When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Skookum
13 years ago
In a true Socialist country, unions have special rights over those who do not pay union dues. Although we are not officially a Socialist nation, it is merely a formality to be overcome by the Obama Administration. The Constitution can be amended to legitimize and provide for the providential care and nurturing of unions. They negotiate for their own welfare, with Constitutional provisions they can be granted their demands without negotiation. Giving the unions priority and privileges will encourage others to climb on the Socialist Obama Train and let Big Brother take care of our every need. Why question the intelligence of the first Affirmative Action President and his union goons? They can get this country rolling and the rich are going to pay for it. The Gravy Train is pulling into the station, All Aboard the Obama Communist Train to Perdition!
Donald Bly
13 years ago
The next step in selling favors for votes. Vote Democrat in 2010 and be exempt from Income Tax for 2 years.
Maybe when/if the Republicans regain control they can institute a $4.00 per gallon Federal Gas tax. Individuals that Vote Republican will be exempt from paying.
nelli
13 years ago
Captain Divisive is making Bush look like a piker in that dept.
ThomNJ
13 years ago
I would like to establish a specific plan and on which items we can set up a nationwide civil disobedience movement to “just say no” to the obamanation’s plans. I would like to refuse to pay any freakin’ tax they levy on healthcare if this garbage is enacted. (If I was independently wealthy, I would gladly refuse to buy insurance and make my way to the Supreme Court). This is so far beyond ridiculous I don’t even know what to say.
@Jo from chi: We’re all going to pay to make up the difference for the big break to unions so it doesn’t matter what plan you have.
SouthernRoots
13 years ago
The question I have is, how does adding a 40% tax onto a healthcare plan make healthcare costs go down and health expenses more affordable? How does a 40% tax on a plan let you keep the plan and your doctor – like The One (TM) promised ad naseum?
Anybody seen my pitchfork and torch? I’m sure they were right beside the tar and feathers….
If the damn thing is such a panacea why is everyone either trying to get the hell out of it or extorting huge pay-offs in order to go along with it???
God speed Scott Brown in Mass. on Tuesday. I pray the next huge quake we hear about is at least a moderate but definitive ‘landslide’ that he has won back The People’s Seat and starts the Revolution in November …
@Maggie: You’re right. If this was so wonderful why do the Dems have to bribe other Dems to vote for it?
@SouthernRoots: This also violates another of Obama’s solemn vows not to raise “one dime” of “ANY” of your taxes if you make less than $250k.
Of course he’s already violated that if you smoke by signing the largest tax increase on tobacco in history and no one seemed to care.
We’ll certainly have to replay that video again in 2012 to remind middle class voters about the Obama taxes they are paying.
Mr. Irons
13 years ago
Bill-tb, it wouldn’t pass the smell test but sadly all branches of the Federal Government’s kept their nose out in the cold for far too long to know the difference between Communism and Democratic Republic. The question is: Why hasn’t the Oath-Keepers risen up and demand the Consitution be enforced and for these cronies to step down?
Our entire Federal Government’s body is attempting to re-write it’s ablities to step in line of the Former Soviet Union’s Consitution and that is not remotely Healthy for the People of America.
RickZ
13 years ago
ThomNJ,
One way to start the revolution is to have people write in on their personal tax returns, on the ‘occupation’ line: Government Slave.
B-Rob
13 years ago
Let me get this straight —
Working class people (NOT union, mind you) are going to get some relief from an impending tax . . . and the conservatives are going to oppose that? Go for it, gang!
Seriously, let’s think this through. High cost union health insurance plans, which cover a lot of things, are a product of negotiation between management (who I happen to represent) and labor. If taxes are raised on those plans, and the workers take home less, there are three possible outcomes that I can think of:
1) going forward, the union and management agree to plans that cover less . . . not necessarily a good thing for the worker or society.
2) Workers demand a higher wage to cover the higher taxes — not a good thing for management
3) Some combination of 1) and 2).
To the extent these workers get a break on the tax, it is definitely good for them and for the employers, too.
And don’t bother with the “its not fair to non-union workers” argument. Because of less bargaining power, they do not have the kinds of high cost policies that this tax is going to hit in the first place.
Cons could argue that this is a boon to unions, per se, even though it does not affect non-union people personally. But how much is that zero-sum-game kind of argument going to impress the voters, or management side people who will not have wages bid up because of the now-avoided tax? Not very impressive. So all that silence you hear out there . . . its the sound of millions of people not really giving a damn that the unions cut this deal.
I will say this though: if the skeptical GOPers had actually decided to get involved the way the skeptical unions and skeptical drug companies and skeptical insurance companies did, how much could the GOP have gotten in this deal? We’ll never know, because they chose the “just say no” strategy, instead.
“Relief”? Under ObamaCare every-damn-thing deemed a “medical device” or service from the over the counter drugs to your personal nether-regions products are going to have a tax added to them. The cost on EVERYTHING will be going up.
And for anyone cheering about the brilliant idea of taxing the banks, don’t think that won’t get passed onto consumers also. Same as adding taxes to gas. Companies do not pay higher taxes. They (shrewdly) pass the hikes onto consumers.
This is simple math/logic and reasoning. Nothing is free. Why is that such a hard concept for some to grasp?
When “he” claimed he wouldn’t tax the middle class he meant he wouldn’t be sending you a bill in the mail. Said nothing about not jacking the crap out of your cost of living under taxes upon taxes in the everyday things you take for granted.
And as bad as this is, wait until cap and trade. It’s not called “Crap and Tax” for nothing.
@B-Rob: you forgot the most likely outcome #4. Just like the Dems, who want to collect taxes for 3-4 years before spending on any benefits, the unions will do the same.
ala decrease benefits while the management does *not* increase wages so they can pocket the difference and be padded for when the moratorium is off.
And I guess you pay little attention to the inequity of tax application to citizens, and it’s bearing on the Constitution. But then there have been so many bad laws and precedents, it’s probably a bit vague for you to recall that document.
fish in a barrel.
So you support the wheel and deal political method for gains, eh? “What could the GOP have gotten for trading the conservative soul”? There will be nothing left after the progressive power structure takes over, because there will be nothing for the individual left to give.
Must be getting crowded under those rocks for you legal and political types.
Donald Bly
13 years ago
@B-Rob
So all that silence you hear out there . . . its the sound of millions of people not really giving a damn that the unions cut this deal.
The only silence out there is in your head. But that’s what happens when your head is either buried in the sand or up your ass, it makes it hard to hear what’s going on. There are millions like myself that are PISSED OFF.
There are three ways that people can be employed in America: at will employment, employment under an individual employment contract, and employment under a collective bargaining agreement. At will employment is your typical relationship where you can be terminated at any time by the employer and you can quit at any time. Individual contracts will have, most notably, a term of employment, grounds for termination, notice requirements, arbitration clauses if there is a dispute, incentive pay (“bonus”) formulae, stock options, change of control clauses, severance agreements, retirement , deferred compensation plans — and, most relevant here, health insurance benefit descriptions.
The people with individual contracts tend to be high earners: doctors, dentists, executives, highly compensated sales employees. They are not your run of the mill bank teller or even a branch manager; they would be a division president. Collectively bargained agreements, in contrast, cover everyone from school teachers to school bus drivers to the cops who direct traffic to the guy who works in the school bus factory to the person stocking shelves in the grocery store.
People with Cadillac plans tend to be those with individual contracts and those with collectively bargained union contracts; it is exceedingly rare that non-union employers will have Cadillac plans. And what is a Cadillac plan? Things like extremely low deductibles, no co-pays, no employee contribution.
I do not have such a plan: I pay a portion of the premium and I have modest $20 co pays. Even though I make six figures, I would not be taxed. But public school employes who make a third of what I make will be taxed. And my s.o., who has an individual contract where she pays nothing on her premiums and has no copays — she’ll be taxed.
Breaking that down further, those with collectively bargained contracts tend to be more public sector than private sector. Not all security guards are unionized but police officers are. Police officers will have a Cadillac plan and the rent-a-cops will have little or no health insurance coverage.
When the idea was floated to tax Cadillac plans it was, by definition, aimed a highly paid executives, physicians, public sector professionals (teachers, cops, firefighters) and hourly workers in private sector unionized facilities. But guess what, cons? You don’t have to be a “union member” to be covered by a collective bargaining agreement and be taxed under this initial proposal. In fact, I would hazard a guess that very few people who work under collective bargaining agreements are union members by choice, as opposed to joining as a term of employment. Others are “fare share payers” — people who are non members but who are required to pay a portion of the dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining. So what the unions basically did is step in and negotiate a reprieve on the tax that would have hit their collective bargaining units –both union members and fare share payers alike. People who work under union agreements, whether they are active members, whether they are former strikebreakers, fare share payers, or anti-union insurgents — they all will avoid the tax. My s.o. and the senior vice president of the local Fortune 500 bank will not.
Don’t get it twisted: this is a good thing for the union leadership to have negotiated their way out from under this tax that would have targeted their bargaining unit members. But at the same time, it was their people who were being targeted in the first place. And a $25,000 per year SEIU janitor will look at a 40% tax on her benefits differently than a $70,000 per year NEA teacher or a $250,000 per year non-union physician or a $500,000 per year non-union senior vice president will look at the same tax. Because the 40% tax the janitor would pay on her Cadillac plan represents a whole lot more money percentage-wise than the SVP’s 40% tax on his plan. And if you guys can’t grasp WHY they will look at it differently, or why there will be no hue and cry from anyone who stops and thinks about the tax and who it would hit hardest and why, then, well . . . again you cons may be in worse shape than I thought.
Doug
13 years ago
B-Rob said:
And don’t bother with the “its not fair to non-union workers” argument. Because of less bargaining power, they do not have the kinds of high cost policies that this tax is going to hit in the first place.
Um, so like the millions of professionals who by the way are already shouldering an oversized share of the income tax don’t have health care policies that are going to be hit by this tax? The same ones who live in so-called “blue” states and voted for Obama in droves? Even out here on the left coast solid Democratic voters from the professional classes can see that this exemption ain’t fair. I guess this is “shared sacrifice”. Be careful, or the Democrats could lose some of these folks if they finally wake up to how badly they’ve been screwing themselves.
billy bob: Cons could argue that this is a boon to unions, per se, even though it does not affect non-union people personally.
You totally miss the point of the taxes altogether because of your tunnel vision focus. The taxes are one of the vehicles, (along with penalties, forced enrollment, etal) that is expected to fund this debacle.
Did the cost just go down because Obama exempted his favorite classes, and beloved unions, from that counted on revenue for five years? Or is it more likely that the loss of that revenue will now have to be made up for, transferring that burder to others who are not in the unions… like the other 87.6% of the American workforce.
uh huh…. that’s very “democratic”. Well, perhaps in the view of you progressives, it is. Because when you take a better look at the racial and industrial make up of unions, it becomes more clear Obama is again favoring his favorite classes.
The data on union membership were collected as part of the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey of about 60,000 households that obtains information on employment and unemployment among the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population age 16 and over.
Some highlights from the 2008 data are:
–Government workers were nearly five times more likely to belong
to a union than were private sector employees.
–Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the
highest unionization rate at 38.7 percent.
–Black workers were more likely to be union members than were
white, Asian, or Hispanic workers.
–Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate
(24.9 percent) and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.5 percent).
Considering that the highest union membership rates are the public sector, it then also be said that the unions are instrumental in driving up the costs of all levels of government…. a burden that is then spread to all the taxpayers. Just as unions helped drive the US auto manufacturers into the ground, they are doing the same with government.
But how much is that zero-sum-game kind of argument going to impress the voters, or management side people who will not have wages bid up because of the now-avoided tax? Not very impressive. So all that silence you hear out there . . . its the sound of millions of people not really giving a damn that the unions cut this deal.
