I completely disagree with the Unions on the excise tax

[ProSense]

The Unions' argument against an excise tax is that it will affect middle class workers who are paying a lot of money for mediocre benefits.

What exactly are they proposing: leaving this practice in place unchecked so that middle class workers can continue paying a lot of money for mediocre benefits?

The excise tax is going to be a win-win, helping to drive down cost and relieving middle class workers of this gross burden.

If they're against this, what is their proposal to end this practice. Taxing the wealthy, which should be part of the plan (and is part of the Senate plan), is not going to do anything about these high-priced crappy plans.



edited typos

[DebbieCDC]

1. Keep drinking that kool aid

[ProSense]

3. Great rebuttal. n/t

[Cha]

18. Really, you put yourself

there to debate your opinion and all they can do is attack you.

Says everything about them and nothing about your position.

[IndianaGreen]

34. The OP's position is worse than the missionary position

Don't tell us you are siding against the AFL-CIO!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

105. I'm confused...

Are you opposed to taxing benefits or opposed to the missionary position?

:rofl:

[amborin]

51. it's provided

gratis at the water cooler in the press office

[IndianaGreen]

2. Of course you would, you are an advocate of the industry

No surprise there!

[ProSense]

4. Another great rebuttal n/t

[spoony]

32. Like I said, everyone sees right through you. nt

[DebbieCDC]

5. Isn't it terrible - no one's taking your flamebait

[ProSense]

6. It's my opinion, and it caught your attention. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

7. A dog's turd on the sidewalk also catches people attention

Shit is shit no matter how pretty you want to make it, and the Senate's HCR is shit.

[ProSense]

8. There you are again.

If you think it's poop, why are you stepping in it?

Got a valid point to make?

[flyarm]

28. + 1 million!!! eom

[Cha]

35. Just bc it's a different opinion than your's..

it's "flamebait"? That's arrogant.

[flyarm]

59. because it is an anti union opinion and that is anti Democratic party and pro corporate health

insurance opinions!

It does not fit with lifelong democratic party principles and values!

[DJ13]

9. Of course you do

Go team!

[ProSense]

10. Another terrific rebuttal. n/t

[DJ13]

11. Ditto

[TheKentuckian]

12. So, the fix is high priced junk insurance with a lot of out of pocket

for some bullshit Reganomics rehash and the feeling of being a "smart consumer of healthcare"?

You know you are lying about relieving the middle class of any burdens when you know your bogus plan shifts more costs to them. Driving down cost by shifting the burden to individuals and forcing them out of treatment they need due to pocketbook issues is wrongheaded as can be and people selling it should be ashamed of themselves rather than thinking they're on some moral highground and want to help a soul.

Making people buy insurance they can't use from a bunch of criminals writing the regulations and buying regulators is most certainly not the right thing to do and pretending to fund it off of stealing their benefit value is even worse.

[ProSense]

14. Nonsense

"You know you are lying about relieving the middle class of any burdens when you know your bogus plan shifts more costs to them."

Premiums are capped, so at what level would 8 percent of a individual and families income represent $8,500 and up to $26,000?

Small business are protected, as well as high-risk workers. So what exactly is there to defend?

[TheKentuckian]

15. Your spin is weak. Premiums are costs but all costs aren't the premiums

If you had actually read the post instead of looking for something to parse then you'd actually grasp that less comprehensive plans have higher user costs and that means that instead of seeking care the populace (minus the rich) will be left STILL will be denied care but this time it won't be any death panel other than their own finaces.

You act like you've never carried insurance or had to use it, talking all of this foolishness. The whole point of the fucking tax is to herd people into cheap coverage which typically comes with more out of pocket burdens.

You aren't protecting the people. You aren't trying to expand access and affordability to quality care you're selling a plan that takes 8% for nothing and a lot out of pocket to the max and calling it saving people money and as soon as it passed you'll want medicare rolled in too so seniors can have the same deal.

