Discussion for article #243783
A bit conflicted on this one. I’m very pro-union and very pro-Obamacare and realize that there must be some aspects of the plan that are revenue raisers or the plan won’t work as intended so that is guaranteed to affect someone and in this case it’s one of the biggest Democratic supporters, the aforementioned unions.
Now that the plan has been up and running and doing well for years, maybe a fresh look at what is needed now as opposed to what was predicted or projected might solve the problem?
I’m pretty sure universal healthcare would do the trick.
1 Like
Health care economists, however, warn that the tax is an important revenue raiser and also designed to keep health care costs low, one of the major goals of the Affordable Care Act. The policy notion behind that tax is twofold. First, employer-provided health insurance is excluded from income and payroll taxes which costs the government revenue. Second, taxing higher cost plans will encourage employers to offer less generous plans that in turn prompt consumers to use health care more sparingly. That would lead to more competition and efficiency in the industry, economists say.
Bull shit! You tell me what is the difference between this approach and the GOP’S. Lowers the quality of care one is to receive. Discourages the use of medical care. How is that good for anyone?
I think it’s more about limiting the over-utiilization of medical care.
Vox.com did an article about the Cadillac tax a few months ago, ad they cited as an example someone who gets an MRI done every time he gets a cold.
Following that logic we ought to raise the tax on everything that is abused. The list is endless.
It is irresponsible to talk about repealing or delaying the tax without proposing an alternative revenue source.
Reid knows damn well that repeal/delay is an easy sell, the replacement near impossible. So he’s talking about both defunding Obamacare and repealing one of it’s cost-saving features. In other words, crippling Obamacare so Republicans have better arguments in the future for why it should be repealed.
“Cadillac Tax” is a such a biased, misleading name suggesting only wealthy folks have these plans. That’s what I thought the term meant until I realized they were talking about my plan.
This tax should never have been a part of the ACA. I can understand banning high premium/low coverage plans, but the govt. shouldn’t have anything in place that essentially encourages lowering the quality of existing good plans. The university where I work raised the cost of the “100” plan way out of reach for most of the employees (including me) in anticipation of the tax. Now, I have a lesser plan with co-pays for about the same cost as the old one. Some employers are offering good med benefits because they pay less in direct wages. Now we’re stuck with lesser plans AND lesser pay. And good luck getting employers to make up the difference in direct wages.
So, yeah, I’m with Reid on this one. The WH needs to figure this one out and it shouldn’t be on the backs of the middle-class.