AP sources: Obama OKs taxing high-end health plans

Drudge Report ^ | 12/06/2010 | ERICA WERNER

[Beave Meister]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.

In a meeting at the White House, Obama expressed his preference for the insurance tax contained in the Senate's health overhaul bill, but largely opposed by House Democrats and organized labor, Democratic aides said. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.

[REPANDPROUDOFIT]

I will never believe that Obama is simply telling the unions to take a hike. There is something, somewhere that repays the union members for there "expenses". It begins with the $10 billion that is in the health care bill - it goes to early retirees to help pay for their gold-plated plans.

I am willing to bet that we won't hear any union chiefs out there screaming bloody murder over the supposed backstabbing. They've been paid off somehow.

Second thing I find interesting - why aren't some of these so-called journalists curious enough to ask why UAW members even have a Cadillac plan? The UAW is on life support funded by you and me - our tax dollars at work. Yet, their members continue to enjoy "Cadillac" insurance plans - plans that are affective FOR LIFE (no Medicare at 65 for them and their dependents), plans that cover vision, hearing and dental FOR LIFE (boy, would I love to have that in my old age).

Does it not occur to anyone to ask if maybe they should go on a less expensive plan? You know, since taxpayers pay for it, wouldn't it make sense for them to go on a plan that looks more like what the average taxpayer gets?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

$8000 per individual seems a bit high in either case.

I'm beginning to think that "premium" means the total cost of the plan. I don't think folks with employer-assisted health insurance have any idea how much the employer pays.

Suppose the employer pays 3/4 of the total cost (the employer's contribution could include paying for the deductible), and the employee pays $800 per month for medical + dental for a family of 6. That employee, who is not even aware (yet) of the employer's $2400 contribution per month, would get a nasty surprise from TurboTax of an extra $3800 in taxes.

Since we saw what happened with Nebraska, Louisiana, and Florida, I would not be surprised if, free from the intrusive CSPAN cameras, at this moment union reps are demanding an exemption for union health plans.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Remember that it’s not what you pay, it’s what you and your employer pay. Many people receive “Cadillac health plans” or “high end” health plans and have no idea that they do because their employers don’t tell them what the benefit truly costs, just what their (the employees) portion of the premium is (usually about 1/3 of the total in most large companies and usually never more than half even in smaller companies).

Right, my insurance booklet says "You pay:" but has nothing about what the real cost of the plan is.

Many (not at all limited to union members) have worked decades to get the health plan they on now, and have no idea what the employer pays.

You will pay tax on all of it, not just your portion as well - keep that in mind!

You mean tax on the amount it goes over the "cadillac thresholds" of 8K/23K, right?

[rwfromkansas]

The taxes are one of the most unpopular parts of the plain in polls.

This would really be a problem for Dems if the GOP played it right in 2010.

[RC one]

Do you here that? That’s the sound of a house dividing.

[IVoted4GHWB]

I just wanted to point out that diatribes like the ones you post here will do nothing to woo independents. Comparing Obama to Mao, Stalin, and Hitler only serves to drive away people who are not convinced by the kind of hyperbole you are exhibiting here.

I want to see the GOP rise again as the political powerhouse it once was (except this time focused on fiscal conservatism) and in order for that to happen, conservatives are going to have to stop yelling “fascism” and “socialism,” and “totalitarianism” every time they turn around. If we want our once great party to return to its rightful place at the top of the political food chain, people like you are going to need to talk about real issues, not scream hyperbolic nonsense all over the place.

[Bronzy]

If we had catastrophic plans without co-pay and used non-tax dollars from a healthcare savings account, costs would come down. Pay for doctor visits and medications up to a certain amount. After that, pay a percentage of the costs. Ah, but we won't be permitted a healthy tax free HSA over $2500 I hear.

[KansasGirl]

[a neighbor’s daughter gets a cold sore on her lip about once per year and the med she uses is Valtrex or similar. She is 25 years old and was rejected outright by Blue Cross of CA due to the expensive ointment. RIDICULOUS.]

Why doesn’t she use Abreva? It costs about $20 OTC.

[jurroppi1]

I believe that it will be on the benefit as a whole (the whole amount). The threshold is simply a price point at which they determine you have too good of a benefit available to you, you can afford it, so therefore you must be a plebe that we can attach a tax on and put some of your skin in the game. That's my understanding of it, but I could be wrong. I'd love to see a clearinghouse of information on this topic with information broken down on each nuance of the subject so it was easy to digest and understand. Maybe one exists, but I don't know of it. I'd also like anyone that reads this thread to provide info if they have it - it would be a great service to all of us who are confused about the subject!

There are some other good threads on the implications of this here on FR. I hear tell that the insurance provider will be taxed (not the individual), so I really don't know what to believe anymore. Suffice it so say, the consumer will ultimately pay the price in either higher premiums or decreased coverage so that the provider doesn't pay for it (this is standard business practice everywhere). The taxes are passed on to the consumer as it is a cost of doing business and providing a product, so it gets tacked on to the cost of the product, thus costing the consumer more. This makes perfect sense and I don't see why any businessperson in a field that has a 2% profit margin (from what I've heard anyway) would see it any other way - it would be insanity for the business to just absorb a cost that will cause them to go bankrupt... They will adjust!

Try post #9 on the Obama Lies Health Plan Tax Only for Rich, but Middle Class is Real Victim of Tax Raise thread.

35% on premiums over 8K for individuals and 21K for family plans, but the rub is I don't see a statement about the tax being on the amount over the threshold or it being on the whole plan. When it comes to politicians and their taxes, I assume the worst. Perhaps I need to read further at the link provided above...

[jurroppi1]

I just re-read the NYT piece. they claim the excise tax is on the excess amount (the portion that is over the threshold). It appears your understanding of the tax is correct on that part.

Sorry for the confusion.

[massgopguy]

A High End Health Plan will end up being any employer provided health plan. Tufts, Harvard Pilgrim, Blue Cross.
We are all Kulaks now.

[DoughtyOne]

I believe that’s at least part of it.

[Republic]

THIS IS ALL SO WRONG! SO VERY VERY WRONG!

[DoughtyOne]

Wouldn’t doubt it.

[VRWCTexan]

http://bennelson.senate.gov/press/press_releases/010710-01.cfm

NELSON: HEALTH REFORM WILL TREAT ALL STATES EQUALLY ON MEDICAID EXPANSION

January 7, 2010 – Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson said he’s working with Senate leaders and others to change the pending health reform legislation to treat all states the same concerning its unfunded federal mandate on states for expanding Medicaid.

“As a former governor, I’ve long fought against unfunded federal mandates, which force Washington rules on states with little or no money to pay for them,” said Senator Nelson. The current health care bill has an unfunded mandate for expanding Medicaid. While helping more Americans obtain health coverage is important, this mandate could burden state budgets in uncertain economic times ahead.

“I’ve been in serious discussions with Senate leaders and others to secure changes in the bill to treat all states equally,” Nelson added. “At the end of the day, whatever Nebraska gets will apply to all states.”

Among options Nelson has discussed would be for the House and Senate conference committee to change the legislation to provide full federal funding of the Medicaid costs for all states, or allow every state the ability to opt out of the expense they’ll begin to pay in 2017.

“My view is: either fund it or un-mandate it,” Senator Nelson said.

The Senate-passed health reform provides full federal funding for expanding Medicaid to 2017. Then, states will be required to pick up a share of the costs. In mid-December, Nelson had sought in negotiations with Senate leaders for all states to be allowed to opt out of paying the expense for the program beginning in 2017.

In the absence of a fiscal analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, Senate leaders added a provision exempting Nebraska from paying the additional funds as a result of the bill.

Nelson said that was a placeholder that now enables the House and Senate conference to address the unfunded mandate issue and work out fair and equal treatment for every state on paying the costs of the Medicaid expansion.

“My intent has been and remains absolutely clear,” Nelson said. “Every state should be, and will be, treated the same.”

[prairiebreeze]

We pay slightly more than that. I expect our premiums to go up in March. We were just forced onto BC as Unicare is cancelling doing business in TX and IL.

Our insurance broker says the industry is expecting premiums to double if not triple.

[prairiebreeze]

And just WHERE does he think the money comes from for congress to fund anything??

Nelson is a worm and a whore.

[prairiebreeze]

A High End Health Plan will end up being any employer provided health plan

I think you're right. And just TRY going through underwriting for private coverage if you've had ANYTHING go on with you medically.

A physician I know found out she'd have to get her own insurance as the practice she's at wasn't going to offer it any more. She had some uterine fibroids take care of before the benefit was canceled.

WORST thing she could do, she had a heck of a time getting an individual plan without pre-existing condition riders etc.

Our insurance broker got her covered but she was lucky.

[Oceander]

Two words:

Bee, and Ess

Now, if we want to have a discussion on the matter, let’s start with this: define what a “independent” is, or for that matter, a “moderate.”

[IVoted4GHWB]

Independents (or moderates) are the people who elect officials. They are the ones who sit in the middle of the political spectrum and are swayed by the arguments that politicians and pundits make leading up to an election. If you look at statistics, you will find that a roughly equal perrcentage of Americans self-identify as Republican and Democrat, approximately 25% each. There are about 5% each on the far left (Green Party) and the far right (Libertarian Party), leaving about 40% of the electorate in the middle and those are the people that actually elect the President (House districts are different because of gerrymandering and Senate seats are more based on whether it is a red state or a blue state).

Hyperbolic language, including the example you posted, does not sway the people in the middle and those are the people that elect the President.