Promises Worth Breaking

Obama’s health insurance tax didn’t go far enough.

The president’s proposed tax on especially expensive medical benefits broke at least three of his promises. It still may have been the best aspect of a health care plan that foundered when the Democrats lost a crucial Senate seat in January.

As approved by the Senate, the 40 percent excise tax would have applied to medical coverage costs above $8,500 a year for individuals and $23,000 for families. Although those cutoffs are far above average, they would have risen more slowly than insurance premiums, and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated the tax would affect nearly a quarter of Americans with employer-provided coverage by 2019.

This bracket creep was a feature, not a bug, because the aim was to reduce the incentive that encourages employers to provide tax-free medical benefits instead of higher wages. The more people are covered through work, and the more generous their coverage, the more they are insulated from the costs of their health care choices, a situation that impedes competition and inflates costs.

Barack Obama’s excise tax would nibble at the edges of this problem by encouraging employers to cut back on the most expensive health plans and shift the money they save to wages. In fact, the JCT projected that more than 80 percent of the money raised through this provision during its first decade would come not from the levy itself but from taxes on higher wages.

Which brings us to those broken promises. While running for president Obama repeatedly vowed not to raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year. Yet the JCT’s numbers indicated that most of the money raised by the tax would come from households in that income group.

Last year Obama repeatedly assured the public that his health care plan would not affect people who are happy with their current coverage. “No matter how we reform health care,” he said in a June speech, “we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

Yet the premise of the excise tax on “Cadillac” medical benefits is that some employer-provided plans, because of their tax-free status, are excessively generous, making consumers less cost-conscious than they otherwise would be. If it did not succeed in shifting people to different health plans—which might mean higher copayments, higher deductibles, and/or less comprehensive coverage—it would be a failure.

Finally, during his campaign, Obama vowed to “change the way business is done in Washington” by eschewing special-interest lobbyists. Yet the deal he struck in January with union leaders who objected to the excise tax was a blatant payoff to supporters whose interests diverge from those of the general public. In addition to raising the excise tax thresholds, the compromise would have allowed government employees and union members to escape the tax for five years longer than everyone else.

Since those employees are especially likely to have the “gold-plated” medical benefits at which the tax is aimed, the exemption further undermined what was already a timid, needlessly complicated attempt to deal with one of the health care system’s central problems: the separation of consumption from payment. A better approach would be to make all medical benefits taxable while cutting tax rates or providing offsetting credits—something like what Obama’s Republican opponent suggested in 2008.

Obama condemned John McCain’s proposal then, warning, “For the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits.” But that was the same speech in which Obama made his “firm pledge” that “no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.” If Congress goes “back to the drawing board” on health care (as the new senator from Massachusetts recommended), Obama’s habit of reversing himself could turn out to be a blessing. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    One problem. If employers don't pay as much for health care, the employees won't get the extra money. That's profit.

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on...the Bible's books were written by people with very different mindsets...in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it's literally a labyrinth, that's no joke.

  • nfl jerseys||

    ntry

  • mbt shoes clearance||

    good

  • رش مبيدات||

    which limited the actions of Congress and by extension had to be incorporated, the Second Amendment stated that RKBA was not to be infringed, and lacked detail as to by whom, and therefore applied to all government. By its very language it was already applicable to the states! شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض

  • رش مبيدات||

    hello there and thank you to your information I've unquestionably picked up one thing new from correct right here. I did nevertheless expertise some technical concerns working with this website, as I knowledgeable to reload the website a great deal of instances earlier to I could get it to load appropriately
    شركة تنظيف شقق بالرياض

  • رش مبيدات||

    hello there and thank you to your information I've unquestionably picked up one thing new from correct right here. I did nevertheless expertise some technical concerns working with this website, as I knowledgeable to reload the website a great deal of instances earlier to I could get it to load appropriately شركة نقل اثاث بالرياض

  • رش مبيدات||

    one of the terms of the "marriage contract," if you want to look at it as a contract, is that any child born during the marriage, while the parents are living together, are deemed to be the children of the husband whether they are genetically his children or not. شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض

  • رش مبيدات||

    one of the terms of the "marriage contract," if you want to look at it as a contract, is that any child born during the marriage, while the parents are living together, are deemed to be the children of the husband whether they are genetically his children or not. شركة مكافحة حشرات بالرياض

  • رش مبيدات||

    Well said. Tucker is despicable, Crossfire became despicable (despite the presence of supposed "heavyweights" like Novack and Carville), and Jon Stewart is a comedian who has never proclaimed himself to be anything else. Just because certain people here don't understand how satire works doesn't change that fact. The fact that The Daily Show has gained some cultural traction doesn't change that. شركة تنظيف خزانات بالرياض

  • رش مبيدات||

    Even if you go on his website, it's still just a a ten minute discussion. The interview with Jim Cramer simply amounted to Jim sputtering something every couple of minutes while John wagged his finger at him the whole time. I've never seen him have an intelligent discussion with anybody, and he only talks to people that he knows he can bully into a corner. Usually idiots, yes, but it's still dispicable. I don't watch him that often, but it is people like him that make me wretch. The fact that people go around saying "He slammed so and so" in that "debate" pisses me off. John's not directly responsible for that, but he certainly plays his audience to get that effect. شركة تنظيف منازل بالرياض

  • رش مبيدات||

    I agree there is room for legitimate differences of opinion on the quality of data, and the extent of government responsibility, but to argue that the government had no role in directing credit, or in the subsequent bust, is simply ideological myopia. شركة تنظيف منازل بالرياض

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement