AFL-CIO: Senate health care bill still inadequate

[IndianaGreen]

Senate health care bill still inadequate

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka released the following statement regarding the Senate's passage of health insurance reform legislation:

"In the face of inexcusable partisanship, obstruction and gamesmanship, it is remarkable that Majority Leader Reid was able to move a health care bill through the United States Senate. Not since the passage of Medicare 44 years ago have we seen Republican scare tactics so blatantly contrary to the interests of the American people.

At this historic moment, it is so important to the future of working Americans-and to our country-to get health care reform right. Despite doing some good things, the Senate bill remains inadequate. Substantial changes must be made in the final bill.

Genuine reform must bring down health costs, hold insurance companies accountable, assure that all Americans can get the health care they need and be financed fairly.

* That's why we have been steadfast in support of a public health insurance option. It is the way to break the stranglehold of the insurance industry that has led to skyrocketing health care costs that have especially penalized small business.
* Employers must pay their fair share.
* It makes no sense to tax the benefits of hard-working Americans to pay for health reform.

The House bill curbs insurance companies and taxes the wealthy who benefited so richly from the Bush tax cuts. The Senate bill instead includes exorbitant new taxes on middle class health benefits that would affect one in five workers with employer-provided health coverage-or about 31 million people-in 2016. That's the wrong way to pay for health care reform and it's political suicide.

The House bill is the right model for reform. It covers more people, takes effect more quickly and is financed more fairly. The AFL-CIO is ready to fight on behalf of all working families to produce a final bill that can be called genuine reform. Working people cannot accept anything less."

http://www.usw.org/media_center/news_articles?id=0475

[AVID]

1. "doing some good things" = progress / doing nothing = GOP

[IndianaGreen]

2. 24.6 million will get hit by the tax by 2019

In this report “households” refers to individuals and families paying taxes. Based on JCT data showing that 24.6 million “tax units” would be affected by the excise tax in 2019, Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that 12.6 million are married couples, 3 million are single parents and 9.1 million are childless single people for a total of 58 million men, women and children affected.

http://www.healthcarevoices.org/pages/impact-of-the-excise-tax-on-the-middle-class

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/healthexcisetax20091211.pdf

That's a lot of angry voters!

[ProSense]

4. Wrong

The CBO:

The reductions in premiums described above also exclude the effects of the excise tax on high-premium insurance policies offered through employers, which would have a significant impact on premiums for the affected workers but which would affect only a portion of the market in 2016. Specifically, an estimated 19 percent of workers with employment-based coverage would be affected by the excise tax in that year. Those individuals who kept their high-premium policies would pay a higher premium than under current law, with the difference in premiums roughly equal to the amount of the tax. However, CBO and JCT estimate that most people would avoid the cost of the excise tax by enrolling in plans that had lower premiums; those reductions would result from choosing plans that either pay a smaller share of covered health care costs (which would reduce premiums directly as well as indirectly by leading to less use of covered medical services), manage benefits more tightly, or cover fewer services. On balance, the average premium among the affected workers would be about 9 percent to 12 percent less than under current law. Those figures incorporate the other effects on premiums for employment-based plans that were summarized above.

link

The CBO also doesn't take into account the other protections in the Senate bill.

The Truth on Health Care Reform and Taxes

Second, the excise tax levied on insurance companies for high-premium plans, the so-called "Cadillac tax," will affect only a small portion of the very highest cost health plans – a total of 3% of premiums in 2013. The vast majority of health plans fall below the thresholds set in the Senate plan and would be completely unaffected by the provision. And those that are above the threshold would only face an excise tax on the generally small portion of the plan that exceeds the threshold. As a result, based on analyses by the Joint Committee on Taxation, only about 3% of premiums will be affected by this provision in 2013. In addition, the Senate plan provides special protections to plans held by workers in high-risk professions – like police and firefighters – as well as by those over 55.

[IndianaGreen]

5. CBO is an arm of Congress. It is not independent like the GAO.

Did you notice that there was no public release of CBO on the Medicare for 55-64 option that Lieberman killed?

[TheKentuckian]

6. How in any good conscience can you ask people that have been foot soldiers

of the party for years to trade down to cheaper plans when they traded wages away to get that benefit level?

What the fuck is wrong with the people with all the wealth (lots of which is stolen and or windfall profits) paying up for a change? Did you write this bill or do you get a cut or what? I know that sounds shitty but is there nothing that would be a straw that breaks the camel's back for you? Is there nothing that would cause you to say this bill sucks and I can't support it?

[ProSense]

8. That is not what that says

The statement about the 19 percent is an assumption based on a trend in cost, and there is no reason to believe the trend will play out given the caps and other cost controls. Also, there are plans that will be protected as indicated.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. I note that poster asked questions you ignored. Always do

I myself am not in any way associated with any Insurance Industry anything, not involved in any of that. I am a union member since age 20 and a Democrat who has been protesting the vicious policies of Big Insurance since the 80's.

[tomg]

12. I was on negotiations where I work.

For years, we fought to keep our benefits, took less money, and worked to expand coverage ( same-sex partnerships, not hanging our retirees out to dry, etc.). Right now, I have a very good plan, and were there single-payer, or even a good public option, I would not mind getting hit.

Let's face it, they are trading on our basic instincts toward the community. The corporate interests who crafted the Senate version say "look at all those covered. Look at the end of pre-existing. look at yaddah yaddah." The progressive optimists say "it is a start." Most of us on the left do think in terms of community and we are, to some degree, optimistic about what that community can be.

I support this bill very reluctantly, simply because it helps out the really dispossessed. At the same time, - should this provision stand (and I am not so sure it will - I think it is a bargaining chip for the house) - it also means that I will never send another dime to the democrats. I live in a very blue state. Save for my rep ( Hinchey), I will vote third party ( obviously to the left).

One thing: we need to stop calling these plans "cadillac plans." Talk about framing. How about "decent benefits." As long as we call them "cadillac plans," people get the image that these are plans for CEOs and the like. The first person who ever used the term "cadillac plans" was the head of the administration negotiating team about 6 years ago when I last negotiated. In fact, he said something to the affect that all he wanted us to give up was "the seat-warmer in our cadillac." I recall my colleague retorting that we would need that seat warmer after they were done shoving that giant spike up our ass on wages.

[grantcart]

9. the premise for the higher numbers is based on an assumption that

people are going to continue to pay premiums that continue to increase faster than inflation.


Based on the same principle you could project that 100% of the entire GDP would be health care related by the year 2060.


Businesses and people are not going to continue to pay sky rocketing increases in premiums.


As a point of comparison plans administered by the OPM (which will be in charge of the health exchanges) for federal employees this year increased only 2%. The net profit for health insurance companies for these plans 1.7%.

[Brickbat]

3. Right on, Trumka.

I fail to see how taxing collectively bargained plans is a good idea.

[falcon97]

7. Of course it's inadequate.

Are most the bill's proponents claiming it's adequate? Most seem to be in agreement that more legislation is needed after the bill's passage.

[Laelth]

10. k&r for labor. Thanks for posting. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Vidar]

13. K&R.

[bvar22]

14. Recommewnded.....back UP to +4

It was +5 when I found it.

There ARE people at DU who don't want YOU to have this INFORMATION.


What does it say about a person who tries to prevent other people from having access to INFORMATION?