'Cadillac tax' on health plans would hit union and nonunion jobs equally

[Bluebear]

By Alec MacGillis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 22, 2010

It happens often in Washington: A perception emerges and soon hardens into fact. Take the proposed tax on high-cost insurance plans in the Senate's health-care legislation. Because organized labor took the lead in opposing the tax, the assumption took hold that it would hit unions the hardest.

Both sides made use of this perception. Opponents of the tax could argue that it would hurt a lot of hardworking factory workers or teachers who had traded wage gains in return for good health benefits. Proponents of the tax portrayed opposition to it largely as a special-interest issue driven by self-protective unions.

But according to a new analysis, the conventional wisdom about the tax is wrong: The tax would actually fall equally on nonunion plans. At least 80 percent of the workers whose plans would be subject to the tax in 2019 would be in nonunion jobs, according to the analysis by Ken Jacobs of the University of California at Berkeley Labor Center and William H. Dow, a professor of health economics at Berkeley who was a member of President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers.

This impact is roughly in line with the overall breakdown of nonunion vs. union workers with employer-provided plans. And it would be true under both the version of the tax passed by the Senate and a more labor-friendly one the White House agreed to last month.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022103060.html?wprss=rss_nation

[ProSense]

1. This is from yesterday, and isn't about the current proposal

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

2. This is from today, and there is something really wrong with you. Seriously.

[ProSense]

3. It was posted yesterday, check your link and it isn't about the current proposal

The bill passed by the Senate would raise $150 billion over 10 years by taxing plans worth more than $23,000 for families and $8,500 for individuals. Any value that exceeds those thresholds would be taxed at 40 percent. Proponents say the tax would slow the growth in health-care costs, as employers and employees shift to less generous plans to avoid it. The savings from switching to lower-cost plans, proponents say, would go into higher wages.

MSM gotcha.

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

4. /ignore . . Enough already. This is about the current plan, to take effect in 2019

I will not read your misinformation anymore.

[MadHound]

5. This has gotten to be such a worthless mess we need to kill it and start all over again

This time passing truly progressive legislation that includes a strong public option and raises the taxes of the rich rather than the middle and working classes.

Sadly, this isn't going to happen and we're all going to be screwed.

[dysfunctional press]

6. what percentage of non-union workers be affected...?

compared with what percentage of union workers..?

those are the numbers that would tell how 'equal' the hit would be- and they aren't anywhere to be found.

[Bluebear]

7. does anyone know?