wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Try a $250.00 out "patient facility fee". If you have breast cancer with Oxford you are looking at $20,000.00 to $30,000.00. But when they get you to sign up - they call it an outpatient surgery fee. Last I knew all radiation and chemo for breast cancer is done at outpatient facilities.

Every time I hear the statement about not losing your doctor by not interupting current insurance system I want to scream.
MY INSURANCE COMPANY DICTATES THE DOCTOR I GO TO.
I LOST THE BEST DOCTOR I EVER HAD WHEN OXFORD MERGED WITH USHEALTHCARE.
Most of my friends are covered through Oxford as most own or work in small businesses. Oxford is one of the few plans avaiable for them. Until that merger it was a good plan with good doctors. After that merger it was no longer and many of the cities best doctors dropped it.
The doctor before this excellent doctor - was also pretty amazing. As the pencers of the insurance companies squeezed more and more on the doctors and the time they could spend with their patients she found a system that had little to do with what had brought her to medicine and she took early retirment.
The doctor I have now is OK - but she is always rushed I she would never give me the time and found the problems with my health that these earlier doctors had. I no longer feel there is a place in the system for my overall overall good preventative care.

keep fighting and i'm afraid some doctors will just not take any insurance at all just like a doctor i wanted to make an appointment for because my sister has scoliosis and wanted to see if this doctor can help her. I was told that to see him would cost about $400 and we have to pay in full at the front. Resulting the cure is only for the rich... we are going backward...

You can't truly know what level of plan you have, until you truly get sick (and then realize all that you're plan Doesn't cover). I wish Proff. Gruber would factor that in to his nice calculations.

Isn't there a bigger problem in this discussion? That being that most of America is not able to afford any health care issue out of pocket. Health care costs are so rampantly out of control, an illness is potentially an economically devastating event. If health care costs were brought under control, insurance costs would lower to reasonable affordable levels.

Emily's comment on "choice" is insightful and true.

And just wait till you're 65 and receive the snarly mass of incomprehensible material meant to help guide you on a "choice" of health plans.

What thing to throw at a person at 65!

It's not Hobson's choice--take one or leave it---it's Bush's choice--take one of the pigs-in-a-poke or leave it.

I am 57 yrs old and on Disability, and therefore automatically on Medicare. Because of my age (under 62), I am not eligible for the Medicare insurance plans that augment the government plan.

That means I have to pay a lot that is uncovered (or underpaid) by Medicare. This is a problem in particular, since my Disability payments are small due to my previous faily low income.

You might be right but would YOU want to work with sex offenders all day?!? Let me tell you something, those cases/words, etc., take a long time to leave your head. Plus, your friend lives with the moral responsibility (if not legal, many social workers, etc., can be held personally liable)of his decisions. Sorry, but that's hardly equivalent to working in the corporate world.

I actually VOLUNTEER as a rape care advocate. I'm not working right now (which is why I'm SO familiar with the marketplace and I have time to bicker on WNYC) so I thought I'd use my social work/trauma background to try to be of service/be productive. It's easy to sit around and lick your wounds and agonize (and I know how scary it can be to be out of work or living on the edge while employed) but there is a tremendous need for volunteer help and it REALLY helps you keep your perspective.

Good luck, Mike.

Lori

[74] Lori from Montclair rplies: "Mike, Go look at idealist.org and check out the salaries in the not for profit world agencies, educational institutions, etc.) and about 30% of those low paying jobs prefer and/or require master's level degrees!"

Yes, as I said in my initial remarks, the non-profit world does have significantly lower salaries when compared to the corproate world, but I stand by my comment about government workers. Sadly, as a society, we will probably never pay the helping professions (like those who work with rape victimes) as much as people who can make money for other people.

However, look at the salaries for the helping professions who work for governments. They do much better. For example: I have a friend with an MA in psychology who is the head of some board in Minnesota that evaluates risk levels for sex offenders who are up for parole. He makes a very good salary with a great pension and great medical benefits, as does his parole officer wife. I'm sure they work very hard, but they do much better than similarly educated people in the corporate world.

Mike from Inwood,

I agree with you on food policy issue. I was just making a point. That said, we CAN choose between a banana or a bag of Cheetos. (Personally, I would often choose the salty snack but I don't blame society if I end up getting fat.:-)

I work with real victims (rape victims) and it is so tiring to hear this victim mentality applied to EVERYTHING in our society.

Lori

Mike,

Go look at idealist.org and check out the salaries in the not for profit world (agencies, educational institutions, etc.) and about 30% of those low paying jobs prefer and/or require master's level degrees! I have worked for many charitable orgs and at a major university and grew up in the civil service world and, aside from maybe a few people in very senior management, people do not make a lot of money.

People make these choices for many reasons: idealism, stability, etc., and in many environments, there is a trade off in salary and advancement ability for benefits/security. Not for profits (except perhaps the smallest out there) DO offer good benefits to their employees.

I know this because I have worked in both work worlds. I am not saying that people who work in corporate America clean up but the salaries are more competitive. Most individuals in civil and not for profit DO have "cadillac" plans and these people are not in a position to pay additional taxes. It would represent a tipping point in their financial lives and, I believe, ultimately cause a talent drain in orgs that do good work.

If you think you're missing out, you have a choice, join one. Work 50 hours at a not for profit with limited resources and low pay. Or run into the burning building when everyone else is running out and then tell me that civil servants haven't earned their keep!

Lori

Lori makes a comment about free choice. I am tired of people claiming that the great thing about our current system is choice. I have been in the labor market for 20 years, and I have never had "choice" in any meaningful sense. Most employers have only one plan available to employees, or at best a "choice" between two indistinguishable options. I take a job for a lot of reasons, but the health care option available has never been a determining factor. And we gave up "choice" of doctors years ago. When was the last time you changed your health care plan or employer just to go to "your" doctor? You just find a new doctor, one that is covered under your NO CHOICE plan.

Re: 58--The Hummer. I did not choose this plan; it was chosen for me by my employer. When I was downsized, I paid for COBRA. When COBRA ran out I was put into the individual version of my employer's choice.

At first it didn't seem so terrible, but then premium costs began to soar annually. By the time I'd decided to try to find a lower priced alternative, one of my doctor's found I had cancer.

End of choice entirely. Or the "preexisting condition" wouldn't be covered. I was lucky to keep my insurance. Alas, I can't move out of state due my preexisting condition.

Now I'm waiting to get on Medicare and move to a less expensive area.

[68] Lori from Montclair opines: "Speaking of parasites, I heard the other day on the news that obesity is the number one drain on our healthcare system. Should fat people subsidize the health care costs of thin, fit people?"

Federal agricultural policy subsidizes the production of corn. This corn is made into high-fructose corn sweetener and cheap beef. These are used to make inexpensive high-calorie, high-fat foods. If Federal agricultural polices were changed, perhaps fresh fruits and vegetables would be economically competitive and the health care costs would decline on their own.

[9] Lori from Montclair states: "Often the people with very good benefits work in not for profit or government settings and they accept LOWER SALARIES because these institutions offer good benefits."

Lori: Unless you're part of the upper management of a private company, you do NOT make a higher salary than government workers. This is true for both professional and non-professional workers. I have a four-year degree in computer science and have many friends in the field. People working for the city, State and federal governments not only make basically the same money, they have pensions that provide for only a marginally lower income in retirement as well as completely free health care, both now and in retirement. As for non-professional workers, there is a reason there are hundreds of applicants for every opening; the government pays far more AND has extensive retirement and health care. And if non-professional government job openings were better advertised, there'd be thousands of applicants for every job.

Non-profits are another story. They pay less and generally don't have great benefits, either.

I'm not sure the plan Congress Critters have is as described by the professor: I read an article which said 80% of them have the top of line offering (from among the various plans available to them through the FEHBP) and that is the Fee For Service plan. Among those, details may vary.

