Other than professional athletes, you'd be hard pressed to find any union members

[scheming daemons]

...that pay more than $23,000 per year in insurance premiums.


This is a ridiculous argument that people are making.


No family you know, unless you hang around very wealthy people, is paying more than $23,000 per year in premiums for their health care coverage for their family.


This is a tax on the rich, that isn't an income tax.... so H&R Block can't get them out of paying it like they would with an income tax increase.


The more I read this site, the more I'm convinced that there are lots of "fake left" people here to spread misinformation.

[cliffordu]

1. Kicked and recced.

OF course it was unrecced by the plants and the haters.

[boppers]

2. So, I figure the unions were claiming that they got their members the best benefits possible.

Therefore, there are union members who *assume* they have Cadillac plans.

Well, that, and there are unions where people with *huge* compensation plans are "workers", even though they're making far beyond minimal wages for minimal skills and education.

[deaniac83]

8. Yeah, I don't get this

When did we start being so selfish? All the "tax the rich" slogan is fine, and I want the rich taxed too, but that principle applies that if you are relatively well off and have a bang up plan, you have a social responsibility to help others. In addition, a Cadillac tax is one of the recognized ways to bring down cost. Also note: people keep whining that a higher-cost plan does not mean they have better coverage. If that's true, then going to a lower cost plan also doesn't necessarily mean they will have worse coverage.

[boppers]

9. Tax the richer than me....! But not me!

The really creepy part is that unions for the well off are against taxes to pay for the working poor. People making 2-3x the minimum rage (wage) don't want to lose their benefits.

I blame the unions for being successful for 50 years, and thus assuming that everybody gets their level of benefits, even though unions are shrinking.

[bread_and_roses]

13. That's some nice union-bashing you have going on there

there is so much wrong with that post that I don't know where to begin - and don't have time or patience anyway.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

53. DU has become a center right bizzaro world

Now bashing unions?

[Romulox]

20. Right. It's the UNIONS that are the problem here, not our MASSIVE INEQUALITY.

What a joke.

[boppers]

27. Inequality, and everything that creates it, are part of the problem.

Unions are not exempt if they also create inequality.

The executive bureaucrat unions, for example, are mighty pissed that they might have the same benefits as seamstress unions.

[spoony]

34. So unions are a problem because they elevate their workers' compensation?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[boppers]

35. So, a CEO union which elevated their wages is OK?

You don't see the basic problem with that?

[proud2BlibKansan]

37. What CEO union?

Even if you could prove there is such a thing, that is no reason to bash unions who represent middle class workers, who are the overwhelming majority of union members.

[Hekate]

38. What are you talking about? There is no such thing as a "CEO union"...

:wtf: What are you on about today? You've had one anti-union thread locked and you are still persisting in the propaganda.

Strong unions damn near created the blue collar middle class in this country, and the demise of the unions has not surprisingly coincided with the demise of the blue collar middle class. (Simplified history for you.)

Unless you have a problem with that.

Hekate

[boppers]

42. AFSCME

Top executives get bennies.

[Hekate]

43. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Workers includes "top execs"?!

AFSCME unionized the University I used to work at as a secretary, and I don't recall THAT being part of the program. SEIU got into the County about the time I went to work there. Both jobs I was exempt from joining because I was considered a "confidential" secretary (in the first instance I actually worked for the Labor Relations Manager and typed the contract-- I think I would have remembered if managers or "top executives" had been included). If I could have joined the union, I would have.

What is your source, if I may ask.

Hekate



http://www.afscme.org/about/aboutindex.cfm

> AFSCME’s 1.6 million members provide the vital services that make America happen and advocate for prosperity and opportunity for all working families.
> We are nurses, corrections officers, child care providers, EMTs and sanitation workers. For us, public service is not just a job, it’s a calling. At times we are right out front, and at other times we are behind the scenes. Wherever we are, we’re proud to take on the responsibility of helping to keep this country strong.
> AFSCME is a union made up of a diverse group of people who share a common commitment to public service. We see the big picture and gladly accept the responsibility of guarding and nurturing it — not because we expect to be recognized for our sacrifice, but because we know the job needs to be done. That’s why we’re in the public service — to keep our families safe and make our communities strong.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[boppers]

46. Without threatening any people, look into HHS and CDC.

High pay, for a union.

[Hekate]

47. Specific links?

[boppers]

48. A site with some links.

http://www.afscme.org/members/2326.cfm
Depending on the zone and profession, wages vary... wildly.

[boppers]

71. So you don't have to hunt: $199,700 per year.

http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/pdf/ex.pdf

[senseandsensibility]

70. Never mind.

It's hopeless. Hekate has the patience to debate with you and ignorant ramblings, bless her. I don't.

[boppers]

72. Chasing facts is hard.

Discounting facts is easier.

[spoony]

26. I guess there isn't a cheerleader union? nt

[clear eye]

55. B/C EMPLOYERS of unionized working people DO pay that much.

AND it's set at only $8K for an individual so if you don't get a family plan (and many don't), your EMPLOYER is being given a disincentive to keep the good plan instead of scrapping it for a lousy, cheaper one. The OPer is being disingenuous by only including the $23K family qualification and not the $8K/individual one. I have to wonder about motive when I see tactics like these.

Many unions scaled back or dropped any demands for wage increases in order to get these plans in their contracts. THIS PROVISION WOULD NOT BE PROGRESSIVE. IT WOULD NOT AFFECT ONLY RICH PEOPLE.

Do you understand the opposition now??

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrToast]

3. Not right now

The thing is that the dollar amount is fixed and not indexed to inflation.

In a few years, it will start impacting other insurance plans.

That's what people are upset about.

[SpartanDem]

4. It's indexed

inflation +1%

pg 7-8

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_Noted.pdf

[DrToast]

5. It's not indexed to medical inflation

As you know, medical costs are much higher than regular inflation.

That's the whole idea of how the tax is supposed to bring down spending. Eventually the tax will start impacting other plans.

[deaniac83]

7. Yeah but

the CBO projects that group family plans will level out or start *going down in cost of premium* by 2016.

But yes, in principle, I am entirely for indexing it to the real cost of rise (or fall, if that pans out) of health insurance premium costs.

[bornskeptic]

6. That's not really correct. It is indexed to inflation.

The threshhold amounts are increased annually according to the cost-oof-living index plus one percent. The problem is that medical costs are going up much faster than the overall cost-of-living, and because of that less generous plans will gradually become affected.

[Blue State Blues]

14. my plan will be affected in two years

I don't call that gradual.

[clear eye]

56. Oh, but you must be VERY WEALTHY to have such an expensive plan

so you SHOULD be taxed to pay for everyone else's subsidies. :sarcasm:

[mkultra]

29. Increases in medical costs have been indexed into the plan

word of mouth bitching is out of control here.

[olegramps]

36. More nonsense. It is indexed.

The unions only fear that the cost of medical insurance will be much higher than the general inflation.

[clear eye]

57. All people (not only unions) have good reason to EXPECT that inflation of premiums

in a mandated environment w/ businesses mandated to insure and gov't forced to pick up all costs above a certain % of people's incomes for the rest will skyrocket out of control. They've BEEN skyrocketing for the past 6 or so years already. I call "NONSENSE" right back on you.

[Blue State Blues]

10. I am not a professional athlete and I do not hang around very wealthy people

nor am I a member of a union and my insurance benefits are best characterized as "barely adequate."

I do not currently qualify for the cadillac tax, but if my premiums increase at the same rate with which they have increased every year for the past 3 years -- a rate much higher than inflation + 1% -- in two years my barely adequate insurance will fall under the "Cadillac Tax."

And no, I am not a "fake left" person.

[bread_and_roses]

12. exactly. but don't expect any of the above to respond or believe you

...or believe Robert Reich or EPI.... those "fake lefties" I guess?

[mkultra]

31. i dont

This is an outrageous claim and he needs to prove it.

[bread_and_roses]

39. you don't think the ALF-CIO knows what it's talking about?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/09union.html?pagewanted=2&hpw

According to a union survey, one in four members would be hit by a $23,000 threshold...union officials say the tax will cause employers to push higher co-payments and deductibles onto their employees...Leo W. Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers, scoffed at arguments that by restraining health costs, the tax would lead to higher wages.

“The people who are promoting this tax say companies will make up for this with higher wages,” Mr. Gerard said. “These people who say that have never been at the bargaining table. It doesn’t work that way.”

[grantcart]

15. the reality is 99% of the population cannot sustain higher than inflation

increases in rate plans.

Either they are going to start dropping coverage or they are going to take smaller benefits.

[Blue State Blues]

22. Absolutely true, I will not end up paying the Cadillac tax

the employer will shift to a lower-cost plan. Of course, the lower cost plan will be worth less. It will have higher deductibles. It will have higher co-payments. It will have more restrictions on what it covers. It will have lower rates of reimbursement and increased "cost-sharing" -- which sounds warm and friendly but actually means costs will be shifted away from the insurance company and onto me.

So the cadillac tax will not raise any money through me to off-set the cost of providing insurance to the currently uninsured.

It will also not lower the costs I currently pay. What the Cadillac tax will do for me, within two years, is make sure that what I pay now for insurance will provide me with coverage that is worth less.

[clear eye]

58. So you support a HCR bill that does nothing to address the main

problem it's supposed to be solving?

Europeans get almost complete coverage in exchange for an increase in progressive taxes. For our tax system to begin to be in line w/ theirs, we'd have to lower taxes on the middle class and raise it on the top incomes, including capital gains.

Your detachment from the struggles of most people smells of entitled rich person.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uponit7771]

11. AMEN!! The supposistions of this being a tax on the middle class is overtly ...misinformed

[Romulox]

16. Unrec. Prices are set by SUPPLY and DEMAND, not cost.

The idea that a government enforced mandate to purchase a product will cause the price of that product to drop is idiocy of the first order.

[Nipper1959]

19. Am I in DU?

I cannot believe some of the posts in this section.

[Romulox]

21. Believe it. nt

[mkultra]

32. mandate = increased demand

so you just contradicted yourself.

[harun]

59. We are talking about the tax on cadillac plans, not the mandate.

[hvn_nbr_2]

17. If no one but pro athletes will pay the tax, then ...

where are all those billions in tax dollars that they're planning for going to come from? Somebody will be paying.

[Nipper1959]

18. As a union member that has good insurance

that costs $1766 per month or $21,192.00 pr year I do object to the prospect of having to pay taxes on this benefit that I have given up wages to receive. Given the average increase in premiums it will not be long until I am riding a "Cadillac" plan that requires me to pay additional taxes under the Senate plan.

[mkultra]

33. not really

first, you or your company is getting ripped off. Second, the proposed cap is 28K which you are some distance from. Third, the mandate means more demand for insurance which will result in a decrease in premiums.(in theory)

This is what they are saying at least. Some here are having trouble understanding these basic principles.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. Increased demand = increase in price, not decrease in price

[flyarm]

50. the cap is 23,000...get your facts right ! eom

[flyarm]

65. To quote you"Some here are having trouble understanding these basic principles" it seems you are!!

you can't even get the threshold number right!

[clear eye]

68. You got the numbers wrong. The OPer is correct in that the tax kicks in for a family plan costing

$23K. What he didn't say was that it also applies to individual plans of $8K or more.

And more demand means prices go up, not down--especially when there are limited suppliers/area who are exempt from anti-trust enforcement. That's in Economics 101.

[Brickbat]

23. Not really.

Carpenters, for one, depending on the contract, have 18-21K in premiums. Railroad workers have high premiums, too. And as someone who lives in a railroad family, I can tell you we aren't the "very wealthy" you're trying to hang on this plan.

[JVS]

41. I think what a lot of people are missing is that there are kinds of work that will require...

those who do it to seek medical attention eventually. If you're unionized and have a desk job at the DMV, your plan probably isn't a very expensive, but if you work in manufacturing, mining, building, or even as a janitor, your insurance prices are going to reflect the fact that members of the union have sought better health plans in their negotiations because they needed damned good care to keep on working.

[clear eye]

69. And carpenters need their high-quality plans b/c of common repetitive motion injuries.

Lesser plans call carpal tunnel surgery "elective".

I hope you and your coworkers have called your member of Congress repeatedly to continue to stand firm against this tax. An individual call may be almost meaningless, but if the representative gets 1000 of these calls, they know that people are watching to see what's being done.

[Fire1]

24. More and more members are finding that out and they bank on

people being too lazy or incompetent to find reliable sources to find out the truth.

[spoony]

25. Let's see, who has credibility on unions...

The OP, an anonymous internet poster, or the AFL-CIO...

[JVS]

40. I'll take the AFL-CIO's word over yours.

[boppers]

49. I have a friend who worked over 200 hours overtime for the AFL-CIO in the last election.

He didn't see a penny.

Trust who you want, though.

[last1standing]

44. There are a lot of "fake left" who post OPs that demonize Unions - like this one.

This completely fact-free, wishful thinking, fluff piece is a fantastic example of why no one can take you republicrats seriously. You can't bother to research the findings from the CBO, the Unions or the economists who say that up to 20% of Union workers will be hit with this excise tax on the middle class if it isn't removed or fixed. You can't even bother to click the links when there provided, repeatedly.

One thing you can do is post the same bullshit propaganda over and over like your masters tell you. Gotta have a skill, I guess. :shrug:

[Romulox]

62. This guy ain't "fake left", just fake--he isn't fooling anyone. nt

[flyarm]

51. wow is there alot of bullshit flying around here!

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/09/gruber-caveats-the-excise-tax-raise-claim/

go read it!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

and more..

emptywheel January 7th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
7
In response to WilliamOckham @ 1

Actually, the problem is much greater than that. People have repeatedly used Gruber’s work to support arguments that they don’t actually support (his only “proof” that the excise tax will raise wages is a study on how employers raise wages on non-fertile women after maternity care is mandated, and on that EVERYONE has based their claims).

So you have to ask–did a bunch of “intelligent” people just lose all their critical thinking skills? Or is someone feeding a bunch of other nominally independent “journalists” Gruber’s claims, and they’re publishing it for some reason or another?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

and don't think for a minute the Unions don't know this info!!!!!!!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Follow the Money: Your Tax Dollars Bought Jonathan Gruber’s Services
By: Rayne Sunday January 10, 2010 10:30 am http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/23174

Firedoglake has been researching the relationship of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber with the Obama administration with regard to health care reform. You’ll find posts by emptywheel, dday and Jon Walker about the apparent conflicts of interest on Gruber’s part, that of the Obama administration and the media covering health care reform.

We’re still looking at the money – yes, follow the money, as Deep Throat once said – paid out to Gruber by the government. OUR MONEY, our tax dollars, paid out to Gruber under three administrations. You can view the numbers at this link, at which you’ll find a published spreadsheet with all information compiled from USASpending.gov and NIH websites (links to sources at the end of this post).

But there are more questions after looking at the data; perhaps the answers are innocuous and amount to nothing, but it would certainly be nice to have some answers.

What permits Gruber to be offered “non-compete” contracts?

What does it mean that a substantive number of the contracts offered to Gruber were let under classification, “Available only for groups such as disabled persons, prisoners, and regulated utilities”?

Why does Gruber have two business identities documented by two DUNS numbers, one of which is a nonprofit entity?

Why are the 2009 contracts for HHS paid to the nonprofit?

Why are there so many fields with “invalid” content or no content where one would reasonably expect some information?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

edit to add: please take the time to read the comments section..much is disclosed here that should make every American suspect to what is going on!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jonathan Gruber Failed to Disclose His $392,600 Contracts with HHS (Updated)
By: emptywheel Thursday January 7, 2010 8:35 pm
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/07/jonathan-g... /

MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber has been the go-to source that all the health care bill apologists point to to defend otherwise dubious arguments. But he has consistently failed to disclose that he has had a sole-source contract with the Department of Health and Human Services since June 19, 2009 to consult on the “President’s health reform proposal.”

He is one source for the claim that the excise tax will result in raises for workers (though his underlying study is in-apt to the excise tax question). He is the basis for the argument that the Senate bill reduces families’ risk–even if it remains totally unaffordable. Even Politico stenographer Mike Allen points to Gruber’s research.

But none of the references to Gruber I’ve seen have revealed that Gruber has a $297,600 contract with HHS to produce,

a technical memorandum on the estimated changes in health insurance coverage and associated costs and impacts to the government under alternative specifications of health system reform. The requirement includes developing estimates of various health reform proposals on health insurance coverage and cost. The alternative specifications to be considered will be derived from the President’s health reform proposal.

(h/t Mote Dai)

The President’s health reform proposal? But I thought this was the Senate’s health reform proposal?!?!? (wink!)

Now, HHS says they had to put Dr. Gruber in charge of evaluating health care reform proposals because he’s got,



go to link to read the rest!!!

but note in comments section..Emptywheels comment here:

emptywheel January 7th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
7
In response to WilliamOckham @ 1
Actually, the problem is much greater than that. People have repeatedly used Gruber’s work to support arguments that they don’t actually support (his only “proof” that the excise tax will raise wages is a study on how employers raise wages on non-fertile women after maternity care is mandated, and on that EVERYONE has based their claims).

So you have to ask–did a bunch of “intelligent” people just lose all their critical thinking skills? Or is someone feeding a bunch of other nominally independent “journalists” Gruber’s claims, and they’re publishing it for some reason or another?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.healthcarevoices.org/pages/impact-of-the-excise-tax-on-the-middle-class

Impact of the Excise Tax on the Middle ClassHealth Care Excise Tax = A Big Middle Class Tax Increase
Revised December 17, 2009

JCT data shows excise tax in the Senate bill would strike at the heart of the middle class




Health care legislation under consideration in the U.S. Senate would raise $149 billion over ten years by imposing a 40 percent excise tax above certain thresholds on insurance company health plans and self-insured plans offered by companies to their workers. This tax would have a dramatic effect on those plans forcing steep reductions in benefits, shifting of costs to workers and a significant increase in taxes on millions of middle-class families.

Contrary to claims by proponents that it will affect only “Cadillac” health plans, like those enjoyed by Goldman Sachs executives, according to Joint Committee on Taxation(i) data the excise tax will:

Affect 19 percent of workers with employer-sponsored health coverage in 2016.
Affect nearly 25 million households(ii) in 2019, including one-fifth of middle-class households making between $50,000 and $75,000.
Affect about 25 percent of health plans by 2019.
Cost affected households an additional $7,500 in taxes on average between 2013 and 2019, or more than $1,000 a year.
In 2019, cost affected taxpayers who are millionaires an extra $2,600 in taxes and those making between $50,000 to $75,000 an extra $1,100 in taxes, but the wealthy taxpayers’ income will be at least 13 to 20 times greater.
Be a tax increase of 0.1 percent of income for those households affected that make more than $1 million a year and be a tax increase of 1.4 percent for those households affected that make $50,000 to $75,000.
The JCT assumes that 82.5 percent of the revenue raised from the tax will be generated by increased wages to make up for health benefits cuts and increased cost sharing. However, most employers say they will not increase workers’ wages in response:

Only 9 percent of human resource executives in a recent Towers-Perrin survey said if health care reform reduced their benefit costs would they increase salary or direct compensation; 78 percent said they would retain the savings in the business as profit.
Just 16 percent of health plan sponsors in a recent Mercer survey said they would convert any health care cost savings into higher pay for their workers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(i) Figures 1 to 5 in this report were prepared by CWA based on data from the Joint Committee on Taxation in a letter to Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), from Thomas A. Barthold, Chief of Staff, Dec. 8, 2009.

(ii) In this report “households” refers to individuals and families paying taxes. Based on JCT data showing that 24.6 million “tax units” would be affected by the excise tax in 2019, Citizens for Tax Justice estimates that 12.6 million are married couples, 3 million are single parents and 9.1 million are childless single people for a total of 58 million men, women and children affected. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/healthexcisetax20091211.pdf

[flyarm]

52. Economic Policy Institute refutes the OP!

Economic Policy Institute refutes the OP!

EMPLOYER HEALTH COSTS
DO NOT DRIVE WAGE TRENDS
B Y L AW R E N C E M I S H E L
http://epi.3cdn.net/f121df10fab53d2b16_3nm6bhd7e.pdf

snip:

However, in the dysfunctional health insurance market, high-cost does
not equal high-value; and it is not comprehensiveness of coverage that is the primary predictor of who will be affected by
this tax, rather it is the size of the firm they work for or the age of their co-workers. The fact that Chevy plans are about
as likely to be taxed as Cadillac plans is one reason to be cautious about relying on such a tax. Bivens and Gould (2009)
document this as well as other reasons to prefer the more straightforward, progressive financing in the House bill.



snip:
There is logic to their argument, but it is only skin-deep and deeper examination will show it to be simply not true. The
logic can be seen looking at trends in health care premiums and wages—wage growth fared better in the late 1990s when
health care premiums grew more slowly than in the early 1990s and wages performed poorly in the 2000s, a period when
health premiums grew strongly again.3
However, digging just a bit beneath the surface reveals the following:
1. Health care costs are not large enough to substantially move wages as these proponents claim;
2. Examination of actual wage and benefit trends confirms that changes in the trajectory of health care costs did not
materially affect wage trends over the last 20 years; and
3. The wage behavior described—accelerating in the late 1990s and more slowly thereafter—actually best characterizes
wage growth for low-wage workers who have minimal access to employer-based health care. Conversely, this pattern
of wage-growth over time is least pronounced for higher paid workers with the most health coverage.
Clearly, this “health care theory of wage determination” is wrong, and other factors explain these overall wage trends.
The simple explanation is that productivity accelerated in the mid-1990s, and the low unemployment (and hikes in the
minimum wage) facilitated faster wage growth. That this wage growth disappeared entirely in the 2002-07 recovery is
not due to faster health care cost increases but to weak employment growth and employers’ ability to achieve increased
profitability rather than pass on productivity gains to workers. This reveals a fundamental flaw in our economy: productivity
gains are not passed on to higher living standards for workers.

[MadHound]

54. Umm, teachers for one,

And your information is faulty from the beginning. The premise on the "Cadillac" tax scheme is that that $23,000 figure is what is paid in total, by both the employer and employee. Thus, many people, while not paying in that much themselves, still have what is considered a Cadillac plan because their employers are picking up a large chunk of the tab.

Stop being a disingenuous asshole. The reality of the matter is that lots of people are going to get screwed on this bill, being I teacher I'm going to be one of them. Teachers got good health insurance as a sop, something to make up for the fact that we get shity pay. Now we're going to have to be shelling out a thousand plus in taxes for what, to balance this budget on our backs. No thanks, you just lost my vote.

If you want to tax the rich, then you do so directly and clearly, you tie the tax to the actual income coming into a household. Instead the Democrats said they're taxing the rich while instead using a piss poor disguise to tax the unions, middle and working class.

Just one more reason to walk away from the Democrats for the next few election cycles.

[Romulox]

60. Has anyone EVER seen the OP express concern for union members or working people? Ever?

Nope. :hi:

[flyarm]

66. NO..nor the truth!! nor TRUTHFUL "FACTS" EOM

[flyarm]

61. Unions Rally to Oppose a Proposed Tax on Health Insurance (NYT)

Unions Rally to Oppose a Proposed Tax on Health Insurance (NYT)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/business/09union.html


By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: January 8, 2010

When millions of blue-collar workers were leaning toward John McCain during the 2008 campaign, labor unions moved many of them into Barack Obama’s column by repeatedly hammering one theme: Mr. McCain wanted to tax their health benefits.

But now labor leaders are fuming that President Obama has endorsed a tax on high-priced, employer-sponsored health insurance policies as a way to help cover the cost of health care reform. And as Senate and House leaders seek to negotiate a final health care bill, unions are pushing mightily to have that tax dropped from the legislation. Or at the very least, they want the price threshold raised so that the tax would affect fewer workers.

-snip-

In recent days, labor’s strategy has become clear. Unions are urging their members to flood their representatives with e-mail messages and phone calls in the hope that the House will stand fast and reject the tax. The A.F.L.-C.I.O., a federation of nine million union members, has declared next Wednesday “National Call-In Day” asking workers to call their lawmakers to urge them not to tax health benefits. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is urging members to tell their representatives that “such a tax is simply a massive middle-class tax hike that this nation’s working families should not be forced to endure.”

Many Democrats fear that enacting the tax will hurt their re-election chances.

“This would really have a negative impact on the Democratic base,” said Representative Joe Courtney, Democrat of Connecticut, who has enlisted 190 House Democrats to sign a letter opposing the tax. “As far as the message goes, it’s a real toughie to defend.”

While union leaders would prefer killing the tax, some say privately that they could live with it if the threshold is lifted to $27,000, say, or $30,000. They argue that many insurance policies above $23,000 are typical of the coverage in high-cost areas like New York or Boston, or policies that cover small businesses or employers with older workers.

According to a union survey, one in four members would be hit by a

$23,000 threshold

, but only one in 14 if the threshold were raised to $27,000.

White House officials, however, voice concern that raising the threshold that much would lose $50 billion of the $149 billion in revenue that the tax is expected to generate over 10 years.

-snip-

[flyarm]

63. Voters Oppose Taxing Health Insurance Plans

http://www.healthcarevoices.org/pages/voters-oppose-taxing-health-insurance-plans

from : Communications Workers of America



Voters Oppose Taxing Health Insurance Plans

As Congress deliberates over how to fund health insurance reform, new polling, commissioned by the Communications Workers of America and conducted by Anzalone Liszt Research, finds that voters overwhelmingly oppose taxing high-cost health insurance plans as a way to help fund health insurance reform, but support raising taxes on the wealthy to accomplish the same goal. The Anzalone poll surveyed 2,200 likely voters in 10 states including seven with 2010 frontline Senate races (Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Nevada and North Dakota). Also polled were Indiana, New Mexico and Virginia.

Support for taxing high-cost insurance plans would have electoral implications as well, as over 60% of voters say that it would make them less likely to re-elect their member of Congress in 2010. This strong opposition to an excise tax on health insurance plans spans all regions, as well as all seven of the states surveyed that will have frontline Senate races in 2010.

The Senate health care bill would raise $150 billion over 10 years by assessing a 40 percent excise tax on the value of health care plans that exceed a certain level of spending. The House bill raises $460 billion over 10 years by assessing a surtax on the incomes of wealthy Americans. Choosing between these two options will be a major focus of a House-Senate conference on the bills.

[flyarm]

64. Senate Health Plan Excise Tax =A Big Middle Class Tax Increase

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

From the : Communications Workers of America

edit to add ..read the entire link..this will effect millions of Middle class workers!!!!!!!!!

Summary
Health care legislation in the U.S. Senate would raise $149 billion over ten years by imposing a
40 percent excise tax above certain thresholds on insurance company health plans and selfinsured
plans offered by companies to their workers. This tax would have a dramatic effect on
those plans forcing steep reductions in benefits, shifting of costs to workers and a significant
increase in taxes on millions of middle‐class families.
Contrary to claims by proponents that it will affect only “Cadillac” health plans, like those
enjoyed by Goldman Sachs executives, according to Joint Committee on Taxation1 data the
excise tax will:
• Affect 19 percent of workers with employer‐sponsored health coverage in 2016.
• Affect nearly 25 million households2 in 2019, including one‐fifth of middle‐class
households making between $50,000 and $75,000.
• Affect about 25 percent of health plans by 2019.
• Cost affected households an additional $7,500 in taxes on average between 2013 and
2019, or more than $1,000 a year.
• In 2019, cost affected taxpayers who are millionaires an extra $2,600 in taxes and those
making between $50,000 to $75,000 an extra $1,100 in taxes, but the wealthy
taxpayers’ income will be at least 13 to 20 times greater.
• Be a tax increase equal to 0.1 percent of income for those households affected that
make more than $1 million a year and be a tax increase equal to 1.4 percent for those
households affected that make $50,000 to $75,000.

• Only 9 percent of human resource executives in a recent Towers‐Perrin survey said if
health care reform reduced their benefit costs would they increase salary or direct
compensation; 78 percent said they would retain the savings in the business as profit.
• Just 16 percent of health plan sponsors in a recent Mercer survey said they would
convert any health care cost savings into higher pay for their workers.

snip:

How the Excise Tax Will Affect Middle Class Americans
Excise Taxes on Plans Will Result in Benefits Cuts and Cost Shifting to Workers
Insurance companies and self‐insured employers will dramatically reduce health benefits in
order to get the cost of their health plans below the threshold and avoid the tax – essentially
shifting the pain to working families by providing them with less comprehensive coverage.
Table 1 shows the effect of the Senate excise tax on the most popular plans offered by CWA
employers in 43 states for which we have data. Unless the plans remain below the threshold,
some plans will face taxes for each worker in the plan of up to $56,000 over ten years. The
average taxes that would be owed over ten years for each worker or retiree in these affected
plans are:
• $17,737 for active worker family coverage
• $7,540 for active worker single coverage
• $17,694 for pre‐Medicare retiree family coverage
• $5,628 for pre‐Medicare retiree single coverage
Clearly, employers faced with taxes of this magnitude will demand deep health benefits cuts
and cost shifting to workers to avoid paying the tax. Recent surveys of 465 employer health
plan sponsors by Mercer and of 433 human resource executives by Towers‐Perrin found that 63
percent and 87 percent of employers, respectively, would cut benefits in response to higher
health care costs, such as would occur with an excise tax. Mercer found that three‐fourths (75
percent) of those employers said they would accomplish this by raising deductibles and copays,
40 percent would add a low‐cost health plan as an alternative and 32 percent would
replace their current plan with a low‐cost plan. 4

[flyarm]

67. Talking Points Memo;Trumka Blames The Senate, Republicans And Some Democrats For Controversial Healt

Source: Talking Points Memo

Trumka Blames The Senate, Republicans And Some Democrats For Controversial Health Care Tax
Brian Beutler | January 11, 2010, 1:00PM


Speaking at the National Press Club this afternoon, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka blasted a controversial provision in the Senate health care bill, which would impose a stiff tax on high-end health care plans--a penalty that would impact many middle class workers and union members. From the prepared remarks: "thanks to the Senate rules, the appalling irresponsibility of the Senate Republicans and the power of the wealthy among some Democrats, the Senate bill instead drives a wedge between the middle class and the poor."

The bill rightly seeks to ensure that most Americans have health insurance. But instead of taxing the rich, the Senate bill taxes the middle class by taxing workers' health plans--not just union members' health care; most of the 31 million insured employees who would be hit by the excise tax are not union members.

The tax on benefits in the Senate bill pits working Americans who need health care for their families against working Americans struggling to keep health care for their families. This is a policy designed to benefit elites--in this case, insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies and irresponsible employers, at the expense of the broader public. It's the same tragic pattern that got us where we are today, and I can assure you the labor movement is fighting with everything we've got to win health care reform that is worthy of the support of working men and women.

Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/trumka-blame...