How can democrats smooth this out? Can we really have democratic style reforms without taxing union plans? I think the realities of UHC or democratic style healthcare reform is starting to come to light for some. UHC will cost money it ain't free so more taxes will be needed.
As I have said to my union brothers, in the eyes of the Social Democrats in power now we are part of the evil rich. My union brothers want to consider themselves "working class" but in reality our wages with benefits put us into the top 10% of wage earners. And that puts a target on our backs no matter what the Dems say when they are pandering in our union halls. Our health care bundle ($13.75hr above the envelope (before tax)) puts us well into the punitive tax zone . . . And then remember all those billions sitting in union private pension and annuity funds not buying votes for Dems . . . Look out brothers and sisters!
Well, a lot of union workers are taking pay cuts these past two years. Like, just see how much they cut autoworkers to bail out their companies. They took a massive pay cut. See, what happens in the healthcare industry in the USA is that the insurance companies become the middleman. What union workers are saying here, is if the government increases a tax on the insurance companies, the trickle down effect is going to be such that the union workers will have to pay for higher insurance premiums and deductible costs. It's pretty stupid to say "union workers are paid too much" and "now union workers will have to pay more for health insurance" in one accusatory breath. Because that is the reality of what this bill is about - so just think of the way the government has decided to bear the brunt of a reformed healthcare system - they're going to require the working class union-backed jobs to help them out of the recession and keep the economy going. It's an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" deal of co-operation that allows industries access to re-investments and employers won't have to pay as much to insurance companies for healthcare coverage through HMOs. Workers who have health insurance are less likely to be ill and take time off work, so if you have employee health insurance coverage, you have more productive workers than the other guy - this is crucially important for global market competition purposes and keeps an industry running along strong. It's not the unions per se that make healthcare reform complicated for Democrats, it's already complicated enough with insurance companies busting unions and lobbying government with big money to back up their free marketable labour systems.
This is related to funding reform: If all of this is accurate then wouldn't it had been better and less controversal for Obama and the Dems to reform healthcare by first going after this money wasting fraud? The money saved from fraud reduction itself could take care of many of the issues associated with funding healthcare reform(increasing defict,taxing cadillac plans etc),right?
It's complicated in the sense that this is becoming a divisive issue for democrats and may possibly strain their relationship with unions. Democrats like Rahm Emanuel seem to support taxing these cadillac plans. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/18/obama-aide-defends-tax-on-so-called-cadillac-plans/
The Baucus Bill taxes people 35% on policies that cost more than $8000 a year. This will penalize union workers who have "negotiated for better benefits instead of higher wages." My union's plan amounts to $13.75 hr X 2000 hrs = $27,500 - $8000 = $19,500 X .35 = $6825 Tax on me?????????? Uhhhhh, NFW! I don't know what bubble the writer/interviewee lives in but work related injuries are handled by Workman's Compensation Insurance not one's regular health insurance. My union's (construction trade) health plan wants all kinds of substantiation that an injury was not work related; this goes for prescriptions for pain and orthopedic conditions etc too. Workman's Comp is rated according to the trade and the company's incident rating; The company contracts for the WC insurance directly, there is no "group rate" unless it is bundled under the General Contractor's contract having all sub's under their coverage umbrella. My employer / trade working at elevation, with sharp and dangerous materials and with cranes and overhead loads has a very high WC cost, it presently costs my employer $8.57 per $100 of gross wages. Every employee is rated at that not just field, at risk personnel -- even the office people. Workman's Comp, covering injury on the job, has nothing to do with any of the health care proposals out there.
^^That's the thing. Insurance companies have every right to raise premiums for people who work in risky jobs or higher risk of illness or incident jobs. That's what policemen, firemen have had to fight for to get included into their insurance policies. When my grandfather started working as a policeman, his private life insurance policy provided by the company did not include death caused while being injured on the job - as a result to push the insurance company to include coverage, the company charged them higher premiums. It's not a bubble at all - it happens all of the time. You pay more in insurance for the more coverage you need related to your job.
And now you are bringing life insurance into the discussion??? Whats next, you complaining that Ferrari drivers pay more for car insurance? I understand risk tables and actuarial tables and how they are used. But . . . Howbout we keep the discussion centered on health insurance, which does not cover on the job injury or illness.
