Question: What would happen to "Cadillac" plans if we had Single Payer? Public Option?

[berni_mccoy]

Would Single Payer provide all the same benefits that high-premium, high-cost, so-called "Cadillac" plans do? Or would a Single Payer system provide an essentially good benefit package for all? Would Medicare "E", or Medicare for Everyone, be on par with these plans?

Would employers keep these "Cadillac" plans if a less expensive, but less benefit, Public Option existed? Many have said the benefit levels laid out by the "strong" public option were good. Would they be equivalent to the Cadillac plans?

[stray cat]

1. You might be able to opt out of a public option in favor of a better plan

otherwise you lose the benefits you currently enjoy. I am currently better off with my current plan than any likely public option.

[berni_mccoy]

2. Not if your employer chooses to go with the PO.

[berni_mccoy]

16. So you are willing to pay more for better benefits? That sounds a lot like

paying a tax on a cadillac plan.

[Mass]

3. Single payer would not discriminate on company size or location, for example, or age.

Companies that hire older workers, small companies, or companies who work in high medical costs areas pay higher premium for the same advantages. Do you understand this?

This added to the fact the plans are not indexed on healthcare inflation mean that plans will be taxed on aspects that have NOTHING TO DO with the the type of benefits you get.

[berni_mccoy]

4. You didn't answer the question.

[Mass]

9. I cant because your premise is faulty, You assume that Cadillac plans have all very high advantages/

They do not, and will less and less in the future.

[berni_mccoy]

12. So isn't it bad that people are paying excessive amounts for less benefits?

Wouldn't taxing the Insurance company for these high-prices, low benefit plans be a good thing?

[Mass]

19. Not before you lower the premiums. All this will achieve is lowering the level of

coverage in order to get lower cost. I do not see how it is NOT a problem.

Cadillac plans tax once you have established a decent minimum level of coverage for a decent price is something that could be considered. Right now, it is just making sure quality of care lowers.

[ljm2002]

5. Answer: It would not have been sold to us with the slogan...

..."If you like what you have, you can keep it."

[berni_mccoy]

8. That doesn't answer the question. Try again please.

[Hello_Kitty]

6. You could have single payer for basic health care and get a supplemental for the extras.

It's not the difficult to imagine. It's what they do in other countries.

[berni_mccoy]

10. Interesting... and coverage wouldn't erode then would it?

Like it won't with the current proposal.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. I suppose it would be comparable if they taxed those supplemental plans at 40%

Other than that, I don't see where you're going with this.

[berni_mccoy]

15. So, are you saying the tax on Insurance companies for these cadillac plans isn't a bad thing?

[Hello_Kitty]

17. No, I'm pointing out that your analogy is inapt. eom

[berni_mccoy]

18. That's funny because that's not what you said.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. I'm rejecting your entire premise.

You're playing the "this is really just like single payer/public option if you squint really hard" game.

[ElmoBlatz]

22. Why a supplemental?

What "extras"?? So what is it you would deny someone just because they couldn't afford this supplemental? Health care is a basic human right, and we shouldn't deny people the care they need, nor allow the wealthy to have a different level of care than the rest of us just because they have deep pockets.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. It wouldn't be for basic health care.

It would be for things like having a private room in the hospital instead of sharing, or for stuff like massages. Even in countries with fully socialized health care, the rich have private insurance available to them to get gold-plated care. That's always going to be with us but no one should be denied decent care because they are poor.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. for example private rooms.

A private room is not a basic human right. So if you choose to purchase a supplemental plan that puts you in a private room, that is your own damn business and such a plans tax status is not of much interest to the current discussion.

[TheWraith]

7. There's no set answer to these questions.

There's no single definition of what "single payer" covers. In some places it covers everything--a friend of mine with dual citizenship waited until she went back to Israel on a trip to get her dental work done because it would be free. In other places single-payer covers only the basics medical treatment, and supplemental insurance is needed for things like elective surgery or non-life-sustaining drugs.

[Stinky The Clown]

11. Presumably there would be some options that, if one chose, one could purchase above and beyond.

Just as an example: Private room vs semi private room.

[berni_mccoy]

14. So people would have to pay more to get better benefits? Sounds like a tax on the middle class

who'll be strapped with the lesser benefits of SP or the PO.

[Hello_Kitty]

20. Who says the individuals would be the ones paying?

It's likely the extra coverage would be offered by employers as a benefit.

[Kansas Wyatt]

28. Which would stay well under the "Cadillac Plan" tax.

It doesn't matter how hard they try, they just cannot spin it to make it look any better than the pile of shit that they are wanting everyone to swallow with a smile.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. That is just thick. And stupid.

Everyone would be paying in for the same standard benefits, and paying in at more or less the same rate, adjusted for income. So how exactly would a private supplemental plan on top of the standard plan be 'a tax on the middle class'?

[madrchsod]

23. medicare plan e

most if not all companies can offer supplemental insurance and short/long term insurance.

i have no idea why the business community did`t get behind medicare for all plan...it would save them a bundle of money.

oh wait... that 20 million obama got from the insurance companies during the campaign and their secret meeting killed that idea.

[ClassWarrior]

24. Everyone in England has a "Cadillac" plan.

Single payer.

NGU.

[FormerDittoHead]

27. Really? NYT - 10% in UK has supplemental insurance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/weekinreview/16lyall.html

"A little over one in 10 Britons have some sort of private supplemental insurance; others pick and choose when to use the N.H.S. and when to pay out of pocket for the top specialists or speedier care."

"Told my husband needed a sophisticated blood test from a particular doctor, I telephoned her office, only to be told there was a four-month wait.

“But I’m a private patient,” I said.

“Then we can see you tomorrow,” the secretary said. "

Or would that then be called "Rolls Royce" coverage?

on edit: I'm for single payer, and I think it would be an improvement as well as more cost effective than our current "system".

[Hello_Kitty]

30. Rich people will always find ways to get more perks.

But as long as they pay for them and everyone else gets decent care I'm not stressing about it.

[ClassWarrior]

38. Just shows you how badly they've managed to lower our standards here.

NGU.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[slipslidingaway]

29. Obama silenced any discussion of SP and sold us on the public option...

that he now says he never campaigned on.

Makes my head spin!

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/12/22/obama-repeatedly-touted-public/

“I didn’t campaign on the public option,” President Obama told the Washington Post. But he touted the public option on his campaign website and spoke frequently in support of it during the first year of his presidency, citing its essential value in holding the private insurance industry accountable and providing competition:

– In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaign’s website, candidate Obama promised that “any American will have the opportunity to enroll in new public plan.”

[triguy46]

31. I don't know, but if its like how I got blasted in the lounge...

last night for criticising Cadillacs, there will be blood.

[Edweird]

32. No matter how you try to parse it, the 'cadillac plan' tax is bullshit.

That's why Obama campaigned AGAINST IT.

[applegrove]

33. Like we have in Canada it would cover the cost of drugs and private rooms

in hospitals and such. All things that are not covered by the public plan.

[dysfunctional press]

34. medicare only pays 80% of covered services...

and not everything is covered. the 'cadillac' plans could become a high-end supplemental program that covers the costs and services that a 'medicare-for-all' type program wouldn't.

a big part of the answer to your question would depend on the parameters/limitations of a 'single-payer' program.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. They would be supplementals.

Other countries have univeral single payer for all and some people have supplemental plans to cover 'luxuries'. Employers would be free to offer such plans as incentives for attracting employees.