Getting it done: Obama's full-court press on health care

[Isgrimnur]

Aetna

The insurer says it'll walk away from more than two-thirds of exchange markets it participated in this year, dropping from 778 counties to 242 counties next year. Aetna will maintain a presence in just four states, it says — Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska and Virginia — down from 15 states this year.

… Aetna says the market's financials are unworkable, pointing out that it has lost more than $430 million since January 2014 on its individual products. It's not the only major player to walk away from the Obamacare exchanges.

"More than 40 payers of various sizes have similarly chosen to stop selling plans in one or more rating areas in the individual public exchanges over the 2015 and 2016 plan years," CEO Mark Bertolini said in a statement. "As a strong supporter of public exchanges as a means to meet the needs of the uninsured, we regret having to make this decision."
...
HHS: This doesn't change the realities on the ground. Marketplace CEO Kevin Counihan pointed to data released last week that the exchange risk pool is getting healthier and less expensive, and suggested that the new market is creating winners and losers.

Democrats: This is a negotiating tactic. The agency also says that Aetna quickly — and conveniently — changed its tune on Obamacare. Bertolini told investors in April that while Aetna was losing money on the exchanges, the early losses were "well, well below" the company's pain points and "we see this as a good investment."

One theory advanced by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other Democrats is that Aetna is using its exchange participation as a negotiating tactic to win support for its merger with Humana, which the administration has sued to block.
...
- UnitedHealthcare: Will exit most exchanges this fall.
- Anthem: Said it's now losing money on the exchanges, after previously breaking even.
- Cigna: Warned that its Obamacare costs are rising, but said it will continue to participate.
- Humana: Announced its exit from most exchanges this fall.

Sounds like the market is opening up for the second-tier insurers.

[RunningMn9]

The exchanges cannot work until everyone is in them (and out of the employer-provided model that most people have).

[Zarathud]

Welcome to capitalism. Insurers have to work harder to make money on the less healthy. If we wanted stability, we should have enacted single payer.

[LawBeefaroni]

Sounds like the market is opening up for the second-tier insurers.

The co-ops are failing (we lost one in the market here, patients got dumped effective 9/1 I think and their deductibles were reset).

I can't even organize my thoughts on how fucked up it's getting with 'Care/'Caid and the ACA exchanges. But to keep it simple and on topic, the exchanges were sabotaged from the beginning (I think if you go back through this thread we addressed it from day one).

Oh, and an aside, there are now these conscientious objector type plans/scams popping up all over. Liberty Freedom Healthcare or Christian Imperative Health plan or whatever. Example. They allow people to avoid the tax penalty but they sure as hell don't provide coverage.

[LordMortis]

we should have enacted single payer.

And that's that. Now I think we should have enacted a single payer system that provides a reasonable minimum while also allowing for people to supplement the minimum should they so choose. However, that minimum shouldn't read like "bottom of the barrel". I'm not sure

The people who will really take a hit on this are 1) the tax payers, though they will also see a transfer in costs from employer provided health care and 2) medical supply company companies and presumably hospital stays where a lot of the medical supply companies make their bread and butter.

And of course, the people with "Cadillac plans", such as myself, will see longer lines for care... which I already am under the ACA anyway. Appointments I used to make days in advance often need to be scheduled 3 to 6 months in advance and even 07:00 appointments see the doctors running a half an hour late or longer.

Still, I think it's the right way to go.

[stessier]

How does CHM qualify anyone to avoid the tax? It says right in the material:

Reading our materials will help you understand that CHM is not
insurance. Health insurance requires a contract between you and a
third party. The contract says that if you have medical bills covered
by a health insurance policy, the company will be legally obligated to
pay those bills for you. If the company doesn’t pay, you and/or your
medical provider can take action against it in a court of law.
Members of CHM do not have a contract.

Instead, members follow the model of the Church, the Body of Christ. We as a Christian
family recognize there is a need. We have a common focus on the
need, a personal desire to assist with that need, and a common
commitment to voluntarily assist one another with that need.

I'm still trying to figure out what that means out of curiosity - not like I'm trying to sign up or anything.

[LawBeefaroni]

How does CHM qualify anyone to avoid the tax? It says right in the material:

Reading our materials will help you understand that CHM is not
insurance. Health insurance requires a contract between you and a
third party. The contract says that if you have medical bills covered
by a health insurance policy, the company will be legally obligated to
pay those bills for you. If the company doesn’t pay, you and/or your
medical provider can take action against it in a court of law.
Members of CHM do not have a contract.

Instead, members follow the model of the Church, the Body of Christ. We as a Christian
family recognize there is a need. We have a common focus on the
need, a personal desire to assist with that need, and a common
commitment to voluntarily assist one another with that need.

I'm still trying to figure out what that means out of curiosity - not like I'm trying to sign up or anything.

Don't know how exactly. Here's what they say.

As you know, Christian Healthcare Ministries is an eligible option under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. Visit our Affordable Care Act page for more information, including the exact wording in the law.

Many are asking how they report to the government that they are members of CHM. We now know it is with IRS Form 8965 'Health Coverage Exemptions.' Please tell your tax professional about your membership and this form to attach to your IRS Form 1040, 1040A, or 1040EZ.

As a CHM member you have no reason or requirement to go to the health insurance marketplace or insurance exchanges. Simply file Form 8965 with your taxes and only fill out Part 3 of the form. Here is a sample of Form 8965 with Part 3 completed.

Excerpt from H.R. 3590: U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [26 U.S.C. §5000A(d)(2)(B)(ii); p. 128]:

(2) Religious exemptions
(B) Health care sharing ministry.
(i) In general: Such term [note: “term” refers to “penalty”] shall not include any individual for any month if such individual is a member of a health care sharing ministry for the month.
(ii) Health care sharing ministry: The term “health care sharing ministry” means an organization:
(I) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and is exempt from taxation under section 501(a),
(II) members of which share a common set of ethical or religious beliefs and share medical expenses among members in accordance with those beliefs and without regard to the State in which a member resides or is employed,
(III) members of which retain membership even after they develop a medical condition,
(IV) which (or a predecessor of which) has been in existence at all times since December 31, 1999, and medical expenses of its members have been shared continuously and without interruption since at least December 31, 1999, and
(V) which conducts an annual audit which is performed by an independent certified public accounting firm in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and which is made available to the public upon request.

Patients come in saying they "have CHM. It's not an insurance, but a way to fight Obamacare..."

[Zarathud]

Those people are too irresponsible to live with personal responsibility.

[Isgrimnur]

Ultimatum confirmed:

But thanks to the Huffington Post's Jonathan Cohn and Jeff Young, we got a glimpse at how health insurer Aetna is making its case to acquire rival Humana — and new insight into Aetna's decision announced Tuesday to pull out of Obamcare exchanges in 11 states.

The reporters obtained a copy of a letter from Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini to the Justice Department on July 5. The letter was written while the government was still deciding whether to oppose the insurance companies' merger on the grounds that it (and another proposed deal between Anthem and Cigna) would hurt consumers and reduce competition.

The Bertolini letter was in answer to a Department of Justice request for information about how a decision on the Humana deal would affect Aetna's participation in the health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act.
...

"Our analysis to date makes clear that if the deal were challenged and/or blocked we would need to take immediate actions to mitigate public exchange and ACA small group losses. Specifically, if the DOJ sues to enjoin the transaction, we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint. We currently plan, as part of our strategy following the acquisition, to expand from 15 states in 2016 to 20 states in 2017. However, if we are in the midst of litigation over the Humana transaction, given the risks described above, we will not be able to expand to the five additional states. In addition, we would also withdraw from at least five additional states where generating a market return would take too long for us to justify, given the costs associated with a potential breakup of the transaction. In other words, instead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states. We also would not be in a position to provide assistance to failing cooperative exchanges as we did in Iowa recently."

[El Guapo]

You could argue both sides. Ostensibly Humana's argument is essentially "this business is so tough and so competitive that we need to merge in order to compete (which, having done antitrust, is the argument that you see in literally every merger case). If you don't let us merge, we're going to get hammered in these super competitive markets, so we'll have no choice but to withdraw from them."

Of course, it comes with this subtext of such a withdrawal being politically bad for the administration. But that does not by itself make their argument wrong. It's a question of whether you think their argument is bullshit and a political threat, or not, and that's almost impossible to know without being directly involved.

I am confident that all political actors will exercise restraint in light of this.

[Isgrimnur]

NBC News

President Obama on Thursday proposed a new round of tax credits and a government-run insurance plan for his healthcare reform program, fixes he said would correct jumps in some insurance premiums and the lackluster recruitment of young, healthy people.

