Quick question, re taxing health premiums

[sandnsea]

Never mind that it's the employer who will be taxed - I'm just curious why so many of you object to being taxed to help cover Medicaid expansion. That's what the Senate bill does, taxes exorbitant corporate insurance plans to expand Medicaid.

And yet I see so many DUers expressing outrage, where will people get the money to pay more taxes, why should they pay taxes for somebody elses coverage, etc.

Gosh, sounds like the working people who vote Republican to me.

Do you hear yourselves?

Oregon Democrats passed a 1% tax on ALL premiums that will expand various health subsidies and other programs. There's even a tax on hospitals that hospitals supported. Passed by Democrats.

Taxing people is how we spread the wealth in this country.

How can you oppose the exact thing we villify right wingers for opposing?

[anonymous171]

1. Right wingers love this tax. They are going to run on it. Hard. nt

#1 rule about taxes: Only tax things if you plan on using the funds for something very visible and good.

[sandnsea]

3. Expansion of Medicaid to adults up to 133% of poverty

isn't good??

[anonymous171]

6. Taxing other peoples' employee based healthcare insurance is not how you should pay for it

[sandnsea]

Why not tax business?

You know they're just paying these outrageous rates for the tax deduction, right?

[DJ13]

16. Why not an income tax increase above say $300,000?

Why does every tax scheme out of DC have to hit the middle class instead of those who have been paying too little in taxes since the 80's?

[sandnsea]

20. How does that get insurance in line?

I have no problem with a tax on the rich, none. But I do understand the point of the premium tax since I do know the games that corporations play with premiums, tax deductions, etc. If we want health care for all then we're all going to have to move closer to the same kind of benefit. That's what single payer would do too.

My real point in the OP is to get people to take a step back and look at some of the arguments they're using and to try to be a bit more objective about the real pros and cons of various aspects of this health care bill, rather than just kneejerking along with FDL or whoever.

[laughingliberal]

26. I'm not in favor of 'getting insurance in line' by taxing benefits so everyone gets to enjoy crappy

coverage. As for the right wing arguments against taxes, they oppose progressive taxation-those who can best afford it get to carry a little more of the burden. We have close the lowest top rates in history. The tax system has become increasingly regressive over the past 30 years. This is not a progressive value. It is right wing style taxation at its best.

[dkf]

2. Because it's not Progressive but arbitrary.

[DJ13]

4. The corporations wont pay that tax

They will look for lower quality insurance plans to keep themselves from paying it.

Not only will there be little money from that tax to "help cover Medicaid expansion", it will reduce the level of insurance employees receive from their employers.

Its a lose lose situation.

[sandnsea]

7. Unions will accept that?

You think unions won't be able to fight for the real quality, while the business fights with insurance to reduce premiums? You don't think the results will bring down costs all around?

[DJ13]

12. The corps will offer a minimal wage increase to obtain lower insurance costs

I doubt the unions can afford to say no.

[sandnsea]

14. And if the insurance is still good

better than what is being mandated in the exchanges, then what's the problem with that? That's the exact argument the White House put out. Workers will get higher wages and maintain good insurance at an honest price. There's your win-win.

[DJ13]

15. Because "better than what is being mandated in the exchanges" is less

than many currently have for insurance.

Look, you claim the tax will pay for Medicaid expansion, but you're basing that supposition entirely on the willingness of corporations to pay the tax, and Im telling you to look up how willingly corporations pay ANY tax.

Forget it, that money you're expecting is a sham, it wont be there.

[sandnsea]

19. So I guess we shouldn't tax corporations at all

Since they won't pay it or, you know, have all those lawyers and accountants to avoid it. You know who pays taxes, only the little people. Is that it?

Now, hmmm, who said that? Hmmmm, oh yeah. George Bush.

The exchanges will have good insurance and the reason I know that is because I basically have a regulated state policy now. It's excellent. So if unions can use a policy like mine as a base, then what they get will still be very good and it will cost the right amount of money, not some bamboozled figure that corporations use for tax deductions. And if they don't, they'll pay a tax instead of getting a tax deduction for over-priced policies. Get it?

[laughingliberal]

28. Yeah, tax the hell out of the corporations-on their profits

Not on the worker's benefits.

[dysfunctional press]

23. in a lot of cases, the union is the insurer, not the corporation.

my father is a retired union construction worker(operating engineer- he ran heavy equipment, mostly cranes) and the health and welfare benefits that they have bargained for over the years are handled by he union itself, not the contractor's council- with whom the union agreements are made.
the union has already notified my father that if the senate bill goes thru, he'll be liable for $5,000 in extra taxes due to the value of the insurance that he and my mother share as their medicare supplement.
despite what many people here seem to think, there is still stuff that medicare doesn't cover at all, and it only covers 80% of the cost of the things it does cover.

for a retiree on a fixed income- $5,000 in extra taxes is a HUGH hit- and my father has already said that if it passes- they'll never be voting fr another Democrat EVER. and his union friends all share the same sentiment.

[sandnsea]

27. I understand about Medicare

Which is why I think Medicare for All is a joke. Medicaid for All, sure, but people have been duped into believing Medicare is better.

As to the union situation you describe, I will definitely look into that. I don't see how anybody could be liable for $5,000 in taxes, especially on a medicare supplement. I can also see why unions are fighting against being taxed when they're the insurer, just like corporations object. Their objection makes a lot more sense to me now. Do you know how much profits unions make from these policies?

[dysfunctional press]

41. unions don't make 'profits', as they aren't selling 'policies'...

everyone gets he same level of care- and there's things like vision and dental coverage as well- which medicare doesn't cover. and they get their prescriptions through the union.

[stray cat]

5. Many only like the idea of wealth distribution if it comes from those wealthier

[anonymous171]

8. That's how it's supposed to work. That's how you get people to vote for it

Progressive Taxation, look it up.

[sandnsea]

9. This is progressive taxation

Oregon put a 1% tax on ALL premiums. That's not progressive. Taxing only business and only business that has the money to offer these exorbitant plans - is the definition of progressive.

[anonymous171]

11. It's actually more arbitrary than progressive.

As stated up thread.

[sandnsea]

13. Which made less sense than your argument

Which is why I didn't respond to it.

[dkf]

10. That is what Obama promised

250,000 or more. Forgot already? No wonder you aren't upset

[laughingliberal]

29. Hello, the wealthy have had their taxes cut consistently for 30 years

They have gone from a top rate of 74% in 1980 to 38%, now. The tax system has gotten more and more regressive since the time of Reagan. It is time to restore some fairness. We've carried the wealthy and the corporations on our backs long damned enough. Not one damned more on workers or middle class families until some progressivity is restored to our tax codes. Enough is enough!

For God's sake, Warren Buffet says repeatedly there is nothing fair about a system where his secretary pays more in taxes than he does.

[salin]

17. well... the tax hits a lot of insurance policies that are no where near "exorbinant corporate

insurance plans." In my state fairly general/basic coverage for an individual run around $7200. Not that far off from $8500. With no indexing for rising premiums - I would guess that many (most?) receiving h/c through work would start being hit by the tax within a few years.

That said - the only amount that is taxable, is that amount over the limit - e.g., if the premiums are $8600, only $100 is taxable. I don't think that is unreasonable. I think it is how widespread it is likely to become (per the number of folks being taxed) as opposed to how it is framed ala cadillac plans (or even how you described it, which just isn't the reality of it) that strikes so many the wrong way.

[sandnsea]

21. I have state insurance pool

Am 52 years old, and the premium would be $600. If I didn't have a pre-existing condition, it would be half that. So maybe there are other problems in your state that cause premiums to be that high. That's what this tax is supposed to do, make corporations and unions work harder to bring health insurance in line.

[laughingliberal]

30. Use the House version of community ratings and make the damned insurance industry bring it into line

My husband's premium was $700 in 2004 and he was 56 without any preexisting conditions. You aren't the only person on the planet. Most people over 50 are not getting health insurance for $600 per month. Most companies that employ a large number of older people are not getting them covered for $600 per month. Your evidence is anecdotal based on your experience and is not the norm as far as I can tell.

[yurbud]

18. McCain proposed this particular tax. Also, the goal is ''cost containment''

instead of ''price containment.''

What concerns me as much as the private-centric nature of the bill is since the insurance companies have been catered to at the expense of the rest of us, ''cost containment'' (which helps the insurance companies )will always take priority over ''price containment'' and getting the most bang for the buck (which helps us).

Obama and the DLC Democrats played their hand a little too openly when they shut out the single payer and public option advocates, let their most corrupt members take the lead in drafting the bill, particularly in the Senate, and then Obama applauded Joe Lieberman for thrwarting the public will.

[laughingliberal]

31. +1000

Another phrase for cost containment is rationing. People are going to be forced into policies with higher out of pocket expenses so they will 'self ration.' Does anyone not see this was the thinking behind Bush's
'owenership society?" Was it necessary for us to put every right wing wet dream imaginable into this bill?

[yurbud]

42. the DLC gets further with some of these ideas than the GOP themselves because they put

progressive lipstick on the pig.

[Coyote_Bandit]

22. The $$$

I use to purchas my POS insurance policy are fully taxable.

Equity requires that either:
(1) those $$$ I use be fully tax deductible; or
(2) that the $$$ that are expended by or on behalf of others insurance coverage be comparably taxed.

