Douglas Holtz-Eakin used to run the Congressional Budget Office. He recently did some pontificating on the economics of the Affordable Care Act’s controversial subsidies for the conservative think tank the American Action Forum.
The Medicaid subsidies those the U.S. Supreme Court is going to decide upon in a month.
The case is King v. Burwell. At issue is whether they’re constitutional and whether HealthCare.gov, the U.S. government’s website that sells insurance for 38 states can legally give subsidies to those purchasing insurance on the website.
Republicans say it can’t and point to four words in the Affordable Care Act that says states provide the subsidies.
Holtz-Eakin said doing away with the subsidies is a good thing. His contention is it will exempt millions of us from the individual mandate and will give a reprieve to families who are now taxed what he says is an average of $1,200 a year.
If the Supreme Court says it is unconstitutional, it will do away with the employer mandate as well. Holtz-Eakin said employers will like an elimination decision as much as the average consumer.
In turn, he notes it will encourage employers to increase employee hours and that increases wages.
Citing statistics from the McKinsey Institute, Holtz-Eakin said the ruling will not mean everyone will suddenly be uninsured. Before ObamaCare close to 3/4 of the 87% of people who qualify for tax credits were insured by their employers or through other means.
“Many individuals that lose access to a premium subsidy will likely continue to purchase insurance, either by paying a higher price for their current plan or by switching to cheaper insurance,” he said.
Source link: Employee Benefit News