What The Heck is a "Cadillac Plan" Anyway?
Okay, I am concerned.
Not about the "public option", that seems dead for now at least so we won't go on and on about that (although I could so don't get me started). I am concerned about this concept of a "Cadillac plan". As if the sheer cost of one's insurance coverage determines whether or not it is full of "bells and whistles". And who defines "Cadillac" anyway? Apparently the US Senate.
The cost of an insurance plan is in part determined by the size and makeup of the group you're in. In the case of my employer we are a small group (less than 50) with several high-risk personnel on the plan. This drives up the cost of the plan.
We have a decent plan but it is an HSA plan meaning it has a very high deductible. Example the individual deductible is $5,000.00. The plan's cost (so far as I know) puts it above the amount threshold that qualifies for "Cadillac" status. Trust me, this is NOT a Cadillac plan. It is pretty basic and nothing - NOTHING - kicks in until after you cough up that $5,0000.00 ($10,000 if it is family coverage). Oh sure I have that much cash lying about for no other reason.
How is this the cream of the crop? How is this some amazing, over-the-top,incredible, elite coverage? Damned near everything requires a referral and permission from the bean-counters. The deductibles are outrageous and we still have to contribute to it at a rate higher than I think is feasible considering.
Yet this sort of plan would be taxable thanks to the Senate version of Health Care Reform. Personally if I made over six figures I wouldn't be adverse to paying more [as in the House plan where higher income folks ($250,000/yr and up)].
If we all paid say 10% in taxes my 10% would be less than the 10% of someone making $250,000 and yet still fair because we'd both be paying the same 10%. But I digress...
Now I have no dependents, very little I can put into the 401(k) (3% into the traditional and 2% into the Roth and it about kills me) and thus very few things I can deduct on my taxes (just the house and that amount gets smaller every year)... so they think it is somehow "fair" to tax someone like me for my health insurance. Does not seem right somehow. Nope. Not at all.
The unions have a point too, they negotiate for their insurance coverage, typically give up wages in order to get good coverage. Now, granted I have seen some union plans that really are at the "Cadillac" level but they were bargained for, people sat at a negotiations table in some cases for months at a time, others went on strike but in the end the results were bargained for following the legally sanctioned process of collective bargaining. Why should the federal goof-balls be able to come in now and change the wages, hours and conditions of employment (what they bargain over)?
Why should the federal goof-balls tax the plans that aren't true "Cadillac" plans? Rates vary state to state, by the size of the group covered and by the makeup of the group... you can't judge whether an insurance plan is of "Cadillac" status by the cost alone. and really that is what is being done here. They aren't looking at the coverage, adjusting for the oddities between the states, or anything that might make sense. They are setting an arbitrary number and saying anything above that is "Cadillac" level. Ridiculous.
And yes, I have written to all of my representatives and the President. Have concerns of your own? Start calling and writing.
Not about the "public option", that seems dead for now at least so we won't go on and on about that (although I could so don't get me started). I am concerned about this concept of a "Cadillac plan". As if the sheer cost of one's insurance coverage determines whether or not it is full of "bells and whistles". And who defines "Cadillac" anyway? Apparently the US Senate.
The cost of an insurance plan is in part determined by the size and makeup of the group you're in. In the case of my employer we are a small group (less than 50) with several high-risk personnel on the plan. This drives up the cost of the plan.
We have a decent plan but it is an HSA plan meaning it has a very high deductible. Example the individual deductible is $5,000.00. The plan's cost (so far as I know) puts it above the amount threshold that qualifies for "Cadillac" status. Trust me, this is NOT a Cadillac plan. It is pretty basic and nothing - NOTHING - kicks in until after you cough up that $5,0000.00 ($10,000 if it is family coverage). Oh sure I have that much cash lying about for no other reason.
How is this the cream of the crop? How is this some amazing, over-the-top,incredible, elite coverage? Damned near everything requires a referral and permission from the bean-counters. The deductibles are outrageous and we still have to contribute to it at a rate higher than I think is feasible considering.
Yet this sort of plan would be taxable thanks to the Senate version of Health Care Reform. Personally if I made over six figures I wouldn't be adverse to paying more [as in the House plan where higher income folks ($250,000/yr and up)].
If we all paid say 10% in taxes my 10% would be less than the 10% of someone making $250,000 and yet still fair because we'd both be paying the same 10%. But I digress...
Now I have no dependents, very little I can put into the 401(k) (3% into the traditional and 2% into the Roth and it about kills me) and thus very few things I can deduct on my taxes (just the house and that amount gets smaller every year)... so they think it is somehow "fair" to tax someone like me for my health insurance. Does not seem right somehow. Nope. Not at all.
The unions have a point too, they negotiate for their insurance coverage, typically give up wages in order to get good coverage. Now, granted I have seen some union plans that really are at the "Cadillac" level but they were bargained for, people sat at a negotiations table in some cases for months at a time, others went on strike but in the end the results were bargained for following the legally sanctioned process of collective bargaining. Why should the federal goof-balls be able to come in now and change the wages, hours and conditions of employment (what they bargain over)?
Why should the federal goof-balls tax the plans that aren't true "Cadillac" plans? Rates vary state to state, by the size of the group covered and by the makeup of the group... you can't judge whether an insurance plan is of "Cadillac" status by the cost alone. and really that is what is being done here. They aren't looking at the coverage, adjusting for the oddities between the states, or anything that might make sense. They are setting an arbitrary number and saying anything above that is "Cadillac" level. Ridiculous.
And yes, I have written to all of my representatives and the President. Have concerns of your own? Start calling and writing.
Comments