Considering I’ve just pointed out this is no “zero sum game” for intended revenue, your comment is imbecilic. But what you may interpret as silence from some is a result of manipulators, like you, misrepresenting the facts.
However there is no “silence” in the media about the deal, and the citizenry is listening, and watching. Whether or not the masses share your math deficiencies, they do recognize blatant special interest favors from a guy who ranted and railed about special interests on the campaign trail.
The steam pouring from the ears of those fed up with the federal spending frenzy just stepped up a notch. And it becomes just one more reason to toss this 2000+ piece of garbage down the disposal, and work on a way to reduce the costs of medical services and supplies first.
And I see you are dodging @ more more likely scenario #4 where the tax breaks get pocketed to pad them for when the tax moratorium is lifted. There is no where in the agreement that binds them to leaving coverage as status quo for the duration merely for receiving the tax break. Any changes in costs of medical supplies is a legitimate excuse for them to reduce benefits.
Congress themselves provide inspiration for this sleazy loophole by example… collect the money in advance, hold doling out the benefits until later. A very profitable solution that apparently a lot of us out here see as a raw deal.
Donald Bly
13 years ago
Regardless of the details concerning the Cadillac provision or any other bribe or inducement to get congress to pass this extremely unpopular bill. I believe that there will be at least one Senator out of the 60 that previously voted for the bill that will come to their senses and throw a monkey wrench into the Obama/Pelosi/Reid machine. We may get there with Scott Brown, but, even if that does not happen, I have faith that at least one Democrat will place country over party. Fairness over corruption.
Whomever it is, they will have the gratitude of a majority of the American public. Nelson has a great deal for which to make ammends. He may stay the course and hope that the citizens of Nebraska will forget or he may realize that the only way to salvage his career in Nebraska politics is to distance himself from this bill. Or… we may see Joe Lieberman be a true independent. I’ve always seen Joe as a man that really cared about the country, maybe this will be his shot at leading the way toward a more constituent oriented politician.
It doesn’t matter who the individual is, they will make history by killing this bill and would be justified in any future campaign to ask the American people to reward their backbone with campaign contributions. I would donate to whomever had the balls to take a stand regardless of their State, and the fact that they would be a democrat.
We MUST kill this bill.
If we can’t find a Democrat Senator that would stand up to do what is right, perhaps we can find one that is sleazy enough that they can be bribed out of their vote. Maybe the promise of a nice cushy job in the private sector at 5 to 10 million a year. We’ve learned from the Obama camp and Saul Alinsky that the “End Justifies the Means”.
Since the entire reasoning for taxing this unknown criteria that constitutes “a cadillac plan” is for revenue, they can’t make too narrow a definition without shooting off their own foot. This is the very reason that Obama’s economic advisors were pushing the tax as the #1 cost saver. And here you are, telling us there just isn’t that many of them around. Which of you is way off the reservation of talking points, I wonder….
The Baucus bill, which originated the “fee” or “excise tax” on these plans didn’t define it via deductible or co-pays, but as … plans that amounted to $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. Unions balked because, @as I pointed out, a bulk of union plans are for high risk, high medical costs unions such as fire fighters. The private industry unions for those such as manufacturing, miners, etc, also complained because the higher amounts were needed because any injuries were likely to be more cost intensive than a desk jockey may incur.
This vague definition was still controversial and elusive as of Jan 5th, when CNN Money’s Allan Sloan continued to point out the the definition revolves around not benefits, but how much they cost…. all of which depends upon the individual’s health and their location. Using some of their definitions of cost, even Medicare, averaging $11,000 to seniors, fits that definition (tho it would not be subject to the tax).
The Senate Finance Committee, recognizing some of the political and social-justice problems with its definition of “Cadillac,” has built in several complex adjustments, ranging from 17 (as yet unnamed) states having temporarily higher thresholds, to raising thresholds for plans that cover retirees 55 and up (but not workers 55 and up).
But Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), a leading critic of the tax, scoffs at the adjustments. “The problem with starting with that tax and trying to adjust for the real costs is that you end up with something that looks like a clown balloon,” he says.
This article about a Philly playground supervisor’s plan points out that altho his plan is not overly generous, contributes $1560 annually PLUS co-pays on top of that, the costs of his plan rise because of the cost of medical services rising. Something that nothing in the House/Senate bill addresses with a snippet of adequacy.
So how long before the majority of plans land in the threshhold of “cadillac” with rising cost, and legislation that does nothing to curb them? Well hang… what does Congress care? They just get more to tax.
Your lack of curiousity as to a final Congressional definition and it’s inherent inequity, then combined with your blind faith acceptance and assumptions, makes for dangerous and underinformed support. If they went with your assumed definition, the revenues would be inadequate as notable reduction in costs. And even such negligible revenue is only exempt for a few years…. assuming they do not go ahead and pass on the costs anyway as “option #4”.
Do you really think that when the time comes for these sweetheart exemptions to expire that the congress won’t come under pressure to extend them another 5 years, and then another, and another? It isn’t really about revenue neutrality anymore, it’s about the new political spoils system. After all, they’ll just print money to cover any shortfalls, in effect just another stealth tax on the prudent and productive. So what really matters is the relative position of the “base” versus everyone else. Of course, nothing’s stopping the rest of us from forming unions and finding some way to take advantage of the loopholes – unless, that is, they draft the legislation to blatantly single out specific unions for special treatment. That seems like a pretty tough sell constitutionally – but then again, a few more Supreme Court appointments like the last one and we could be good to go there as well – frightening.
@Doug: You hit the nail on the head. Just like there is no guarantee Dems would make the medicare cuts to finance their health care takeover, there is nothing to stop them from extending these benefits to unions.
And of course once the damage is done and the bill is passed it will be harder to generate opposition to extending these benefits.
Of course, nothing’s stopping the rest of us from forming unions and finding some way to take advantage of the loopholes – unless, that is, they draft the legislation to blatantly single out specific unions for special treatment
There’s another way, we can all become Amish or Christian Scientist.
The unions were powerful enough to get this special deal in the first place, they’ll get it again.
Won’t this also encourage union membership? leading to a larger, stronger membership? Of course this will be extended, made permanent, the debt will continue to grow.
If all else fails, I’m hoping enough states gets the nasty thing thrown out.
B-Rob
13 years ago
Mata —
The playground supervisor is 99.999% likely to be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. He will be exempted from the tax under the new deal. And OBVIOUSLY this tax was not the linchpin of the program, as you claim, because if it were, the Obama administration would NOT HAVE BARGAINED IT AWAY.
Doug — there are no “millions” of professionals who are going to be hit by this. First, not every professional with an individual employment agreement will have a Cadillac plan. My ex, for example, has a contract but not an “all the bells and whistles” health plan. Second, like I said, it is one thing for your $12,000 per year family health insurance policy to be taxed when you make $500,000 per year; it is quite a different thing when you are an SEIU janitor making $30,000.
Missy, et al. — As for this increasing union membership, one thing I know for sure from experience — workers who are satisfied DO NOT UNIONIZE. Not because unions are the big bad wolf that you wingnuts portray them to be; but they add a layer of cost and, initially at least, a modicum of conflict and uncertainty. Joe Blow worker doesn’t like to run these risks UNLESS they think they have no other choice but to unionize. If you want to keep unions out, the easiest way to do that is to pay a competitive wage, offer competitive benefits, and run a decent shop. THAT is why upwards of 80% of private sector businesses are non-union — management is smart enough to keep them out. It does not take management offering them a Cadillac health insurance plan, just offer something decent. Alas, it is getting more and more expensive to offer something decent, which is why you see non-insurance company employers supporting or at least staying neutral on this entire health insurance issue. They know how bad the situation is out there, spending $12,000 per employee for family coverage. And I will bet you they won’t oppose this union deal, either.
One other thing — if we could come up with a way for employers to not have to provide a decent health insurance package as part of compensation, they would have a lower cost structure and maybe be able to hire more, pay more in cash wages, and/or avoid layoffs. That $12,000, or some portion of it (like 3/4 if they have to be employed 3 months to qualify) is a sunk allocation as soon as you hire a new employee. But if you did not have to offer that, maybe you can offer $2,000 more in salary, or hire more people, or avoid laying off people to save the $12,000 cost. This, along with allowing the random employee more of an opportunity to start a business for himself, or take a job that pays more but does not have benefits, would be a positive side effect of a decent public safety net for non-Medicare and non-Medicaid folks. Under the current system, though, people like my former client (50s, laid off, no insurance, the has a stroke) are screwed. I have not heard anything from the con side that addresses people who are in the middle and lose their job but don’t qualify for the current programs.
* * * * *
And one last thing, cons. Let’s say the courts do overturn the individual mandate part. The easiest way to solve the problem of uninsured free riders who refuse to get health insurance and who bankrupt hospitals with uncompensated emergency room care will be to INVOLUNTARILY ENROLL THEM in a health insurance plan. And what would that be? How about an expansion of Medicare? Because you DON’T want 30 million plus people out there uncovered because some bow tie wearing conservative lawyer convinces the Supremes that his client has a constitutional right to run around uncovered, the cost to the federal and state fisc bedamned. So rather than have the exchanges and the mandates convincing people to get their own coverage, a conservative “triumph” in the courts will have set in motion an argument to have universal cradle to grave stopgap coverage from the government.
I won’t even get into the “standing” issue — i.e., even if a bunch of cornpone eating Red State GOPer attorneys general think they should sue over the individual mandate, they will have to find a client who is actually “injured” by the mandate. That would be a fun deposition trying to get that plaintiff to explain how he is injured by the mandate.
B-Rob
13 years ago
Missy and Doug —
Interesting folks, the Amish. Large Amish populations around me. They do not have insurance. They pool their money and pay cash. Of course, that means that someone from a local community shows up with $79,000 cash to pay off a medical bill for a surgery. Alas, that is not a workable alternative for most of us, is it?
Donald Bly
13 years ago
$79,000 cash to pay off a medical bill for a surgery. Alas, that is not a workable alternative for most of us, is it?
Actually…it is an alternative available to just about everyone. My wife’s surgery cost $26,000, we’re on a payment plan. Cheaper than a Cadillac and the ride is much smoother.
Donald Bly
13 years ago
The biggest problem with paying cash. Hospitals have a two tier pricing system and those of us that do pay cash pay more for the same procedure than those that have their care paid for through the government or insurance. This is blatantly unfair. The cost should be the cost and an individual shouldn’t be discriminated against with a higher price because they pay cash.
Donald Bly
13 years ago
@B-Rob
The easiest way to solve the problem of uninsured free riders who refuse to get health insurance and who bankrupt hospitals with uncompensated emergency room care will be to INVOLUNTARILY ENROLL THEM in a health insurance plan.
Or….. do not allow uninsured individuals from claiming medical bills in a bankruptcy proceeding.
This might mean they have to give up their cable tv for 10 or 20 years… or it might mean that they “insure” against such a situation in the first place.
Oh wait… we can’t cut people off from the propoganda machine…. never mind
Having catastrophic health care plans with $10,000 deductibles available would make such policies very very affordable. People wouldn’t be abusing the system visiting the doctor whenever they got a runny nose. Then we could have a government program that provides up to $10,000 loans or revolving creditat say 1% interest per month on any unpaid balance. Then the government (taxpayers) wouldn’t be subsidizing health care.
Hate to break it to you brob, I have Amish friends that do have health insurance, a couple families that I know also have auto insurance because, they drive……cars. Several have installed phone booths on their properties to share with their community, they are mowing their lawns with lawnmowers with motors and are using power tools.
I know about the health insurance because I visited shortly after hearing of one of the babies that had to be flown down to the KC University hospital. I asked them how they were ever going to pay for it and she told me they had insurance.
You don’t have to lecture me on unions, I was in a union in one of my first jobs and my father belonged to a union for 43 years before it was broken, my brother has been in his union since 1972 and my son is a union worker. I also grew up in Chrysler country watching the power grabs, reading the propaganda sheets they passed out to members and witnessed the decline in that company for years. A big eye-opener was when I was a construction secretary for a prime contractor that retooled Chrysler in 85. Trade unions made a mess of that job that drove up costs and no contractor was allowed to bid if they weren’t unionized.
Note it’s the same ol’ “no individuals, just groups and classes” billy bob think he constantly exhibits, Missy. If you know one Amish, you *must* know them all, right?
In a true Socialist country, unions have special rights over those who do not pay union dues. Although we are not officially a Socialist nation, it is merely a formality to be overcome by the Obama Administration. The Constitution can be amended to legitimize and provide for the providential care and nurturing of unions. They negotiate for their own welfare, with Constitutional provisions they can be granted their demands without negotiation. Giving the unions priority and privileges will encourage others to climb on the Socialist Obama Train and let Big Brother take care of our every need. Why question the intelligence of the first Affirmative Action President and his union goons? They can get this country rolling and the rich are going to pay for it. The Gravy Train is pulling into the station, All Aboard the Obama Communist Train to Perdition!
The next step in selling favors for votes. Vote Democrat in 2010 and be exempt from Income Tax for 2 years.
Maybe when/if the Republicans regain control they can institute a $4.00 per gallon Federal Gas tax. Individuals that Vote Republican will be exempt from paying.
Captain Divisive is making Bush look like a piker in that dept.
I would like to establish a specific plan and on which items we can set up a nationwide civil disobedience movement to “just say no” to the obamanation’s plans. I would like to refuse to pay any freakin’ tax they levy on healthcare if this garbage is enacted. (If I was independently wealthy, I would gladly refuse to buy insurance and make my way to the Supreme Court). This is so far beyond ridiculous I don’t even know what to say.
A good tax revolt is in order… we’re funding the internal enemy…
@Donald Bly: I like your tax plan! Let the Dems pay for their own deficits for a change!
There are no words, except for maybe the Constitution.
Don’t forget the Amish and the Christian Scientists.
since when are the unions part of congress?
the republican party was not allowed in on this negotiation!!!
@John Cooper: Correct you are. And that’s the tip of a very large iceberg!
So this is equal; treatment under the law, unless of course you are a union worker? Doesn’t pass the Constitutional smell test.
Thenon union guy won’t have the Caddie INS plan anyway. No worries.
@Jo from chi: We’re all going to pay to make up the difference for the big break to unions so it doesn’t matter what plan you have.
The question I have is, how does adding a 40% tax onto a healthcare plan make healthcare costs go down and health expenses more affordable? How does a 40% tax on a plan let you keep the plan and your doctor – like The One (TM) promised ad naseum?
Anybody seen my pitchfork and torch? I’m sure they were right beside the tar and feathers….
If the damn thing is such a panacea why is everyone either trying to get the hell out of it or extorting huge pay-offs in order to go along with it???
God speed Scott Brown in Mass. on Tuesday. I pray the next huge quake we hear about is at least a moderate but definitive ‘landslide’ that he has won back The People’s Seat and starts the Revolution in November …
@Maggie: You’re right. If this was so wonderful why do the Dems have to bribe other Dems to vote for it?
@SouthernRoots: This also violates another of Obama’s solemn vows not to raise “one dime” of “ANY” of your taxes if you make less than $250k.
Of course he’s already violated that if you smoke by signing the largest tax increase on tobacco in history and no one seemed to care.
We’ll certainly have to replay that video again in 2012 to remind middle class voters about the Obama taxes they are paying.
Bill-tb, it wouldn’t pass the smell test but sadly all branches of the Federal Government’s kept their nose out in the cold for far too long to know the difference between Communism and Democratic Republic. The question is: Why hasn’t the Oath-Keepers risen up and demand the Consitution be enforced and for these cronies to step down?
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/
Our entire Federal Government’s body is attempting to re-write it’s ablities to step in line of the Former Soviet Union’s Consitution and that is not remotely Healthy for the People of America.
ThomNJ,
One way to start the revolution is to have people write in on their personal tax returns, on the ‘occupation’ line: Government Slave.
Let me get this straight —
Working class people (NOT union, mind you) are going to get some relief from an impending tax . . . and the conservatives are going to oppose that? Go for it, gang!
Seriously, let’s think this through. High cost union health insurance plans, which cover a lot of things, are a product of negotiation between management (who I happen to represent) and labor. If taxes are raised on those plans, and the workers take home less, there are three possible outcomes that I can think of:
1) going forward, the union and management agree to plans that cover less . . . not necessarily a good thing for the worker or society.
2) Workers demand a higher wage to cover the higher taxes — not a good thing for management
3) Some combination of 1) and 2).
To the extent these workers get a break on the tax, it is definitely good for them and for the employers, too.
And don’t bother with the “its not fair to non-union workers” argument. Because of less bargaining power, they do not have the kinds of high cost policies that this tax is going to hit in the first place.
Cons could argue that this is a boon to unions, per se, even though it does not affect non-union people personally. But how much is that zero-sum-game kind of argument going to impress the voters, or management side people who will not have wages bid up because of the now-avoided tax? Not very impressive. So all that silence you hear out there . . . its the sound of millions of people not really giving a damn that the unions cut this deal.
I will say this though: if the skeptical GOPers had actually decided to get involved the way the skeptical unions and skeptical drug companies and skeptical insurance companies did, how much could the GOP have gotten in this deal? We’ll never know, because they chose the “just say no” strategy, instead.
@B-Rob: “Working class people (NOT union, mind you) are going to get some relief from an impending tax ”
Relief? Who’s talking about relief?
So far, all we’ve seen from you Dems are NEW TAXES on the middle class.
But we’re going to get our relief starting in November and again in 2012.
That’s one promise you can bank on.
“Relief”? Under ObamaCare every-damn-thing deemed a “medical device” or service from the over the counter drugs to your personal nether-regions products are going to have a tax added to them. The cost on EVERYTHING will be going up.
And for anyone cheering about the brilliant idea of taxing the banks, don’t think that won’t get passed onto consumers also. Same as adding taxes to gas. Companies do not pay higher taxes. They (shrewdly) pass the hikes onto consumers.
This is simple math/logic and reasoning. Nothing is free. Why is that such a hard concept for some to grasp?
When “he” claimed he wouldn’t tax the middle class he meant he wouldn’t be sending you a bill in the mail. Said nothing about not jacking the crap out of your cost of living under taxes upon taxes in the everyday things you take for granted.
And as bad as this is, wait until cap and trade. It’s not called “Crap and Tax” for nothing.
@B-Rob: you forgot the most likely outcome #4. Just like the Dems, who want to collect taxes for 3-4 years before spending on any benefits, the unions will do the same.
ala decrease benefits while the management does *not* increase wages so they can pocket the difference and be padded for when the moratorium is off.
And I guess you pay little attention to the inequity of tax application to citizens, and it’s bearing on the Constitution. But then there have been so many bad laws and precedents, it’s probably a bit vague for you to recall that document.
fish in a barrel.
So you support the wheel and deal political method for gains, eh? “What could the GOP have gotten for trading the conservative soul”? There will be nothing left after the progressive power structure takes over, because there will be nothing for the individual left to give.
Must be getting crowded under those rocks for you legal and political types.
@B-Rob
The only silence out there is in your head. But that’s what happens when your head is either buried in the sand or up your ass, it makes it hard to hear what’s going on. There are millions like myself that are PISSED OFF.
@Donald Bly: BLOB is delusional. If he didn’t get the wake up call in last November’s election, he’s going to get one very soon.
@Mike’s America:
Dem’s new logo, bet brob won’t “get it”
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=15065
And another thing you cons don’t seem to grasp:
There are three ways that people can be employed in America: at will employment, employment under an individual employment contract, and employment under a collective bargaining agreement. At will employment is your typical relationship where you can be terminated at any time by the employer and you can quit at any time. Individual contracts will have, most notably, a term of employment, grounds for termination, notice requirements, arbitration clauses if there is a dispute, incentive pay (“bonus”) formulae, stock options, change of control clauses, severance agreements, retirement , deferred compensation plans — and, most relevant here, health insurance benefit descriptions.
The people with individual contracts tend to be high earners: doctors, dentists, executives, highly compensated sales employees. They are not your run of the mill bank teller or even a branch manager; they would be a division president. Collectively bargained agreements, in contrast, cover everyone from school teachers to school bus drivers to the cops who direct traffic to the guy who works in the school bus factory to the person stocking shelves in the grocery store.
People with Cadillac plans tend to be those with individual contracts and those with collectively bargained union contracts; it is exceedingly rare that non-union employers will have Cadillac plans. And what is a Cadillac plan? Things like extremely low deductibles, no co-pays, no employee contribution.
I do not have such a plan: I pay a portion of the premium and I have modest $20 co pays. Even though I make six figures, I would not be taxed. But public school employes who make a third of what I make will be taxed. And my s.o., who has an individual contract where she pays nothing on her premiums and has no copays — she’ll be taxed.
Breaking that down further, those with collectively bargained contracts tend to be more public sector than private sector. Not all security guards are unionized but police officers are. Police officers will have a Cadillac plan and the rent-a-cops will have little or no health insurance coverage.
When the idea was floated to tax Cadillac plans it was, by definition, aimed a highly paid executives, physicians, public sector professionals (teachers, cops, firefighters) and hourly workers in private sector unionized facilities. But guess what, cons? You don’t have to be a “union member” to be covered by a collective bargaining agreement and be taxed under this initial proposal. In fact, I would hazard a guess that very few people who work under collective bargaining agreements are union members by choice, as opposed to joining as a term of employment. Others are “fare share payers” — people who are non members but who are required to pay a portion of the dues to cover the cost of collective bargaining. So what the unions basically did is step in and negotiate a reprieve on the tax that would have hit their collective bargaining units –both union members and fare share payers alike. People who work under union agreements, whether they are active members, whether they are former strikebreakers, fare share payers, or anti-union insurgents — they all will avoid the tax. My s.o. and the senior vice president of the local Fortune 500 bank will not.
Don’t get it twisted: this is a good thing for the union leadership to have negotiated their way out from under this tax that would have targeted their bargaining unit members. But at the same time, it was their people who were being targeted in the first place. And a $25,000 per year SEIU janitor will look at a 40% tax on her benefits differently than a $70,000 per year NEA teacher or a $250,000 per year non-union physician or a $500,000 per year non-union senior vice president will look at the same tax. Because the 40% tax the janitor would pay on her Cadillac plan represents a whole lot more money percentage-wise than the SVP’s 40% tax on his plan. And if you guys can’t grasp WHY they will look at it differently, or why there will be no hue and cry from anyone who stops and thinks about the tax and who it would hit hardest and why, then, well . . . again you cons may be in worse shape than I thought.
B-Rob said:
Um, so like the millions of professionals who by the way are already shouldering an oversized share of the income tax don’t have health care policies that are going to be hit by this tax? The same ones who live in so-called “blue” states and voted for Obama in droves? Even out here on the left coast solid Democratic voters from the professional classes can see that this exemption ain’t fair. I guess this is “shared sacrifice”. Be careful, or the Democrats could lose some of these folks if they finally wake up to how badly they’ve been screwing themselves.
@Missy: I’ll embed that for you!
You totally miss the point of the taxes altogether because of your tunnel vision focus. The taxes are one of the vehicles, (along with penalties, forced enrollment, etal) that is expected to fund this debacle.
Did the cost just go down because Obama exempted his favorite classes, and beloved unions, from that counted on revenue for five years? Or is it more likely that the loss of that revenue will now have to be made up for, transferring that burder to others who are not in the unions… like the other 87.6% of the American workforce.
uh huh…. that’s very “democratic”. Well, perhaps in the view of you progressives, it is. Because when you take a better look at the racial and industrial make up of unions, it becomes more clear Obama is again favoring his favorite classes.
