Let's revisit this in two years see how many plans will manage to make it just under or over the thresholds, depending on which is more beneficial to the insurance companies.
I own a small business (defined for health care purposes as under 20 employees) in Rockland County insured by Empire BlueCross BlueShield. Small businesses can not get the less expensive rates enjoyed by larger companies. As examples of my plans that apparently will be affected by the "Calillac Plan" tax, a "Direct Connection HMO" individual plan including dental & drugs (not vision coverage) costs me $797.55 a month ($9,570.60 a year - well over the $8,500 threshold). A medicare supplement/carveout Direct Connection HMO plan even costs $709.26 a month (just over the $8,500.00 amount).
Herbert is conflating two different theories. The idea of the excise tax on the "Cadillac" plans is to contain premiums. The idea is that there is something of a sweet spot to premiums. The insurance companies are, theoretically, exploiting labor market competition by offering excessively expensive plans. The excise tax effectively caps the costs of premiums at a level that should, reasonably, more than cover insurance company costs.
The theory that people will be more conservative with their health care expenses is more applicable to the idea of private health savings accounts. Herbert is right to condemn that logic, but its not the same idea as taxing excessively expense plans.
Mr. Herbert has some important criticisms of the health care reform bill. I wonder, however, if he mischaracterizes it's proponents who believe it will reduce overutilization of health care services. Are we really talking about incentivizing people to go to the doctor less, or incentivizing doctors to reduce unnecessary treatments?
What great timing! I just found out that our insurance at work is going up 50% starting in March. That will cost me an extra $400 per month for the same exact coverage. Isn't anyone looking into this type of organized crime?
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Learn more. Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
posting.
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's
Privacy Policy and
Terms Of Use.
Sponsored
About The Brian Lehrer Show
It's your neighborhood, your city, your country, your world, and now your website. Brian Lehrer delves into the issues and links them to real life.
Comments [11]
Let's revisit this in two years see how many plans will manage to make it just under or over the thresholds, depending on which is more beneficial to the insurance companies.
What do most people think will happen?
I own a small business (defined for health care purposes as under 20 employees) in Rockland County insured by Empire BlueCross BlueShield. Small businesses can not get the less expensive rates enjoyed by larger companies. As examples of my plans that apparently will be affected by the "Calillac Plan" tax, a "Direct Connection HMO" individual plan including dental & drugs (not vision coverage) costs me $797.55 a month ($9,570.60 a year - well over the $8,500 threshold). A medicare supplement/carveout Direct Connection HMO plan even costs $709.26 a month (just over the $8,500.00 amount).
Herbert is conflating two different theories. The idea of the excise tax on the "Cadillac" plans is to contain premiums. The idea is that there is something of a sweet spot to premiums. The insurance companies are, theoretically, exploiting labor market competition by offering excessively expensive plans. The excise tax effectively caps the costs of premiums at a level that should, reasonably, more than cover insurance company costs.
The theory that people will be more conservative with their health care expenses is more applicable to the idea of private health savings accounts. Herbert is right to condemn that logic, but its not the same idea as taxing excessively expense plans.
Thank you for Mr. Herbert's segment. It's so helpful to hear how the provisions of these Health Bills might actually play out.
FYI- Botox and other purely cosmetic procedures are NOT covered by even the most 'cadillac' insurance plans.
There was a 'cosmetic' tax proposed but it was overruled.
Please let your guest know he should know what is and what is not covered.
Mr. Herbert has some important criticisms of the health care reform bill. I wonder, however, if he mischaracterizes it's proponents who believe it will reduce overutilization of health care services. Are we really talking about incentivizing people to go to the doctor less, or incentivizing doctors to reduce unnecessary treatments?
What about the plan of federal employees, including Congress and the President. Don't they have a Cadillac plan?
What exactly is a generous health plan in terms of care? It needs to be defined.
What great timing! I just found out that our insurance at work is going up 50% starting in March. That will cost me an extra $400 per month for the same exact coverage. Isn't anyone looking into this type of organized crime?
so it's just like the AMT
I have read that the compulsary insurance aspect of the Health Care Reform bill is going to be challenged as unconstitutional. Any comments?
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.