Post by robeiae on Jul 18, 2019 13:27:31 GMT -5
www.cnbc.com/2019/07/17/house-set-to-repeal-obamacares-widely-disliked-cadillac-tax.html
Since it's never actually gone into effect, I'm not sure how repealing it will cost the US any actual money. What it will do, however, is totally screw up CBO projections on the cost of the ACA. That should prove interesting, going forward...
Regardless, if I recall correctly, the constitutionality of the ACA was pegged to its specific tax elements including this one. If the Senate follows suit here and Trump signs off on it as well, will the ACA still be constitutionally--and fiscally--sound (or at least can people still convincingly argue that such is the case)?
The House voted Wednesday night to pass a bill that would scrap Obamacare’s so-called Cadillac tax, an inactive provision of the health law meant to help control health-care spending.
The tax, set to go into effect in 2022, is unpopular with both Republicans and Democrats, who say it punishes the middle class.
[snip]
The provision was meant to slow overall health spending by discouraging employees from selecting pricey insurance plans with lavish health benefits that could encourage overusing medical services. It was also designed to generate revenue for the U.S. government, which would then use that money to fund other Obamacare programs.
The tax “has a strong policy rationale,” wrote Paul Van de Water, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank. “In fact, it’s one of the ACA’s most important cost-containment measures. It will discourage employers and employees from buying unusually high-cost health coverage that promotes the excess use of health care.”
Repealing it would also cause the U.S. to lose a “substantial amount of money and add to our deficit,” he added in an interview with CNBC.
The tax, set to go into effect in 2022, is unpopular with both Republicans and Democrats, who say it punishes the middle class.
[snip]
The provision was meant to slow overall health spending by discouraging employees from selecting pricey insurance plans with lavish health benefits that could encourage overusing medical services. It was also designed to generate revenue for the U.S. government, which would then use that money to fund other Obamacare programs.
The tax “has a strong policy rationale,” wrote Paul Van de Water, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank. “In fact, it’s one of the ACA’s most important cost-containment measures. It will discourage employers and employees from buying unusually high-cost health coverage that promotes the excess use of health care.”
Repealing it would also cause the U.S. to lose a “substantial amount of money and add to our deficit,” he added in an interview with CNBC.
Regardless, if I recall correctly, the constitutionality of the ACA was pegged to its specific tax elements including this one. If the Senate follows suit here and Trump signs off on it as well, will the ACA still be constitutionally--and fiscally--sound (or at least can people still convincingly argue that such is the case)?