Unions Rally to Oppose a Proposed Tax on Health Insurance

[shopgreen]

Source: NY Times

(edited for copyright purposes-proud patriot Moderator Democratic Underground)



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/09union.html?hpw


January 9, 2010

Unions Rally to Oppose a Proposed Tax on Health Insurance
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE

When millions of blue-collar workers were leaning toward John McCain
during the 2008 campaign, labor unions moved many of them into Barack
Obama’s column by repeatedly hammering one theme: Mr. McCain wanted to tax
their health benefits.

But now labor leaders are fuming that President Obama has endorsed a tax
on high-priced, employer-sponsored health insurance policies as a way to
help cover the cost of health care reform. And as Senate and House leaders
seek to negotiate a final health care bill, unions are pushing mightily to
have that tax dropped from the legislation. Or at the very least, they
want the price threshold raised so that the tax would affect fewer
workers.

Labor leaders say the tax would hit not only wealthy executives with
expensive health benefits, but also many rank-and-file union members who
have often settled for lower wage increases in exchange for more generous
health benefits.

The tax would affect individual insurance policies with annual premiums
above $8,500 and family policies above $23,000, which by one union survey
would affect one in four union members.

(snip)

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/09union.html?hpw

---

I, for one, hope the unions do not back down.

[dkf]

1. Alienating the activists and the unions

Guess they have so much money from the lobbyists they intend to hire all the Grunt work for 2010 and 2012.

[tavalon]

76. They're going to have to

because their volunteers are now looking elsewhere.

[dotymed]

79. This is one union voter and

previous Obama campaigner who has left the bldg. My God, base the taxes on wealth not on insurance benefits. If they would do that we could implement Universal H C and save billions a tear. They know it! I am so freakin tired of being screwed, especially by a man I thought was going to save the MC...one term. We have to draft Sanders (preferably), Kucinich is great but the idjits won't give him a chance. Grayson is good too, but inexperienced. How can we Draft Bernie? He really is the last hope we have. It would be great if he included people like Dennis (I worked for him originally) and Grayson in his cabinet or wherever he could best use them.
Pre-Reagan, there was about an 80% tax ceiling on the wealthiest Americans. FDR had about 90% and our economy bloomed and wealth did not accumulate (as much) in the hands of a few. Damn, it is time for either progressive taxation or an outright class war. Obama has about a 35% tax on them and he is afraid he will be called a Socialist if he raises it. Why would he listen to Rahm?

[Heddi]

2. Hi! Moderator Here! Please edit your post so that you have 4 or fewer paragraph

Per DU rules: Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

Please edit your post and remove some of the extra paragraphs!

Thanks!

Heddi
DU Mod

[shopgreen]

11. Sorry, it is too late. I will be more careful.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Better listen or be seriously crushed in the next Election

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. Kill it.

K and R

[defendandprotect]

5. "Rally"? Where are unions "rallying"??? Only teabaggers get out there---!!

[bread_and_roses]

6. Do people around here know how hard unions worked to get old "Reagan Democrats"

to vote for Obama? How hard we worked to get Republican union members to vote for Obama? Do they know the % difference in older White males who were union members who voted for Obama compared to non-union White men? Do they think we'll be able to do it again if this goes on? Union leaders laid their credibility on the line for Obama. This is an unconscionable betrayal. And let the union bashers come out and tell me that we are selfish, that we don't "need" our good health plans. Everyone "needs" a good health care plan - everyone needs good health care. And union members have bargained away wages for years to keep health care for their members. There's no way to get those wages back. And unions have been working on health care for ALL in collaboration with many community partners - especially the last two years in preparation for the '08 race and what we thought was a chance at real health care reform. How stupid we were to think that the Ds would stand up against their Corporate Paymasters!

I, for one, as a union member, hope that our leadership has the guts to go all out to kill this Bill if this tax is left in. I hope they have the guts to tell the Ds that not one who votes for it will get $1 or 1 hour of volunteer time their next election.

And yes, I care very deeply about the well-being of all the uninsured - like nearly everyone else, I have people near and dear to me who are totally uninsured, and also family members suffering under the indignities and often sub-standard care under Medicaid. But this Bill is a farce; it will not provide "care" for the uninsured, only the "opportunity" to buy care or to be part of the underclass in a tiered health care system. And what about the millions left out altogether?

Kill the Bill.

