For Democrats, Cracks in a United Front (Union health benefits will not be taxed)

New York Times ^ | September 25, 2009 | Jackie Calmes

[reaganaut1]

Over four days and three late nights of meetings, Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have largely stood up to Republicans’ attacks on a proposal to overhaul the health care system.

But behind the scenes and away from the C-Span cameras, their united front has given way to intraparty tensions, not just in the committee but in Congress generally.

...

Senate Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority of 60 lawmakers. But a number of them are centrists, and the party cannot afford many defections, given Republicans’ nearly unanimous opposition. Further, seeking a semblance of bipartisanship, the White House still wants Ms. Snowe’s vote.

Yet unions, whose efforts were vital to the election of Mr. Obama and many Congressional Democrats, counter by saying the Baucus bill is too objectionable to let it slide. Not only does it lack a public option, it would not mandate that employers provide insurance to their workers or else contribute toward subsidies that would help the uninsured buy coverage.

But labor’s main complaint is Mr. Baucus’s proposal to tax insurance companies for their most generous policies, as a way to raise revenue and to discourage wasteful health care spending. Labor says insurers would pass on their tax costs in higher premiums, not just for corporate executives but also for unionized workers with rich health benefits.

Under Mr. Baucus’s plan, the tax would apply to family policies worth more than $21,000 a year. The typical employer-provided family plan costs roughly $13,000, but packages for some unionized workers can run much higher. Democrats are discussing raising the threshold, and the White House has privately assured labor that union benefits will not be affected.

[Diogenesis]

[Mouton]

Raise the threshold high enough and there is no tax...see OZero is right again, no tax in this legislation. Guy is a miracle worker.

[dforest]

tick...tick...tick.....

[mo]

The “net-net” of any bill these fools-Democrat or Republican-is that they are trying to craft a bill allowing a massive “tax-increase”-which will be coupled to a “healthcare benefit”-the majority of which will be “retained” by the Feds in any form of rationing they can politically craft and sell.

[EGPWS]

...the White House still wants Ms. Snowe’s vote.

The village idiot thinks big, doesn't he?

Why doesn't he truly take the bull by the horns and go after votes tougher to achieve, like say....Al Franken?...Turbin Durbin?

[MNJohnnie]

The “net-net” of any bill these fools-Democrat or Republican-”

Factually incorrect. Try actually reading the GOP plan rather then spew disinformation.

http://www.gop.gov/

[Former War Criminal]

I have to respectfully agree with mo on this one.

We do not need any politicians designing a healthcare bill for us.

Wasn’t Medicare disastrous enough?

[randita]

Democrats are discussing raising the threshold, and the White House has privately assured labor that union benefits will not be affected.

Someone please explain how legally they could get away with this? Union benefits are the best around, yet they're off the hook? My blood boils.

[Boiling Pots]

All they have to do is insert a line in the legislation that says “workers benefits under a collective bargaining agreement are not subject to...”

[HighlyOpinionated]

Democrats are discussing raising the threshold, and the White House has privately assured labor that union benefits will not be affected.

This MUST be advertised and we need Senators and Representatives to submit amendments covering EVERYONE . . . From the President, to Congress, to Justices, to ALL Federal Employees . . . in 0bamaCare . . . or else it must be discarded and Tort Reform and InterState Health Insurance Companies be initiated.

[neverdem]

They need high deductible, catastrophic coverage. Routine care must be out of pocket. Third party payers completely distorted the cost of medical care.

[3catsanadog]

I knew that would happen - the unions would be exempt. I am not surprised.

Pi$$ed as heck, but not surprised.

[3catsanadog]

What? Do they think if they get Snowe on their side but no other Republicans, they can say it was a bipartisan vote?

These nincompoops aren't even trying to hide their lying anymore.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

bttt

[Typical_Whitey]

OOOHHH see you let the real intentions be known. LOL.... off to the gualg with you...

[EGPWS]

Join a union, kiss butt, follow, NEVER LEAD, and get free health care.

If Obama isn't anti-American way, he IS at least a God because those who support him are mindless followers.

You are what people think you are...

[Tzimisce]

But a number of them are centrists, and the party cannot afford many defections, given Republicans’ nearly unanimous opposition.

I sense that suddenly, being a "big tent" party is going to go out of style...

[concerned about politics]

?We do not need any politicians designing a healthcare bill for us.

No, we don't. Just pass tort reform and allow interstate commerce, and we're all set. We don't need any more government involvement in our affairs. We need less. Much less.

If the poor WANT death care, let them cut out one of their other useless social programs to pay for it. Their WANTS are not our concern.

[PghBaldy]

How taxing some people more than others, just because some are in a union or not, is constitutional, I don’t know.