Obama delivered his message in Florida, singling out Gov. Rick Scott for his refusal to participate in Obamacare's offer to expand Medicaid coverage for poor people. If he and the governors of 18 other states took part, four million more people would be able to afford insurance, Obama said.

Those corrections, he told an audience at Miami Dade College, would bring Obamacare much closer to reducing the number of uninsured Americans — a figure that currently stands at about 29 million people.

He said he welcomed additional ideas from his Republican opponents in Congress, even if they wanted to rechristen it.

"They can even change the name of the law to Reagancare," Obama said, drawing laughs from the crowd.

"Or they can call it Paul Ryancare," Obama added, referring to the speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. "I don't care — about credit. I just want it to work."
...
Obama blamed that on the lack of competition among insurers, and lower-than-expected enrollment of young people, who tend to bring premiums down.

Some insurers have dropped out of the marketplaces, saying they're losing too much money.

His suggested fix was an expansion of tax credits for middle-income families and young adults.

And he called for a "public plan fallback" that would add government-run insurance program to the field in some states, which he said would increase competition and drive down premiums.

He acknowledged that, like a starter home, his signature domestic policy achievment needed improvements.

"It's worked. That doesn't mean it's perfect," Obama said. "No law is."

[stessier]

Ultimatum confirmed:

But thanks to the Huffington Post's Jonathan Cohn and Jeff Young, we got a glimpse at how health insurer Aetna is making its case to acquire rival Humana — and new insight into Aetna's decision announced Tuesday to pull out of Obamcare exchanges in 11 states.

The reporters obtained a copy of a letter from Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini to the Justice Department on July 5. The letter was written while the government was still deciding whether to oppose the insurance companies' merger on the grounds that it (and another proposed deal between Anthem and Cigna) would hurt consumers and reduce competition.

The Bertolini letter was in answer to a Department of Justice request for information about how a decision on the Humana deal would affect Aetna's participation in the health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act.
...

"Our analysis to date makes clear that if the deal were challenged and/or blocked we would need to take immediate actions to mitigate public exchange and ACA small group losses. Specifically, if the DOJ sues to enjoin the transaction, we will immediately take action to reduce our 2017 exchange footprint. We currently plan, as part of our strategy following the acquisition, to expand from 15 states in 2016 to 20 states in 2017. However, if we are in the midst of litigation over the Humana transaction, given the risks described above, we will not be able to expand to the five additional states. In addition, we would also withdraw from at least five additional states where generating a market return would take too long for us to justify, given the costs associated with a potential breakup of the transaction. In other words, instead of expanding to 20 states next year, we would reduce our presence to no more than 10 states. We also would not be in a position to provide assistance to failing cooperative exchanges as we did in Iowa recently."

And today it is over - merger is off.

[Smoove_B]

In case you were worried that Congress was in any way concerned about what's happening with the Trump administration, don't worry - they're still focused on the real problem:

House Republican leaders plan to unveil on Thursday elements of their plan to repeal and largely replace portions of the Affordable Care Act.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) told reporters Wednesday that committee leaders will brief GOP lawmakers on some specific proposals at a closed-door meeting scheduled for Thursday morning. The meeting comes as leaders are working to rally sharply divided GOP members around a single plan to remake the health-care law.

...

Many conservatives have grown tired of waiting for House leaders to follow through on their campaign promises to repeal the ACA. Members of the influential House Freedom Caucus announced their own repeal legislation Wednesday to roll back most of the law and move millions of Americans into health savings accounts (HSAs).

“We were tired of waiting,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) at a news conference on the legislation, “and that’s why we said: ‘Let’s go. Let’s go now.’ ”

Their plan, introduced by Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), would end Medicaid expansion, decouple health insurance from employers, offer a tax credit of up to $5,000 to fund HSAs, and eliminate most regulations on what health plans must cover. Insurers would be able to sell policies across state lines; regulations that mandate birth-control coverage would be nixed.

Better hurry. Word on the street is that the intelligence community is about to crack something wide open.

[El Guapo]

Just to be clear, presumably "decouple health insurance from employers" = curtail or eliminate the health insurance tax deduction, yes? *That's* going to go over well.

[Smoove_B]

Probably. But they're possibly also going to say that by doing so, businesses will then pass that savings right to their workers, boosting their salaries accordingly.

