Zeke Emanuel Praises the Coburn/Burr/Hatch Bill – Sort Of

First there is this:

Affordable-Care-ActSenators Tom Coburn, Richard Burr and Orrin Hatch deserve credit for developing this plan. Putting together a proposal to reform the American health care system is hard and politically courageous. And while it is lacking in important details, this plan contains some interesting ideas that might have enabled bipartisan compromises had they been offered in 2009, when I was a health care adviser to the Obama administration and the Affordable Care Act was being debated.

But then there is this:

On a more individual level, this is what the Republican plan means: If you are one of the 150 million Americans who get their health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan, get ready for a big tax increase. For a family in the 28 percent tax bracket (earning around $150,000 per year), according to my calculations, it would add up to about $1,470 per year.

Ouch! More here.

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Thomas says:

    It seems regardless of what path is taken in regards to healthcare reform, there is going to be costs incurred by consumers, whether it be through high premium costs or taxes.

  2. Alberto L. says:

    I don’t know much about healthcare. I don’t know much about law either. Yet, I understand politics. It is hard for me to say if the Republican plan is better or worse than Obamacare. I hardly understand Obamacare and I don’t get specifics about the changes the Republican Party wants to make. But, politically speaking, Emanuel has no incentive to talk good about the proposal. He was an advisor to Obama, he helped craft the Affordable Care Act, and he will only see the positive sides of Obamacare and will tend to ignore its deficiencies. For that same reason, he will only see the things that he thinks are worse in the Republican option. He criticizes the points in which, according to him, Obamacare is better, but he doesn’t clarify what ideas of the Republican option might improve ACA. Does Emanuel’s opinion help me choose? No it doesn’t, it just demonstrates that the government remains divided. The Democratic Party will stubbornly support Obamacare, regardless of its flaws, and the Republican Party will obstinately criticize it, ignoring its positives.

    • Bill B. says:

      The piece is an op-ed in the New York Times. Of course he will only state the similarities of ObamaCare in the Coburn bill as a sort of backhanded compliment, while also pointing out the flaws.

  3. Jay says:

    “For a family in the 28 percent tax bracket (earning around $150,000 per year), according to my calculations, it would add up to about $1,470 per year.”

    That is quite a high tax increase that the majority of consumers who get insurance through their employer would have to pay.

    • Walter Q. says:

      How exactly does he come up with his calculations? He could have said any number as the tax increase.

      • Bart I. says:

        My guess would be:
        tax increase = total premium x .43 – $2300

      • Bart I. says:

        The bigger concern is that by removing the differential in tax treatment between HIPAA-compliant, community-rated employer plans and risk-priced individual plans, most employer group plans would become non-viable because of adverse selection.

        If it were up to me I would have kept the employer exclusion intact for the indefinite future, and offered a slightly less generous tax for individually purchased plans that were comparable to the employer plans, i.e. HIPAA-compliant. Examples of plans that qualify for the tax credit would be COBRA, HIPAA/continuation coverage and plans on the state and federal exchanges.

        This would have solved the adverse selection problem and made it unnecessary to outlaw risk-priced insurance (it would simply be ineligible for the tax credit).

  4. Andrew says:

    It seems Emanuel praises the Republican alternative to ObamaCare in that they tried. However, you can’t really expect him to not provide a slightly biased opinion of the bill considering he was an advisor for the Obama Administration while ACA was being developed.

  5. James M. says:

    “…it would shrink the Medicaid expansion…”

    Possibly because it is too costly to expand coverage. The money the government is using for Medicaid expansion isn’t free money nor does it come out of thin air. It was all borrowed.

  6. Buster says:

    “…If you are one of the 150 million Americans who get their health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan, get ready for a big tax increase.

    That’s what concerns me. You slap employees with a new tax but give them nothing in return. Why not give them a tax credit? I’d even consider allowing employers to provide tax free high-deductible plans.

  7. Frank P. says:

    Emanuel is not complimenting Coburn/Burr/Hatch Bill; he is just saying that reforming the healthcare system requires courage. But that is not intended as praise for the Republicans, he is referring to Obama’s administration, where he helped to reform the healthcare system.

  8. BHS says:

    Hard to imagine there are still folks out there willing to admit having advised the president on the ACA!

    • Bart I. says:

      They’re mostly blaming it on Romney and The Heritage Foundation. A sure sign that things aren’t going well.

  9. Matt R. says:

    The best healthcare systems in the world are found in the Scandinavian countries. They offer a high quality, inclusive universal care. They are a model for the rest of the world. And the healthcare reform in America seeks that. But, we cannot expect the government to provide those services free. We cannot expect a national healthcare system without government. It is hard for a country that is indebted to invest in healthcare without raising taxes, it’s impossible. Both options will increase taxes, regardless. The question should not be who charges taxes for what; the question should be which option uses the taxes more efficiently.

  10. JIMFITZSR says:

    REFER TO U OF VA HEALTH CONFERENCE CHAIRED BY GOV AND HHS SECRETARY MIKE LEAVITT AND MEDICARE DIRECTOR MARK MCCLELLEN WHO SERVED UNDER PRES BUSH.

    CONCLUSION OBAMACARE IS THE LAW AND WILL NOT BE REPEALED AND THE STATES SHOULD USE THEIR REGULATING POWERS TO TRANSFORM THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM USING THE ACA FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEIR CITIZENS.

    NOW HOLTZ-AEKIN PRES BUSH BUDGET DIRECTOR IS SAYING THE SAME THING.

    DOCTOR AND SENATOR BILL FRISK SAID”OBAMACARE IS THE LAW AND WILL NOT BE REPEALED AND IN FACT IS DELIVERING QUALITY CARE AT A LOWER COST!