Of course it'll raise tax rates. That money does come from somewhere. The real question is whether employers will raise salaries enough to compensate for the additional taxes, once they're no longer providing insurance as a benefit.
That assumes you get the cost saving. If my company stopped paying for my insurance benefit and instead gave that money to me directly, and then I bought the cheapest plan I could find on the insurance exchange ... I'd be paying more, not less. By a fair amount.
That seems readily fixable; make it a legal requirement that companies that provide employer-provided healthcare pay the premium to the employee if they opt out.
> Nationally, the analysis found that individual ACA Marketplace premiums are 10 percent lower than the average employer-sponsored insurance premium, after the adjustments.
(Which makes sense; it's a very large risk group.)
Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer, and others who get a greatly discounted rate. Their employers will not necessarily savings with their employees.
The result for these employees could be more taxes for the same or worse care they’re already receiving.
In aggregate I believe it’s the right move but let’s not act like everyone wins here.
> Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer, and others are a greatly discounted rate, who will not necessarily share savings with their employees.
Then require that savings be shared.
Make it a legal requirement that any company that has employer-provided healthcare must rebate employees the premium costs if they opt-out.
That makes no sense, salaries would simply be adjusted to compensate. The kind of bureaucracy you’re proposing is why things are already so complicated to begin with.
> Not really, there are people who get great health care for free from their employer
It is not 'for free' it is part of your compensation! It's like saying your employer pays 6.2% + 1.45% in SS/Medicaid taxes 'for free'. That is part of your compensation.
> It’s still a tax hike, regardless of your rationalizing
You're already paying for health care coverage via monthly/annual premiums and via reduced salaries where your employer's portion is part of the 'total compensation' you get (but doesn't show up in your pay check).
Even if the amount at the end stays exactly the same it may be an improvement because (a) there are no "in network" worries about going to the "wrong" hospital or getting the "wrong" doctor", and (b) it is universal coverage so (i) you may not have to worry about losing your job and losing coverage as well as (ii) you can change jobs and have the same (universal) coverage.
>The real question is whether employers will raise salaries enough to compensate for the additional taxes, once they're no longer providing insurance as a benefit.
I don't think that's even a question. The answer is no, they won't.
> The real question is whether employers will raise salaries enough to compensate for the additional taxes, once they're no longer providing insurance as a benefit.
Spoiler: they won’t. They’ll spin not having to pay a premium as a pay raise.
