Is everyone OK with this?

[Savage Beatings]

I don't think the main point here should be that Unions are getting special treatment... the main point should be that it is stupid to tax the Cadillac Plans to begin with. So, if you choose to spend your hard earned money on really good insurance for your family, now you will be penalized for it? Idiotic.

[Pope Flick]

I don't think the main point here should be that Unions are getting special treatment... the main point should be that it is stupid to tax the Cadillac Plans to begin with. So, if you choose to spend your hard earned money on really good insurance for your family, now you will be penalized for it? Idiotic.

 

 

This.

 

Plus they had the foresight to give up actual currency in the past and realized the currency of the future would be in their health plans.

[bpwallace49]

Will the "cadillac" health care congresspeople have for life be taxed at a higher rate as well? Or is that also "delayed" like the unions?

[westvirginia]

Will the "cadillac" health care congresspeople have for life be taxed at a higher rate as well? Or is that also "delayed" like the unions?

 

That's the best question I've seen yet. You know those corrupt sons-a-beaches will be exempt. trckers.

[yo mama]

If union personnel are getting special treatment, why not join a union?

I tried. But apparently you have to already *be* in the adult entertainment industry before they'll let you join their union.

[Azazello1313]

I don't think the main point here should be that Unions are getting special treatment... the main point should be that it is stupid to tax the Cadillac Plans to begin with. So, if you choose to spend your hard earned money on really good insurance for your family, now you will be penalized for it? Idiotic.

 

the problem with this thinking is that current law heavily subsidizes health insurance, because it is NOT taxed like other "income". your employer can pay $25,000 per year to you in health insurance and you get $25,000 worth of benefit. if they give you that same $25,000 in wages, after taxes and everything you get like $15,000 in benefit. also, if you are self-employed, you have to pay for your own health insurance out of your after-tax income.

 

the question isn't "why should you be penalized for spending your money on really expensive health insurance", the question SHOULD be "why should anyone be penalized for spending their hard-earned money on everything BUT employer-provided health insurance?"

 

the best way to deal with this would be to eliminate the idiotic tax shelter for ALL employer-provided health benefits, and offset that huge tax hit that would result for most people with a tax CREDIT equal to the cost of a typical, modest health insurance plan. then everyone is treated equally, and if people want to spend more on health insurance, more power to them -- they just don't get a special demand-inflating unlimited tax shelter in which to do it. this would truly "bend the cost curve" by eliminating a lot of artificial excess demand and increasing competition.

 

people with economic sense in both parties realize this, and as a result you saw this whole "cadillac tax" idea floated as a half-hearted, limp-wristed way of driving at the problem. but hey, it was the one thing in these godawful bills that actually DOES drive at the cost problem (rather than making it worse). and here they are watering it down even more in an act of bald-faced poltical cronyism. just awful.

[Azazello1313]

Is Health Care Reform Now a Vehicle to Promote Unionization? It's one thing to delay until 2018 the tax on "Cadillac" health plans for existing union-negotiated plans, to let the parties rejigger the balance between wages and benefits. That's a standard "grandfather" clause, letting people whose existing arrangements are disrupted keep them going for a while (though why it should apply only to union pay packages is a good question).

 

But it's another thing to extend this union loophole to collective bargaining agreements that haven't been negotiated yet, or to not-yet unionized firms that organize and then tap into existing collectively bargaining benefit arrangements. That would in effect give workers a tax bonus if they should organize between now and 2018. The government might as well mail a "first time union member" check of $3,000 to every American who successfully unionizes his workplace. As IBD notes, that would be a pretty good substitute for the stalled "card check" legislation, which would try to spur organizing by letting unions avoid a secret ballot (and call in federal arbitrators to set wages).

 

So which is it? Does the loophole extend only to existing union members or does it apply to future union members--to grandfathers not yet born? I haven't been able to figure out the answer to this question from descriptions posted online, and suspect it is one of those important issues that turns on the fine details of statutory language (e.g. what the meaning of "is" is). The "Cadillac" tax doesn't kick in for second-class citizens non-union members until 2013. Does the bill give unions until then to sign up new members--who would then be "grandfathered" until 2018 at least?

 

that's a good question. if it were just a grandfather clause thing where plans under currently negotiated collective bargaining agreements, it would make some sense. and if that's all it were, I doubt many people would strenuously object. it's also the sort of thing that's a lot less likely to be extended by congress later on. but if it pertains to collective bargaining agreements not yet negotiated, and does for the next eight years, then there is literally ZERO justification for it aside from naked political bribery and favoritism.

[wiegie]

that's a good question. if it were just a grandfather clause thing where plans under currently negotiated collective bargaining agreements, it would make some sense. and if that's all it were, I doubt many people would strenuously object. it's also the sort of thing that's a lot less likely to be extended by congress later on. but if it pertains to collective bargaining agreements not yet negotiated, and does for the next eight years, then there is literally ZERO justification for it aside from naked political bribery and favoritism.

I agree with pretty much everything here (other than the statement " I doubt many people would strenuously object" because we just know that that ain't true).