The A.F.L.-C.I.O., a federation of nine million union members, has declared next Wednesday "National Call-In Day" asking workers to call their lawmakers to urge them not to tax health benefits.
Reported in NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/...
Obama is to meet with Union leaders on Monday.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is urging members to tell their representatives that "such a tax is simply a massive middle-class tax hike that this nation’s working families should not be forced to endure."
While union leaders would prefer killing the tax, some say privately that they could live with it if the threshold is lifted to $27,000, say, or $30,000. They argue that many insurance policies above $23,000 are typical of the coverage in high-cost areas like New York or Boston, or policies that cover small businesses or employers with older workers.
According to a union survey, one in four members would be hit by a $23,000 threshold, but only one in 14 if the threshold were raised to $27,000.
But union officials say the tax will cause employers to push higher co-payments and deductibles onto their employees. They argue that a fairer way to generate revenue would be to embrace the House bill, which imposes an income tax surcharge on couples earning more than $1 million.
Neither the House nor the Senate would seem to have much wiggle room on the issue.
Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, has said he would oppose any bill containing the House’s surtax. His vote was crucial in enabling Senate Democrats to reach the 60 votes needed to pass the health bill over a potential Republican filibuster.
The House bill, meanwhile, passed by only a five-vote margin, and at least three Democrats who voted for it — Mr. Courtney, Phil Hare of Illinois and Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire — have said they would oppose a final bill if it contained an excise tax like the Senate version.
I do not have time this weekend to write a more substantive diary; however, in the future, I plan a diary that explains how this tax impacts me. Despite being over $ 35,000 out of pocket for medical expenses in the past three years, this tax would hit me. By the way, it includes FLEX accounts which allow us to pay out of pocket expenses tax free up to $ 5,000 dollars a year. My out of pocket always exceeds that amount and as I read Bob Herbert's column on this, my FLEX dollars will be included in the tax computation. How this will work is really anyone's guess and although I wrote to Stabenow's office asking for help interpreting the tax, I did not receive a reply.
This tax, as has been explained on these pages many times, will drive insurance coverage down. The idea that companies will pass on the savings from lower premiums to employees, especially in this economic environment, is magical thinking.
The Times article ends with this quote:
Michael P. James, a 57-year-old steelworker with the Timken Company in Canton, Ohio, campaigned for Mr. Obama and is seething about the tax.
"I don’t think we should be penalized by this bill," Mr. James said. "The president would be going back on his word. If he goes ahead and passes a bill with the excise tax, I won’t be able to support him again."
Mandates combined with this tax spell the death knell to Obama's Presidency and the Democratic party; however, even on these pages, this idea is vociferously resisted.
Too bad because no matter what I or others say about Obama, negative or positive, this one element of the health care bill will devastate Democratic chances for a long time to come.
Were progressives to unite in opposition to these two provisions, we might actually save Obama and the Party.
A sad day it is for progressive thought, strategy and values.