So where is the Cadillac plan statistical proof

[mkultra]

The recent discussion regarding Cadillac plans has amazed me as so many people seem to think that large numbers of average Americans will be impacted by a Excise tax on premium plans. I know and can prove statistically that the general cost for a family plan, union or non union, costs around $13K per year based on the Kaiser family research. The excise tax in the senate bill is indexed with inflation so it should grow over time. I wanted to check out the danger of the excise tax more thoroughly so went to a trusted source, the AFLCIO, who opposes the excise tax to follow their line of reasoning.

After walking backward through their links, i eventually arrived the Economic Policy Institute, who's advices has driven the AFLCIO's stand against this facet of the senate plan. The EPI believes that a significant portion of working Americans have plans that cost more than $25K a year currently and that carving niches out of the tax would be in effective. They believe that insurance costs will rise faster than inflation making the index ineffectual. They also believe that either bill will cut insurance costs which would seem to contradict the claim that insurance costs would rise quickly.

Regarding the reduction in insurance plan cost, they stated that the reduction in insurance costs would NOT be translated into worker pay as historical evidence shows(and was shown) no circumstance where reduced costs effected the wage line. This of course means that any claims of increased income tax are probably not accurate but increases in corporate taxes are probably.

This was all interesting but i wanted to find the actual stats on Americans who's plans cost more than $25K a year. I read through their plans and followed all their links which all ended with one of their analysts named Elise Gould. Elise seems confident in the stance that Americans pay a lot for premium plans but each and every link that promised research or statistics on these plans or their costs and statistics had nothing.


So this is what it comes down to for me. I personally don't think this stance is accurate, but if someone knows where the true stats on this rest, i would sure like to see them.


does anyone have the facts?

[doc03]

1. I don't need any proof, Obama campaigned against

such a plan and the AFL-CIO is fighting it. If you look hard enough you can find someone that supports any cockamamie idea. As far as I am concerned when the public option died the HCR bill died. Forcing people to buy insurance and taxing our hard earned benefits don't cut it. If this bill is passed the Democrats will take a bigger hit then if they just dropped it. I have yet to hear anyone other than a handful of Kool Aid drinkers on DU that are in favor of this mess as it stands.

[mkultra]

2. Well i hardly doubt that

Most reasonable people will take some progress over no progress any day of the weak. The ones drinking the koolaid are the ones saying otherwise.

[karynnj]

45. This is NOT McCain's plan and YOU KNOW IT

The OP is seriously looking though the information and trying to get to real facts. From the examination, the study the AFL-CIO is relying on is based on bad assumptions.

[olegramps]

3. I have attempted to get the facts and have not been successful.

It appears to me that the unions are against it because they fear the index will not keep up with medical cost inflation. I believe this can be easily rectified. I support the unions' determination to protect what they have in many cases negotiated by taking less in pay for better medical benefits. However, I resent that top management gets far better coverage at no cost to them than the average worker covered by union contracts and these should be subject to being taxed.

[doc03]

5. Nobody's health care insurance should be taxed

if it was obtained through collective bargaining or the company wants to provide it for management. This whole idea is against any Union or American principle. You help the people that don't have insurance buy providing it to them not robbing Peter to pay Paul. That was the failed premise of NAFTA remember the idea was it would bring the standard of living up in the developing countries. The exact opposite happened it has resulted in a race to the bottom for the USA.

[mkultra]

7. And again, the bill doesnt suggest that

Its a tax on the insurer for its luxury plans. The money to pay for covering the uninsured must come from somewhere.

[doc03]

10. Can't you get it through your head the insurer doesn't pay

jack shit, it will be passed on to the insured in reduced benefits or the employer will pay higher premiums. The employer pays higher premiums he will be looking for either wage concessions or job cuts. A business makes a product he has to produce it cheaper than what he sells it for. If the employers costs go up he has a choice cut costs or raise prices. For example in my industry you can't raise prices, we have to compete with someone in China making 50 cents an hour. You can't raise prices you either have to cut jobs or benefits. This isn't any socialist utopia, it's the real world.

[Jakes Progress]

57. +1 Keep trying.

Maybe they will eventually get it.

[flyarm]

27. oh please even economic ignuts know the tax will be passed onto the middle class!

and the Unions know damn sure well this is a plan to tax Union workers!


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-

[chimpymustgo]

9. Obama campaigned against it. McCain FOR it. NYT's Bob Herbert and other explain below:

It will hit many MIDDLE CLASS health plans, and lead to lessening of coverage - thus the "cost cutting". Obama prefers this to taxing the FAT CATs, as the House plan would. NYT's Bob Herbert explains it well. Below are additional links to AFL-CIO, USA Today, Huffington Post.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DE ...

A Less Than Honest Policy

By BOB HERBERT
Published: December 29, 2009

There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate's version of President Obama's effort to reform health care.

The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the very wealthy. In fact, it's a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care.

Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.

The tax would kick in on plans exceeding $23,000 annually for family coverage and $8,500 for individuals, starting in 2013. In the first year it would affect relatively few people in the middle class. But because of the steadily rising costs of health care in the U.S., more and more plans would reach the taxation threshold each year.

Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy.

Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but there's a catch. It's not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.

These lower-value plans would have higher out-of-pocket costs, thus increasing the very things that are so maddening to so many policyholders right now: higher and higher co-payments, soaring deductibles and so forth. Some of the benefits of higher-end policies can be expected in many cases to go by the boards: dental and vision care, for example, and expensive mental health coverage.

-edit-

We all remember learning in school about the suspension of disbelief. This part of the Senate's health benefits taxation scheme requires a monumental suspension of disbelief. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering their employees less valuable health insurance plans.

-edit-


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02E0DE ...
******

Health Care Reform Tax Hits More Chevys Than Caddies

by Mike Hall, Jan 7, 2010

-edit-

Backers of the tax say it would impact only “Cadillac plans” but the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) calls that an “urban legend.” Says EPI economist Josh Bevins:

The excise tax proponents say their target is a Cadillac, but in reality they’re about as likely to hit a Chevy. The excise tax is not a progressive levy on lavish plans. Instead it’s a tax that will hit small businesses, older workers, and those most in need of health care the hardest.

-edit-
National Nurses United (NNU), the largest registered nurses union in the country, calls the tax scheme “unconscionable” and says working families “would have their health coverage taxed and seriously eroded,” if it is enacted.

-edit-

the excise tax on insurance—especially in contrast to surtax on the rich—proves to be just as bad as policy as it is politically. It’s intellectually bankrupt and widely despised.
-edit

http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/01/07/health-care-reform-ta... /

*******
'Cadillac Tax' in Health Plan Would Hit Middle Class Hard
Posted:
12/17/09

Jim Huber, 59, calls himself "a union dirt guy." He has worked in the same Maryland steel mill for 41 years, where his father and grandfather worked before him and where his son now works, too.

Huber makes a base salary of $42,000 per year as an electrician in the plant. He drives a Ford pick-up truck and lives in a row house across the street from the house where he grew up. Although he had hoped to retire from the mill years ago, a bankruptcy at his company slashed his pension by more than half. "It looks I won't get out of here until I'm 65," he said.

Huber, who is also a United Steel Workers benefits representative, said that based on the health benefits they receive, he and every worker at his plant would be hit by the excise tax on insurance companies now moving through the Senate as a part of health care reform.

"The government is going to put together a plan of health care for everyone, but they can't tax the guy that's pulling the cart." he said.

The levy has been dubbed the "Cadillac tax," but research shows it would likely affect a broad swath of Americans regardless of their income, which could indeed amount to the tax on the middle-class that President Obama promised would not happen under his administration. The tax is a growing source of anxiety for Huber and his co-workers, but also for Democrats in the House, who vow to strip the measure out of the bill in conference or consider bringing the bill down altogether.

The confusion surrounding the tax comes from its complexity and the luxury car it is named for. When President Obama first raised the idea of taxing insurance companies this summer, he framed it as one way to get Wall Street executives to pay their fair share. Obama told PBS' Jim Lehrer he wanted to target "super, gold-plated Cadillac plans." Days later, Obama's senior adviser David Axelrod told The New York Times the administration wanted to tax benefits "like the ones that the executives at Goldman Sachs have, the $40,000 policies."

At the time, Obama said he did not want the tax to hit middle-class families, but when the bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee in September, it proposed charging insurance companies and a 40 percent excise tax for high-dollar -- but not exactly gold-plated -- plans. The bill now calls for the tax to apply to plans exceeding $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, for the cost of combining health savings accounts, medical, prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc. The tax is charged to insurance companies, but it is widely assumed they would pass it on to employers.
-edit-


"The middle class can't afford another tax," he said. "Let them get it from the Bush folks, the 1 percent that's been enjoying the tax cuts. Get it from them."
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/17/cadillac-tax-in...

