For those of you that having been following HCR closely - I have a question.

[jillan]

Where did the idea of taxing "Cadillac" plans come from? Which committee brought it to the table? Or was it something that Reid threw in there?

I was thinking about this earlier today since this did not come out of the House version; and something that Obama said he didn't want (I know - please don't go there) - so where did this come from? Who liked McCain's plan so much that they decided to put it in HCR?
Who is responsible for this stupid idea???????

Does anybody know?

[IndianaGreen]

1. The House wants to tax the rich, while the Senate wants to tax the workers

It was the millionaires in Max Baucus committee.

[jillan]

2. Why am I not surprised? It's like I knew the answer before I asked.

[Captain Hilts]

3. It alienates some core constituencies: people in more expensive areas - Blue States, women, etc. nt

[levander]

4. Maybe Obama said he didn't want it earlier...

But, since it's been in negotiations between the House and Senate, he's said he did want that tax.

[sandnsea]

5. John Kerry

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/why-this-progressive-is-s_b_414968.html

[sandnsea]

6. Oh, and it's not McCain's tax AT ALL

That's just a big fat lie. McCain wanted to add health care benefits to everybody's income - and tax that. That is not what this plan does.

This plan taxes Insurance Companies directly - and only on the portion of premiums over the $8500 for individual and $25,000 for families. Part of that tax may, or may not, be passed on to workers. More likely, insurance companies will work harder to keep premiums below those amounts and unions will keep the pressure on to keep the most important aspects of health insurance, and we'll get a better product in the end which we can also use to weigh against the plans in the exchange.

This opposed to a direct tax on rich people that does nothing to help keep premium costs down.

[customerserviceguy]

8. You're crazy

if you don't think this tax is going to affect the health care of workers with anything besides a bare-bones do-nothing catastrophic plan, especially in a few years after premiums rise astronomically.

This is a direct refutation of the promise of "if you like what you've got, you'll be able to keep it."

[sandnsea]

9. Who is going to pay the doctors then?

They can't ALL be catastrophic only plans, otherwise there won't be any insurance money to go to the doctor and people can't pay that out of their pocket. Most of this is reactionary bullshit.

Yes, Obama said people could keep the plan they have, that's true and this will probably change that. On the other hand, unions ultimately support single payer and that sure as hell wouldn't provide the kind of coverage one of these top-end health plans would. And why is it that everybody is just fine with a two-tier medical system if one of those upper tiers is a union, but horrified if one of those tiers is somebody's cash out of their pocket. If we should all have equal health care, then that goes for union workers too.

In any event, high risk workers are exempt, specifically firefighters and police officers, and certain retirees over 55 are exempted. The legislation has been written to try to target younger workers whose premiums aren't that high yet and really have no reason to be that high.

They are also looking at more revision to better protect working families.

The ones who are nuts are the ones who just gobble up anything the reactionaries say without ever doing one second of research or factchecking on their own. Then they pretend they're the ones who are the independent thinkers, which would be hysterical if they weren't as dangerous as Sarah Palin and the right.

[customerserviceguy]

11. We're all going to pay more for medical care under this bill

as it will be written. That's unavoidable, you cannot cover more people for more things, and have the cost go down. The only difference is how costs will be shifted.

Right now, people who cannot pay simply stiff the doctors and hospitals, and they shift those costs to the people who have insurance. If you have really good insurance (from either working for a firm that makes a social commitment to it's employees, or if you have a union looking out for you) then that cost shifting gets paid for by employers, and employees accept less in wages.

Under the Senate's plan, the formerly uninsured are going to be covered by mandatory health insurance that is going to be paid for by taxes on a combination of the rich and the middle class, by imposition of a surtax on the wealthy and the excise tax on the folks in the middle who have been able to avoid getting their nuts crushed by cost shifting. With the House plan, it's the rich who end up paying the biggest part of what it's going to take to cover uninsured and underinsured people.

The doctors are going to get paid, no matter what, that's why the AMA is behind this plan. They'll actually be freed of the cost shifting they have to do right now.

[sandnsea]

15. My response referred to "catastrophic plans"

And the assertion that all we will have with this bill is catastrophic plans with thousands of dollars of deductibles. That is the exact opposite of what your post says and your post is the exact reason I reject the notion that there will only be catastrophic plans.

While I generally agree with your post, I disagree with the notion that we're all going to pay more. With people getting health care in a timely manner, we should pay less as we all get healthier.

The premium tax is on people with plans costing over $8500 and families with plans costing over $25000. Now give me a break, but the only "middle class" that are going to be affected are the "middle class" who make a boatload of money and are in professions where that kind of insurance is expected. It's not someone making an average wage of around $16 hr, that's for sure.

[karynnj]

13. Your assumption that premiums will continue to skyrocket is unsustainable in ANY plan

Companies can not and will not agree to pay amounts that sky rocket. Unions will not negotiate ever increasing employee contributions. The plan is indexed to increase at inflation plus 1%. There is a need to constrain the part of GNP going to this sector.

[customerserviceguy]

22. I look for insurance premiums to start skyrocketing this year

and for the next two or three years. They will blame it on the laws that require them to cover the formerly uninsurable.

[bornskeptic]

19. Are you saying that US Senators have "bare-bones-do-nothing catastrophic plans"

or are you saying that the tax is going to affect their plans? Most Senators and members of the House are covered by the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Option with Vision and Dental, which costs about $17,000 for a family or about $7,000 for an individual, well out of Cadillac range.

[customerserviceguy]

23. What I'm saying is that

premiums will rise dramatically this year, and the next few years, and that within a few years, the only plans that will be below the Cadillac tax are those that have very high deductables and co-pays. Maybe Congress can work out some sort of sweetheart deal with BCBS, but the rest of us will not (and currently do not) have that kind of pull.

[karynnj]

21. It is estimated at the old threshold to affect about 3% of plans

So, you are saying that 97% of the people in this country have only bare bones catastrophic plans?

PS You can still have any plan you want - he didn't say anything about cost.

[customerserviceguy]

24. Premiums will rise like crazy

and it will start this year, if the current version (or something similar) of HCR is voted in. By the end of the first Obama term, catastrophic plans will be the only ones that will come under the Cadillac rules as currently configured.

The health care insurance industry will be only too happy to blame having to cover the previously uninsurable as the reason for jacking premiums. I don't trust them, I really don't understand why anybody reading and/or posting to this forum does.

[karynnj]

25. Can you cite a single economist/ anayst or any credible person saying that?

The fact is that insuring the previously uninsured will also mostly remove the cost loaded onto all policies to cover the uninsured at hospitals.

[Clio the Leo]

7. "A Bid to Tax Health Plans of Executives"

A Bid to Tax Health Plans of Executives
By LESLIE WAYNE and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: July 26, 2009

Goldman Sachs is one of the nation’s richest banks, and hundreds of top Goldman employees have a health care package to match — one of the “gold-plated Cadillac” plans cited by those involved in the health care debate in Washington.

Goldman’s 400 or so managing directors and its top executive officers participate in the bank’s executive medical and dental program as part of their benefits, according to documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The program generally costs the bank $40,543 in premiums annually for each participant’s family.

Those taking part in the plan include the company’s chief executive, Lloyd C. Blankfein, and four other top officers, as well as managing directors, whose base salary is $600,000.

Goldman’s medical coverage entered the health care discussion on Sunday when David Axelrod, senior adviser to President Obama, cited the Goldman program as an example of the expensive benefits the administration might consider taxing to help pay for its health care program.

“The president actually was asked this the other day by Jim Lehrer, and what he said was that this was an intriguing idea to put an excise tax on high-end health care policies like the ones that the executives at Goldman Sachs have, the $40,000 policies,” Mr. Axelrod said.

Goldman did not return messages on Sunday to comment about Mr. Axelrod’s comments.

A proposal by Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, would impose an excise tax on the insurers that issue policies like Goldman’s, with the expectation that the insurers would pass along most, if not all, of the cost to employers who buy the plans.

Leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, which is working on bipartisan version of the health care legislation in Congress, had long expressed interest in taxing some employer-provided benefits — a move many budget experts say would help slow the steep rise in health costs.

A number of Democrats opposed the plan, so negotiators began looking for other ways to cover the roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost of the bill.

Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota and an author of the Finance Committee’s health bill, endorsed taxing rich plans during an appearance Sunday on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC.

Asked if Congress would tax high-end plans, Mr. Conrad said: “I think we’ve got to. Again, virtually every economist that’s come before us has said you’ve got to reduce that tax subsidy as part of an overall strategy to really contain costs.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/health/policy/27insure.html?hpw

[boppers]

10. Good source!

Nice find.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. See, Goldman is not typical

they should be in jail. A very bad example. Axelrod wants to both protect Goldman and use them as a scape goat. Now that is typical, he's got two sides to his mouth and both are talking full tilt.
And John Kerry eats breakfast brought by a butler. He is so out of touch with reality that he could not beat the most unpopular Presidential incumbent of my lifetime. A disengaged and lazy man who let the Oval go to his frat brother Bush. In addition, Kerry is an anti equality holder of extreme religious prejudices. He does not even think my family should have rights, so what do you think I think of Kerry's desire to attack Unions, his whole 'faith' crowd hates Unions for supporting equality for all. For opposing their rich pals. So of course Kerry wants to do harm to good people, that is how you help the bad people. He'd vote to jail me and mine, if it worked for his own agenda. I trust him like I trust Bush, not at all.
On the other hand my Rep Peter DeFazio is reading the truth of this awful bill and will be standing to the last against the likes of John Kerry. Kerry is not popular around here at all. He avoided this State when running for President. He is bought. He is kept. He is smug. He is not the sort of guy we vote for. Peter is.
Kerry represents some State thousands of miles away from here, and even with a personal jet, he could not be bothered to come here for even an hour. Next!

[karynnj]

14. Your rant is idiotic and completely contrary to facts

I posted the last time you posted this garbage that you were wrong.

Kerry is backing the MA case to overturn DOMA, a bill that he was the ONLY Senator up for office to vote against. In 2004, running for President, his position was better than any of his predecessors and not different than Obama's. In fact, he was MORE explicit that he would call for legislation that would give full federal benefits to state sanctioned unions. Not to mention Kerry has a 100% rating with every civil rights organization - including with Gay activists. He was one of the strongest people fighting to allow gays to serve openly in the media - even back in the early 1990s. This just shows YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHICH POLITICIANS WERE THERE when it was far more controversial to be there - and Kerry was one.

Bush was not the most unpopular President at the time of the election - not even close. He polled around 50% approval. His dad polled at 33%, Jimmy Carter was nearly as low. As to lazy, he was out there working his heart out in many places every single day. His debates were excellent. He nearly won an election which at end of year 2003, the frontrunner, Howard dean was running 20 points behind.

As to "extreme religious prejudices", his religious views are not extreme at all in this country - yours may well be. He is a liberal Catholic, whose religion could be summarized as "Jesuit like New England Catholism", the same mind set that fought the RW abuses in Central America. Here are Kerry's own comments on his religion and values - http://www.pepperdine.edu/pr/releases/2006/september/kerry.htm

As to not thinking your family has rights, He has consistently argued for them and has a 100% record on this for decades. Not to mention your idea that he would "jailyou" is paranoid in the extreme - unless there is a law that you are breaking. But, even there, I would assume that it would be Oregon prosecutors who would handle the case - not a MA Senator.

Kerry did not "avoid" Oregon when he ran - there are photos of at least one absolutely huge rally in Portland. He won that primary easily. He also won in the general election. Kerry also had a very nice crowd in 2007, when he was NOT running, who attended one of his and Teresa's book tour events. I have NO idea why you would expect him to fly there now - private jet or not. He has plennty of work in DC, MA has an election, and he is the chair of SFRC. None of this suggests it is his job to go to Oregon.

Kerry did NOT attack the unions. His proposal set the thresholds at levels that the unions bought off on. (The family one was $25,000. Kerry has been an ally to unions and has always been warmly endorsed by them in MA.

As to whether Kerry has a butler serve him breakfast, I have absolutely no idea. What I do know is that he and Teresa have worked to try to make life better for people without their money. Teresa's foundation is working with Newark and 3 other economically depressed cities funding basic healthcare. Your attacks are pathetic.

I think I answered your idiot, spit filled rant.

[politicasista]

20. Loud **crickets** **crickets**

It is unfortunate that you have to keep posting this over and over; though it does need some reinforcement.

You would think the person would have figured that out by now.

P.S. He/she is a Kucinich, Dean, ABK supporter

[inthebrain]

16. I have a better idea

WHERE did the idea that we should be MANDATED to purchase PRIVATE health insurance come from?

[Cleita]

17. It's a stupid way of making the plan pay for itself because the

conservatives can't stand the thought of having tax funds pay for anything other than war that might benefit a lot of people.

[frazzled]

18. John Kerry

Plus a lot of progressive health economists who have been studying the problem of rising insurance costs for years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/why-this-progressive-is-s_b_414968.html