Tax on health benefits likely to be in Senate bill

[Old Coot]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — Legislation to be outlined next week in the Senate Finance Committee will likely include a new tax on workers with the costliest employer-provided health coverage, officials said Friday, but with implementation delayed until 2013 to minimize any political fallout.

Officials familiar with internal deliberations said the leading option under consideration by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the committee chairman, would mean higher taxes for workers whose family coverage costs $15,000 a year or more in premiums paid by employer and employee combined.

The provision could generate hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade to help pay the $1 trillion or more the Obama administration has estimated is necessary under its plan to extend health care to millions of Americans who lack it. Cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending are expected to make up much of the rest.

Officials cautioned that details of the proposal could change in the days before Baucus unveils his long-awaited outline. The Finance Committee and several other panels are expected to draft legislation this month, and Democratic leaders have vowed to pass bills in both houses before Congress begins its annual August break. Their objective is to forge a final compromise this fall.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gap9wCaolRYguYQesA2i2Yr98yLgD98PC6CO0

[Justitia]

1. One of those handy provisions to be cut in Conference Committee. -eom

[Captain Hilts]

2. Fork it over, Blue states!!!

[lindisfarne]

9. Aren't blue states already forking it over? Or was that your point (they pay in more than they get

from the federal government, whereas red states pay in less than they get out in benefits).

[jwirr]

3. Here in MN some of us already pay what they call a copay which is

just another name for taxes. The ones paying that are the ones with Medicare/Medicaid/MNcare coverage. I pay it on my medicines - $1.00 for generics and about $3.10 for prescription drugs. We also pay for doctors visits and some other things. I think there is a limit on how much we pay for each month. IF you absolutely cannot pay it then if is negotiable.

[dflprincess]

16. My mom is on that

and there is a limit on how much gets paid out in a monthly copay at least for prescriptions. However, Mom doesn't have a copay on her doctor's visits - at least there wasn't one when I had her at the eye doctor earlier this month. I thought she did have a $3.00 copay on office visits but they didn't ask for one. (My private plan does not cover eye exams)

We are both happy she has the plan because there is a lot of care she wouldn't be able to get if she was only covered by Medicare. I really wouldn't call the copays a tax. Paying $3.10 for a brand name drug beats not having the drug at all or paying the $25-$45 a lot of us would have to pay on a private plan.

[jwirr]

24. Of course you are right about this being a good plan because it

beats not having a plan at all. In the past these were free until Pawlenty added the copay to save money. My daughter is in a foster home and is supposed to get a $50 personal allowance fee out of her social security check before the rest goes to the foster parents - most of her personal money goes for these copays every month. There are people who have very little and this may sound good to us but to them it is once again choosing between a necessity or meds.

My real point was not a complaint against the copay but to say that if this group of poorer citizens can pay extra for their medical care then it seems to me so can the rest to help pay for a universal health care program.

[dflprincess]

27. I see your point

Mom is low income (it's incredible how low income you have to be to qualify for medical benefits - it's why I don't trust any of the income limits the current bill talks about) but she is still living on her own (thanks to rent assistance), can afford the copays and has some money left out of her SS check for other needs and sometimes for something she just wants. (And, having no kids and only myself to take care of, I can help with a few things).

I was not aware that the $50 personal allowance had to be used this way. That just isn't right.

[karynnj]

4. It's confusing that the threshold for paying taxes

is the sum of what the employee and employer pay. I wonder if this is because they are assuming the employee is paying with pre-tax dollars - so there is more than $15,000 in untaxed benefit to the employee.

[Kittycat]

14. Higher Premiums do not equal better coverage.

It just means that the insurance companies is able to strangle out a few more bucks for less service. We pay $12K just for our employee option. Plus copays, deductibles, out of pocket max, and exclusions. Yet we have the smallest network of doctors and hospitals compared to any other insurance company we've ever been with. We have to go to the next town to the private hospital, yet there's a huge health system, hospital 5 min from our front door.