[laughingliberal]

13. Yep, way to reward your friends, President Obama! Not. nt

[dana_b]

28. unions should be the standard that we

want to set for all working class people. They fight the fights not just for themselves but for all of us. This tax would be a huge betrayal and the union people won't forget it. I'm with you and if there is a rally near me, I will go to support them (I am now non-union, unfortunately).

[last1standing]

71. They know. They just don't care.

They're proving it with every anti-Union post they type.

[SoapBox]

7. Tax it I say!

Now let's take another quick look at those taxation levels:

"The tax would affect...individual insurance policies with annual premiums above $8,500 (I'll add, that's $708/month) and
family policies above $23,000 (I'll add, that's $1,916/month), which by one union survey would affect one in four union members."

Holy CRAP! Talk about major Cadillac! And would affect one in four? My God...talk about being on the gravy train!

AND, be sure to note that verbiage, "one in four UNION members." Not the other Americans...because the other Americans can't even dream of having such coverage.

I whole-heartedly support unions...but this is the type of crap that makes non-union people furious.

My advice to the unions, first focus on CORPORATE executive level coverage (ya know, those $25,000 physicals done at resorts for execs) and work to get your people to pay what's fair. Simple screaming and outrage ain't gonna cut it with many, many of us.

[FreakinDJ]

8. Go for it - your loss in 2010 / 2012 Elections

Yep - the Unions will surely be missed

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[mbperrin]

21. This goes through, and they'll be missing me and my union.

American Federation of Teachers - AFL-CIO.

Single payer is the way to cover everyone, really everyone, reduce costs, and get the best results.

I know, what am I thinking - politicians listening to common sense instead of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

[Harry Monroe]

49. Same here. Marine Engineer's Beneficial Association AFL-CIO

Checking in. If this goes through, he can forget about our support in '12. Obama can kiss my support goodbye also!!

[shopgreen]

10. Obama will be breaking his promise of no new taxes (for those

under 250 T.

[laughingliberal]

15. Yep. $708 per month. Exactly what I paid to cover my husband in 2004

and not any 'gold plated' coverage either.

Yep. Union members with decent benefits-another new group of welfare queens to turn working class Americans against each other. YEEEHAWWW!

[Kokonoe]

16. Other Americans will never even dream of having such coverage

If they take away the undeniable coverage from labor contracts.

That must be the reason for the tax.

[bread_and_roses]

17. you "whole-heartedly support unions" - oh, riiiiightttt, you do

your post makes absolutely no sense and is an obvious muddled bash at unions. you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

[Iowa]

20. The basic plan covering front-line State employees in Iowa cost $20,088/year right now...

That's simply what decent coverage costs these days, and most decent plans will quickly exceed the target for taxation.

You, on the other hand, appear to have shitty coverage. But rather than join with labor to pull yourself up to a better level of coverage, you prefer to go the right-wing way... trash labor in an effort to bring everyone down to your miserable level of coverage. You are operating under the auspices of right-wing, wedge-driving talking points designed to whip up that portion of the populace that is dumb (and petty) enough to prefer dragging everyone down to their level, rather than fighting to raise yourself, and everyone else, up to a higher level. Only the dimmest bulbs allow themselves to be duped into a mindset that ultimately leads to their own demise.

Furthermore, taxing a shrinking middle class that is already squeezed is the Republican way. Obama practically jumped at the opportunity to open the spigots and give hand-outs to his Wall Street/banker buddies, to pay for wars about nothing, and to feather the nests of pharmaceutical and insurance giants. But he refuses to spend one dime on what the citizens of this country view as THE number one national priority. Faced with a choice of reducing wasteful spending on wars and banks, going back to the progressive taxation this country once had, or hammering a struggling middle class with a major tax increase - he chooses to stick it to the middle class. And you're 100% behind him on that.

Fuck you.

[katkat]

27. SoapBox

Newbie, I'm sure you whole-heartedly support unions :sarcasm:

As a non-union person, the whole damn bill makes me furious. And calling this a "cadillac" plan is insulting when it affects 1/4 of union members now (and it's not indexed, so that will soon become a greater number) and many non-union people. Cadillac is the sort of crap distorting nomenclature the Repigs use.

Let's see. We have:

A people with no or inadequate insurance
B people with decent insurance
C very wealthy individuals
D obscenely wealthy insurance companies
E a government pissing away 5-6 times the cost of heathcare in unnecessary wars.

