Pelosi and unions beat back Cadillac tax - final push to exclude taxing anyone making under $200K

This is great news!

As I posted earlier today, people should not have immediately accepted some reports coming out since yesterday claiming that only unions would be exempted from the Cadillac tax.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=55285

This is exactly who the tax was aimed at. The function of the tax hasn't changed at all. Pelosi just figured out a way to make the politics match the policy. Good god people are so gullible.

middle class workers and it looks like a lot fewer will be affected by this.

Even some unions. You do know that, right?

This IS who the bill was going to hit all along, not any true middle income families. That was always bullshit politics because the unions administer some insurance and THEY didn't want to deal with the tax implications of bloated policy deductions over wage costs.

Countless stories have pointed out that the tax was going to hit people who were middle class, from union workers who had passed up wage increases in favor of good health plans, to people whose health plans happened to be high cost primarily because of the region they live in and health costs there.

You honestly think those were mostly people making between $150K and $200K?

Not the fact that countless posters here (myself included) have pointed out that those of us over 50 (and the companies that employ a lot of older workers) often have policies that cost this much. And that's without adding the premiums for vision and dental in. But, you can't tell some people and thank the stars Nancy and the unions got in there and fought for us. Can you imagine the difficulty of over 50's finding a job if this had passed in this form? Hell, we can barely find work, now.

Which you have been told countless times and don't give a shit about.

You have also been told that I am 52, have a pre-existing insurance pool policy, and that the total cost of it is around $550 a month. I have a $500 deductible and good drug benefits. And a subsidy.

So you can't say, on the one hand, we're going to end up with catastrophic plans when there is evidence that subsidized plans are better -- or that you have to have this exorbitant prices for regular insurance when there is evidence that pools of only sick people cost less than what you've got.

You're wrong and you just won't listen because you're afraid of losing your liberal cred which is stupid.

So, I am happy for you that you got a policy for $550 a month with a $500 deductible and good drug benefits. And a subsidy. I just don't see many in my age group with that deal.

President Obama himself has pointed at this tax as a way to discourage high cost plans. The only way most companies can offer lower cost plans is to scale back benefits.

I am not stupid and this is not about liberal cred unless by liberal cred you mean standing against more burdens on workers and middle class families because I am 100% committed to that til the day I breathe my last.

So much gnashing of teeth that the progressive side of the debate won one battle in the whole process? Don't worry, we still get the draconian Senate version of the community rating system out of it to gouge older people and the loophole for rescissions in the Senate bill and the loophole allowing annual limits from the Senate bill. It's plenty painful enough even with this crumb they threw the House and the progressive caucus.

And from people reporting what unions told them. There are quite a few respectable news outlets who will print anything that bashes this administration. Some do it because they're the New Dems, others because they're liberal, others because they're elite and bash everybody.

And there you go with that "region they live in" bullshit that they always trot out to protect people with high incomes, yes $150,000+. My precise point. Those are the oh so poor middle class that those of us making $20,000 a year with no health coverage were supposed to be worried about.

They do this every single fucking time there is a tax suggested. When will people stop being duped by this argument.

Nation’s Largest RN Organization Blasts Bid to Tax Benefits, Urges Other Reforms to Protect Patients, Families In Final Talks on Healthcare Reform Legislation

The excise tax on workers’ benefits is a central plank of the Senate version of the bill, and is supported by the White House, in contrast to the House bill which instead sets new taxes on the highest-income earners. Congressional Budget estimates say the tax would affect 19 percent of employer-paid plans, or 30 million Americans by 2016, a number that Citizens for Tax Justice says will soar to 58 million people by 2019.

“Advocates of the tax have made clear their intent: to force working people into cheaper, high deductible plans that provide less coverage and shift more costs to employees. The inevitable effect will be more people skipping needed medical care, enduring much higher out-of-pocket costs and risking financial ruin due to medical bills,” said NNU Co-president Karen Higgins, RN.

A Towers-Perrin employer survey last September found 86 percent of employers would pass along their higher costs to employees, “an especially bitter pill for those working families who were assured that health reform would not undermine their present coverage,” said NNU Co-president Jean Ross, RN. “They will be saddled with higher costs and less coverage, while insurance companies will still have free rein to raise premiums, co-pays, deductibles, co-insurance and other fees, and continue to routinely deny needed medical care.”

