Herbert: Tax on "Cadillac plans" being sold "as something that will affect only the rich"

[mcablue]

In fact, it’s a tax that in a few years will hammer millions of middle-class policyholders, forcing them to scale back their access to medical care. Which is exactly what the tax is designed to do. . . .

Within three years of its implementation, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the tax would apply to nearly 20 percent of all workers with employer-provided health coverage in the country, affecting some 31 million people. Within six years, according to Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the tax would reach a fifth of all households earning between $50,000 and $75,000 annually. Those families can hardly be considered very wealthy. . . .

The idea is that rather than fork over 40 percent in taxes on the amount by which policies exceed the threshold, employers (and individuals who purchase health insurance on their own) will have little choice but to ratchet down the quality of their health plans. . . . These lower-value plans would have higher out-of-pocket costs, thus increasing the very things that are so maddening to so many policyholders right now: higher and higher co-payments, soaring deductibles and so forth. . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

[SoCalDem]

1. It's necessary to kill of the rest of the unions

Without the good health plans, unions will have even less clout..and the "right-to-fire-you-for-any-reason" states will love it.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Here's the skinny from Kaiser on how the excise tax would work in the Senate bill

Here's the skinny from Kaiser:

The Senate leadership bill

Impose an excise tax on insurers of employer-sponsored health plans with aggregate values that exceed $8,500 for individual coverage and $23,000 for family coverage (these threshold values will be indexed to the consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U) plus one percentage point). The threshold amounts will be increased for retired individuals age 55 and older who are not eligible for Medicare and for employees engaged in high-risk professions by $1,350 for individual coverage and $3,000 for family coverage. In the 17 states with the highest health care costs, the threshold amount is increased by 20% initially; this increase is subsequently reduced by half each year until it is phased out in 2015. The tax is equal to 40% of the value of the plan that exceeds the threshold amounts and is imposed on the issuer of the health insurance policy, which in the case of a self-insured plan is the plan administrator or, in some cases, the employer. The aggregate value of the health insurance plan includes reimbursements under a flexible spending account for medical expenses (health FSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), employer contributions to a health savings account (HSA), and coverage for dental, vision, and other supplementary health insurance coverage. (Effective January 1, 2013)

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

[chimpymustgo]

4. "...have the courage to be straight...with the American people." (who's the ASSHOLE who unrec'ed?)

-edit-

The tax on health benefits is being sold to the public dishonestly as something that will affect only the rich, and it makes a mockery of President Obama’s repeated pledge that if you like the health coverage you have now, you can keep it.

Those who believe this is a good idea should at least have the courage to be straight about it with the American people.

-edit-

[flpoljunkie]

5. Not taxing benefits has the effect of increasing the cost of insurance plans. That's a fact.

Our system is not fair to those who do not get their health insurance through their employers.

It was not I who unrecommended this post. These cowards tend to 'unrecommend and run.'

[flpoljunkie]

3. How is it fair that employer provided insurance is totally shielded from income tax--

while those who must buy insurance themselves receive no such benefit? The answer is it's not at all equitable.

[D-Lee]

7. Taxpayers who itemize can deduct the premiums, which helps a bit ... nt

[levander]

10. Even with itemization...

Why should I have to subsidize someone else's extravagant health insurance plan? I don't care if they make $50K or if they make $2M. Why should they get a tax break I don't get? Is there some national effort to encourage expensive health care policies?

All tax breaks for insurance should just be based on income. The more you need to buy a standard, average health care plan, the more you get. But, if you or your company wants to run out and buy some luxury health care plan, why should you get more of a tax break because of that? That's essentially me subsidizing your health care. You should be paying taxes on all that income you're spending on health insurance, just like normal.

[SpartanDem]

11. Shhh you're using facts

you should resining yourself to the that you support the excise tax you must be DLC, union hating sellout.

[LiberalFighter]

6. They need to revise the definition of a Cadillac plan.

What is really needed is that all employers provide health insurance.

All the more reason for single payer which would make it easier and more affordable for employers or their employees to have it.

[chimpymustgo]

8. "All the more reason for single payer...".

[donheld]

9. Is this the cadillac they are refering to?

[Iwillnevergiveup]

12. No, but at least

the back seat might make a nice nest for opossums.:hi: