Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 04:18pm PT
|
Except who bears the cost of that tax, which has everything to do with the legislation, and also answers LEB's question as to why the unions are so dead-set against the "Cadillac Tax" the Senate enacted.
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 05:22pm PT
|
Having learned last time not to offer a fact based post from a government
source, as that could be contrued as offering information that might have
an "agenda" to deliberatly decieve the reading public, this time I have
selected what I hope will be viewed as a non-biased source.
The problem now of course is that The Slate is an online magazine that
while started years ago by Michael Kinsley, an admitted Democrat, is no
longer owned by him. I do not know who or what political persuasion the
current owners of Slate are, so I can only encourage reading the bill
one's own self, or cross checking from other mulitiple sources if the
facts are doubted.
Oh, no, I am not an educator, I am the President and majority shareholder
of Risk Managment Corporation. I have, however, taught personal finance
classes along with both micro,and macro economics.
Do I have a "Cadillac Plan"?
An Explainer health care FAQ.
By Christopher Beam
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2009, at 6:23 PM ET
The Senate finance committee passed its version of health care reform legislation Tuesday with a 14-9 vote. The bill would expand coverage without increasing the deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office, in part by taxing the most expensive health insurance plans, or so-called "Cadillac plans."
How do I know if my insurance plan is a "Cadillac plan"? Look at the cost. The finance committee defines high-cost or "Cadillac" as any plan with premiums higher than $8,000 for individuals or $21,000 for families. Keep in mind that these figures include everything you and your employer spend on health care except for the deductible: premiums for medical (the portions paid by you and by your employer), dental, and vision coverage, as well as any money you put into a flexible spending account, which allows you to set aside pretax money to cover medical costs. Since your pay stub may show only your personal contribution—not that of your employer—the best way to find out the total cost of your plan is to ask your human resources liaison. Many companies already list their employees' total premiums on their W-2 tax forms. The bill passed by the finance committee would make that mandatory.
What does a "Cadillac plan" offer? The top-of-the-line plans—say, the $40,000-a-year plan offered to Goldman Sachs CEOs—likely have no copayments, no deductibles, few limits on how much you can spend, and no need for prior authorization, i.e., to get special permission before you get treated.
But many not-so-fancy plans also qualify as "Cadillacs" under the finance committee's definition. That's because the term refers to total cost—not a particular set of benefits—and many factors—like the state you live in, the size of your company, and the makeup of that company's work force—can affect costs. Premiums tend to be significantly higher in Massachusetts than in Idaho, for example. (The employer/employee contribution also varies by state.) The smaller the business, the fewer employees who go into the pool, the less leverage the organization has to negotiate lower premiums. And if the workers have an average age of, say, 54, their premiums are going to be a lot higher than if the average is 25.
A lot of basic benefits packages, then, can still qualify as "Cadillacs." (The Senate finance committee has made exceptions for workers with high-risk jobs like firefighters, whose premiums tend to be high.) The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the tax would hit 14 percent of family health policies and 19 percent of individual policies in 2013, when the legislation would take effect. Those numbers would rise to 37 percent and 41 percent, respectively, by 2019, since premiums are expected to rise faster than inflation.
If I have a "Cadillac plan," will I have to pay the proposed tax myself? No. The 40 percent tax will be charged directly to the insurer. That is, the insurance company has to pay 40 cents on every dollar spent above the $8,000 or $21,000 cutoff. Some portion of that tax, however, is likely to get passed onto the consumer.
When did we start calling them "Cadillac plans," anyway? Ever since its introduction in 1902, the Cadillac has been synonymous with American luxury. But the health care metaphor appears to have taken root sometime in the 1970s. In 1977, a hospital administrator in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, complained that "every citizen demands Cadillac health care service and is not concerned about the Cadillac costs because in most instances the patient doesn't pay this cost personally." In 1986, an official with the Alabama Medicaid Agency noted that "Alabama has a Volkswagen type Medicaid program compared to the Cadillac or Rolls Royce programs found in other states." The term was used a lot in the early '90s during the push for universal health care. It then made a comeback in 2007, when President Bush proposed taxing health care benefits, and again during the 2008 election, when John McCain made the proposal a cornerstone of his health care plan. http://www.slate.com/id/2232434/
Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.
Explainer thanks Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute, Elizabeth McGlynn of the RAND Corp., and Edwin Park of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2010 - 05:47pm PT
|
Lois, I have no idea how you ever got that idea.
The only high school teacher I am aware of posting here is bookworm.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 04:33pm PT
|
I suppose everybody has their 'button pushed' by politicians who seem to serve at the will of one special interest group or another. Not to say that labor unions are squeaky clean, but assuming Obama is strongly influenced by labor (arguable, I'm sure), somehow that bothers me a whole lot less than the previous POTUS's subservience to the military industrial complex, the oil industry, and those with incomes in the upper 1 percentile.
To each his own. Lois's button is the labor unions. Whatever.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 04:42pm PT
|
"He talked up all this sh#t and he is as sleazy as the next, if not more so. Sleazy!"
What, you just suddenly realized that politicians serve special interests? That's a newsflash for you? Are you really that naive or idealistic that you are surprised by such a thing?
Or, as I noted above, is this just your 'hot button'?
Every POTUS, Senator, and public leader is beholding to one special interest group or another. Don't like it? Good luck changing it. For now, all we get to do is pick the least toxic choice. As I mentioned, assuming Obama really is making those kinds of clearly biased questions (pardon me if I don't trust yours & your husbands judgement on this one), they seem a lot less egregious to me than serving special interests that wind up getting people maimed & killed.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 06:14pm PT
|
"I don't totally blame President Obama, he inherited huge problems that had been created years before, by the Fed, regulators, congress, Bush, Clinton and the courts. But, so far he's taken only the wrong solutions, just wait for Fattrad/Walling.
The evil one"
Wow! That's one for the records- a Repub acknowledging to any degree that the Krap® that Obama has been dealing with is not of his own creation. Keep working at it, fattrad...as soon as you can explain where you would fund that 'free minimal care', you'll be on to something.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 06:17pm PT
|
"He accused the previous administration of being corrupt (promising, all the while he will be different) and then he does the very same thing."
Holy shite! I can't think of a single politician who has ever done such a thing!
Wait......no, actually I can think of a politician who didn't follow through on all of their campaign promises. Yes....now that I think about it....
They all do.
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 06:46pm PT
|
whoever ressurected this thread should be shot. not bumpworthy. at all.
take it to a PM!
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 07:05pm PT
|
your semi-pornographic ones
I was lurking
stalker! run! run!!!
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 09:02pm PT
|
they DO spend money because they have it to spend and a portion of it trickles down
1982 like "whoa!"
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 09:15pm PT
|
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 09:31pm PT
|
he's got a doctorate of craggology. noted for solving the "fry" problem, yo.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 09:34pm PT
|
The rich don't spend much more than you or me
Tell that to people who make a good living building expensive homes, small planes, Lexus-Infinity-MBZ, boats. How about the folks that get by running heli-ski deals, or many top climbing guides. How about the organic farmers who are sustained by high end markets like Whole Foods.
There are a lot of people, a significant part of the economy, who make a good living on high end stuff. I am. Is that bad, that not everyone can afford to pay my rate??
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 09:36pm PT
|
No doubt the biggest "thing" Bush did for his wealthy political contributors
was to hand them the direct cash.
He did it by signing the largest tax cuts in US history, and more gifts
for his wealthy donors by decreasing the dividend tax on investments.
The tax cuts Bush put into law were direct payback to his rich donors.
And those Bush tax cuts totaled ONE TRILLION DOLLARS over 10 years,
and are the MAJOR cause of the record federal deficit we now have.
"Almost all of the top Bush fundraisers are in the top 1 percent of the nation's incomes, and many are in the top one-tenth of the top 1 percent. Consequently, they are among those who benefit the most from administration legislation reducing the top income tax rate, the capital gains rate and the elimination of taxation on dividend income."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0714-05.htm
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 09:40pm PT
|
No Dr F, you would be ridiculed for being educated.
If you ran for office, the Repubs would attack you for being "elite"
They would say you cannot relate to the common man, (like they are)
They would mock your education like they did Obama's Harvard law degree.
But remember, all they got left is the bible belt state and old white
people vote.
They lost elections on every level from city to the Presidency last November.
The American people are "on" to the Republicans, and soundly REJECT their "values"
The Republicans just sit in the cheap seats and hurl juvenile insults.
They are marginalized, irrelevant, and will remain out of "power" for a very
long time.
The voters do NOT like what they "sell". The GOP is history.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 09:40pm PT
|
LEB, HWD, DMT, even BVB, clearly the same person, no one can produce a photo of them all together. I've only met him a few times in the last year and a half or so.....
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 09:53pm PT
|
I am just trying to better understand you so I can get a better grasp
she said "grasp". heh
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 10:24pm PT
|
Not a crock.
Your Republicanz have LONG "used" education as a political tool.
The Republicans have for many years openly mocked and ridiculed political
opponents for having advanced education degrees.
They call them "elites", often calling them "east coast intellectuals".
They use education as a "wedge" to get "common" people to voted AGAINST
educated opponents.
This is a VERY effective political strategy, especially in rural areas
and particularly states with proportionately less educated people.
The Republican Party is well known for being anti education.
And especially anti science.
They openly and proudly DENY the science of human evolution.
During the 2008 Republican Primary debated, every single Repub
said that they did not believe in "evolution"
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 10:30pm PT
|
Bush was THE MOST anti-science President is history
The administration of George W. Bush has differed qualitatively from the previous five administrations, both Republican and Democratic, in its attacks on scientific integrity, censorship of scientific information, stacking of scientific advisory committees with unqualified candidates, and outright distortion of the results of studies by government scientists. The situation was of such concern that an unprecedented collection of Nobel Laureates, National Medal of Science winners, and former Presidential Science advisors (both republican and democratic), later joined by thousands of scientists, wrote an open letter to the White House to urge a change in policy.
These issues became so widespread and well known that the journalist Chris Mooney wrote a bestselling book entitled, The Republican War on Science. I thought at the time that the title was inappropriate however. The Bush administration is not representative of all Republicans, including, for example, Ph.D. physicist and congressman Vern Ehlers, with whom others and I have worked to raise the profile of science in political discourse. Indeed, over the past half-century, Republican administrations have often been more supportive of significant scientific investments than Democratic administrations
LK, hp
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2010 - 10:35pm PT
|
the O'Reilly interview
O'REILLY: Let me be very bold and fresh again. Do you believe that you are smart enough, incisive enough, intellectual enough to handle the most powerful job in the world?
PALIN: I believe that I am because I have common sense, and I have, I believe, the values that are reflective of so many other American values. And I believe that what Americans are seeking is not the elitism, the kind of a spinelessness that perhaps is made up for that with some kind of elite Ivy League education and a fact resume that's based on anything but hard work and private sector, free enterprise principles. Americans could be seeking something like that in positive change in their leadership. I'm not saying that has to be me.
Do you get it? Education = elitism = Ivy league education = spineless
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!