The claim that moving away from high-cost plans means fewer benefits is false:

[ProSense]

High-priced, but not high-quality

But many of the people who pay the most for health insurance have benefits that are far from gold-plated. High premiums are found among small businesses, not because the plans are especially lavish, but because they have high administrative costs and include too few employees to constitute the broader risk pool that would qualify them for lower premiums. High premiums are found in companies with older workers because those workers are expected to have higher health care costs. The high price of these plans may not stem from any bells and whistles in their coverage but rather from a fundamental inequity in the way that insurance is currently priced.

Second, the Senate bill includes a tax on brand-name drug companies, health insurers and high income individuals in the form of a Medicare tax

The largest element of the financing of the House plan is a surtax on high income taxpayers (raising $460 billion over 10 years), a proposal not included in the Senate bill. The Senate plan, in turn, includes two proposals not in the House bill – an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for high income workers (producing $54 billion), and a new tax on high-premium employer-sponsored health plans (raising $149 billion). Both proposals contain new excise taxes on various health industries, though the scope of the taxes varies – the House taxes only medical device makers (for revenues of $20 billion), while the Senate bill also includes taxes on brand-name drug companies and health insurers (for total revenue of $102 billion).

PDF

Third, it's great to tax people with incomes of $500,000 or more, but why not do both? Combine the benefits of taxing the rich and high-premium plans.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. "but because they have high administrative costs" -an excellent point..something we would not have

to worry about if we had single payer health care in this country.

"include too few employees to constitute the broader risk pool that would qualify them for lower premiums"

And yet another problem we would not have to worry about if we had single payer health care in this country.

[Edweird]

2. In my experience higher cost plans meant lower deductibles and minimal out of pocket expenses.

When I had them I wasn't terrified of getting injured or ill. Low cost plans have high deductibles and high out of pocket expenses - at the worst possible time.

[Mass]

3. This is not what this article says. It is not even talking about the excise tax.

Do you seriously believe that taxing these plans is going to make companies lower their costs out of the goodness of their heart?


If anything, the article was about not taxing these plans hoping for less spending.

[ProSense]

5. It's not about what insurance companies do

It's about employers having access to lower cost plans.

[Mass]

6. For the same benefits? Really? How?

[ProSense]

8. Yes.

The article already demonstrated that most of these plan are high priced because of administrative cost, not benefits.

[Mass]

9. And? You make no point. I know what this article shows, but it i sno prove of what you are claiming.

The excise tax does nothing to lower administrative costs. While would you assume that insurance companies would lower them rather than benefits?

[ProSense]

10. It's not about lowering administrative costs, that's an inefficiency on insurance companies.

There will be other plans, as there are now, that do not have high costs.

[Mass]

12. Which ones? We are talking about employer plans, which cannot

go into the exchange or into the OPL basket? So, how do you lower these costs? By competition between private companies? because it worked so well all these years.

If this is about taxing high administrative costs, the solution is easy: tax those plans with high administrative costs compared to plans with similar benefits. I dont think anybody would object. This is not what this does.

(the redistribution ratio between premium and benefits of .80 or .85 will help, but it has nothing to do with the excise tax. You have absolutely no point, and this is probably why you are using a post that has nothing to do with the excise tax to make your point).

[ProSense]

13. Ezra Klein

here.

[Mass]

14. I read that already. It has nothing to do with my points. In addition,

it makes exactly the opposite argument you make in your OP. Most of the cost of these insurances according to him comes from the fact that they are lush. So, I guess his idea is to reduce the benefits.

[ProSense]

16. Good grief. It makes the exact point.

The OP points out that high-premium plans aren't necessarily high quality plans. Ezra is focuing on the plans that are, the plans that offer benefits to high-risk employees. There are protections built in for those plans as well as small businesses.

What makes you think employers are going to choose a high-premium plans if they don't have to?

[Mass]

17. Except this is not your point. Your point is that the excise tax would reduce administrative cost.

You cannot change rational when you realize you are wrong. Oh, yes, that true. You can argue everything and its opposite. As long as it makes this plan look good.

[ProSense]

18. That was not my point. n/t

[Mass]

19. What was your point, because in this thread, you have been highly incoherent.

[Kansas Wyatt]

4. When I am employed, my employer contributes $7.40/Hr. to my Union Health & Welfare Fund

I do not have insurance now, because I haven't worked enough, due to the lack of work. My contractor competes with non-union contractors who DO NOT provide health care for their employees, and he loses work, because of it. The non-union contractor, just pockets the difference. Which means, I LOSE employment and now my insurance coverage, because of my contractor has to pay for my insurance and can't beat the non-union bid.

Now, you Obama Purists want me to be TAXED for my so-called 'Cadillac Plan' even though I have already sacrificed for my health care insurance.

Do tell me, how your Messiah's HCR/SHIT Bill is going to help me, rather than fuck me over?

[county worker]

7. Here is how it helps you.

It's like the emperor who had a new suit of clothes. Everyone knew he was naked but could not say it.

So you can feel good that the "health care bill" will be praised for doing something good for you and no one will say any different.

[Kansas Wyatt]

11. No, actually it hurts me even more than I am being hurt now.

Because I will be taxed for health care benefits that my employer has to account for and include, when he bids work and loses work against NON-union contractors, who pocket the difference and do not provide their employees with health care benefits.

Not only is the union taking the hit for doing the right thing, now Messiah Obama thinks we should be penalized for having it so good. Oh, and since my contractor loses work, because he has to account for health benefits, I am sitting unemployed and without health insurance. But, when I get back to work, I'll be so happy to be hit with the Messiah Obama TAX on my health benefits. There was a time when Democrats were friendly to unions... Not against them, just like Republicans.

This is NOT "health care," it is INSURANCE CARE & UNION BUSTING by our Democratic Government.

[zeos3]

15. From the first link:

"Taxing health benefits would result in an erosion of plan quality, an unwelcome change for people with high and rapidly-growing out-of-pocket burdens. A policy of taxing health benefits over a certain dollar amount would be a blunt instrument that could do great harm to the very people we should be striving to help."


I don't understand your argument.