This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-are-democrats-in-congress-undermining-obamacare/2019/12/17/4a898f76-20f1-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Why are Democrats in Congress undermining Obamacare? | Why are Democrats in Congress undermining Obamacare? |
| (7 days later) | |
| THE $1.4 TRILLION spending bill now making its way to final passage in time to meet a Friday deadline will banish the specter of a partial government shutdown for the foreseeable future. That’s the good news. Otherwise, it is a monumental exercise in fiscal looseness that may add $500 billion to the federal debt over the next decade, according to estimates by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. President Trump and his fellow Republicans deserve much of the blame for this situation, given that, under Mr. Trump, the party has abandoned any pretense of concern over balanced budgets. Yet many of the worst reported provisions enjoy significant Democratic support, too — even though they will undermine the signature policy accomplishment of the Obama administration. | THE $1.4 TRILLION spending bill now making its way to final passage in time to meet a Friday deadline will banish the specter of a partial government shutdown for the foreseeable future. That’s the good news. Otherwise, it is a monumental exercise in fiscal looseness that may add $500 billion to the federal debt over the next decade, according to estimates by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. President Trump and his fellow Republicans deserve much of the blame for this situation, given that, under Mr. Trump, the party has abandoned any pretense of concern over balanced budgets. Yet many of the worst reported provisions enjoy significant Democratic support, too — even though they will undermine the signature policy accomplishment of the Obama administration. |
| We refer to the bill’s permanent repeal of three key funding sources for Obamacare: a 40 percent excise tax on the value of relatively high-cost “Cadillac” employer-paid health insurance plans; an annual tax on premiums collected by health insurers, allocated according to each insurer based on market share; and a 2.3 percent excise tax on the value of medical devices sold within the United States. Taken together, the elimination of these revenue-raisers will cost roughly $373 billion over a decade, of which $197 billion comes from repealing the “Cadillac tax,” $151 billion from ending the fee on health insurers and $25 billion from the tax cut for medical device-makers, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. | We refer to the bill’s permanent repeal of three key funding sources for Obamacare: a 40 percent excise tax on the value of relatively high-cost “Cadillac” employer-paid health insurance plans; an annual tax on premiums collected by health insurers, allocated according to each insurer based on market share; and a 2.3 percent excise tax on the value of medical devices sold within the United States. Taken together, the elimination of these revenue-raisers will cost roughly $373 billion over a decade, of which $197 billion comes from repealing the “Cadillac tax,” $151 billion from ending the fee on health insurers and $25 billion from the tax cut for medical device-makers, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. |
| Compounding the damage is the fact that each tax also served legitimate health-market policy goals, in addition to helping pay for expanded coverage. By reducing incentives for excessive consumption of services, the Cadillac tax would have helped slow the overall growth of health costs. As for the health insurance tax and the medical device tax, those are the rough equivalents of partial rebates to the government for the expanded business those firms enjoyed because of Obamacare. | Compounding the damage is the fact that each tax also served legitimate health-market policy goals, in addition to helping pay for expanded coverage. By reducing incentives for excessive consumption of services, the Cadillac tax would have helped slow the overall growth of health costs. As for the health insurance tax and the medical device tax, those are the rough equivalents of partial rebates to the government for the expanded business those firms enjoyed because of Obamacare. |
| Of course, repeal is a bit redundant in that Congress has delayed or suspended each of the taxes at least once; indeed, the Cadillac tax has never been imposed, because of repeated “postponements.” Yet permanent elimination represents a final capitulation to the interest groups that opposed them. Both the GOP-aligned U.S. Chamber of Commerce and pro-Democratic labor unions waged a relentless campaign against the Cadillac tax, the former because it was hostile to Obamacare and taxes generally; the latter because union contracts often call for lusher-than-average health benefits. Among the leading Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) have been particularly dogged foes of the tax on medical devices, in deference to home-state industry. Something to remember as they, and their rivals, promise tax hikes to pay for health-care expansion. | Of course, repeal is a bit redundant in that Congress has delayed or suspended each of the taxes at least once; indeed, the Cadillac tax has never been imposed, because of repeated “postponements.” Yet permanent elimination represents a final capitulation to the interest groups that opposed them. Both the GOP-aligned U.S. Chamber of Commerce and pro-Democratic labor unions waged a relentless campaign against the Cadillac tax, the former because it was hostile to Obamacare and taxes generally; the latter because union contracts often call for lusher-than-average health benefits. Among the leading Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) have been particularly dogged foes of the tax on medical devices, in deference to home-state industry. Something to remember as they, and their rivals, promise tax hikes to pay for health-care expansion. |
| Obviously, there are policy downsides to the Obamacare taxes; less device innovation, say, or slightly higher insurance premiums. At least they address the truth that there is no free lunch; when government expands services, it should find a way to pay for them and make reasonable choices as to distributing the costs. Bipartisan comity, so rare in Washington, has been achieved in the abandonment of that elementary proposition. | Obviously, there are policy downsides to the Obamacare taxes; less device innovation, say, or slightly higher insurance premiums. At least they address the truth that there is no free lunch; when government expands services, it should find a way to pay for them and make reasonable choices as to distributing the costs. Bipartisan comity, so rare in Washington, has been achieved in the abandonment of that elementary proposition. |
| Read more: | Read more: |
| Read a letter in response to this piece: Congress was right to repeal the health insurance tax | |
| The Post’s View: The fate of the Cadillac tax should be a wake-up call for proposed heath-care plans | The Post’s View: The fate of the Cadillac tax should be a wake-up call for proposed heath-care plans |
| The Post’s View: Killing the ‘Cadillac tax’ would throw our health care even more out of whack | The Post’s View: Killing the ‘Cadillac tax’ would throw our health care even more out of whack |
| George F. Will: The repeal of the ‘Cadillac tax’ showed a hazard of bipartisanship | George F. Will: The repeal of the ‘Cadillac tax’ showed a hazard of bipartisanship |
| Megan McArdle: Why the wheels are coming off the Obamacare ‘Cadillac tax’ | Megan McArdle: Why the wheels are coming off the Obamacare ‘Cadillac tax’ |
| Jennifer Rubin: As Obamacare gets cheaper, Medicare-for-all and Trump’s repeal effort take a hit | Jennifer Rubin: As Obamacare gets cheaper, Medicare-for-all and Trump’s repeal effort take a hit |