Unions dont get Cadillac Health Insurance

This has been the new screed of the fake left here at DU, the health industry thugs that come here to turn our board into just another screaming health care forum to create disruption and stall progress through lies and intimidation.


I pay $12K for insurance and that is the average for just about every working class family policy in America. The Cadillac policies are NOT held by Union members, they are held by the very rich. This does not equate to a tax increase for those under $250K except in the oddest of circumstances.

While firms that posses union workers have slightly higher value policies than firms who do not, that value is only a $1000 per year more, NOT double.

Feel free to check out the facts at the Kaiser Family Foundation website which shows 2009 survey results.

http://ehbs.kff.org/?page=charts&id=2&sn=16&p=1

And for you pikers who tried to spin based on geography:

people don't realize health care costs money

Which is not a new tax on the poor and middle.

Pelosi would like to see that minimum 40% excise tax (only on the excess amount of the allowed maximum) raised to at least $25,000--ideally $28,000, for families--if it cannot be axed.

Even union members. In fact, they are double.

index what makes a "Cadillac" plan for inflation. As insurance premiums continue to go up, so will the number of plans that get labeled "Cadillac".

as the bill can easily be adjusted later to accommodate changes due to inflation. It would take years for average costs to draw close to the excise line.

written by Deaniac83

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x110878

In addition, bornskeptic had this on what the federal plan costs (that is what our Senators have:

"The federal plan's Blue Cross option with vision and dental care will cost $6,971 for individuals and $16,124 for families in 2010, well below the threshold ($8,500 and $23,000) at which the excise tax, which starts in 2013, would apply."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121704344.html

This is a link to the CBO document your links eventually led to:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_Noted.pdf

The relevant passage is at the bottom of page 7 and carries over to page 8.

The last concern is, the $6,971 and $16,124 are the 2010 premiums - unless they've put something in place to control premium increases between now and 2013, that $6,971 could be getting close to $8,400 in 3 years. And, the chart listed show averages - nothing about age or other factors that raise costs.

And, unlike many here, I don't have a lot of faith in them ever going back to "fix things" if this bill is made law. I'm still waiting for NAFTA and NCLB to be fixed.

Just getting the uninsured down should slow the rate of increase. I have heard that as much as $1,600 of a premium (I assume that number might refer to families, the point is it is significant) is the loaded costs for those without insurance. A large part of this should be removed quickly.

Age and other factors are not relevant as these are not individual plans - so there are no age or pre-existing conditions etc.

I think that if the threshold is raised to where Kerry and Stabenow (representing MI - ie autoworkers union people) - to $25,000, it would not affect unions.

That's considerable, to say the least.

$8000 is well over the average in all areas.

Everyone realizes that healthcare costs money.

"the fake left here at DU. The health industry thugs"

and

"Feel free to check out the facts" ;)

You get happy when those who read the facts differently than yourself are personally attacked and dismissed with childish barbs. That's very Christian of you, there. And I know how much you like to be a good Christian when it comes to talking about sin and homosexuals. I guess the Golden Rule isn't so important as that, though. :shrug:

let me tell you just some of the benefits

90% coverage until i pay a total of about $400 per year in copays, then EVERYTHING is 100% coverage

to include

60 massages a year
30 physical therapy appt's a year
30 chiropractic appointments a year
30 acupuncture appt's a year

i had MAJOR surgery and paid next to nothing. everything was covered 100%. my meds cost me $5 a month.

i had an MRI. cost: zero

i got in the MRI the same day
i get to see my doctor usually the same or next day

it's a cadillac plan

and i pay $12K per year. So what do you pay?

On edit: I don't think my plan includes acupuncture.

my employer pays about 10k per year. it covers me and any family members/domestic partners

frankly, i think a big part of the reason my plan covers so much is that so few employees USE most of this stuff. i've talked to at least 2 dozen of my coworkers and have only found one that takes advantage of the massages.

the plan pays out $90 per massage to the practitioner.

so, if one gets all 60, that alone costs them $5400 per year.

how can they afford this? easy. most don't take advantage of it.

i am a competitive athlete and need them

You may like it, but the term "Cadillac Plan" refers to those plans which cost nearly double.

i did not know that. thx for the info

Its those that don't that concern me.

universal coverage.

which it just isn't.

universal coverage with a plan like mine. i just mean universal coverage like many other countries have.

i accept that no "free" govt. plan would/could offer anything as good as what i currently have

But its an option that Americans are not ready to accept.

