I didn't mean 'current', I meant proposed plan, sorry. He has been watching for this kind of thing and he's not a happy camper. He also doesn't get his info from only one source, on one side of the aisle, either.
I meant "currently on the table"... to wit there is only one source: congress.
But I'll rephrase the question: can you please point me to the bill in front of congress that has a 40% tax on "gold plated plans" and for which a $12k family plan would qualify as "gold plated".
Who said unlimited coverage? Sorry, but $12K isn't cheap in my book.
Then your book is, bluntly, imaginary. The average cost of healthcare in the US is about $6,000 per person. For an individual to manage to get a family plan at $12k with no deductible and no co-pay is cheap. I have an employer-paid plan, that still costs me several hundred a month to have what could amount to a $9,000 (per year) deductible (depending on if I needed to go out of network).. .unless I get sick in June, in which case it can easily be 18,000 in two months (and I have the lowest deductible offered by my employer)
OK, Baucus didn't propose 40%, it was 35% and it was on page 1 of your link. "Under the Baucus plan, insurers selling a plan costing more than $8,000 for an individual and $21,000 for a family would have to pay a 35 percent excise tax on the excess amount."
Yes. In addition, your math doesn't correlate to the actual bill.
You assigned 40% of the *total* as the tax, when it was actually of the excess.
So let's imagine that your friend pays $12k for just herself. Then she would be in the "gold-plated" plan range. If I assume 35%, with $8k having been the max, that's ((12k-8k)*0.35) or $1,400.
The *problem* is that, unless there's regulation that is put in place to control it, such a high figure might not represent a more comprehensive plan, but rather an individual with a medical history (like me) not eligible for a group plan.
Wanna bet? Unless they're in a strong union, I would bet that most people who have good employer provided health care have gotten that in lieu of more money. Not a terrible trade, but it does have a cost to the employee. A lot of employers are cutting their contribution altogether if they have a small company because there's no way they can get the same rates as a large group. Some industries are negotiating with carriers for a group rate the way retailers form buying groups so they can buy equipment, supplies, parts and accessories from major manufacturers at prices that are more competitive with bog box and large chains. Some are cutting more of their employees' hours to less than 30, which is a typical threshold for full time status and if they're part time, they don't have to pay benefits at all. They should, but it's not mandatory.
It doesn't matter if you have a strong union or not. There's always going to be "X" given out, and that will include health-care costs.
But I was using the same standard you did when you said that congress got theirs for free. They do or don't the same way other employees do or don't.
Either way, I wouldn't say "no one with employer-provided..." because I don't think that's accurate.[/QUOTE]