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2010/january/nation-s-largest-rn-organization-blasts-bid-to-tax-benefits-urges-other-reforms-to-protect-patients-families-in-final-talks-on-healthcare-reform-legislation.html

and have spouted that line for months. Find someone who doesn't have a single payer dog in the fight.

You can keep trying to discredit every source all you want. I had a premium that high 6 years ago through an employer that did not even count the dental and vision. Many nursing agencies have premiums that high as the work force in nursing is, on average, over 40.

At any rate those who know the truth got this fixed, somewhat and I thank the stars for them.

In fact my husband and I combined never reached $100,000 but the premium for my coverage through an employer in 2004 did come within a few hundred of the threshold just for the medical. (note that was 6 years ago). The coverage was average, not 'gold plated. You can hold to your postion all you want but I trust my first hand experience and trust I'm far from the only working class person who has seen this. I understand it is not your experience but that does not mean it is not true.

that cost $8500 for an individual or $23,000 for a family policy and it would have been for those whose total premiums (medical, dental, vision, and FSA's) added up to that much. I think you have been skeptical about this but many pretty standard policies provided by small businesses who employ a lot of older workers do pay this much. The cost of adding my husband to my policy in 2004 (excluding dental and vision) was almost $8500.

I don't see why the slam at Nancy. Her bill called for taxing those at income levels over $500,000 a year. At least she helped beat this part of the Senate bill back a little. The Senate has been full bore, hard on for this tax and is probably going to whine that it got cut back.

I said this $200,000 limit is theatre because you were never going to be hit with this tax. You Are A Family. $23,000. If she has figured out how to keep the money and get you people to stfu, then good on her. That's what politicians do.

6 years ago. And it didn't include the dental and vision plans. The House bill never included the excise tax on workers. Their bill levied a surcharge on individuals making over $500,00 per year and families making over $1,000,000 per year. I don't think her goal was to get 'us people' to stfu. I think she would have preferred to scrap this excise tax altogether and get her version that taxed the wealthiest through. She got a decent compromise.

This is a particular issue for nurses as our profession has an average age well over 40. The institutions for which we work pay a lot for health care benefits due to an aging work force in a high stress profession.

And we've seen quite a few 'politicians' in this. Nancy was the least of them.

That's the point. States that have implemented insurance exchanges, basically, are not finding their premiums to be that high. Not even with dental and vision. If I weren't in the pre-existing pool, I'd have everything for about $350 a month, at 52 years old.

Don't you get it? You're being RIPPED OFF. This tax is to make insurance companies stop it, and make unions stop pretending they're getting you a benefit when what they're doing is getting corporations HUGE tax write-offs.

Unless they get the national exchange through there is no guarantee that all states would fare so well. I prefer the tax on people who make over $500,000 per year that the House had in their bill. The House bill raised 3 times as much money and offered a more generous subsidy. I saw not one thing come out of the Senate bill that wasn't designed to protect the industry and the uber wealthy. I'm supposed to believe that on this one issue the Senate had the people's back when they screwed us in the entire rest of their bill? This tax came out of the ever odious Senate Finance committee that sided with the industry on every point. I trust the people I know who have studied health care and public policy their entire careers. They were against this tax. They are against the Senate's community ratings model. They are against the loopholes for rescissions and annual limits.

Most I have talked with did not expect that tax to make the insurance companies do one damned thing except pass the cost on. This was meant to encourage employers to use lower priced policies with less coverage. It would leave people with more out of pocket expenses so they would access fewer services. This was the opinion of everyone I talked with who has worked in the area of health care and public policy. It was akin to Bush's ownership society crap. If people have to spend more of their own money, they will ration themselves. The onus for bending the cost curve needs to fall on providers, not patients. I see you are convinced of your position but I believe it is based on your own, personal experience which is not guaranteed to be anyone else's personal experience. We have talked with many working class people in MA who have been forced to buy policies (subsidized for lower income people) and many have reported their deductibles were too high for them to use the policies.

I'm not being ripped off. I don't have any insurance and will, probably, wind up on the awful Medicaid system in my state.

I'm not going to apologize for my support of unions. I think we have all seen the deteriorating plight of the working class here since the unions have been losing power these past 3 decades. Covert union busting which, I think, was one of the goals of the tax to begin with in nowhere in my world view a desirable goal for Democrats. Most here have no idea what life was like for those who worked for a living before the labor wars were fought and workers gained some leverage. If we continue to allow weakening of unions we will, eventually, have the opportunity to find out what that was like.

