Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

NY Times Editorial: "Cadillac Plans"

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
 
TomCADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 02:26 PM
Original message
NY Times Editorial: "Cadillac Plans"
Edited on Sat Jan-16-10 02:28 PM by TomCADem
This NY Times editorial is directly contrary to the widely held theory of trickle down economics in which tax cuts and tax increases on corporations necessarily gets passed through to consumers. In this case, the tax increases in on insurance companies, which will pass on the costs to insureds. As Ronald Reagan noted, and as many liberals on this Board have forcefully argued, just as tax cuts or other benefits to businesses will benefit the broad population, tax increases to business and corporations will indirectly harm the broard population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/opinion/16sat1.html?hp


The agreement between the White House, Congressional leaders and labor unions over taxing high-priced health insurance policies is a reasonable solution to an issue that was threatening to derail health care reform. The agreement treats unionized workers far more favorably than nonunion workers, the price for the support of important Democratic constituencies. But it would preserve the tax’s crucial role in slowing the rise in health care costs for decades to come.

When the Senate voted for the tax on high-priced employer-sponsored health insurance policies — “Cadillac plans” — labor leaders and many House Democrats complained that the tax would penalize middle-class people who had plans that were hardly lavish. They much preferred the House approach: a so-called millionaire’s tax, a surcharge on earnings above $1 million a year for couples.

A millionaire’s tax may not survive the negotiations on a final bill, but Congress has to find money to pay for health insurance for millions of Americans. The agreement makes that more difficult because it is expected to reduce the money generated by the excise tax substantially from the original Senate bill. Rich Americans and the industries involved in health care should pick up much of the added burden.

The proposed excise tax on high-cost plans is the most significant measure in either bill to slow the relentless rise in health care spending.

* * *

The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $24,000 a year for a family, starting in 2013. The tax on a $26,000 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees.

That $24,000 threshold, which was raised by $1,000 from the original Senate proposal, is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2013, more than 90 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers — a small minority of the work force — would be subject to the tax in theory.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Schema Thing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Insurance companies are being forced to sell adequate-to-good
insurance, and spend 85 cents of every dollar on actual healthcare.



If some broke single mom working at the Dollar General store gets adequate insurance, and some 90k per year upper-management is reduced from great to merely good insurance, that's a trade-off any real progressive can get behind.


That doesn't mean we stop pushing to have everyone have the same healthcare.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. Screw actual health care, the important thing is to reduce access.
" They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits."

Yeah I am all for that. That is just the sort if change I voted for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
3. Pls, the 85% cap is meaningless.
The insurance cos. already require many goods and services to be obtained from "in-network providers" they own or control -- which then overcharge us (this happened to me -- I was required to use a $750 item that could have been purchased elsewhere for $250; I have to believe the additional cost was passed on to me and my employer in the form of higher premiums). Technically, the money is spent on healthcare; but cash is siphoned off at multiple levels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-16-10 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. The unions are happy with the compromise
Does anyone think they can get the unions' support by opposing health reform?

SEIU: The Real Story on the Excise Tax Framework


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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:23 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