They also have a doctor and nurses available on site and can get flu shots, other non-specialized treatments taken care of there. They pay $200 a year for that service.

It's possible the prof is correct and the plans have the co-pays he mentioned and the 15% deductible for hospitalization--which seems rather high to me.

Got news for you, I have worked in administration in a major university and the Professor has a top shelf plan and HE will pay taxes on that plan. Most professors, unless they're stars on the book and/or lecture circuit, do not make a high salary and they would struggle to pay these taxes.

Speaking of parasites, I heard the other day on the news that obesity is the number one drain on our healthcare system. Should fat people subsidize the health care costs of thin, fit people? Shall we have a Taco Bell tax? Where does this end?

From my point of view, my plan is a 1998 Toyota Camry. It is reliable and covers the basics, with fairly minimal maintenance costs for me. However, I suspect that if you base your judgment on how much my plan costs my employer, it would be considered a Cadillac. I would guess that most Americans have no idea of what their health insurance costs in total, they only know how much it costs them. The cost to the individual has a lot to do with how much the employer is willing to cover. And employers who care for their workers are being bankrupted by the skyrocketing costs, which continue to climb even as the rest of the economy is shrinking. I am not crazy about the idea of taxing health benefits, but I reluctantly acknowledge the reasoning for it. If we want to rein in health care costs, we need to change the incentive structure. For doctors and hospitals, this means moving away from fee-for-service. For individuals, it means making the real cost of health care more apparent, so we have an incentive to use only what we need. Personally, I have always believed that health care should not be a for-profit enterprise, but I realize that a change that big is unlikely to ever happen.

if you go to the New York State Insurance web site --

lowest price for a couple

$1,548.91 to $2,322.71 HMO plan per month

18,586.92 to 27,872.52 -- in after tax dollars

http://www.ins.state.ny.us/hmorates/html/hmonewyo.htm

If I remember well, John McCain had a plan similar to this, where he would tax health benefits above the first X amount of US$. Obama criticized McCain for "raising taxes" with this plan...but now he has something much worse...
Obama liar = Impeach Obama

I will gladly and enthusiastically volunteer to pay taxes on my employer-provided health insurance if it makes it possible for all Americans to get health care. I consider it my duty as a United States citizen and a human being.

The "car" question is another way of asking which plans could be taxed.

The tax on health care plans should take into account the person's INCOME as well as the value of his/her plan. As NYC teachers, our plan is probably pretty high in value (although we have co-pays, deductibles, limits on how much we can be reimbursed each year,etc.)

However, new teachers make less than $50,000. The plan could add 50% to their "income." It would be totally unfair to tax these new teachers who are so badly underpaid by taxing them as if their incomes were 50%, for benefits they may relatively rarely use. (this isn't about me: I'm quite a senior teacher and I make almost twice as much.)

i walk.

Tony
AMA monopoly??

My plan might be compared to an early model Saturn View with no frills and a glitch or two.
After not having insurance for eight years,
we have my husband's insurance which runs well.
We have copays but also have a union dental clinic. As low income workers, the plan gets us by.Before insurance, my husband almost died from a tooth infection that went to his heart.
I had cancer which would have been impossible to cover without some insurance.
WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD INSURANCE AND TAXATION OF OUR BENEFITS COULD PUT OUR fAMILY OVER THE LINE.

A city bus. I'm a recent grad with very little income on Medicaid. Long waits, always crowded very little opportunity for individualized personal care.

I think my plan is a Hummer, leased from the true owner, the Big Insurance Parasite, aka BIP. It costs me a lot to use, I try to use it as little as possible, and while it will get me where I need to go the price is killing me. It will probably cost me my home. It's a really bad solution to my needs.

My parasite wanted to charge me $20,500 for this year's insurance, one person. 50% co-pays on prescriptions, plus co-pays on any services except some lab work and deductibles. I had to downsize to a higher co-pay and deductible plan; heaven forefend I require hospitalization.

Is this a Cadillac plan?

Oh, yes: limited choice of doctors and hospitals, etc. My cancer specialist told me we had to skip the more expensive imaging tests for possible metastises bcz my parasite had begun to make approvals for them so difficult. Makes me feel so good about my increased chances of an earlier than necessary death.

I needed physical therapy for a bum knee, but had to pass on that since my premiums are so high. I've also not filled prescriptions bcz they're too expensive at 50%. But my gatekeeper GP tends to demand office visits to renew prescriptions which I've been using for 35 years! I think it's a way to get the co-pay to help make up for the miserably low reimbursement he gets from my parasite.

Since your MA guest wants people to self-deny coverage, co-pays are an excellent way to accomplish that. My parasite gets humongous profits off of me -- and manages to force me into self-denial of care as well.

What's not to like -- if you're the parasite and not the host being sucked dry?

If they do tax health plans -- and the limit is set at a dollar level, will the dollar level be constantly adjusted for inflation?

Consider the effect of the Alternative Minimum Tax, where the limit is set at a dollar level unajusted for inflation, and the tax now reaches down to middle class people for whom it was never intended.

few years I worked retail $7.50/hr
I thought I nwas having a hart attack and an ambulance was called. Thankfully I was ok
My insurance wrote me a letter that in the future if I call an ambulance for a false alarm I have to pay for it (about $1000 ?)

I was at a party in Greenwich, CT (friends baby party)and in the course of making small talk I spoke with a man whose job is to decide how much employees should have to pay

When I told my story he said, "So what? How much could it be?"
When I suggested it could be $1000 he said "If a thousand dollars keeps you from calling an ambulance, you should revisit your priorities"

I pointed out I (and many other retail types)make $15,0000/yr

He said, "Yeah, but how many people make $15,000 /year?" and walked back to the catered party on the LI shore

The point is that the people making these decisions are basing it on their own cirlces and lives. To this guy nobody makes less than $100,000/yr.

It is fair because we have FREE CHOICE! We can choose to work for employer A or employer B! This is absurd. Shall we penalize every person for everything they EARN? If I CHOOSE to be a freelance writer vs. a worker bee in a not for profit institution, should I enjoy the SAME benefits? If I choose to work as a social worker, do I think investment bankers should subsidize my standard of living?

We've become a society of whiners unwilling to take personal responsibility for our decisions. And that is spoken by a LIBERAL!

It seems to me that the "cut off" should be kinda close to the top of the middle-class area. Why? If I have the choice of two plans, a "caddy" plan that will result in me paying taxes, or a "toyota" that keeps me untaxed, I will engage in some of that decision-making about my own care that is needed. The Toyota might presumably cover me for true emergencies, but require more out-of-pocket for less catastrophic care.

And I'm a NYer -- I don't even have a drivers license, so I don't know nothin' 'bout no cars.

My plan is a lexus on the outside and a toyota under the hood!

As a freelancer, I bought my own insurance for years and had to use after-tax dollars to do it.

The current system gives some people tax-free benefits that others don't get.

the value of a plan is not corralative to income. Plan prices are reflective of geographic area, how big the insured family is. People might have opted for better plan because of more severe health needs, ie cancer, even though their income is not high.

Emphasize the point that independent contractors are taxed on income used for health care. It makes perfect sense to have everyone's health care benefits taxed in the same way. Any tax deduction should apply to all and be made on the tax forms.

There should also be large co-pays and not-for-profits should help those who need it with co-pays.

I want a single payer system but we're not going to get what each of us wants. It astounds me that no one seems to understand that we all have to make sacrifices and compromises.

Professor Gruber's comments about people abusing the health care system by seeking care too quickly makes no sense. Good plans often include preventative care programs that keep people healthy. This creates less stress on the system.

I wonder what the government plan would be analogous too? A city bus perhaps? slow, crowded, and unhygienic.

We have very good health benefits (dealing with the insurer and doctor offices is another story!, a Cadillac.
I want to know what our national politicians have for benefits! Why is this not being talked about as comparison??
How about taxing theirs or at least those whose incomes are extremely high?
How about taxing, or even not providing, to those whose incomes are so very high?
Do the following really need us to provide their benefits: Pelose, Dole, Feinstein, Dodd, Frist, McConnell, Snowe and many more??

I don't know from cars. My question is, will Congress tax their own cadillac plan?

I have the same problem as the caller. I fortunately am covered by my girlfriend's health care plan. However, she is taxed on the value of my benefits.

Have you driven a Cadillac lately? The ride isn't what it used to be. I guess nothing is.

Mine would be a Mercedes that I was too afraid to take out of the garage in case something happened to it.

Access to health insurance is not the same as access to healthcare. Delivering all Americans to the insurance companies on a silver platter and taking away benefits from working Americans like policeman -- while keeping the same for-profit, adversarial, fee-for-services elements in place -- is not healthcare reform! Listening to these arguments about what kind of health insurance and associated tax structure we should have is like fighting over the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.

Never mind the bicycle analogy the whole car analogy is really stupid. Why even an analogy? Just rate your plan. I know nothing about cars and this car crap just doesn't make sense to me. And everyone calling sounds silly making this analogy.

Whatever kind of "car" they have, in the current system I'd say they're all gas guzzlers.

I am a NYC teacher and I wish to correct the impression given by the lady who said she is the wife of a police officer. He is clearly NOT a NYC police officer because all city employees have a choice of the same plans. For the "free" plans, you most certainly DO have COPAYS and deductibles, and you can rack up quite a bit of expense in health care. The network of doctors you can use is limited. For example, I had some medical problems this year and had to go to Roosevelt Hospital for surgery, even though I am across the street from Columbia-Presbyterian, because Columbia doctors did not accept my plan.

Her family may be subscribed to one of the paying plans, but this costs at least a couple of hundred dollars a month. This gives you a wider choice of doctors on your plan, but you still pay copays.

In regards to so called gold plated or Cadillac (I guess that means an all flash little substance ticky-tacky plastic health care under a severely diluted brand name) insurance plans, do the guests feel these plans are undeserved? Especially when paid for by a private employer and it is not taxpayer supported?
It sounds like the problem the guest have is that it is a benefit not all employers can afford and the people who get these plans get them because they are valued by their employer (as far as private employers go). Employees on the tax payer’s dime is another story.
Clearly a class issue and not a moral one. Single payer with boutique private insurers is the way to go.

How about breaking the AMA monopoly? This is the root cause of the cost.

My hated Oxford "freedom" plan would be an old Yuoslav YUGO. You go figure out what doctor qualifies for the plan, you go figure out why your perscription drug is rejected. Like the old Communist system, talks about community benefits, in the end, serves few well.

(My health insurance is a scooter. I have none. I only have hospital insurance. If I get sick, I'll buy a ticket to France.)

The wording is totally wrong the way it's being presented here in the USA.

Why should we all pay for a national system even if we don't plan to use it and want to keep our own private doctors? I'll tell you why.

In France everybody pays for the health system whether they use it or not. People are still entitled to pay for private doctors if they want to (usually it's only rich hypochondriacs or sleeping pill addicts who want their private doctors), but most don't because there's nothing wrong with the doctors available on the national health system. In fact, they are excellent. I used them periodically, and let me tell you -- even paying full price (since I"m not french) was cheaper than it would have been here.

What I'm saying is that if everybody pays into the system, it ends up cheaper for everyone. Yes, a large chunk comes out of your paycheck for "charges sociales." But it's worth it, to not have to worry about what will happen if you get hit by a grave illness, or need a flu shot.

I'm over 65, and have Medicare, as well as AARP supplement and the prescrition drug plan. That costs me over $4500 a year, and does not include the doctor who doesn't accept Medicare assignment and out of pocket drug, dental, and eye care. I'm very healthy, and don't use nearly that much coverage.
I guess we'd call it a Volvo--its pretty expensive,doesn't have a lot of frills, but offers protection for serious incidents.

The government is us. *We* are choosing by public policy to spread the risk among both the (momentarily) healthy and nonhealthy for the betterment of society as a whole.

People do not walk around choosing to go to doctors because we don't have to see the cost. We just get slammed over the head when we need it most.

Again, putting the focus on users is the problem; we need public policy that focuses on the fact that we are 50th in the world in medical outcomes.

I pay for my health insurance through Freelancer's health union, which means I already pay taxes on my insurance-- and nearly $550 a month for the best plan.

Hmm... I don't know cars, I know subways. My health care is the N/R/Q line. In some ways it's extremely dependable, (good lab coverage, decent med coverage), and then every once in a while you're left waiting on the platform for 20 minutes or more when you're in a real hurry. (Crazy high deductible for out of network, fairly low cut off maximum coverage).

I have 1199/seiu insurance probably the best in the country no co-pays, no deductibles covered 100% it's probably a Mercedes Benz.

All of this would go away if we had Primary Care Centers (granted thru HHS) deployed in larger numbers than the current 8000. Then all americans would have access to comprehensive primary care and young families could dicker for hospital and high tech insurance which would be much less costly than the current $12000/annum. enterprise would love this. See www.primary-care-medicine.net

I receive benefits through my domestic partner, and those benefits are already taxed by the federal government. Not only does my partner have to pay $700 a month for our health insurance, he had to pay an additional $1000 in taxes to cover the value of my benefits. I would hate to see this happen to everyone, it's a huge burden and it feels like we're paying twice.

forget about this car silliness will i be taxed?!?

I think it should be noted in this discussion that all health benefits for lesbian and gay domestic partners in NYC and, presumably for married people in other states, are taxed as benefits because IRS does not recognize this as beinging in the same category as married people. I think that everybody else needs to know about this inequality which currently exists and would continue into the future if there is not marriage equality nationally.

I have a Cadillac plan (United Health Care)--looks good, rides comfy--but things are ALWAYS going wrong.

Each doctor I go to, I have to budget 2-6 hours of hassle and nonsense, plus a mailbox full of bills and indecipherable UHS determinations.

I ALWAYS have to call the member contact number, and they are pretty good. In fact, I tell my providers to call my member number, as they seem more helpful and informed than the people at their contact number. I call every 2 weeks and say, OK, what's up now? Who do I owe what. There's no other way to know.

What an enormous waste of paper and time and reasources.

Obviously this system is broken.

My plan feels like a Yugo - one that's about to be repossessed if I don't come up with this month's premium in the next 2 days!

Okay, now the male contributor doesn't know what he's saying!

The government doesn't subsidize good insurance plans. Rather, good insurance plans (privately paid) subsidize government plans. Hospitals, providers, etc., MAKE UP the losses they incur by treating those people on publically provided plans by OVERCHARGING the private plans.

I thought really good health coverage was part of the compensation to a public servant (government sector) for a below competitive salary. It seems very unfair to levy a tax on regualr people who work as public servants.

Cadillac ? that's so 1950's.I have a Federal retirement plan i would call a Ferrari.I worked very hard for 20 years to have.Please don't even try to take it from me.

The problem is complicated because it is really about the reimbursement for out-of-network treatment. For a person who never goes out-of-network then it is a simple plan. However, for special cases, for cosmetic surgery after breast cancer, for many anesthesiologists, etc it becomes very important.

GAYU PARTNERS who's compnaies cover domestic partners (which is great) but the fed govt makes me pay tax on the value of the basic plan becuase we're not married. maybe we're nice lexus but a surchage for a gay paasenger.

I would say my insurance is like an Acura.
But then I've never driven a Mercedes.

My insurance is most like a car I abandoned some twenty years ago when I realized I could no longer afford to keep it.

The bus.
I use the sliding scale provided by HHC. You have to wait for hours, and its crowded.

All of this would go away if Primary Care Centers of America were deployed further than the 8000 currently scattered around. Then comprehensive Primary Care would be available to all Americans and employers would be rid mof that problem. To understnd this more fully see www.primary-care-medicine.net

Once primary care becomes universally available young families could dicker with Insurancen companies for

My health insurance is a car in a garage somewhere that I pay for every month, but that I never use and I'm pretty sure if I had to use it I'd find out its a piece of junk and doesn't start.

Brian,

Please comment upon Obama choosing the word "PENALIZE" in describing this tax !!!!!!!!!!

With a $3000 deductible, my heath insurance would be a Chevrolet Corvair: unsafe at any speed... or perhaps a taxi.

A bicycle! (no insurance here)

Runs by fruit and vegetables. Whenever I get a flat I fix it myself.

I work for a large non-profit... if my health insurance was a car, it'd be an 86 honda civic. It runs and gets me there, but it's not pretty, and keeps requiring me to put large amounts of money in to survive... and makes me wonder whether it'd be better to scrap the whole thing and start from scratch with a new Mini Cooper.

This contributor doesn't know what she's talking about!

Often the people with very good benefits work in not for profit or government settings and they accept LOWER SALARIES because these institutions offer good benefits.

THese are NOT high earners!

my health plan is a Henry J.
(Kaiser was the father of Kaiser-Permanente).

When I was laid off I was very surprised to learn that my health plan cost $27,000 per year (for a family of 3). We have co-pays for dr visits and perscriptions cost $25-50, with some not being paid for at all. I actually did not find it that great, many things were not covered or only covered on a limited basis. I worry that Congress will consider this a primo plan when it's really not.

Health insurance also became a negotiated component of union contracts during WW II when there was little money for raises.

jk
guess u, like some in the media don't understand how the constitution works. congress writes and passes laws, the president implements only those laws passed. hope this helps

As someone with a chronic medical condition since I was 10 years old (I'm 51 now), I simply can't compare my ability to live to an inanimate object such as a car. It's a symptom of our horrificly materialistic culture that seemingly respectable people can reduce health care to these absurd characterizations.

Too much of the focus has been on how people use care. The notion that people choose to sit in providers' offices, ERs, clinics for the sheer pleasure of it is ludicrous.

I keep hearing about so-called rationing of care, but I have not heard a single word about the rationing of profits for insurance companies or drug makers.

"Cadillac" benefits are in the eye of the beholder. For instance, my plan covers 100% of medication costs and my copays for primary or specialty care are only $20-50. However, mental health coverage is minimal. As a result, I spent $12,000 last year for mental health care (I have a condition which requires a specific, twice-weekly treatment regimen). After my 20 visits, with $75 copay per visit, were exhausted, I was on the hook for an $400 weekly. Adding additional tax on my (otherwise) generous health plan would really hurt.

I take issue with the phrase "the administration is considering". Obama will consider whatever the Blue Dogs tell him to consider. Obama lacks the intestinal fortitude to consider anything of his own free will.

If the government's goal is to control costs it makes no sense not to restrict extravagrant health-care plans' tax exemption. They are not only for executives: some companies still have archaic "indemnity" insurance plans, in which essentially the patient goes to the doctor, pays the bill however much it may be, and gets reimbursed dollar-for-dollar for the expense, no questions asked. This mechanism of course puts no reasonable limits on costs, the plans typically cost $2000 or more a MONTH for the average employee (blended cost of single, employee +1 and family), more like $3000 for family coverage; and the cost to the company is entirely tax-free to the employee.
Companies should be free to offer their employees these plans, the same as they can provide company-paid cars and country-club memberships, but the US taxpayer should not subsidize them unduly when to do so reduces the availability of basic health-care coverage to other Americans. The government should price each year a generous "managed-care" plan and, adjusted for geographic differentials, that cost should be the limit of exemption from taxation. The extravagance should be taxable to the employee.