| Ezra Klein comments on a legislative compromise with unions over the excise tax, defending the compromises to appease opponents of the tax.
But here's the paragraph I want to talk about:
But if you think that the administration will simply give up on the excise tax -- which does them virtually no good in the first 10 years anyway -- why is it in there at all? It's unpopular with their allies and wins them no friends among their enemies. Indeed, it's easy to see why so few presidents attempt cost control: You get hammered by the people who usually like you and dismissed by the people who usually like cost controls but don't fundamentally trust you. That leaves you with, well, virtually no one.
First, the excise tax has nothing to do with cost control. It will not cut costs. Causing consumers to ditch good insurance plans will have two effects: One, they will pay more out-of-pocket for health care. Two, they will avoid seeking medical care when possible and in the long run, as a direct result, will consume more health care and more expensive health care than otherwise.
Second...it does beg the question, why is the administration so devoted to the excise tax?
Maybe they do believe, like Ezra, who's apparently here internalized private insurers' profiteering logic, that it will control costs. (Although, from experience, we know it doesn't.) More likely, IMHO, they need a funding mechanism for the bill they're passing, and are justifying it as a cost-control measure. And it's aimed at unions because they're easier to disappoint than deep-pocketed private insurers. |
