 |
To be added or removed from the "The Wall Street Journal" Ping List, FReepmail GOP_Lady. |
Posted on 01/14/2010 6:14:49 PM PST by GOP_Lady
Unions and Democratic negotiators agreed Thursday to scale back a proposed tax on high-end health-insurance plans in the health bill, in part by adding a provision exempting collectively bargained contracts from the tax through Jan. 1, 2018.
The tax was included in the Senate's version of the bill but not the House plan, and has been one of the main unresolved issues as Democrats work to combine measures passed by the two chambers late last year.
Union leaders, as well as many House Democrats, are fiercely opposed to the tax on "Cadillac" insurance plans, which they say will hit many middle-class workers and undermine benefits won by unions.
President Barack Obama has supported the measure as a way both to pay for the legislation and to control overall health-care spending.
The changes mean that the tax will raise about $90 billion over 10 years, down from nearly $150 billion in the Senate bill, labor officials said.
To make up for the lost revenue—and to increase subsidies for lower earners to buy health insurance—negotiators are considering increasing the financial hit on drug makers, nursing homes and medical-device makers, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Democrats are considering levying an additional $10 billion in fees on medical-device makers, for a total of $30 billion over 10 years, according to people familiar with the matter. Both the House and Senate bills called for about $20 billion in new fees for the industry.
Congressional negotiators have also told drug makers they are considering decreasing reimbursements or increasing fees by an additional $10 billion over a decade, beyond the $80 billion in concessions the industry agreed to under a deal last year with the White House and the Senate Finance Committee, according to people familiar with the negotiations.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
To make up for the lost revenue—and to increase subsidies for lower earners to buy health insurance—negotiators are considering increasing the financial hit on drug makers, nursing homes and medical-device makers, according to people familiar with the discussions.
Thus hitting MA hard...Go with it Scott Brown.
Wait till the unions meet the death panels.
This sort of in-your-face pandering will backfire in a big way, just like it did for Ben Nelson in Nebraska.
You can get some sharp Philadelphia lawyer is going to take this issue to court under the “equal protection” provisions.
This singling out of certain segments of society to be exempt from taxes is totally unconstitutional!
Sounds like grounds for a lawsuit up to the SCOTUS. You base your income taxes on someone’s income. One cannot make exemptions for a certain class of people. Example if I earn 110 000 a year my tax rate should not be different from a union worker earning 110 000 a year, or a teacher, etc, etc (unless adjusted for standard and allowable exemptions that also is available to me if I qualify).
>> Wait till the unions meet the death panels.
At this rate, “death panels” for unions could turn out to be angry mobs armed with machetes and baseball bats.
All unions? Just union employees?
Talk about raping the country!
I would rather see them ramp up the level of corruption in the “Health” bill, which is what they’re doing. I don’t think anyone other than a parasite can watch this and not be sickened. Obama and Pelosi may already have created enough anger to set a record for lost seats in Congress, and it looks like they’re trying for more.
do I really have to say it???
Wondering if this would be in violation of fed labor laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.