$10K would be over the threshold. I'm sure if he added dependents the premiums for the plan would go up even if paulsby didn't pay any of it.

"my employer pays about 10k per year. it covers me and any family members/domestic partners"

so it does not meet the threshold

...please. ;-)

I have a "cadillac plan" too, but we pay $1700 in deductibles per family member per year with a maximum out-of-pocket of $6500 or so until things are covered 100%.

My husband is a physician and if I want an appt. with my doctor, I usually have to wait several weeks unless it is an emergency.

which is set at about 13,750 per year.

That would already mean that 79% of Union workers aren't even halfway close to having a "cadillac" plan.

Of the 21%, I don't know how many go over the $23,000/$8,500 threshold...
as I couldn't find that figure.

However, we also must remind folks that the tax applies (starting in 2015) only on the amount OVER $23,000/$8,500, (and $26,000 and $9,500 for older workers and those who work in harzardous industries) not on anything up to that point...
and that it is the insurers that would be taxed, not the employer nor the subscriber.

Further, it is my understanding that those who have a high cost plan have it because they have pre-existing conditions that forces them to buy the more expensive plan. In both HCR bills, there is a provision that makes Insurance companies unable to discriminate on how much is charged based on one's health condition...which means that many folks would no longer need these Cadillac plans by 2015.

Bottomline is that this may or may not effect not more than 2-4% of the currently insured.....
and depending on how health care reform shapes up prior to 2015...meaning if they cost curve starts to bend down due to preventative care and the restriction for insurance companies from discriminating on those individuals with pre-existing condition and age........it may be fewer.

it's a CEO TAX!

By what logic can this be explained as a CEO tax? They will make the same regardless.

IT IS A BENEFIT TAX INTENDED TO REDUCE BENEFITS BY MAKING THE HIGHER LEVEL PLANS UNAFFORDABLE TO OFFER.

If high plans become unfordable to the rich, then boo fucking hoo. Taxing luxury items has NEVER in history reduced the quality of standard goods.

we pay over $28,000.00 for just our 1/3 rd portion..the employer pays 2/3rds more!

then fucking tax the rich on income+plan or however you want to formulate it but this bullshit Max Tax is designed to do nothing other than reduce the quality of all plans over time (except for the rich who of course can afford nice supplementals and even large out of pocket expenses).

This is a bad idea because it can't be sold, it is easy to both point out holes in and at least to distort, and because it is wrongheaded in the first place because it is only being done because cost containment is so crucial but of course they won't do anything that would hurt profits or the accounts of the wealthy.

Anybody will tell you if you can't see for yourself that the whole idea here is to make high quality plans too expensive for the masses, to reach minimum standards as the baseline for general coverage which will result in more cost shifting, which will result in less effective access, which brings down overall systemic cost without necessarily doing anything much on individual affordability.

The Max Tax is a squeeze play that will over time reduce access and affordability not increase them.

anyone who doesn't have it to a lower tier coverage.
That is why Cadillac health care plans are harzardous to this nation's health.....
because it allows Cadillac Plan subscriber to received added benefits that we
all should have access to.

You theorize that "The Max Tax is a squeeze play that will over time reduce access and affordability not increase them."....

but I beg to differ, cause I think discouraging Cadillac Plans is going to increase the benefits in standard plans, not reduce health care standards in general.

So please tell me why would you be correct, and not I in our "theories"...cause that's all they are.

I saw a lot of people trying to kick Frenchie's ass last night without giving any specifics. This post provides specifics, now if someone wants to argue against your numbers and posts contradicting numbers that is fine, until then it is b.s. talking points.

Which i interpret to mean that the ghouls are scared of the facts.

this tax will capture some unions plans there are some structural issues with the tax that need to be fixed.

office and asked if any of their bargaining units would be impacted by the Cadillac Plan tax. I was told that only their law enforcement groups came close and they are specifically exempted along with fire and some other high risk employment classes.

They're meeting with Obama to sort this out so I guess they think that they have Cadillac plans. But they're just part of "the fake left" and "insurance thugs", right?

will end up degrading their own coverage!

All the while pointing fingers and using Cadillac memes!

A bigger bunch of suckers would be hard to imagine- but indeed, America has them in droves- among the teabaggers.