You are cheerleading benefit reduction and pretending premiums are all one pays. You're either crooked or stupid, I don't know which is worse.

[ProSense]

16. "You are cheerleading benefit reduction and pretending premiums are all one pays."

What benefit reduction? Those against the excise tax have been consistently arguing that they're concerned that the tax will hit workers who are paying a lot for "chevy benefits." Arguing otherwise, as you are attempting to do, reinforces the claim that only a small number of plans will be affected.

[TheKentuckian]

23. What are you talking about, seriously.

I didn't say squat about Chevy benefits but you're pushing Yugo coverage as far as I can tell, if we're talking car contrasts.

The whole point of the scam is to "encourage consumers" to avoid a taxed plan and insurers from offering them and the way they shed cost of a package is by reducing benefits and then confronted with high out of pocket expenses the individual will be a "smart health care consumer" aka go to the doctor when they are dying and maybe have the foot amputated versus "less cost effective treatment" that would save it.

I'll take the CBO and the studies you've been cutting and pasting at their word as far as how many plans are affected and what the effect will be which is lower cost plans and less comprehensive plans which means the individual will have more expenses out of their pockets.

Over time, this deal all but forces a vast health care ghetto but seeing that the profits will continue to flow for as far as the eye can see I guess that's groovy with you.

[ProSense]

29. "I didn't say squat about Chevy benefits" The unions are arguing this point

which is what I said.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Gee, why am I

not surprised?

[damntexdem]

19. The tax is an outrage.

Unionized workers fought for those benefits.

The House's tax on the wealthy is what should be enacted.

[IndianaGreen]

20. The OP will have a heart atttack if the rich are taxed, as in the House version

Clearly the opinions about the Senate's HCR are along class lines.

[ProSense]

22. Wrong

The rich are being taxed in the Senate plan, and it's almost certain that the version coming out of conference will include a substantial tax on the wealthy.

[karynnj]

62. That is asinine

Nothing the OP ever posted suggests that. The only problem I see with eliminating the Senate tax and putting in the House provision is that the votes of at least a few Conservative Democratic Senators will be lost as they are among the people who wanted to see more cost containment features - and this is one of them and the House one isn't.

Your assumption that those of us arguing for it are super wealthy is not true.

[ProSense]

21. "Unionized workers fought for those benefits. "

They are being ripped off. As the union leaders point out, most of the money is going to administrative cost, not benefits. They should be focused on renegotiating better plans with more benefits and less administrative cost once reform is passed.

[customerserviceguy]

27. The solution to administrative costs

is single payer. That's why I'm against either form of this Band-Aid masquerading as healthcare reform.

[Xicano]

85. WTF Are you talking about?

You have got to stop reading the Wall Street Journal. Seriously.



member ILWU local 13
Xicano

[flyarm]

33. and we worked for those benefits..many of us that are retired and too young for medicare!

I worked for 33 years for my benefits..and i still pay a huge chunk each month for my coverage..but it is dam good insurance..i just want to know who will pay me back for the work i did my entire adult lifetime..and took concessions for those benefits..to only now, in retirement to get royally fucked!

And taxed on what i already paid for with my labor!

[customerserviceguy]

24. The only way that it will drive down costs

is by forcing employers to offer bare-bones policies that will soon be nothing more than the do-nothing catastrophic care policies that only pick up expenses after you've spent a bundle on co-pays and deductables. I suppose if enough people say, "Maybe this arm is only sprained, and not broken," that will lower healthcare spending.

Besides, with the inflation that is coming for healthcare premiums, more and more people every year will be facing the "Cadillac tax". This is a 180 degree reversal of the campaign promise, "If you like what you have, you will be able to keep it."

[flyarm]

25. YOU are wrong..dead wrong! and dems will pay a big consequence if they listen to you!

Ignore the unions at the dem peril!

The unions of this nation will try to save us from ourselves!

Ignore them at your peril dems!

[ProSense]

31. They are obviously not being ignored and are meeting with the President today. n/t

[flyarm]

42. YOU ARE IGNORING THEM ..and still posting your propaganda!

with all the unions have said and with all i and other union people here have posted..you still post your bullshit..i will say it again..Ignore the unions at the dem peril!

You are wrong!

[ProSense]

45. Get a grip. I disagree with an opinion.

You're flaking out all over the place because I disagree with critics of the excise tax.

[flyarm]

60. you disagree with people who have been lifelong democrats who have worked hard for the dem party!

you spew the Insurance corporate talking points that will fuck middle class Americans that have worked and paid for their benefits, most with their most valuable asset..their labor!!

[burning rain]

26. I guess Democrats could tell union folks they're full of shit & campaign against them in 2010.

That would indeed be a novel approach for Democrats. I'm sure it would either help them win, or lead them to defeat.

[IndianaGreen]

30. And that will complete the morphing of the Democratic Party into a moderate GOP

No tea baggers and crazies, but all of the greedy financiers, bankers, and blood suckers of the investor class that are turned off by the riff raff the GOP has for a base.

[burning rain]

38. Thomas Frank...

in What's the Matter with Kansas? has an interesting account of veteran Kansas Democratic Congressman Dan Glickman's losing his seat to Republican Todd Tiahrt in 1994. He flipped on the trade issue to support Clinton on NAFTA, with the result that his working class support cratered at the next election and he was left making up a few, but not enough, votes from tony Republicans turned off by his opponent's social conservatism, anti-choice position, etc. Frank draws the lesson that when Democrats displease their natural working-class base and cater to corporations, they largely forfeit their economic advantage over Republicans and enable them to make elections be about social wedge issues. Interestingly enough, these well-heeled Republicans largely came back to Tiahrt in subsequent elections as they found his economic views suited them right down to the ground, and became content just to ignore his social conservatism.

[depakid]

36. Wait until other folks get wind of the fact that their benefits will decrease

even as their premiums rise over the next several years.

That's really going to make Democrats popular. Indeed, I can't think of a more encouraging dynamic, especially as the their new allies report record profits and CEO's and executives continue to take home massive salary packages and golden parachutes.

[dionysus]

37. if they're truly taxing rich people plans, that's fine. but any tax that hits the middle class,

union or not, is a BAD move. they really should do the excise tax on wealthy americans.

[county worker]

39. If the tax is a payroll tax, the employer will pay tax too. FICA will go up.

As the cost of health insurance rises so does the taxes the employer and employees will pay. This has the effect of employers not offering good health care plans. So not only will taxes for working people go up, the care the will get will cost more out of pocket.


Of course you will jump for joy at this!

[ProSense]

40. Wrong.

The tax is on insurance companies.

[flyarm]

41. bullfuckingshit!..you know damn well that tax will be passed onto consumers..you know that!

how absolutely fucking stupid do you think people here are?????

clue..we are not!!

[ProSense]

43. Scream all you want to.

Doesn't change the fact that the tax is on insurance companies.

[paulk]

55. the point is - what will the long term effect be?

and the poster you are replying to is correct

your response borders on

what's the word I'm looking for?

just plain stupid?

[ProSense]

71. Actually, it's pretty stupid

to claim that an industry shouldn't be taxed because they will pass it on to consumers.

[paulk]

108. LOL

context?

[Jim Sagle]

44. Ahh yess...more DLC baloney. Not just globaloney but scabaloney.

:puke:

[dkf]

46. Cadillac plans exist more because they are in high cost areas and have higher numbers of older

workers.

Studies have shown that a minimal percentage of premiums are determined by plan design.

If you want to force plans to charge higher deductibles copays and out of pocket expenses then plan design should be targeted for taxation. But now people already suffering from high cost areas will be paying for this bill.