Anybody who has a problem with that is choosing self-interest over equity and fairness.

[sandnsea]

24. The tax will be on companies

And the premium is fully tax deductible now. The higher the premium, the higher the tax deduction. Since these high premiums often go into corporate self-insurance plans, that make profits under another name, then taxing that little money transfer seems more than reasonable to me.

Oregon's tax of 1% on all premiums doesn't seem to be particularly progressive to me, yet Democrats voted for it.

[Coyote_Bandit]

32. The premiums I currently pay

are not tax deductible. That's what happens when one is unemployed and still somehow manages to pay a health insurance premium.

Why the hell should I be required to use fully taxable dollars to pay health insurance premiums when others receive health insurance with no tax consequences? To either themselves personally or to the corporations for which they work?

[sandnsea]

33. Either you'll be getting tax credits or subsidies

with the bill, so you won't be paying a tax on a premium that is paid with income already taxed. And if you don't qualify for those tax credits or subsidies - well then you're in the top 5% and would probably be taxed under the House bill anyway.

[laughingliberal]

35. A couple earing over $58,280 per year is in the top 5%?

Because that is 400% of the FPL and that's where the subsidies end.

Here's a chart that might clear that up a bit:

http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6

Granted, the last year listed here is 2007 but I don't think the top 5% have had that much of a decline. The cut off AGI threshold for an individual in the top 5% was $160, 041 in 2007.

[Coyote_Bandit]

36. More likely

I'll be dead - along with tens of thousands of others like me - before this piece of shit INSURANCE reform takes effect.

Too bad the Dems in office lacked the principled commitment, the political skills or the personal guts to actually implement meaningful healthcare reform. I haven't seen a doctor for any reason in nearly 15 years and fully expect to lead an unnecessarily diminsihed and shortened life because of my inability to secure meaningful access to healthcare.

What has happened with so-called healthcare reform is inexcusable. The pending legislation - if it passes - will not be completely implemented for nearly four years. It cannot be argued that the legislation was an informed proposal because the bastards in Congress refused to even consider evidence regarding all alternatives. But it sure as hell served the interests of the insurance industry.

[laughingliberal]

40. Can't argue with that

We have no coverage and any coverage we might get under this plan will likely be unusable by us, also. My husband has several chronic health issues and has not had any of his medication in 2 years. We just go day by day and wonder when something will get us. I worked 25 years as an RN and nothing has been as important to me as seeing our health care system reformed into a system that would help people. They blew it and sold out to the industry. I'm disgusted with it.

[laughingliberal]

37. If you are unemployed, I'm assuming you will fall into a bracket that will qualify you for a subsidy

under the plan. I frankly think the self employed ought to be able to deduct the costs of premiums but we can't. That might have been a nice thing to address. I would have preferred they found a way to get us off the employer based system which limits people's choices in job decisions and their ability to start small businesses but they chose to keep us enslaved so there you have it.

[Coyote_Bandit]

38. Ummmm......

I'm long-term unemployed and I do not qualify for shit. Frankly, I don't give a fuck whether I'll qualify for some small subsidy for compulsory health insurance if this piece of shit legislation ever is implemented. This legislation does nothing for me if all that subsidy does is enable me to pay for the same now mandatory insurance policy carrying the same $10,000 deductible with a co-pay and no coverage for doctor visits. The pending INSURANCE reform isn't going to do much of anything to help the millions of uninsured/underinsured folks in this country. But it certainly is going to benefit the insurance companies.

Unemployed and self-employed folks currently use $$$ that are at least partially if not fully taxable to pay health insurance premiums. The bastards in Congress had opportunity to make that situation more equitable. They didn't.

[laughingliberal]

39. Yeah, I hate the bill they came up with

There were so many problems with our current system that we had an opportunity to do something about and didn't. I believe it is a bailout for the industry and that it got done now cause they are facing a diminishing customer base as far as the eye can see. I'm unemployed 2 years now and my husband is self employed but our business is next to nothing. We finally had to drop my COBRA after a year of scraping it up. Finally food and shelter were at risk.

I was hopeful the House could force some changes on the Senate although I knew that would be an uphill battle. With the President backing the conservative Senate version and the House looking as if they will be rolled again,, I'm heading towards the kill the bill message. It's a nightmare.

[laughingliberal]

34. A lot of Democrats these days voting for policies not particularly progressive nt

[laughingliberal]

25. How about we tax the people who have gotten all the tax breaks for 30 years first before we tag the

middle class again? If that doesn't raise enough money (which it will 3 times as much, in fact as the screw the workers plan that Obama and the Senate support) then we'll talk about another regressive tax.