Obama Economic Advisor Touts ‘Cadillac Tax’ as No. 1 Cost Saver
EmailABC News' Teddy Davis reports: President Obama's chief economic forecaster went to bat on Monday for a tax on high-priced insurance plans, the so-called "Cadillac tax," calling it "probably the number one item that health economists across the ideological spectrum believe is likely to stem the explosion of health-care costs." "The Senate Finance Committee bill includes a tax on high-priced insurance plans, suggested by Senator Kerry. A policy along these lines, designed carefully, will encourage both employers and employees to be more watchful health care consumers," said Christina Romer, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, in a noontime speech to the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C. "It will discourage insurance companies from offering high-priced plans that would otherwise eat up larger and larger shares of workers' wages," she continued. "A policy such as this is probably the number one item that health economists across the ideological spectrum believe is likely to stem the explosion of health care costs."Romer's full-throated endorsement of the "Cadillac tax" keeps the Obama administration at odds on this issue with some of its closest allies. Organized labor has made killing the "Cadillac tax" a top priority and more than half of House Democrats have signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging her not to include a "Cadillac tax" in health-care legislation.The union-funded Health Care for America Now group recently launched a television ad attacking the "Cadillac tax" as the wrong way to pay for health-care reform.Opponents of the "Cadillac tax" argue that it would hit the benefit packages of middle-class union members. They also worry that its impact across the country would be uneven, hitting firms with older workers harder than those with younger workers. Another concern is that the "Cadillac tax" contained in the Senate Finance Committee's legislation does not take regional differences in health-care costs into account on a long-term basis.
During the question-and-answer period which followed her prepared remarks, Romer sidestepped questions from The Washington Post and ABC News about what the cost-control impact would be if Congress were to drop the "Cadillac tax."
On the question of how the "Cadillac tax" should be "designed carefully," Romer told ABC News that a handful of ideas were under consideration by Congress including: (1) making special provisions for high-risk occupations such as firefighters; (2) taking regional differences in health-care costs into account "for a period of time"; and (3) making special provisions for firms with older, more costly workers.
Among the multiple ideas touted as cost savers during her speech, Romer touted the capacity of a public insurance option.
She was less sure, however, about the impact that a public option with a trigger would have, citing a lack of plentiful data on the subject.
On the topic of uncompensated care, Romer seemed to acknowledge during the question-and-answer period that there would be a cost associated with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants remaining uninsured under health-care reform efforts being pursued by President Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill.
"The more uninsured care remains, the more state and local governments will be spending on it," said Romer.
The overarching message of Romer's address was that health-care reform is "the most significant act" the United States "could take to tackle the deficit."
Republicans have been using the country's $1.4 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009 to argue that the U.S. cannot afford the cost of President Obama's effort to overhaul the nation's health-care system. The president told Congress that the final health-care bill must be paid for and keep costs below $900 billion over ten years.
"Done correctly," said Romer, "health care reform can genuinely slow the growth rate of health care costs and thus puts us on a path to greatly reduced budget deficits in the long run."
–Teddy Davis
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
My question is, is this tax going to be indexed with inflation or will it turn out to be another AMT hitting more and more taxpayers every year. I do not trust this gov’t and don’t want this plan to pass.
Posted by: Anne | October 26, 2009, 2:06 pm 2:06 pm
Suddenly the unions don’t like it when they find out that the tax will wind up hitting them in their wallets.
Even Obama knows that there’s not enough rich people that he can tax in order to support all of his spending…
Posted by: BV | October 26, 2009, 2:09 pm 2:09 pm
The overarching message of Romer’s address was that health-care reform is “the most significant act” the United States “could take to tackle the deficit.”
==========
We don’t know how it will work. And we don’t know what it will look like. But certainly it is the cure to our deficit problem.
Posted by: MayBee | October 26, 2009, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm
Once everyone is forced to buy health insurance, the costs of insurance will rise. More people will go to the doctor with the sniffles, more demand and no change in supply equals higher prices. Higher prices equals higher costs for insurance.
As the costs for insurance rise, more if not all us will fall into the “Cadillac” plan tax.
Insurance companies make money. This is good, otherwise they wouldn’t be in business. But, why does everyone need health insurance? I thought the main objective was health CARE for all. There are other ways of providing health care for people without giving that profit to the health insurance company in the process.
