The possible tax is not on high benefit health insurance,

[hedgehog]

it's on high cost insurance.

"Union leaders told reporters on a conference call that the tentative agreement would raise the threshold on insurance policies subject to tax from $8,500 in the Senate-passed bill to $8,900 for singles and from $23,000 to $24,000 for family coverage. Even the new thresholds would be subject to adjustment if unexpected rises in health care occur by the time the plan is effective."

http://kdka.com/politics/health.care.white.2.1426849.html

My husband's employer purchased a plan from Blue Cross for a total of $18,300 a year ($14,300 from them, $4000 from us)

For this, my family gets: partial dental coverage (No one around here charges the fair and usual fees!), full hospitalization, partial drug payments, full labs, full medical equipment.

What does this mean?

Here are samples of my costs:
Quarterly visits to primary care physician for chronic illnesses: $15 a crack.
Visits to specialists (including a psychiatrist): $20 a crack
My husband's cancer treatment, including surgery and hospitalization: Maybe $100 for 5 office visits at $20 each
My sleep tests and Cpap machine: $80 for 4 office visits
Prescriptions can run from $1.20 to $70 a month, each. There is a push to generics, but if I'm willing to pay a higher co-pay, I get the name brand.

Under the plan as it stands today, this policy would not be taxed.

My husband's employer used to buy from Aetna; Aetna raised its rates and the employer went out and got bids on a matching plan.

[Captain Hilts]

1. People who live on the coasts, or are women, or are older will be unfairly hit by this tax. nt

[hedgehog]

2. I think it might be a back door way to force insurance company profits down.

[Captain Hilts]

5. Get rid of their anti-trust exemption. Create price competition. nt

[Recursion]

8. Ding ding ding

It's price controls by another name.

[Captain Hilts]

9. Introduce competition into what is now a captive market. This hurts specific

population groups.

Done in percentages...HCexecs can just raise prices.

Healthcare costs much more in DC than in Virginia Beach, for example. I deal with both. It's not fair to tax DC people more than those in Va. Beach. Women, generally, have more expensive plans.

[Recursion]

10. I didn't say it was the optimum price control method

It's an attempt to keep premiums under that level

[amborin]

11. it's a way to force folks to opt for worse, but cheaper, coverage;

[LiberalFighter]

12. IMO this backdoor won't work. At least for those groups that can't shop around.

And have the numbers behind them that will get them the good deal like medium to large employers.

[Schema Thing]

3. no one group will be "hit" by this tax

there is nothing about it that would make a company raise rates on a specific group.


They *might* decide to raise rates overall, but they are at least finally limited in their ability to do that.



And if there is less difference between the *coverage* of some people vs other people, well, that is as it should be, is it not?


In fact all Americans SHOULD have the exact same health care.

Since that's not gonna happen anytime soon, anything that works to flatten and equalize is a good thing.

[Captain Hilts]

4. If it's based on dollar values, it will hit harder those who live in expensive areas. nt

[Schema Thing]

6. why?

why would it hit any one group more than others? Companies don't categorize money (except for information purposes).


In fact, they'll spread it around and make the entire group carry the burden more equally. Maybe massage the benefits a little (but not too much, if they want to sell any "upscale" products at all).


fortunately, the law makes them only sell insurance products that have real value.


It makes the difference between the 15K Target worker's insurance, and the 150K Target executive's insurance lessen, if only a little. That is a good thing.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Healthcare in NY, DC, NJ, CA costs a LOT more than HC in WVA, KS, etc. nt

[Honeycombe8]

13. This is talking about employer provided ins. Not many people get group policy coverage...

that costs over $8,900 a year for an individual.

Also...in group policies, all employees are charged the same rate, regardless of gender or race or ethnicity or age.

So I don't think that in this case, it would hit the older workers or women harder.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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