Jane Hamsher explained last night that unions have a tentative deal for a way out of the excise tax: exempting health care plans protected by collective bargaining agreements. That means union plans that cross the $23,000 threshold won't be taxed.
TPM backs up this story with Rep. Rob Andrews explaining exemptions for the excise tax may pull together enough votes to pass:
As I first reported yesterday, one idea gaining traction in negotiations between Congressional leaders, union officials, and the White House is that collectively bargained benefit plans could be exempted from the tax. According to Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ), who chairs the health subcommittee of the House Education and Labor Committee, that could be enough to build a majority for health care reform."It would be a way to lessen impact of the so-called excise tax," Andrews said. "I think we could build a consensus around that idea--a majority around that idea."
If unions take this deal, it's a sell-out of epic proportions. I'm hard pressed to think of a deal unions could cut in health care that would cause more long-term damage to not just the credibility of the labor movement, but to the middle class itself.
The excise tax is a tax on more expensive insurance plans that is supposed to fund part of health care reform. It was branded the "Cadillac tax," but that distorts the reality of who it will effect. This isn't a tax on the rich; it's a tax on the middle class, the old, and the sick with more expensive plans. And a good chunk of those plans are negotiated under collective bargaining agreements, i.e. under union contracts.
Richard Trumka laid down a line and said the AFL-CIO would not support a plan without a public option. While other labor groups haven't been as forceful, progressives have looked to the AFL-CIO as the most defiant of the veal pen.
Presumably, in Monday's meeting at the White House, labor leaders made clear that the excise tax on their plans wouldn't fly, and that the Employee Free Choice Act would have to come up for a vote (and pass?) in a few months after health care. And I'm sure they got the same assurance they've got from Rahm and Reid for more than a year on labor law reform: be patient, it will come up and pass.
If unions take this "deal," if the labor movement decides to fold and exempt themselves from the excise tax, they fulfill one of the worst of stereotypes of labor unions: blind self interest. By abandoning the nonunion middle class and protecting only their own, the labor movement is throwing any hope of future relevancy out the window.
The ideal of unions is to organize the unorganized, to protect the unprotected. Sure, unions should fight for their members, no question. But in the biggest public policy and political fight of a generation, unions simply cannot exempt their members from the dangerous excise tax and call it a day.
And if Rahm does come through on his end of the deal -- a vote on the Employee Free Choice Act -- expect unions to be very much on their own in that fight if they sell out on health care.
Follow Michael Whitney on Twitter: www.twitter.com/michaelwhitney
Go exemptions!
Pleeze!
Just the clearest possible example that people want health care "reform" (the word reform is now a bad joke) only if it means they can get something that someone else will pay for. It's the new American way, I guess. Beats working for a living.
And as the Union had to even exempt themselves tells you that the average American's health insurance plan is a "Cadillac" plan and will be subject to a 40% tax. And if you aren't that sharp with numbers let me assure you this will impact people making far-less than $250,000 as promised TIME AND AGAIN by the Prez.
What a crock of sh*t
It’s the corporate executive’s job to get the best possible return on their investor's money.
How come when the former does it, the “blind self interest” tag is just an unfortunate stereotype; but when the latter does it, we need to move our money out of big banks, tax their bonuses, stop subsidizing big oil and put a stop to their corrupt lobbying practices?
Their actions are exactly the same: lobbying out of blind self interest. The only difference between the two is the people they represent. I say it’s wrong on both ends, but the very politicians benefitting from this corruption stir up “class warfare” to keep us fighting amongst ourselves instead of holding them accountable.
Looks like you’re falling for it.
If non-union workers are crying that they're being discriminated against because of this legislation, then I have one word for them....
UNIONIZE!
Middle and lower class workers shouldn't be hit with this tax at all, union or non-union. The wealthy, who've looted the economy, should be footing the bill.
NO!
Reimburse those folks for lost wages, pay the appropriate tax on the reimbursement and then provide health coverage for everyone.
Have you ever been part of a union that won a hard-fought battle negotiating a contract? I have. You NEVER, EVER, EVER re-open a contract. If you do so, you might lose everything you collectively bargained for in the first place. Just a little Unionism 101 for ya.
That said, the Democrats really messed this up by abandoning the public option. What we have now is a law requiring Americans to buy overpriced insurance from corrupt insurance companies, who will SURELY raise premiums, arguing that they HAVE TO do this to deal with the sheer volume of people they'll now be FORCED to insure. This isn't real reform. It's an insurance lobbyist's wet dream.
...Yeah, just keep buying things with the Made in China stamp. That'll show them there greedy unions. I hope you can sleep at night surrounded by your sweatshop-produced, inferior quality, lead-laden goods.
...And if Obama is a Communist, then I am Lady effin' Gaga! Seriously, would a true Communist sell public education to the private interests via charter schools? Would a true Communist endorse a health care bill that amounts to a free pass for the private insurance companies to raise premiums? Pull-eeze. Let's not insult the Communist Party!
What is wrong with some you people..
I say “They are who we thought they were!” This is just the latest example; but it looks like even this won’t change your opinion on what unions have become. You still think it’s just a “stereotype.”
No, I want people to be paid what they’re worth, period. Unions screw up the value of labor. They demand higher pay without increased productivity. They negotiate expensive pension plans, medical benefits and other expensive perks that, again, do not increase productivity. This increases prices, inflates the dollar and makes American businesses less competitive internationally.
The other side of unions is the political arm that is just as bad as any other lobbying group. They pervert the political system and bend the will of politicians by offering campaign contributions and lots of member votes.
Ex 1: GM has to charge more money for less car and business suffers; but rather than accepting their part of the blame, the UAW got Obama to subvert the law and give the union higher standing than other creditors. What did that do for the “local economy?”
Ex 2: Unions elect Democrats who force a healthcare bill down our throats and pay for it, in-part, by taxing “Cadillac” health care plans. But the union members don’t want to pay these fees, so their political arm works a deal to exempt unions.
Today’s unions do so much more harm than good. As for the “benefits” to their members: unions breed dependency and take away liberties faster than the government does. “If it wasn’t for my union…”
We can only expect the need for individuals to self-purchase to become more common with the increased use of contract workers. As a group, we are going to get very possibly s(#*#(*d, and the organizations that ostensibly advocate for our interests have made not a peep. Disgraceful.
Only a big government is worth corrupting and ours is in pedal to the floor mode. Lobbying is one of the few true growth industries with housing in Washington DC performing better than nearly anywhere else.
Before you get on your high horse about health reform, ask yourself how much your currently give to charity to ensure that the poor and uninsured are cared for. Then be sure you are prepared to pay at least thata much yourself in new taxes for the same. Please don't just say someone else (the hated rich?) should pay. If you say that you're just joking with the rest of us.
This plan is such a mishmash of giveaways and is so absent of concrete steps to actually control costs, that it is a joke.
Unions are all for giving to charities too. Make that, they are all for you giving to the charities they favor while they sit on the sidelines and rake it in. A comic book instance of selfish American behavior that has been all too typical. We have met the enemy and it is someone other than us.