Backdoor to socialized medicine?

[briansd1]

[quote=flu]

My god, where are you getting these numbers from? Have you looked at what insurances rates are for someone with preexisting conditions non-cancerous or even someone who wants to insure a family?
Are you suggesting that it’s not likely any of these companies will be paying for premiums amounts above that “Caddy plan limit”?[/quote]

Flu, the numbers are only for illustration. Consider them monthly figures. Or you can use any numbers that you want.

It a company provides a Cadillac plan, it can still provide it. That doesn’t change.

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee explains:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act levies a new excise tax of 40 percent on insurance companies and plan administrators for any health coverage plan with an annual premium that is above the threshold of $8,500 for single coverage and $23,000 for family coverage. The tax applies to self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, and not to plans sold in the individual market (except for coverage eligible for the deduction for self-employed individuals). The tax applies to the amount of the premium in excess of the threshold. A transition rule increases the threshold for the 17 highest cost states for the first three years. An additional threshold amount of $1,350 for singles and $3,000 for families is available for retired individuals age 55 and older and for plans that cover employees engaged in high risk professions.
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-1-151

For example, say John makes $70,000 and gets $10,000 of heath care benefits = $80,000 compensation.

The company could continue that and pay a 40% excise tax on $1,500.

OR, John is very healthy and he doesn’t need that caddy plan.

He downgrades to at $6,000 plan.

The company now pays him
+ $70,000
+ $6,000 health insurance
+ $4,000 extra salary

$80,000 total compensation. Same outlay to the company.

By taxing the caddy plan, we are reducing waste by encouraging employees who don’t need wasteful, generous health plans to opt for salary instead. The additional salary is taxable and that raises revenue for the government.

Companies should indifferent how they pay their employees (salary and/or benefits) so long as their total costs are the same.

If Jane needs that $30,000 health care plan for her family, her employer can continue to pay that, plus pay 40% excise tax on $7,000.

The goal of the excise tax is to:

1/ raise revenue
2/ encourage companies to pay compensation in taxable salary rather than non-taxable health care benefits, above $8,500 for singles and $23,000 for families.
3/ Makes health care benefits more transparent to employees and encourage employees to select higher deductible plans and combine those plans with non-taxable health savings accounts (A Republican idea, really).

So, flu, before you get all riled up, on Monday, go check with you HR department and find out how much your family’s health insurance is costing your employer.

[Hobie]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Hobie]

Just to remove the record keeping alone I would pay more ! Shuush don’t tell Obama this. ;)[/quote]

Chances are about 95% that you’re paying lower taxes now than you did under the previous administration.[/quote]

You’re right, I’m making less money 🙁

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.

[Hobie]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Hobie]

Just to remove the record keeping alone I would pay more ! Shuush don’t tell Obama this. ;)[/quote]

Chances are about 95% that you’re paying lower taxes now than you did under the previous administration.[/quote]

You’re right, I’m making less money 🙁

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.

[Hobie]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Hobie]

Just to remove the record keeping alone I would pay more ! Shuush don’t tell Obama this. ;)[/quote]

Chances are about 95% that you’re paying lower taxes now than you did under the previous administration.[/quote]

You’re right, I’m making less money 🙁

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.

[Hobie]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Hobie]

Just to remove the record keeping alone I would pay more ! Shuush don’t tell Obama this. ;)[/quote]

Chances are about 95% that you’re paying lower taxes now than you did under the previous administration.[/quote]

You’re right, I’m making less money 🙁

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.

[Hobie]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=Hobie]

Just to remove the record keeping alone I would pay more ! Shuush don’t tell Obama this. ;)[/quote]

Chances are about 95% that you’re paying lower taxes now than you did under the previous administration.[/quote]

You’re right, I’m making less money 🙁

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.[/quote]

Sure, but rather than me, I’ll quote Bruce Bartlett, conservative advisor to both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the father, from a recent article in Forbes magazine.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

I’m not sure he’s correct on that last sentence, but it’s an interesting read. Bartlett essentially excoriates the teapartiers for being such morons about taxes. And he’s a conservative historian/economist who supports supply side economics.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.[/quote]

