Kerry with a few truths about the excise tax

[Mass]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x114161


I wonder if this Boston Globe reporter has read the piece before commenting.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/01/kerry_defends_t.html

Senator John F. Kerry is aggressively defending the tax on so-called Cadillac health plans that is central to the health care bill passed by the Senate, but opposed by unions and many liberals and not in the House version.

President Obama reportedly told House Democratic leaders on Wednesday that they should accept the tax on the plans with the most generous benefits. And Kerry, who offered the idea of levying an excise tax on insurers that is incorporated in the bill, said today that it is essential to passing health reform

Really? Where did he say that? Actually, while he said it will make it easier to pass in the Senate, he clearly understands the arguments against it, and agrees with some (see last paragraph), something the Globe does not acknowledge.

As I have said before, I have issues with this aspect, because it assumes the market will regulate itself, which I do not believe is true, but I thought that, though it does not convince me, it also shows that one of the main promoter of this idea is aware of these issues, and this is a lot of relief for me.

[wisteria]

1. He also comments on this at Huffington Post.

And, actually the comments are reasonable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/why-this-progressive-is-s_b_414968.html

[beachmom]

2. Feel free to weigh in here against FDL paid dailykos blogger slinkerwink:

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2010/1/7/135114/9334/241#c241

Again, the excise tax idea was proposed in July. But all slinkerwink could talk about back then was the public option. I knew the FDL approach was stupid. You can't suddenly come out against the rest of the bill at such a late date.

[Mass]

3. To be honest, this is not a discussion I want to have. Both sides have blinders,

and it is impossible to talk about the bill on the merits. One side will refuse to see any existing problem and the other side any existing good aspect. I am very tired about that.

[beachmom]

4. Yeah, I agree. What John Kerry said was more nuanced than

the way many have portrayed it. Yet he is instantly the villain. I guess my issue with the people attacking the bill is that it isn't really to improve it, except in pie in the sky ways that will never happen (like eliminating the mandate, killing the excise tax, bring the p.o. back, etc.). Meanwhile, I feel like the unions and House progressives are doing a better job of exerting pressure while leaving the option open to support the finished bill. That's what I tried to tell Slinkerwink: exert pressure but stop attacking Democrats so viciously. Since I see few lefty bloggers doing that, I just have a major problem with their tactics and screeds. So that is one way that there is bad blood leading to a lack of civility in discussing these fine policy issue points.

[karynnj]

5. There was at least one other who commented

the same way and mentioned that it made her hesitate to comment. That makes me wonder if they even are good as advocates. I suspect that they really turn people off with that. Maybe it is because they write and read only each other, so they come to think that they have all the truth.

As to affecting the bill, they really have nearly no effect at this point. I doubt anyone on the liberal/progressive side in the Senate will back out now. I would hope that few in the House will. No one, certainly no John Kerry, is calling this the perfect bill, but it really is not all that bad.

The lack of civility is a problem and it amazes me that it even extends to elected officials. Here, I am speaking more to HP, where amidst good comments, for or against, there are really rude comments that question the integrity of everyone in Congress.

I suspect that the reason Kerry put these out is to try and reach the lefties to at least correct the record on what the excise tax is. The problem is that much on the left written on it has been just inaccurate. Now, I would guess that his motive is not to increase the likelihood of it being in the bill, but to try to answer questions so when the bill (hopefully) is passed, at least a significant part of the left will take some happiness in it. Part may be self interest, as he likely wants the left as engaged as it can be in 2010 and then in 2012, but it could also be that it is a desire just to inform.

[Mass]

6. My problem with the excise tax is that the reasonning is wrong.

There are three reasons to have high prices:

1/ high benefits
2/ high administrative costs
3/ higher medical costs (smaller companies with older workforce, zones with higher medical costs, ...)

I see every reason to tax 2. I do not see any reason to tax 1. If a company wants to offer better medical advantages, why now. As for 3, taxing them will not lower the costs. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to get rid of the overprice and to spread the risk more flatly. It is not planned, so you just end up taxing plans for companies who take customers with risks or lower their benefits.

Now, if the had taxed companies who have a higher ratio of administrative costs for similar benefits, I would have had less issues. Right now, I just think it is a proposal that was initially well intentioned, but is probably going to hurt some people. The problem with such a complex bill is that the side effects exist. If people do not recognize them, they will not be fixed.

I agree with beachmom that unions do a better work than netroots, but this is because it is not what netroots are about. It is mostly about make noise so that alternate views are heard. Unfortunately, the nastier you are, the more you are heard in the media. They understood what they learned from Limbaugh and co and apply it.

[MonteLukast]

11. I remember when McCain proposed...

... taxing health benefits. How exactly do we keep the law of unintended consequences (or the law of misguided implementation) from kicking in, and turning this excise tax and assorted complexities into something that resembles McCainCare?

[sandnsea]

8. Oh gosh, there are plenty of problems with this bill

I don't think anybody disagrees with that. But if it breaks down to things like this excise tax vs a public option, well neither one is likely to deliver the way they're promised. That's where we end up with so many problems, too few are willing to be completely honest about the different proposals. As to the taxes, one is just a tax while the other attempts to curb behaviors that aren't helpful to the actual delivery of health care. Maybe we need both. But I certainly understand why we want to move away from the ability of some to have absolutely no knowledge of what their health care is costing them. I kind of suspect these plans have been created to help big businesses have tax write-offs too, but that could just be my conspiratorial mind at work. And why would unions protect these things when they are the very thing that allows the media to say a $25 hr worker makes $75 hr. I don't get it. I just feel like there's something else at play in the opposition to the insurance tax.

[ProSense]

7. They're ridiculous and ineffective.

What happened to fighting for the public option? They jump from criticism to criticism, public option, mandate and now excise tax, with no sustained effort. In that diary, a few people asked when she started supporting the bill? In other words, if the push is to kill the bill, focusing on the excise tax is irrelevant.

I mean, now the mandate is good because the excise tax is bad.

[MonteLukast]

10. Why aren't they moving faster to pass it?

Especially since I myself was given the wake-up call that Martha Coakley's special election is in ELEVEN DAYS, and not in a few months, as I had dumbly thought.

The worst possible time for a Democrat to face an election, when everyone's disenchanted. If Coakley loses, our demoralization will be extreme, and the Repugs will take it as a sign teabagging works. Wake up, Senators!

[MH1]

9. I'm not sure who has the comprehension problem here, me or

the people who are still saying the senate needs to adopt the house version (or do better) on various provisions.

I can count to 60. The only way we get to 60 is if the bill returned from the House is almost exactly what was already passed in the senate.

Given that, why bother? Can't the dems get the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill? Then it would go to Obama without even having to go back to the Senate and face the 60-vote cloture process. Any changes, and there is a possibility it will fail cloture. That would be a disaster for Democrats, and therefore for the country.The Senate bill ain't great but it's better than nothing. Why mess with it at all?

Ok I guess it is me that has the comprehension problem after all. :)

I confess I have been puzzled and frustrated pretty much throughout this entire process.

[beachmom]

12. John Kerry was hit with some criticism (from credible people, not FDL who is currently on a jihad

against Paul Krugman, but I digress):

http://business.theatlantic.com/2010/01/why_liberals_should_be_honest_about_the_excise_tax.php

This post cites Ezra Klein, who I respect:


http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/bad_framing_on_the_excise_tax.html

Sen. John Kerry's blog post defending the policy, for instance, isn't playing it straight. Saying it won't tax employees is a distinction without a difference: It will tax insurers, which will add the tax into the cost of their plans, and employers will either choose different plans or pass the cost on to employees. Similarly, saying it will affect only "3% of premiums in 2013" is designed to obscure the fact that it will hit a lot more policies in 2020. But this is one of those cases when bad arguments mask a good policy, rather than the other way around.

But you know what? There IS a difference between taxing an employee and taxing the insurer. There are two layers between the tax and the employee, and a variety of things could happen. Meanwhile, this diary is actually, an absolute lie:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/1/11/823984/-Reagan:The-Man-Who-Spawned-the-Health-Benefits-Tax

It's saying the excise tax is Reagan's ideas. Um, no. He wanted to tax employees for all of their benefits. So very different. The cool part is this JK forum which is full of great links! A shout out to Karynnj for that Hertigage Foundation article knocking Kerry's excise tax idea. I threw that one up in the diary and noticed others starting to use it, wondering why opponents of the excise tax were using Heritage Foundation talking points! Ha!

I think there is an honest debate going on about what the precise effects of the tax will be. And I tend to respect Gruber, even though I think he should have disclosed better his being paid by HHS. Still, I find the opponents of the excise tax have become shriller and shriller, and oftentimes leaving out pertinent facts. That is why I think Ezra Klein is probably one of the better writers on the topic. I might not always agree with him but he is just trying to get facts out, do analysis and try to make sense of a complicated bill. The FDL crowd seems more and more like the scalping right wing bloggers of '04.