Obamacare

Congress Repealed Major Elements of Obamacare and Almost No One Noticed

The elimination of three health care taxes will increase the deficit by $373 billion.

|

You can be forgiven for not having noticed, but at the tail end of 2019, Congress repealed three significant components of Obamacare. 

The three repealed provisions were all taxes, each of which was included in the initial legislation as a way of raising revenue to pay for the hundreds of billions in spending the law called for. By far the biggest of the three was the so-called Cadillac tax, which was expected to raise about $197 billion over the next decade. Congress also nixed the law's health insurance tax, projected to raise $150 billion over 10 years, and the medical device tax, projected to raise $25.5 billion. All three taxes were eliminated as part of a $1.4 trillion year-end budget bill that President Trump signed at the last possible minute in order to keep the government open. 

The repeal of these taxes was predictable, as all three were marked for death from the outset because of the interest groups lined up against them. The Cadillac tax had already been delayed, thanks to pressure from unions, among others, who worried that it would hit their high-priced health benefits. The health insurance tax faced relentless opposition from the health insurance industry, and the medical device tax was the target of heavy oppositional lobbying from the industry it taxed. 

You may be wondering: What is the problem with the repeal of a bunch of taxes no one ever really liked? That is probably what the lawmakers who voted to end the taxes were thinking too. 

The main effect of eliminating these taxes will be to increase the deficit by a little more than $373 billion over the next decade—and, in the process, to further weaken a central argument made by supporters of the law. 

Obamacare was passed on a promise that it would be deficit-neutral, or even reduce the deficit slightly, with spending cuts to existing health care programs and tax hikes falling heavily on health care industry groups to offset the nearly $1 trillion in additional spending the law would require during its first decade. And, indeed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the law would reduce the deficit during its first decade, provided that all of its provisions were enacted as the statute called for. 

But over the years, many of those pay-fors have been whittled down; not only this trio of taxes, but also the CLASS Act, a long-term care program that was packaged with Obamacare largely to goose the deficit estimates. That program was eliminated after it proved fiscally unsustainablemore budget gimmick than substantive policy.

It's difficult to track the specific budgetary effects of a piece of legislation this far into its life, but it's safe to say that the actually existing Obamacare of 2020 is less fiscally responsible than the Obamacare of 2010, which only ever existed mostly on paper. 

The elimination of these taxes also serves as a broader lesson in the limits of American health care policy and the ways in which promises of fiscal responsibility tend to fall by the wayside as political considerations take center stage. 

The repeal of the Cadillac tax is particularly notable. The provision, which imposes an excise tax on high-cost health plans, was intended not only as a revenue raiser but as a way to hold down health care spending and mitigate the negative effects associated with the tax carve-out for employer-sponsored health insurance. As The New York Times noted last summer, the Cadillac tax "was expected to be a key cost-containment provision in President Barack Obama's signature health law and one of the main ways it was supposed to pay for itself.

One can certainly argue about whether the Cadillac tax was the best mechanism by which to hold down health care spending, or whether even in a stronger form it would have done much to de-link health coverage from employment. But what's clear, in retrospect, is that even if it wasn't the best policy, it was the best policy that could pass, in part because it was an indirect attack on employer-sponsored insurance rather than a full-frontal assault. And yet, over the course of a decade, it was delayed and ultimately repealed—a failed policy, not because it didn't work, but because politics wouldn't even let it try. 

One might argue that taxing individual health insurance was always political folly, and that the health law should have leaned more heavily on industry taxes, but the repeal of both the health insurance tax and medical device tax offer reminders of the power of industry-specific lobbying. Nor can one really argue that tougher, more principled legislators would have helped—the medical device tax was opposed by a bipartisan group of legislations, including, notably, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.). Massachusetts, the state she represents, is home to a thriving medical device industry. 

There are obvious lessons here about what we might expect from various plans to "pay for" Medicare for All and other expansions of government-provided health coverage; about the shameful and predictable ways that interest group lobbying on both the right and the left interact with lawmakers' what-me-worry approach to spending and deficits; and about how little public attention these issues command. The history of American health policy is a history of ambitious ideas watered down and undermined by the predictable forces of politics. 

If nothing else, it's a reminder that this is how Washington lawmaking often works: One Congress passes a law setting up an expensive new program—in this case, an expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for private health insurance—along with a system to pay for it. Years later, amidst a bipartisan spending binge, those taxes are repealed while the rest of the program remains on the books. The public barely notices, and the lawmakers involved simply shrug and move on. The result is legislation that is fiscally ruinous, but also more popular. There is a reason that debt and deficits have continued to climb ever upwards: That is what the public wants. 