[bkkyosemite]

5. What kind of cuts in Medicare. I already have to pay for additional insurance for dental, vision,

prescriptions and the remaining medical that Medicare doesn't pay. I think they are gonna screw the elderly just like they did when they said Seniors would get a tax break that never happened.

[bkkyosemite]

6. Oh forgot SINGLE PAYER NOW!

[lindisfarne]

10. Do you really mean by "single payer" what it means (and what would have made you expect it).

Single payer across the board was never a realistic expectation. We'll be lucky to get a public option along the lines of Medicare - and that is likely going to be something that only those without employer insurance can benefit from. (I would prefer a system where I could have my employer pay for me in the public option, rather than the employer-provided health insurance. That likely will come, as employers start figuring out that it is better for them to not provide employees with insurance (and rather, pay some amount to the federal government) because the public option is so much efficient and cheaper.)

[bkkyosemite]

23. I'm on Medicare and it is Single Payer to me. Except it is not good enough. It does not cover 100%

nor dental, vision, prescriptions at 100%. My prescriptions dental and vision I have to buy from another place. I also have to buy medical coverage from those greedy profit seeking insurance companies to cover what Medicare does not for medical.

I do not want Insurance companies overseeing my health care. They care nothing about a person's health other than to make profits off of those paying into their system and denying those who cost them more and killing them literally with their decisions. That is ridiculous and they have gotten away with it for long enough.

I will keep pushing for Single Payer with the President, legislators and whoever else thinks it is not possible.

[mvd]

25. Good post IMO

I don't think the President is personally against single payer. With the right amount of argument and voices from the public, I think he would be open to it.

[Abq_Sarah]

7. What the senate ought to be doing

Is asking why a health insurance policy for a family of four should cost 15K. Why should people who can barely afford or who can't afford federal gold plated insurance policies be forced to fork out millions of dollars a year for what can only be described as an increasingly imperial congress?

[Old Coot]

8. They MAY exempt benefits for union employees!

From the article:
"It was not clear whether Baucus intends to exempt health benefits negotiated under union contracts from the tax. If he did, he would ease potential opposition among Democrats. On the other hand, it would also reduce the amount raised, and require lawmakers to find other sources of financing."

It would be extremely unfair to exempt anyone from the new tax! I can't imagine the thinking behind this.

[lindisfarne]

11. Last I heard, the exemption would only be for benefits under current contracts.

When contracts are re-negotiated, they will have to negotiate appropriately, or be prepared to pay some tax on their excess benefits.

[ddiver]

12. Since when can unions negotiate with the US government over taxes?

Unions should pay taxes on every benefit the exact day every other worker in America does.

[LiberalFighter]

19. What?? Unions negogiate the benefits for their members. Not for themselves.

And in reality, the unions are the members themselves.

[ddiver]

21. "the unions are the members themselves"..you made my point and verified my usage.

[Kittycat]

13. see #14 above

delete

[groundloop]

15. Eliminate Medical Flex Spending Accounts

Those of us who are fortunate enough to have employers with vedical flex spending accounts receive a huge tax break that many others don't. Basically that's letting us 'deduct' expenses that others can't. It's nice to have that available, but I'd gladly give it up if we could get a good public option.

[Jack_DeLeon]

17. What the fuck is with all these new taxes?

If the current government keeps proposing to spend rediculous amounts of money and keeps raising taxes here and there then things arent going to look good come next election.

[AlexanderProgressive]

18. Tax will be withheld till 2013, so that people won't vote against proponents

...how slick.

[LiberalFighter]

20. Will Congress have their medical benefits taxed too?

[Jack_DeLeon]

22. Do they have government provided cell phones aswell?

I hear they want to tax work related phone benefits aswell.

[LiberalFighter]

28. They probably do.

[havocmom]

26. Yet the uber rich don't want estate taxes

Walmart heirs and Paris Hilton need every penny, doncha know