IBJNews

Obama endorses new taxes, more drugmaker fees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

President Barack Obama, seeking to break an impasse over health-care legislation, proposed a plan that includes the first Medicare tax on unearned income such as capital gains and higher fees on drugmakers, while scaling back a levy on high-end benefits.

The measure released Monday marks a reversal from months of leaving the legislation’s details largely up to congressional Democrats, who have failed to agree on a plan. Obama relied mostly on a Senate bill passed in December, with elements of a House version passed in November.

The plan to cover 31 million uninsured Americans presents a challenge to Republicans before a Feb. 25 meeting at Blair House, across the street from the White House. Obama invited leaders from both parties and called on Republicans, who have almost universally opposed the Democratic plans, to offer their own “comprehensive bill” to extend coverage and reduce costs.

“We view this as the opening bid for the health meeting,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, on a conference call with reporters. “The president is coming to the meeting with an open mind. He hopes that the Republicans do, too. Our hope is to find some areas of agreement.”

Republicans have criticized the Democratic legislation, saying it’s too expensive at about $1 trillion over 10 years, that it unfairly forces people to obtain insurance, and will lead to government domination of health care. The White House says the program will be fully paid for with taxes and savings.

House Republican leader John Boehner said Monday that Obama was undermining the Feb. 25 meeting with his plan.

“The president has crippled the credibility of this week’s summit by proposing the same massive government takeover of health care based on a partisan bill the American people have already rejected,” Boehner, of Ohio, said in a statement.

To sidestep Republican opposition, the Democrats may use a procedure called reconciliation, which would require just 51 Senate votes to pass as long as the bill dealt only with revenue and spending issues. Pfeiffer said the possibility of using reconciliation played a part in the design of the White House plan and gives Democrats “flexibility.”

In the plan, Obama is advocating new taxes for Medicare, the government health program for the elderly. He proposed a 2.9 percent assessment on income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents for individuals earning more than $200,000 or families making more than $250,000.

The proposed tax would also apply to capital gains, an administration official confirmed. That would push the rate to 22.9 percent in 2011, up from 15 percent now and 20 percent scheduled to take effect next year. Obama also embraced the Senate proposal for an increase in the Medicare payroll tax on the highest earners.

“This is a potential pot sitting out there, a source of tax revenue that they haven’t tapped into,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington. “It changes the nature of financing for Medicare.”

The president endorsed yet another change in the so-called Cadillac tax on high-end employer-provided plans, which has been one of the most contentious parts of the legislation. While some economists say the levy would discourage wasteful spending, labor unions say it would hurt too many workers, and they successfully negotiated to scale it back in January.

Under the Obama measure, the 40-percent excise tax would apply to plans with premium costs in excess of $10,200 for singles and $27,500 for families, with adjustments for high-risk occupations and companies with higher costs because of the age or gender of their workers. That’s up from a deal of $8,900 and $24,000 that had been worked out with labor leaders earlier.

Dental and vision benefits would no longer be counted, and the effective date would be moved to 2018. The president said there would also be an automatic adjustment to the thresholds for premiums if health-care costs rise unexpectedly quickly.

Under the plan, the pharmaceutical industry, led by New York-based Pfizer Inc., would shoulder $10 billion more in fees over 10 years starting in 2011. The extra money would be used to help close the so-called doughnut hole in coverage for Medicare prescription-drug patients.

The proposal includes a provision that would outlaw a practice in which brand-name drugmakers pay companies to keep competing generics off the market. There were 19 so-called pay-to-delay deals last year, usually made as part of a settlement in patent litigation, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

Obama made smaller changes to plans to raise money from medical device makers such as Boston Scientific Corp. of Natick, Mass., and health insurers such as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. He delayed until 2014 the implementation of $67 billion in fees on the insurance industry over 10 years and changed the $20 billion assessed on device makers to an excise tax instead of a fee, with a start date of 2013.

He endorsed a new panel that could curb insurance-rate increases it deems unreasonable and included restrictions already in the House and Senate bills. For instance, insurers wouldn’t be able to refuse new clients because they have preexisting medical conditions.

The trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans called on the White House to include “system-wide reforms to control the rapid increase in the underlying cost of medical care.”

“Creating a new duplicative layer of federal premium regulation on top of what states are already doing will only add regulatory complexity and increase health-care costs,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for the Washington, D.C., group.

Obama also eliminated a Senate provision that gave special aid to Nebraska to help the state cover additional costs for Medicaid, the government health program for the poor. Instead, he said he would provide greater assistance to all the states.

The president said he was proposing changes that would give more aid to Americans to help them buy insurance. Under his plan, families making between $66,000 and $88,000 a year would pay no more than 9.5 percent of their income in premiums.

He came down on the side of the Senate on the issue of how new online purchasing exchanges should be set up, opting for a state-by-state system rather than a national version. House leaders argue that state exchanges wouldn’t be as effective.

He also sided with the Senate in avoiding a mandate on employers to offer insurance while including a penalty for large companies whose employees end up buying taxpayer-funded insurance. Under his plan, companies with more than 50 workers who don’t offer coverage would be subject to a fee of $2,000 per worker, minus the first 30 employees.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the proposal contained “positive elements” from both the House and Senate bills. “I look forward to reviewing it with House members and then joining the president and the Republican leadership at the Blair House meeting on Thursday,” she said in a statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. liek the rest of America

  2. These quaint,obsessed musings by the stalkers are certainly entertaining, but I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, all the yelping below has to do with Zak Brown.

  3. It's evident that Moffett was pushing the right buttons and corporate America is now trying to squash him. He just wanted to withdraw the free pilot services provided to the company by the pilots to try and put some pressure on a company that has not been interested in negotiating a contract in over 5 years. The company does not provide a contract because not having one has saved them a bundle of money. Shame on any Republic pilots not standing behind their union leader just because things are getting tough, can you not see such strategic moves by the company as putting the last union president in a corporate position and into THEIR pocket. Do you really believe the last union president is so appalled at the attempts by Moffett, do you not remember his oppositions to the company? We stood behind him. It has been proven over and over again for thousands of years without fail, a man cannot serve two masters. Anyone that believes people vote contrary to their paycheck and livelihood deserve to be taken advantage of, the recent statements by the former union president are laughable as he denounces the current union president from his new corporate position. Have you ever seen a drafted sports player score points for his previous team, it cannot be done, he is not on the pilots side anymore, he gets his money a different way now than you and I do, and he should not be allowed to remain on the seniority list. A drafted player brings strength, credibility, tactical knowledge, and a strategic advantage to his NEW team, he would not be drafted or paid were it otherwise. We are all forced to choose only one side to play for and support, not doing so has many references in life such as insider trading and shaving points, all illegal for good reason. This basic fact is why corporate moguls, scientist, and engineers all sign non-discloser agreements and non-compete clauses, as protection in case they are lured into switching sides as our former union president has done. No NFL coach ever drafted a player so that both teams could benefit and better understand each other, they are recruited to win the game against that former team, period. Likewise the company does not recruit the former union president by accident or mutual understanding, its strategy. Don't confuse playing the game with good sportsman-like conduct in support of common business and prosperity goals, with the requirement to only play for one side. Good men we all love and favor fall subject to this manipulation, often without their knowledge, and it is not a betrayal of their friendship to oppose them when they switch sides. If we did not love and trust them, they would not have been chosen and lured to the other side in the first place. The deception by the drafted player is not made at a conscious level, it's just human nature and it's all about money and power which corrupts our ability to be objective and loyal to two masters. This is why our court system created the defense attorney, and why our military created counter intelligence. Its strategy and its propaganda, and it works, and that's why the "powers to be" manipulate the chess pieces by sometimes changing their colors. Some players know they are being manipulated when their color is changed, but it brings them more money and power so they do not care. The rest have good intentions but do not even realize they are being manipulated. This tactic is also known by another name, Divide and Conquer. In battle sending an imperfect message with an imperfect team is obviously not ideal, but it's still being sent by YOUR team, your union leader, a leader that has common goals and common rewards with you, they are the best, because we have elected them to do a job for us. If you are not backing Moffett but believing the spin by those that have recently switched sides, you are taking food out of your own mouth. Showing unity and backing an imperfect situation still results in taking just as much ground, it's about unity and bargaining power. It's not necessary to wait around for that perfect attack because it will never come, the company will spin and attempt to destroy anyone that gets in their way. Ultimately it's not about any specific attack anyway, ASAP or whatever it makes no difference, it is and always has been only about power. If this company cared about safety it would not build pairings with 8 hour overnights, come on, are you that naive? Besides, do you really think Hoffa cares, no, he got a call from corporate America and was squeezed into denouncing Moffett. If he didn't they would spin the safety card against him and the Teamsters National with implication for truckers, future contracts, insurance rates etc...saying something like the Teamsters use safety as a bargaining chip, blah blah blah... Do you really think any pilot is going to do something unsafe for the contract, absolutely not, the only ones threatening safety here is the company with reduced rest, fatigue, and poverty. Do you not find it odd that Hoffa and the Teamsters are opposing a Teamster president publicly? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and work with one of their own? Why did they not sit down and help him strategize, correct any mistakes, and charge ahead? Would the Teamsters National not normally support and leverage a contract for all those pilots that have been paying Teamster dues, isn't that why we have all been paying Teamster dues in the first place? I sure haven't been paying dues so that the Teamsters National could come along and write this kind of an article undercutting our union leader and our unity. Whose side is the Teamsters National really on, it's obviously not the Republic pilots side.

  4. No matter what Moffatt does the company is going to spin it like he is the terrorist and brainwash people like you into believing it, wake up, back your players that are trying to change things for you and your livelihood. Where has Hoffa been for the last 6 years, except collecting our dues. Seriously, do you really think an FO going for upgrade, signed off by a checkairman ready for the upgrade, who then fails, is not even capable of returning as a First Officer.

  5. whoa!

ADVERTISEMENT