It boils down to this...

[debbierlus]

It is vile, grotesque, and WRONG to tax any citizen for health insurance until they remove the profiteering of the insurance companies.

Period.

Until we hold human life and dignity over profit and greed, we are lost as a nation. Totally and hopelessly lost.

[golddigger]

1. K&R nt

[Maraya1969]

88. Tell President Obama here..........

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/



Edit to add: Hope you don't mind but I used your words in quotes because I think you expressed it so perfectly.

[Enthusiast]

92. I no longer waste my time. nt

[Maraya1969]

161. Then you must change your screen name.

Seriously if everyone quit we are certain of defeat but if we keep trying things might just change. I still have optimism about this bill especially since I heard that there would be reconciliation now. I hope I heard that. Maybe I dreamed it.

[Enthusiast]

198. I have already written

to say I wish they would use reconciliation. The Republicans did it and they will do it again when the regain power.

[DailyGrind51]

111. I actually DID write a message, requesting a response!

[Moochy]

122. K&R

Message sent to WH. Message Discipline Team.

FWIW.

[Maraya1969]

163. I get frustrated when I heard really pointed points posted up here and I realize

that the ones the have to heard it might not. So yea I'm a proud member of the Message Discipline Team.

[Moochy]

184. Thank you for posting it

I also let the White House know that the OP's words speak for me. My comment about 'Message Discipline' was directed at the white house, but I'll re-direct it to myself.
We've got to have the Discipline to always send a Message the White House if we don't like a policy. :patriot:

[StarfarerBill]

2. K&R!

[FormerDittoHead]

117. What happened to increasing INCOME TAXES for the upper percentiles?

What happened to raising rates on income made ABOVE $250,000 (per person)?

Why is that "off the table" but taxing these health plans is what we "have to do" to insure everyone??

[katkat]

123. what happened to decreasing income taxes for low income seniors?

Not to mention pissing away far more than decent healthcare would cost for everyone on stupid senseless criminal wars.

[SandWalker1984]

146. One suggested change - add the word MANDATE

It is vile, grotesque, and WRONG to MANDATE taxing any citizen for health insurance until they remove the profiteering of the insurance companies.

[DailyGrind51]

160. Will Dems let the Bush tax cuts expire? I doubt they will have the testicular circumference!

[shadesofgray]

3. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Succinctly and accurately said! K&R

[uppityperson]

5. K&R

[bigwillq]

6. K and R

:thumbsup:

[closeupready]

7. Correct.

n/t

[uponit7771]

8. I don't mind a tax on the rich getting 24k dollar insurance packages and most likely a majority...

....of DU'rs aren't them

[ProdigalJunkMail]

25. YEAH...

fuck 'em if they ain't me!

sP

[beardown]

43. It's their attitude towards our Iraq and Afghan vets

While a lot of the wealthy throw around the support the troops mantras and yellow ribbons, as long as it's not their sons and daughters getting killed and getting their legs blown off in Iraq, screw em if it aint' me is their fundamental attitude.

I'll start worrying about them carrying a heavy load for the tax system right after they start carrying a small portion of their load for the boots on the ground.

As Bush the Stupid said "It's a honor to die for your country and an unbearable burden to pay taxes to it".

[AllyCat]

58. Except that will be my family. We are hardly wealthy.

Combined income of less than $100K a year is not "wealthy". And with this stupid bill, my family's insurance premiums (my contribution plus my employers), our dental and vision premiums, and the money I sock away in Flex Spending to try to recover some of the tax loss will come to $24K a year after the insurance companies inflate the premiums over the next few years.

So do you mind the middle of "middle class" getting taxed on their $24K policies?

[fasttense]

105. Did you know that in the United States most households make $75,000 a year

or less. In fact 69% of the households in the US make $75,000 or less (mostly less). So, if you are earning near $100,000 a year as a household than you are in the top 28% of wage earners, no matter where you live.

So, I'm saying to be making near $100,000 puts you closer to rich than middle class.

[AllyCat]

188. Oh please! Rich? Gee, just wait till I tell my husband we are loaded!

And that's why we have two old cars and no cable and don't go shopping. We have HUGE student loan debts for our less than $100K income. We are far from rich. So when they talk about taxing those making $250K a year, you seem to think it should extend down to $100K?

Right now we are okay, but cuts are coming. Then we will still have the "cadillac" plan on just my earnings with the tax to go with it.

NO ONE should be paying for this. I don't understand why a tax is coming for us, but CEOs will continue to reap the benefits of this plan, we get stuck with a faulty product, and then a few of us pay them for the privilege of them making lots of cash.

This argument is just dumb.

[Ticonderoga]

116. You are making $100,000.00

a year and you are concerned about paying a bit more in taxes for a $24,000.00 policy? That's the arguments we hear from the right almost on a daily basis.

[AllyCat]

187. No. I said less than $100K

And yes, I am concerned about more tax. Why are we the only ones who have to pay? Why is my frickin' health INSURANCE about a quarter of what we make GROSS? (not take home, gross).

I have taken wage reductions and bypassed raises in contract negotiations with better health benefits in exchange. Now I get to pay more so insurance companies can continue to rip us off.

Yeah, I'm concerned. for everyone!

[Jackpine Radical]

77. Those 24 K insurance packages are mostly deals secured by unions

for workers, who gave up wage hikes to keep tolerable policies (low/no deductibles and copays). Those Cadillac plans are simply what everyone should have, and this is a move to permit the insurance companies to offer junk plans.

[flyarm]

158. 100% correct...

if these political propagandists posting here want to tax me on my union health plan..then I want them to compensate me for what I gave up for 33 years to have my benefits!

Thats right..I want a check from the government for what concessions i took for 33 years, Plus interest on the money i gave up for my health care benefits..in full! And I want a check for what my husband gave up as well for the concessions he made for his health care plan through his union!..In full for 35 years ..

If we want to play this game..then I want what I paid for..I paid for my benefits through concessions and pay cuts...I did not get any of this "free"!!!!!!!!

Now you want to tax me on the Concessions I made in leiu of wages for 33 years??? ( this is not meant to be to the person i am responding to ..because i agree with you!!..but it is meant to address the ignuts who think i got my insurance for nothing..or that it is Cadillac)

Well fuck the propagandists..and fuck anyone in Congress or this White House if you think their won't be major blow back on this!! We union members will take you all out of office!!

Then I want what I lost in wages for 33 years to get the health care plan I have! Unless i get compensation for what i lost, to have this plan..fuck you! This was my pay ..oh and i didn't have a choice..because i was in a business with high risk..I was forced to have my health plan!

[MadHound]

109. I'm a teacher, and teachers get those sort of plans as a benefit, through their union

Having good benefits is one way that society tries to make up for shitty pay. Frankly I can't afford an extra $1,000 or so in extra taxes. Thus, this health care "reform" is going to be balanced on my back and the backs of tens of thousands of teachers nationwide. Do you think that's fair?

As has been stated elsewhere, if we want to tax the rich for this health care "reform" then do so directly, don't try to do it back door where it hurts hundreds of thousands of ordinary non-rich folks.

[Go2Peace]

118. Jealousy toward those that have a good plan will not help

I am in a union and we fought and gave up raises on many occassions to have a decent healthplan. It is not "cadillac" as the propagandists seem to have some people here falling for. It has some rather stiff copays and limitations, but it covers mental health, pregnancy, and things like that well.

What the HELL is "cadillac" about having a health plan that is actually what we all are fighting for? Heck, it still isn't even as good as what most European plans are, and you are going to tax those of us who fought over years to get this?

Just more bullshit division and anger in the wrong places. I *am* fighting for all to have decent health care, why are you not also supporting me?????

[dana_b]

157. you got that right

I am no longer in a union however I feel exactly as you. There is a lot of misdirected anger. To aim it at people who are have been fighting for years to get what we all want is wrong. That anger need to go at those who want to push this crap or in this case punish the workers.

[flyarm]

156. I believe you have little to no knowledge of Union Benefit packages and health care plans!

if you don't know what the hell you are talking about..you would be better off not embarassing yourself making such stupid statements!

You have no idea how many of us Union people are on DU and what our plans consist of !

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

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

[lpbk2713]

9. Reprehensible.

They had enough extra cash laying around to fund the TeaBaggers when they wanted to disrupt
Town Hall meetings. I heard they spent a million $$ a day funding those bogus disruptions.

[Greyhound]

10. That sums it up. K&R. n/t

[gateley]

11. The publicly-traded insurance companies HAVE to make a profit -- I believe

it's the law to provide profits to their shareholders.

Which is why we have to stop the system -- no more 'health insurance' companies. We have to have health care like the rest of the civilized countries.

[FiveGoodMen]

19. Yup.

The whole point of corporations is that people with extra money select (via investments) some knights to go out among the populace collecting additional money to hand over to these already-advantaged stockholders. And yes, there are laws saying that the knights have to gather as much as they possibly can.

Allowing something as crucial as health care to be determined by such a nasty scheme is about as immoral as it gets.

[mdmc]

131. +1

[FiveGoodMen]

20. Dup.

[sabrina 1]

27. Yes, and the American people cannot afford them.

They have cost the people one third of every dollar that should have been going to health care. That one third payed for obscene salaries and bonuses that were criminal considering that to get those profits, they let so many people die.

In a sane society, there would have been an investigation of their practices a long time ago, and a law would have been passed making it criminal for a 'health care' business to refuse to treat the sick or to refuse to accept sick people for coverage. Is this country insane to have accepted such a system, to have accepted the death toll it generated for all this time?

After such an investigation, again in a sane society, Congress should have held an emergency session ending forever the for-profit health care system. A system is already in place, far, far cheaper to run, which could have been extended to all Americans and the money saved spent to improve it. No more premiums from businesses and individuals. A 'medicare tax' depending on income, would have cost far less and proved far more coverage.

That would be in a sane society ~

It may sound like a dream. Except that every other civilized country has proven that it is not.

[debbierlus]

31. We have to learn how to stand up for ourselves

'I am as MAD AS HELL & I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE'....

[mdmc]

133. +1

[lsewpershad]

12. I agree

K&R

[patrice]

13. K & R - Socialism for InsCo must end.

[liberation]

44. Sorry, it is not socialism when state and corporations collude... it is called corporatism

which was Italian for fascism I seem to recall...

[girl gone mad]

14. k & r

We don't need another MIC. One is more than enough.

[Edweird]

15. Speaking of the tax... if we are buying private insurance, WTF is the tax for?

Except union busting? Is that all there is? Punish (non congressional) people with good plans?

[debbierlus]

17. I know. It is disgusting.

[liberation]

45. Because the government still wants their cut, even though they don't provide the service

forcing all those serfs to pay up to private companies is "hard work." Don't you know?

The American public used to be the proverbial whore who is too dumb to know we aren't supposed to be the ones paying the johns for the screw. Now since they know we are that phenomenally dumb, they have taken it a step further: we are the whores and still have to pay for the screw, and this time we even have to give a cut to the pimp.

[bertman]

55. The tax is to build up the reserves so we can pay the Wall Street failures for their malfeasance.

[winyanstaz]

82. its to finish robbing the American people of every last penny...

[chimpymustgo]

112. We'll be broke...and sick...and tired.

Kill the bill.

[redqueen]

16. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7419835


K&R

[FiveGoodMen]

18. !

:applause:
:toast:
:fistbump:

[HughMoran]

21. Period.

Vile, disgusting, rape, murder, mayhem, toast, bagels and cream cheese!

[Romulox]

22. A yep. nt

[Odin2005]

23. K&R. This bill is ECONOMIC FASCISM!

[blindpig]

113. Actually it's Capitalism

Pretty ugly, huh?

[LWolf]

24. K & R nt

[bvar22]

26. At one time, Obama agreed with you,

but THAT was during the campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wmN3wvhNM&feature=player_embedded

Where is THAT guy now that we need him?

[SammyWinstonJack]

120. That guy was all talk, a big come on. He fooled millions and we

mostly all of us, will pay dearly for his con game.

[Tesha]

185. Just watch -- he'll be back in 2012 when he (desperately) needs your vote again. (NT)

[mix]

28. k & r nt

[laughingliberal]

29. k & r n/t

[cliffordu]

30. absolutely right.

I've felt like we're doomed since about 1970

[earth mom]

32. Huge K & R!

:kick:

[earth mom]

33. Huge K & R!

:kick:

[Kltpzyxm]

34. amen

we are now forced to supplement for profits?

The trillions already sent to Wall St aren't enough?

:puke:

[fascisthunter]

35. Kicked(nt)

[madokie]

36. its as simple as that too

[FarLeftFist]

37. The problem is:

If we remove the profits from the insurance companies they will close up shop and cease to exist leaving everyone to pay their own medical bills out of pocket. On the other hand if we moved to single-payer everyone's taxes would go through the roof, with the country in such a big deficit there isn't a dime to subsidize a single-payer effort. If Bush didn't blow through the surplus and engage 2 wars maybe we would have some money to give single-payer a shot. I am for single-payer, but the vast majority of America is not.
I believe if single-payer was implemented here, especially in this political climate, anarchy would reign in the streets from coast to coast with shouts of 'tyranny' and 'socialism'. Most Americans are too stupid to realize a good thing b/c nowadays it seems like everyone thinks the words 'Liberal' and 'Progressive' are evil. What a shame.

[Fire1]

39. You put it most succinctly. Too bad folks 'don't get it.' n/t

[Enthusiast]

94. LMAO!

I know you are joking.

Did you read what he said? He is telling us if the insurance companies close up shop we will pay out of pocket. As if, don't harm the benevolent insurance industry. Are you a corporate spokesman also?

[FarLeftFist]

152. Ummm, yes, you WILL pay out of pocket.....

Unless you can find pro-bono doctors, nurses and surgeons. Good luck with that. Nope not a spokesman, a realist Democrat.

[Enthusiast]

93. You have it completely wrong.

Taxes would not go through the roof under single payer. Overall costs would plummet.

You say a vast majority of America is against single payer. I say you are wrong. Most American would opt for a medicare for all system.

A medicare for all system would vastly increase Medicare efficiency. Because, for the first time Medicare would not be burdened only with the sick and elderly. Medicare costs would then be spread over the entire population and the burden shared by EVERYONE.

I don't trust you. "Anarchy would rein in the streets." What a load of teabagger horse shit you are selling.

We have plenty of money to do single payer because it would cost way way less. Besides, if we have money for two unnecessary wars, we have money for single payer heath care.

I can see right through your ruse.

[FarLeftFist]

153. Your preaching to the choir....

You don't have to worry about me causing anarchy in the streets over single-payer, worry about the millions and millions that will probably bring it to your doorsteps. Like I said there are a lot of stupid Americans. Medicare is subsidized by the Govt. The Govt has minus zero dollars. Please share with us how an entire country would get medicare including those with pre-existing conditions, long-term illnesses, poor people, jobless people etc. and taxes NOT go up. Is there a miracle cure you have that will heal the sick and stop people being born with life-long illnesses? Also please tell me how you are going to force people who spent thousands and thousands of dollars on their insurance only to get it taken away and replaced with something they don't want. Do they get their money back? This is America isn't it? You have this notion that insurance companies are the most evil entity that exists, and it is true that they do use some dirty tactics, but this HC bill holds them accountable for that. Case in point, my employee provided health coverage paid IN FULL my wife's pre-natal care, every doctor visit she made, my son's birth, her c-section, the entire 3 day hospital stay, including my son's circumcision for FREE. I paid ZERO dollars. I am not a corporatist, but I am also not an anti-capitalist. I believe companies should be regulated by a consumer protection agency among other regulations to make them play fair. I believe this HC bill does a lot to address their more shadier practices. Also, I am for a PO, like I said, this is America, we love choices.

[Enthusiast]

200. The insurance industry provides

zero health care. They are an unnecessary and costly middle man. There is simply no justification for their 'cut' of the health care pie.

We only need to look at socialized systems around the world for an example. Our system costs far more yet it is no better. The difference is the profit motive. Human health should not be a commodity.

Maybe this country should start manufacturing something tangible again instead of shuffling paper for profit.

[Go2Peace]

119. WRONG! "Single payer" if done honestly would cost almost nothing to implement

Though there would be other policy requirements to deal with change in the insurance industry.

All "single payer" means is that all payments are processed in one place. You are confusing that term with "universal healthcare".

[FarLeftFist]

154. Yes, and those policy requirements to deal with the change....

Would no doubt take 20 yrs to implement in DC. Probably never with a republican congress and senate. Millions and millions would die in that time and foreclosures would be through the roof by then, as would everyone's premiums in the mean time.

[mdmc]

135. I disagree

[juno jones]

166. Lot more out there for USP than most here will concede.

But how should I know? I'm not a pundit, only a member of the po' folk who stalks message boards when I'm not working myself into the grave.

If we got rid of wars of choice, we'd be just fine. The working folk think those are pretty stupid too.

Your user name connotes irony...

[FarLeftFist]

172. Irony depends on the issue at hand, I don't march in lock-step with the latest meme

Independent thinker, far left fantasist, democrat realist.

[flyarm]

171. other countries have managed to have single payer type plans..

and their doctors and Big Pharma ,that they too buy from, have not closed up shop..what they have done is transfer who pays their profit..and it is we Americans that are subsidizing all the other nations with Single payer!!

Most of those meds that Americans are buying through Canada ..came from the USA to begin with!..we are re-importing what USA big Pharma ..have exported! To countries that get those meds at a negotiated great price..It is Americans that are getting royally fucked!

And many of Big Pharma in the USA are foreign corporations making, and developing those meds here..on USA soil.. on OUR federal Tax subsidies..another words ..your tax dollars..and then shipping the drugs back to their countries for pennies to the dollar..while we Americans are being charged Rolls Royce prices!

We the people are getting doubly fucked!

[salib]

38. Just like it makes no sense to call it "reform"

"without a robust public option".

We saw where that one went.

[Better Believe It]

40. K & R

[Goldstein1984]

41. My letter to President Obama:

Submitted to www.whitehouse.gov on 08JAN2010 @ 3:30 AST

Dear President Obama;

Re: Health Care Reform

You may have noticed the rumble of a distant stampede. It's the sound of many of those who supported you in 2008 going off in search of someone else to support in 2012.

The Internet is overflowing with video of you making promises you now deny you made. You are pushing a health care package that not only places a burden on the backs of an already devastated working class, but constitutes a social program for an industry that skims profit off of the top of a health care system to which it contributes nothing.

Whether or not you have decided to be a one- or a two-term president, I caution you to listen to the people.

It is not your career and legacy in question, but the integrity of an entire system of government.

Regards

[truedelphi]

46. Very wellput.

I have tried to write similar things, but always end up saying stuff like "You Great Big Smooth Talking Liar!!! When will you tell us the truth?"

Somehow I don't think that type of communication advances the cause any.

[Goldstein1984]

64. I just write what is on my mind, then...

I edit out the you-big-smooth-talking-liar stuff.

I like to mix my therapy and communication.

[truedelphi]

When your maturity is on loan let me know

Not that my maturity credit is any worthier than my cash and carry credit, but still...

Some maturity would be nice to have around.

[ima_sinnic]

47. +1 excellent

:thumbsup:

[bertman]

61. Excellent letter, Goldstein1984.

[Enthusiast]

95. That there's a nice letter. nt

[Goldstein1984]

98. I send about one per day. All short like that one. Some shorter.

We'll be buds by 2012.

[nvme]

151. I copied your letter

Thanks for posting

[pleah]

42. K&R

[TheWatcher]

48. K &R.

People need to wake up.

[SanchoPanza]

49. Know what you're pontificating about.

Neither the House nor the Senate version of HCR would tax benefits on the employee or policy-holder side.

The original Senate provision put a 35% tax on the employer. The revised provision in the Majority Leader's Mark put a 40% tax on the premiums collected by insurance companies. Which is the same as a 40% tax on employers, because insurers will pass that cost on to any employer who seeks a high-cost plan that is not exempt from the tax.

[twitomy]

50. So lets punish employers for providing health insurance

That'll get everyone insured! :sarcasm:

Such brilliance from our Democratic "Best and Brightest" more here:sarcasm: and here :sarcasm:

[SanchoPanza]

52. Punishment for providing overpriced insurance at the expense of wages?

Absolutely.

[twitomy]

59. Wow do you need a reality check...

You think punishing employers for providing good coverage will make them increase their wages?
wha? Or are you into punishing for the sake of punishing?


What is going to happen is employers will drop insurance altogether as they wont be able to afford a 40% increase, or get lousier plans. And I highly doubt the wages will go up, if at all.

My, I feel healthier already...

[SanchoPanza]

66. No. And stop being obtuse.

I think giving employers an incentive not to dump compensation into benefits because they don't want to get hit by payroll taxes on wage increases is a good idea.

And if you think employers would drop coverage entirely, then you clearly don't understand marginal rates. Premium dollars above the threshold will be taxed. Not the entire value of the package.

[twitomy]

72. So your saying its cheaper for employers to provide

better benfits than wages. So why are there so many jobs with little or crappy beneifts? Why so many
uninsured due to this? The bottom line is if you think making it more expensive for employers to
provide good inurance will cause more people to be insured by employers, your kidding yourself.
By your reasoning, the unions should be tickled by this proposal...but they are not.

I stand corrected on your second point.

[SanchoPanza]

75. Few points.

1) You assume insurance policies above the current threshold aren't massively overpriced. The average price of a policy for a family of four is $13,375. The tax threshold, underneath which no tax will be levied, is $21,000. And the provision has exemptions for policies that are insuring employees in high-risk occupations. So unless you have an occupation that puts you're health at risk on a regular basis, there really is no reason to have a policy at that level of value. Especially considering all these prices are inflated.

2) Funneling money into benefits is a byproduct of the tax code and union negotiations, not of the benevolence of certain employees. This is due, in large part, to employers being responsible for payroll taxes on employee wages, while getting a tax deduction for providing benefits (the deduction doesn't really amount to much, however, and basically it means that benefits are tax free from an employer perspective). The gist of the situation is that, if concessions are being demanded, management has a financial incentive to pay out concessions in benefits in order to avoid taxes. Companies that provide substandard, or no insurance, are likely not union shops.

3) I don't think that the proposal will cause more people to be insured by their employers, or less. I honestly don't know, and I haven't seen any data on the impact on employer-based coverage. Employer surveys I've seen have shown a mix of a "continued commitment to employee health and a re-evaluation of insurance policy details." Likely it will result in employer's now having a financial incentive not to take overpriced plans.

That's really the whole point, and it should be noted that the bulk of the revenue the JCT says the tax will generate is not directly from the tax, but from income taxes from increased wages. Whether you believe that or not is up to you, but there's a pretty strong correlation between cash spent on benefits and cash not spent on wages, and employers generally see fungibility between the two. And we're dealing with union companies, first and foremost, so there will be strong pressure on those same companies to past that savings on. At least their should be if the union in question is worth a damn.

No, the point is to get more accurate pricing in employer-based coverage. Whether or not this results in more people being covered by their employer or less, and either outcome has its advantages and disadvantages for both workers and employers, is another issue.

[Vattel]

103. Let's have an honest debate.

Sancho says: "You assume insurance policies above the current threshold aren't massively overpriced. The average price of a policy for a family of four is $13,375."

The current price of insurance policies is not really the issue. Becuase of expected increases in the price of health insurance, the CBO estimates that by 2016, 19% of policies will be hit by the excise tax. I'm a bit tired of seeing defenders of the excise tax emphasize the average cost of policies today, which would only be relevant if healthcare costs were not rising at a far greater rate than the average rate of inflation.

I don't know enough about the consequences of the excise tax to be adamantly opposed to it, but it's hard to make an informed decision when the issues are distorted.

