Instant Analysis of Implicit Tax Rates in New Obama Proposal
The Cato Institute had already scheduled a policy forum for noon today where the Urban Institute’s Gene Steuerle and I will discuss the implicit tax rates in the House and Senate health care bills.
We’ve already been able to calculate the implicit tax rates that President Obama’s new proposal would impose on low- and middle-income workers. We have also been able to calculate the incentives to drop coverage under the president’s proposal. Upshot:
- The president’s proposal would result in higher implicit tax rates on low-wage workers than the House and Senate bills.
- The president’s proposal would result in greater incentives for higher-income workers to drop coverage than under the House and Senate bills. That would cause insurance markets to unravel even faster.
Zip over to Cato right now to hear me present the results – or watch the forum streaming here.
Weekend Links
- “Government should not subsidize health insurance — for the uninsured, the poor, the elderly or anyone else — or regulate health insurance markets.” Here’s why.
- This is what happens to health care when you are not the customer.
- An update on the EU Lisbon Treaty.
- Why Fannie and Freddie mustn’t be left out of reform efforts.
- Skepticism over nuclear diplomacy with Iran. (PDF) Subscribe to the Nuclear Proliferation Update here.
- Podcast: “Obama: Kinder Bud to Federalism?” featuring Aaron Houston of the Marijuana Policy Project.
Why a “Public Option” Is Hazardous to Your Health
President Obama and other leading Democrats have proposed creating a new government health insurance program as an “option” for Americans under the age of 65. In a new study, Cato scholar Michael F. Cannon shows that government programs cost more and deliver lower-quality care than private insurance. “If Congress wants to make health care more efficient and increase competition in health insurance markets, there are far better options,” argues Cannon.
Fannie Med? Why a "Public Option" Is Hazardous to Your Health, Cato Policy Analysis No. 642