NEXT: Avoid Super-Embarrassing Redaction Failures

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.

  1. “The elimination of taxes will increase the deficit”

    Fuck off and die, Suderman.
    But actually die.
    Soon.
    Like, before you write another idiotic, progressive column

    1. I knew it! A Trumpista blaming Suderman for noticing something Trump did in contradiction to the Trumpista famboi propaganda.

      Now the other Trumpistas will pile on, thinking how clever they are for piling on.

      Go Trumpistas Go!

      1. Keep lighting yourself on fire.
        It’s a great look for you.

        1. Hey man, you’re talking to someone who said tariffs WERE taxes. Not like them, not functionally them, not metaphorically them, but ACTUALLY TAXES.

          So, yeah.

          1. Tariffs ARE taxes. Only people who can’t read dictionaries think otherwise. It’s funny watching Trumpistas contort themselves so much to avoid saying Trump raised taxes.

            I enjoy you folks. Best entertainment available for the price.

            1. See? Not metaphorically, not behaves similarly, literally taxes.

              And you wonder why you get laughed at Old Mex.

              1. See it’s so stuoid, and laughable, and lazy intellectually, that EVEN PEOPLE WHO DESPISE MY PRESENCE won’t back you up.

                Consider how amazingly stuoid you must be for EVERYONE to desert you and leave alone on your idiot “Tariffs ARE taxes LITERALLY” island.

                1. I enjoy giving you so many opportunities to showcase, and brag about, your ignorance.

                  I am glad that you have so much fun doing so, and it is an honor to have played a part in your enjoyment.

                  1. Hey look, you’re on record saying “Promoting a sexual performance by a child” isn’t a real crime.

                    I win.

              2. Who else here thinks it would be hilarious if Old Mex were brutally murdered by some cartel thugs? Karmic justice at a minimum?

            2. Yes, Tariffs are taxes. But taxes on who, persay? If you were to say tariffs are taxes on those who import goods, you’d be right! It’s not taxes on Americans…so technically, it’s not a tax in the traditional sense that a Trump would baulk at. You also might notice that the author of this progressivized mantra, failed to say that taxes were bad, hence why the taxes were removed. Nooooo, instead it’s that a conservative increased the deficit. So, I propose that Trump read my opinion post and note the following: Eliminate all Unemployment payments, health insurance subsidies and new social security accounts so that the majority of our deficit is removed. Sure, you Democrats will get upset about all the lost taxes, but since there’s no deficit, why do we need those taxes?

              1. Reason has yet to explain why it’s right to tax your neighbor on his labor but wrong to tax Emperor Xi on his slave-produced geegaws.

            3. Whatever you want to call tariffs, it’s China that’s paying the price of Trumps trade war. Their plans to build to carrier fleet to bully their neighbors and confront the US have been stalled because they no longer have the revenue to fuel them: https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20191229.aspx?fbclid=IwAR2i-EMfmS3_4kSDI0at4x_emAkTE1ssJBFMscp9bb3X7RH1rwuljvalDww

      2. Hi Old Mex.

    2. So, it that statement incorrect?

    3. Exactly. Not only is every single tax cut, real or imaginary, a good idea, all revenue reductions of any kind as are as well.

    4. #LibertariansOpposedToTaxCuts

  2. It’s difficult to track the specific budgetary effects of a piece of legislation this far into its life

    Then how about repealing the whole thing?

    1. Actually, Roberts on the Supreme Court only chose to vote with the majority by determining that the ACA mandate was a tax, not the government requiring enrollment – which he thinks is unconstitutional. Eliminating that tax opened the door for declaring the whole thing void.
      In this particular case, I believe at least some congressmen actually had some idea what they were doing. This time. Maybe.

      1. There’s a case in the court right now to that effect and it already won at the district court level.

  3. and the medical device tax was the target of heavy oppositional lobbying from the industry it taxed.

    By the industry it taxed, you mean the poor old pensioner that has to pay thousands for a simple electronic device that should only cost hundreds or even tens of dollars?

    Tariffs *checks notes* goo… wait, no bad.

    1. All taxes come down to people. Individuals. No matter who sends the check to Washington, the money comes from people. One of the biggest tax frauds is to tax businesses; their customers pay it. This has probably been the case since the first Sumerian beer brewer.

      1. How cute. Someone didnt learn how supply and demand curves work. Demand will often set the price given a supply. Taxes can be part of that price but not a driver of that price if the price of good sold is still greater than the cost a consumer is willing to purchase at. The only time a cost becomes a driver of consumer price demand is when costs exceed the agreed to market costs. Otherwise the market costs is driven by the consumer and will be shared between costs and profit. Again, move on to econ 102 at a minimum.

        1. How cute. Someone didn’t learn about the difference between elastic and inelastic demand. The demand for medical devices is fairly inelastic because people generally prefer being alive. When Uncle Sam tells everyone who manufactures X that they need to charge Y more then the price goes up by Y and the public does not get a choice to not buy it.

          1. There is this. That seems to escape Suderman. These taxes did nothing to the manufacturers but fucked over the people who needed those devices.

      2. Oh, and since you still refuse to admit it… loss from research costs from stolen IP is also a cost driver. Not just taxes. Yet you always ignore that.

    2. “Tariffs *checks notes* goo… wait, no bad.”

      Damn, there goes my grey market in Chinese re-usable urinary catheters.

  4. I am so sick of Republicans sabotaging Obamacare. It’s a great libertarian-friendly law that would work just fine if only the GOP would get out of the way.

    That’s why we have to make sure Democrats win not only the Presidency this year, but also retain the House and flip the Senate.

    #LetDemocratsHandleHealthcare

    1. Those Republican members of the House repealing parts of ObamaCare in 2019 while the Democrats have absolutely no control over the legisla…hey, wait a minute.

    1. *Disappointed that the link doesn’t lead to The Babylon Bee*

  5. >>The elimination of three health care taxes will increase the deficit by $373 billion

    Charles Grodin can fix it.

  6. If nothing else, it’s a reminder that this is how Washington lawmaking often works: One Congress passes a law setting up an expensive new program—in this case, an expansion of Medicaid and subsidies for private health insurance—along with a system to pay for it. Years later, amidst a bipartisan spending binge, those taxes are repealed while the rest of the program remains on the books. The public barely notices, and the lawmakers involved simply shrug and move on. The result is legislation that is fiscally ruinous, but also more popular. There is a reason that debt and deficits have continued to climb ever upwards: That is what the public wants.

    Pretty much.

    Or as Bastiat put it:

    Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this two-fold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who parade it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.

    We certainly love that third system.

    1. “Or as Bastiat put it:”

      Hi I’m sarcasmic, I do shitty teen girl sarcasm, punctuated by brief interludes of posting other people’s thoughts because my own are so fucking pedestrian.”

    2. The third system is the Modified Keynes – when economic times are bad, the government should lower taxes and raise spending in order to stimulate the economy and during times of economic prosperity the government should cut taxes and raise spending because we can afford it.

      1. Pretty much.

        1. See what I mean? That’s what you get when sarc isn’t quoting someone else.

          “pretty much”

          1. Right. The only good commenting is when you are an asshole to everyone all the time. That’s some quality content.

            1. Posting multiple replies to all of my comments shows a deep need for attention. I’m guessing someone wasn’t breast fed.

              1. I don’t even know where to start on what motivates a person to behave like that.

                1. Well yeah, you’re stupid, being baffled is all day long for you.

                2. Reminds me of a cat that will knock things off the table to get attention, knowing the attention will be bad attention, because it’s so starved for interaction that it doesn’t care if it gets a scolding or a petting. It’s still attention.

                  1. “that will knock things off the table”

                    You mean like that copy of The Road to Serfdom you’ve never opened?

                    1. Bookmark is on page 44. Like I said above, thank you for inspiring me to do some more reading. You should do the same.

                    2. I’ve read it. I do that instead of displaying them.

                    3. I find that very difficult to believe.

                    4. Well, he read the title.

              2. “I’m guessing someone wasn’t breast fed.”

                Ask your ex wife. While you’re there, be nice to my daughter.

                Ahem. I mean YOUR daughter…

                1. I really want to thank you. Your dickishness has shown me how some of my communication with others was craving a negative response because at least it would be a response. So thank you. I will be more civil to others from now on.

                  1. So no more pathetic outbursts like this?

                    sarcasmic
                    January.7.2020 at 12:40 pm
                    Reason hates Trump! They never have anything but criticism of him and they never had anything but praise for Obama! They’re not true Libertarians! They all voted for Hillary! Reason sucks! Aaaauuugghhh

                    Great. See Zeb, I’ve made the world a better place and all it took was an intervention on a drunk.