For example, everyone who seeks health care for all can sign up for a voluntary 10% withdrawal of their salary to put into a fund to help the poor. Or, you can do it yourself. Just give 10% of your money every week to the poor or to charity hospitals.
If not, you might be forced to give up a lot more than that in new taxes.
This will cost us all A LOT OF MONEY. Forever.
Posted by: Sandra | October 26, 2009, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
It is gratifying to see Obama taking on unions for the good of the country. It may ultimately be his Bush Sr moment, when he enrages a key component of his base to do what is right for the country, but in my opinion that is fine company for him to stand in.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
“Once everyone is forced to buy health insurance, the costs of insurance will rise. More people will go to the doctor with the sniffles, more demand and no change in supply equals higher prices. Higher prices equals higher costs for insurance.”
Sandra | Oct 26, 2009 2:23:12 PM
As many have pointed out, current plans are for benefits to kick in around 2013. That is plenty of time for supply to ramp up. And you are completely disregarding the doctor hours saved from treating the sniffles with antibiotics (30 minutes) versus treating advanced pneumonia that staggers into the ER several weeks later (weeks in the hospital and hundreds of doctor hours).
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
Keep up the taxing and spending. Geez no real Tort reform,Hmmm. Not only stealing the eggs but actually killing the Goose!
Posted by: pauldia | October 26, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
If you think this tax will apply to the unions and our benefits package…..I have news for you..it WON’T!! and thats gauranteed
Posted by: union strong | October 26, 2009, 2:32 pm 2:32 pm
The U.S. tax code has three massive loopholes that make no economic sense, but are so widely spread nobody wants to give them up: tax deductions for mortgage payments, tax deductions for student loans and tax deductions for health insurance. And we are all shocked… SHOCKED… to hear that housing prices, college tuitions and health care premiums are all growing ridiculously rapidly every year! Emotionally, I benefit from all three of these, so I don’t want to lose these benefits, but intellectually I see no justification why I (and millions of others) should be getting these tax breaks!
Posted by: Mark H | October 26, 2009, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
If you think this tax will apply to the unions and our benefits package…..I have news for you..it WON’T!! and thats gauranteed
union strong | Oct 26, 2009 2:32:51 PM
Now that’s quality right wing trolling. I’m a liberal and that post makes even me want to throw unions under the bus. Go for it, Obama.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 2:37 pm 2:37 pm
How is this going to paid for?
1. Seniors will lose out because the benefits of Medicare and Medicare Advantage will go down.
2. Union workers and other employees who have good insurance will have to pay many thousands of dollars each year for this plan.
3. Very ill people who have to pay a lot for their policies will have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars each year to continue having their same policy.
4. The poor will now be forced to purchase health insurance they previously chose not to. Perhaps they thought they needed heat more. Perhaps they thought they needed food more. So, the poor will be forced to pay for this new “benefit.”
5. The really wealthy don’t bother with health insurance because they don’t need to allocate risk. They can afford to take the risks of self insurance. So, this tax will not affect them. (fyi – If you have an extra $60,000 lying around, you can post that as a bond and not have to buy car insurance either.)
How on earth providing more services for people will not cost any money is beyond me. The only way this, or any plan, can “lower” costs for the government (which gets all its money from us) is to use an accounting trick and charge the people directly for costs instead of having the government provide the good and then tax the people to get it.
EITHER WAY – it costs US, a lot more money.
I don’t really how the government does its accounting. I care about how much I get to keep each month. With this, or any plan, I will get to keep LESS.
I agree with my namesake above, if you want to give money to someone, then do it.
(Oh, and I wonder how much money the new health IRS-like agency will cost? I mean, we are going to have to make sure everyone is buying insurance right? Someone has to watch everyone. Sounds like a big new expensive government agency to me.)
Posted by: Sandy | October 26, 2009, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm
How exactly does a “Cadillac Plan” differ from a Ferarri plan, or a Ford Ranger plan, or a Geo Metro plan or a rusty three speed Bicycle plan? Does a visit to the doctors for sniffles that would otherwise cost 100 bucks drive the total cost, or is it the big time interventions and long term care? I would bet it’s the latter, and without that, insurance ain’
t insurance.
Posted by: Emmit Brown | October 26, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm
Sandy | Oct 26, 2009 2:40:07 PM
Just about all your points are incorrect. This is a fundamental problem with the health care debate – the opposition to it is (charitably) based on not understanding what is proposed.