So today's question is, from which of the above groups do we get more money to give to BigInsurance? You got it, A and B.

[liberation]

32. I for one thought it was funny....

... the whole "I support unions, for real.... yet let me fit as many anti-union talking points as I can even if my post ends up making no sense whatsoever" approach was hilarious.


I guess their new anti-union spiel involves either crying out loud because Unions are not busting their chops to fight for the interests of non-union members, or that not all union members are affected ergo they should just shut the hell up. The level of entitlement of the first talking point, and the call for apathy of the second... leads me to believe that only a right winger could come up with such silly trite.

[dana_b]

29. look at post #6

is that what you really want? To penalize the people who have already given up pay for these so-called "Cadiallac" plans? Do you want to hurt those that fight and keep on fighting year after year for these benefits but still make concessions? If it weren't for the unions we'd be working 50-60 fours 6 dsys a week, standard. They do NOT only fight for themselves, they fight for you, me and everyone else too so instead of getting on their cases, go after those upper management and CEO types - not the hard working union people.

[GrantDem]

36. So they should not lobby against something that affects 25% of their members?

:shrug:

[louis c]

45. Let me use my union as an example

We have 44 workers on a health care plan. The plan is so expensive that few can afford it.

Because the workers are older and our "experience" is expensive, our plan is costly. A single person pays $85 a week, at 50% of the total premium. Many are paying nearly 35% of their gross income in insurance premiums.

Do you think that a person earning $800 a week should be taxed on a premium that they are paying $275 a week on (family paln)?

[RoccoR5955]

53. What you don't understand about Union health care benefits is

that we negotiated these, in lieu of raises. Unions work or WE THE PEOPLE, not them, the corporations.

[V_Byl]

58. Dumb.

A.) You're directly screwing over 25% of the MOST WELL FUNDED part of your base. You think the membership won't be furious and force the unions to support other candidates? It's one of the few parts of the Democratic base that actually has money and (although not near as strong as it used to be) lobbying power.

B.) I know this for a FACT. The company I worked for paid about $10K for my policy, so that's what I would have to pay if I quit, got fired, and needed COBRA. So to stay on the policy I would have to pay my policy at 102%. The company got a ***50%*** kickback from the insurance company... so they payed $5K for my policy, but just incase I wanted to buy COBRA, it cost me 10K. This happens more than you'd think, especially with Union policies. So you'd pay taxes on an amount the company isn't even paying, and those taxes would go to buy private insurance to boot. Fuck that.

Sorry, dumb idea.

[fasttense]

72. I'm non-Union and Unions giving up wages for years and years in order

to get better health care coverage from corporations does NOT make me furious.

They gave up wages and literally purchased those plans with fewer dollars every year in their pay checks. It's not as if Union members didn't work for it. It was NOT given out of kindness and generosity from a huge corporations. It was paid for in advance with sweat, penny pinching, careful budgeting and hard work. Nothing has ever been given to a Unions member that someone didn't earn. Do you really believe corporations di it out of the kindness of their heart?

This is so typical of Republicons and corporations race to the bottom. Trying to make you angry at what Unions have earned while lowering everyone's wages and benefits. Trying to divide people because a union member fought harder and longer for better conditions.

Corker did this with GM union members. Remember the outrage over the fact that Union members dared to be paid a decent wage. But where was the outrage over CEOs making billions? And now we have failed bank/Wall Street/insurance corporations making bigger bonuses then before they destroyed our economy.

Spin, spin, spin, until we are all barely making $1 a day with NO benefits.

[dotymed]

81. As a Union Carpenter

we gave 80% of every COLA raise we received, for at least 5 years, because HC costs kept skyrocketing and we had to protect our families.

[Rage for Order]

9. Silly union members!

Don't they know that Obama and Congress are taxing their health benefits for their own good???

:sarcasm:

[Joe Chi Minh]

12. No insurance company left behind. Have some compassion.

[laughingliberal]

18. That was great! We need to get that talking point out there about this bill.

Kind of like Bush's No Billionaire Left Behind programs.

[LiberalLovinLug]

19. Of course all that could have been avoided with a single payer plan

The cheapest and at the same time, more comprehensive. They wouldn't be scrambling for ways to pay for it, because they wouldn't have given most of the money away to the private Insurance and Pharma companies.

Obama obviously was swayed by Rahm and others in the DLC who persuaded him to veer hard right and "stay the course". They had a choice. They could have been the New New Deal heros. They would have still endured the slings and arrows from FAUX News and all the other right wing buffoons, but could have actually brought about real change, lower costs, cheaper drugs, and true universal coverage.

The voices screaming "socialists" would eventually get hoarse and die off as the benefits of a publicly owned and controlled system not based on profit, would sink in. Eventually it would have, and Obama would go down as one of the greatest Presidents for bringing universal health care to the USA. The risk was; would that tide turn enough before 2012? And what were the risks of making an enemy of Big Insurance and Pharma, who would surely fight like rats cornered through their friends in the GOP, Blue Dog caucus, and the ever faithful MSM.

Obviously they decided to take the easiest route politically. Once again left their spines hanging in the closet. But if they thought that their enemies would endorse their lapdog position to corporations, or at the very least NOT criticize it or make shit up about it....they vastly underestimated them.

[Jackpine Radical]

41. The right-wing screamers will be screaming "Socialism" no matter what.

Ya ain't gonna please 'em, so why bother?

Because it's not about pleasing the screamers. It's about pleasing the big-money people. The insurance companies have got the bill they want; they may keep up the pretense that they're being hurt, but that's camouflage.

No pre-existing exclusions. Fine. The high deductibles and high copays will more than make up for this concession by preventing people from actually using their insurance.

Can't charge more for pre-existing conditions. Sure. But they can charge more by age groups--and show me an old fart without pre-existing conditions, so it accomplishes the same thing.

We don't force the insurance companies to cover people so much as we force people to buy the insurance.

There is nothing in the bill that will prevent the insurance companies from deciding they aren't going to pay for this or that treatment.

There is nothing to limit their profits. There is nothing to limit them from squeezing the providers.

What a wonderful deal.

[Joe Chi Minh]

80. 'The right-wing screamers will be screaming "Socialism" no matter what.' GOOD!!! From an

enemy, that is high praise indeed. We can do with all the help we can get. Remember: Our enemy's enemy is our friend! At least, they're recognising the merits of Socialism, and complimenting us for our wisdom! At least, that's what I think they're doing....

[DutchLiberal]

22. "To pay for health care reform"? WHICH reform???

Where's the reform?

[AzDar]

37. Exactly! We're giving up EVERYTHING for NOTHING!

What's WRONG with this Administration??

[DutchLiberal]

39. Don't rule out the corrupt Senate...

Bribed by the insurance companies.

[Zhade]

85. orahma is a liar. That's the problem. And we fell for it.

But then, like a beaten spouse, we were desperate to believe in the handsome new savior.

[AzDar]

38. self-delete... glitch

[Little Star]

23. k&r Good!!! How can non-union people help support this? n/t

[flyarm]

40. call the unions..pick anyone..call their national Headquarters,,tell them you support them!

Call the AFL-CIO..The UAW ..any of them..and tell them you are non-union but you want to join them in fighting this bill..and ask what you can do..they will most likely ask you to call your congress people..then do it!!

My husband and his fellow workers began their Union in 1969..all the workers previous did not organize and had no health care insurance..with each contract since then, they fought to pick up as many retired employees as the law would allow ..we sacrificed through strikes and lock outs for our health care benefits..and to protect and give benefits to those before us..people that never paid a dime for their health insurance..we have paid it for them..

I resent like hell anyone telling me we Union people are selfish..fuck you if you say that,.because ..each time we went out on strike or were locked out or had work stoppages.. we helped bring others in this nations standard of living up.

For someone to say we Union workers are selfish now,

..for anyone to post and use propaganda and bullshit to try to sell this shitty plan on anyone..

...it is they who are selfish ..

..it is they who would rather see our standard of living go down in this country and would rather see people suffer with sub standard health care

and I will repeat what someone above me said..

fuck you!

oh and I was a flight crew for a major airline for 33 years..In all my unions contract talks we fought for safety proceedures to keep our passengers safe..if you think the corporations give a rats fucking ass about you..I have swamp land for you..with alligators available upon request!

[Little Star]

50. Thanks! I will do that on Monday. n/t

[sabrina 1]

59. I will do that, thanks for the suggestion ~ and will send

it to my email list ~

Sorry to see you and all those who worked so hard for so long be insulted by these mindless attempts to defend this betrayal.

[Zhade]

86. Thank you for everything you've done. You are giving, not selfish.

Oh, and yes -- FUCK those assholes like above.

[LaPera]

24. Support workers & their unions the ONLY voice for the workers, fighting

against corporations hundreds of million dollar lobbyist, republicans and everyone else who thinks workers are peasants. Simply workers united for a stronger voice...for better pay, medical care for their families, sick pay and retirement....without a union workers are by themselves and are fucked and at the mercy of management who care nothing about the work but keeping wages & benefit down and reaping maximize profits for corporations while donating to republican party to keep the status quo.

[Little Star]

26. Unions help lift all us middle class and poor up. With out them we

would all become poor and remain that way. Corporations love slave labor and it is begining to look like Democrats have joined Republicans in loving it too.

[dana_b]

30. +1

[LaPera]

31. I'm sorry did my post imply anything different....

or was it an agreement of my post........because I'll reiterate my agreement with you.

[Little Star]

51. I was agreeing with you and I still do.

[flyarm]

42. +1!!

[totodeinhere]

25. We can't win the next elections without enthusiastic support from unions and their members.

Kill that tax on the so-called Cadillac plans and while they're at it they need tog get off their asses and pass card check.

[Hoyt]

33. So, if we went single payer with deductibles and copays, would unions support that?

I don't make $250K a year, but I've always expected I'd have to pay more under health care reform. But, if it gets more folks covered, stops insurers from raping people with pre-existing conditions, etc., I'm for it.

I wish we were getting a single payer system. But, we aren't. Plus, a single payer system was never going to be as good as some of these plans we're talking about here. Does that mean unions would have been against a single payer system that benefited lots of people? Apparently so.

Who are we going to vote for -- Republicans? Go for it.

[diane in sf]

44. I'm a union member with a good insurance plan and I'd support it. We need

health insurance for everyone that is not tied to employment. In every wealthy industrialized country but the US people don't lose their insurance when they lose their jobs--even when it is employer provided.

[Zhade]

87. You people just don't get it. THERE WILL BE NO PROTECTION FOR THOSE WITH PREEXISTING CONDITIONS!

Why? Because there's no limit on what insurance companies can charge! So when they charge someone with, say, a congenital heart defect triple the rate they charge you or I, it's the same as denying them.

Why is that so hard to understand? Are you TRYING to not understand that fact?

[Vidar]

34. K&R.

[Dinger]

35. No Public Option, No Vote From Me

or my colleagues.

[diane in sf]

43. I've been calling Pelosi's office every other day, taxing middle class insurance

benefits, mandating people to buy insurance from criminal corporations with no public option available--the bill so far is terrible and should be killed.

[cadmium]

46. I agree with the unions on this one I understand

the reasoning behind the excise tax on insurers selling high priced plans but it will go awry. Cost will be passed on to workers or plans will be made worse and the the gap between what is deemed a "cadillac" plan and the average plan will narrow. This will probably become like the alternative minimum tax and creepily affect the middle class taxpayer most. It may be that there is no way to get Ben Nelson's vote without it as ridiculous as that is. He has said that he could not support the House tax increase on millionaires -- as if that affects a lot of Nebraskans.

[susanwy]

56. Bingo

If this goes through, what is there to prevent a sliding definition of "cadillac" plans? Nothing.

I'd gladly pay a little more in taxes to get everyone covered, but that is not what this is about. The point of a tax is to spread it evenly across many individuals based on income to benefit the entire population, not a select few based on a perceived superiority of their benefits. Regressive tax ring a bell to anyone?

[Zhade]

88. It won't go awry. It's designed to be passed on to the workers.

That's why it's an EXCISE TAX. That's what an excise tax is!

[cadmium]

93. I dont think that it is

designed to be passed on -- I just think that is ultimately what will happen. It's a minor quibble with the same conclusion.

[swilton]

47. Solidarity Forever

I support the unions!

[icee]

48. Go Labor!!!!!! I'm behind you a thousand per cent!! With Dental, Vision

and Medical, I don't know what my wife's company pays. We pay nothing. I wouldn't mind paying a copay if it helped others get insurance, but no hidden taxes. They are ALWAYS more than they are supposed to be as the employer tries to recoup even more of the taxes he has to pay. This was an out and out deception by Obama. I'm a diabetic. Obama may well have ended my life and left my wife a widow. Those of you who have read the horrible bill know why.

