Defending "junk insurance"

[ProSense]

It's NOT a Cadillac tax, it's a junk insurance tax

Not only is the author of that piece completely misinformed (the excise tax only applies to employer-based plans and small business are protected), but the piece is basically using criticism of the tax to protect "junk insurance."

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

[Oregone]

1. Would you support *legislating* employers increase pay an equivalent amount that benefits decrease?

Ya know...such a mechanism was essentially in the Wyden Free Choice amendment that you hated with a passion.

Or do you trust that trickle down economics will deliver, and if the Cadillac plans are tossed, employers will pass the savings (in the cost of production) straight to the workers?

Will the trickle down voodoo work, or what, say you?

LOL. A few years ago I never thought this argument would be on a Democratic board.

[ProSense]

3. "employers will pass the savings "

Since the tax is on insurance companies, are you against employers keeping more of their money.

That's the other thing that's curious about the argument made by the author of the piece in the OP. Why would a small business owner (and we know they are exempted) or any employer be unwilling to get rid of a "junk" plan that's costing more money when better options are being made available?

[Hello_Kitty]

6. How do we know small businesses are exempted?

This is the first I'm seeing that and I just googled and found nothing.

[liberalpragmatist]

9. Small businesses...

I'm not sure that they're specifically exempted from the excise tax, but small businesses will be encouraged to have their employees simply buy coverage from the exchange, which should have much lower premiums due to the large pool.

The reason many small businesses may exceed the excise tax threshold is that small group policies tend to be much more expensive than large group ones due to smaller, more unhealthy or older risk pools.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. That's not the same as an exemption

If the employees at a small company happen to like the plan they have and prefer it to the exchange they are not going to be exempt from the excise tax.

[ProSense]

12. "If the employees at a small company happen to like the plan "

Yeah, explain which company likes paying a lot for a lousy plan?

Small businesses are also exempted from the mandate, received tax credits and will have more choice.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. IOW they're not exempt from the excise tax after all. You lied. eom

[ProSense]

18. Nonsense. Small businesses are provided a lot of protections

Senate health bill scores big for small business:Bill would help provide affordable, stable coverage (PDF)

The claim that small business will be adversely affected is bogus.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. You said, in this thread, that small businesses were "exempt" from the excise tax.

They are not and no amount of cut-and-paste and pdfs will change that.

[ProSense]

20. Your problem is that you are trying hard to

justify why these plans shouldn't be taxed. Small businesses will not be affected by these plans. They are exempted from mandated coverage. If they do decide to provide health care benefits, they will receive many incentives and have more choices among affordable plans.

Your argument is basically: What if they like paying a lot of money for very limited benefits.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. Your problem is that you thought your little white lie would go unnoticed.

Just admit you misspoke and stop this pathetic back-pedaling.

[ProSense]

24. No one lied, you're just in denial. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

30. You lied. Just admit it.

Small businesses are not exempt from the excise tax.

[ProSense]

31. You're in denial. Admit it. n/t

[Oregone]

22. "you are trying hard to justify why these plans shouldn't be taxed"

Why should any funding be derived from taxation upon the value of a good or service that is purchased from the marketplace? Its a very regressive method of funding public services, and it does not distribute the burden as benignly as property, income or wealth tax would. Im not particularly sure why this is a favorable tax mechanism in the first place that you are advocating.

[ProSense]

25. LOL!

"Why should any funding be derived from taxation upon the value of a good or service that is purchased from the marketplace?"

Poor insurance companies.

[Oregone]

26. No, poor workers who will be subject to a regressive tax

That is, unless the shareholders get to take home a bigger check if the "Caddy" plan is dropped. Either way, the workers are of the least concern.

From someone fervently advocating a bill that preserves and institutionalizes the insurance industry, your spin is laughable

[ProSense]

27. The tax is on insurance companies.

Period.

[Oregone]

28. Except, well, the workers pay it

Thats called a lie. You know better

[ProSense]

29. Nonsense. n/t

[liberalpragmatist]

17. That could be true

My argument is that they would likely find a policy with the same benefits but cheaper in a large-group plan on the exchange.

But if there isn't an exemption for them (something which isn't clear to me) and they don't want to switch their plan for whatever reason then, yes, they would have to deal with the tax.

[Oregone]

15. If it comes at the cost of decreased benefits, yes, Im against higher corporate profits

Such a philosophy puts capital before labor, as anyone can clearly see. If a corporation can simply lower the cost of production by merely shorting the compensation of the workers, Im not sure how that makes the shareholders deserving of higher dividends. With this model, the workers are really stuck between a rock and a hard place though; either keep their "cadillac plans" and pay the tax, or roll over and let the shareholders (who are not materially involved with the cost of production) take home a bigger check.

Its really a shitty thing for any liberal to cheerlead though, any way you cut it.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. I'd support that

As well as raising the treshold.

[spoony]

10. Man, hammer meet nail.

Right on.

[TheKentuckian]

2. I'm also curious if you're projecting your imaginary pay increases to outpace

or at least draw even with the additional out of pocket expenses that you apparently feel will remake the wheel into affordable, accessible, and quality health care?

[ProSense]

5. I curious as to why you're protecting insurance companies

being able to charge as much as they want to?

[TheKentuckian]

14. Laughable spin this time. You're promoting them taking a slightly lesser amount

and providing junk insurance. You also refuse to fundamentally control pricing standing with Unka Ronnie on voodoo and trickle down economics. Don't bring price control talk into this church because I'll slam it back in your face and go to the wall on completely setting what can be charged or even a full on NHS.
You and yours refuse to really regulate or actually reform the system.

I also noticed you couldn't answer the question. Do you have to get a supervisor to help or is the DLC having to prepare spin for an unexpected detail?

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Please link to where small businesses are protected. eom

[high density]

7. Cadillac plans are nothing more than another subsidy to care providers and insurance companies

However if we get rid of them I don't see employers passing the savings on their employees. That's a problem.

The outrageous cost of individual or small group plans is a big issue, but that's not at all related to the "Cadillac tax" discussion. The health insurance exchange is supposed to help with that.

Finally the person asserts that single payer is the solution, which has virtually no political support at all.

[TheKentuckian]

16. State pools and an anti-trust exemption are going to do nothing to reduce costs

Collusion, small pools, and individually purchased regulators. Sound familiar? Thats because what we're ending up with is an even more broken down version of today.

[freddie mertz]

23. We heard you the first dozen times.

And we still know that the TAX SUCKS and will NOT contribute a DIME to increased paychecks, but will cause REDUCTIONS in salaries as well as benefits, which is why anyone who isn't basically ANTI-NION and ANTI-Worker opposes it.

Hopefully the unions and house progressives will get this turkey killed or seriously cut back.

THEN we can read your posts and links OPPOSING the revised bill....right?

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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