1. Medicare Advantage is unstainable. It will go away regardless of whether reform is passed.
2. Just not true.
3. Laughably not true – if this reform passes, the very sick will have many options they do NOT have now. At a minimum, they can switch to another private carrier since pre-existing conditions will not bar coverage.
4. The true poor will receive support to cover their health care so they can get $20 in antibiotics rather than have to wait until they are serious enough to get a free bed in the hospital via the ER.
5. What does this have to do with reform??? The majority of the wealth carry insurance right now. A couple million for cancer treatment takes a dent out of just about every one in the US.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
Name me one (1) government program that ever saved anyone money???
Posted by: Edward | October 26, 2009, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm
“Does a visit to the doctors for sniffles that would otherwise cost 100 bucks drive the total cost,”
Emmit Brown | Oct 26, 2009 2:47:43 PM
Yes, yes it can. There is a reason co-pays are so popular and it isn’t because that $20 makes a big difference. The studies clearly show that small co-pays radically cut the number of visits to the doctor. For $20 you’ll go to the doctor with a fever of 103F, but you’ll take an aspirin for a bad hangover. It is a big impact and it is very well documented.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm
WORKING POOR VS. UNIONS
How will the Democrats explain, any agreement with unions, that will reduce their belly aching over the ‘Cadillac Tax’, while they continue on hatching plans for a penalty on the Working Poor?
Working Poor can not afford a hypocritical Health Care Tax/Penaly, because every dollar they have, is needed for off-the-shelves, Flu Medicine, Aspirins, Toothpaste, Mouth Wash, Soap, Bandages, Ointments, Vitamins, and many other non-prescription items available at the local pharmacy.
STOP SNOB HYPOCRITES WHO CLAIM THEY WANT TO INSURE THE WORKING POOR, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME THEY STEAL OUR MONEY WITH PENALTIES.
$$$$$ FOR OFF-THE-SHELVES HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS, NOT PENALTIES!
Posted by: SanchoSotomayor | October 26, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
“Name me one (1) government program that ever saved anyone money???”
Edward | Oct 26, 2009 2:53:11 PM
A few would be the Internet, Hoover dam, interstates (well, on the West coast at least where they’re called Freeways for a reason), the FDA, electricity regulation, USPS, and the Pan American Health Organization (how much have we spent on smallpox treatment recently). But sure, according to the fringe Right government sucks and America’s is the worst of any in the world and therefore can’t be expected to do as well as all the other first world nations who have MUCH more affordable universal health care and on average longer life expectancies.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
They’re now saying, “compromise: states can opt out of the government option.” What kind of bovine is that? If we don’t like it, we don’t have to take it… but we still have to pay into it? ”
Obamacrat for Palin | Oct 26, 2009 2:59:30 PM
No, you wouldn’t pay into. The revenue streams proposed are quite discrete and easily allow for individual states to be exempted – as proposed in the exemption plan. Why do you have to lie about the proposals? Why can’t you support your opinion with the truth?
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 3:02 pm 3:02 pm
The Obama Express bus is ready to roll. First stop, the elderly, second stop, the union members… After that, new tires will go on…
Posted by: Gina | October 26, 2009, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
The “really wealthy” account for only the top 0.1% earners in the country. Sorry, but Obama’s definition of over $250K is not wealthy by any means – and with taxes (yes, people in that income bracket pay lots of taxes) the field is leveled quite a bit.
So putting a monetary burden on them is not going to generate much.
Also, there is not a specific tax deduction for health insurance. If you pay for health insurance out-of-pocket, you can add it in as a deductible medical expense. Considering it is paid for with “after tax” dollars (unlike getting it as an employee benefit), this seems reasonable.
Lastly, the biggest objectionable “cut” is to Medicare. If Medicare really was to be cut, it should be cut and not used as a source of funding a health reform bill. That’s cheating on the cost analysis – and a reason why our government always spends more than it pretends to spend. Its become a big numbers game. The reality is, however, that these Medicare cuts could really screw the elderly – and start precedent for more cuts. Its already bad enough that Medicare pays so poorly that only 50% of doctors will even accept Medicare patients. Why make it worse for them?
Posted by: JonF | October 26, 2009, 3:32 pm 3:32 pm
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 26, 2009 2:37:13 PM
Your spin is priceless.