****


Health Care: Tax Which Cadillac?

-edit-
Never mind that the idea is the very one about which candidate Barack Obama ripped apart candidate John McCain. Now President Obama and the Senate Democrats are ripping it off because heaven forbid they'd otherwise have to finance some of the health care reforms with a higher levy on the wealthy.
-edit-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-franken/health-care-t...
*****

Is tax on 'Cadillac' health insurance plans fair?

By Carla K. Johnson, The Associated Press
Schoolteacher Kinzi Blair makes only $46,000 a year, but she has what many would consider a "Cadillac" health plan, now targeted for a big tax increase by health reformers.

She has $10 copays and no deductible. She gets generic prescription drugs for $10. Her plan covers mental health counseling, organ transplants, acupuncture. It covers speech therapy for preschoolers and in vitro fertilization.

-edit-

Taxing plans like hers is unfair, says Blair, a kindergarten teacher in San Jose, Calif. Like 57% of Americans surveyed in a recent Associated Press poll, she favors a new income tax on wealthy Americans, which the House would impose in its bill to pay for expanding insurance coverage to millions.

-edit-

The tax on high-dollar health plans would hit only a few very wealthy Americans and many more in the middle class, experts agree. But it also might bring down health care costs by discouraging companies from offering coverage with so many benefits.

-edit-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-25-insuranc...

********

[doc03]

15. This Cadillac tax in my opinion was a "Poison Pill"

the Senate put in the bill to kill it, who would have ever dreamed a President that campaigned against it would now be pushing it. If you want to pay for the thing tax (everyone) an extra percent don't rob Peter to Pay Paul. I don't have any problem with providing health insurance for everyone, just don't take what I fought for. Here I am planing to retire in a couple months and I can't make a decision what to do because I have no idea how this will affect my benefits. It isn't any wonder the Democrats poll numbers are plummeting they have the whole country stressed out over this bull shit in the middle of a recession and 17% unemployment.

[wroberts189]

26. Fight for single payer, NO. Fight for PO, NO. Fight for trigger..NO.

Fight for a tax on HC plans ..YES!!!!

The simply stupendously, superfluous, stupid, shitty, and sad idea is stunningly lacking in any sense of sanity.

[ProSense]

18. Wrong.

McCain campaigned on taxing almost everyone:

McCain has proposed new health insurance tax credits, which his campaign estimates to cost $3.6 trillion over the decade. He says he pays for it by taxing workers’ health benefits, which are largely tax-free today. McCain aides say the plan has no net cost and left it out of their budget plan.

McCain’s numbers add up only by raising taxes on middle-class families. To raise $3.6 trillion by taxing health benefits, you need both income and payroll taxes. But that means an $1,100 tax increase on a typical married couple earning $60,000 in 2013.

Alternatively, McCain could avoid tax increases by applying only income taxes – but not payroll taxes – to health benefits. And this is what his spokesman told the Daily Tax Report he does. But income taxes alone fall $1.3 trillion short of paying for his tax credits.

link

[flyarm]

28. When millions of blue-collar workers were leaning toward John McCain during the 2008 campaign

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-

[ProSense]

29. "When millions of blue-collar workers were leaning toward John McCain during the 2008 campaign"

Were these Republicans or Democrats?

How many Democrats are wishing John McCain had won?

[flyarm]

35. I didn't write the article..the NYTIMES did..why don't you write them and ask them?

[flyarm]

40. call the AFL-CIO..and ask them your questions..they were the ones giving the interview!

ask them about this insurance corporate welfare plan..they will be glad to answer you..I am sure of that!

I would not want you to call my Union or my husbands right now..you couldn't handle it!

[doc03]

It seems like little difference now n/t

[SpartanDem]

14. I disagree

the current tax treatment of health benefits is extremely regressive. The tax exclusion amounts to giant subsidy in general the more you make the better benefits you have if make 40k and get 6k in benefits you don't pay taxes on that compensation. The Goldman exex with 40K in benefits doesn't pay taxes on that compensation. The self employed, those who aren't offered insurance get none of that subsidy. The government is giving a bigger subsidy for insurance to those who are better off.

[wroberts189]

24. I will match that and raise you one...

HC costs should be fully 100% tax deductible..whether paid by an employer or an individual. People talk about a "death tax" on estates.. here is a real "death tax" one that may result in you dying because of "cost controls".

Why penalize an employer for giving good benefits as an "incentive" for them to lower benefits.. isn't that like trying to put out a fire with gas?

Or tax individuals rich enough... probably rich enough to not even need HI ..more money for simply pooling their money into a good private plan rather then just buy some cheap high deductible HSA knowing they will be able to draw on that or their own money and probably make out better in the end?

Give me 1 million and that is what I would already be doing. HSA all the way...

How about a "Cadillac tax" on Wall bonuses instead?

[doc03]

8. I don't know what my company pays for health care insurance,

someone that negotiates Union contracts would probably have that information. I do know our head negotiator and Union opposes it. This is a slap in the face to the unions that worked their ass off to get Obama elected. I say pass the House bill and if Lieberman and a couple others kill it, it will be on their heads.

[mkultra]

31. If you dont know, then you dont know

that its a slap.

[quiller4]

16. The AFL-CIO is against it--more unions have backed off their opposition

[flyarm]

21. what unions have backed off?? Please name them..

and as i have posted before..it doesn't matter if the Union leaders go along to get along..the Union members will bury the Dem party if this shitty tax on union people goes through!

count on that!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

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-

[flyarm]

42. Names..all i hear is crickets..name the unions backing off!!! eom

[karynnj]

46. I wonder if the truth is in your last sentence

"However, I resent that top management gets far better coverage at no cost to them than the average worker covered by union contracts and these should be subject to being taxed."

Many here easily see that top business leaders act in their self interest, but are blind to the fact that there have been cases where top union leaders acted in their own interest, not the unions.

[mkultra]

49. i woudl hate to accuse Union leaders of this but its starting to look like it

When you see irrational opposition with no evidence, then next conclusion is deception.

[MH1]

4. Good question. Personally I'm not selfish enough to be concerned about being taxed

considering I have a good job and decent health insurance, if it means someone who doesn't have basic health insurance now will then be able to afford it.

But apparently many "progressives" are that selfish.

[mkultra]

6. im not either

I just cant really fathom anyone paying enough for insurance to end up in the excise category. It seems like exaggeration to me.

[harun]

11. Me either. If I get in 21K a year cost territory my new health insurance plan will be a savings

account.

I have one of the best hospitals in the country near me. They allow you to get any procedure and the balance you can pay in payments and they will never charge interest on that balance. 21K a year would add up in a hurry, and no administration costs!

[MH1]

13. apologies if you thought my comment was directed at you

actually I recced the thread because it is a good question. If people want to discuss this they should have the facts. (crazy concept, I know)

But I am just so damn tired of the whining. Yes if it affects as many people as some say, it's not great and we could have done better - I do favor reinstating real progressive taxation in this country as a better choice - but still, it is going to benefit people who are hurting badly now, who progressives supposedly care about. So you have to buy the 32 inch flat panel tv instead of the 45? Gee, sorry about that. Or go to Outback a few less times a year? Again, where is the compassion for people who can't afford to go once?

AND if it affects so many people as they say then it ought to bring in quite a lot of revenue, so it should go a long way to getting good coverage for more people.

But it is more likely that you are right, and very few of us will be in that category.

[depakid]

19. You may be concerned when you find that you health insurance is no longer decent

but is instead- high deductible, high copay -like everyone else's is designed to be under the Senate bill.

[MH1]

34. mine is already high deductible and I'm okay with that

it works for me.

I want other people who have NO health insurance now, to be able to have some. I am willing to pay a tax to fund it.

[flyarm]

36. are you willing to have high deductable and 100% worse coverage?

because that is what the Unions are propsoing is going to happen to them..much much higher deductable..a tax on their insurance and way less coverage!

[Hello_Kitty]

56. You're willing to fuck the middle class and leave the rich untouched

The whole rationale behind this excise tax is so they won't go with the House plan to tax millionaires and billionaires. I'm glad the unions are fighting this and I hope they win. The middle class is taking enough of a beating in this bill.

[MiniMe]

12. I think part of the problem is that the cost depends on where you work

If you work for a large company, your insurance is likely to cost much less than if you are with a small company. It hardly seems fair to penalize you for working for a small company. If the cost of a plan was standardized, it would seem much fairer. But your premiums are based on your groups experience and risk.

[HughMoran]

23. There is help for small businesses

The exchange will help get small companies into bigger 'pools' to lower rates, the tax credit makes it more affordable for the small business.

"The proposals working their way through Congress include the creation of an “insurance exchange” where both small businesses and individuals can purchase coverage. By pooling risk and spreading administrative costs over larger numbers of people, the exchange will make available high quality plans at affordable rates for small businesses.

The current draft bills also include a tax credit for small businesses that provide health care coverage for their workers. This benefit will make it easier for small businesses to provide coverage. Together with the exchange, these reforms will help small firms’ bottom line, allowing them to focus more of their attention on running their business and creating jobs."

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/mills_romers_op-ed.pdf

[dkf]

17. See post #9. Those are CBO and congresses own numbers which anyone would give validity.

The relevant paragraph

"Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy."

[mkultra]

32. This kind of blind faith is what im questioning

Like i said, Since the numbers are so unusual, they need to show us the detailed statistics.

These numbers actually conflict with what the unions are saying as the CBO says 20% of households while the union says 25% of union members.

That should seem odd to anyone.

[Vattel]

43. I don't see any conflict.

Is it inconceivable that the percentage of Union members that have expensive plans is higher than the percentage of households that have expensive plans? Besides, you keep focusing on what plans cost now. The key question is how much they will cost in a few years or so. If the cost of premiums at a much higher rate than the rate of inflation,you get more and more people with premiums that qualify for the tax.

[mkultra]

48. well, that is concievable but

but the numbers seem very wrong. All though i haven't discussed it, i do feel the same way about the rising cost calculation. for costs to double over three years while they simultaneously acknowledge that costs will come down as a result seem pretty strange.


There is something here that just doesn't add up and i don't know what it is.

[flyarm]

20. 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-

[mkultra]

33. your function as a member of the echo chamber is fullfilled

im asking to see the data that generates these claims. This data isn't available anywhere and no one seems to know anything about it.

[flyarm]

38. call the AFL-CIO! I am sure they would be more than willing to give you an earful right now!!

I know what my union is saying and what the members are saying..

psss..it is not pretty!!

[blueworld]

22. Perhaps your figures are the ones that are incorrect

In this article, the 40% tax is applied to insurance companies then passed on to employers & then on to individuals & families as follows:

/snip

"The bill now calls for the tax to apply to plans exceeding $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, for the cost of combining health savings accounts, medical, prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc.. The tax is charged to insurance companies, but it is widely assumed they would passed it on to employers."

http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/12/who_will_be_paying_the_cadillac_tax.php

[mkultra]

30. My numbers come from Kaiser, they dont seem to have any numbers

[flyarm]

25. 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-

[shopgreen]

37. That was a good article with details on how families will be HIT..

[flyarm]

39. shame some call it an echo chamber then ask stupid questions ..because they didn't bother to read it

it is pretty clear how union members and their families will be effected.

I will not read it out loud to those who refuse to edcuate themselves..I will simply tell them to call the AFL-CIO..

those guys will rip them a new asshole if they try to spew propaganda!

Thanks for your comment!!

fly

[spoony]

54. Yep, they aren't going to find a bus big enough

to throw the unions underneath, but damn if they aren't trying. There is literally no loyal group of Dems these posters will not smear to spin things positively for this junk.

[mkultra]

50. Actually, the article contains no details

which is what im looking for. Its just a repetition on shallow assertion. While these assertions may or may not be true, some detailed fact would be nice.

[tandot]

41. We have Kaiser Permanente CA and it cost around $14,000 for a family of 3 per year

Our part of that is about $60 a month which is withheld from my husband's paycheck.

I would rate our plan as very generous:

Zero co-pay for extensive monitoring in the last trimester of my pregnancy (fetal heart rate monitoring 2x and ultrasounds 1x week)

Zero co-pay for labor & delivery and our son being in NICU for 2 weeks.

$20 co-pay for back surgery and a 4-day hospital stay.

$20 to see my doctor

$0 for my son to see his pediatrician

$5 for prescriptions

and a bunch of other things that cost us nothing or close to nothing. We paid $50 once for my husband going to the ER but not being admitted to the hospital.

We are extremely fortunate to have this plan and we wouldn't mind paying a tax or a little bit more if it would mean that other people can have insurance, too.

[mkultra]

51. But can you imagine what a plan twice the costs must get you?

really, the excise tax is proposed for plans that cost double what yours does.

[tandot]

62. I can't really imagine that.

Maybe I would have had a single-bed hospital room for my back surgery instead of having to share the room with another person. But that isn't worth paying about $10,000 more a year.

Our plan is really comprehensive and we've never had any problems. They've paid for acupuncture, chiropractor, epidural steroid injections, and all the other things I've mentioned above.

And, as I mentioned above, even if the tax would affect our plan, we'd be more than willing to pay it if it helps to get other people insured.

[Vattel]

44. I agree that it seems really high

but even though I am not privy to their calculations, when the CBO estimates that 19% of policies will be hit by the tax as early as 2016, I can't blame people for being concerned. And unless the rate at which the cost of health insurance goes up slows down dramatically,that 19% figure will continue to increase. Don't get me wrong. The CBO is not infallible. But I am sure that their analysis did not ignore the current average cost of insurance. So your statistics are pretty meaningless.

[last1standing]

47. You've gotten your statistical proof in this thread and the other 3 you started.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

So when can we expect your next thread on the exact same topic?

[mkultra]

52. Your an idiot and should know better than to speak when grown ups are talking

There are no detailed stats in this thread or elsewhere. We all know what the union asserts as well as the EPI, the CBO , the house , the senate and the WH.


The details i asked for are who are these people that have these high cost plans and why do they cost so much. How did they gather that data and how long ago.


Its not rocket science and that data should be on hand.

[spoony]

53. Grown-ups know that "your an idiot" is something children write.

Especially when they use the wrong word for "you're."

[mkultra]

55. yes, thanks for the copy edit.

[Hello_Kitty]

58. Where is statistical proof that wages will rise because of this excise tax?

And what Jonathan Gruber the paid consultant to the WH provides isn't sufficient.

[karynnj]

60. You can't have "statistical proof" for something that has never been implemented

The best you could do is if there was anything remotely similar in the past. To my knowledge there isn't. However, if you consider that the total cost of labor is what employers are looking at and are optimizing, then the idea that the same total cost would be roughly the same is likely -- especially in the case of union negotiated rates.

Where is your statistical proof that it WON'T happen? Note - you have the same problem. Until it is implemented, there are no statistics. Do you have a background in either math or economics?

[Hello_Kitty]

61. The only thing is that I'm not putting a specific, and large, dollar value on my lack of proof.

The Senate bill claims $150 billion in revenue from this excise tax, with 82% of it coming from wage increases that they have no way of assuring will happen.

[karynnj]

63. As I said they are using econometric models that produce that result

Note the Senate does not make up the estimated impact - the CBO does. Where do they get it? They have many people with PHDs in disciplines like Economics and statistics. This is the only way to ever estimate something that is not a simple tax or tax cut - and there, they also have to estimate the change in the product taxed.

[Hello_Kitty]

65. Economists are frequently wrong.

And they are dead wrong on this. Start with the fact that they are making this assumption based on what happened with health care costs and wages in the late '90s. If you can't see the obvious problem there, I don't know what to tell you.

[mkultra]

68. Well, there is none and in fact

there is evidence that they wont.

[freddie mertz]

59. I support Obama on this issue. Obama in 2008.

This tax is shit, and the product of a promise broken.

[uponit7771]

64. F**K FACTS!!!! I jus make shit up and Obama is a corporatist!! PONY!! /sarcasm

[TheKentuckian]

66. What does the CBO say?

This will only affect a small amount of plans say today but in just a few years they expect a 1/5 or more plans to be affected and perhaps eventually a 1/3 at which point the move to lower level insurance wil be forced.

Just basic projection should tell anyone that between the upward force of inflation (especially medical inflation) and the downward force of the tax that eventually virtually everyone ends up with the "silver" plan at a significant percentage of their income. If that's what you want Kool and the fucking Gang but otherwise just stop and really see where this is going. This will never improve access it will rather spread it out better.

[mkultra]

67. "at which point the move to lower level insurance wil be forced."

This is the part of your model that doesn't really make logical sense. At that point, the tax is readjusted. Bear in mind also that the proposed cap is tied to inflation AND this bill, overall should result in an immediate lower of costs dues to increase in participation. At least this is what the senate folks are saying.