The problem is that many union workers agreed to (read: settled for) high-end medical plans as a CONCESSION for giving up other benefits and/or proper pay levels. Now they're getting fucked for those medical plans as well.

I dunno. Based on this, it sounds like the tax fits right in with the rest of the bill: it's not perfect, doesn't go far enough, and wasn't framed correctly, but yeah, is just a part of the equation that makes law that Americans are entitled to universal healthcare coverage for the first time in history.

The Civil Rights Act of 1957 - which the conservatives previously lost their shit over - was of the same ilk. It was no Civil Rights Act of 1964, but it was among the first steps in a long march toward justice.

Once it's law that all Americans must be covered (which currently is not the law), the only question that remains is how to most fairly, effectively and efficiently do that. Until that point, it'll always be a debate of whether or not it's a good idea that all Americans get covered at all.

I entirely understand why the tax is in the bill, but also fully support labor's opposition to it. The job security, wages, seniority, favorable leave policies, and other protections and benefits unions gave up over the last 15 years in order to maintain strong health coverage cannot be ignored. Strong health benefits are a priority for unions because they don't want their members to be among the way too high number of people who have insurance but are still sent to bankruptcy due to medical bills.

The sacrifices made by many workers (primarily union, but also others) to maintain health coverage deserves particular recognition given the state of labor relations. The balance betweeen workers and employers has shifted drastically towards employers which will make the process of fighting back from the medical coverage and other losses difficult and lengthy if at all possible in the first place. Given that, I'm concerned that this tax, which may result in reduced costs, could also result in insurance companies and employers cutting the actual benefits to lower the price tag under the taxable level. That is something that no workers, unionized or otherwise deserve.

HCR should not be sacrificed to fix this issue, but until it becomes untenable I will support those who fight to change this tax.

Why don't we just tax all employer provided health insurance? It is income just as much as a company provided car, stock options, bonuses, salary, etc. We could still tax progressively as we do with income.

Also someone on NPR said that choosing the tax threshold based on employer expenditure is broken, because smaller employers get worse rates for the same coverage. Oops.

I don't get what you mean by the "worth" of an insurance plan. Is that premiums (both what the employer and individual pay) or how much is paid out in benefits in a year? If the latter, how does that not completely fuck over someone who gets seriously ill? Paying for cancer treatment isn't "Cadillac" care, it's just CARE.

@4,

Because it's a political nonstarter. Besides, people already don't pay taxes on their own premiums. The government has made the decision not to count health insurance premiums as income.

@1 has a point.

An easier sell would be what BC did, by instituting a carbon tax and reducing corporate and personal income taxes. We could have a carbon tax that paid for health care.

Ram it down their throats. They're old white men anyway so who cares?

You guys will accept anything at this point. The save face approach. That does not change the fact that this is another stupid provision in a really flawed bill. Why don't members of congress just grow a pair and tax everyone, not people with "better", or how about "not as bad", benefits. Increase the income tax on everyone, including low income people. The only people that should be exempt are pregnant women with health problems and no abortion coverage. They already face the prospect of being thrown under the bus cause the wussies in congress could not stand up to a bunch of childmolesters in robes.

"Paying for cancer treatment isn't "Cadillac" care, it's just CARE."

#5 Thank you. The term "Cadillac" was attached because some members of congress did not want to look like shit when they found a minority to tax "for the good of the group". They are wussies and they need to man up and tax everyone. The rest of the group also needs to buck up and pay up. There are plenty of people bitching about the "good of the group" who don’t want to make any personal sacrifices themselves. They really should shut the fuck up. If they were serious about the good of the group they would call their members of congress and demand that they be taxed more even if it means they have to spend their money on “the group” instead of drinks at a Capitol Hill bar.

This will effect me. I am willing to pay higher taxes in return for OTHER PEOPLE to be insured. This is the difference between a Democrat and a republican. Hopefully my union (and my wife's) will take the additional tax burden into account when negotiations reopen.

#10 It is the difference between some democrats and republicans. There are plenty of democrats who are not willing to actively demand that they should sacrifice too. They may say they are willing to take a tax increase if casually asked, but that is useless, and they will often offer up dumb responses like cut the defense budget. (Yes of course that would be nice). Many would just quietly prefer that someone else take a hit. Ann Coulter once said liberals are really good at spending other people’s money. Well, she’s not always wrong.

@10: Why should my taxes go toward paying cops to protect you? Or toward roads to serve you? Or toward water that you drink?

God, you're so needy.

I'm a union member. I'm willing to take a tax hit until our next contact negotiation.

13
Good boy.
Cause you should expect a reaming...

11
hubba
hubba
Not only is she not always wrong, she is smoking hot. God I wish Democratic women weren't such water buffaloes...

@14 -- Will you vote for a Democrat for president if my insurance rates go down by the next election?