If the point of taxing "Cadillac" plans is to tax the wealthy, why don't we just tax the wealthy?

[last1standing]

The house is proposing this very thing so why wouldn't we just tax those making over $500k per year like they're suggesting rather than tax good health care plans that are often held by middle class workers?

I've heard the ridiculous idea that somehow weakening these health care plans would raise workers' wages (nice trickle down economics there) but that's been debunked time and again. So why not just cut out the BS and put the tax on those who can best afford it without harming those who can't?

I think this is a simple question that should be answered before pushing for new middle class taxes.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. And how can they claim it will raise wages while also claiming it wont affect workers.

So whose wages are getting raised, again?

[last1standing]

3. These claims are sounding more and more like bush's* WMDs, aren't they?

n/t

[FrenchieCat]

4. Please don't compare this proposed excise tax on high end health care premiums to the insurer

with a war that killed many and that we didn't have to fight.

Please.just.don't.

[last1standing]

5. Many more will die if we continue to fuck with health care like this.

We are being lied to in the very same manner bush* used when lying us into war. I'm not going to give the Democrats free reign to do the same thing with health care.

[FrenchieCat]

7. Hyperbole.

This tax was originally proposed by John Kerry.

This proposed tax would not kill people.

Stop it.

[last1standing]

11. Yes, your post is hyperbole.

And it's not my fault that Kerry is proposing to tax the middle classes when they can least afford it. This tax will be part of an entire new system set up to reward the wealthy while robbing the middle class and pulling us into poverty. That is where death will come from.

So if you don't like what I'm saying, then I suggest you "Stop it" and go spread propaganda elsewhere.

[karynnj]

17. How many middle class people have $23,000 family health care policies

This was originally proposed by Bill Bradley - along with Kerry in 1993.

[dkf]

18. Plus vision plus dental plus employee and employer premiums plus flex plans

It all adds up

[last1standing]

20. Many Union and government workers who negotiated for these plans.

That is why Union leaders are upset right now. And once again, it doesn't matter who proposes it if its the wrong thing to to.

[karynnj]

25. The federal plan is not that high

The federal plan's Blue Cross option with vision and dental care will cost $6,971 for individuals and $16,124 for families in 2010, well below the threshold ($8,500 and $23,000) at which the excise tax, which starts in 2013, would apply.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121704344.html

As to unions, I have yet to see a specific example of one that is.

[last1standing]

27. State, county and local governments don't have the same bargaining power.

And this horrible plan does nothing to change that. Yes, many Union and government workers have these plans. Especially in places with older workers.

[doc03]

32. And guess what it will cost the states more money and

the costs will be passed on to who? I don't know about your state but Ohio is taxed to death already and we are nearly bankrupt.

[last1standing]

34. Employers will just renegotiate with the unions to reduce benefits.

There will be no pay increase or other compensation, just reduced benefits. So all the people who stayed with low paying, high stress jobs because of the need for quality healthcare will be screwed all for the sake of supporting an administration that isn't supporting us.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. Especially for state and city employees

What crack are these people smoking that they think bankrupt states and cities across the US are going to raise wages after they cut health benefits?

[last1standing]

38. This is just one lie in a steady stream of them.

As I've said elsewhere, there is no difference here than when bush* and cheney lied about the reasons to invade Iraq. Whenever one lie was shot down, they'd just produce another and deny they every claimed anything else.

Its becoming very clear that these people don't give a Damn about what happens to us.

[IndianaGreen]

40. They suffer from faith-based politics

They want to believe so badly that everything is fine on the good ship Lollipop, that they can't hear the sound of the surf breaking on the shoals.

[chimpymustgo]

78. "Faith-based politics". Did you coin that? So utterly fitting.

[laughingliberal]

83. True. A lot of teachers who are state workers do have plans like this and I think they work hard for

them.

[liberalmike27]

81. Really, I think they need to add an "Upper" to that middle

Truth is, I'm pretty liberal, but either they need to give people a tax rebate for the taxes of all the money they spend on buying insurance, or people who get insurance as part of their compensation package, should be taxed.

It is only fair. Why should people who purchase their insurance directly, buy it with after tax dollars, when other employer provided plans get their plans tax free, no fed, state, or FICA taxes.