[Zarathud]

That's never going to happen. Employers will pocket the money.

HSAs are not insurance -- it's called paying full price and bearing market + health risks.

[El Guapo]

Probably. But they're probably also going to say that by doing so, businesses will then pass that savings right to their workers, boosting their salaries accordingly.

They're going to say so, but I really doubt that will keep people from flipping the fuck out. People fear change, and including something like this *vastly* expands the number of people who will worry about what's going to happen with their health insurance.

Especially since lobbyists will be going to town on this too.

[Smoove_B]

That's never going to happen. Employers will pocket the money.

Oh yeah, absolutely. But to help sell the idea, that's what they'll say. And people will buy it.

[El Guapo]

That's never going to happen. Employers will pocket the money.

Oh yeah, absolutely. But to help sell the idea, that's what they'll say. And people will buy it.

I don't think that people will buy it, at least not most people. When the ACA was being passed opponents could drum up opposition by saying stuff like "Obama and the democrats are messing with your health insurance! Death panels!" Now the shoe's on the other foot, and ACA defenders can use the same lizard brain effect. Messing with employer-sponsored health insurance at the same time lets opponents (accurately) say "yes, this applies to everyone out there who has employer-sponsored health insurance too."

Feels like starting a war on two fronts.

[Zarathud]

If you like your tax break, you can keep your tax break?

No, the GOP will be destroyed by the HSA proposal. The public interest stories write themselves--and it won't FEEL like insurance even to a Trump voter.

[Smoove_B]

Given the not-insignificant number of people that believe "Obamacare" and the ACA are two different things, I'm not confident in the general public's ability to process what could potentially happen here.

[Zarathud]

People pay attention to their paychecks.

[Remus West]

People pay attention to their paychecks.

Usually not until after it decreases. At that point they get all upset and scream "WTF" but the damage will already be done.

[RunningMn9]

Just to be clear, presumably "decouple health insurance from employers" = curtail or eliminate the health insurance tax deduction, yes? *That's* going to go over well.

Why would those be related? Presumably "decouple health insurance from employers" would mean "stop having employers shopping for health insurance for their employees instead of the employees themselves shopping for the insurance that best fits their needs. Whether or not the premium that you choose (instead of your employer) remains tax deductible or not seems like a completely separate issue (aside from the difference between a premium from a qualifying cafeteria plan which is a pre-tax deduction, versus a premium that is not which is just another medical expense that may or may not be deducted based on income).

Coupling health insurance to employers is idiotic.

[RunningMn9]

That's never going to happen. Employers will pocket the money.

Certainly some employers would. But the reality is that a one-time conversion of health insurance premiums to salary costs employers absolutely nothing. And presumably it even saves them money in that they no longer have to expend considerable human resources efforts at having and maintaining health insurance bullshit for their employees.

And certainly there will be consequences for employers that just pocket the money. The same consequences that would likely happen to them if they just took back part of their salary for funsies.

[LordMortis]

Given the not-insignificant number of people that believe "Obamacare" and the ACA are two different things, I'm not confident in the general public's ability to process what could potentially happen here.

I'm not sure what could potentially happen here. You guys seem to be describing many different approaches as if they are the same.

So the first thing I pull up...

https://www.google.com/#q=decouple+heal ... employment

I click on the first few links and it's no help...

Personally, I support the idea of "Decoupling health insurance from employment", however, I would then couple it with citizenship through a higher tax. Given our current structure for wages, it would probably be a higher corporate tax primarily at first, essentially filling in the change of burden of costs with money currently provided by corporate sponsorship. The "people" hurt most would be the corporations currently under insuring or not insuring their employees at all. The next part of funding would come out of independent contractors/the self employed as if they were their own companies. I think this already being done to some extent as most have to pay a sort of short term/long term disability that they can never collect on. Lastly you increase "payroll taxes" to fill in the rest of the gap. I imagine the net cost for health care goes up short term but it pulls the reins in on the long term inflation.

[Smoove_B]

People pay attention to their paychecks.

Usually not until after it decreases. At that point they get all upset and scream "WTF" but the damage will already be done.

Coupled with the fact that for the last 5+ years, employers all over the United States have been telling workers they'd love to give them more money, but they're sorry to report that "Obamacare costs" have increased and so they must increase employee contributions. So you have entire populations of workers that really believe that (and seemingly forgot that before "Obamacare" their premiums increased) and so they're going to be all for the removal of Obamacare from their paycheck because clearly that means my employer will be passing along that cost saving to me.