If you would be honest, then you would not lie about that, the Unions and the Government workers WILL be exempt from paying taxes on their cadillac plans, the rest of us in private industries will have to pay.
Posted by: Lizzie | October 26, 2009, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
“Working Poor can not afford a hypocritical Health Care Tax/Penaly, because every dollar they have, is needed for off-the-shelves, Flu Medicine, Aspirins, Toothpaste, Mouth Wash, Soap, Bandages, Ointments, Vitamins, and many other non-prescription items available at the local pharmacy.”
___________________________________
I think the idea is the working poor (as poor as you describe) would be receiving assistance to purchase insurance, or be included in the public option.
Posted by: julieterra | October 26, 2009, 3:34 pm 3:34 pm
“Insurance companies make money. This is good, otherwise they wouldn’t be in business.”
Actually, HMO’s started off as nonprofits. In fact, they were required by law to operate on a nonprofit basis until the HMO act of 1973. Someone decided that they were doing such a great job of controlling costs that the government should allow them to go for-profit and that the govt should give incentives to new HMO’s. So now, we have HMO’s to help control costs, which they do just enough to pocket the savings as profit.
Posted by: ashley | October 26, 2009, 3:37 pm 3:37 pm
“If you would be honest, then you would not lie about that, the Unions and the Government workers WILL be exempt from paying taxes on their cadillac plans, the rest of us in private industries will have to pay.”
Lizzie | Oct 26, 2009 3:33:29 PM
If you crystal ball is wrong and the Unions and Government Workers ARE NOT exempt, then would you support the health care plan? Yes or no – you support the Finance committee bill form (unions are not exempt and Congress is covered by insurance bought on the public exchange)?
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
Rich people don’t need a Cadillac Plan.
A plan with a $2500 deductible instead of a $500 deductible is roughly $2,000 a year cheaper. Go Figure. Toss in a tax then they’ll drop it like a hot potato. Rich people know how to count their money. That’s how they stay rich.
The only people left with Cadillac plans will be the Unions and or poor people.
Posted by: Harry | October 26, 2009, 3:56 pm 3:56 pm
Attention all politicians .. there isn’t any more money left laying around for you to tax and spend. Get over it.
Posted by: John Q Public | October 26, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
From what I’ve read the cadillac plans are unrealistic plans offering things like unlimited free MRI’s. Only about 10% of plans fall into the cadillac category.
I don’t understand why the unions are objecting so much, as obviously they can’t have that many members with these plans, it will lower waste in the whole system and wages will go up if we can stop the upward spirally costs of health care. Wages have been stagnating as companies are forced to pay higher and higher premiums for the same coverage as last year.
Read a few unbiased articles about it. I’m glad I did.
Posted by: Lydia | October 26, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
So let me get this straight… We’re going to SAVE money by TAXING others? Sounds like socialism to me. Way to go Barry!
Posted by: PatF | October 26, 2009, 4:02 pm 4:02 pm
Christina Romer is ‘scary-stupid’. I heard this woman talking on a radio show recently and I didn’t know who she was. I thought she was some nut they allow to talk just to balance out the conversation. Then I found out that she was the President’s senior economic advisor. Now I know that colleges have dumbed-down so that most anybody can get the old sheep skin but this is ridiculous. I guess anybody with a couple of bucks and a little free time can even receive a Doctorate in Economics?????
Posted by: Bob D | October 26, 2009, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
jhw539…you confuse Programs with Projects. A poster asked to name a PROGRAM that saved money.You answered with construction PROJECTS
Posted by: JamesJ | October 26, 2009, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm
The tax on “cadillac plans” is supposed to be a primary funding source for Obama’s brand new government entitlement program. Yet, here one of Obama’s advisors admits employers will likely no longer offer such plans if the “cadillac tax” is imposed. So this means the funding counted on from this tax can’t be counted on because with less people offering these plans, the less tax revenue there will be. Hence, Obamacare will lead to an explosion of deficit spending and the costs will soon spiral out of control.
Posted by: ConstantXI | October 26, 2009, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
Problem being,now there is a bill being put forth to exempt the government workers and Unions from have their cadillac health plans taxed.Of course this is comming from the Democrats in congress. How Dare they attempt to tax the union health care plans. Who do they think they work for,The American Tax Payer?
Posted by: strikerF | October 26, 2009, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
I assume Obama is talking about the cadillac plans he and the congress enjoy. Until they throw them away, and join the little guy, consulticide and all, his plan is a socialist farce. The general is supposed to lead the charge not hide in back of the last horse.
Posted by: Don L | October 26, 2009, 4:17 pm 4:17 pm
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 26, 2009 3:53:08 PM
I support any reform, that will cost me 50% of my income, so I will quit work and wait till my government check comes. Does that sound right to you??????
Posted by: Lizzie | October 26, 2009, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
ObamaCare is a disaster.
And Obama and the Democratic Party continue to try to hide the details from the American Public.
Obama is trying to sell us on paying 3 and 1/2 years of taxes and Medicare cuts before any supposed benefits would take effect in 2013. That ObamaCare is being sold on the need to stem some “crisis” now(when the benefits don’t take effect until 2013) underscores how foolish and disingenuous it really is. And that ObamaCare is supposedly “deficit neutral” is laughable also. This isn’t “reform”, this is a government takeover and a catastrophe which will greatly diminish America’s economy longterm(through its gargantuan deficit spending) and which doesn’t stem the drivers of health care costs. And at the same time, your quality of health care will detoriorate significantly as Obama bureaucrats ration your care and doctor’s are driven out of the profession. ObamaCare is one sick joke.
Posted by: ConstantXI | October 26, 2009, 4:19 pm 4:19 pm
Let me get this straight, plans over $24,000 are cadillac plans??? SO my small group were I pay over $25,000 due to a heart attack and wifes Leukemia where i have no dental no vision no disability, no life is a Cadillac plan!!!!!
Posted by: BOB | October 26, 2009, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
I support any reform, that will cost me 50% of my income, so I will quit work and wait till my government check comes. Does that sound right to you??????
Lizzie | Oct 26, 2009 4:18:06 PM
It sounds like you don’t want to back up what you said.
You can quit work now and live off public assistance, charity soup kitchens and going to the ER for health care. Why don’t you?
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
jhw539…you confuse Programs with Projects. A poster asked to name a PROGRAM that saved money.You answered with construction PROJECTS
JamesJ | Oct 26, 2009 4:08:42 PM
The development of the Internet was the direct result of government programs, ‘wasted pork’ on profitless research, not a construction project. And every construction project is the result of a program – that is how our government works. I suppose next you’ll want to debate what the definition of is is.
Posted by: jhw539 | October 26, 2009, 4:27 pm 4:27 pm
Calling them “Cadillac” health care plans conveys the impression that they are luxury packages. That might be true for a CEO, or a Senator. Its much less likely to be a luxury for someone who does physical labor.
A robust health care plan is needed for people who do physical labor. They are far more likely to need an extended array of benefits when compared to people who live a more sedentary life.
If the need to find revenue is so important, then charge a health insurance surcharge of x% per pound for those who are overweight. They actually do cost the system more money in healthcare costs. We charge smokers higher premiums based on their higher than average health care costs.
Posted by: Owat Agoosiam | October 26, 2009, 4:32 pm 4:32 pm
I have posted this thought process so many times before it’s making my head throb. But…here we go again. The term “costs” has been tossed around like a frisbee for months now as the main reason we need healthcare reform. I understand people have problems with insurance companies, coverage, misdiagnoses, etc., and none of that should be happening. However, in the medical world, there are variables in play that insurance has nothing to do with. Those variables are research, development, innovation and implementation of new drugs, equipment and technology; training and retraining of doctors and nurses; more people added on to the rolls of healthcare and nursing home care. As all of these things are added in, the cost of healthcare is going to go up. That’s a given. Even WITH a so-called “competition plan” from the government, those variables are STILL THERE. The cost of innovation and better care is enormous, and those costs do get passed down. As that goes up, and your healthcare cost goes up, insurance must also go up. The question is, how does Obama think this country can implement any type of reform without adding “one penny” to the deficit? The variables I listed above cannot be controlled. Unless, of course, we don’t want any progress in the medical field. The drug companies don’t HAVE to develop new medicines for new illnesses. Doctors and nurses don’t HAVE to keep training to be on top of things in their profession. We don’t HAVE to have nursing homes, just let ‘em die, right? I mean, come on people, Obama is no more concerned about your health than your 3-doors down neighbor. And as far as the dems, they are looking for re-election and nothing else. I would LOVE to see someone, anyone, ask about the “variables” within the healthcare system, and then have Obama explain how he’s going to control them as well. That would be interesting.