[laughingliberal]

82. It's applied to individual policies of over $8500 per year. A lot of policies cost this much and a

lot more will by the time the bill goes into effect. Nice, throw the older, singles under the bus. Probably quite a few in that bunch who have lost spouses and are now trying to make do with one less income.

[IndianaGreen]

6. Mentioning wars 'that killed many and that we didn't have to fight' opens a Pandora's box

but that's a topic for another thread.

:smoke:

[IndianaGreen]

2. You are missing the point of DLC Trickle Down economics

Stick it to the working class, like they did with NAFTA. What are workers for if not to be exploited by the industrialists?

[truedelphi]

66. When you go on a lot of "interested parties" to the debate and their websites

it is amazing how much the upper class types got to say about the health care "reform" efforts.

Why at one point the Insurance giants were worried that Congress might attempt to have Health And Human Services regulate commissions to the agents.

So guess what, Congress backed off!

Meanwhile 76 percent of the average American types wanted Universal Single Payer Health Care for all, and we were told to go suck a rock!

[stevietheman]

8. Simple: Because employers will naturally seek lower-cost plans and spur competition. n/t

n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

10. Stripping the anti-trust exemption would do a lot more to spur competition. eom

[last1standing]

12. Yep. Trickle down theory in a nutshell.

Give to the wealthy, tax the poor and watch all that competition create lower wages.

Can you give me an example where that's worked in the past?

[stevietheman]

13. Nonsense. It's just simple econ. n/t

n/t

[last1standing]

15. The simplest. So simple bush* could understand and implement it.

What's the excuse now?

[stevietheman]

16. Obviously you are being argumentative. Bubye. n/t

n/t

[last1standing]

21. I'll miss you.

n/t

[Smashcut]

19. In other words, it incentivizes employers looking for ways to give their employees LESS.

Awesome. :eyes:

[stray cat]

9. Its not

its to cut down on plans they give generous service to force people to pay more for procedures in hopes that they will take notice and have fewer un-needed procedures done. You can agree or disagree with the hypothesis - but make sure you understand the goal

[last1standing]

14. So the government is trying to decide what is, and isn't, necessary medical care?

If you fall for that line then you and Sarah Palin have something in common.

[proud patriot]

22. k and r

[LooseWilly]

23. I think I heard something that I suspected meant something along these lines...

Ok, that was a long disclaimer to say I'm not sure what the hell I'm talking about... so odds are at least 50/50 that I'm talking out of my ass.

That said... I get the impression that there are advisors suggesting to Obama that taxing these "high end"/"cadillac" plans are meant to be a form of attrition to eventually destroy all such plans. Like onerous taxes on cigarettes (which seem to be the only funding source for children's health care these days) are meant to create hardship on smokers in order to make the stop smoking. Likewise, the point seems to be to make "high end health care insurance" go the way of the smoker (i.e. extinction)... in order to bring down costs to the government.

Now, this is the part of the rumors that I've heard that I still haven't made sense out of yet. The suggestion seems to be that somehow these plans cost the system, and thereby cost the government. But I still can't figure out how. Maybe they're working with numbers that take into account something abstract like "costs to the economy" (or GDP, or in terms of percentage of GDP, or something)... and eliminating the "cadillac" health care plans will reduce these overall systemic numbers... in which case this would be something like the Reagan solution to balanced diets for school kids: classify ketchup as a vegetable, then a hamburger is a balanced meal.

Or ... maybe it really is just a matter of studies showing that if you have complete and thorough coverage, you might go and see a doctor... and if too many people are doing that, it's liable to put a strain on the profitability of the health care providers, so that sort of behavior is to be discouraged... and as a plus: it'll look like "tough love" on the unions that had the gall to hold out until their betters, err, I mean employers, agreed to provide truly beneficial benefits.

Anyway... some points to keep an eye on. Some information might slip past the filters. I wouldn't hold my breath for a sensical explanation to come out of the White House Press Room...
:+

[last1standing]

29. There are posters here at DU making those exact same points and praising them.

They're calling it an equalization of healthcare. I call it a race to the bottom.

