I suspect you know.
from Unions for Single Payer HR676 <Editor@unionsforsinglepayerhr676.org>
to xxx
ccNews about union support for single-payer health care and HR 676 <singlepayernews@unionsforsinglepayerhealthcare.org>
date Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 9:38 PM
subject"The tax on health benefits is being sold to the public dishonestly"
hide details 9:38 PM (12 hours ago)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=2The New York Times
December 29, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
A Less Than Honest Policy
By BOB HERBERT
There is a middle-class tax time bomb ticking in the Senate’s version of
President Obama’s effort to reform health care.
The bill that passed the Senate with such fanfare on Christmas Eve would
impose a confiscatory 40 percent excise tax on so-called Cadillac health
plans, which are popularly viewed as over-the-top plans held only by the
very wealthy. In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions
of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to
medical care.
Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do.
The tax would kick in on plans exceeding $23,000 annually for family
coverage and $8,500 for individuals, starting in 2013. In the first year
it would affect relatively few people in the middle class. But because of
the steadily rising costs of health care in the U.S., more and more plans
would reach the taxation threshold each year.
Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional
Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers
with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31
million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee
on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between
$50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very
wealthy.
Proponents say the tax will raise nearly $150 billion over 10 years, but
there’s a catch. It’s not expected to raise this money directly. The dirty
little secret behind this onerous tax is that no one expects very many
people to pay it. The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in
taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and
individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little
choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans.
These lower-value plans would have higher out-of-pocket costs, thus
increasing the very things that are so maddening to so many policyholders
right now: higher and higher co-payments, soaring deductibles and so
forth. Some of the benefits of higher-end policies can be expected in many
cases to go by the boards: dental and vision care, for example, and
expensive mental health coverage.
Proponents say this is a terrific way to hold down health care costs. If
policyholders have to pay more out of their own pockets, they will be more
careful — that is to say, more reluctant — to access health services. On
the other hand, people with very serious illnesses will be saddled with
much higher out-of-pocket costs. And a reluctance to seek treatment for
something that might seem relatively minor at first could well have
terrible (and terribly expensive) consequences in the long run.
If even the plan’s proponents do not expect policyholders to pay the tax,
how will it raise $150 billion in a decade? Great question.
We all remember learning in school about the suspension of disbelief. This
part of the Senate’s health benefits taxation scheme requires a monumental
suspension of disbelief. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation,
less than 18 percent of the revenue will come from the tax itself. The
rest of the $150 billion, more than 82 percent of it, will come from the
income taxes paid by workers who have been given pay raises by employers
who will have voluntarily handed over the money they saved by offering
their employees less valuable health insurance plans.
Can you believe it?
I asked Richard Trumka, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., about this. (Labor
unions are outraged at the very thought of a health benefits tax.) I had
to wait for him to stop laughing to get his answer. “If you believe that,”
he said, “I have some oceanfront property in southwestern Pennsylvania
that I will sell you at a great price.”
A survey of business executives by Mercer, a human resources consulting
firm, found that only 16 percent of respondents said they would convert
the savings from a reduction in health benefits into higher wages for
employees. Yet proponents of the tax are holding steadfast to the belief
that nearly all would do so.
“In the real world, companies cut costs and they pocket the money,” said
Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America and a
leader of the opposition to the tax. “Executives tell the shareholders:
‘Hey, higher profits without any revenue growth. Great!’ ”
The tax on health benefits is being sold to the public dishonestly as
something that will affect only the rich, and it makes a mockery of
President Obama’s repeated pledge that if you like the health coverage you
have now, you can keep it.
Those who believe this is a good idea should at least have the courage to
be straight about it with the American people.
Distributed by:
All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care--HR 676
c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
1169 Eastern Parkway, Suite 2218
Louisville, KY 40217
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