Many people who support this tax understand this inequity. Yet the senate would keep this tax as is to simply raise funds they don't want to get from people who can afford it.

I hope you are not so unrealistic to think differences in cost of living and in worker demographics can be fixed by taxing plans.

[Vattel]

47. What evidence fo you have

that the tax will result in better and not worse healthcare benefits? Obviously one way to avoid the tax will be to sell a cheaper but lower quality plan. Surely you should address this worry before concluding that "the excise tax is going to be a win-win."

Nice straw man by the way. ("The Unions' argument against an excise tax is that it will affect middle class workers who are paying a lot of money for mediocre benefits.")

[Enrique]

48. I was wondering where you'd come down on that n/t

[ProSense]

49. Why? I've supported it ever since it was introduced. n/t

[jillan]

50. This doesn't even make sense. Taxing our benefits IS going to raise the amount of money we pay for

our healthcare plan. Our premiums are not going to go down because of this bill. There is no competition for the insurance companies and therefore they have no reason to lower their rates.

I don't understand your argument at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. Then quit your Union

as if you had one. Stop paying your dues.

[mitchtv]

53. what crap

some Democrat

[donheld]

54. Oh please, let me put on my surprise face.

[bigwillq]

67. LOL!

:rofl:

[last1standing]

56. Yes. We got that with your other four OPs on this subject.

You have made it a point to push faulty, slanted and otherwise disreputable information for days on this subject so I don't think anyone here is surprised to see you do it again.

However, it doesn't really matter how many times you use the term "high-priced crappy plans" or some other variation, no one who isn't in the bag for this disastrous insurance care plan is going to fall for your propaganda. We have also seen that you are staunchly anti-Union.

Why do you consider yourself a Democrat?

[flyarm]

58. Very good comment and an excellent question last1standing...

this person passes themselves off as a democrat and is anti anything I have ever experienced as a democrat.

and especially anti Union..I wonder..when we union folks sit home next November..how this person is going to feel when the house goes red and then the same effect is felt in 2012..

Sure the dems will have lots of $$ from the big corporate boys..but they won't have us on the phones or walking the streets for GOTV..they won't have us in the local DEC's, they won't have us at their rally's...and they won't have our union offices for their campaigns..

And I assure you ..that is the scenerio that will play out of this bill!

Even if some Union leaders go along to get along..they will see their jobs lost..

we the people ..union people are mad as hell and we are not going to take this shit any longer.

Count on that!

[last1standing]

63. The problem for Democrats this fall is shaping up just like 1994.

Union leaders supported Dems back then but their members didn't forget about NAFTA or other anti-Union initiatives and voted Republican or just stayed home. The Obama apologists can try to shape it any way they like but unless this administration starts moving in a Union friendly direction and starts taking care of its base, there'll be an upset in the House.

Another thing to consider is money. Sure, the Dems are rolling in corporate cash now, but that's only because they're in power. Once they lose control (and this WILL happen eventually), these donations are going to dry up and they party will be right back to us with cap in hand. It won't work again, though. We require results, not promises they never plan to keep. I've never seen a party abandon its base so quickly as this one has done.

[Xicano]

86. Yup!

And as my union's model: "An Injury To One Is An Injury To All!"


n/t

[freddie mertz]

78. Excellent question there. Democrats support unions and collective bargaining.

Forcing union members to surrender hard-won benefits is Republicanism of the lowest order.

There is a party for that.

It is not the Democratic party, or SHOULD not be.

[ima_sinnic]

57. your "concern" about the "gross burden" shouldered by the middle class is duly noted

have you ever posted an OP that was not rated sub-zero?
in the absence of any substantive thoughts, you post simple-minded, meaningless, hey-look-at-me-I'm-an-idiot kind of drivel that serves no purpose whatsoever. notice how many "converts" to your moronic way of thinking you've made in this thread. it appears that even your astroturfing peanut gallery buddies are not going to step in this one.