[LooseWilly]

47. Well... equalization is effected only once the Least Common Denominator Conversion has taken place..

Ok, that's 'spurious math'... and I'm full of shit. Except that it's a 'spurious' & accurate way to think on it. I'm not personally opposed to "equalization" of healthcare... except that A) I thought "pragmatic Democrats" were afraid of positioning themselves in alignment/agreement with "socialism"... and B) people don't have "equal" needs.

I mean... I'd be happy to force CEOs and Boardmembers around the country to share in the same health insurance plan I have (it's called "nothing", and it's available everywhere... even in Somalia). I'm fully aware, however, that many unions have given up pay increases (pathetic pay increases often times, but increases) in order to secure and defend the health care benefits that they enjoy... for the Obama adnimistration to accede to the Senate's choice of taxing those plans (hmm... anti-union legislation from so august and liberal a body as the US Senate?? Inconceivable!!)... nay, pressure the House to accept them too... is... offensive to the blue collar on a number of my shirts.

(I've been working non-collar... often largely non-English speaking... jobs for years... with only passing contact with the Teamster Local 70 in CA for a while a couple of years ago... I'm losing nothing here... but the idea of hitting the unions as well as the CEOs... with the unions more numerically and per capita hit... is just plain offensive... stupid... like the GLBT community being told to shut up and wait... it's... recurring... WTF??)

And then there's the irony of posters who don't seem to understand the term "corporatist".

I think my scalp is going to start bleeding if I keep scratching my head like this...

[Martin Eden]

24. Too obvious

And it makes too much sense.

[DrToast]

26. Because that's not the point of taxing "Cadillac" plans.*

*

[defendandprotect]

28. Ah . . . common sense . . . !!

[doc03]

30. Gee now there is a good idea n/t

[jgraz]

31. If the point is to provide universal coverage, why not just provide universal coverage?

This fiasco was never about health care and all about fleecing the middle class.

[last1standing]

41. Agreed, yet we never got a seat at the table to even express our views.

But republicans were brought in and offered every possible concession from the start. I'm so glad I donated my time and money, now. Aren't you?

[FiveGoodMen]

80. Exactly.

Our representatives are not on our side.

[doc03]

33. This is amazing a person goes on strike for benefits

or individuals are willing to pay their own money for a better health care plan. Then some politician bought and paid for by the insurance industry determines we shouldn't be entitled to that privilege. This is in effect rationing of my health care. This whole heath care bill has just become a night mare. Why don't they just add some more countries to NAFTA while they are at it. Screw it we may as just well quit working all together.

[boppers]

36. It's a tax on privilidge, not wealth.

Those are two different things.

[last1standing]

39. Yeah, let's tax all those Union and government workers to death!

That'll teach them for all that privilege!

:sarcasm:

[jgraz]

42. Another fucking race to the bottom.

Thanks, President HOPEANDCHANGE! :banghead:

[boppers]

44. Equality = Race to the bottom?

You're arguing FOR certain folks having privilege?

Were you against school bussing, too, because the kids who went to better schools would have to be mixed in with kids from the other side of the tracks?

[jgraz]

No, placing downward pressure on workers' coverage is a race to the bottom

The more you tax "Cadillac" plans, the more incentive there is to reduce coverage. You want to tax the wealthy, just tax the wealthy. Simple.

[last1standing]

46. Cutting healthcare benefits is a race to the bottom.

I'd think even the most starry-eyed propagandist would understand that basic concept.

[boppers]

49. "Cutting CEO stock benefits is a race to the bottom.

I'd think even the most starry-eyed propagandist would understand that basic concept."

yeahbutno.

:evilgrin:

[last1standing]

51. More propaganda, I see.

Yet again, we're not talking about CEOs. If you want to tax them, tax them. Don't tax a health plan that benefits millions of working class families just to nail a couple of CEOs.

[boppers]

54. "Millions of working class families".

You keep repeating that. I wonder why.

Propaganda, indeed.

Lets see some actual numbers of how many working class families have Cadillac plans.

edit:
Hey, look, a number cruncher thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x113799

[last1standing]

56. That thread has been debunked several times over.

Yes, propaganda. Pure, filtered and refined propaganda.

[boppers]

43. Just like the "death tax" hurts family farmers?

What union is providing free cosmetic surgery in their health care plan?

