This is a comment on the latest Republican version of replacement health care reform.
The tax credits would be funded in a deficit-neutral fashion by reforming the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored insurance: the original sin of American health care. By repealing Obamacare, the plan would repeal Obamacare’s $1.2 trillion in tax hikes.Excerpt from the Forbes blog
What it means is that workers will be taxed on the value of employer contributions to their health benefits above certain limits. That is not the same as the current Cadillac tax on high value health plans that is part of Obamacare. That tax is on the plan, not the individual.
The Republican concept is a new tax increase on average working people, the other taxes now part of Obamacare are generally on higher income Americans.
A rose by any other name.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
If you think the Cadillac tax is not a tax that will ultimately be paid by workers (since it only applies to employer sponsored plans), whether directly or indirectly, whether by paying the tax or by suffering significant reductions in the value of coverage, you are mistaken. Sure, the tax is on the issuers of coverage, but, I can guarantee you, the issuers will push the costs back to the employers, and employers ultimately, to employees – whether in the form of passing along the actual tax, or lowering benefits.
Based on discusions with hundreds of employers, they are not willing to pay the tax and pay for coverage. Note that there is no cadillac tax on coverage through the public exchange, so, expect one of two results:
(1) Those who trigger the tax, drop coverage, and blow out health care spend by taxpayers as all lower income Americans (2/3 of all households), will qualify for taxpayer financial support should they enroll in the public exchange (and not have access to employer-sponsored plans), or
(2) Employers dramatically scale back their coverage – shifting spend to other areas of the benefits package, to direct compensation, or simply use this opportunity to gain a competitive advantage and blame Health Reform for the reduction(s) in coverage.
To date, according to various surveys, we have already seen 15% or more of employers take steps to reign in spend on health coverage – shifting to a lower level of coverage and greater employee out of pocket spend.
Certainly, the Republicans and the Democrats look at those of us with employer-sponsored coverage, and think of us as the privileged. They are concerned about the tax expenditures. They have been concerned about that for many years. They ask the question why should there be caps on employer spending for tax-qualified retirement plans, and no cap on employer and employee pre-tax spend on medical coverage.
I can’t believe you or anyone else is surprised at the government’s thirst for added revenues to buy votes … Republicans or, traditionally more frequently, Democrats.
LikeLike
Surely as you say the Cadillac tax will be the burden on individuals, mostly through cost-shifting to avoid it, but ultimately in premiums. I have covered that before, but from the average persons perspective imputed income sans the cash to cover the tax bill is far more impactful.
LikeLike
“The Republican concept is a new tax increase on average working people.”
That is one way to look at it and I’m sure that’s how the opposition party will frame it. The other way to see it is that it is not a tax increase but a step in the right direction toward tax reform by removing (partially) a subsidy which is only enjoyed by people who are lucky enough to have employer provided health care. Most people who receive this preferential treatment are probably not even aware of it and are probably the most vocal in opposing Obamacare subsidies. Once people are receiving a benefit, it is going to be very hard to take it away. I am opposed to Obamacare because I think there are better and less complex ways to deal with healthcare insurance. I am all for a major and comprehensive plan to reform the tax system. In any case, Obamacare is not going anywhere while its namesake is still in office.
LikeLike
Well, you are right that the average person does not realize the value of what they receive. But it would still be a whopping tax increase and in a way that does not provide any cash to pay it. It seems to me eliminating the Section 125 pre-tax premiums would be the first thing to address if we are looking for some logical step.
The problem, of course, is nothing is done as part of a rationale comprehensive tax or any other reform, but rather piecemeal and often contradictory.
LikeLike
The Teapublican congress members, bought and paid for by the Koch brothers, roll on to further enrich the super wealthy donors who own them and to beat down American workers. The oligarchy reigns. Are you blind, Mr. Quinn?
LikeLike
Glad to see you’re back, but you really need to get off those Koch brothers. You act like the same thing doesn’t go on among Democrats and their donors.
LikeLike