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

for the unions, and liberal House Dems led by Pelosi.

Earlier the White House was opposed even to raising the tax threshold by very much (a few thousand dollars higher for those plans), since it would have meant less revenue. But the poorly designed Senate tax would have hit middle-class workers, including lots of union workers, and this is what Pelosi and the unions worked to correct.

Now it finally will be more of a "Cadillac tax." It wasn't, in the Senate (and White House-approved) version.

:toast:

Should let her office know we appreciate her efforts. Not a great bill here but getting the major costs of it off the working and middle classes takes some of sting out. :bounce:

Not an easy task at the moment, it seems.

I am proud of her so far.

Is this really a victory...
Pelosi and the Unions beat back the big "Cadillac Tax" monster?

Or is this just so much Machiavellian stagecraft to give someone the illusion of apparent victory to offset the reality of an embarrassing defeat?

My guess today? 50/50.

The REALITY still is:
Less than 35% of ALL Americans support an Individual Mandate to BUY Insurance without a Public Option.

How are they ever going to SELL this in Peoria?...or anywhere else Americans Work for a Living?

No more Cadillac Tax?
YES. That IS a good thing.
I'm surprised it was EVER open for discussion.
Never was in my house.

I'm amazed that there were DUers working hard to sell the "Cadillac Tax" here.
Oh well.
By their works you will know them.


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

and hopefully, we end up with what we want. Cuz God knows there are major entities that would love nothing more than to do absolutely nothing, if it were up to them. And politically, it would be easier on our Congress critters to do nothing.

And every step forward seems to be as a result of the House dragging the rest, kicking and whining.

Some things to continue to hammer on:

Close the loophole allowing rescission
Close the loophole allowing annual limits
Get rid of Ensigns amendment forcing employees into 'wellness programs' to avoid higher premiums
Fight for the House model of community ratings which does not allow as much gouging of older Americans
Fight for the more generous subsidies in the House bill


I think we may have the national exchange as opposed to the state by state but not a certainty, yet.

at least they aren't going to pay for it so heavily on the backs of working and middle class Americans. Still many issues here and I'm still banging on their door about them. On my hit list:

the community ratings model in the Senate bill which will allow gouging of older people
the loophole allowing rescissions to continue
the loophole allowing annual monetary limits on care
the ability of employers to charge you more of your premium if you don't participate in 'wellness programs'

On my list to fight for:
the House model for subsidies which are more generous

K&R

A step closer to making the health industry enslavement act law.

Kinda, sorta

Although it's a non issue. Private union membership in the US hovers right around 7% of the workers.

so, still not the bill I want it to be but am glad for a small victory. If nothing else I'm glad the unions won this one and won't be pulling their support for the 2010 elections as they tend to work for our progressives. Would be happy to see a stronger union presence in the country.

and the insuranced industry really has nothing to do with health, no matter what they call their product.

The bottom line seems to be that the Obama administraton won a 40% tax on health insurance benefits.

And this exemption for union members is only temporary, does not apply to union members in "right-to-work" states and may not cover millions of non-union workers.

This temporary exemption will "allow" labor unions to negotiate inferior health plans providing less coverage which in turn will enable employers to obtain cheaper insurance policies with tax free premiums.

The taxes may not be inflation adjusted to reflect real increases in health care costs.

So let's just see all of the details of the actual "deal", if it is approved by the AFL-CIO and independent unions like the Teamsters, before we applaud it as some great victory.

All of our concerns and questions should be answered by this weekend.

Pelosi has promised to post the final agreement online for 72 hours before the bill is voted on.

Thanks. Everyone got their attorneys lined up read to study and explain the 2,000 plus pages of legal mumbo jumbo for us laypersons? How many members of Congress do you think will actually study the bill before they vote on it? Not having enough time would seem to be a legitimate excuse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=367x24742

and the threshold will be based solely on the premium for medical insurance. Originally, it would have been premiums for medical, dental, and vision added together to meet the threshold. I'm not sure how far the threshold got raised but an improvement, nevertheless.

The effective date for the tax is 2013 and it would kick in at $24,000 for family plans and at $8,900 for individuals -- up from $23,000 for families and $8,500 for individuals in the Senate-passed plan.


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1420729920100115