[last1standing]

45. The same one that supported welfare queens in Cadillacs.

Got propaganda much?

[boppers]

48. WHOOOSH!

Okay, I could have been clearer, my point is that "welfare queens", "death-tax farmers", and "Cadillac union plans" are all the same kind of thing.

All three cases are hyperbole used for political purposes, not practical everyday occurrences.

[last1standing]

50. No, they're not the same kind of thing. People in this thread have these plans.

They have surrendered pay increases and other benefits for the security of good health care, health care that does not include plastic surgery or other bullshit propaganda points that you have tried to suggest. These plans are there for people who have need of more coverage due to age, large families, pre-existing conditions, dangerous work environments, etc... But neither you, nor congress, are taking this into consideration.

So WHOOOSH! back at ya. This is serious for millions of working class families, not some fucking game.

[boppers]

53. Costs due to pre-existing conditions?

If only somebody had thought of that... Oh, wait.
Age conditions... Oh, wait.
Dangerous work exemptions... Oh, wait.

So, you don't actually even know what's in the bills, then?

Do you even know what defines a Cadillac plan?

Here's a hint: it has nothing to do with having good health care coverage. It's about spending more than *TWICE* as much on a plan as the ones working families have.

[last1standing]

55. Wrong. Very, incredibly wrong.

You don't get to define the terms of the debate here. That has been done with the proposal by the senate to tax these workers. You can't bring your opinions to the table and call them facts.

[Vattel]

58. why do you believe these plans do not affect "working families"?

The CBO predicts that about 1/5 of job-based plans will be "cadillac" by 2016. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program did a study that suggests a huge percentage of their 8 million workers could be hurt by the tax. They assume a 9% annual rise in premiums based on past performance, and one can hope that HCR will reduce the rate of inflation for healthcare insurance, but it seems reasonable for many Union workers to be concerned.
see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/08/AR2009120804120.html

[boppers]

59. Define "working families"?

It affects the top 19% of plans, using the CBO numbers and projections, so 1/5 (20%) seems like a fair rounding.

Are the top 20% working class families, or are management and bureaucrat families "working families"?

[last1standing]

60. False correlation as I pointed out to you elsewhere.

Why do you think no one will call you out when you purposely try to deceive others?

[boppers]

61. Correlation is not causation....

...but sometimes, correlation shouldn't be ignored, let alone inverted.

Feel free to post actual numbers of how many working class people will be hit. Most of the working class I know doesn't even *have* any insurance, let alone a Cadillac plan.

[last1standing]

62. Then you don't know many working class people. At least not union workers.

I know many with good insurance here in Michigan. In fact, its all they have after taking outrageous pay cuts and losing pensions. Taxing their healthcare is just salt in the wound for these people.

And I'm not here to run numbers for you since others have already done so. People all through DU have said they have these plans. I know many with them. If you still don't accept the facts then anything I do is not going to change your mind. You're hung up on a personality and absolutely refuse to accept that he is wrong on any issue. What more can be said? :shrug:

[boppers]

63. I thought Michigan unions got people *out* of working class?

I know lots of working class and union workers, but most of the working class, union, non-governmental folks (trades) don't have very good coverage, and the union, governmental folks make *far* above anything that could be called working class wages. But I've spent most of my life in "right-to-work" states, with all that entails... pensions are a pipe dream for us, let alone health plans that cover massage and acupuncture :wtf:, as I saw in one thread.

If you have a link to others (or a # in this thread) that covers actual working class numbers, that would be appreciated.

[last1standing]

64. If you don't think line workers and government employees are working class we're done.

There's nothing to talk about because you're just blowing smoke out your ass. These people work fucking hard for what they get and you want to shit on that by saying they're somehow not in the working class? Those people are my friends and family. I know exactly how hard they have it.

Only a complete idiot would make the comment you just did and it shows exactly who you are.

[boppers]

67. $75,000 a year salary to sit in meetings and then delegate tasks to staff.

$135,000 a year salary to sit in meetings and write reports.

Are they working class?

How do you know?

(Both are union friends of mine, working government jobs, FWIW)

If you think that a CEO is working class because "work fucking hard for what they get" is what defines it, then you've totally missed out on what defines working class.

A discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_class

In short (from the summary):
"Working class is a term used in academic sociology and in ordinary conversation to describe those employed in lower tier jobs, as measured by skill, education and compensation. Working classes are mainly found in industrialized economies and in urban areas of non-industrialized economies."

People who actually have decent compensation, therefore, aren't working class.

[last1standing]

68. That post proves you know absolutely nothing about this subject.

n/t

[boppers]

69. You know more than wikipedia!

Cool. You should write books or something about how you are smarter than most of humanity, *combined*.

[last1standing]

70. You do know that Wikepedia is an open format that anyone can add to, right?

No, you probably didn't. Never mind.

[boppers]

71. YOU LIE!

WP:RS

If you don't know what that means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS

I've been an editor for 6 years, 11 months.

You can add anything you want. And then you have to defend it.

[last1standing]

72. YOU'RE AN IDIOT!

If you're an editor for Wikipedia I can understand why every college professor refuses to accept them as a source.

[boppers]

87. If you don't understand the problems of source biased material...

...I'd suggest you attend some college.

Turns out that *all* kinds of knowledge compendiums are biased, in various ways.

Wikipedia seeks to cancel out some bias, by allowing competing bias.

This tends to upset folks who know the "truth".

edit:typo

[olegramps]

93. Because it is open to correction doesn't mean that it is worthless information.

What I have read on Wiki was very informative with extensive documentation.

[Vattel]

79. I see

In post 43 you were denying that any union workers have cadillac plans. Now you want to say that no members of the "working class" have cadillac plans. Look, everyone agrees that the working poor do not have cadillac plans. The worry is that many members of the middle class will be adversely affected. Are those mostly upper-middle class? Presumably yes. Are many of them members of unions? Yes. Is that a worry? Yes.

[boppers]

89. That seems correct-ish.

When I think of Unions, I often forget that there are "unions" for people making $200K+ a year, with managerial duties.

I am not worried about protecting the rich, even if they are unionized to stay rich.

[shopgreen]

37. Obama's vow not to raise taxes-not one dime-is a FAIL.

[msallied]

52. No, your interpretation of his vow is.

[shopgreen]

76. If the person makes less than 250 T, then it is indeed a tax which

Pres Obama said he would not do.
Have a nice day.

[boppers]

57. So, if he increased taxes on Yachts, you'd assume a FAIL?

How about taxes on gas guzzlers?

[shopgreen]

74. I believe he said not to raise taxes on those who make less than 250 thousand. Right?

[uponit7771]

73. Obama did not vow NOT to raise taxes on the rich, your not paying attention is fail

[shopgreen]

75. Ok, he said he would not raise taxes-not one dime on those who

made less than 250 thousand.

[truedelphi]

65. The Powers that Be love, simply love, to split Americans

against one another

So in that sense, it makes a lot more people angry that they are being taxed over someone else's health care rather than just being taxed for being rich.

[harun]

77. Because it is sacrilege for the Senate to do anything that is anti-rich people.

[TheKentuckian]

84. I still see no case on why the simple path of just taxing the wealthy

like the House calls for is an inferior path to taxing the wealthy than a race to the bottom scam to steal value from American workers a few at a time until we all live in the health care ghetto?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

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

[Imajika]

86. The idea is to drive down consumption..

This is supposedly "bending the cost curve down".

And yeah, it is utterly stupid and will do amazing damage to Democratic Party for many years to come.

Unbelievably stupid on the part of the President to go along with this.

[marshall]

88. Wealth is relative

Those of us with health insurance are "wealthy" compared to those who can't afford it or have preexisting conditions barring them from getting it.

[Vidar]

90. K&R.

[olegramps]

91. Its real simple. The vast majority of the members of congress are wealthy.

Now just why would you expect them to want to pay higher taxes? The situation will not improve until all federal elections are publicly financed and term limits imposed. Too bad the Father's of our nation didn't foresee professional lifetime politicians being able to seize control of the nation. An analogous situation exists in corporations. Members of the board sit on several boards and award each other a fortune in compensation even though the company's stockholders who they are supposed to protect lost millions. The situation in both business and government is totally out of control and will require massive reforms before the situation can be corrected. Don't hold your breath.

[AzDar]

92. K & R