Posted by: Shoe | October 26, 2009, 4:35 pm 4:35 pm
When evaluating the income generated by a surtax on “cadillac” plans, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation
assumed that a large number of employers would stop offering the plans to workers and instead increase workers’ salaries.
The IRS would then get extra tax revenue from the increased salaries.
So that’s one of the assumptions behind the assertion that it will lower the deficit.
Posted by: MayBee | October 26, 2009, 4:41 pm 4:41 pm
They have done such a wonderful job supplying H1N1 vaccines, I just can’t wait for them to have ALL my healthcare. Did you see the LINES for the vaccines?? Welcome to healthcare reform!
Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 26, 2009, 4:49 pm 4:49 pm
“Did you see the LINES for the vaccines??”
______________________________________
One would expect lineups for the vaccines, wouldn’t one?
Canada began their inoculations today too and there were of course lineups.
Posted by: julieterra | October 26, 2009, 4:57 pm 4:57 pm
One would expect lineups for the vaccines, wouldn’t one?
Canada began their inoculations today too and there were of course lineups.
Posted by: julieterra | Oct 26, 2009 4:57:06 PM
*******
Will some Canadian people also be turned away? You are using Canada as an example? They have socialized medicine, and they wait for most healthcare.
There are not enough vaccines in the US. I do NOT want a government that can’t even supply ONE item to run MY heathcare.
You are trying to minimize the latest screw up of our government. They have been warning us for 6 months to get ready for this, and THEY are not prepared! The lines were hundreds long with people waiting outside, or turned away. I have NEVER had to stand in a line for a shot.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 26, 2009, 5:23 pm 5:23 pm
jhw539..No you got it all wrong congress gets their insurance from the taxpayers so they get the top of the line coverage even Obama said his insurance was great. But then again you probably dont pay taxes so it doesnt matter to you.
Posted by: ken | October 26, 2009, 5:30 pm 5:30 pm
Wheresmy money
Perhaps you better think again. The problem with the H1N1 vaccine isn’t the government, they don’t produce the vaccines. It’s the PRIVATE companies that produce vaccines who haven’t delivered.. They sure did promise alot when they got that contract.
At least identify the correct bad guy.
Posted by: bnewtonmd | October 26, 2009, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm
Perhaps you better think again. The problem with the H1N1 vaccine isn’t the government, they don’t produce the vaccines. It’s the PRIVATE companies that produce vaccines who haven’t delivered.. They sure did promise alot when they got that contract.
At least identify the correct bad guy.
Posted by: bnewtonmd | Oct 26, 2009 5:34:04 PM
*********
Kathleen Sebelius admitted on one of the Sunday Morning talk shows that the government underestimated the severity of the situation. They don’t have enough vaccine for 1/4 of the population.
The blame still goes with the government. They could have gone to MORE THAN ONE evil PRIVATE company.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 26, 2009, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
As I understand it a cadilac plan means those plans that cover dental and eyecare in addition to the medical. So I assume if we have these two options, according to the Government spokesperson, that this is going to raise boatloads of money? In other words those of us who get out teeth cleaned and eye test cost are wealthy s.o.b’s and need to pay more taxes for it? Huh?
How long will it take for Podesta and Soros to sway Obama to push for legalizing pot?
I could use a pound or two to get me on the same mental path as congress.
Posted by: david | October 26, 2009, 5:52 pm 5:52 pm
How long will it take for Podesta and Soros to sway Obama to push for legalizing pot?
I could use a pound or two to get me on the same mental path as congress.
Posted by: david | Oct 26, 2009 5:52:14 PM
*********
Thanks for my laugh of the day! Too funny!
Posted by: wheresmymoney | October 26, 2009, 5:58 pm 5:58 pm
Is Congress going to start paying their taxes for their Cadillac plans? You know, the ultimate healthcare they get for “free”? C/o us measly taxpayers funding it for them?
Posted by: FightTheSmears | October 26, 2009, 6:22 pm 6:22 pm
This seems to confuse health care (medical services and products) costs with health insurance (premiums charged) costs. Reducing health insurance benefits may reduce health insurance costs, but it does not logically lead to reductions in health care costs.
Posted by: ed | October 26, 2009, 7:07 pm 7:07 pm
So we are going to reduce the cost of health care by taxing it to make it more expensive? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.
Posted by: K. | October 26, 2009, 7:23 pm 7:23 pm
What did Romer predict unemployment would be withou the stimulus? 8%.
And what did the Feds predict this year’s income tax receipts would be? And how did that work out?
The seeds of catastrophe that are carried with these various congressional proposals are so evident, and so certain to grow, that it’s hard not to simply laugh.
It really doesn’t matter. Even without this cuckoo legislation the nation is headed pell-mell down a slope of unpayable public debt that there’s no compelling reason not to hasten the inevitable. Let the serfs and yokels celebrate as they imagine themselves clambering a bit higher up the side they don’t know is sinking.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 26, 2009, 7:58 pm 7:58 pm
“What did Romer predict unemployment would be withou the stimulus? 8%.”
___________________________________-
Romer (and the co-author) went to great pains in her report to state clearly that the figures should NOT be interpreted as exact predictions, nor relied upon to be exact figures.
Unfortunate the right wing is unable to read.
Posted by: julieterra | October 26, 2009, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm
“the figures should NOT be interpreted as exact predictions, nor relied upon to be exact figures.”
Meaning that we should expect the actual figure to be 20-25% higher than the projection? Sure…
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | October 26, 2009, 9:20 pm 9:20 pm
“the figures should NOT be interpreted as exact predictions, nor relied upon to be exact figures.”
Meaning that we should expect the actual figure to be 20-25% higher than the projection? Sure…
___________________________________
No, meaning you should learn how to truthfully present information rather than just type trash for your own political purposes . .. .
Posted by: julieterra | October 26, 2009, 10:23 pm 10:23 pm
This is worrisome as we have a pretty good plan. It’s not the 40k of Goldman Sachs, but it is decent. My husband is union and when the men were asked to forestall wage increases they opted to increase their benefits package. This is one of the few times I have to side with Rush and say “What is so wrong with making my life a little better? What is wrong with trying to not be a burden on society?” I like my independence. I like being self sufficient. In a country with the likes of Emerson and Thoreau I can’t think of anything better.
Posted by: Mary Rowlands | October 26, 2009, 10:31 pm 10:31 pm
The problem with the current Health Plans is they can’t pay for them without the cut in Medicare, Tax on the Cadillac Plans, and mandatory Health Insurance for all. I was talking to friend from Australia esterday about the Australia, their Healthcare and taxes to support it. If you make over US$50,000 you pay 48% income tax and there is a 15% VAT on items purchased in stores. Guess that free Healthcare stuff depends on how you define it.
Posted by: 56fle | October 27, 2009, 5:55 am 5:55 am
Thank God they won’t consider taxing John Kerry, and Max Baucus friends the wealthy. That’s okay, though because while we the middle class are paying for the health care, (which is why I chose Obama, over McCain) and oil, and food which will be going back up, we will hit the wealthy, as we go right back down the tubes, sending the precious stock market into another tailspin. We will also hit the low income people, by not eating out, or spending as much on retail. The default on loans will head back in the wrong direction. But at least we aren’t making the wealthy pay any extra from the profits they make off the sweat of the middle class.
Posted by: Parma Hts Gary | October 27, 2009, 7:01 am 7:01 am
It would be nice if there was more clearification on what is ment by a “cadillac” insurance plan. I know executives get a better insurance plan than workers. I am currently assuming that plan would be placed in that definition. The border needs to be better conveyed.
Posted by: Wayne | October 27, 2009, 7:02 am 7:02 am
Hmmm, Faux Noise bemoans the fact that there is a shortage of H1N1 vaccine and blaming the (keep their grubby hands off my healthcare) government for the shortage. If there was a surplus of vaccine, these same folks would whine and complain about the waste of taxpayer $$$.
Posted by: repubswrong | October 27, 2009, 7:47 am 7:47 am
To those unfamiliar with the term “Cadillac Plan” – here’s an easy definition. If you have a plan typical of the larger unions (UAW, etc.), or a plan typical of these offered by large firms, with little to no co-pays, and a low cap on out of pocket expenses, then you have a Cadillac plan. That’s why the unions have been voicing their opposition to this tax, or looking for an exemption for any plans that are the result of collective bargaining.
