I just heard Ed say that only 5% of wage earners will be affected by the 'Cadillac tax'

[NNN0LHI]

Does anyone know if that is correct? I see a lot of complaining about that here but I am starting to wonder if the people complaining will even get hit by this? Anyone know the details on this?

Don

[gateley]

1. Where did you hear Ed? And I'm sorry but I don't have details on the tax. nt

[NNN0LHI]

3. MSNBC

[gateley]

11. Thanks - I guess the on-line feed isn't providing the commentary. nt

[Change Happens]

2. I think it is 2%

[NNN0LHI]

4. You could be right. The Republican on kept talking over Ed

Ed couldn't get the Repug to give the answer.

Thanks.

Don

[laughingliberal]

9. Ed was the one saying only 5%

but, still, they were talking as if union workers would be the only ones hit.

[readmoreoften]

5. If 5% of the population is hit, than 5% of DU will likely be hit. Those with good union jobs.

Why do you think any working American should have to suffer worse health care so that poorer working Americans can get insurance? Especially while there is no public option and insurers are getting rich off our suffering.

[laughingliberal]

6. That's essentially what he said but he was basing that on a lie, anyway

The lie was from Dave Camp who was saying union workers get a special exemption from the tax until 2018. The reconciliation bill extends to date for implementing the tax to 2018 for all workers. So, it's hard to say. They were speaking of the tax as it applies to union workers.

Raising the level that would be subject to the tax in the reconciliation bill did help protect a lot of people from it. I'm not sure if the exemption for smaller companies with a large percentage of older female workers survived (think health care with lots of nurses to insure).

[Ms. Toad]

16. With the exemption for unions - it is people employed by small businesses

that will be hurt.

Small businesses do not have the power to negotiate, so they pay based on the health status of its individual employees. That makes the premiums go up for the same coverage larger businesses get for far less. I have decent coverage, but not Cadillac - although by the next rate increase it will fall into the definition of Cadillac - merely because we have a number of people (including my family) in our small business who have costly pre-existing conditions.

[SoCalDem]

7. No matter whose number is accurate, it's 2018 until ANYTHING happens on that issue

and it will surely be addressed by then.. In fact if the house and/or senate change hands, all bets are off, on many of the items on any legislation.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. The concern is that it'll hit more workers over time

However, there is a lot of misinformation about this tax. First of all, it's not 40% on your premiums. It's 40% on your premiums OVER THE THRESHOLD, which if the reconciliation patch passes, will mean only on plans over $28,000 per family and ~$12,000 for an individual. So a family plan that costs $30,000 will be become $30,800. ($2000 x 0.40)

The POINT of the Cadillac tax is that it works like a premium cap. Insurers will stop offering plans that are that expensive, and employers will shop for cheaper coverage. The main concern is that this will probably result in some cost-shifting - higher co-pays, etc. Put not all the cost-shifting necessarily means lower benefits, because many insurance plans are expensive because of high administrative costs, etc.

The big concern is that because of the growth in premiums, more and more plans will get hit by the Cadillac tax over time, particularly in areas with a high cost of living. However, keep in mind that the point of the cadillac tax, like any premium cap, is that this growth is stemmed - premiums WON'T hit that threshold, unlike their current trajectory.

Also, keep in mind that many of the people with plans this expensive work for small businesses, which have high costs because they get small-group plans that have small risk pools and thus very high premiums. Under the bills, small businesses would instead buy coverage from the exchanges, which would put them in the large-group market where they'd be in a much larger pool and would have premiums comparable to what large employers get (in other words, much lower than what they have today).

[Greyhound]

10. I think the "Cadillac tax" is a weak-argument distraction from the actual issues.

5% wouldn't surprise me at all.

[customerserviceguy]

12. I assume that insurance premiums will skyrocket

over the next few years, so that by the time the Cadillac tax is enacted, all but the most bare-bones of plans will be subject to it. There is absolutely nothing in either the Senate bill or the reconciliation fix that will regulate insurance premiums, and when the companies have to start paying for the people they've been dropping, they will use that as justification to jack rates.

[yodoobo]

13. sounds about right. Its targeted towards the top 5%

and designed to be a progressive tax

[ThomWV]

14. So, what is that, maybe half of the Union workers?

[karynnj]

15. It is less than that -

That was slightly higher than the % mentioned when the threshold for families was at $21,000 - it is now $27,5000 - the average cost is now about $13,000. Pelosi called it the platinum Rolls Royce tax.