Why on earth is anyone defending this

[ProSense]

"Cadillac costs for Chevy benefits"

Seriously, why is anyone trying to protect paying a lot of money for less than average benefits?

[TransitJohn]

1. The political 'win' is more important than reforming the profit-driven system.

Get your head in the game.

[johnaries]

4. Ah, hello!

80-85% MLR (directly limiting profits/administration costs)
No co-pays or deductables for preventative care
limiting out-of-pocket expenses
no lifetime limits
no exclusions for pre-existing conditions
no premium increases if you get sick
all premium increases must be approved by the States and the DHS
Plus, many provisions to shift emphasis from a procedure-driven philosophy to an outcome-based philosophy (and, yes, the "Cadillac" tax plays a part in that in helping to eliminate "overuse")

There is a LOT of reform to the profit-driven system.

[IndianaGreen]

12. The only goal here is to give Obama an applause line for his SOTUS

at the expense of working men and women in this country.

[dkf]

2. They are already suffering and you want to make it worse.

They are pointing out what you want to do to them.

[ProSense]

3. That is your flawed interpretation

How is going to a lower cost plan, when the benefits are defined to be better than "chevy," going to hurt?

Your assumption is that these plans will remain in effect. They will lose support and disappear, and people will be better off without them.

[Telly Savalas]

16. What's stopping people from migrating to lower priced plans now?

[ProSense]

17. No

choice, no cost controls, insurance companies that overcharge small businesses, various discrimatory practices...take your pick.

[Telly Savalas]

20. So then if these things were truly addressed by the HCR bill

then the tax would be unnecessary because nobody would choose to have a plan that meets the "cadillac" threshold.

[spoony]

7. Yeah but you gotta love the evolution of the talking point

It's no longer, "This tax won't land on you" it's now "Well it will but it'll be to HELP you."

[gravity]

10. If you have a $23,000 insurance policy, you aren't suffering

and the taxes will be used to help people who can't afford insurance.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Gay couples will be taxed at the $8,500 because they are not recognized as families

This point is purposely ignored by the advocates of this atrocious legislation.

[levander]

21. That's why I support the tax...

But really, all the tax is going to do is to prevent people from buying more insurance. According to the CMS report, because people will drop that kind of coverage, it's not really going to raise much revenue.

IN the fucked-up scenario of this Reid bill, I support the tax. But, from the larger picture, that you would have to tinker with the system in weird ways like this in an attempt to get it right is really crazy.

They really ought just to have real cost controls in there, and not just stuff that tells people not to buy so much coverage. People can decide that for themselves.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Why are some people here defending the profits of Big Insurer and Big Pharma

and no doubt, their own investments as well?

[David Zephyr]

9. Why? Maybe the pay is good enough to overcome any healthy sense of shame.

You asked.

[depakid]

6. Cash for clunkers!

That pretty well sums up the effect of this legislation.

[IndianaGreen]

8. We are forced to buy their clunkers, and they take what little cash we have

Meanwhile the investor class enjoys their health industry dividends while giving us their collective middle fingers.

[depakid]

13. The treasury's going to pony up big bucks for junk insurance subsidies, too

[Armstead]

14. That describes all of private health insurance -- we should be diminishing it not embracing it

[TheKentuckian]

15. I suppose your Chevy is the good ole silver plan?

Ain't too many Caddy's with so few amenities.

Why on God's green Earth do you fight so mightily for the American people to have minimal benefits they can't afford to make use of for a fair chunk of their pre-tax income?

[last1standing]

18. Because Chevy costs get you Vega benefits in the USofA.

But then that little fact doesn't come into play when your only interest is shilling for your favorite personality.

[boppers]

19. Status. Luxury. Identity.

It's the same reason people buy a Cadillac, when a much less expensive, much more reliable, vehicle is available to them.

[Hello_Kitty]

22. Why are people engaging in union-busting rhetoric on DU? eom

[ProSense]

23. Oh quit the drama.

When the unions opposed Wyden's free choice amendment, all the current critics of the health care bill lashed out at the unions.

People disagree on issues. Get used to it.

[Hello_Kitty]

24. "People disagree on issues. Get used to it." Take your own advice.

Your whole raisson d'etre lately has been to squelch disagreement with the official admin line.

[ProSense]

25. "Your whole raisson d'etre lately has been to squelch disagreement "

Obviously, you're confused. Disagreeing with you is not equivalent to squelching disagreement.

If you have no confidence in your debating skills, that's your problem.

[Hello_Kitty]

26. If your efforts to persuade are failing, as they are on DU, that's your problem. eom

[ProSense]

28. Persuade? Where did you get the notion that disagreeing with

illogical rantings is equivalent to trying to persuade anyone?

[TheKentuckian]

27. Not remotely the same thing and you know it

There is a world of difference between targeting by choice when plenty of other options for funding are available and collateral damage caused by liberating EVERY worker from employer based insurance.

You have an IQ above 9, so I know you can understand the difference. What about this particular tax has you in a fucking flutter? I don't recall you having any wonkish devotion to such a thing in the past. I've never seen such zeal for a tax in my whole life.