Considering that the highest union membership rates are the public sector, it then also be said that the unions are instrumental in driving up the costs of all levels of government…. a burden that is then spread to all the taxpayers. Just as unions helped drive the US auto manufacturers into the ground, they are doing the same with government.
Considering I’ve just pointed out this is no “zero sum game” for intended revenue, your comment is imbecilic. But what you may interpret as silence from some is a result of manipulators, like you, misrepresenting the facts.
However there is no “silence” in the media about the deal, and the citizenry is listening, and watching. Whether or not the masses share your math deficiencies, they do recognize blatant special interest favors from a guy who ranted and railed about special interests on the campaign trail.
The steam pouring from the ears of those fed up with the federal spending frenzy just stepped up a notch. And it becomes just one more reason to toss this 2000+ piece of garbage down the disposal, and work on a way to reduce the costs of medical services and supplies first.
And I see you are dodging @ more more likely scenario #4 where the tax breaks get pocketed to pad them for when the tax moratorium is lifted. There is no where in the agreement that binds them to leaving coverage as status quo for the duration merely for receiving the tax break. Any changes in costs of medical supplies is a legitimate excuse for them to reduce benefits.
Congress themselves provide inspiration for this sleazy loophole by example… collect the money in advance, hold doling out the benefits until later. A very profitable solution that apparently a lot of us out here see as a raw deal.
Regardless of the details concerning the Cadillac provision or any other bribe or inducement to get congress to pass this extremely unpopular bill. I believe that there will be at least one Senator out of the 60 that previously voted for the bill that will come to their senses and throw a monkey wrench into the Obama/Pelosi/Reid machine. We may get there with Scott Brown, but, even if that does not happen, I have faith that at least one Democrat will place country over party. Fairness over corruption.
Whomever it is, they will have the gratitude of a majority of the American public. Nelson has a great deal for which to make ammends. He may stay the course and hope that the citizens of Nebraska will forget or he may realize that the only way to salvage his career in Nebraska politics is to distance himself from this bill. Or… we may see Joe Lieberman be a true independent. I’ve always seen Joe as a man that really cared about the country, maybe this will be his shot at leading the way toward a more constituent oriented politician.
It doesn’t matter who the individual is, they will make history by killing this bill and would be justified in any future campaign to ask the American people to reward their backbone with campaign contributions. I would donate to whomever had the balls to take a stand regardless of their State, and the fact that they would be a democrat.
We MUST kill this bill.
If we can’t find a Democrat Senator that would stand up to do what is right, perhaps we can find one that is sleazy enough that they can be bribed out of their vote. Maybe the promise of a nice cushy job in the private sector at 5 to 10 million a year. We’ve learned from the Obama camp and Saul Alinsky that the “End Justifies the Means”.
@B-Rob sez:
um, yeah. So Congress, who can’t agree on that definition among themselves, has called you for your omnipotent input?
Since the entire reasoning for taxing this unknown criteria that constitutes “a cadillac plan” is for revenue, they can’t make too narrow a definition without shooting off their own foot. This is the very reason that Obama’s economic advisors were pushing the tax as the #1 cost saver. And here you are, telling us there just isn’t that many of them around. Which of you is way off the reservation of talking points, I wonder….
The Baucus bill, which originated the “fee” or “excise tax” on these plans didn’t define it via deductible or co-pays, but as … plans that amounted to $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family. Unions balked because, @as I pointed out, a bulk of union plans are for high risk, high medical costs unions such as fire fighters. The private industry unions for those such as manufacturing, miners, etc, also complained because the higher amounts were needed because any injuries were likely to be more cost intensive than a desk jockey may incur.
This vague definition was still controversial and elusive as of Jan 5th, when CNN Money’s Allan Sloan continued to point out the the definition revolves around not benefits, but how much they cost…. all of which depends upon the individual’s health and their location. Using some of their definitions of cost, even Medicare, averaging $11,000 to seniors, fits that definition (tho it would not be subject to the tax).
This article about a Philly playground supervisor’s plan points out that altho his plan is not overly generous, contributes $1560 annually PLUS co-pays on top of that, the costs of his plan rise because of the cost of medical services rising. Something that nothing in the House/Senate bill addresses with a snippet of adequacy.
So how long before the majority of plans land in the threshhold of “cadillac” with rising cost, and legislation that does nothing to curb them? Well hang… what does Congress care? They just get more to tax.
Your lack of curiousity as to a final Congressional definition and it’s inherent inequity, then combined with your blind faith acceptance and assumptions, makes for dangerous and underinformed support. If they went with your assumed definition, the revenues would be inadequate as notable reduction in costs. And even such negligible revenue is only exempt for a few years…. assuming they do not go ahead and pass on the costs anyway as “option #4”.
But they must have figured out a way to buy support, since the union for State, County, and Municipal Employees cancelled their protest press release last Friday. It seems everyone is for sale these days… even if they agree to be bought for five years instead of an hour in a local motel room.
Do you really think that when the time comes for these sweetheart exemptions to expire that the congress won’t come under pressure to extend them another 5 years, and then another, and another? It isn’t really about revenue neutrality anymore, it’s about the new political spoils system. After all, they’ll just print money to cover any shortfalls, in effect just another stealth tax on the prudent and productive. So what really matters is the relative position of the “base” versus everyone else. Of course, nothing’s stopping the rest of us from forming unions and finding some way to take advantage of the loopholes – unless, that is, they draft the legislation to blatantly single out specific unions for special treatment. That seems like a pretty tough sell constitutionally – but then again, a few more Supreme Court appointments like the last one and we could be good to go there as well – frightening.
@Doug: You hit the nail on the head. Just like there is no guarantee Dems would make the medicare cuts to finance their health care takeover, there is nothing to stop them from extending these benefits to unions.
And of course once the damage is done and the bill is passed it will be harder to generate opposition to extending these benefits.
@Doug:
There’s another way, we can all become Amish or Christian Scientist.
The unions were powerful enough to get this special deal in the first place, they’ll get it again.
