pay or play


The Baucus Planís Regressive Employer Mandate

Let’s give the bipartisan “group of six” senators — Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and five of his committee colleagues — their due. More than any others, they are responsible for the likely derailment of the House’s massive health care overreach.

Rank-and-file House Democrats — and not just the Blue Dogs — are loathe to vote for a $1.5 trillion spending increase, $800 billion in tax increases, costly mandates on businesses and individuals, and an increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the first decade (and much more in the years following) if Senate Democrats are going to go in an entirely different direction. Especially not after the “cap and tax” vote, which is going to haunt House Democrats all the way until November 2010. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as much as admitted that many in her caucus are not going to stick their necks out again when she said Monday night, “We’re waiting to see what the Senate will do.”

While putting up a major roadblock to further proceedings in the House is certainly a praiseworthy accomplishment, that’s about the only good thing that’s likely to come out of what is being worked on by the bipartisan group behind closed doors in the Senate, at least as understood from press accounts of the emerging “Baucus plan.”

On the surface, there is a sense that Sen. Baucus and his colleagues are pursuing a more sensible approach, sensitive to economic concerns and more aggressive on “bending the cost-curve.” But that’s really a false impression. At its core, the Baucus plan contains the same elements that make the House bill flawed and the first step toward a full governmental takeover of American health care.

It all starts with the Democratic insistence on “universal coverage.” With that as the non-negotiable goal, the Baucus plan goes down the very same road as the House bill, with costly and regressive employer and individual mandates which essentially force tens of millions of people to sign up with a plan offered at the workplace, whether they want to or not.

Today’s news coverage is filled with stories indicating that the group of six has apparently agreed not to impose a mandate on employers, opting instead to impose a “free rider tax” on firms whose workers end up getting subsidized coverage in the so-called “exchanges.”

But this is a distinction without a difference. Businesses not offering insurance today would still be forced to pay a hefty fine for all of their workers who got newly subsidized insurance through the so-called “exchanges.” That’s the exact same concept behind the House’s “pay or play” employer mandate. Employers either get their workers into job-based plans — or else. How is that not a mandate? Yes, there may be more flexibility for firms regarding what they actually have to provide in the Baucus plan. And because workers above 300 percent of the poverty line won’t be eligible for subsidization, their employers may not have to pay a fine for not offering insurance to them. But the reality is that just about every firm has some low wage workers on their payroll, which means the vast majority of employers will have to organize and pay for insurance for all of their employees to avoid getting fined for those who might end up in the federal subsidy program.

Of course, what has not been mentioned enough is how regressive this all is. Employers don’t “pay for” health insurance. In competitive labor markets, they reduce what they pay out in cash by the premiums they must pay for health insurance. In other words, it’s always the workers who pay for a job-based health plan. In both the House bill and the Baucus plan, tens of millions of low- and middle-income workers will be forced to sign up for employer-organized insurance, with no additional help from the government. That will mean large pay cuts as uninsured families are forced to pay expensive premiums they don’t today. That’s the way the authors of these bills are able to say they are “covering everybody” for “only” $1 trillion. Indeed, the health care bills under consideration in Congress — including the Baucus plan — would cost much, much more if the Democratic sponsors of them weren’t so willing to make the very workers they say they represent pay massive and regressive hidden taxes.

posted by James C. Capretta | 10:37 am
Tags: Max Baucus, Blue Dogs, mandate, deficit, cap and tax, Nancy Pelosi, House bill, universal coverage, mandate, free rider tax, pay or play
File As: Health Care

Let the Unraveling Begin

The Obama administration has been desperately trying to create a sense of momentum around its health-care push, which is why it is touting the latest “deal” with hospital associations so heavily.

But there are clear signs that Congressional Democrats and the Obama White House have steered the health-care effort into seriously choppy political waters.

Consider:

  1. Yesterday, Senate Democratic leaders all but rejected Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus’s months-long effort to impose a limit on the tax preference for employer-paid premiums as a way to pay for his reform plan. Media reports indicate he was hoping to generate $340 billion from such a tax to pay for his plan, but that looks highly unlikely now. House leaders were never much interested in the idea, given the adamant opposition of organized labor, and won’t include it in their bill. Revising the tax treatment of job-based insurance was the one potential “reform” with some potential for bipartisan appeal, as it could, under the right circumstances, encourage more cost-conscious consumption of health care. Senator Baucus had been planning to take up consideration of his bill — with the tax on benefits in it — in his committee next week. Where is he going to find a politically palatable $300 billion in a matter of days, let alone one that can also appeal to committee Republicans?
     
  2. Party activists pushed Congressional Democrats over the July 4th recess to write a bill reflecting long-standing party goals — which means government-run insurance and near-total government control. This push has made the chances for bipartisan compromise — already remote — even less likely. In response to the pressure, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told Senator Baucus that he is not authorized to cut any deals with Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, which would bind the rest of the Democratic caucus. Senate Democrats have now committed themselves to including a muscular, government-run insurance option in the bill — which is, rightfully, a deal-breaker for the vast majority of Republicans. Indeed, at this point, it is hard to see why Senator Grassley or any other Republican senator would continue to negotiate with Senator Baucus or Senator Reid at all, as it is beyond obvious that Congressional Democrats are only interested in Grassley’s views until they can get a bill off the Senate floor — and even then, they are not interested in true bipartisanship but only enough to get two or three Republican votes.
     
  3. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf explained in a letter to Sen. Judd Gregg that adding Medicaid coverage for persons with incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line to the Kennedy-Dodd legislation under consideration in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (HELP) would increase the cost of that bill by around $500 billion. That would put the total cost of the bill at about $1.1 trillion, but it is likely to go even higher because states will balk at picking up their part of the tab for the new Medicaid coverage. Thus, when all of the details are finally in the bill, the Kennedy-Dodd plan is likely to cost close to $1.5 trillion over a decade. But even with this massive expenditure, Elmendorf predicted there would still be 15 to 20 million uninsured Americans.
     
  4. In testimony before the HELP Committee today, Elmendorf said this about the Kennedy-Dodd proposal: “This bill will add substantially to the long-term spending burden for health care on the federal government.” Recall that President Obama pledged to oppose any bill that does not — eventually — “bend the cost-curve” and reduces the government’s long-term cost burden.
     
  5. Rumors are circulating that House leaders are apparently considering a trifecta of popular “pay fors”: $500 to $600 billion in Medicare cuts, a new surtax for households making more than $250,000 per year, and $350 billion in funding from the so-called “pay or pay” employer mandate — while unemployment heads toward 10 percent. All of these proposals are going to generate substantial controversy and opposition, to put it mildly. The surtax would come on top of the Obama administration’s plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire for upper-income households, which would increase the top rate from 35 to 39.6 percent. A new, three-percentage point surtax, for instance, would push the top income tax rate to 42.6 percent — a rate not seen in more than two decades.
     
  6. Oh, and those momentum-generating “deals” with PhRMA and the hospital associations — turns out they aren’t deals after all. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman said today that neither he nor the White House is bound by them, and a White House official agreed. Moreover, it remains unclear how much federal savings they will generate anyway, as they have not yet been assessed by CBO. So what do the deals signify exactly?

