Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Is Stephen Lynch Against 32 Million People Getting Healthcare?

By

Today I learned that my Representative Stephen Lynch intends to vote against the health care bill, on the ostensible ground that it doesn’t represent meaningful reform.  Look, I share his criticisms of it, and I would prefer Alan Grayson’s “Medicare You Can Buy Into Act”, but this is ridiculous.  If passed, the Senate/Reconciliation bill will insure that 32 million people currently without health insurance will get care.  It’s a huge leap forward from where we are now.  Cong. Lynch has been a solid and reliable progressive vote on almost everything important to Democrats, except a woman’s right to choose.  I cannot believe that he is seriously considering sacrificing 32 million people’s chance to get health care on the altar of his own purity, dooming any opportunity for improvement for another 15-20 years. If you agree with me that this is unconscionable, even if you don’t live in his district, you MUST call him ASAP.  

Here are the numbers:

DC:(phone) 202-225-8273 (fax) 202-225-3984

Boston:(phone) 617-428-2000 (fax) 617-428-2011

Brockton: (phone) 508-586-5555 (fax) 508-580-4692

Call! Now! (Politely, of course)

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • That’s no reason to kill the whole thing, and any chance of changing the terms of discourse around health care for a generation with it.  Pass it, and then fight to make it better. Even the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, and SEIU get this, and have endorsed passing the bill.

      • Do you really trust these guys (Obama, Reid and Pelosi) to look out for Massachusetts?  We’re going to take this thing on the chin.  No, I don’t want the tax…why should I be penalized for living in Massachusetts?  I’m already up to my eyeballs, thanks, with college tuitions, a new home with corresponding mortgage, and a wedding next year.

        <

        p>And it’s not just the Cadillac tax…and it’s not just about insuring the uninsured.  If this country wanted to insure the uninsured, this damned bill would be ten pages long instead of the thousands of pages it is.  This is more than that….which Rep. Lynch gets.  From the Boston Globe:

        <

        p> http://www.boston.com/news/pol…

        <

        p>

        “We’ve paid the ransom, but at the end of the day the insurance companies are still holding the hostages,” Lynch said in an interview with the Globe early this afternoon. “This is a very good bill for insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. It might be good for Nebraska, I don’t know. Or Florida residents…But it’s not good for the average American, and it’s not good for my district. Or for Massachusetts.”
        He said he opposes the so-called Cadillac tax the Senate adopted that would put a surcharge on expensive health insurance plans, and he is also disappointed that the final bill doesn’t include proposals to allow states to adopt a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers.

        “The insurers still rule,” he said. “Were just pumping subsidies into the current system, but that won’t drive down costs.”

        • It’s up to us to fight for a better bill, starting the day after this one’s signed.  As I said, I agree with his criticisms. But if this one isn’t signed, then there’s no health care reform for a long time. I too am up to my eyeballs with house, kid going to college, etc. But I’m also  concerned about the 32 million people who won’t get healthcare if this doesn’t pass.

          • I have no illusions Jim, about how long it will take to fix this bill.  It can take years…years of an undeserved 40% (forty percent)tax…when I am already strapped.  Why shouldn’t they just fix this damn thing now and be done with it?  Deliver a good bill that insures the uninsured without killing the rest of us. This is the worst economy in decades, and now I am expected, in addition to the struggles I am already facing to suck it up and pay approximately $5,200 extra in taxes to help subsidize  Louisiana. I guess I’m not feeling all that altruistic these days.  

            • So, if you expect to pay $5200 in the excise tax – for a family plan, that would mean your plan costs $40,000.  So you would pay 40% of $13,000, which is the excess over the $27,000.  It’s possible that your plan is $40,000, but considering that the average family plan in MA is 13,000, I’d be surprised.    

              • Because NPR doesn’t say that:

                <

                p>http://www.npr.org/templates/s…

                <

                p>Obama included a scaled-down version of the tax in his health overhaul plan. In his proposal, the tax would go into effect in 2018. Dental and vision plans would not be included in the total. Individual plans that cost more than $10,200, and family plans over $27,500 would be taxed.

                <

                p>There’s nothing that says that tax only applies to the amount above $10K/$27,500.  so please produce the links.  Thanks

                • $27,499 plan?  $0 tax.
                  $27,501 plan?  $11,000 tax.

                  <

                  p>I know folks don’t think legislators are the brightest CFL in the carton, but I suspect they didn’t write the tax policy quite like you suggest.

                • Yes, the NPR statement “Individual plans that cost more than $10,200, and family plans over $27,500 would be taxed” is sloppy – one of my huge gripes with NPR reporting.  Not exactly untrue, because the PLAN would be taxed, but only on the amount EXCEEDING those thresholds.  

                  <

                  p>Ezra Klein of Wash. Post writes daily on health care reform http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
                  “On a superficial level, the policy is simple enough: Health-care premiums above $21,000 for families, and $8,000 for individuals, are hit with a 40 percent surtax. So if your family’s insurance plan costs $23,000 a year, then $2,000 of it will be taxed at 40 percent. The tax will be levied on the insurer, who will in turn pass it onto your employer, who will in turn pass it onto you.”

                  <

                  p>He is referring to the earlier thresholds; I will get a link with the updated numbers.  

                • From Kaiser Health News Mar 18, 2010
                  http://www.kaiserhealthnews.or…
                  “In the Democrats’ reconciliation bill – actually an amendment to the Senate-passed health bill – a high-cost health plan is defined as costing more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family, including worker and employer contributions to flexible spending or health savings accounts. The cost does not include stand-alone vision or dental benefits. The tax would not be imposed until 2018, giving health plans more time to benefit from possible cost savings from other reform measures. Employers with a preponderance of older or female workers who have higher-than-average health costs would receive a break in the form of higher thresholds. …

                  <

                  p>The health bill would tax insurers 40 percent on the amount of premiums above the thresholds.”  

                • Do you really not understand how taxation works?  It only applies to the amounts above the threshold.  If your plan is worth $27,501 your total tax bill will be 40 cents.  

                • Lots of people don’t seem to understand how taxation works.  There was considerable wailing and gnashing of teeth from the right-wing blogosphere over the idea that the Obama administration wanted to raise taxes on people making over $250k, with many people pledging to cut back their productivity to try to make sure they made no more than $249,999.

                  1.  Don’t confuse ignorance with stupidity.  Being ignorant of the mechanics of tax policy does not imply that a person is stupid.

                  <

                  p>2.  Don’t confuse smarts with deserving to make money.  They may be positively correlated, but intelligence isn’t the only talent that the marketplace values, nor should it be.

                • However, understanding how marginal tax rates work is a pretty basic part of civics education, so it’s troubling that so many people don’t understand, and think that a $1 increase in annual income could mean an enormous jump in taxes.

                • is making sure that so many people DON’T understand a pretty basic part of civics education.  

                • Example – MassHealth.

                  <

                  p>Used to deal with retirees on MassHealth.  One example – disabled man was $10 below threshhold.  Got COLA, and lost not only MassHealth, but food stamps, many other things because he was then $17/mo over.  Talked to ‘Rich’ and asked what could be done – was told ceiling was inflexible, agreed that man lost hundreds in benefits for a $27 increase.  Asked if exception could be made, was told that even if he could – if he made such an exception for $17, I’d be back the next week with somebody who was $19 over, then $22…which was perectly true.

                  <

                  p>Asked what could be done.  Rich suggested man write letter declining COLA, put him back below threshhold.  Agreed this was temporary solution, but fixed things for now.

                  <

                  p>If somebody had such an experience – why WOULDN’T they think $1 over would be a trigger?  Government does stupid things like that all the time – and I would suggest you shouldn’t be so darn sure they aren’t doing it now as well.

                • Taxation is a completely different subject from what you’re talking about.  I’m not aware of any tax which kicks in over a particular threshold, but also hits income below that threshold.  If you are, please explain.

                  <

                  p>

                  If somebody had such an experience – why WOULDN’T they think $1 over would be a trigger?

                  Knowing basic facts about how marginal tax rates work is why.  I thought that point had already been covered.

                • I don’t think the concept of marginal tax rates is ever taught except in specialized courses. Periodically stupid tax policy does create weird incentives. At one point you lost your social security if you earned $1.00 over a threshold – this has been fixed but I had a semi-retired employee who would stopped working when he got close to the amount.

    • Massachusetts residents also have some of the highest incomes in the nation. So the surtax would also hurt Massachusetts residents disproportionately, and more generally taxes on the rich would. Political decisions shouldn’t be based on parochial calculations of whether something benefits Massachusetts, because sometimes the fair thing is for Massachusetts to take it on the chin.

      <

      p>The excise tax is good policy. It helps lower health care costs by punishing expensive plans, and very gently nudges people from employer provided health care to the health insurance exchanges. Adjusting for differences due to overall cost of living would be a nice bonus, but not that big a deal.

Archives