It's NOT a "cadillac" tax it's a UNION tax.

[ddeclue]

It's designed to destroy union benefits that they've fought hard for.

It's another example of the uber-rich framing the argument to pit us against each other and to convince us to vote against our best interests.

EVERYONE should have health care like union employees. Instead most of us have worthless over priced policies that get more expensive all the time or worse yet none at all.

Tell your Congressman that you want SINGLE PAYER or NATIONAL HEALTH and you're tired of their excuses - if they won't vote your way their successors will.

:nuke:

[Dinger]

1. 4th Rec From Me

Just to keep track.:)

[Union Yes]

2. Too damn true. Solidarity! knr nt

[anonymous171]

3. STRAWMAN!

:sarcasm:

[LiberalFighter]

4. Who is responsible for this Union Tax?

Senator Evan Bayh?

[flyarm]

5. Brand new CBS poll just released! Obama Tanking on Health care!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6084856.shtml?tag=pop

[truedelphi]

42. That's quite interesting. We are not as dumb as the DLC believes we are.

To quote from article

Just 36 percent of Americans approve of Mr. Obama's handling of health care, according to the poll, conducted from Jan. 6 – 10. Fifty-four percent disapprove. In December of last year, 42 percent of Americans approved of the president’s handling of health care, and 47 percent approved in October.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. YES. And if you want the union vote to show up at the polls, the DLC should DROP this tax

.

[guruoo]

40. Unions should field their own challengers, instead of declaring surrender via election boycott

Election boycott = total surrender, IMO.

[liberation]

44. Huh?

How so.


You need to at least be less disingenuous. Equating "not voting for the Dem establishment" with "boycott" reeks of entitlement by said Dem establishment to votes they have no intention to work to earn.

[guruoo]

58. Sorry,I responded to the wrong post

[Horse with no Name]

7. Absolutely.

There "is" a way to avoid this tax. What they REALLY want is for the unions to negotiate a "cheaper" policy.
That's it in a nutshell.

[flyarm]

8. Ed Shultz just was yelling..Mr President Stay with your base...

and he said Obama would have problems in the mid term ...all the way through 2012..

and he is damn right!

I stand with my union brothers and sister opposed to this excise /destroy union tax on the middle class!

In solidarity!

APFA retired.

[amborin]

9. it's also a worker tax, as in the 30 mill plus who will get hit by this

and more with passing years due to the "bracket creep" feature of the tax

[bigwillq]

10. K and R (nt)

[dana_b]

11. you got it

as a former union member - IFFA (Independent Federation of Flight Attendants) and CNA (California Nurse's Association)- I can't agree with you more. it probably tickles them to death to see we lowly peons fighting each other.

[Generator]

12. Oh please I suppose you would rather have McCain

Oh WAIT he was for this before Obama was for it. So Obama was just punking us then.

Uh oh. Why did I vote again? I know to stop WAR. HA. Don't let the sheeple catch on, DU. Don't stop believing because that's all that's left, doncha know. (I include a Palin wink for fun)

[paulsby]

13. in the words of this union member typing right now...

hell YES!

[mainer]

14. excuuuse me -- but I'm all for this tax

I'm self-employed. I pay for my own damn health insurance, with my AFTER-TAX dollars. I don't get free health benefits. I pay for my own, and I resent the fact that I'm a second-class citizen who has to pony up for my own health insurance while others get great benefits -- tax free.

So what about a little even-handed treatment here, for those of us who aren't lucky enough to be in that position? I'm sure a lot of self-employed people would agree with me.

[tbyg52]

15. I'm sorry that you have to pay for your health insurance with after-tax dollars.

I don't think that's right. But I don't think taxing plans that the unions negotiated in good faith is right either. This looks like another case of turning the non-elites against each other.

[terryg11]

16. unfortunately thats a risk you run when being self employed

but punishing the unions who legally and fairly negotiated those benefits from employers isnt fair.

[mainer]

17. It's a benefit that no one else gets.

In all fairness, EVERYONE should be able to buy full health coverage with PRE-tax dollars.

[tbyg52]

22. >>EVERYONE should be able to buy full health coverage with PRE-tax dollars.

I certainly agree with you there. Going further, I am a Medicare-for-All'er. But I don't think the fact that your insurance is paid for with after-tax dollars is a reason to approve taxing others. How about fighting for *not* taxing yours? (Admittedly, fighting doesn't seem to do much good nowadays, as all but a handful of "our" reps are bought and paid for.....)

[mainer]

26. Ha. No one's fighting for the self-employed. No one cares.

Because the self-employed don't have a union.

[tbyg52]

27. I'm sure you're right, and that's sad.

Still, it's not a reason to deny unions what they bargained for in good faith.

[BrklynLiberal]

37. ...

There ARE advocates for the self-employed..


http://www.freelancersunion.org/

Freelancers Union is a nonprofit organization that represents the needs of America’s independent workforce though advocacy, information, and service.

Independent workers make up 30% of the nation’s workforce. We are freelancers, consultants, independent contractors, temps, part-timers, contingent employees, and the self-employed. Despite our contribution to America’s economy, we’re often left out of the social safety net. Most freelancers can’t access affordable insurance, are taxed more than traditional employees, and have limited access to protections such as unemployment insurance, retirement plans, and unpaid wage claims.

That’s why Freelancers Union is writing new rules for the new workforce.

Benefits

By representing independent workers as a group, Freelancers Union can negotiate insurance rates and provide a social safety net. We already offer health insurance to freelancers in 31 states, and provide dental, life, and disability insurance nationwide. In 2009, we reached a major milestone in the creation of a model safety net for independent workers: we launched Freelancers Insurance Company and the Freelancers Retirement Plan.

[tbyg52]

53. That is great to hear - thank you! nt

[BrklynLiberal]

36. Check this out. Seek and ye shall find.

http://www.freelancersunion.org/

Freelancers Union is a nonprofit organization that represents the needs of America’s independent workforce though advocacy, information, and service.

Independent workers make up 30% of the nation’s workforce. We are freelancers, consultants, independent contractors, temps, part-timers, contingent employees, and the self-employed. Despite our contribution to America’s economy, we’re often left out of the social safety net. Most freelancers can’t access affordable insurance, are taxed more than traditional employees, and have limited access to protections such as unemployment insurance, retirement plans, and unpaid wage claims.

That’s why Freelancers Union is writing new rules for the new workforce.

Benefits

By representing independent workers as a group, Freelancers Union can negotiate insurance rates and provide a social safety net. We already offer health insurance to freelancers in 31 states, and provide dental, life, and disability insurance nationwide. In 2009, we reached a major milestone in the creation of a model safety net for independent workers: we launched Freelancers Insurance Company and the Freelancers Retirement Plan.

[laughingliberal]

18. Well, my husband is self employed and I'm unemployed and I do NOT agree with you

This is further downward pressure on the mobility of working and middle class Americans.

[mainer]

20. AS self-employed people, don't you feel you're DOUBLY penalized?

First you have to actually earn the money to pay for your premiums. Plus you get taxed on those earnings.

There's a lot of uneven treatment here.

I don't fault the unions for doing what they're supposed to do -- fight for their members. But the rest of us who don't get cadillac plans just look at those benefits and think: "wow, they're getting a special deal from the government."

[laughingliberal]

21. The plans are not "Cadillac" and I'm sick of that term

They are defined solely by the cost of the premium, not the benefits. There are many workers with small businesses and a large number of older workers who pay premiums of that level for pretty standard policies. Calling them "Cadillac Plans" is just another attempt to turn working and middle class Americans against each other so we fight among ourselves and leave the uber rich who can give large sums of money to their campaigns alone. Yes, there are a lot of hits the self employed take but going after workers is not going to change that and, in the end, lets those who are getting all the breaks off the hook and hurting everyone who is not making over $250,000 per year. There is a bigger picture here that affects all of us.

edited for spelling

[mainer]

25. Well, I pay "cadillac" premiums then. With a $5,000 deductible.

And over the past 20 years, I've gotten nothing back from my insurance company except for "free" mammograms, which are mandated by law.

What it means, quite simply, is that I am paying taxes that others don't have to pay, while simultaneously footing the bill for my own health insurance. The self-employed, in effect, are subsidizing those who get tax-free health benefits.

[laughingliberal]

29. If you like the direction of the country the past 3 decades then I suggest you keep participating in

the bickering of middle and working classes against each other. It certainly makes the ruling class happy. The premium for an individual plan to qualify for the tax is $8500 per year. A plan with this premium will pay the tax no matter how crappy the coverage might be. Most workers who have plans at this level do not make much money. Teachers are one group who, sometimes, have a plan like that. Their pay is shit and having a decent health care plan is some small compensation for doing a thankless damned job for which they are underpaid. I will not participate in the fighting within our own classes. Our fight is with the uber rich who have had all the laws passed in their favor and seen their tax burden decreases while ours went up for 30 years and have driven down wages.

I don't know what type of business you are in but ours would probably benefit from a working and middle class who has a few dollars in their pockets to spend. Taking more out of their pockets won't help us in the long run. In other words taxing this group of workers isn't going to change our situation with health care coverage one iota but will make theirs worse. Unless your intent is just to make sure others are being gouged, also, I see no upside in this for you. Unless your customer base is only those making over $500,000 per year, this isn't going to be good for business, either.

[tbyg52]

23. I can't help but feel you are falling for "divide and conquer." nt

[Ignis]

30. +1

I'll vote for a bill to allow the self-employed to purchase health insurance with pre-tax dollars.

But that's no reason to attack union insurance plans. :thumbsdown:

[pintobean]

28. As a union member "I don't get free health benefits" either.

My union negotiates an hourly rate with employers. We decide what to do with that money. We pay for all of our benefits. The employers could care less what we decide. Last year, I made less than 38K, but I have a "Cadillac" plan. That's a far cry from the promised 200K tax increase bottom.
It sucks that you have to pay for yours after taxes, but taxing the crap out of us isn't the answer. That would be a very bad political decision.

[rhett o rick]

33. So you are saying that if you dont get it, then nobody should? nt

[liberation]

45. Thanks for providing a great example of how the whole Divide-and-Conquer BS works

Congratulations, I guess.... keep it up!

Good grief...

[salib]

47. Unfortunately, this sounds a lot like ...

So many debunked and counterproductive "I resent the fact that..." type arguments:

- The "welfare queen" argument. You know the one: "I resent the fact that these people simply sit on their ass, have children, and get payouts from the Gov't. I don't"

- The "illegal immigrant getting 'free' health care, social security/disability, etc." argument. You know the one: "I resent the fact that these people who aren't even citizens get healthcare (go to hospitals) and disability. They are not even citizens."

- The "reverse discrimination" argument. You know the one: " I resent the fact that women, people of color, people who are from homes in poverty, people who have not families or homes, etc., get ahead of ME for a job, college grant, you name it. It is just discrimination in reverse."

I can go on. I am sure anyone else could come up with many more.

I think we need to resent less and recognize that we really are in this together.

[jeff47]

56. Summary:

"I chose to be self-employed, and so everyone else must suffer!!!"

Dude: Deal with it. You get a lot of perks for being your own boss. Payroll taxes on health plans won't make yours any cheaper, nor will it improve the quality of your coverage.

If it's such a problem, I'm sure you could find an employer to work for.:sarcasm:

[laughingliberal]

19. It's not even just a Union tax. It's a worker tax

The unions were talking yesterday about this hitting millions of workers who are not union members.

[tbyg52]

24. Really.

And you'll notice there's no mention of rolling back the Bu$h tax cuts *right* *now*. Just goes to show you who is really in charge.

[northzax]

31. really? do tell

can you give me an example of a $14,000/year health insurance plan? what unions are these? and what do you get for these plans? that's 59 $250 doctor's visits, per person, per year. it's 7 MRI's per person, per year. that's five root canals a year, per person. heck, every single person can get a new matching set of DD's every year! two 90 minute massages a week! three hours with a shrink a week! most people use under a thousand dollars of health care in the average year (barring misfortune) that's a trip to the GP, maybe the Gyno, two dentist cleanings, an an eye doctor visit. an antibiotic and a daily

what the hell is a $14,000/year insurance plan spending the money on? what is covered under your plan that isn't covered under my $5/year plan?

or is it that you didn't actually READ the legislation or any responsible articles about it and recognized that the tax was levied, not directly on the consumer, but on the insurance company. (the senate bill calls for 40% tax on the amounts in excess of the caps)

[BrklynLiberal]

35. Hmmmm. I wonder how the insurance companies would recoup what they would have to pay in taxes.

Ya think they might raise premiums?

[northzax]

39. Well first off, that wasn't my question

I asked what an insurance policy worth $800 a month more than mine covered? I live in an expensive area, everything else costs well above the national average in everything else, so I assume health care as well. And yet, my insurance costs my employer about $400/month. Or roughly $5k/year. In an expensive area. All I want to know is what you get for $800 more a month? That's a Cadillac plan, as defined by the bill in question. So what do you get? Almost anywhere in the is cheaper to live, so what's the money for? If you paid $800 more in rent, you'd have a nicer apartment, right? So what do you get for $800 More a month in health insurance? Is that an unfair question?

And second off, your point about passing on costs is a fallacy. That can be used to argue against any and all regulation. Higher minimum wage? Pass on the costs. Refuse emmissions? Pass on the cost. Improve worker safety? You guessed it, pass on the costs.

[liberation]

46. LOL...

these sort of threads are great to spot out the confused libertarians.

[jeff47]

55. So many faulty assumptions

I live in an expensive area, everything else costs well above the national average in everything else, so I assume health care as well.

Faulty assumption. "Expensive areas" can have lower medical costs, as wealthier people tend to have more 'healthy' options in their lifestyle.

All I want to know is what you get for $800 more a month? That's a Cadillac plan, as defined by the bill in question.

Faulty assumption that paying more gets more service. Quite often with heath insurance paying more doesn't actually get you any better coverage. It just gets you covered at all.

Faulty assumption that you haven't explicitly stated, but is a big part of your argument: health insurance premiums won't go up. Because the definition of "Cadillac plan" in the Senate bill does not go up anything like premiums have been going up. So your current plan will probably fall into the "Cadillac" category in about 10 years.

8 years ago, I decided to find out what it would cost for me to get health insurance on the individual market. BCBS wanted $3k per month for me + spouse for what most working people would consider 'normal' employer-provided insurance (low preventative co-pays, decent lifetime caps, $3k deductible). I was in my early 30s, in North Carolina, an 'inexpensive' area, with no significant medical conditions, and very few 'risk factors'.

And second off, your point about passing on costs is a fallacy. That can be used to argue against any and all regulation. Higher minimum wage? Pass on the costs. Refuse emmissions? Pass on the cost. Improve worker safety? You guessed it, pass on the costs.

Welcome to the real world, where they do indeed pass on the costs. The reason such laws exist is because we as a society decided they were worth the higher costs.

[GinaMaria]

52. You don't really think that what you pay in insurance

comes back to you dollar for dollar in health care do you? If that happened there would be no insurance because there would be no profit. If we took the profit out, we'd all pay a lot less. My benefits are more than 14K in value. It's part of the compensation package I receive. My employer pays for most of this. I have $40 copays, it's a PPO with Dental and Vision and it is a family plan for me and my husband. Costs are tiered by pay grade so I am paying more than someone who makes less than me at the company. It's group insurance so it is all pooled into one fund. Is it possible it is this high due to some needing a lot of care? Very possible, but pushing people into plans that provide less coverage and discourage utilization is not the answer. We want better health care not less health care.

[invictus]

32. K&R

[BrklynLiberal]

34. K&R

[inna]

38. KR+59

[truedelphi]

41. Yes oit is a Union tax. To believe otherwise it simply stupid. n/t

[Betsy Ross]

43. The unions ARE fighting for healthcare for all.

It is a false assumption that we are only interested in our own members. The excise tax, however, will mostly impact middle-class union workers. The few CEOs that might get hit can pay the damn tax.

[amborin]

48. here's a union analysis of how it will hurt the middle class:

http://files.cwa-union.org/healthcarevoices/091217_CWAExciseTaxReport.pdf

[MichiganVote]

49. Well its not a tax on the wealthy and damn it, its time they pay their fair share and then some.

[GinaMaria]

50. Not just union tax but tax on working people

Front line employees in corporations can fall into this. It's time to draw a line in the sand. Hospital workers, IT people etc. We need one big union for everyone. Now that would be some collective bargaining.

[Romulox]

51. k/r. nt

[arthritisR_US]

54. you are right on! n/t

[earth mom]

57. Too late to rec but huge kick!

:kick: