Explain to me about the ACA and what I was told about a new tax on my health care plan?

[glasshouses]

Will I be taxed more because my employer offers us a good health care plan?

From what I was told I might be taxed another $1100 a year through my payroll tax because
it's considered a Cadillac insurance plan?

Is this right , I just got this new job

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. There's no way of anyone knowing ...

with the information provided.

But it sounds/smells a lot like the rw narrative of the early ACA days.

ETA: Here ...

The provision is often called the "Cadillac" tax because it targets so-called Cadillac health plans that provide workers the most generous level of health benefits. These high-end health plans' premiums are paid for mostly by employers. They also have low, if any, deductibles and little cost sharing for employees.

...

A 40 percent excise tax will be assessed, beginning in 2018, on the cost of coverage for health plans that exceed a certain annual limit ($10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for self and spouse or family coverage).

Health insurance issuers and sponsors of self-funded group health plans must pay the tax of 40 percent of any dollar amount beyond the caps that is considered "excess" health spending.

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=99

And it doesn't go into effect until 2018 ... So, if you are hearing about it affecting you now, and you are being told that YOU will be taxed, it's likely that someone is spouting rw talking points.

[JoePhilly]

5. YUP ... its a moldy RW talking point.

[PoliticAverse]

2. The "Cadillac tax" doesn't kick-in until 2018. n/t

[glasshouses]

3. but what is it?

Does this come out of my paycheck?

[PoliticAverse]

4. No, it's a tax on insurers...

See: http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/cadillac-tax-explainer-update/

And will cause high cost health plans to be scaled back.

[glasshouses]

10. So it will cause insurance compaines to stop offering good plans?

Why is this a good plan for employees that are offered good health care plans by their employers ?

[1StrongBlackMan]

15. Becuase the vast majority of those plans ...

went to executive and business owners, not their employees.

[YarnAddict]

33. Wrong

Lots of union employees have very good plans.

[blm]

35. Which is why Republicans want to get rid of unions.

.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. "Good plans" does not equal "Cadillac plans" ...

the excise tax applies to the insurer for the coverage amounts exceeding $10,000 (single) and $27,000 (family) and the Kaiser Family Foundation and Health Research and Educational Trust estimates the number of affected plans to be about 16%.

[Yo_Mama]

65. Those numbers are way, way off.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/20/killer-cadillac-tax-even-democrats-are-angry/

Now the manure is hitting the fan. In 2018, about half of companies will have to pay the tax if they don’t first reduce benefits below what Washington considers “excessive”: $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. Companies are already raising deductibles and copays or skimping on coverage, according to Towers Watson benefit consultants.

It's going to hurt union workers very badly.
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/14/07/30/christie-cites-cadillac-tax-in-push-to-cut-public-employee-benefits/?p=all

[regnaD kciN]

104. Source? The New York Post...

...published by Rupert Murdoch. The Faux News Channel of print.

[doc03]

69. That is one hell of a lot of plans 16%, it is way more than

executives and such someone claimed in a previous post. That has to include a lot of union negotiated plans.

[PoliticAverse]

17. It's really a way to fund the ACA by increasing tax revenue.

Many unions opposed the Cadillac tax because their members have 'high value' health plans
(plans with annual premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for a family).

The argument in favor of the 'Cadillac tax':
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x113137

[glasshouses]

20. I just joined the union for my job

[PoliticAverse]

21. If your health plan has annual premiums less than $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for a family

your plan would be unaffected by the tax.

[glasshouses]

23. It cost way more than $10,200 for single

It's over $17,000

[Capt. Obvious]

25. I believe that you will be required

to show us your pay stub.

[glasshouses]

26. Just got my first one

I started at $22.40 an hour

[Capt. Obvious]

27. You'll need to scan your pay stub and post it here

so that the Stubbers can call out the obvious forgery.

[Fumesucker]

47. Check the kerning

That's always a dead giveaway, just ask Dan Rather.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

29. Wow

you pay $17000 in premiums in a job that makes 47000 ???

[glasshouses]

30. I don't pay them

[blm]

32. Exactly!!! The posts have been smelling for quite some time.

Hard not to notice the recent increase in disingenuous banter.

[Capt. Obvious]

42. Notice he's refused to scan his pay stub and post it here

Another tell tale sign.

[glasshouses]

48. I'm not lying

[CreekDog]

53. what he's saying isn't verifying anyway

obviously the pay stub thing isn't needed, but if he's going to say his medical policy which covers him alone, is over 17,000/year, some skepticism is fair.

[doc03]

71. I am retired now but when I was working my plan may have fell in that group

The company paid the premiums and I am not sure what they were and have nothing to prove it. What I heard from the union the premiums were over $10000 for each employee regardless of marital status, so would the company be penalized for the single workers and not the married ones?

[CreekDog]

101. it would be the cost per insured person

and under ACA, it would be the average.

so, no, the cost per person wouldn't be equal to the family cost.

[doc03]

74. I worked for over 40 years with 2 different employers and insurance premiums

never showed up on any W2 form or pay stub. So don't call out the OP as being dishonest. It was a union negotiated benefit and the company paid all the premiums.

[CreekDog]

100. and the premiums aren't $17,000 either

based on other info in this thread, looks like it's around $6500/year.

[tammywammy]

36. I have excellent insurance and it's only a $7500 premium.

Seriously, excellent insurance at less than half of your premium. A premium that high just doesn't even sound sustainable for an organization.

[glasshouses]

39. That's what the state is paying for my policy

I pay $64 a paycheck

edit it's $54

[tammywammy]

49. That's a ridiculous premium and it is unsustainable.

Don't be surprised when it changes in a couple years. This is the first place I've worked where I've known the total premium price. Did your company share that it's $17k or is that what one of the other workers said?

[glasshouses]

50. They show this in HR in the day you spend in HR filling out paper work

They go over all the sick days you get holidays , personal days , vacation days and a host of other things .

[CreekDog]

61. is that how you came up with the $17,000 per year number? because that's not the cost of insurance

the insurance is far smaller than that amount.

[CreekDog]

55. why did you say it was $17,000/per year if you agree that it's the same as her $7500/year?

is this some sort of game?

[glasshouses]

62. I didn't say that it's the same as hers?

[CreekDog]

63. you said it was over 17,000 per year, she said hers was $7500 per year

what gives?

why do you say it's over 17,000 per year multiple times in this thread, then say that it's the same as tammywammy's (who just said hers was $7500 per year)?

[glasshouses]

68. Were did I say it was the same as hers?

[CreekDog]

56. At $7500 per year, there is no "Cadillac" tax, not even close

and it wouldn't happen until 2018 anyway.

[tammywammy]

72. Yes, I know.

I just can't imagine a cost-benefit analysis saying the $17k plan is much better than a $7k, when my $7k is pretty fantastic.

[CreekDog]

75. I'm going further than that to say that there is no 17,000 plan

he says he works for the state and they simply don't have that expensive a plan for an individual.

[tammywammy]

80. I agree with that as well.

[CreekDog]

82. now he's saying that 17,000 is for all his benefits, not just medical insurance

[CreekDog]

54. i can't find a single plan that costs $17,000 per year per person covered

in fact, most of the plans are below $10,000.


State of Connecticut - Office of the State Comptroller
Healthcare Policy & Benefit Services Division
2014 - 2015 COBRA Medical Insurance Rates

Monthly
COBRA Rate

Anthem
Point of Service
(POS)
Employee Only
$767.74

Anthem
Point of Enrollment
(POE)
Employee Only
$743.87

Anthem
Point of Enrollment -
Gatekeeper (POE-G)
Employee Only
$741.30

Anthem
Preferred
Employee Only
$1,100.09

Anthem
Anthem Out of Area
(OOA)
Employee Only
$1,060.75

Oxford
Freedom Select
POS (POS)
Employee Only
$620.91

Oxford
HMO Select (POE)
Employee Only
$591.11

Oxford
HMO (POE-G)
Employee Only
$542.77

Oxford
Oxford Out of Area
(OOA)
Employee Only
$659.83

http://www.hr.uconn.edu/docs/active_med_cobra__rates.pdf

[glasshouses]

64. Then why did they tell me that?

Do I have a cadallic plan or not?

[CreekDog]

58. No, it does not. There is not one plan that costs $17,000 per year

http://www.hr.uconn.edu/docs/active_med_cobra__rates.pdf

[Yo_Mama]

60. Virtually no good insurance plans cost that little. And I don't know of any unions that pay lower

You can only have that sort of plan if you have a very young healthy workforce.

[CreekDog]

81. Completely false, the largest health plan in the United States

has a premium of approximately $6,000 per individual per year.

it is a private, Blue Cross Blue Shield Health Plan.

[Yo_Mama]

90. What's the name of it? Or affiliation? I can find out the premiums. n/t

[CreekDog]

95. the largest health care plan in the world is actually the Federal Government's Blue Cross Plan

for its workers.

you should be able to find the exact cost per covered individual if you look.

the model for the health care exchanges was said to be the Federal Health Care Exchanges for the government's workers.

[1StrongBlackMan]

7. No ...

well, maybe. If your employer increases your contribution rate, then, yes ... you will pay more; but if it's listed on your Fed Withholding, contact an attorney.

(See my post #1) I suspect you will be unaffected, unless you are a corporate executive.

[glasshouses]

11. Hell no I'm no executive

I'm a custodian for a school

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Then, whoever told you that, lied to you. n/t

[CreekDog]

40. you're saying your group insurance policy for you, one individual is $1162/month?

or roughly $14,000 per year?

is it group insurance? do other employees get the same thing?

[glasshouses]

43. I think we are all under the same insurance

[CreekDog]

44. and the cost of that insurance is 14,000 per person covered, per year?

yes?

[glasshouses]

45. They said the policy cost over $17000 for the state but I pay $54 a pay check also

So I would imagine they subtract that from the $17000?

[CreekDog]

51. then why are the COBRA rates $6500/year - $13,000/year?

are you including things beyond health/medical insurance?

http://www.hr.uconn.edu/docs/active_med_cobra__rates.pdf

[glasshouses]

70. When they say benefits are they saying vaction time and stuff?

They said benefits are over $17000 a year , I thought that was health care? no

[tammywammy]

76. When they say "benefits" they mean all benefits.

Holiday, vacation, tuition reimbursement, etc. Anything that's in addition to your regular pay.

[glasshouses]

89. I guess I got it wrong

thanks

[CreekDog]

79. benefits are not just your medical insurance

it also includes vacation (not subject to the tax)
it also includes dental (not subject to the tax)
includes sick leave (not subject to the tax)

etc.

and the tax doesn't even take effect until 2018.

[glasshouses]

88. Thanks Creekdog

This stuff is new to me

[CreekDog]

57. why do you say in one message, the rate is $17,000 per year

then in another that it's $7500 per year?

what gives?

even though the tax doesn't start until 2018, the $7500 per year doesn't even come close to the taxable level.

[Yo_Mama]

59. It adds to your employer's taxes, so it will either cause them to cut benefits or

charge the employees more, or some combination of both.

[CreekDog]

102. Do tell us what taxes the State of Connecticut must pay

[JoePhilly]

6. Can you provide a link to what you "heard"?

Who told you this?

What links did they provide for you to use to research the situation, given they are so concerned for your tax situation?

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. Who told Glasshouse that? ...

The guy in the cafeteria, eating the spaghettioos, with the "Nobama" bumper-sticker on his Ronald Reagan lunchbox.

[JoePhilly]

14. Sure has all of the ...

... familiar markings.

"I heard Obamacare is going to kill me ... is that true?"

[glasshouses]

13. The other guys told me this when I started the job

[JoePhilly]

16. Did you ask THEM for any proof of their claim?

[Skittles]

78. oh of course not, JoePhilly

don't you know the word of the guys trumps all?

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Now that you have more information ...

Do you plan to go back to the guys and ask them why they lied to you?

[glasshouses]

22. Another poster said that unions were against this tax so I don't think they did lie

I just became a union member for this job

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. Union or not ...

look at your paycheck. Is there a line deducting for insurance premiums? If so, you're being lied to.

Better test ... casually mention anything President Obama (or his wife) has done ... their response will tell you everything you will need to know.

[glasshouses]

46. yes I pay my part of $54

that's per week

[doc03]

83. UNION benefits are not on a pay stub or are they reported on a W2.

[blm]

34. What school district? State/County/Union affiliation?

Perhaps it differs in your county?

[glasshouses]

41. It's a Universty for the State of CT

[CreekDog]

52. there is no medical insurance plan that is $17,000/year per person at University of Connecticut

but you're saying yours is.

in fact, most of them are well under $10,000/year per person, which is below the tax level, a tax that wouldn't hit until 2018 anyway.

[glasshouses]

66. Why are they telling me that It cost them that much in benefits ?

Are they adding up other things?

[upaloopa]

67. I think you are not asking in the right place.

Go to your HR department or benefits advisor and your union field rep and ask your questions.
If you are here repeating wing it talking points you can't do the above can you?

[doc03]

85. I worked on a union job and our insurance premiums were

above that amount according to the Union. We had full medical, dental and vision with no premiums or co-pays.

[RandiFan1290]

8. Concern!

And they tax your precious income.... those bastards!

[Skittles]

77. yup

that one shows.....a lot of concern

[Capt. Obvious]

24. YOU MUST BE LYING

HOW DARE YOU ATTACK OBAMA

THE JERK STORE CALLED

[CreekDog]

84. I don't know if he's lying, but what he posted is wrong

even he is now backing down that his health insurance exceeds the taxable threshold for the Cadillac tax, which hasn't even started yet.

[doc03]

86. Don't you know if you don't support Obama

and the ACA 110% you have to be lying.

[stevenleser]

94. No, you can be mistaken, as the OP has acknowledged. Again, that's why we ask probing questions.

You can't find out if someone is mistaken about something unless you have all the required facts.

[stevenleser]

93. See #89 and the thread that it ended. OP was mistaken. That's why folks ask questions.

Sorry that asking questions to flush out all the facts offends you so.

[arcane1]

28. When doing taxes, I had to check a box that said I was insured for the whole year

But it seemed to have no effect on my refund. It was comparable to last year's amount.

[notadmblnd]

38. no, it's not right

I've done plenty of taxes so far this year and everyone that has insurance via their employer has had no change in their tax bill.

[stevenleser]

73. Here is the best explanation I've seen

http://www.healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/brief.php?brief_id=99

#1 - As others have noted, the amount a policy has to cost per person or per family is very high to hit this

#2 - The person buying the policy pays it, i.e. the company or organization in most cases, unless a person went straight to the insurance company and bought the policy themselves. In that case the individual would pay.

#3 - The tax only affects the amount over the limit. I.e. if a company/organization has 10 employees who are all single and their yearly premium is $11,000 or $800 more than the limit, the company/organization is taxed 40% on the $800 or $320 per employee.

[doc03]

87. Won't that discourage companies from providing a better

benefit package? In this case it gives companies the incentive to cut benefits, the ACA may be good for some peoples health care but takes it away from others. Is that fair?

[CreekDog]

91. it broadens the risk pool which should lower costs actually

it also caps the amount of profit health insurers can make, also lowering costs.

i think you're mistaking overpaying for health insurance for actually getting better services.

[stevenleser]

92. Define "better". From the link, this is what proponents of the tax have to say about it

These plans may also have less restriction on or wider provider networks and wide menus of covered health services to choose from, including even the most expensive services such as in vitro fertilization, which can run tens of thousands of dollars. Critics of the plans focus on the low, if any, copays and deductibles, which tend to shield workers from the true cost of care, ultimately driving up medical costs for everyone else.

.
.
.

Proponents of the excise tax also argue that it is necessary because high-cost health plans contribute to a longstanding "unequal tax benefit" problem that has existed for decades: When the government froze wages during World War II, new laws allowed employers to offer health benefits tax free in lieu of wages. This created an incentive for employers to make health insurance a part of the compensation package they offer employees. Since health benefits were not taxed, some employers began offering generous or comprehensive health benefits to compete for better employees.

This tax-free, alternative form of compensation disproportionately benefitted people with higher incomes because they had higher income tax rates and therefore enjoyed the biggest tax break. Those without employer-based coverage comparatively did not benefit.

----------------------------------------------------------

[doc03]

97. It still stands it is helping kill benefits many people

and Unions fought and even died for to benefit someone else. We had people calling this person a liar because he or she
couldn't produce a pay stub proving it. Benefits you receive as part of your union benefits don't show on a pay stub or
a W2. Before a person calls another a liar they should know what they are talking about. Like I said I am retired now but the benefits my Union provides will probably fall in the Cadillac Plan definition. Unions like mine
represented people in an extremely dangerous occupation and I don't know for sure but for that reason our premiums were probably much higher than the average person.

[stevenleser]

99. And the OP admitted they were wrong. glasshouses and I shared nice words about it.

This is why we ask probing questions of folks who make these claims, because we know the chances are they are missing something. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6213616

[PoliticAverse]

96. You can read the argument in favor of the tax in this old DU thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x113137

[PoliticAverse]

105. If a person bought a policy directly from an insurance company there would be no tax

as such a purchase wouldn't be tax-exempt in the first place (unless the person purchasing the policy
was self-employed and deducted the cost).

The 'Cadillac Tax' is for employer offered plans.

[mercuryblues]

98. I can't resist

People in glasshouses sinks ships

[TDale313]

103. Can I ask a silly question? To anyone?

Not that my personal situation would put me near this tax, but when they talk about the value of your health care plan, how are they figuring that? If i, for example, had a plan that cost $600 a month in premiums, and my employer pays $500 and I contribute $100 a month- would that be considered $6000 (the employer's contribution) or $7200 (the full cost of the plan) Or is it something else? Just curious.

[PoliticAverse]

106. If your $100 contribution is deducted from your gross pay before taxes

are applied (you could see that by seeing that your original pay and fica pay amounts are
different) you received a tax benefit from your contribution and the purpose of the 'cadillac tax'
is to recapture the 'excess' tax benefit so in that case it would apply to the full cost of the plan.

You can find the actual law on the tax here...
Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4980I

[TDale313]

107. That makes sense. Thanks.