But thanks so much for providing the buffoonery the adults need to relieve stress. Unlike real train wrecks, no one is hurt, so we can rubberneck without guilt.

[ClassWarrior]

61. What is their proposal? The Public Option. Pay attention, son.

NGU.

[freddie mertz]

64. Predictably Clueless, Anti-Union, Anti-Middle Class Propaganda.

When and if this goes through, you can kiss a lot of Dem seats in the House goodbye.

I thought you were supposed to be a "supporter of Democrats."

But this will kill the party.

[Odin2005]

65. Then leave this site because you are no liberal.

anti-labor = NOT A LIBERAL.

[ProSense]

66. You leave. n/t

[spoony]

93. Hmm, who was that who sneered, "Another great rebuttal"? nt

[slipslidingaway]

68. AFL-CIO Convention Endorses Single-Payer

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/164072.php

Now if the Democrats would just stop taking this option off the table there could be a real discussion and real reform.

Just like Clinton did in the early 90's, Obama ignored over half of the citizens who said they want a national HC system, financed by taxes, and sold everyone on the idea of a public option.

Then they pulled the rug on the PO, which of course Obama then said he never campaigned on anyway.

[shopgreen]

88. I do think many believe this current "reform" IS a national plan. there is

going to be lots of anger-more so than now in the upcoming years when many discover they are not included or have to purchase a plan -or get a fine. Its a mess right now and will continue to be.

[slipslidingaway]

100. Agreed, a national plan covered by taxes that includes everyone is what...

the majority wanted, prior to the uniquely american marketing campaign.

:(

Welcome to DU

:hi:


http://pnhp.org/news/2007/december/where-are-we-on-reform

Associated Press-Yahoo Poll
Interview dates: December 14 - 20, 2007

15. Do you consider yourself a supporter of a single-payer health care system, that is a national health plan financed by taxpayers in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, or not?

54% - Yes

44% - No

2% - Refused / Not Answered

[shopgreen]

107. I have been following that website thoughout this 'debate" It is a place

to get information and analysis. I am glad to see the Baccus 8 will soon be off probation. I gulls me that he actually let the charges stand. and the 'media' ignored them!!

[inna]

69. oy.

:crazy:

what (completely factually incorrect) lame drivel.

[ProSense]

70. No, but thanks for your wonderful non-rebuttal. n/t

[inna]

72. OMG, Pro. You're really confused and misinformed.

Seriously, that OP is so grotesquely lame and wrong on so many levels that it's just mind-blowing.

I'm really not trying to be mean to you, but seriously, my jaw literally *dropped* when I read it.


:crazy:


:wow:

[ProSense]

73. OMG!

OMG!

:rofl:

[inna]

75. .

:toast:


glad you have a sense of humor left! :)

[Nikki Stone1]

110. She laughs when she has nothing left to say

Like another poster I know.....

[themaguffin]

74. It's a tax and an attack on unions

[donco6]

76. Hmmm . . . who would know better about what's best for them?

The unions themselves or a corporate propagandist?

You've gotta wonder which one makes more $ense . . .

[nightrain]

77. These plans are not "mediocre", generally are high premium, low copay

because often they are plans that women have. Women have much higher usage rates than men.


Read
http://pnhp.org/news/2010/january/why-taxing-health-care-plans-is-a-terrible-idea


I spose I'm on your ignore list, so you might not get this information. Sad for you. Kinda like just watching Faux for "news".

[freddie mertz]

79. Remind me, why are you a Democrat?

The Democratic party, if it ever stood for anything in the past 80 years and more, has stood for the rights of workers to bargain collectively for better working conditions, wages, and benefits.

Your endlessly repeated posts in support of a tax on these hard-won benefits is totally at variance with the traditions of the party.

The president and the Dems and the Senate seem to have forgotten about this, not to mention the president's own campaign promise not to pass the very kind of tax.

What we are seeing now is re-awakening of an outraged Democratic constituency that, if denied, will surely damage the party and the president electorally.

Your constant effort to promote this despised legislation only adds fuel to the fire.

My advice is that you take time to find another bone.

[Romulox]

80. He has to make that claim in order to post such crap on this board. nt

[Nancy Boy]

81. ?

Is the tax going to affect retired workers using the company health care plan?

[freddie mertz]

82. I believe so.

[Nancy Boy]

84. Ouch

So, if a person on such a health care plan who can only afford their drugs three months out of 12, barely scrounge the money for a visit to the doctor, and lives pretty much on debt month to month,and is told that they make too much money for any assistance is going to be taxed even more?

[TankLV]

83. FIgures - you're on the wrong side of most everything...

Hardly a surprise...

[Bluenorthwest]

87. I am pleased with the high level of rejection your dishonest and

right wing tactics and postings have raised here at DU. Even your opinion is not seen as being your own, and nothing you write is taken at face value. It is encouraging indeed.
The majority says feh. And I feh along with them.

[bornskeptic]

89. Of course you're right, but "progressives" will keep shilling for the the insurance companies

and the union leaders are too embarrassed to admit how little they've bartered off their members wage increases for. The average large group insurance policy costs less than $14,000. I doubt that average out of pocket costs are over $6,000 for a typical family, so what are the unions getting for an extra $10,000? The insurance company throws in some nice-sounding extras and the final package might actually be worth $8,000, but the union bosses don't mind that, because the taxpayers are subsidizing it for $2500 from income tax and $765 from payroll tax, so the union members really only pay $6735 and think they're getting a great deal, the employer is happy because he doesn't have to pay his share of the payroll tax on the $10,000, and the insurance company is happiest of all because it just sold $8,000 of coverage for $10,000 and pocketed the difference. Nobody's unhappy except the government and the taxpayers, who got taken for a ride.

[amborin]

90. totally false OP; the union-fought health benefits are actually pretty decent; disingenous OP!

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

97. You too. n/t

[ProSense]

96. You're so cute. n/t

[spoony]

101. Aw, don't like that people are calling a turd a turd, eh?

Had to have those mean old truth-tellers deleted, lol.

[QC]

104. That's not a turd! That's delicious Godiva chocolate!

Don't let the stench and flies fool you!

[Meshuga]

94. So what do you suggest?

For the middle class to lose their benefits provided by the employer so they can go out on the market to buy even worse coverage for potentially more money?

Can you please point to the guarantees that the middle class will benefit from non-employer provided health insurance they will be mandated to purchase once they lose their employer provided plan?

I didn't vote for McCain for a reason and having this gem from McCain's Health Care plan included in a bill (with support from Obama) is a slap on the face.

[ProSense]

95. "For the middle class to lose their benefits provided by the employer "

You obviously don't know about that employer vouchers are included in the plan.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

98. I think this is a classic example of "Framing the Debate"

The fact is that many of these "Cadillac" plans do NOT provide coverage that is equal to what's being paid.

Instead of the issue being a "Windfall Profits Tax" on insurance companies that are gouging union members, it's become some sort of litmus test for union support.

This is about an insurance company charging more than $23,000 for coverage that is worth less than that. WHY would I consent to letting working men and women keep being victimized by these companies?

[ProSense]

99. Exactly. n/t

[spoony]

102. So you're going to tax working people...to...help them.

Framing indeed.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

103. No...

We're going to tax insurance companies that are gouging consumers until the companies agree to charge a reasonable market rate for their product.

[freddie mertz]

106. Talk about nonsense.

I'll bet THAT's gonna work.

Not.

[mgcgulfcoast]

109. if you are talking about taxing benefits

i will be beyond pissed if pelosi and reid exempt union members from from being taxed while i am. tax everyone or tax no one. or better still, just do the millionaire tax.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

111. That doesn't surprise me in the least n/t