<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Labor and the Excise Tax on Insurers</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.progressivefix.com/labor-and-the-excise-tax-on-insurers/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.progressivefix.com/labor-and-the-excise-tax-on-insurers</link>
	<description>Progressive Fix</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 16:10:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Is Reid Wobbling on the Excise Tax on &#8220;Cadillac Plans&#8221;? &#124; Progressive Fix</title>
		<link>http://www.progressivefix.com/labor-and-the-excise-tax-on-insurers/comment-page-1#comment-184</link>
		<dc:creator>Is Reid Wobbling on the Excise Tax on &#8220;Cadillac Plans&#8221;? &#124; Progressive Fix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:55:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.progressivefix.com/?p=631#comment-184</guid>
		<description>[...] New York Times editorial today threw its support behind a health reform provision that we&#8217;ve backed in the past: an excise tax on so-called Cadillac plans. But the Times&#8216; endorsement came on a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] New York Times editorial today threw its support behind a health reform provision that we&#8217;ve backed in the past: an excise tax on so-called Cadillac plans. But the Times&#8216; endorsement came on a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
