More

Obama Tells House Democrats He Supports Senate Tax On Cadillac Health Care Plans

First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:05 PM ET

Obama Cadillac Plan Tax
Obama supports a tax on Cadillac health care plans.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.

In a meeting at the White House, Obama expressed his preference for the insurance tax contained in the Senate's health overhaul bill, but largely opposed by House Democrats and organized labor, Democratic aides said. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.

House Democrats want to raise income taxes on high-income individuals instead and are reluctant to abandon that approach, while recognizing that they will likely have to bend on that and other issues so that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can maintain his fragile 60-vote majority support for the bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and four committee chairmen met with the president Wednesday as they scrambled to resolve differences between sweeping bills passed by the House and Senate. The aim is to finalize legislation revamping the nation's health care system in time for Obama's State of the Union address early next month.

Despite the dispute over the payment approach, Pelosi, D-Calif., emerged from the meeting expressing optimism.

"We've had a very intense couple of days," Pelosi said. "After our leadership meeting this morning, our staff engaged with the Senate and the administration staff to review the legislation, suggest legislative language. I think we're very close to reconciliation."

Congressional staff members stayed at the White House into the evening to continue work, and a conference call of the full House Democratic caucus was scheduled for Thursday. Obama is taking a more direct role than ever, convening Oval Office meetings Tuesday and Wednesday of House Democratic leaders.

The House and Senate bills are alike in many ways. Both impose first-time requirements for almost all Americans to purchase health insurance, providing subsidies for lower- and middle-income people to help them do so, though the subsidies in the House bill are more generous. Both establish new marketplaces called exchanges where people can go to shop for and compare health insurance plans. Both would ban unpopular insurance company practices including denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions.

Differences include whom to tax, how many people to cover, how to restrict taxpayer funding for abortion and whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to buy coverage in the new markets with their own money. The House bill covers about 36 million uninsured Americans over 10 years, costing more than $1 trillion, while the cheaper Senate bill covers about 31 million.

House Democrats are steeling themselves to abandon establishment of a new government insurance plan opposed by moderates in the Senate, but in return hope to get the Senate to rescind insurers' antitrust exemption, make subsidies more affordable and agree to establishment of national rather than state health insurance exchanges, among other things. Obama has signaled his support for the House position on the subsidies and other areas, aides said.

The difference in how the bills are paid for is emerging as among the toughest disputes.

The House wants to increase income taxes on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples over $1 million, which would raise $460 billion over 10 years to pay for the bill. The Senate wants to tax insurance companies on plans valued at over $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for couples, raising $150 billion. Most analysts say the insurance tax would be passed on to consumers, and organized labor is strongly opposed, as are House Democrats, some of whom contend that the tax would violate Obama's campaign pledge not to tax the middle class.

"We did in our house bill something that protects middle class Americans from having to pay more for health insurance," Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the House leadership, said Wednesday. "So far we want to stay to that principle."

House members "have been very clear on that issue and working with the president to stick to what he said when he was campaigning for president, we're trying to make sure this does not affect middle class Americans," Becerra said.

Obama has defended the tax as a way to drive down health costs.

"I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea, and that helps bend the cost curve," the president said in an interview with National Public Radio just before Christmas. "That helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do."

In the end the House likely will have to accept the insurance plan tax at some level – say starting with plans valued at $25,000 or more, with carve-outs for certain union professions – but it might not happen without a fight.

A provision in the Senate bill to increase the Medicare payroll tax on high-earners could provide some middle ground, although that measure would raise only $87 billion over a decade.

(This version CORRECTS that Obama's State of the Union address to be early next month.)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage...
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage...
Filed by Adam J. Rose  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,023
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (42 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:30 PM on 01/12/2010
This is nothing more than an attack on middle income earners. Do they really believe a $8,500 health plan is a cadillac plan? What planet are they from? Second, what do you think the impact will be on employers who are already struggling to provide affordable insurance going to do? The causal reaction to this will be more high deductable plans that can stay under the tax threshold. Not only is Obama screwing the middle class with this illogical tax burden he is also reducing the quality of care for those who will choose not to seek preventative care because of the high deductable. This upsets me to no end because my wages are already taxed to the hill. I voted for Obama and I consider myself an Independent. But I can tell you right now, I'm voting straight Republican during this mid-term election.