[El Guapo]

Just to be clear, presumably "decouple health insurance from employers" = curtail or eliminate the health insurance tax deduction, yes? *That's* going to go over well.

Why would those be related? Presumably "decouple health insurance from employers" would mean "stop having employers shopping for health insurance for their employees instead of the employees themselves shopping for the insurance that best fits their needs. Whether or not the premium that you choose (instead of your employer) remains tax deductible or not seems like a completely separate issue (aside from the difference between a premium from a qualifying cafeteria plan which is a pre-tax deduction, versus a premium that is not which is just another medical expense that may or may not be deducted based on income).

Coupling health insurance to employers is idiotic.

They're related because the health insurance tax deduction is the main reason *why* we have an employer-based health insurance system. The premiums are deductible for both employers and employees, so it's cheaper for both parties to provide part of the employee's compensation as health insurance - everyone has to pay taxes on every dollar that goes to salaries, while no one is paying taxes on each dollar that goes to health insurance premiums.

So the most obvious way to get away from our current employer-based system, and one that gets talked about a lot in health care policy circles, is curtailing or abolishing that deduction. As soon as that happens it's in everyone's best interest to pay that portion of an employee's compensation as salary and let the employee do what they want with it. But getting rid of it is usually viewed as politically radioactive, exactly because the vast majority of people get their health insurance through their employers, so you're cutting off their current health insurance plans and putting them out on the market. Their new coverage could wind up being better, but obviously there's uncertainty and concern about that.

It's *possible* that the GOP representatives are talking about a different way to get rid of employer-sponsored insurance. It's not likely, though.

And yes, employer-sponsored health insurance is idiotic. It's the foundation of the current system, though, so getting out from there is a little messy.

[RunningMn9]

They're related because the health insurance tax deduction is the main reason *why* we have an employer-based health insurance system.

I suppose it may be the main reason why we *still* have an employer-based health insurance system, but your explanation makes no sense to me. If the premium is tax deductible for both the employer and the employee than there is no inherent advantage in having the employer shop for and pay for part of it.

The employer isn't paying tax on your salary, so that's not an advantage to your employer. Your salary reduces their taxable income either way.

And it's only a disadvantage to you if you convert the health insurance premium to salary and then don't spend some of it on health insurance - but that's a choice you should be free to make based on your health insurance needs, no?

I submit that the main reason why we have employer-based health insurance is no more complicated than the fact that we are change-averse, and the system that arose accidentally is what we are stuck with because people are too scared to change. Your logic on it being the result of tax deductions needs further explanation perhaps? Maybe I'm missing something. Using numbers might help.

[Jeff V]

The employer isn't paying tax on your salary, so that's not an advantage to your employer.

Wait, what? When did employers stop paying half of Social Security and all of Unemployment tax?

[RunningMn9]

Wait, what? When did employers stop paying half of Social Security and all of Unemployment tax?

What I meant was, if your company pays you $100K per year, their taxable income is reduced by $100K per year. If they were paying you $100K per year and paying $10K per year in health insurance premiums, their taxable income would be reduced by $110k per year. Same as if they were paying you $110K per year.

That said, you do make a good point that they aren't paying FICA or Medicare tax on the amount they are paying for your health insurance premium, and neither are we. So maybe that's what El Guapo was referring to?

I could see an argument made for making the change tax neutral for employers (which would reduce what you receive for health insurance premiums). Instead of giving you the $10K directly, they give you whatever amount that yields "extra salary + extra taxes = $10K".

[gbasden]

Coupling health insurance to employers is idiotic.

Sure. Except that after they repeal the ACA, I become uninsurable if it's not coming from an employer group plan. Thanks, asshole Republicans!

[Jeff V]

Coupling health insurance to employers is idiotic.

Sure. Except that after they repeal the ACA, I become uninsurable if it's not coming from an employer group plan. Thanks, asshole Republicans!

Same here. I once had a telemarketer (!) apologize to me after catching my interest with an affordable deal while I was unemployed. She said my only chance of ever getting insurance was through an employer group plan.

[LordMortis]

Coupling health insurance to employers is idiotic.

Sure. Except that after they repeal the ACA, I become uninsurable if it's not coming from an employer group plan. Thanks, asshole Republicans!