[SanchoPanza]

182. OK, great.

"Becuase of expected increases in the price of health insurance, the CBO estimates that by 2016, 19% of policies will be hit by the excise tax."

That's not a problem for the tax itself, but a problem with premium inflation. The JCT/CBO analysis could not, if I remember correctly, reach a number on how many employers would elect to take lower cost plans (and lower cost does not automatically mean lower quality... some people seem to be stuck on that), and the 19% figure is based on an assumption that they won't do exactly that. Meaning that if no contracts are negotiated prior to 2016, 16% of employer health plans will be hit by the tax. I personally find that possibility hard to believe.

My gripe with the tax, fundamentally, is that all the populist sentiment is causing its proponents to advertise it as a financing mechanism when it clearly isn't. We have to pay for this somehow, so we might as well make people we don't particularly like pay for it. Which isn't normally a problem if you're doing something like the surtax in the House Bill, something that I think should be brought into the final package regardless of whether or not the excise tax stays. Creating such a tax as a finance mechanism is, to be blunt, stupid in the extreme because it won't be reliable. You won't know precisely how much money you'll be making on it, because the wage/benefits correlation is driven by multiple factors, not just the benefits deduction. The benefits deduction is a big part, but not the only part. You can make a reliable prediction that some firms will reduce premium expenditures (they will anyway because of overall cost reductions), but arriving at a definite number is incredibly difficult, and to have that difficult prediction be tied to paying for something is just sloppy policy.

Which demonstrates how utterly disingenuous budget hawks really are, but that's a separate debate.

"I don't know enough about the consequences of the excise tax to be adamantly opposed to it, but it's hard to make an informed decision when the issues are distorted."

It's also difficult because this is pretty experimental. The wage/benefits structure has basically been in place since WWII. As big as a problem as it presents, its a problem that people have grown accustomed to.

[Go2Peace]

124. That would work if these "cadillac" plans were really what the propaganda says

But the fact is most of these plans are simply good coverage. In fact my UNION fought plan will be one of these, and it is not even comparable to what Europe has. This is all bullshit and just more of the same division and use of jealousy to get us all against each other.

I have been fighting for others to have decent healthcare. Why are you also not supporting me????

[flyarm]

134. the "PROPAGANDA" IS ALSO NOT Taking into consideration Husband and wife union plans combined!

I am retired flight crew with major airline..while flying it was mandatory I was covered by my company..because of the high injury risk and the danger risks of the job..that insurance would be CONSIDERED a "CADILLAC" POLICY under the current Senate bill..

My husband also has what would be classified a "cadillac" policy..

I do not use my airline insurance since retiring..but i have not let it drop or expire..I took early retirement..so i am 8 years from qualifying for medicare..and have taken the option to be covered by one insurance policy ( which i can do since retired).. i do not use my insurance but use my husbands with a retiement option i did not have while flying ...but i want to know mine is available..to me in my senior years if i need it for any reason.

Why do I want mine available..because my dad died young as a union member..with an incredible health care plan..when he died my mom was covered by my dad's insurance ..but after he died ..the Union rules were changed and my mom got caught in that change.. my mom only got the coverage for 5 years after his death..my mom had Leukemia..we could not get insurance for her when my dad's insurance expired..well we could... but it was so expensive ..it was unaffordable for her.

This is why I want to retain my Union coverage..for my senior years..so I don't have to worry about my husbands policy eliminating me in the future.

But none of the Propagandists here have even tried to explain what happens to husband and wives who have two policies..One from each spouse ..that are both union and both Cadillac policies..

And I have seen nothing that will keep both policies from being slapped with an exise tax.

And the bullshit about the thresholds..doesn't hold water..Costs in NY, NJ, Conn, Pa are alot higher than in Kansas..or Missouri..or Nebraska..


And how do I know that..because I lived in Missouri and Kansas ..and in NJ..because I have airline passes, I still fly back to Kansas for my dental work! It is enormously cheaper than in the current states i live of FL and NJ.

[SanchoPanza]

183. If you are retired, you are likely exempt.

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

Exemptions begin on page 1982.

[flyarm]

189. I am now and have always been a Union member in solidarity! What effects my Union brothers and

sisters ..effect me..somehow i have no doubt you would never understand!

I also work for the good of All Americans to bring them Up in standards ..not down to yours!

My standards, values and Principles have never waivered from my lifelong Democratic beliefs....my standards and values and principles are not for sale..this plan is not anything that represents my democratic beliefs yesterday..nor today !..nor will it ever be!

[SanchoPanza]

194. Fabulous.

I'm actually not going to indulge in this little fantasy you've constructed that paints be as someone who has no idea what goes on in union negotiations, that I'm not a supporter of unions, or that I'm not a member of a union. If you want to continue thinking that, fine. It won't be the first time a person has made asinine assumptions on this board in order to feel better about themselves.

And for the record, I would consider not paying through the nose for overpriced insurance to be a high standard.

[Go2Peace]

203. Instead of saying "you don't know" you make your presence suspect by talking around your position..

You can clear the air a bit by answering these questions:

1. Do you support unionization and union movements?

2. Are you a member of a union?

I would imagine #2 is no, or you would have stated it. Care to clarify?

[SanchoPanza]

204. Though I feel no need to clear the air, as the quality of argument should suffice...

The answer to both questions is "Yes."

Will I be asked about the validity of my birth certificate next?

[Go2Peace]

205. I have to admit to being a little surprised

So you must really believe this is the right thing. Guess we have to agree to disagree.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[mdmc]

137. My employer will not be punished

the punishment will be kicked down to me.

[flyarm]

139. absolutely!!..these people posting the propaganda ..(and on the take in my opinion) are full of

horse poop!

[mdmc]

140. courage my friend

it seems almost like this hcr bill is designed to fail. Perhaps Obama knows that this is the best that can be done, and that it will need to be corrected in the future. What a chess player!

[SandWalker1984]

147. Some of them may be Rahm's rovers....

...you know, WH staff being instructed by Rahm to post here so we the little people meekly accept that we are being screwed by the Democrats in Washington for the corporate bottom line. :think:

[flyarm]

155. you are probably 100% correct! They use the same tactics as the ole paid Bushbots..

too many of us dealt with those paid pigs in the past ..and it is easy to recognize the exact same tactics and verb-age.

[SanchoPanza]

186. And some of the opponents may be pompous windbags.

Now excuse me while I go roll around in a stack of rescinded insurance policies with the White House Chief of Staff. :eyes:

[flyarm]

190. This formerly elected Democrat will excuse you..and will not miss your departure! eom

[TorchTheWitch]

53. and every employer will make their employees eat it

Just as they did when prices went up... they started making the employees chip in and/or offered less coverage for the employees. Regardless, it's GOING to be the employees that will suffer by either having to pay more out of their paychecks toward their insurance coverage or the employer will only offer a policy that covers those employees less. Employers WILL NOT eat that tax - they will pass it on to their employees as they ALWAYS do.

[SanchoPanza]

69. Yeah and?

"Regardless, it's GOING to be the employees that will suffer by either having to pay more out of their paychecks toward their insurance coverage"

That's if medical inflation continues at its current pace. If that happens, then the entire HCR endeavor is a failure whether the excise tax is in the bill or not.

"Or the employer will only offer a policy that covers those employees less."

So? That's kind of the whole point. If a person's employer is paying that kind of money for an insurance policy, it means one of two things:

A) The employee is in a high risk occupation. Such policies are justifiably exempt from the tax.

or

B) The employer has been slowly funneling money into health benefits in order to give the appearance of appropriately compensating their workers.

[Name removed]

141. Deleted message

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

[AllyCat]

60. And the insurance companies won't pass that tax onto their subscribers or anything will they?

Gee, they don't mind cutting into their profits to pay that tax at all! They aren't money-grubbing scum or anything.

So under this system, I should be GLAD that my insurance plan will fall in the "cadillac" category and then my employer will drop it (there goes that pay raise I could have had!). And then I will be required to buy the "cheap" plan that requires I go to a hospital 30 minutes away from our house instead of the one right in town. And all the docs covered are also 30-45 minutes away. And not very good from my personal experience. And those higher copays!