[pleah]

52. K&R

[RoccoR5955]

54. If they tax my health insurance, I will no longer be able to afford it.

WTF is up with that? It would be less expensive for me to pay the penalty, than the tax. Either way the middle class is screwed.

[boppers]

55. You wouldn't be paying the tax.... unless you're an insurance company.

This is a tax paid by the insurers.

[susanwy]

57. Yea

like they won't pass it on to the consumers! 'Cause after all their execs need their percs, we can't cut those.

[boppers]

60. So, we shouldn't tax greedy industries?

After all, all taxes are ultimately paid for by the consumers of a product, so why even have any business taxes?

:sarcasm:

[susanwy]

61. Why the sarcasm?

Sorry, I don't get your point....

The issue of how we get corporations to start taking some social responsibility and pay their fair share without passing it along to consumers is a separate topic. The reality is corporations do pass on the cost, because they need to meet the next quarters stock market expectations and have long ago abandoned any social responsibility.

Why have business taxes? - well because businesses benefit from the same infrastructure, services and protections that the rest of us working slobs benefit from .... So, in essence, the middle class will be taxed twice, once by the IRS and once by the health insurance company.

[boppers]

63. Part of the bill requires a minimum amount of care be provided per dollar.

Another part of the bill prevents price gouging, by the insurer over-charging consumers. The overcharge amount kicks in at a certain point, and is indexed to inflation +1.

The sarcasm is because it's a long-time republican talking point that taxing businesses is wrong, because people are "taxed twice" (as you put it) if a business has to pay their share of taxes.

In short, the insurance business is being taxed for price gouging.

[susanwy]

65. Ok, I get that....

And in theory, it sounds like a reasonable idea. But, this tax isn't based on an analysis of the benefits of the plan vs the cost, but solely on the cost of the premiums. So, who decides if its price gouging? If a plan has little or no deductible, low out-of-pocket, vision, dental and high lifetime limit, is the insurer price gouging or providing superior benefits? (that unions have fought for and paid for by reduction in wages). I mean really, that is why they are called "Cadillac plans" right? They provide superior benefits, and the members pay for them, in lieu of paying less in premiums and more out of pocket or higher deductibles. Now, if the government can prove that insurers are, in fact, providing the same level of benefits in these plans for higher premiums then they are for other plans that cost less but provide the same benefits, well then this idea works, but I don't see that as the case. In fact, I think ALL insurance companies price gouge (to increase their profit margin and make Wall Street happy), and I don't really see much in the "reform" that addresses this issue.

In general, I think this tax is a slippery slope. It sets a precedence I'm not comfortable with and it makes me nervous.

Plus, in terms of the thread, I really think it is very dangerous for the Democrats to piss off the Unions. It is breaking a major campaign promise and we are kinda screwed if Unions stay home in 2010/2012. I'm in general torn on the "reform" bill. I can't decide if the good outweighs the bad, and well, we may be screwed anyway.

Thanks for the civil debate!

Cheers,

Susan

[boppers]

66. I like your idea about closer scrutiny on cost/benefits..

What was done in this case was to compare against average charges, but there wasn't a firm baseline of average costs for a standardized set of services (because such an animal didn't exist yet, outside of medicare). Even if this cap/tax makes it in this year, I'd expect revisions every couple of years to get it right.

[flyarm]

67. stop the bullshit..are you delusional enough to think those costs will not be passed onto the

insured??????

You can not possibly be that delusional..besides the fact that your statement has been debunks so many times here,.it is beyond repetitive in nature...and wrong!

[boppers]

82. Same question to you.

If you're fundamentally against taxing corporations because consumers bear that cost, just come out and say it.

[Lasher]

75. The 40% excise tax would be passed along in the form of higher premiums.

Employers would then try to avoid the new higher costs by buying cheaper health plans.

[boppers]

83. So, big healthcare organizations should pay no taxes, because that would make premiums cheapest?

That's the logical extension of that line of thought.

[Lasher]

92. No, that's a false dilemma.

I will elaborate:

According to Politifact, insurance companies will not simply absorb the new tax; they will pass it along in the form of higher premiums. Employers will then try to avoid the new higher costs by buying cheaper health plans.

A point worth emphasizing is that the 40% excise tax is on the portion of the health plan that exceeds $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families. It's not on the whole plan. This distinction is not accounted for in your simplistic scenario.

Since high end health plans shall have been priced out of the market in most cases, this is a tax that will not usually be collected. If employers have to scale back on health plans, however, they would eventually pay higher wages which of course would be taxed.

The result will be the end of 'cadillac' health plans for the middle class. This will exacerbate the overall deterioration of employee/retiree medical insurance coverage. The 40% excise tax is therefore counterproductive.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[boppers]

91. No lies involved. It's a tax targeting the insurance industry.

If you want to believe that the insurance industry shouldn't be taxed heavily, fine, make the argument that they're a great industry, and shouldn't be taxed for their historic, and ongoing, price gouging.

If you want to make the argument (as was done in other threads I've participated in) that this tax is poorly thought, and poorly structured, then do that. I've agreed (after more civil discussions than this one) that it's too simplistic, and needs serious revision.

What I WON'T do is jump on the republican trickle-down bandwagon of "don't tax the rich company, because it hurts the poor people buying products from that rich company".

Trickle-down doesn't work.

I'm frankly surprised to see it being supported here.

[Hardrada]

62. AUX BARRICADES!!

The People's Flag is Deepest Red!!

[Dinger]

64. Kicked

I recd earlier.:)

[BlueCollar]

68. After 9/11 I took a 17% cut in pay

gave up 50% of my paid holidays, lost double time for seventh day worked, gave up a significant percentage in sick-leave accrual and compensation...and we re-wrote almost all the work rules.


all in order to keep the company out of bankruptcy...

the sacred cows for us were our medical benefits and the pension plan.

That was just my work-group....others took similar cuts in pay and benefits to keep the company alive.


We kept the company out of bankruptcy and have still lost 25% of the work-force.


NOW....there is a proposal to levy a tax on my benefits?

Not going to endear a lot of support amongst my Brothers and Sisters...

Just sayin'

[fortyfeetunder]

69. The loaded question is whether Congress is subject to the tax...

I am wary of any tax as I suspect there has got to be some loophole exempting some part of the population.

Now if anyone needs their health care taxed, it starts with POTUS, VPOTUS, SCOTUS, Cabinet and Congress. Let them share in the pain.

[midnight]

70. I stand with the Unions.

[western mass]

73. Unless unions are willing to withhold votes & support

for Dems, these rallies are a waste of time.

[IndianaGreen]

77. Unions are not dictatorships. The rank-and-file will do its own thing

no matter what they are told by their leaders. It is rare for union voters to vote in unison. This only happens when it is an issue that impacts their pocketbooks.

HCR's tax on health benefits will impact their pocketbooks adversely.

[Christa]

74. K & R nt

[shadesofgray]

78. "We're not overly concerned about these things"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122366587

White House aides believe a lot of the liberal angst about health care will go away once the president actually signs a bill. And to the extent that the Democrats have a problem motivating their core voters, they've got time to fix it.

"We're not overly concerned about these things, first and foremost because there isn't an election tomorrow, not an election the next day," says Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director.

The White House has plans this year to win back the allegiance of independent voters and to rekindle the excitement of what they call the "Obama expansion voters." Those are the new voters — African-Americans, Hispanics and young people — the president attracted in 2008. There will be a sharper focus on the economy and jobs, of course. But there will also be new initiatives on transparency in government, getting rid of earmarks and dealing with the deficit.

Yeah, good luck with that liberal angst going away, you patronizing asshole. I hear "Let 'em eat cake" loud and clear.

[Zhade]

90. Wow. That's as clear an admission that they don't give a fuck about us as I've ever heard.

Do they think we're going to forget when we're forced to buy insurance we can't afford? When people with preexisting conditions are effectively locked out of using their insurance due to no-limit rate inflation?

We're not going to forget. Maybe rich asshole liars think that, but they're wrong as the day is long.

[Zhade]

84. Good. orahma is spitting on their sacrifices -- and their support.

It's such a dick move -- taxing high-PRICED plans, punishing those who already have to put up with the high premiums on benefits they gave up raise after raise for!

I mean, does that fact escape anyone's notice, even those pushing for this tax? They want to make those who already pay a lot pay more. That's ridiculous. Tax the rich on unearned wealth and be done with it. They're leeches on society.

[DebbieCDC]

94. One simple phrase

Kill the Bill!

This daughter of a union man stands with the unions!