Now – yesterday on MSNBC, and almost daily on the web, you can find “horror” stories from those whose medical problems ruined them financially. Many of these had insurance, but their insurance did not provide coverage that was extensive enough for their situation. So – what will be the net consequence of forcing an end to “Cadillac” insurance plans? – You will see a LOT MORE people with insurance who are vunerable to being wiped out financially because they were forced into a “lower cost” plan. Lower cost means less coverage – plain and simple. The health insurance industry operates already on one of the lowest profit margins of any business group. The industry wide margin (widely reported on AP in the past couple of days) was 2.2% in 2009, and typical margins are 6% or under. Computer network equipment makers, like Cisco Systems, based near Nancy Pelosi’s home in California, have profit margins of around 20%. Yet – who does Pelosi rail against for having “HUGE” profits, who is an “EVIL” company? – Not Cisco, why it’s those awful insurance companies who had profits last year of about only 1/10 the size of those in her “home area” industry.
There isn’t a government operation in existence that can operate with anything close to the efficiency of a private business. All this talk about a “public option” being more competitive is hogwash – the only advantage these groups will have – and this is what makes them so dangerous – is that they have the dwindling number of American taxpayers to tap into to cover their losses. If the Postal Service was forced to “compete” without taxpayer assistance it would be out of business overnight. Same would be the case for any government run insurance option, but instead of them disappearing, it will be YOUR TAX DOLLARS (assuming you are not a member of the looter class) that will be disappearing down a rat hole.
Posted by: MidwestJim | October 27, 2009, 9:00 am 9:00 am
Will they heavily tax the very lucrative health plan that Congressmen and Senators get??
Posted by: Health Czar | October 27, 2009, 9:14 am 9:14 am
I sure am glad that Ms. Romer, our Insurance Guru in the West Wing, isn’t my insurance agent…..”culd be”…”might be”….”not sure”….are answers I don’t like. Can we just drop this whole Health Care(?) Reform nonsense, give the whole mess to the CBO (…the only straight answers I have heard from anyone down on the Potomac beaches), have them form a public Commission…and I mean “public”…and under no constraint that “we gotta take a vote”….”we need to keep our 60 votes in line”..adnaseum..let them come up with A ,,JUST ONE,.AGAIN, “a” plan which can be (A) clearly communicated to the American People..(B) vited on both Houses of Congress with NO AMENDMENTS
and signed into law by the President because We, The People say so…..this whole Tower of BABEL would be silly, but it is costing you and me money, and we don’t like being held in an ignorant state, do we?
PS…I would give you more of my pearls of wisdom but I have to catch a flight to Europe to get a Swine Flu shot….aren’t these people great????
Posted by: justj joey | October 27, 2009, 10:21 am 10:21 am
“I was talking to friend from Australia esterday about the Australia, their Healthcare and taxes to support it. If you make over US$50,000 you pay 48% income tax and there is a 15% VAT on items purchased in stores.”
Australian Taxation Office, Tax rates 2009-10
• $1 – $6,000: $0
• $6,001 – $35,000: 15c for each $1 over $6,000
• $35,001 – $80,000: $4,350 plus 30c for each $1 over $35,000
• $80,001 – $180,000: $17,850 plus 38c for each $1 over $80,000
• $180,001 and over: $55,850 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000
Even with the 1.5% Medicare levy, that’s nowhere near 48%.
And the VAT tax is 10%, not 15%.
Posted by: Jess Sayen | October 27, 2009, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
You can quit work now and live off public assistance, charity soup kitchens and going to the ER for health care. Why don’t you?
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 26, 2009 4:25:09 PM
I will do that as soon as I get of the internet.Its easier to get on welfare than you think. Plus I won’t have to give up anything. So thank you, to all you working stiffs who try to make a living by working hard and living the american dream.
Posted by: Lizzie | October 27, 2009, 5:05 pm 5:05 pm
Right and fining people thousands of dollars for not enrolling in DMV style “health care” is not a “tax” either acccording to Pelosi.
This is the second biggest scam the Dems have going now after Cap n Tax & yet the Republicrats hardly utter a whimper about it.
We have no more representation in DC anymore.
There is very little difference between Al Sharpton & Newt Gingrich and that is sad. Both parties are bathed in the blood of taxpayers.
Posted by: A. Lincoln | October 27, 2009, 7:30 pm 7:30 pm