Unions: No tax on 'Cadillac' health plans

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: The Hill

By Kevin Bogardus - 10/02/09 06:11 AM ET

Organized labor is turning to House Democrats to oppose a tax on high-cost insurance plans that is under consideration to help pay for healthcare reform.

Unions are blasting the idea in the Senate Finance Committee bill, as many union members would be affected because they either have expensive insurance to cover dangerous professions or negotiated for better benefits instead of higher wages.

So far, at least one union has now turned to the lower chamber to stop the proposed tax from becoming law. An e-mail accidentally sent to The Hill on Wednesday by a senior lobbyist of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT), an AFL-CIO member, encouraged congressional aides to have their lawmakers to sign on to a “Dear Colleague” letter from Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), saying the proposal would be an unfair tax on its members.

“The proposal that is going through the Senate Finance Committee is a direct tax on the members of the IUPAT,” said Chris Sloan, international legislative representative for the union, in the e-mail. “Our members work in dangerous high-risk professions for long hours, and health insurance companies use an individual’s profession in determining premium rates, making our plans more expensive.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/house/61279-unions-no-tax-on-costly-health-insurance-plans

[Craftsman]

1. Fair is fair, if my health care insurance is taxed then so should theirs.

[Old Hob]

2. life isn't fair. We'll see what happens.

[Craftsman]

3. I know it is not fair

But keep this in mind if Union, who are a major supporter of the Democrats do not pay this tax and others due it will not fly with many.

[Old Hob]

16. I think this HCR is going to be as beneficial to Obama's political career as Iraq was for GWB's

Obama's favorability is already down to 50%, about a 15 point drop over the past 8 months. The Democrat led congress enjoys a 26% favorability rating. Something like this would probably guarantee us a one term president and at least 2-4 more years of minority party status. Tackling HC was a noble goal but it would not have been my first priority. I would have focused all attention on energy independence. This business of taxing insurance as income has never been very popular. If his plan requires it, he's fucked. If he gives an exemption to union employees, he'll be fucked even worse.

[Stand and Fight]

34. "The Democrat led congress enjoys..."

You than gone and gave yourself away, bubba. :eyes:

[iceman66]

7. NO ONE should have their health care benefits taxed!

This is a Republican sham 'idea' from before the last election intended to end employer-provided health insurance.

[kenfrequed]

8. Bingo

This is a sham idea that was invented specifically by republicans to split up Democrats.

[Demit]

13. Actually, ending employer-provided health insurance is a boffo idea.

And with single-payer it wouldn't be necessary anymore. Wages would go up to compensate, once the burden of dealing with health insurance was lifted from employers. I never understood why employers didn't get behind single-payer for that reason. Especially the ones moaning about not being able to compete with foreign companies b/c of having to pay for employees' health insurance.

The whole system has to change, though, not just parts of it.

[iceman66]

15. That is true, but

the Republican proposal was to end employer-based health insurance WITHOUT replacing it with a single-payer system. Basically, everyone would have to buy their own insurance on an unregulated free market.

The majority of Americans would be much worse off under this scheme.

[mbperrin]

35. Correct! Taxing these benefits would be completely immoral and unethical,

both typical Repug values!

[MidwestRick]

4. Of course they don't want to be taxed

It's much easier to support others being taxed. So if a Dem votes this measure down, will they be counted as one who is in the pocket of the unions?

[groundloop]

5. In the eyes of the GOP, of course they'll be seen as in union pockets

And if they go the other way they'll be tax and spend liberals. It's a tough game, this politics stuff.

[paulsby]

6. my union is opposed to it,

and so am i.

i have a cadillac plan. i've posted on it before. it's phenomenal. i'm currently on disability (should be returning to work in december agter about 4 months off), and everything has been covered 100% - surgery, etc. (meds are under a different plan and have a small copay).

when we negotiated for these plans, we negotiated based on the current environment. radically restructiring those laws would be a huge burden, and i dont support it.

i do support universal health care, but not taxing cadillac plans

[tomg]

10. I am in a similar position. I have a superb health

plan. For years, we often negotiated for better health care rather than more pay. I feel pretty conflicted about this. If there is a real public option that gives legitimate choice to all Americans and affords low-cost/virtually free heath care to those who can't otherwise afford it, I support paying taxes on my cadillac plan. No way do I support paying taxes if what we finally get is some bullshit, watered-down, mandated plan that simply benefits insurance companies, fails to really address heathcare, and finally does not address the real issues of the uninsured (and that is what I fear is going to happen).

Why are we even having this discussion? Single-payer, universal health care is the only sane solution. If I am a bit behind on the issue, it is because for the past month (and for the next three months), I am living in Italy ( which has real health care), and the only discussion of the issues has been with the Europeans I know asking me wtf is going on over in the states.

[paulsby]

11. regardless of what the best solution is

we know the best is the enemy of the good. we aren't going to universal single payer anytime soon (if at all), and we are getting reform.

i think taxing plans would alienate a huge # of union members, a group that tends to vote pretty pro-democrat.

i accept that any govt. plan is going to be vastly inferior to mine. i want to keep my plan if i can, and not be taxed on it.

maybe that makes me selfish.

i want universal health care, plans for all. i don't want restructured taxes to tax plans that are now not taxable.

[hugo_from_TN]

25. If your plan is vastly better than the public option it should be taxed.

We're trying to level the playing field.

[paulsby]

28. i can respect that POV

i just don't agree with it.

[RobinA]

33. I'm With You

I have a union plan that is above average, but not what I would consider "cadillac." I'd be willing to pay tax for an honest to god public option. One thing that conflicts me is that, although I have good, not great, benefits, I pay for them rather handsomely. The wonderful pension that everybody thinks we get as a gift from the gods is not cheap. We don't have ANY disability paid for, I have to buy it myself and pay full freight, unlike other places I have worked. All well and good, I'm just glad it's available, but I get sick of hearing about how wonderful benefits just rain down on unions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. After all the hard work unions had to do...

...to keep employers from treating their employees like rented mules it would be a shame to see that work undone by something like this.

[Alhena]

20. You support your personal self-interests. Shocker there.

[Iowa]

22. If everyone supported their personal self-interests....

...we wouldn't have a bunch of Republican-lites (masquerading as Democrats) running the country. Someone like Dennis Kucinich would be president, we'd still have the trillions that were wasted on bankers and wars, we'd have budget surpluses as far as the eye could see, the national debt would be paid off, the Republican party wouldn't exist, global warming would be in retreat, and all our lives would be immeasurably better.

[paulsby]

23. and it assumes

i am supporting it BECAUSE it is in my best interests.

i frequently support policies that are NOT in my best interests.

this does not happen to be one of them.

[Iowa]

24. I'm about as liberal as it is possible to be...

...and I support just about every liberal policy I can think of. After reading your post I tried to think of a policy I support that doesn't serve my personal interests, and I'll be damned if I can come up with a single one that doesn't serve my interests in the long run.

[paulsby]

27. i'll give you an example

i support the right of business property owners (with exceptions like grocery stores) to allow or ban smoking of cigarettes. i do not cede the power to the state (my jurisdiction has such a law). laws that prohibit smoking in bars, etc. benefit ME (they are in my best interest) but they violate other people's liberty and increase state power in a way that i think is odious.

perfect example.

[Iowa]

29. I'd see that as supporting a policy that, on balance, serves my interests.

In the example you mention, the issue of liberty trumps any other consideration, IMO. I agree with you on the policy, but see it as serving my interests.

Basically, I tend to view the greater good as serving my interests, and this is at the core of my contempt for the Republican ideology which is diametrically opposed to that concept. If I really drill down and examine what it is to be a liberal, I find that the policies I support tend to be altruistic and decent while also serving my personal interests.

But I'll give it some more thought and see if I can come up with a policy I support that is not in my interests. Maybe I'm over-looking something.

[paulsby]

30. no, it doesn't support my interests

i LOATHE cigarette smoke. i would rather smell crack smoke, mj smoke even than cigarette smoke.

it comes down to my conceptions of justice, liberty, free enterprise, and choice.

but smoking bans OVERWHELMINGLY work in my interest. there are several clubs i go to NOW that i almost never went to before the ban, because i couldn't STAND coming home smelling like smoke.

seriously, there are few things in this world that i loathe more than cigarette smoke.

but despite the fact that the bans have benefited me, that they are in MY interest, i think they are wrong.

that's one example (of many) of positions i take that are NOT in *my* best interest, but there are FAR more important things than me.

people who only vote in their best interests are acting in the height of selfishness

[Iowa]

21. +1

[4dsc]

9. Single Payer.. That is all we need..

EOM

[Pavulon]

18. Decades off.

that will not happen, what will happen is everyone will pass the tax right down to those who have the plans. Some companies actually give people good plans as part of benes. Taking them would be pretty harsh.

[starroute]

14. This was presented as something that would only affect CEOs and such

Pointing out that it affects blue-collar workers in high-risk professions puts a completely different spin on it. It's not a matter of fairness but of the bills being paid by those who can afford it.

[paulsby]

31. my employer pays

about 900 a month for my medical.

that's over 10 g's a year.

tax that at 1/3 and that's 3k+ out of my pocket in one fell sw00p

[kenfrequed]

17. It is a stupid Repuke idea

They were the ones that put it forth for strategic reasons. It serves little useful purpose and for purposes of funding it doesnt provide much.

It plays to republican strategy in a few ways:

-By borrowing from Peter to pay Paul it creates the impression of rationing and a grab on working class benefits.

-It is a gimmick to prevent an actual fair tax on the well to do.

-It fixates on Insurance and forces us to maintain it as part of the solution as opposed to moving closer to a public option.

-It is a typical GOP set up to 'blame the unions.' Lets stop aiding them in doing so.

[Old Hob]

26. so is the idea of mandating insurance and fining for non-compliance

What's up with that?

[laughingliberal]

19. Not a worker friendly proposal

The point in the OP about dangerous professions paying more for insurance is 100% correct. Not only that but professions made up of older workers do, also (average age of RN's is around 48). The point in the OP which is largely being missed is many of the workers have had to agree to lower wages in return for medical benefits. I know nurses' raises have been horrible since the middle 80's and the health care costs to employers has been a big part of that. In fact, it has been a big part of the stagnant wages of all workers. This is a tax on people who have already been taxed by decreasing income over more than 2 decades.

[customerserviceguy]

32. As soon as I first read the term "Cadillac plan" I knew this tax concept

was going to come back to bite us in the ass.