Oh happy day!!!

:sarcasm:

[SanchoPanza]

67. No, they won't.

Because they won't pick overpriced plans. They'll want to pocket the cost savings, at which point it's the responsibility of contract negotiators to exact wage concessions.

And if you're employer is now paying over 8000 dollars for your individual plan or 21000 for your family plan, you're either in an occupation that has justifiably high insurance risks (which is exempt from the tax), or you're being gouged by your employer at the expense of your wages. The average cost of a family plan on the individual market is nearly half that.

Or you're going by the flawed flawed CWA study, which assumes that medical inflation will continue apace regardless of any reform that's implemented. Take your pick.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

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

[flyarm]

127. well yes..that is the most likely possibility..lo be it for me to point that out..

and project that on anyone..

But enough of them have exposed themselves ....I don't need to do it for them.

[Go2Peace]

126. You need to study up a little. The "lower price" average you mention

Any plan comparable to what the rest of the developed world has is a "cadillac" plan under this bill. Nobody disagrees that we pay too much for our insurance, but we are not fixing that problem with this tax.

Those lower priced "average" plans are full of loopholes, limitations, and high deductables. So what you are unwittingly advocating is to "lower the bar". You have allowed yourself, in believing the corporate and ideological propaganda, to fight against the few that have policies approaching what most countries have by default.

My "cadillac" policy is better than the corporate watered down crap out there, but it still contains %15 co-pays and some fairly robust limitations. You need to become a little better informed. If you do you will see that the individual plans being referenced are crap, full of loopholes and limitations, and based on cherry picking.

As I stated in another post. I am a supported of decent coverage for everyone, but why are you not supporting others who are fortunate to have policies that approach what the rest of the world has? You are kicking your own in the shin. You have been bamboozled by dishonest debate.

The few true "Cadillac" plans are mostly in the hands of the rich, probably more often individual plans and unnafected by this legislation.

[SanchoPanza]

181. You'll have to be more specific.

"Any plan comparable to what the rest of the developed world has is a 'cadillac' plan under this bill."

As I said elsewhere, it's really difficult to overestimate how inflated an insurance policy has to be to breach $21000 in value, even in todays market.

And, to be honest, comparisons to the "rest of the developed world" are immaterial so long as direct price controls are off the table. A standard plan in France or the Netherlands is going to be better than a standard plan here no matter what comes out of the final bill, unfortunately.

"My 'cadillac' policy is better than the corporate watered down crap out there, but it still contains %15 co-pays and some fairly robust limitations."

I think you're looking at the tax in isolation, when you should be looking at it in concert with a host of other reforms that will increase the quality of coverage and reduce its cost. If looked at in isolation, the tax would be a disastrous policy. Not as disastrous as removing the employer exemption, but pretty bad. And I think that's a problem of HCR critics in general, or at least those that are coming from the left. You really have to look at the entire proposal, because each provision impacts the effectiveness of the other.

And, to be specific, is your "cadillac" policy valued above the threshold?

[Go2Peace]

201. I understand your point... but

what you are essentially saying is that I should suffer because you believe that in the long term we all get better coverage. I suppose in a different nation where corporations cared about their workers you might be correct. But I have no doubt that these "influencers" will not do what you think they will.

As long as business and insurance have the kind of power they have now there is no reason for them to go along, they will just weasel and find other ways to screw with health care.

I am glad you can be so optimistic, but you are fighting history and reality. It won't do what you think. And I am incredibly glad that my union and others will block this effort. I will be HELPING.

[flyarm]

174. not so and you are incorrect! eom

[Go2Peace]

202. um... OK... If you say??

[flyarm]

68. so to you we should all have employer paid low cost shitty insurance?????

Because that to me, is what you are saying..because i have high cost excellent insurance..my Employer should be punished or penalized for believing in supplying their employees with excellent Health "CARE" coverage!!

WOW YOU ARE REALLY A PIECE OF WORK..remind me of that when you get fucking sick and you have shitty insurance..and you go bankrupt when you need health care..that My employer should be punished for making sure their employees didn't end up like you!

[SanchoPanza]

71. If your emplyer is paying one cent above the current threshold for your policy...

Then you are being gouged. And you are contributing to premium inflation in the process.

[flyarm]

76. 100% BULLSHIT! Unions Rally to Oppose a Proposed Tax on Health Insurance

THIS IS ONE RETIRED UNION MEMBER THAT WILL PUT ALL MY TIME AND MONEY MAKING SURE ANYONE WHO SIGNS ONTO THIS SHIT BILL LOSES THEIR SEAT IN MY GOVERNMENT! I WILL NOT ACCEPT SUB STANDARD HEALTH CARE INSURANCE BECAUSE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE THINKS I SHOULD NOT HAVE GOOD COVERAGE! I WORKED FOR MY ENTIRE LIFETIME FOR THE COVERAGE I HAVE..I SACRIFICED AND GAVE UP CONCESSIONS FOR MY HEALTH CARE COVERAGE..UNLESS YOU OR THE GOVERNMENT WANT TO RETRO ACTIVELY PAY ME BACK FOR WHAT I GAVE UP FOR MY BENEFITS..THAN I WILL FIGHT YOU TO THE DEATH AND THOSE IN "MY GOVERNMENT" WHO WANT TO PENALIZE ME FOR HAVING GOOD HEALTH CARE COVERAGE ..AFTER I GAVE UP $$$$$$$$$ AND TIME AND PICKET LINES AND LOCK OUTS AND STRIKES AND LOSS OF PAY FOR THOSE BENEFITS!
THIS BILL WILL KILL THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR DECADES IF THIS BILL IS PASSED WITH THIS TAX ON THE MIDDLE CLASS WORKER..COUNT ON THAT!

DON'T BELIEVE WHAT I AM SAYING??

Let me add..my husband was VP of his union for 11 years, one of the most successful Unions in the past decade. He was one of 2 people who signed the ratification of our contract to end the longest strike in our Unions history, and was at the table negotiating that contract and several previous contracts.

Oh and we were asked to go to the annual Union Rep meeting in December to speak to the current Union Reps young and old..to educate them what they are up against in this current atmosphere of Corporate destruction of Union rights and benefits.

The destruction of the democratic party as it is today will end and their long history of Union unity will end, if this bill goes through with that tax attached..I assure you of that! And PSSSSSS..what the Union leaders support or not ..will not be a determining factor..the members will stop this..or they will seriously hurt every member in congress's chance of re-election.



Unions Rally to Oppose a Proposed Tax on Health Insurance (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/09union.html


By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: January 8, 2010

When millions of blue-collar workers were leaning toward John McCain during the 2008 campaign, labor unions moved many of them into Barack Obama’s column by repeatedly hammering one theme: Mr. McCain wanted to tax their health benefits.

But now labor leaders are fuming that President Obama has endorsed a tax on high-priced, employer-sponsored health insurance policies as a way to help cover the cost of health care reform. And as Senate and House leaders seek to negotiate a final health care bill, unions are pushing mightily to have that tax dropped from the legislation. Or at the very least, they want the price threshold raised so that the tax would affect fewer workers.

-snip-

In recent days, labor’s strategy has become clear. Unions are urging their members to flood their representatives with e-mail messages and phone calls in the hope that the House will stand fast and reject the tax. The A.F.L.-C.I.O., a federation of nine million union members, has declared next Wednesday “National Call-In Day” asking workers to call their lawmakers to urge them not to tax health benefits. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is urging members to tell their representatives that “such a tax is simply a massive middle-class tax hike that this nation’s working families should not be forced to endure.”

Many Democrats fear that enacting the tax will hurt their re-election chances.

“This would really have a negative impact on the Democratic base,” said Representative Joe Courtney, Democrat of Connecticut, who has enlisted 190 House Democrats to sign a letter opposing the tax. “As far as the message goes, it’s a real toughie to defend.”

While union leaders would prefer killing the tax, some say privately that they could live with it if the threshold is lifted to $27,000, say, or $30,000. They argue that many insurance policies above $23,000 are typical of the coverage in high-cost areas like New York or Boston, or policies that cover small businesses or employers with older workers.

According to a union survey, one in four members would be hit by a $23,000 threshold, but only one in 14 if the threshold were raised to $27,000.

White House officials, however, voice concern that raising the threshold that much would lose $50 billion of the $149 billion in revenue that the tax is expected to generate over 10 years.

-snip-

[mdmc]

138. thanks for the link and info

peace and low stress

[SanchoPanza]

177. Insults don't work and neither does shouting.

The government is not out to "PENALIZE YOU FOR HAVING GOOD HEALTH CARE COVERAGE." If they're out to penalize anybody (and that this debate has to boil down to pseudo-populist nonsense is beyond absurd), it's companies that would put money into benefits, benefits which could have little impact on overall compsensation, instead of paying payroll taxes on wage increases.

And calling this a tax increase on workers is woefully disingenuous. That's like saying a new jobs program is a tax on the unemployed.

[AllyCat]

191. You know what SP? You're right. The gov't isn't out to penalize us

they just want to please their corporate masters. They don't think this stuff through. The insurance companies do this for them. Big Insurance decides what they want and what will benefit them and their profits the most. Then they tell the "elected leaders" what needs to pass if they want to stay in office. And that's what we get.

Comparing a jobs program as a tax on the unemployed makes no sense. Think about what will happen. Employers won't keep plans they have to pay a tax on and insurance companies are not going to pay a tax on these plans because that will cut into their profits. So who will pay? it's a back door tax if I ever saw one.

These high coverage plans still pale in comparison to what the rest of the world gets for pennies on the dollar, or euro or whatever. We've fought to get this and think that everyone deserves such a plan IF NOT MORE. There is not one thing about this plan that is a waste except the PROFIT the insurance companies get from it so that they can buy another mansion/vacation home.

Just out of curiosity, do those paying you to post this stuff provide you with health insurance?

[SanchoPanza]

192. Few, if any will pay the tax.

That's the point. The tax generates revenue indirectly, as wages are increased.

Saying that it results in a tax increase for workers is like saying an unemployed person finding a job is now subject to a tax increase. It's disingenuous.

"Employers won't keep plans they have to pay a tax on and insurance companies are not going to pay a tax on these plans because that will cut into their profits. So who will pay?"

No one will pay. Insurance companies simply won't offer overpriced plans anymore. What the employer does with the cost savings will be decided by contract negotiations.

"These high coverage plans still pale in comparison to what the rest of the world gets for pennies on the dollar, or euro or whatever."

And? The kind of plans "the rest of the world gets" are subject to either strict price controls, are heavily subsidized, and/or are provided by the government. To an extent far in excess to what is currently proposed by either bill. Even without the tax, this won't change. This line or argument is a red herring.

"Just out of curiosity, do those paying you to post this stuff provide you with health insurance?"

No, they provide me with a fresh supply of blood from unbaptized babies. And Rahm gives me free back rubs whenever I'm at the White House.

[flyarm]

87. the threshold in NY and NJ and Conn..is alot different than the threshold in Kansas

so who and what states set your illustrious Threshold? And what guarantees do any of us have that those thresholds won't change????????


In These Times: House In Revolt Over Excise Tax, White House Asks Unions to “Celebrate” It
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/5394/house_in_rev... /


Friday
January 8
6:23 pm

House members are continuing their strong opposition to the Senate excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" plans that a growing number of economists and labor unions say would raise costs for middle-class families and wouldn't "bend the cost curve," as proponents argue.

At the same time, as Huffington Post reported, the White House and some Senators are continuing to push the now-discredited notion that the by lowering health care benefits employers would somehow end up raising wages, thus generating more tax revenue. An earlier In These Times column dubbed this notion "voodoo economics for the punditocracy."

-snip-

Their members, expressing increasingly opposition during a conference call Thursday among the House Democratic caucus, have good reason to be concerned about the dangers they face politically with polls showing two-to-one opposition against it. -- and the lack of credible evidence justifying the ivory-tower theories justifying a taxation provision that could spell political suicide for Democrats. Rep. Joe Courtney (D-CT), who organized a letter with 190 House members in opposition to the tax, told In These Times, "Pelosi was reporting her conversations with the President, and she has not backed down. The polls are rock solid, and frankly, they're terrible." He cited the recent, under-reported polling of Stan Greenberg commissioned by the National Education Association that showed a sharp upswing in voters who would vote against a candidate if he or she supported the excise tax. "They were very dramatic," says Courtney. "Pelosi has seen those polls, Chris Van Hollen has seen those polls."

But the policy grounds are just as weak as the politics. "The more we peel away the superficial claims, he shakier they are," Rep. Courtney says. "But it's a race against time," given the White House push for passing a bill modeled after the Senate version. But the health benefit tax = wage increases fairy tale doesn't have any solid evidence to back it up. As I noted in a column in Truthout.org, "The Congressional Budget Office said that over 80 percent of the revenues would somehow come from all those raises lavished on employees even though we're slowly emerging from the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. In fact, surveys show as few as 9 percent of employers would actually give any raises to make up for reduced benefits, according to the Watson Wyatt actuary firm."


With the White House seeming to harden their position, Courtney says, "There's definitely potential for a big impasse." He foresees the upcoming meeting between President Obama and unions on Monday as an effort by the President to convince unions to support this historical health care reform. At the same time, knowledgeable sources say, House leaders and the White House may be open to compromise, and the House leadership, at least, is looking for alternative funding sources that could be acceptable to the Senate, such as raising Medicare taxes on unearned income; the current system essentially exempts wealthy heirs living off of investment income from paying anything towards Medicare revenues.

-snip-

[SanchoPanza]

180. True

The threshold is set nationally and is tied to inflation + 1%. So it will go up as years go by. Some opponents of the tax argue that medical inflation won't come into parity with general inflation (which would be horrible in general, whether you have the tax or not) and that, gradually, plans not intended to hit the threshold will begin to hit it in ten years or so. But to assume that medical inflation won't go down is to assume that HCR will fail entirely.

Not to mention that it also assumes that the HCR package as a whole will not increase the quality of plans across the board. The best case scenario, in my opinion, is that people will pay less to get more. The worst is that they pay less to get the same.

You can make the argument that the threshold needs to be regionally indexed, but traditionally speaking regional indexing have been unfair to low population areas. The big fight over the public option essentially boiled down to Midwestern Democrats not wanting to have a new program tied to Medicare rates, which pay doctors and hospitals in their states less because of regional price indexing. You can also make the argument that the threshold should be higher, which I'm sympathetic to. The problem with the tax is that its primarily being advertised as a financing mechanism and not a cost control mechanism. If setting it to $27,000 or $29,000 hypothetically impacts fewer people who shouldn't be taxed, even if it generates less revenue, I'm fine with that and most people should be. But if it's set too high than it might as well not be there, and here's why:

The excise tax, ideally, functions like a Millionaire's Tax. When you have a top marginal income tax rate of 80%+ on income over a million dollars. The point of such a tax isn't to generate revenue from the government (even though it does, but not as much as people think), but to provide an incentive for high-paid managers and CEOs to not take large yearly salaries and instead take stock, which serves as an investment in the company and gives managers an incentive to pursue long-term growth that is characterized by increased hiring and better wages. But they do all this to avoid paying the tax. When you have the opposite set of incentives, or when managers have personal financial incentives to pursue short term gain, you get things like Enron.

[midnight]

51. Well said,and that should be about the last we hear about this. Taxing the

working class for health care services. They are drunk with greed..

[unkachuck]

54. "...remove the profiteering..."

....there was 2 trillion dollars spent on healthcare last year in this country....what percentage of that was insurance industry profit?....that's the sum we have available to reform healthcare with right now....

....there's plenty of money in the system to provide healthcare to everyone, if we would actually use the money for healthcare....

[Enthusiast]

97. Exactly right. nt

[Nederland]

121. LMAO

You didn't even take the time to do the math, did you? Confiscate all insurance company profits and you get a grand total of less than 27 billion dollars.

Congratulations, you just paid for 4 days of health care for the entire country.

:rofl:

[Enthusiast]

196. LMAO

And for only 27 billion Dollars they kill thousands of people by denying them critical care! They are of ZERO value to the American consumer. They perform no health care operation. They administrate only and take far more money than they deserve for even that. The health insurance industry is as useless as tits on a bore hog. Just like you, a representative of the insurance industry. :rofl:

[AllyCat]

56. Can't wait to read all the responses of "but it only affects a few people"

or "you obviously need education about what this bill does for us"....whaaa!!!

Makes me so nuts! Why on earth should ANY middle class people have to pay extra for this POS bill??

I'm with you debbierlus!

[flyarm]

57. Thank you!! indeed!! K&R ..n/t

[bertman]

62. You nailed it, debbierlus. Recommend.

[scentopine]

63. We must stop exploiting human suffering, stop turning fear and cruelty into profit -nt

[doremus jessup]

65. K & R

Bingo !

[Digit]

73. I agree wholeheartedly

I stand with you.

[VOX]

74. Wow -- another enthusiastic K&R! n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

78. Thank you Debbie.

And thank you for your long months and tireless efforts on the health care front.

[onestepforward]

79. K&R

[donheld]

80. I'm very disappointed I can only recommend this once.

[mdmc]

143. +1

[winyanstaz]

81. K & R...well done!

[kentuck]

83. K & R

Absolutely!

[jotsy]

84. Cut out that irrelevant, murdering, money sucking middleman is right!

End the age of means over merit.

[johnaries]

85. Although I agree with your last sentence, and I prefer a single-payer

system - we ain't getting single-payer anytime soon. Hopefully, we will get it "one day" but we have been waiting for it since TR. In the meantime, countless millions have suffered.

Further, you are mischaracterizing the proposal. you have bought into the "hype" that is ultimately being produced by the insurance companies because THEY are the ones who will be taxed.

Congratulations. You have been duped by the corporations and are officially a "corporate tool".

[Go2Peace]

128. Right, so you are saying that the heads of the Unions have also been duped and are corporate tools?

That is spin worthy of the name. Maybe it is time to stop fighting each other.

I am sure you mean well but you are naive if you think the Unions haven't researched this and understand what the effect will be far better than you do.

[flyarm]

178. wow ..where to start, Unions Rally to Oppose a Proposed Tax on Health Insurance (NYT)

Unions Rally to Oppose a Proposed Tax on Health Insurance (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/09union.html


By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: January 8, 2010

When millions of blue-collar workers were leaning toward John McCain during the 2008 campaign, labor unions moved many of them into Barack Obama’s column by repeatedly hammering one theme: Mr. McCain wanted to tax their health benefits.

But now labor leaders are fuming that President Obama has endorsed a tax on high-priced, employer-sponsored health insurance policies as a way to help cover the cost of health care reform. And as Senate and House leaders seek to negotiate a final health care bill, unions are pushing mightily to have that tax dropped from the legislation. Or at the very least, they want the price threshold raised so that the tax would affect fewer workers.

-snip-

In recent days, labor’s strategy has become clear. Unions are urging their members to flood their representatives with e-mail messages and phone calls in the hope that the House will stand fast and reject the tax. The A.F.L.-C.I.O., a federation of nine million union members, has declared next Wednesday “National Call-In Day” asking workers to call their lawmakers to urge them not to tax health benefits. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is urging members to tell their representatives that “such a tax is simply a massive middle-class tax hike that this nation’s working families should not be forced to endure.”

Many Democrats fear that enacting the tax will hurt their re-election chances.

“This would really have a negative impact on the Democratic base,” said Representative Joe Courtney, Democrat of Connecticut, who has enlisted 190 House Democrats to sign a letter opposing the tax. “As far as the message goes, it’s a real toughie to defend.”

While union leaders would prefer killing the tax, some say privately that they could live with it if the threshold is lifted to $27,000, say, or $30,000. They argue that many insurance policies above $23,000 are typical of the coverage in high-cost areas like New York or Boston, or policies that cover small businesses or employers with older workers.

According to a union survey, one in four members would be hit by a $23,000 threshold, but only one in 14 if the threshold were raised to $27,000.

White House officials, however, voice concern that raising the threshold that much would lose $50 billion of the $149 billion in revenue that the tax is expected to generate over 10 years.

-snip-

[Jakes Progress]

86. Just K&R. K&R damn it. nt

[Kitty Herder]

89. K&R!!!

[Usrename]

90. k&r

[Enthusiast]

91. Right.

"Until we hold human life and dignity over profit and greed, we are lost as a nation. Totally and hopelessly lost."

And this is true on every issue that confronts this nation from the wars to regulating the greedy banking institutions.

This country needs a hero. A real hero to step forward and capture the imagination of the people. Someone that will not back down. Someone that will restore our representative democracy.

[nightrain]

129. I think there's danger in hoping for a "hero", someone to rescue us.

I think many of us hoped and thought that person might be Obama. Perhaps each one of us is going to have rescue ourselves and not hope some outside person is going to do it for us.

I haven't seen Avatar, but I'm very leery of some outside rescuer/hero person.

[Enthusiast]

199. I have not seen

Avatar.

I don't want an outside rescuer. I want one of us that will fight back against corporate abuses.

[leftstreet]

96. K&R

[Major Hogwash]

100. Well said.

But, money talks, and we ain't got the money.

[OneBlueSky]

101. you're absolutely right, and here's why . . .

corporations have one, and only one, purpose for existing, and that's to make money for their shareholders . . . they are required by law to put this above everything else . . . providing quality healthcare, or even affordable insurance, is NOT a purpose of insurance companies -- making money is . . . they will therefore do everything in their power to a) increase their income (i.e. raising premiums), and b) decrease their expenses (i.e. reducing benefits and payouts) . . .

how does it make any sense to turn our healthcare system over to corporations whose sole purpose is to charge as much as possible and pay out as little as possible to those they insure? . . .

[tango-tee]

102. Rec! Double and triple rec!

I am observing the American "health care" situation/debate from Europe. It makes me not only shudder, but it makes me angry and want to scream in frustration to think of what Americans have to put up with to attempt satisfying the never-ending greed of the insurance corporations. At the cost of so many lives, so much pain, so much fear for what the future may hold, the destruction of what people worked for all their lives. One illness - all is wiped out.

Here I am, and although I have a painful chronic illness, I pay only EUR 10.00 (not quite $ 15.00) per quarter to my physician. Unlimited number of office visits thereafter. Referrals to specialists cost nothing. I am very, very fortunate.

Standing - well, at the moment rather limping - with you in solidarity!

[mdmc]

144. Hello!

I have a "cadallac" plan here in NYS and I have paid as much as $600.00 per month just in co-pays for meds and treatment. That does not count my bi-weekly buy in or what my employer pays..

Solidarity!

[democrank]

104. "Human life and dignity over profit and greed"

Amen.

[DisgustedInMN]

The future of the Democratic Party is ..

.. at stake, with this crap bill. As it stands now, that future is one of irrelevance. I will NOT lend my support to, or vote for any member of Congress or the Executive Branch that refuses to do the Will of We the People. Make this PIECE OF SHIT ripoff of We the People law, and the Faux Dems may as well not bother running for office for the foreseeable future.

[DisgustedInMN]

106. oops... sorry..

Double posted.

:shrug:

[mochajava666]

107. Well Said. K&R!

[blindpig]

k&r, n/t

[blindpig]

108. k&r, n/t

[perdita9]

110. Recind their Anti-Trust status

There's no reason Insurance companies should have this. Congress needs to remove it as quickly as possible.

[many a good man]

114. But won't the MLR requirements cap profiteering?

A strong MLR should guarantee private insurance companies can't gouge and take in excessive profits. Bills under consideration peg it at 85% but it ought to be at least 90%.

A good MLR could make health insurance reminiscent of early public utilities reform. Public utilities are natural monopolies and they were guaranteed a fair profit in return for expanding and guaranteeing service. It worked well until deregulation came around.

But regulating insurers isonly one part of controlling skyrocketing health care costs. The second part is regulating providers. That's tougher because it raises cries of "rationing". The last part is managing misuse and overuse, something all countries with single payer/nationalized health care are currently grappling with.

[nightrain]

132. why should there be any profit for a corporation that functions primarily

as a payment intermediary. Insurance corporations provide no care at all. They don't do one physical exam, make one nursing home visit, provide no physical therapy treatments, do no surgery, do no psychotherapy, do no well-baby exams, give not one immunization, etc.

The money over and above their denials is what feeds the exhorbitant exec compensation. That's peoples' money! It should be returned to them if the corporation doesn't use it.

The corporations will not be regulated. The 80 to 85% margins are easy to get around, just do some accounting magic. According to Wendell Potter, the accountants are already working on techniques to re-define "healthcare costs". Regulating these behemoths is an impossible joke.

[pecwae]

115. Rec & kick

for succinctly saying all that really needs to be said on this issue.

Frankly, I don't feel that people will ever be put before profits.

[alberg]

125. K&R -- Kill the bill!!!!

[natrat]

130. change you can puke on

[AzDar]

136. K & R

[JamesA1102]

142. But we already tax citizens for Medicare and Medicaid.

Are you saying those programs should be abolished?

[SandWalker1984]

145. Is it time for an Independent Populist Movement?

Since the leaders of the Democratic Party are no longer listening to us, their base, and a lot of Republicans I know are claiming the same, perhaps it is time to gather together to put 3rd party candidates into office? How else can we get Washington's attention, except to slap them in the face?


Time Ripe For An Independent Populist Movement
January 7, 5:30 PMLA Nonpartisan ExaminerRobert Stark

http://www.examiner.com/x-9462-LA-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m1d7-Time-is-right-for-independent-populist-movement
A new poll by NBC/Wall Street Journal shows that a hypothetical Tea Party would beat out both the Republican and Democratic Party's in a three-way match up. According to the poll, more than 40 percent of Americans would support the Tea Party movement, compared to a 35 percent for Democrats and 28 percent for Republicans." The Tea Party movement does not have an official political platform but provides a voice for angry populist sentiment against the government and political establishment. However, there is concern that the movement has been hijacked by Neocons and partisan Republicans the same way the anti-war movement was by Democratic partisans during the Bush administration.

In a new documentary about the tea part movement, activist Nate Wiggim said, "I think a tea party foreign policy would probably be none. A tea party foreign policy would be working on getting the U.S.A. back together… Our economy is in disarray. I don't think this is a time to worry about foreign policy when our country is about to collapse. It's time to take care of ourselves. It was a foolish decision to go to Afghanistan in the first place… our own country's borders are left open," continued Wiggim. "We have all this globalization. We don't produce any of our own products, we always import everything. We need to focus on ourselves before we worry about any other country's foreign issues."

The 2006 and 2008 elections were referendums against the Bush administration and Republican Congress over the Wars in Iraq, corruption, and reckless spending. However the Democrats interpreted it as a mandate for their agenda.

Now Americas are just as fed up with Obama and the Democratic congress. There has not been a situation in recent history were the American public strongly rejected both major political parties. Perhaps the closest situation was when Ross Perot ran as an independent on a Populist platform and earned 19% of the vote.

Obama promised change, but his policies are not that much different than Bush's. He renewed the Patriot Act, continues deficit spending, fails to secure our borders and pushes for amnesty, and continues the two wars in the middle east. Americans have been lied to that the Democrats are liberals and the Republicans are conservatives. We have two parties that believe in globalization over national sovereignty, favor Wall Street and multi-national corporations over the middle class, have no regard for our constitution, and support an interventionist foreign policy that is not in our nations interest.

Americans are now realizing that both parties have failed to provide the solutions to fix our country but the political system is rigged against third parties. However by working within the Republican party, Ron Paul's movement successfully taps into this sentiment and has influenced the direction of the GOP. There are several candidates who are part of his movement running for office this year, including his son Rand Paul who is now leading in the Republican primary for Senate in Kentucky.


Former Congressmen Trafican, who also has a growing following, said "there's a group out of Washington, and in several cities around the country, that want to bring back the old Reform Party, combine it with the Tea Party and bring the Libertarians in and everybody, and they want me to run as an Independent for president." Former CNN pundit Lou Dobbs, who is a self described independent populist and advocate for the middle class has also been mentioned as potential candidate for 2012. Dobbs said, "I will be in the public arena and engaged," and that his areas of interest are, "Illegal immigration, international trade, job creation, and economic growth."

While Independent candidates have long had a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected, if Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet and the Republicans fail to provide an alternative, 2012 may provide an opportunity. The Internet has changed the political scene by breaking the monopoly that the corporate media has long had over political discourse. While getting elected as a third party is still near impossible, we will likely see change within the existing two parties such as with Ron Paul's movement.

[nightrain]

148. I cannot support most of the teabagger solutions to the issues

we face as a country, but I could possibly support a progressive populist third party.

I think it is possible to work with others with whom one shares common ground toward a solution. A temporary alliance, which is what I think Jane Hamsher is doing with Grover Norquist. There might be some issues on which folks from disparate groups could work together, but the "solutions" I would support are vastly different than the teabagger/libertarian folks.

[defendandprotect]

149. No one can be forced to buy something from a private company . . .!!

We need single payer/Medicare for all NOW . . .

Not three years from now --

And, not paying for it beginning now unless we have it!!

[freddie mertz]

150. K & R. Now over 300!

I think we have a winner here.

[flyarm]

170. but the "delete" bugs have arrived..just like locusts!! or Cicada bugs!!

seems some don't want to be exposed by others for their utter ignorance!!

[Faryn Balyncd]

162. k and r

:hi:

[dana_b]

164. Thank you debbie

right as usual!!

[Captain Hilts]

165. Revoke the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption. nt

[HowHasItComeToThis]

167. 336 IS BIGGEST IV'E SEEN

[juno jones]

168. K&R! n/t

[slipslidingaway]

169. knr nt

[flyarm]

173. why are people's replies to certain posters being deleted all of a sudden?

what is going on here??

Mods ..any answer to this.,.so many replies to a certain poster are all being deleted..why would that be??????
I have read this thread several times and i have not seen posts that broke DU rules..so why are posts being deleted all of a sudden?

Thanks mods..

fly

[johan helge]

175. All the recs indicate

that DU-ers think the Congress should have avoided to force people to insure their health. But forced payments are important, whether you have single-payer, health reform with a public option, or the health reform the US now gets. Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/one-health-care-reform-indivisible/):


"Start with the proposition that we don’t want our fellow citizens denied coverage because of preexisting conditions — which is a very popular position, so much so that even conservatives generally share it, or at least pretend to.

So why not just impose community rating — no discrimination based on medical history?

Well, the answer, backed up by lots of real-world experience, is that this leads to an adverse-selection death spiral: healthy people choose to go uninsured until they get sick, leading to a poor risk pool, leading to high premiums, leading even more healthy people dropping out.

So you have to back community rating up with an individual mandate: people must be required to purchase insurance even if they don’t currently think they need it.

But what if they can’t afford insurance? Well, you have to have subsidies that cover part of premiums for lower-income Americans.

In short, you end up with the health care bill that’s about to get enacted. There’s hardly anything arbitrary about the structure: once the decision was made to rely on private insurers rather than a single-payer system — and look, single-payer wasn’t going to happen — it had to be more or less what we’re getting. It wasn’t about ideology, or greediness, it was about making the thing work."

[David Zephyr]

176. K&R #343

.

[Paper Roses]

179. Agree. n/t

[Dinger]

193. KIck

Too late to rec. Wish I'd Have gotten here sooner.

[Desertrose]

195. K& an R - even if I'm too late for the R part

Lost and deliberately led down a road too many still follow willingly.....

[Raine]

197. TOTALLY on point! nt

:thumbsup:

[amborin]

206. agree!