Does anyone know the current definition of a "Cadillac Health Plan"?

Is it measured by how much one pays in premiums or what it covers?

I pay OUT THE ASS for an average ***HMO***. Not a PPO. Not a plan where I can go anywhere at any time. No dental. No vision. Just your average HMO coverage. My premiums are more than 20K per year. Do I have a "Cadillac Health Plan"?

For all instances of YOU.

Any health care plan that YOU have, for all instances of YOU.

The hoi polloi government employees don't even get that plan. I would love to know what it costs per over fed senator.

what members of the AFL-CIO have.

The members of labor unions that are affiliated with the AFL-CIO don't all have the same health care plan. They also don't all pay the same premium costs.

Just as coverage for all government agencies are not the same. Coverage for local governments varies from town/city to town/city. And it varies from state to state. In each case it also varies in cost.

The federal government employees would not necessarily pay the same premium cost if they moved to a different state. And a good possibility that the coverage may not be the same in a different state.

Back to labor union health coverage. I doubt there are many employees receiving coverage that exceeds $20k. And if the coverage did exceed that amount it wouldn't necessarily mean it would be top of the line coverage. Some groups would cost more to insure and other parts of the country may cost more for insurance.

OmahaSteve (Ithink it was him) denounced the tax on cadillac plans as being harmful to many union members. Just to be clear.

:think:

and have yet to receive a serious answer:

I have heard two answers to this. The first is any plan that costs more than 20K per year. The second is any plan that costs more than 25K per year.

The definition is based on what it costs the consumer, not the amount or quality of coverage. But it is assumed that any plan costing more than 20K/year has got to be pretty swank.

As you have such a plan, is it? Is everything covered, or are you paying for a pre-existing condition?

on edit, and with a little research, according to WaPo (1 Oct):

"Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) initially proposed an excise tax of 35 percent on insurance companies for plans that amounted to $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. Those amounts were initially set to increase with inflation. "

see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/30/AR2009093004730.html

On the bright side, the beacon of liberal ideal, the WSJ headlines: "Majority Of House Dems Oppose Tax On 'Cadillac' Health Plans"

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091006-714245.html

Congress's plan *may* be what's called a Cadillac Health plan, but I have yet to hear the it directly described as such in the MSM (consider the source). However, without a definition of what the CHP covers, it doesn't answer the OP's question. Also, nobody seems to be talking about taxing employer-paid healthplans, which removes the CHP from consideration straight off, no matter what it covers.

Still, if I have erred, I apologize.

..... to the current rate. They cover all medical and a small co=pay for drugs. I had a heart attack almost 3 years ago and it cost me zero out of pocket, but my premium exploded. My coverage has remained the same, however.

Over my life, when I was part of company plans, I had better coverage in the sense that, for less money, I also got dental and vision and that included two kids who now grown and gone.

Don't know if that's really karma, or what.

insured. No caps or limitations on coverage. Premiums of $2000+/mo paid for by whatever major multinational corporation the insured "works" for. Oh, and spouse and children covered exactly the same, at no cost to insured.

The rich really ARE different from you and me.

The only exception is the copays...I have a $500 copay limit on hospitalizations, a $50 copay limit on ER visits, and a $10 copay limit on prescriptions. Cancer or kidney stones, I never pay over $500. No coverage limits, no caps. Wife and three kids covered at the same level I am. It's a collectively bargained health plan available to every instructor at the college, and certainly isn't for the rich.

This is why many unions are already on the attack against the "Cadillac Tax"...the coverage limits being discussed would squarely hit most American union workers with union-negotiated employer health coverage.

high deductible and high copay that will frickin' bankrupt me, while the privileged get plans that cost them next to nothing. This ain't Louis XVI's France.

BTW. Just means that somebody needs to NOT FORGET ABOUT US LITTLE PEOPLE.

8000 for a single person and around 10,000 for a family - if you get subsidized health care at work you have a cadillac plan according to the guidelines so a tax of 40% on whatever the employer pays for you - ie at least 3000 for a single person and over 4000 for a family. Hope you have some spare change.

And BTW, if what I described ain't a cadillac plan, I don't know what the hell is.

You can whine about taxes on a luxury healthcare plan all you want. You won't get much sympathy from me. I'm one of the Little People you folks like to walk all over.

... to turn us against each other so that those on the bottom start pulling those above them back down. Especially when I hear *unions* mentioned in this context I begin to wonder just :wtf: is going on here.

I know this doesn't directly answer the question you posed, but I have a feeling that the subtext of your question is running along the same line of thought.

Rank and file Democrats are so damn easy to distract and to be turned against each other that it makes me want to sit down and cry.

Hekate

Many people have accepted lower wages because the benefits were good - that has been one of the trade outs that unions and people who start at minimum wage put up with instead of insisting on more money.


So now the powers that be are talking about taxing those benefits at a higher rate than the top 1% pay? There is so much wrong with that picture!

My question was actually just purely selfish! :) I was wondering how bad I was about to get dinged ..... again. For many years I was always the guy who got a raise but was always at the top tier of having to pay FICA on my whole salary! Now I'm wondering if I pay juuuust enough to get fucked on the taxes.

You're right, however, about the ease with which Dems can get distracted. In may ways we're pitiful.

Like yours...........

It costs the union member nothing, except $10 copays on doctor visits, $20 on emergency room visits, and $5 for the drug copay. It covers the union member, spouse, and children... all for the same price.

I raised three kids on that plan... three very healthy kids, thank Goddess... and thank you Teamsters!

Except for the pre-natal doctor visit co-pays, it didn't cost anything for "birthin' babies." $0 for the overnight stay... $0 for childbirth... $0 for all the related testing... and $0 for the sterilization surgery when I wanted to close shop after kid #3;)

As a happily retired Teamster member I say - "Thank God for unions"

Anyone that thinks they do better without them is clueless.

edit: sp, content.

They single handedly got us volumes of labor laws. They set a good example for life and health insurance bargaining... no wonder the Rapepublicans hate them so.

This is another attempt to punish and kill unions.

it will be cheaper if employers only have to pay for a catastrophic plan for employees with a 1000 or more deductible - thats your cadillac plan

There is NO SUCH THING.

The MOST you can get out of the best health care plan is actual health care coverage with such exotic things as dental and vision care. No health care policies cover optional procedures such as purely cosmetic plastic surgery.

A 'Cadillac Health Care Plan' is one where your health care bills are covered by your insurance.

It is purely political spin. Create a strawman health care policy that does not exist and then, justify cutting benefits and coverage in health care reform as a mean to control costs against these non-existent policies.

It is insurance companies profits that need to go, not full coverage health care benefits for citizens.

It is also divisive. It creates anger at the haves, from the have nots. The politicians know that one of the best ways to cut (or in this case PREVENT) good social programs is to divide the people around the policy. It happened with Welfare Queens (they drove Cadillacs, don't you remember). People at the bottom wrungs tend to direct anger at each other, instead of against the corrupt corporate system where it could stand to change things.

This term is loaded with implications to used in that context.