Clinton, Connecticut
Bernique
Solar is clean, cheap and plentiful
10:31 PM on 01/10/2010
For crying out loud ... health care is a human right. This tinkering with "Cadillac plans", "exchanges", mandates, 2000+page-bills,are distractions from what we should all be getting -- Medicare for all. When, in 1965, LBJ put Medicare in place, it was expected that it would expand, one decade at a time, covering those "55-65", then 45-55, then 35-45, then 25-15, etc. It was meant to eventually, cover everyone. But then Reagan came along, the second most destructive president in our history, Dubya being the FIRST. And social("ist") programs like Medicare HAD TO GO, no mattr what the cost to our country/society.

Clinton, Bush2 and Blair cooked up this "THIRD WAY" which means taking taxpayer funds to pay for PRIVATE interests (banks ,insurance cos, energy companies) As for public crooked judicial and Justice officials, we'll have to be VERY, VERY vigilant.

Ideology/extremism/tea-baggery can destroy a country. We're almost there.

No other country entwines health care and your employer, as they see it as a form of ... servitude,
01:30 PM on 01/09/2010
There goes Obama's promise not to tax the middle class.
11:23 PM on 01/08/2010
So how did he "signal" his support? With bunny ears, a high five, a wink...whatever happened to coming out and directly saying publicly, this is what I support?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PaxEterna
09:17 AM on 01/08/2010
let's see, tax the only people int his country who have good health care.

EVERY AMERICAN CITIZEN DESERVES A CADILLAC PLAN in exchange for the tax dollars he/she ALREADY pays into the system.

After all, this is what our leaders get courtesy of the US taxpayer?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
01:16 AM on 01/08/2010
He would NOT want top TAX the F*ing R1CH!
01:06 AM on 01/08/2010
OH YEAH I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT IWORKED PRIMARILY WITH AN MD THAT ME A HABIT OF CHARGING MCR FOR 10 MINUTES OF FACE TO FACE TIME WITH THE PATIENT AND REQUIRE REVIEW OF 3 BODY SYSTEMS THIS MD NEVER, I MEAN NEVER SPENT THAT LONG WITH THE MCR PTS THIS WOULD ALLOW HIMTO SEE 6 MCR PTS PER HOUR IF HE FOLLOWED THE GUIDELINES OF MCR CONTRACT.....THIS MD WOULD SEE UP TO TWICE THAT MANY (12) IN AN HOUR I THINK THE MD SHOULD BE MONITORED FOR HOW MANY PTS THEY CAN BILL FOR IN A WORK DAYS TIME. AN 8 HOUR WORKDAY WOULD ALLOW THE MD TO SEE A TOTAL OF 48 PTS 10 HOUR WD WOULD ALLOW MD TO SEE 60 PTS AND SO ON, LIKE I SAID THIS MD WOULD SEE PT 5 MIN CHARGE FOR 10 MIN . HOW CAN YOU PROPERLY CARE FOR A PTS NEED IN 5 MINUTES. NOT TO MENTION MEDICARE FRAUD!!!! LETS HOPE( EMR) ELECTRONIC MED RECORDS CAN MORE CLOSELY MONITOR THE MDS ABILITY TO FRADULENTLY BILL MCR OH YEAH THIS IS COMMON PRACTICE FOR PROBABLY HALF THE MDS IN THE SMALL TOWN I LIVE IN. I HAVE SEEN IT OVER AND OVER. EMR (ELECTRONIC MED RECORDS) APPLIES THE PROPER CHARGE AND CODING FOR BILLING BASED ON ACTUAL # OF BODY SYSTEMS ASSESED. OH DID I MENTION THIS MD WAS EAST INDIAN!!!! NARCISSIST
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
EndTheEcho
01:04 AM on 01/08/2010
If Obama keeps up with this plan and doesn't push for EFCA, he really wants to lose a lot of seats in 2010 to the freaking Tea Party Republicans. These sellouts to labor are going to come to haunt him. And why, to appease people that will never like him.

If we need to tax these plans because they are too generous, how about we tax bonuses that are too generous. In fact, lets look at a tax on bonuses that starts at the amount of the tax on these Cadillac health insurance plans. If they want it to start at $8,000 for health plans, than that is where the tax on bonuses start - we can call it the Cadillac bonus tax.
10:51 PM on 01/07/2010
Obama's become a huge disappointment. Why is the white house intent on burdening the working class that negotiated lower pay for increased benefits? I'd call that breach of contract and I hope the house doesn't cave in again, if they haven't already. Why is Obama shafting all the people who worked for and supported him? He seems only to have carrots for the opposition.
11:25 PM on 01/08/2010
This is a huge wake up call that they are all alike.........the working class always ends up taking the brunt
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
axoaxo
100% public financing of elections!
10:12 PM on 01/07/2010
"The House wants to increase income taxes on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples over $1 million, which would raise $460 billion over 10 years"

$460 billion over 10 years is the least individuals making more than $500,000 and couples earning over a million should contribute.

Seems fair to me as these same people benefited the most over the past few decades.

Why tax firefighters health insurance plans? At a minimum, how about some combination of both?
06:32 PM on 01/07/2010
Why are these bastards being called moderates ? They are wolves in sheep's clothing and do the bidding of their corporate masters . WTF happened to YES we CAN ? It seems as if we can only do something with a handful of Republicans exercising veto power over our choices .
Screw the 60 vote Pass the House bill under reconciliation the Republicans passed their Tax Cuts
under it
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:47 PM on 01/07/2010
"WTF happened to YES we CAN ?"

He meant "we" meaning wall street the banks and rahm emanuel :)
11:25 PM on 01/08/2010
the rest of the sentence is....take all your money
01:51 AM on 01/08/2010
Because the Progressives always cave and support the lesser of two evils.

If they were as noisy as tea-partiers, then the "centrists" would be called conservatives. But when no one will vote or identify as socialists, then corporate tools get called socialist for not being tool enough.
05:18 PM on 01/07/2010
President Obama is one very big disapointment. Were is this open debate on C-Span he talked about.? NOw tax the Cadilac health plans I thought he laughed at McCain when he mentioned that during the campign..? This guy has fooled us all.. Were is the Transperancy..? And waht about all these lobbyist in the whitehouse..? Talk about Fat Cats... The Whitehouse is loaded with them..And I thought Richard Nixon was a secretive back room dealing paranoic....! And now we have to pay for lawyers to defend terrorist..? Is this guy nuts..?
04:54 PM on 01/07/2010
If Bush is responsible for 9/11 because it was on his watch....then security breeches and hi-jacking attempts from Nigerians is Obama's fault? It's Obama's fault that we are still in Afghanistan....
04:56 PM on 01/07/2010
He already took responsibility for that.
04:58 PM on 01/07/2010
Sorry, but you cannot blame a president for a terrorist act....I am NOT an Obama supporter but I can say that I do not blame him for the hi-jacking attempt. It is just crazy to do so.
04:42 PM on 01/07/2010
Captain Sellout and the Fraidy Bunch.
04:31 PM on 01/07/2010
During the campaign, OB accused McCain of planning a middle class tax on medical services. Well I'm glad that McCain is not our president, but duh..... I guess the middle class tax is OK with all of you.
Viper
Former repub, still repenting
04:35 PM on 01/07/2010
McCain did not cap insurance company revenue retention at just 15% (less than half of what it is now). McCains tax was not on the insurance company, but on the Employee/Employer. and would not prevent the insurance company from raisng the premiums w/o the cap.

It had no other reforms.

Regards
04:43 PM on 01/07/2010
Hopefully people aren't ignoring these facts you're dropping on them.
05:36 PM on 01/07/2010
I think you are mistaken about the current industry medical loss ratio. You appear to state that it is currently less than 70% (that is, "revenue retention" is greater than 2 x 15% = 30%). What is your source, may I ask? I've looked at the SEC filings for some of the larger insurers (e.g., UNH, WLP), and their MLR seems to be in the low 80s.

The reason this concerns me is that, while the House bill does contain an 85% minimum requirement, the Senate bill's minimum is (I believe) 80% for group plans and 75% for individual market plans. It appears to me that the Senate plan would provide no incentive for large insurers to actually improve their current efficiency or business practices. And we seem to be on a pretty definite path to mostly adopting the Senate bill because "it's all we can get".