The point of many of the posts that you see
explaining the actual wording of the possible excise tax
on the Cadillac Plans is so the facts will be known....

It's much better than those folks spreading fear
with their hair on fire,
but without any real facts as to why they are so burning.

You apparently aren't familiar with facts,
because as usual, you load your post up with name calling,
but without evidence as to why you choose to call your fellow DUers names,
i.e., not a shred of evidence that your name calling is based on anything
other than your bad manners, and lack of home training.

Seems like it would be easier to see, it being the very first post and all, but instead you run to the bottom to attack someone else. Strange.

Or don't you think calling posters "the fake left" and "insurance thugs" is name calling?

This was the move of a partisan hack. Nothing more.

But I like facts, not spin.

but at least the CBO disagrees with you. It says that 19% of employment-based health insurance policies would be subject to a 40 percent excise tax by 2016. That ain't just the very rich.

Yes, this isn't just the very rich, it's also the investor class and professional class. You know, the moderately rich and upper classes.

I'd really love to see the numbers that back you up on that.

I generally don't call them workers, at least, not in the same sense as labor.

You're trying to claim that nearly 20% of workers are wealthy. That isn't the case and there's no data that backs you up.

Besides, many blue collar and government unionized workers have better health care than lower and mid level professionals. They make far less money but have better healthcare. That has been stated and proved many times over. At this point you either understand it but want to spread propaganda or you don't believe your lying eyes.

(I had to find your response here, because you referenced it elsewhere).

I'm trying to claim that 20% of "workers" get a level of benefits that the wealthy get. That's what a Cadillac plan is. It's part of their overall wealth, earnings, etc.

They're basically getting $23,000+ a year cash bonus for their family, off the books. Every Year.

Some may be (by cash income) professional class, some may be middle class, some may be working class, some may be working poor... so, I ask again, what actual number of *working class* workers, or households, is going to be affected?

Not number of workers (which includes CEO's like Steve Jobs, who at one point made $1 a year in salary), but actual *working class*?

As far as the claim that 20% of workers are wealthy, here's a simple math tip:
20% of workers are wealthier than the other 80% are. By mathematical definition.

I could also point out the 10s or 100s of thousands of federal, state, county and local government workers around the country but you wouldn't listen. You have an agenda to warp the meaning of healthcare to include something that doesn't exist so telling you doesn't help. You've read the evidence and refuse to accept it.

And as for your stunningly brilliant comment about 20% of workers are wealthier than the other 80% so they absolutely must be wealthy. I couldn't agree more. Its just like purple being more red than blue so purple must be red. Right?

Ooh! I have another:

My dog has four legs. My cat also has four legs. Therefore my cat is a dog!

This is fun. It takes no intelligence and almost makes me sound logical. Wheeee!

As far as you creating an arbitrary bar for what qualifies as wealthy, please let me know where you set that bar. Goalpost. Whatever. :shrug:

"You have an agenda to warp the meaning of healthcare to include something that doesn't exist"
What doesn't exist?

Just using your brand of irrefutable logic. Its fun.

Therefore, taxing the wealthiest man in the world is exactly the same as taxing you?

I don't think you understand the logic problem.

Seriously, I can't have a real dialogue with an anti-union idiot. I just can't. I can make fun of them, I can laugh at them, I can play with them. I just can't respect them or their short-sighted, self-interested opinions enough to really give a fuck about what they say.

We should end this conversation because I can't read anything you type and not think "moron".

If you want, I can provide non-moron paper work.

(I'm not in mensa for giggles... seriously)

I always think of people who claim to be in MENSA like people who claim to know members of the mob. Those in the know, don't talk.

But we should end this before you start trying to brag about penis size. You've really become an embarrassment.

Several huge Unions are very concerned that their members will be hurt by the tax. Maybe they are wrong, but they have at least studied the issue. Part of the problem here is that the cost of benefits go up every year at a much higher rate than inflation. One can't just look at averages for 2009 and conclude that only the upper class will be affected.

Accommodating that isn't much of a solution.

"The tax goes into effect in 2013 in the current Senate bill. Each year, the thresholds would be indexed to the inflation rate plus 1 percent."

That, plus their perspective, at:
http://www.seiu.org/2009/12/qa-on-the-senates-excise-tax-on-high-cost-so-called-cadillac-health-insurance.php