Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Taxes Imposed on Employer-Provided Health Insurance...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
kjackson227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 11:50 AM
Original message
Taxes Imposed on Employer-Provided Health Insurance...
is a possible part of the healthcare reform package. If this does happen, I would assume that a lot of employees will definitely go with the public option. I will.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/08/1956505.aspx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, but given the bluedogs et. al., I bet we get taxed and the "trigger"
for the public option means there will be no public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sutz12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yep, and employers will drop what little coverage they now offer...
Just turn up the heat. With any luck, they can impoverish 2/3rds of the American people.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. And about three times as many people end up uninsured
as there are already.

If Baucus gets his "Insurance Company CEO Pocket Lining Act of 2009", every common person in America should oppose it because things will only get worse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spinbaby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. What is the "trigger?"
I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oregone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Real change doesn't kick in until some arbitrary condition is met
Which can amount to no change at all
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. They're proposing a "Trigger" before a public option becomes available
The most progressive "trigger" I've heard yet wouldn't even be examined for seven years, and then basically requires the insurance companies to approve it before it allows a public option.

The "trigger" is effectively a means to kill any public option while still including a public option.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kjackson227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. HUH??? I'm a little slow on the draw (no pun intended), so could
you please break it down for me, LOL?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WeDidIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. A Public Option gets added to the bill
There are conditions on the public option, though.

First, no public option would be avilable for seven years after passage of the bill.

Second, market conditions have to exist that justify the public option being available (many potential options here and nothing has been set yet). These are so insurmountbale that this condition will never be met (things like X number of insurance companies fail, pricing doesn't increase more than 650% during the seven year period, other shit like that).

Basically it works out to where the public option is included so all teh Congresspersons wioll be able to say that they included a public option, the the conditions that have to be met before implementation of the public option are so odious, that a public option never gets implemented.

In the end, they force everybody to buy insurance and the insurance companies make out like bandits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kjackson227 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Surely Obama won't go along for something this convoluted, and
contrived. At least I hope not. It would be political death for the Dems if he did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alarimer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-08-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
7. This is wrong.
Companies used to offer health care instead of a wage increase. Taxing insurance benefits would only reduce take-home pay.

The Democrats (including Obama) were all over McCain when he wanted to do this. Fucking hypocritical, corporate-loving assholes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 04:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC