The tax on 'Cadillac' health insurance plans

People like redistribution when they get something . . . (0.00 / 0)

. . . not when they contribute.
That's why people like taxes on the upper 5%.

In this case, 80+% of the population will be forced to trade in better health insurance for worse health insurance in order to provide such worse insurance to the 20+/-% uninsured.
This makes no sense either politically (you're going to tick off many middle class well insured voters) or medically (you're decreasing health care access for the middle class currently insured).
Plus, every time you're denied coverage by your boss or your insurer, the answer will be the same (whether true or not) - - blame it on Obamacare.

What are they thinking in D.C.?

---

by: farrightdemocrat @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 07:47:42 AM CST

They're thinking they can piss off the unions (4.00 / 1)

and break them out from supporting Democrats. It sometimes seems to me that the entire point of the Obama administration is to shatter the Democratic coalition. Weird.  

---

by: lorelynn @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 13:14:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good point (0.00 / 0)

Ever since Hillary left Alinsky, she has drawn her strength from working within the system to shore-up the traditional Democratic coalition, especially working class whites and women who party elites insanely want to reject and make into scapegoats.

Obama gets his national strength by forming his own coalition that's loyal to him rather than to issues or traditions. The Democratic coalition is a threat to him unless it executes public vows of fealty.

Maybe this has to do with Obama's Lincoln fetish, that he wants to break up the party like the Whigs were broken, so that it can reform as a monument to him?

---

by: Pacific John @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 13:41:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Obama's set for life (0.00 / 0)

Think of the Presidency as the equivalent of an internship. When Obama leaves office -- even after one term! -- he'll get the TV deal, the book deal, the consulting contracts. Or he believes he will, which in terms of outcomes means the same thing.

---

by: lambert @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 22:10:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Which is to say (0.00 / 0)

...he's playing an entirely different game than either his supporters or adversaries project onto him.

---

by: Pacific John @ Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 22:33:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I honestly think the guy is a sociopath (4.00 / 1)

and sociopaths are driven to destroy everything in their wake. There are no tales of him behaving in a genuinely constructive fashion. There are only tales of him engaging in destruction or self-promotion. One or the other. The only people I know about whom that can be said are all sociopaths.

Bill Clinton gets up everyday and raises money to make sure over 1 millions Africans, including tens of thousands of children, have access to AIDS medication. And this is the man they accused of being a racist in order to win the primary. Yet had he picked up his ball and gone home, a lot of people would have died because of it. The Obama primary was willing to run that risk. It's all well and good to say that Clinton wouldn't have done that, but that's irrelevant. Things can spin out of control and resolve in unexpected ways. That was a tremendous risk that Obama ran at the expense of the poorest people on earth. I don't think an emotionally healthy person would have dared gone there.

There just seems to be very little that's positive coming out of this admin - just as with Bush. I've always thought he was a Republican and the longer he stays in office, the surer I am of it.  

---

by: lorelynn @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 10:18:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The really sad thing is that folks who should know better - - (4.00 / 2)

won't even discuss or debate this provision, because they're afraid of what happens to the garment if you pull out one thread.

---

by: farrightdemocrat @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 07:14:21 AM CST

This is why we need the public option (4.00 / 1)

The unions took better health care in lieu of more money, but can we really argue that these health care plans are not 'income'? The problem is that the system is so messed up that in order to fix it we have to make hard decisions.  I have had conversations with union people that are against the public option because they already have great health insurance and they feel like they will lose if everyone else gets it too.  I would think that the union bosses also gain power over the unions by getting these great policies. Health care should be a given, a right and not a bartering chip.

---

by: Honora @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 17:58:06 PM CST

Sorry, but NOT the public option. (4.00 / 2)

Medicare for all, and get there incrementally over time by slowly slowly slowly gradually expanding eligibility.

BTW - if the "crisis" requires immediate cobbled together satisfy no one legislation, why does it not phase in fully until 2014?  

---

by: farrightdemocrat @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 07:15:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess I have been brainwashed- (0.00 / 0)

not to even dream of Medicare for all anymore.  Of course, you are right that would be the best for all Americans.

---

by: Honora @ Tue Dec 01, 2009 at 20:16:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not your fault - Obama has done more to diminish expectations (0.00 / 0)

than Bush/Cheney/Rove ever could!

---

by: farrightdemocrat @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 00:45:01 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Like Nixon went to China (0.00 / 0)

Obama took liberal dreams to the landfill.

---

by: Pacific John @ Wed Dec 02, 2009 at 14:40:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]