Won’t this also encourage union membership? leading to a larger, stronger membership? Of course this will be extended, made permanent, the debt will continue to grow.
If all else fails, I’m hoping enough states gets the nasty thing thrown out.
Mata —
The playground supervisor is 99.999% likely to be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. He will be exempted from the tax under the new deal. And OBVIOUSLY this tax was not the linchpin of the program, as you claim, because if it were, the Obama administration would NOT HAVE BARGAINED IT AWAY.
Doug — there are no “millions” of professionals who are going to be hit by this. First, not every professional with an individual employment agreement will have a Cadillac plan. My ex, for example, has a contract but not an “all the bells and whistles” health plan. Second, like I said, it is one thing for your $12,000 per year family health insurance policy to be taxed when you make $500,000 per year; it is quite a different thing when you are an SEIU janitor making $30,000.
Missy, et al. — As for this increasing union membership, one thing I know for sure from experience — workers who are satisfied DO NOT UNIONIZE. Not because unions are the big bad wolf that you wingnuts portray them to be; but they add a layer of cost and, initially at least, a modicum of conflict and uncertainty. Joe Blow worker doesn’t like to run these risks UNLESS they think they have no other choice but to unionize. If you want to keep unions out, the easiest way to do that is to pay a competitive wage, offer competitive benefits, and run a decent shop. THAT is why upwards of 80% of private sector businesses are non-union — management is smart enough to keep them out. It does not take management offering them a Cadillac health insurance plan, just offer something decent. Alas, it is getting more and more expensive to offer something decent, which is why you see non-insurance company employers supporting or at least staying neutral on this entire health insurance issue. They know how bad the situation is out there, spending $12,000 per employee for family coverage. And I will bet you they won’t oppose this union deal, either.
One other thing — if we could come up with a way for employers to not have to provide a decent health insurance package as part of compensation, they would have a lower cost structure and maybe be able to hire more, pay more in cash wages, and/or avoid layoffs. That $12,000, or some portion of it (like 3/4 if they have to be employed 3 months to qualify) is a sunk allocation as soon as you hire a new employee. But if you did not have to offer that, maybe you can offer $2,000 more in salary, or hire more people, or avoid laying off people to save the $12,000 cost. This, along with allowing the random employee more of an opportunity to start a business for himself, or take a job that pays more but does not have benefits, would be a positive side effect of a decent public safety net for non-Medicare and non-Medicaid folks. Under the current system, though, people like my former client (50s, laid off, no insurance, the has a stroke) are screwed. I have not heard anything from the con side that addresses people who are in the middle and lose their job but don’t qualify for the current programs.
* * * * *
And one last thing, cons. Let’s say the courts do overturn the individual mandate part. The easiest way to solve the problem of uninsured free riders who refuse to get health insurance and who bankrupt hospitals with uncompensated emergency room care will be to INVOLUNTARILY ENROLL THEM in a health insurance plan. And what would that be? How about an expansion of Medicare? Because you DON’T want 30 million plus people out there uncovered because some bow tie wearing conservative lawyer convinces the Supremes that his client has a constitutional right to run around uncovered, the cost to the federal and state fisc bedamned. So rather than have the exchanges and the mandates convincing people to get their own coverage, a conservative “triumph” in the courts will have set in motion an argument to have universal cradle to grave stopgap coverage from the government.
I won’t even get into the “standing” issue — i.e., even if a bunch of cornpone eating Red State GOPer attorneys general think they should sue over the individual mandate, they will have to find a client who is actually “injured” by the mandate. That would be a fun deposition trying to get that plaintiff to explain how he is injured by the mandate.
Missy and Doug —
Interesting folks, the Amish. Large Amish populations around me. They do not have insurance. They pool their money and pay cash. Of course, that means that someone from a local community shows up with $79,000 cash to pay off a medical bill for a surgery. Alas, that is not a workable alternative for most of us, is it?
Actually…it is an alternative available to just about everyone. My wife’s surgery cost $26,000, we’re on a payment plan. Cheaper than a Cadillac and the ride is much smoother.
The biggest problem with paying cash. Hospitals have a two tier pricing system and those of us that do pay cash pay more for the same procedure than those that have their care paid for through the government or insurance. This is blatantly unfair. The cost should be the cost and an individual shouldn’t be discriminated against with a higher price because they pay cash.
@B-Rob
Or….. do not allow uninsured individuals from claiming medical bills in a bankruptcy proceeding.
This might mean they have to give up their cable tv for 10 or 20 years… or it might mean that they “insure” against such a situation in the first place.
Oh wait… we can’t cut people off from the propoganda machine…. never mind
Having catastrophic health care plans with $10,000 deductibles available would make such policies very very affordable. People wouldn’t be abusing the system visiting the doctor whenever they got a runny nose. Then we could have a government program that provides up to $10,000 loans or revolving creditat say 1% interest per month on any unpaid balance. Then the government (taxpayers) wouldn’t be subsidizing health care.
@B-Rob:
Hate to break it to you brob, I have Amish friends that do have health insurance, a couple families that I know also have auto insurance because, they drive……cars. Several have installed phone booths on their properties to share with their community, they are mowing their lawns with lawnmowers with motors and are using power tools.
I know about the health insurance because I visited shortly after hearing of one of the babies that had to be flown down to the KC University hospital. I asked them how they were ever going to pay for it and she told me they had insurance.
You don’t have to lecture me on unions, I was in a union in one of my first jobs and my father belonged to a union for 43 years before it was broken, my brother has been in his union since 1972 and my son is a union worker. I also grew up in Chrysler country watching the power grabs, reading the propaganda sheets they passed out to members and witnessed the decline in that company for years. A big eye-opener was when I was a construction secretary for a prime contractor that retooled Chrysler in 85. Trade unions made a mess of that job that drove up costs and no contractor was allowed to bid if they weren’t unionized.
And yes, small business runs leaner and smarter.
Note it’s the same ol’ “no individuals, just groups and classes” billy bob think he constantly exhibits, Missy. If you know one Amish, you *must* know them all, right?