Sure, but rather than me, I’ll quote Bruce Bartlett, conservative advisor to both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the father, from a recent article in Forbes magazine.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

I’m not sure he’s correct on that last sentence, but it’s an interesting read. Bartlett essentially excoriates the teapartiers for being such morons about taxes. And he’s a conservative historian/economist who supports supply side economics.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.[/quote]

Sure, but rather than me, I’ll quote Bruce Bartlett, conservative advisor to both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the father, from a recent article in Forbes magazine.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

I’m not sure he’s correct on that last sentence, but it’s an interesting read. Bartlett essentially excoriates the teapartiers for being such morons about taxes. And he’s a conservative historian/economist who supports supply side economics.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.[/quote]

Sure, but rather than me, I’ll quote Bruce Bartlett, conservative advisor to both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the father, from a recent article in Forbes magazine.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

I’m not sure he’s correct on that last sentence, but it’s an interesting read. Bartlett essentially excoriates the teapartiers for being such morons about taxes. And he’s a conservative historian/economist who supports supply side economics.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hobie]

Lower taxes? Can you expand on this please.[/quote]

Sure, but rather than me, I’ll quote Bruce Bartlett, conservative advisor to both Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the father, from a recent article in Forbes magazine.

As noted earlier, federal taxes are very considerably lower by every measure since Obama became president. And given the economic circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that a tax increase would have been enacted last year. In fact, 40% of Obama’s stimulus package involved tax cuts. These include the Making Work Pay Credit, which reduces federal taxes for all taxpayers with incomes below $75,000 by between $400 and $800.

According to the JCT, last year’s $787 billion stimulus bill, enacted with no Republican support, reduced federal taxes by almost $100 billion in 2009 and another $222 billion this year. The Tax Policy Center, a private research group, estimates that close to 90% of all taxpayers got a tax cut last year and almost 100% of those in the $50,000 income range. For those making between $40,000 and $50,000, the average tax cut was $472; for those making between $50,000 and $75,000, the tax cut averaged $522. No taxpayer anywhere in the country had his or her taxes increased as a consequence of Obama’s policies.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

I’m not sure he’s correct on that last sentence, but it’s an interesting read. Bartlett essentially excoriates the teapartiers for being such morons about taxes. And he’s a conservative historian/economist who supports supply side economics.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]

My god, where are you getting these numbers from? Have you looked at what insurances rates are for someone with preexisting conditions non-cancerous or even someone who wants to insure a family?
Are you suggesting that it’s not likely any of these companies will be paying for premiums amounts above that “Caddy plan limit”?[/quote]

Flu, the numbers are only for illustration. Consider them monthly figures. Or you can use any numbers that you want.

It a company provides a Cadillac plan, it can still provide it. That doesn’t change.

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee explains:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act levies a new excise tax of 40 percent on insurance companies and plan administrators for any health coverage plan with an annual premium that is above the threshold of $8,500 for single coverage and $23,000 for family coverage. The tax applies to self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, and not to plans sold in the individual market (except for coverage eligible for the deduction for self-employed individuals). The tax applies to the amount of the premium in excess of the threshold. A transition rule increases the threshold for the 17 highest cost states for the first three years. An additional threshold amount of $1,350 for singles and $3,000 for families is available for retired individuals age 55 and older and for plans that cover employees engaged in high risk professions.
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-1-151

For example, say John makes $70,000 and gets $10,000 of heath care benefits = $80,000 compensation.

The company could continue that and pay a 40% excise tax on $1,500.

OR, John is very healthy and he doesn’t need that caddy plan.

He downgrades to at $6,000 plan.

The company now pays him
+ $70,000
+ $6,000 health insurance
+ $4,000 extra salary

$80,000 total compensation. Same outlay to the company.

By taxing the caddy plan, we are reducing waste by encouraging employees who don’t need wasteful, generous health plans to opt for salary instead. The additional salary is taxable and that raises revenue for the government.

Companies should indifferent how they pay their employees (salary and/or benefits) so long as their total costs are the same.

If Jane needs that $30,000 health care plan for her family, her employer can continue to pay that, plus pay 40% excise tax on $7,000.

The goal of the excise tax is to:

1/ raise revenue
2/ encourage companies to pay compensation in taxable salary rather than non-taxable health care benefits, above $8,500 for singles and $23,000 for families.
3/ Makes health care benefits more transparent to employees and encourage employees to select higher deductible plans and combine those plans with non-taxable health savings accounts (A Republican idea, really).

So, flu, before you get all riled up, on Monday, go check with you HR department and find out how much your family’s health insurance is costing your employer.[/quote]

I guess if you, I can wait until Monday to talk to myself for a biz I run, or I can talk again to the gal that runs the former compensation department for a 100 employee company I use to work at.

You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]

My god, where are you getting these numbers from? Have you looked at what insurances rates are for someone with preexisting conditions non-cancerous or even someone who wants to insure a family?
Are you suggesting that it’s not likely any of these companies will be paying for premiums amounts above that “Caddy plan limit”?[/quote]

Flu, the numbers are only for illustration. Consider them monthly figures. Or you can use any numbers that you want.

It a company provides a Cadillac plan, it can still provide it. That doesn’t change.

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee explains:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act levies a new excise tax of 40 percent on insurance companies and plan administrators for any health coverage plan with an annual premium that is above the threshold of $8,500 for single coverage and $23,000 for family coverage. The tax applies to self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, and not to plans sold in the individual market (except for coverage eligible for the deduction for self-employed individuals). The tax applies to the amount of the premium in excess of the threshold. A transition rule increases the threshold for the 17 highest cost states for the first three years. An additional threshold amount of $1,350 for singles and $3,000 for families is available for retired individuals age 55 and older and for plans that cover employees engaged in high risk professions.
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-1-151

For example, say John makes $70,000 and gets $10,000 of heath care benefits = $80,000 compensation.

The company could continue that and pay a 40% excise tax on $1,500.

OR, John is very healthy and he doesn’t need that caddy plan.

He downgrades to at $6,000 plan.

The company now pays him
+ $70,000
+ $6,000 health insurance
+ $4,000 extra salary

$80,000 total compensation. Same outlay to the company.

By taxing the caddy plan, we are reducing waste by encouraging employees who don’t need wasteful, generous health plans to opt for salary instead. The additional salary is taxable and that raises revenue for the government.

Companies should indifferent how they pay their employees (salary and/or benefits) so long as their total costs are the same.

If Jane needs that $30,000 health care plan for her family, her employer can continue to pay that, plus pay 40% excise tax on $7,000.

The goal of the excise tax is to:

1/ raise revenue
2/ encourage companies to pay compensation in taxable salary rather than non-taxable health care benefits, above $8,500 for singles and $23,000 for families.
3/ Makes health care benefits more transparent to employees and encourage employees to select higher deductible plans and combine those plans with non-taxable health savings accounts (A Republican idea, really).

So, flu, before you get all riled up, on Monday, go check with you HR department and find out how much your family’s health insurance is costing your employer.[/quote]

I guess if you, I can wait until Monday to talk to myself for a biz I run, or I can talk again to the gal that runs the former compensation department for a 100 employee company I use to work at.

You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]

My god, where are you getting these numbers from? Have you looked at what insurances rates are for someone with preexisting conditions non-cancerous or even someone who wants to insure a family?
Are you suggesting that it’s not likely any of these companies will be paying for premiums amounts above that “Caddy plan limit”?[/quote]

Flu, the numbers are only for illustration. Consider them monthly figures. Or you can use any numbers that you want.

It a company provides a Cadillac plan, it can still provide it. That doesn’t change.

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee explains:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act levies a new excise tax of 40 percent on insurance companies and plan administrators for any health coverage plan with an annual premium that is above the threshold of $8,500 for single coverage and $23,000 for family coverage. The tax applies to self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, and not to plans sold in the individual market (except for coverage eligible for the deduction for self-employed individuals). The tax applies to the amount of the premium in excess of the threshold. A transition rule increases the threshold for the 17 highest cost states for the first three years. An additional threshold amount of $1,350 for singles and $3,000 for families is available for retired individuals age 55 and older and for plans that cover employees engaged in high risk professions.
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-1-151

For example, say John makes $70,000 and gets $10,000 of heath care benefits = $80,000 compensation.

The company could continue that and pay a 40% excise tax on $1,500.

OR, John is very healthy and he doesn’t need that caddy plan.

He downgrades to at $6,000 plan.

The company now pays him
+ $70,000
+ $6,000 health insurance
+ $4,000 extra salary

$80,000 total compensation. Same outlay to the company.

By taxing the caddy plan, we are reducing waste by encouraging employees who don’t need wasteful, generous health plans to opt for salary instead. The additional salary is taxable and that raises revenue for the government.

Companies should indifferent how they pay their employees (salary and/or benefits) so long as their total costs are the same.

If Jane needs that $30,000 health care plan for her family, her employer can continue to pay that, plus pay 40% excise tax on $7,000.

The goal of the excise tax is to:

1/ raise revenue
2/ encourage companies to pay compensation in taxable salary rather than non-taxable health care benefits, above $8,500 for singles and $23,000 for families.
3/ Makes health care benefits more transparent to employees and encourage employees to select higher deductible plans and combine those plans with non-taxable health savings accounts (A Republican idea, really).

So, flu, before you get all riled up, on Monday, go check with you HR department and find out how much your family’s health insurance is costing your employer.[/quote]

I guess if you, I can wait until Monday to talk to myself for a biz I run, or I can talk again to the gal that runs the former compensation department for a 100 employee company I use to work at.

You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=flu]

My god, where are you getting these numbers from? Have you looked at what insurances rates are for someone with preexisting conditions non-cancerous or even someone who wants to insure a family?
Are you suggesting that it’s not likely any of these companies will be paying for premiums amounts above that “Caddy plan limit”?[/quote]

Flu, the numbers are only for illustration. Consider them monthly figures. Or you can use any numbers that you want.

It a company provides a Cadillac plan, it can still provide it. That doesn’t change.

The Senate Democratic Policy Committee explains:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act levies a new excise tax of 40 percent on insurance companies and plan administrators for any health coverage plan with an annual premium that is above the threshold of $8,500 for single coverage and $23,000 for family coverage. The tax applies to self-insured plans and plans sold in the group market, and not to plans sold in the individual market (except for coverage eligible for the deduction for self-employed individuals). The tax applies to the amount of the premium in excess of the threshold. A transition rule increases the threshold for the 17 highest cost states for the first three years. An additional threshold amount of $1,350 for singles and $3,000 for families is available for retired individuals age 55 and older and for plans that cover employees engaged in high risk professions.
http://dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-1-151

For example, say John makes $70,000 and gets $10,000 of heath care benefits = $80,000 compensation.

The company could continue that and pay a 40% excise tax on $1,500.

OR, John is very healthy and he doesn’t need that caddy plan.

He downgrades to at $6,000 plan.

The company now pays him
+ $70,000
+ $6,000 health insurance
+ $4,000 extra salary

$80,000 total compensation. Same outlay to the company.

By taxing the caddy plan, we are reducing waste by encouraging employees who don’t need wasteful, generous health plans to opt for salary instead. The additional salary is taxable and that raises revenue for the government.

Companies should indifferent how they pay their employees (salary and/or benefits) so long as their total costs are the same.

If Jane needs that $30,000 health care plan for her family, her employer can continue to pay that, plus pay 40% excise tax on $7,000.

The goal of the excise tax is to:

1/ raise revenue
2/ encourage companies to pay compensation in taxable salary rather than non-taxable health care benefits, above $8,500 for singles and $23,000 for families.
3/ Makes health care benefits more transparent to employees and encourage employees to select higher deductible plans and combine those plans with non-taxable health savings accounts (A Republican idea, really).

So, flu, before you get all riled up, on Monday, go check with you HR department and find out how much your family’s health insurance is costing your employer.[/quote]

I guess if you, I can wait until Monday to talk to myself for a biz I run, or I can talk again to the gal that runs the former compensation department for a 100 employee company I use to work at.

You think $8500/yr per person is enough for small biz that is covering employees with a mix of ages including some in 45-50 years old with pre-existing conditions? Boy, like I suspected, you only looked at rates for yourself, you’re probably young, and haven’t had any medical issues. I hope for your sake that continues.

[Author]

Posts