                    1. Excessive use of the explanation point means sarcasmic isn’t being serious.

                      Yeah.

                      Anyone who isn’t a retard understands that.

                      So it’s no surprise that you don’t.

                    2. Alright, loser, I’m signing off. I want to thank you for a few things. You reminded me that that book hasn’t gotten enough attention lately. And you do such a good job at being a dick that it reminded me of when I’m a dick. I don’t want to be a dick like you. So please keep showing me how I should not behave. You are a lesson in bad behavior. Thank you. Don’t stop.

              3. “Posting multiple replies”

                Cry about it more because of how stupid I make you look.

                1. You do a perfectly fine job of making yourself look stupid. Give yourself some credit.

            2. Oh no it’s awful. I’m literally the worst human being ever.

              All your other premises about me are correct asxdwell.

              And now that your tantrum is over, sarc is poorly read and hides behind quotes of other people.

              Now what.

              1. Go die in a fire, whiny fuckwit.

  7. There is no argument here that the goals of these taxes were something the government should be doing, only that they were important components of an overall program that the federal government should not have the authority to do.

    If an important aspect of a program is so politically unpopular that it is unlikely to stand, that is an argument against the overall program. It is not an argument for the unpopular part of it

    1. Nice one! Those people are sooooo out of touch with reality, but I guess that comes with the territory. I bet Harvey Weinstein was laughing for a long long time.

      1. You’re fired up today Old Mex.

    2. Nick Searcy shuts her up lol

    3. No, I’m going to say that being told they suck is one of the first things celebrities need.

  8. “The elimination of three health care taxes will increase the deficit by $373 billion.”

    Check your Progspeak Style Book. That should read, “The elimination of three health care taxes will increase the deficit by cost $373 billion.

    1. Actually, it should read, “The failure to repeal the spending that accompanied the three taxes in the original legislation will cost $373 billion.”

  9. The “Cadillac Tax” was a flawed stab at stemming the flow of untaxed dollars into employer sponsored heathcare spending… that health “insurance”, looking more like prepaid healthcare than traditional insurance, should be untaxed is the root of all evil in our healthcare “system”.

    We should tax all employer “fringe benefits” after an adjustmet of the tax tables to be revenue neutral, but large unions, especially of public employees, would scream bloody murder.

    1. You’ve just highlighted the thorny difficulty of taxing “income”.

  10. I am seeing Suderman in n the near future embracing his inner Tom Friedman, fantasizing about the logical consistancy of authoritarianism.

    1. Then he would be a plain idiot.

      Only useful idiots get paid to write here.

  11. Suderman. Advocating that we tax our way to prosperity.

  12. ObamaCare is in a coma.

    Suderman one of the hardest hit!

    The current biggest federal budgetary problems are spending for Social Security ($982 Billion in 2018)
    Medicare ($582 Billion in 2018)
    Medicaid ($389 Billion)
    Other spending ($570 Billion)
    Non-Defense spending ($639 Billion)
    Net interest on $23 Trillion in National Debt ($325 Billion)

    Defense should be cut too but not as much before all this other ridiculous spending is cut.

    1. I am all for cutting defense, if they actually cut the fat. But they never do, instead the just end up degrading our capabilities and endangering our troops, because it is needed equipment, training and personal who always invariably get cut. We’ll cut the F-22 just as prices are about to drop infavor of the F-35, that is supposed to be cheaper but ends up not being cheaper and not working properly.

      1. We’ll eliminate any small arms research to buy the vastly inferior M-4, which has well documented shortcomings that gets soldiers killed.
        We’ll retire the F-14 without an adequate replacement because of budget cuts a decade earlier that sidelined updating it and addressing the very issues that forced it’s retirement.

        1. Some of these cuts are intentional. So later the peel,e who want to keep spending up and keep the fat can point to the problems and say “see? This is what happens when we have cuts in military spending!” This is also why almost nothing in federal government is ever cut at all.

          1. Very true. Our esteemed governor does this every year with extension. He knows that extension is very popular as agriculture is our number one industry in state, so when he can’t get his budget, he proposed cuts to extension to force the GOP led legislature to cave to his demands. Let’s take a program that actually works and threaten it’s funding so o can get my progressive programs through.

            1. Oh and he ran as a presidential candidate that knows how to work across the aisle and as a moderate. Fuck him.

    2. Defense spending is full of enormous waste and boondoggles. There is a revolving door between the pentagon and defense contractors.

  13. Not taxing everyone and everything at 100% is increasing the deficit. Therefore ….

    “Reason”

    What a joke.

