Friday, January 08, 2010

About those "Cadillac" Plans

First, given that the gummint (and thus, us) now effectively own GM, does it really make much sense to disparage its flagship line? Wouldn't it be more, um, prudent to refer to high-end, high-premium plans as, for example, "Beemer plans" or even "Lincoln plans?" (I do realize that the latter is problematic on a number of levels).

In the event, you may recall from the campaign trail that then-candidate Barack Obama claimed "you can keep the plan you have." Well, to paraphrase our favorite Congresscritter, "he lied!"

"The president expressed a preference for a Senate proposal to tax so-called Cadillac plans."

The proposed tax is ostensibly on the carriers which sell them. White House spokesgenius Bob Gibbs seems to believe that the insurers will simply eat this added expense, rather than pass it on in the form of even higher premiums:

"Q: don't think they pass those taxes on, those costs on to consumers?

MR. GIBBS: I'm not an insurance company broker.

Q Well, it's just obvious. Isn't it self-evident that they would do that? MR.

GIBBS: Not necessarily. They may just not offer --

Look, this isn't rocket surgery; as we've noted before, "Companies – businesses – pay neither taxes nor insurance premiums ... They also include any business taxes due in the price of the product or service." I'm not sure which is more worrisome: that the folks running this country don't understand simple economic principles, or that they do, and just like to lie about them.

[Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]
blog comments powered by Disqus