% raise becomes a 1 1/2 % raise.

[FLDCVADem]

47. This doesn't even make sense

If they're being taxed on benefits (health insurance), then why are you saying they are having to shell out $800/month for benefits?

[laughingliberal]

105. An excise tax of 40% will be imposed on family plans with premiums of $23,000

40% of $23,000 is $9,200. Comes to $766 and some change per month. That's why.

[cap]

51. has anyone thought that union workers deserve and NEED Cadillac health coverage

manufacturing jobs beat the heck out of the body .... those guys need gilt-edged health care to take care of injuries and conditions associated with their line of work.

[bertman]

58. When I heard President Obama on NPR explaining how we had to tax those 'Cadillac' plans

I wanted to SCREAM "What about the fucking ROLLS ROYCE compensation packages made by the health insurance executives? Why can't we tax them? Why don't you EVEN mention them?"

[Laelth]

64. Just calling it a "cadillac" plan is an attack on labor.

Labor negotiated for those good benefits. They were earned. It's not O.K. for the Federal Government (who was not a party to the bargain) to hammer labor in this way.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Kansas Wyatt]

67. Oh it gets a hell of a lot better too.

I'm union and work in the construction industry, so when my employer bids for work, he has to include the cost of paying for my health benefit package in his bid.

Well, NON-union contractors do not pay their employees health benefits, so they do NOT have to include any health benefit price with his bid, which he will keep just right under the union contractor's bid. Then he ends up pocketing most of the difference, because he doesn't provide his employees with health benefits.

Now, PRESIDENT OBAMA thinks it is fair for union members to be taxed on their health benefits, even though they are already being undercut by those who don't provide health benefits.

My question for the Pom Pom Squad...
Does their Dear Leader even know that he is fucking over the people who supported him so much?

[Laelth]

82. As to your question ...

I think he does know. Sadly, I don't think he cares.

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[MichiganVote]

65. Amen to that.

[Laelth]

63. Agreed. The Democratic Party will pay for this boondoggle at the polls. n/t

Kill the bill.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the answer to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[L0oniX]

68. There won't be any "fixing it later" because we are going to loose the majority in 2010.

You don't need a crystal ball to figure this out.

[amborin]

75. in that vein, i read the the subsidies can be reduced

and the taxes on the middle class "cadillac" plans further increased

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

73. you're sounding like a repugnantcan.

[LoZoccolo]

79. Cool story, bro. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

80. Very few people are going to be buying insurance against their will

Most of them already have it. Many more of them will get a subsidy to buy it and they will be very happy to do so. A few will buy so because of the mandate and will gripe about it. The mandate doesn't exist because Congress believes that lots of people have just chosen not to buy insurance. It exists because of the free rider problem that will exist once it's against the law to deny people based on pre-existing conditions.

[Little Star]

81. k&r

[Xenotime]

84. the middle class should be happy to pay taxes.

Considering all the services and security they are receiving.

[Warren Stupidity]

85. Hardly anyone will see a tax. Hardly anyone will be affected by the mandate.

On the other hand, according to your theory, universal single payer healthcare would be a gigantic failure as EVERYONE working would be paying into it.

The problem is not mandates. The problem is the establishment of a permanent rentier relationship between the government and the for-profit health insurance industry fueled in part by the mandates. The problem is massive and pervasive corruption in washington.

[quaker bill]

87. You post makes no sense

If I have the "taxed" benefits, then I have insurance and the mandate is met. Seondly while I think I am fairly well off financially, I nearly qualify for a subsidy, not a tax.

Finally the excise tax proposed (if it remains) will only be applied to benefits packages much more expensive than mine, if at all.

Finally, the "basic rule of legislation" is inviolate: roughly one half of each legislative session is spent fixing the unintentional problems created by the last legislative session. Since they never "get it right the first time around" the answer to your final advice is to never do anything.

[TicketyBoo]

88. Cripes!

This is NOT final yet.

Don't you think it would be wise to stop fretting about it until we see what actually hits Obama's desk? Getting in an uproar over things at this stage accomplishes nothing except to maybe raise your blood pressure.

I don't know about you, but I have things to worry about other than what might happen with the health care reform bill. (By the way, if you have nothing else to worry about, then lucky you!)

[laughingliberal]

106. Some people do get a little nervous about a bil that will wind up costing 20% of their income for

coverage that is marginal, at best. Others are well heeled and can afford whatever, I guess.

[Wardoc]

89. Agreed. The whole "fix it later" is wishful thinking at best.

[Tim01]

90. My dad said he would never vote for another dem after Carter.

I actually have no idea what happened to make him hate Carter so much. He was in the union working at Goodyear at the time. He died 2 years ago.
But my point is that after Carter he became a rabid republican, he had little plaques on the wall for his donations to the republican party. And he flew to D.C. for Bushes inauguration.

I have a feeling Obama is going to create a new generation of people like my dad.

[tonysam]

94. And then expanding Medicaid...oh, my god.

MORE people will have their "estates" and "future property" seized to pay the medical expenses owed to the government.

That is NOT "health care reform."

[Lars39]

104. That little tidbit seems to fly under the radar, doesn't it.

It'll create a new set of permanently poor.