Comments | ontd_political: Tax on 'gold-plated' health care plans gains ground

evildevil in ontd_political

Tax on 'gold-plated' health care plans gains ground

Jul 26, 2009 10:43

Tax on 'gold-plated' health care plans gains ground

White House officials are embracing a plan to tax "gold-plated, Cadillac" insurance policies, giving momentum to an idea that is receiving bipartisan consideration on Capitol Hill.

"A premium charge on top of the most expensive packages is one of the ways to ensure that there's a lid on health-care ( Read more... )

Comments 9

angelus7988 July 26 2009, 20:13:12 UTC

After reading the article, I am still at a loss as to what exactly they are trying to accomplish and how.

noirgirlcity July 26 2009, 20:23:28 UTC

I don't think they know what they're trying to do accomplish, or how, either. This doesn't appear to be very well thought out.

audacian July 26 2009, 20:20:38 UTC

"The official said the tax could be unfair to employees in states with high-cost insurance, including New York, California, Florida, Texas, Illinois and Michigan."

Srs. My insurance costs ~$20,000 for 2 people, and we pay $200 a month (92% covered by my husband's employer). We're only bringing in $40k a year so this would kind of stink.

Can we just divorce the health care industry from employment now plz?

noirgirlcity July 26 2009, 20:25:09 UTC

Wouldn't that force people to accept the public "option"? A lot of people depend on the subsidized plans offered by their employers. That would contradict what POTUS has been saying about keeping what you have if you like it.

audacian July 26 2009, 20:37:43 UTC

Having a public option will do that anyway since many employers will stop offering coverage at all.

My husband's wont, because he's union (and a state employee), but yeah, I know what you mean. I have no idea what should happen. :/

noirgirlcity July 26 2009, 20:48:28 UTC

Good point about the employers. I hadn't considered that. I'm going to be a federal employee soon, so I wonder if I'll have to accept the public option by default. :/

baked_goldfish July 26 2009, 23:41:11 UTC

A key argument for the plan is that the top few Goldman Sachs executives receive policies worth $40,000 each, the administration official said.

Then why not raise their income tax instead of creating a messy, probably incoherent system to tax insurance plans?

jmintmilano July 27 2009, 00:47:59 UTC

Health benefits aren't taxed, so that doesn't make sense.

militsa July 27 2009, 03:23:56 UTC

I am perfectly willing to pay some tax on my employer provided health insurance plan -- not sure whether it is "gold plated" or "Cadillac" but it's pretty darn good and I pay a relatively small portion of it, but I'm sure about this "super premium" idea. Won't it just drive more ppl to using the government option? Which then destroys the whole point of possibly raising some taxes on those plans? This sounds half-baked, as usual.