« | »

AP: Tentative Deal On Health Bill Tax

From a relieved (and discreet) Associated Press:

Ron Gettelfinger, the U.A.W. president, listens President Obama’s announcement on federal fuel standards, May 21, 2009.

AP Sources: Tentative deal on health bill tax

By Sam Hananel, Associated Press Writer

January 14, 2010

WASHINGTON – Officials say the White House and labor leaders have reached a tentative agreement on how to tax high-value health insurance plans to help pay for a revamped medical system.

The proposed tax has been a major sticking point because labor leaders fear union members, with some of the more lucrative benefit plans, would be hurt. President Barack Obama supports it as a way to hold down costs by nudging workers into less pricey coverage.

Details of the agreement were not immediately available. The tentative deal was expected to be presented to Congressional leaders Thursday. Union and Democratic officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private. This came as participants tried to wrap up core elements of the bill as soon as Friday…

From an earlier version of this same AP story, before the deal was announced:

Union officials familiar with the negotiations said the White House would like a deal on the high-cost insurance plan tax by Friday. Options being considered to lessen the impact on union members included raising the threshold at which the tax would be levied — it’s $23,000 for family plans in the Senate-passed bill — and exempting collective bargaining agreements negotiated before 2013 from the tax.

Of course the unions were always going to be exempted. They are major contributors to the DNC. They are their goons foot soldiers.

The only problem is how to justify it.

Since we reported this yesterday as a done deal, it must have taken the lawmakers and the media almost 24 hours to decide how they were going to explain their special treatment to the great unwashed.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, January 14th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “AP: Tentative Deal On Health Bill Tax”

  1. MinnesotaRush says:

    So .. don’t these backroom deals and special deals for o-blah-blah’s special folks somewhat represent a “Bill of Attainder” on the rest of the citizenry???


    “Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.”

    “The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.”

    “The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by legislature.” U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).”

    “These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.”

    “Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. … The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community.” James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.”

    But I guess who the hell cares aout that Constitution thing anymore anyway, huh??? (sarc)

    • 2old2givea says:

      Excellent post, MinnesotaRush (& everyone else.) Your last sentence sums it up: they don’t care. This is the same way they’ll do Cap & Tax and everything else. It’ll get challenged in court, but they’re packing the courts as we speak – something that hasn’t received much coverage in the media, of course. Commies know how to cover their bases.

      Let me ask you this: Everything else aside, what about being mandated to pay “premiums” for insurance – or anything – that I’m not receiving? Would anyone who later became a citizen of the U.S. have to pay premiums three years in advance?

      What happens if I die before (godforbid on both accounts), this promised “insurance” takes effect? Will the government reimburse my “premiums” to my estate? (Yeah, that’s a laugh, I know.) What if I get sick before then and MY insurance (that I have to carry so I don’t get thrown in jail or heavily fined), gets cancelled and I don’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare? (Gee, guess I’ll have to go to jail where they probably have excellent free coverage. Huh.) How am I supposed to afford TWO insurance premiums? Why don’t you hear reporters asking these fairly simple questions? Finally, how do these politicians discuss these things with a straight face? Botox?

      (Deep Thought: Can I join a Union if I’m Amish?)

  2. canary says:

    The democrats cuts on the elderly care is aiming to kill off the older wiser Americans before the next Presidential election.

    Older people are more aware of the unconstitutional dictatorship Obama is running and so weeding them out with less medical care will leave the younger adults and youth who don’t know what’s happening is wrong.

  3. proreason says:

    If it manages to pass, repealing it will be the prime platform of the new President who will take office in 2013.

    The taxes collected to that point in time should be returned to the people in the form of rebate checks.

  4. puhiawa says:

    As usual the Democrats have tried to arrange it so a tax is only paid by a nonDemocrat. The problem here is that this tax should never have existed in the first place. The other tax, the tax on health care products is even more bizarre. Clearly health costs will rise significantly, but there will be no money to pay because so many (20%) of these products are purchased by the government. As sales decrease the firms will move overseas, transferring even more jobs and highly secret proprietary to the Chinese has has been done for 20 years now. We are in the hands of fools.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »