January 7, 2010 12:07 PM

AP: Obama Backs High-End Health Plan Tax

(CBS/AP)  President Obama signaled to House Democratic leaders Wednesday that they'll have to drop their opposition to taxing high-end health insurance plans to pay for health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans.

In a meeting at the White House, Obama expressed his preference for the insurance tax contained in the Senate's health overhaul bill, but largely opposed by House Democrats and organized labor, Democratic aides said. The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was private.

House Democrats want to raise income taxes on high-income individuals instead and are reluctant to abandon that approach, while recognizing that they will likely have to bend on that and other issues so that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., can maintain his fragile 60-vote majority support for the bill.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and four committee chairmen met with the president Wednesday as they scrambled to resolve differences between sweeping bills passed by the House and Senate. The aim is to finalize legislation revamping the nation's health care system in time for Obama's State of the Union address early next month.

Special Report: Health Care Reform

Despite the dispute over the payment approach, Pelosi, D-Calif., emerged from the meeting expressing optimism.

"We've had a very intense couple of days," Pelosi said. "After our leadership meeting this morning, our staff engaged with the Senate and the administration staff to review the legislation, suggest legislative language. I think we're very close to reconciliation."

Congressional staff members stayed at the White House into the evening to continue work, and a conference call of the full House Democratic caucus was scheduled for Thursday. Obama is taking a more direct role than ever, convening Oval Office meetings Tuesday and Wednesday of House Democratic leaders.

The closed-door, Democrat-only approach to the reconciliation of the House and Senate bills represents an abandonment of an oft-repeated campaign promise made by Mr. Obama as presidential candidate, .

Candidate Obama regularly promised to broadcast all such negotiations on C-SPAN, putting the entire process of pounding out health care reform out in the open. (That promise applied to the now-completed processing of forging House and Senate bills, too.)

Back when Republicans controlled Congress and George W. Bush was in the White House, it was Democrats who angrily complained about secret backroom deals.

Now the roles are reversed, says Reid.

"The negotiations are obviously being done in secret and the American people really just want to know what they are trying to hide," said Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga.

The House and Senate bills are alike in many ways. Both impose first-time requirements for almost all Americans to purchase health insurance, providing subsidies for lower- and middle-income people to help them do so, though the subsidies in the House bill are more generous. Both establish new marketplaces called exchanges where people can go to shop for and compare health insurance plans. Both would ban unpopular insurance company practices including denying coverage to people with pre-existing health conditions.

Differences include whom to tax, how many people to cover, how to restrict taxpayer funding for abortion and whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to buy coverage in the new markets with their own money. The House bill covers about 36 million uninsured Americans over 10 years, costing more than $1 trillion, while the cheaper Senate bill covers about 31 million.

House Democrats are steeling themselves to abandon establishment of a new government insurance plan opposed by moderates in the Senate, but in return hope to get the Senate to rescind insurers' antitrust exemption, make subsidies more affordable and agree to establishment of national rather than state health insurance exchanges, among other things. Obama has signaled his support for the House position on the subsidies and other areas, aides said.

The difference in how the bills are paid for is emerging as among the toughest disputes.

The House wants to increase income taxes on individuals making more than $500,000 and couples over $1 million, which would raise $460 billion over 10 years to pay for the bill. The Senate wants to tax insurance companies on plans valued at over $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for couples, raising $150 billion. Most analysts say the insurance tax would be passed on to consumers, and organized labor is strongly opposed, as are House Democrats, some of whom contend that the tax would violate Obama's campaign pledge not to tax the middle class.

"We did in our house bill something that protects middle class Americans from having to pay more for health insurance," Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the House leadership, said Wednesday. "So far we want to stay to that principle."

House members "have been very clear on that issue and working with the president to stick to what he said when he was campaigning for president, we're trying to make sure this does not affect middle class Americans," Becerra said.

Obama has defended the tax as a way to drive down health costs.

"I'm on record as saying that taxing Cadillac plans that don't make people healthier but just take more money out of their pockets because they're paying more for insurance than they need to, that's actually a good idea, and that helps bend the cost curve," the president said in an interview with National Public Radio just before Christmas. "That helps to reduce the cost of health care over the long term. I think that's a smart thing to do."

In the end the House likely will have to accept the insurance plan tax at some level - say starting with plans valued at $25,000 or more, with carve-outs for certain union professions - but it might not happen without a fight.

A provision in the Senate bill to increase the Medicare payroll tax on high-earners could provide some middle ground, although that measure would raise only $87 billion over a decade.

© 2010 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 50 Comments
by jhghgfghfd January 24, 2010 4:45 PM EST
I agree with the latter statements. All of the propaganda he sent to my door was a total and complete LIE. He promised to no longer rely on oil and war. Another 40 thousand killers to go? Would you like them back in paper or plastic? He encouraged the masses to buy his stickers and wear his rasta looking peace shirts and now all those people are either too stupid to even know what his policies are or they just don't care anymore and would rather hold on to the dream. The Tea party is a nice idea but our country is so racist, stupid, and religulous that it would be whites against blacks, bible bangers against non-believers and republicans against democrats and on and on. We will be divided and they will conquer the same way Hitler conquered his people. FEAR! So get ready. I'm sure they have more extreme tactics like 911 in store.
Reply to this comment
by daffy64 January 7, 2010 1:23 PM EST
"How difficult it will be for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. It would be easier for a camel would go through the eye of a needle".
Reply to this comment
by tomanyt January 7, 2010 1:03 PM EST
apuan777... A business is only required to provide "insurance" if they have over a set number of employees. This is the way it has been for a long time. Personally, I don't think it right. Employer should only be reponsible for paying you a wage not supplementing your health insurance or paying retirement.
Reply to this comment
by daffy64 January 7, 2010 12:35 PM EST
Right. So in other words, the super-rich would all give their fair share willingly to the government if they weren't taxed.

Now I get it.

By the way. Why DO we have taxes anyways?
Reply to this comment
by changewedontneed January 7, 2010 1:37 PM EST
And what is the fair share of the "super-rich"? What is "super-rich"? Would it be the top 25% of income earners? They're people who made over $66K in 2007 and paid 86% of the income taxes. Is that fair? Or would it be the top 10% of earners? They made over $113K and paid 71% of the income tax bill. Or do you want to go with the top 1% who made over $410K? They only paid 40% of the bill so they should pay more, right? What is your definition of fair? I think when the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the income tax bill we've reached an unfair point. How about we take the total bill for the government and divide it equally amongst every citizen? That would get people off the entitlement bandwagon really quick.
by daffy64 January 7, 2010 5:43 PM EST
That would get people off the entitlement bandwagon really quick.

--

Oh yes. Those joyous folks on the "entitlement bandwagon". Or as I call them, the people living in poverty.

BTW, I made over $80,000.00 last year, but don't feel that paying more to see my neighbor's through these terrible times is such a bad thing.

Must be the Christian fool in me.
by shadys-mom January 7, 2010 12:24 PM EST
While I am not in the "rich" group and make less than $24,000 a year, I don't understand why someone who works hard and is fortunate enough to make "big bucks" should have to pay a higher tax. It takes away all incentive to try to make more, and there is no reason that the "rich" should HAVE to take care of the "poor". It is commendable if they should "Choose" to help, but shouldn't be required. Wonder how all of obama's wealthy hollywood friends are going to react when he takes half of their earnings? Also, are the congress and senate going to be taxed - they have a cadillac insurance program! This whole bill makes no sense. Medicare still needs to be revamped because all of the graft and greed - look how long that has been around with no improvement. A public option will only be the same on a larger scale! Legislate some of the insurance company policies - like making it illegal to not pay for pre-existing conditions, etc. This bill needs to be scrapped and everything needs to start over with "Lots of thought and research" before drafting a new health care bill. Think they also need doctors, insurance companies, hospitals, and patients to sit down and draft what needs to be in this thing - not fat-cat legislators who have no idea what it is like to deal with health care payments, care, etc. I don't understand why everyone thinks the government should take care of them. It would be nice to have a place to go for help, but unless we want to go back to slavery or being indentured servants, then we need to get away from the government taking care of us and take care of ourselves.
Reply to this comment
by parisdakar January 7, 2010 10:34 AM EST
They're going to ram this bill through no matter what the cost or if it does any good or not, just so they can say they did it. What a disgrace.
Reply to this comment
by tomanyt January 7, 2010 1:05 PM EST
Absolutely.
by apuan777 January 7, 2010 10:16 AM EST
This is just getting rediculous. This bill will ruin corporate America and stifle job creation! Why would I hire someone if I will be forced to cover their health insurance? It is much cheaper to use contract labor instead of employees. Also, by taxing the "cadillac" plans, you ensure that most will get mediocre insurance. Why would I be punished or taxed for having a better health policy than someone else. If you gave everyone a million dollars right this second, in five years you would still have the poor, the middle class, and the rich. Wake up America and realize that corporations do not have to exist here and the wealthiest American's can leave at any time.
Reply to this comment
by Mortar_29 January 7, 2010 10:00 AM EST
No libs on here defending the guy....hhhhmmmmmm!
Reply to this comment
by zootsuithap January 7, 2010 9:43 AM EST
ya know, it's take the rich for now, but five, ten years from now when reed, pelosi, and obama are relaxed in their Caribbean villas, some congress will lower the income amount to $50k say, and increase the amount they take, while decreasing the so-called benefits paid out. It is a typical democratic scam, identical to social security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., etc.
Reply to this comment
by Mortar_29 January 7, 2010 9:50 AM EST
Yep!
by Mortar_29 January 7, 2010 9:42 AM EST
The increased conservatism that Gallup first identified among Americans last June persisted throughout the year, so that the final year-end political ideology figures confirm Gallup's initial reporting: conservatives (40%) outnumbered both moderates (36%) and liberals (21%) across the nation in 2009.
Reply to this comment
See all 50 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook