Washington Post likes to offload health care burden to individuals:
In a pitch to "Blue Dog" Democrats, the Post editorializes
... the tax on expensive employer-provided health-care plans, which senators weakened from its initial form and whose effective date Mr. Obama then chose to postpone, could be strengthened and made to bite as soon as the spending begins. This tax has twin virtues. It raises money and it "bends the curve" on costs -- more than any other single provision. In other words, it would begin to affect the growth in health-care costs for everyone.
The old "costs" switcheroo.
- Prices are not going to be reined in with this approach.
- The Senate bill, by limiting coverage via the excise tax, will mean that individuals will pay more out of pocket.
- Expenditures will likely not grow as fast, but there will also be a reduction in medical services received.
This is seen by the Post as a worthwhile "cost" control mechanism.
Not sure how to interpret this:
It raises money and it "bends the curve" on costs -- more than any other single provision.
Is the Post arguing that the excise tax:Both
raises money and "bends the curve" more than any other provision?
Raises money, and also
"bends the curve" more than any other provision?
It's hard to see how it could raise more money than the House bill's tax on top incomes. Employers can stop paying the excise tax by reducing coverage for their employees, which they will surely do. Did the Post deploy the conjunction "and" in such a way to give readers the impression that the excise tax brings in more money, when in fact it does no such thing?