TPMDC

Influential Economists Say Tax On Cadillac Health Care Plans Must Remain In Health Care Bill

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

A number of high-profile economists are asking Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid not to change a number of key aspects of his health care legislation, including a controversial tax on insurance companies that sell luxurious insurance policies.

"Four elements of the legislation are critical: 1) deficit neutrality, 2) excise tax on high cost insurance plans, 3) independent Medicare commission, and 4) delivery system reforms," they write in a letter delivered to Reid today.

Here's what they say about the excise tax, specifically: "Like any tax, the excise tax will raise federal revenues, but it has additional advantages that are essential."

The excise tax will help curtail the growth of private health insurance premiums by creating incentives to limit the costs of plans to a tax-free amount. In addition, as employers and health plans redesign their benefits to reduce health care premiums, cash wages will increase. Analysis of the Senate Finance Committee's proposal suggests that the excise tax on high-cost insurance plans would increase workers' take-home pay by more than $300 billion over the next decade. This provision offers the most promising approach to reducing private-sector health care costs while also giving a much needed raise to the tens of millions of Americans who receive insurance through their employers.

The excise tax has always been popular among policy wonks, but has been criticized harshly by both labor leaders and industry officials alike. Recent reports indicate that Reid is planning to scale back the provision (i.e. raise the threshold so that it falls on only the most expensive plans out there) and replace the lost revenue with a payroll surtax on high income earners. Those specifics won't be known until Reid unveils his legislation, which he may do tomorrow.

You can read the entire letter here.

Comments (16) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

November 17, 2009 4:46 PM   

translation...saving costs by shifting co-pays, deductibles, etc more than eber over to the individual. Also, health care plans will offer less coverage and impose more limts. Bottom line we get screwed big time once again!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 5:00 PM    in reply to Progressive Party

high deductible plans will be the insurance industry's answer to Health Insurance Reform. I agree.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 5:14 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

also interesting, if it is like Baucus tax proposal:

Nationwide, about one in 10 family insurance plans would be subject to the new excise tax, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning policy and research group.

The tax would be levied on insurers — or on employers that act as their own insurers. Either way, the tax would very likely be passed along to workers in even higher premiums than they pay now. But if insurance premiums continue to rise faster than inflation, as they have for years, many more people’s policies could end up setting off the luxury tax in coming years.

“It puts a bigger tax on middle-income Americans who are already paying enough,” said Harold A. Schaitberger, the general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. The union says some of its members around the country are in plans that would be subject to the tax.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/health/policy/21insure.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 5:19 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

It depends on what you mean by "high deductible plan." Even the conservative Baucus bill caps the amount of cost-sharing for everyone and prohibits cost-sharing for basic/preventative care. The limits are a bit too high, but it will prevent insurers from going nuts with it and the basic benefits standards will effectively ban high deductible "catastrophic" plans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 5:30 PM    in reply to Stroszek

the Baucus Bill is the insurance industry bill.

The 12% of income cap, isn't that only for people between 300% and 400% of poverty?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 5:43 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

The actuarial value limits and out-of-pocket cap apply to all plans, though under Baucus, they're lower for 100-300% FPL. These are all separate from the subsidies.

Again, they're too high in the Baucus Bill and should/will be improved upon over time, but the limits are there. It does establish the principle of and infrastructure for enforcing price caps... which would prevent the worst kind of gouging.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 18, 2009 10:01 AM    in reply to Stroszek

Could you show me where, because I have not seen them?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 5:22 PM    in reply to Progressive Party

All the bills cap cost-sharing (with both a minimum actuarial value and an overall out-of-pocket limit), ban cost-sharing on preventative services, and define what benefits must be offered at each tier.

But don't let that stop your teeth-gnashing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 5:32 PM    in reply to Stroszek

And as it stands, these cadillac plans are basically already subsidized by people with less coverage. If you're going to have more coverage, you should have to pay proportionally more for it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 4:53 PM   

Here's the problem with this:

In addition, as employers and health plans redesign their benefits to reduce health care premiums, cash wages will increase. [emphasis added]

Anyone want to take bets on whether that last part is going to materialize?

The only way to make this so that the middle class don't get screwed is to set the threshold so high that you don't raise a significant amount of money.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 18, 2009 3:32 AM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Actually, it's historically true that most of the savings from lower health care costs end up in workers wages. The excise tax is a progressive policy because it will lower the cost of health care and raise workers wages which will disproportionately help lower and middle income workers.

The subsidy for employer based insurance hurts working people.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/11/the_progressive_case_for_the_e.html

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 5:10 PM   

Executive One: Well damn, Bill. Looks like those damn Democrats have put a tax on our absurdly expensive health insurance plans.

Executive Two: Those bastards! The only reason we have those plans is because it's way of giving us very important executives more compensation without having to pay those damnable, hateful taxes which so depress my willingness to come in to the office every day and create value for my shareholders.

Executive One: You got that right. What are we supposed to do with the millions of our company's money we've been spending on these things now?

Executive Two: I know! We could give it to our workers in the form of higher wages.

Both: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Executive One: Stop it, man, you're killin' me!

Executive Two: Yeah, did you like how I managed to keep a straight face until the last syllable?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 17, 2009 6:30 PM   

Isn't this another screw the union idea courtesy of the anti-laborcrats?

Whatever happened to the progressive income tax? Let's try it out on Congress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EdA

user-pic

November 17, 2009 7:42 PM   

Even though a number of these economists are prominent and a few are even rational and non-sociopathic, why on earth does ANY of them think that the overwhelming majority of employers will raise wages enough to cover the cost of benefits that they take away?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 18, 2009 3:36 AM   

Just because labor opposes something doesn't mean it's not progressive.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on