How many people over the age of 40 don't have a pre-existing condition and are uninsurable? The whole thing goes nuts if the plan is no ACA, no insurance pools, only $5000 in tax deductible HSAs. And then healthy people opt out entirely because they can roll the dice.

And it's not like Congress doesn't know all of this stuff. They just don't care.

Internet says!!!!

http://kff.org/health-reform/issue-brie ... o-the-aca/

We estimate that 27% of adult Americans under the age of 65 have health conditions that would likely leave them uninsurable if they applied for individual market coverage under pre-ACA underwriting practices that existed in nearly all states.

No ACA, makes you an adult at 18 rather than 25, right?

[El Guapo]

Wait, what? When did employers stop paying half of Social Security and all of Unemployment tax?

What I meant was, if your company pays you $100K per year, their taxable income is reduced by $100K per year. If they were paying you $100K per year and paying $10K per year in health insurance premiums, their taxable income would be reduced by $110k per year. Same as if they were paying you $110K per year.

That said, you do make a good point that they aren't paying FICA or Medicare tax on the amount they are paying for your health insurance premium, and neither are we. So maybe that's what El Guapo was referring to?

I could see an argument made for making the change tax neutral for employers (which would reduce what you receive for health insurance premiums). Instead of giving you the $10K directly, they give you whatever amount that yields "extra salary + extra taxes = $10K".

I got a little confused about how it works - specifically, I forgot that salaries are also tax deductible. But the salary's not tax deductible to the employee, but the employee doesn't have to pay taxes on the health insurance benefits that he receives.

So, if the employee is paid $10,000, and that's being taxed at 25% (to pick a percentage), the employee is getting $7,500. If the employer instead spends that $10,000 on health insurance coverage for that employee, the employee is effectively getting $10,000. As you say that $10,000 is tax deductible to the employer either way (whether paid out as salary or insurance premiums), but this way the employer is able to give his employee an additional $2,500 on their compensation package without costing him any money.

[Zarathud]

Coupling health insurance to employers is idiotic.

Which is the best argument for keeping and improving Obamacare/ACA.

[LordMortis]

Coupling health insurance to employers is idiotic.

Which is the best argument for keeping and improving Obamacare/ACA.

If by revamping you mean preserving until you can trash it with something better. It's a bad solution that is only better than it's predecessor in that it subsidizes a universal opportunity to healthcare. What they call that? Necessary but insufficient conditionals? Something to that effect.

[Smoove_B]

It's *possible* that the GOP representatives are talking about a different way to get rid of employer-sponsored insurance. It's not likely, though.

No need to wonder, here's what they want:

House members coming out of a GOP-caucus meeting Thursday on their health care overhaul plans said that capping the tax exclusion for employer plans -- i.e. imposing a monetary limit at which point health benefits are taxed like other forms of income -- was discussed as a potential revenue booster. The proposal is somewhat like the ACA's Cadillac tax, which was hated by Democrats and Republicans alike, and is often included in GOP replacement plans, including the "Better Way" outline offered by Speaker Paul Ryan last summer.

...

But its supporters argue that proposals aimed at the tax exclusion of employer plans are crucial in bending the curve of health care costs. Additionally, the tax exclusion amounts to the largest single subsidy in the entire tax code. Proponents also say that capping the exclusion could help raise wages for low-income workers, as employers are currently more incentivized to pay them in generous health benefits, given the preferential treatment of health plans by the tax system.

And oh look, it will lead to employers possibly raising wages.

[LordMortis]

House members coming out of a GOP-caucus meeting Thursday on their health care overhaul plans said that capping the tax exclusion for employer plans -- i.e. imposing a monetary limit at which point health benefits are taxed like other forms of income -- was discussed as a potential revenue booster. The proposal is somewhat like the ACA's Cadillac tax, which was hated by Democrats and Republicans alike, and is often included in GOP replacement plans, including the "Better Way" outline offered by Speaker Paul Ryan last summer.

This was what Clinton was going to push for according to her handlers on wikileaks. It would have been puppies from her and it's still puppies from the right.

Proponents also say that capping the exclusion could help raise wages for low-income workers, as employers are currently more incentivized to pay them in generous health benefits, given the preferential treatment of health plans by the tax system.

Did those proponents say that with a straight face and what direction were there eyes facing?

[El Guapo]

Well, it might cause them to raise wages. It would be very unlikely to raise total compensation, though.