President Obama’s promise that “if you like your current coverage you can keep it” was always an obvious lie, and not just because the law was always going to inherently change the small individual market. In a few years the Affordable Care Act will also begin significantly impacting the coverage of many people with employer provided insurance
|By: Jon Walker Wednesday October 30, 2013 12:00 pm|
|By: emptywheel Thursday September 2, 2010 3:30 pm|
In honor of Steve Rattner’s revelation that Rahm Emanuel wandered around during the auto bailout saying “fuck the UAW,” I’ve renamed the “Cadillac tax” the “Fuck the UAW” tax.
|By: Jon Walker Monday March 22, 2010 2:20 pm|
In Klein’s attempt to defend the bill, he points to five cost controls. Only two seem to show some promise. Two others are dubious, with little evidence to back up the belief that they will bring down prices and one “cost control” is not even in the bill at all, just a vague hope for a better tomorrow.
|By: Michael Whitney Thursday March 18, 2010 4:00 pm|
The Change to Win labor federation has unsurprisingly backed the health care bill, even with the increased excise tax on middle class health care plans. Later, the AFL-CIO’s Executive Committee also decided to endorse the bill.
|By: Michael Whitney Wednesday March 17, 2010 2:35 pm|
This is frankly rather amazing in that totally-saw-it-coming way. We’ve been waiting for days to see the CBO score to see how much the final health care bill will cost, with the goals being to both reduce the deficit and to fit under the arbitrary $900 billion cap posed by Obama.
It seems they’ve been unable to do so, as Ben Smith now reports that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is on his way to the White House to discuss plans by Democrats to actually raise the tax on middle class health care plans in order to pay for the bill.
|By: masaccio Sunday January 17, 2010 4:00 pm|
Senate Democrats don’t care if the Teacher Tax doesn’t translate into higher wages. They get their increased revenues even if American workers don’t get higher wages.
|By: Michael Whitney Thursday January 14, 2010 7:14 am|
If unions take this deal, it’s a sell-out of epic proportions. I’m hard pressed to think of a deal unions could cut in health care that would cause more long-term damage to not just the credibility of the labor movement, but the middle class.
|By: Jon Walker Wednesday January 13, 2010 7:30 pm|
The so called “Cadillac” tax is, in reality, a teacher tax. It taxes plans based on their cost, but not their generosity. As anyone who has bought health insurance will tell you, the biggest factor in determining the cost of insurance is not how generous the coverage is, but the sex, age, and health status of the buyer. As a result professions that tend to employer older, less healthy females–like teaching–will bare the brunt of this excise tax, regardless of how generous or bare bones the policies.
|By: bmaz Wednesday January 13, 2010 7:30 am|
There has been a fair amount of misinformation and disinformation about what has been said by Marcy Wheeler on this blog about Jonathan Gruber, including by Paul Krugman; there was also no foundation for it.
|By: Lawrence Mishel Tuesday January 12, 2010 5:00 pm|
In the dysfunctional health insurance market, high-cost does not equal high-value; and it is not comprehensiveness of coverage that is the primary predictor of who will be affected by the excise tax, rather it is the size of the firm they work for or the age of their co-workers. The fact that Chevy plans are about as likely to be taxed as Cadillac plans is one reason to be cautious about relying on such a tax.