The Obama White House and its congressional allies have built expectations among their core supporters that this is the year to pass a government takeover of American health care. With expectations set so high, most elected Democrats have concluded they have no choice but to set out on a forced march to try to do exactly that — despite unified Republican opposition. But a partisan bill means that Democrats own all of the messy and unattractive details too. The debate is no longer about vague concepts of “coverage” and “cost-control” but who pays and who is forced out of their job-based plans. The more people learn about these details, the less they will like them —which is why the Democratic committee chairmen are working desperately to shorten the time between a full public airing and a vote. They’re hoping there won’t be enough time for public opposition to put a halt to the proceedings.

posted by James C. Capretta | 5:40 pm
Tags: ObamaCare, House bill, Max Baucus, Harry Reid, Charles Grassley, CBO, Doug Elmendorf, HELP, cost-curve, mandate, pay or play, Henry Waxman
File As: Health Care

The Baucus Planís Penalties on Work

Late last week, Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, tried to jump-start the push for a sweeping health care bill by letting it be known that he has made progress toward a “bipartisan” deal in his committee on a health care plan.

Of course, no one knows for sure what’s in the Baucus plan except for a handful of people. There have been two Congressional Budget Office (CBO) tables provided to the committee indicating how much alternative versions of plan would cost over the coming decade, but neither estimate been released to the public by the committee. The insistence on complete secrecy just days before a planned markup of the bill would seem to contradict pronouncements of total confidence in its popularity and inevitability.

Still, despite the secrecy, some of the details are now clear enough to make some analytical judgments — thanks, in part, to a post by Ezra Klein of some slides which apparently reflect where the emerging plan now stands. And it is clear from the details provided in those slides that the draft Baucus plan would impose severe financial penalties on the earned income of low-wage workers.

The centerpiece of the Baucus plan is a new entitlement to health insurance premium subsidies. The very lowest income households (perhaps below 133 percent of the federal poverty line, or about $29,300 for a family of four in 2009) would get full subsidization of their premiums, likely worth about $12,000 per year. That subsidy would then get phased down as household income rises. In the original Baucus plan, the cut-off point was 400 percent of poverty, or $88,200 per year. But CBO said that plan would cost $1.6 trillion over a decade, a figure that stunned and appalled Democrats. Senator Baucus and his staff subsequently vowed to cut back the total governmental cost of the plan to under $1 trillion over ten years — without abandoning their goal of “universal coverage.” How to do that? Continue to make people buy the insurance — the so-called “individual mandate” — but give them less by way of subsidization when they do so. The new Baucus plan would cut subsidies off at 300 percent of poverty, or $66,150 for a family of four.

But phasing out subsidization of expensive health insurance plans in this manner imposes very high implicit tax rates. If the total premium for an average health insurance plan for a family costs $12,000 per year, under the updated Baucus plan a worker would lose $.33 in health premium subsidization for every $1 earned in the phase-out range. That implicit 33 percent tax rate would be come on top of existing federal payroll and income taxes, as well as the implicit taxes associated with phasing-out the earned income tax credit, food stamps, and housing vouchers. Quite literally, if the Baucus plan were to pass, it would not pay for millions of lower income Americans to take higher paying jobs because much of the wage gain would be lost to the government.

The problem would be compounded by Senator Baucus’s elaborate “pay or play” scheme. Several options are presented in the slide deck, but it’s clear that the most likely scenario is a penalty on employers if they don’t provide government-approved insurance for lower wage workers and their families who would be eligible for premium subsidization if they weren’t enrolled in a job-based plan. This is a transparent effort to push more costs onto employers in order to keep the overall federal costs of the Baucus plan to “just” $1 trillion.

But what will employers do if faced with such a requirement? For starters, they will avoid hiring low wage workers, as the “pay or play” mandate wouldn’t apply to workers with higher incomes. Is that what the Democrats really intend? Moreover, to avoid paying the penalty, firms would re-organize themselves so that they contract with other firms for low-wage labor instead of hiring the workers directly themselves.

After the success of welfare reform in 1996, you’d think Congress would have learned that the last thing they want to do is to penalize work among low-wage households. It’s completely counterproductive to make such households ever more dependent on government assistance. But that’s exactly what the emerging Baucus plan would do.

posted by James C. Capretta | 10:57 am
Tags: Max Baucus, CBO, entitlement, universal coverage, projected costs, mandate, pay or play
File As: Health Care