    1. Or: if the government is going to spend like an asshole, it might be better to actually pay for it than to wait for the inevitable eventual massive inflation and/or economic collapse.
      I’m not really seeing and demand that we fund Obamacare. Just an attempt to analyse the effects of a certain policy.

      The problem here is that no one has the balls or political support to just kill Obamacare entirely. The SC should have done it, but Roberts is a team player. And I can’t imagine congress repealing something that gives free shit to so many voters.
      So I’d say it’s not totally unreasonable to talk about the effects on the deficit. I haven’t seen any comments saying that his analysis is wrong. Which it may well be, but I haven’t seen any arguments for that case.

      1. The problem zebra is that you are now promoting the liberal one way ratchet. Let’s behonest, the only reason those taxes were even in ACA was so democrats could pretend they were deficit neutral. There was never an intention to continue the taxes. So no, we dont pretend to play pay as you grow because the only real interest is to not grow for a rational citizen.

        1. Fucking auto correct. Sorry zeb

      2. “Or: if the government is going to spend like an asshole, it might be better to actually pay for it than to wait for the inevitable eventual massive inflation and/or economic collapse.”

        Disagree. their budget is not my budget. I can hedge against inflation and currency debauching with my money they didn’t take from me.

  14. Amazing how a wonk like Suderman will tell you in hindsight what he wouldn’t tell you back when this whole disaster was being debated.

    1. With as many pixels as he’s spent here addressing the topic you’d think he could link back to some of his works where he predicted these sorts of problems.

      1. The entire top predicted the taxes would be repealed as they were a promotional stunt.

  15. Cut spending.

    1. Fuck you: cut spending.

      I miss Pro Libertate. I’m afraid he might be dead.

      1. Instead of you?

        Yes that would be a tragedy.

        By the way, which one of your socks took a kicking today to get you all riled up and vinegar?

        1. Zeb is no sock.

          1. Tulpa admitted recently that he doesn’t actually believe the shit he says about socks, he just does it to poison the well.

            1. You could have truncated your comment at the word ‘says’ and it would still be accurate.

        2. Accusing someone of being ‘all riled up’ right after you wish death on them doesn’t really work.

  16. What’s left of O-care, outside of the name which should be an embarrassment to Pelosi and that lying POS Obo?

    1. It’s rather glorious to watch his signature get shot down in flames. A piece of legislation that should never have been. In a way, the system is working. Inefficiently sure, but clearly it wasn’t popular and does anyone even know what the success rate of it anymore?

      Will the premiums that shot up eventually have a shot at going back to what it was before Barry fucked everything up?

      1. I remember articles and debates before it ever got passed (by one party by the way as you all know) and people were hopeful it wouldn’t become law and I said you’re all fucked. People still held out hope that SCOTUS would overturn it and I said you were fucked and Roberts made sure of it.

        Then all the exemptions began. And then the ‘you can keep your doctor’ and ‘premiums will be lower’ lies became cemented.

        It looked like everyone was fucked.

        But piece by piece, somehow the political process is eating away at it. It’s fascinating to watch.

        Did anyone finally finish reading all 3300 pages of it? And did Pelosi ever got to see what was in it seeing it was finally passed?

  17. I would at least mention that the repeal leaves in place several other taxes that were included in ObamaCare: the Additional Medicare Tax, the Net Investment Income (NII) Tax, and the tanning-salon tax.

    1. Those need to go too

  18. Jesus, that Warren stare.

    She looks like a racoon who just saw the garbage truck take her lunch away.

  19. Obamacare was passed on a promise that it would be deficit-neutral, or even reduce the deficit slightly, with spending cuts to existing health care programs and tax hikes falling heavily on health care industry groups . . .
    These Obamacare taxes may have been deficit-neutral but it would still increase the cost of medical care for all that bought health insurance. Insurance would just pass along to their customers and the hospitals/doctors the extra cost. Just like the taxes on imported goods instituted by Trump on certain imported goods passed this tax or most of it on to their customers. So as we see it would drive up cost and taxes for all who actually paid income taxes. Not this extra lose in taxes to the federal government could be offset if the SaLT tax were no allowed to be deducted on federal tax forms.

  20. Is Suderman really arguing leaving in place taxes that never were collected because they were to politically dangerous is more fiscally responsible then eliminating them all together? I mean he is stupid but fuck this is a whole new level.

  21. Can somebody please put a stake in the heart of this stupid legislation (PPACA) and just kill it? Then we can start over, and maybe not semi-nationalize a sixth of the economy the next time around.

    1. start over? I hope by that you mean, eliminate every other health care regulation.

    2. You can’t unscramble an egg.

      Many of the companies writing health insurance policies merged or exited the health insurance business, especially individual policies. Actuarial underwriting expertise went away.

      State regulation of health insurance was federalized. HIPAA mandated state run reinsurance pools were dissolved. Many employers went to self insurance to stay out of risk pools they had no control over.

      There is no going back.

  22. Mr. Suderman, the law was fiscally ruinous when it was passed. Eliminating these taxes later on is irrelevant. PLEASE read an introductory macroeconomic book, or just do an internet search on whether it matters if government spending is paid for by taxes or deficits. I don’t expect the average Joe to know that it doesn’t matter, but I expect someone who writes about the topic to have rudimentary knowledge of the subject.

  23. The main effect of eliminating these taxes will be to increase the deficit by a little more than $373 billion over the next decade—and, in the process, to further weaken a central argument made by supporters of the law.

    Well, since Peter is so concerned about lowering taxes, I’m sure he will defend vigorously the idea of imposing $373 billion in taxes on Chinese imports to make up for it. That would be revenue- and tax neutral, after all. And it would actually give consumers more choices!

  24. the ‘libertarian’ website lamenting tax cuts that gut the most bloated inefficient liberty-destroying health care bill of our time. Now I’ve seen it all.

  25. It is interesting to think about all the parts of Obamacare that have been eliminated in one form or fashion over the years.

    Co-ops-unsustainable basically nonexistent
    Employer mandate-never implemented really
    Individual mandate-reduced to zero by tax reform
    Pay-for taxes-just ended and for the most part never implemented
    risk corridors-ended in law and being adjudicated at the moment
    State exchanges-varying levels of participation but many have failed and some states never implemented
    Federal exchange-initially was a disaster and has had ups and downs ever since.
    Medicaid expansion-partially implemented by states after SCOTUS modified the law
    Short term catastrophic coverage ban-modified by the Trump admin to allow purchase again

    When you look at the major pillars of Obamacare what’s left legally are the health insurance reforms:

    Pre-existing conditions mandate
    Essential health benefits mandate
    Subsidies to the buyers on market
    There are other provisions that were tacked on that are still in effect or are about to come into effect 10 years later (like the biosimilar regulatory track at the FDA), but largely the bill has been whittled down to those three major provisions. And those seem etched in stone although you could see more and more wiggle room on the essential health benefits.

    I am loath to give Boehner credit, but early on he said it would be cut at and whittled down and that has been the case. The obama legacy on this will not be historically kind. Even his own party has played a role in discarding it and the major party candidates want to repeal it and replace with single payer.

    1. Even his own party has played a role in discarding it and the major party candidates want to repeal it and replace with single payer.

      That was, in fact, the plan from the beginning.

      1. Certainly some of the Dems have wanted single payer, but when they had 60 Senators, a US president and a majority in the House they did not even have the votes for a public option.

        Not saying they wouldn’t do it now, but the last time they had a chance to even offer a public option it was a nonstarter.

    2. these constantly changing laws abs regulations make it impossible for the free market to provide long term health insurance

    3. The essential benefits mandate is the worst. Everyone needs to buy everything. The insurance lobbyists earned their money with that one. Even the same person does not need the same coverage at different points in their life but you can’t adapt. For example: Past child bearing years you still need maternity, pediatric care, pediatric dental care, prenatal, etc. Insurance companies love selling you insurance for issues you will never need.

  26. Yup. That is indeed what the public wants, hence the failures of democracy. Tax cuts are popular; spending increases are popular. Actually, spending cuts are somewhat popular, but only in theory. When asked if they want to cut spending, a slim majority says yes. But when asked what they want to see cut exactly, most say “no” to any particular program proposed to them.

    The public, as one rockstar put it, wants “money for nothing and chicks for free.”

  27. Wait….didn’t Reason argue against almost all of Obamacare? How big pieces of it where unconstitutional and such? How the taxes where unfair?

    Now that it is gone, they are crying about how bad repealing it is.

    This site is no longer even close to be libertarian and hasn’t been for a while.

  28. Hi Member of Reason……………..

    This is very Amazing when i saw in my Acount 10000$ par month .Just do work online at home on laptop with my best freinds . So u can always make Dollar Easily at home on laptop ,,
    Check For info Here,
    ===> BEST USA WORK <===

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.