The so-called “Cadillac Tax” is a 40 percent excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored health coverage that exceeds certain benefit thresholds, estimated to be approximately $10,800 for employee-only plans and $29,100 for family plans when the tax takes effect in 2020.

While the name may imply the tax applies to a few individuals with luxury health coverage, the truth is it extends much further. 175 million Americans – including retirees, low- and moderate-income families, public sector employees, small business owners and the selfemployed – currently depend on employer-sponsored health coverage and they are all at risk.

On behalf of the American Benefits Council, Public Opinion Strategies conducted a nationwide online survey of 1,200 registered voters from January 29 to February 3, 2016. These findings indicate that voter support for the “Cadillac Tax” is dwarfed by support for repeal.

Voters are more likely to re-elect their representative if they voted to repeal the “Cadillac” tax, though a majority of voters say it makes no real difference in their vote, a report out today from the American Benefits Council says.

Overall, 37 percent of voters said their congressman voting to repeal the tax would make them more likely to re-elect their representative, while 16 percent said it would make them less likely to do so. Still, 47 percent said the vote made no difference. The report was released by the Alliance to Fight the 40, a coalition of groups advocating to repeal the tax on high-cost health plans.

When I first answered God’s call to join the Little Sisters of the Poor and vow myself to Him and to the care of the elderly, I never dreamed of the happiness I would experience in serving, living with and caring for the aging poor until God calls them to Himself. I also never thought one day, I would be walking up the white marble steps of the Supreme Court to attend a legal proceeding in which the high court will decide whether the government can force my order to help offer health care services that violate my Catholic faith and that are already available through existing government exchanges.

Both the percentage of employers who offer insurance and the percentage of people covered will be important to watch as the changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) continue to unfold. New coverage provisions and financial assistance provided in the ACA affect employers’ decision to offer coverage and employees’ decisions to take up any coverage they are offered at work. The employer shared responsibility provision, for example, requires employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees to offer coverage to full-time employees and their dependent children or face a financial penalty.

The House Ways and Means Committee advanced a bill Wednesday that would require people who improperly receive insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to repay the overpayments.

The bill, offered by Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.), was approved by a vote of 22-14.

Jenkins told the committee the measure was a “simple bill,” about “good governance” and the “duty to protect the tax dollars of hardworking Americans.”

Along with releasing end-of-the-year 2015 enrollment data for the Affordable Care Act exchanges last Friday afternoon, the Department of Health and Human Services also released data for the 2016 open enrollment period. Just like the end-of-the year 2015 enrollment data, which I discussed on Monday, a close look at the 2016 open enrollment data reveals that the ACA is significantly underperforming initial expectations.

The big story is how little has changed from 2015 to 2016. The number of 2016 exchange enrollees is up only slightly from last year, and the make-up of the risk pool—as proxied by income and age of enrollees—is virtually identical.

Obamacare does not have a mandate. Wait: Has Marco Rubio proposed an individual mandate? The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and James Capretta of AEI have engaged in a spirited and informative point-counterpoint on that question here at NRO. Cannon writes that Rubio’s Obamacare-replacement plan is built “around an individual mandate.”  Capretta responds by noting that Rubio proposes to repeal all of Obamacare, including “the requirement that all Americans buy government-approved health insurance,” commonly known as the individual mandate.

Pulling Americans from Obamacare’s wreckage should be among the next president’s most urgent priorities. Costs are rising, choices contracting, and regulation metastasizing. Reform will not be easy to achieve. Replacing Obamacare will require open and robust discussion, a process that is more likely to succeed if we’re all speaking the same language and using words to inform, not inflame.

For tax year 2015, millions of Americans will be getting a new tax form related to health care reform measures.

Will you know what to do with yours when it arrives?

The Affordable Health Care Act mandated three new tax forms to be used as a kind of proof of insurance so taxpayers may avoid paying a penalty for failure to be covered. They are:

  • Form 1095-A, sent to those who purchase health insurance on government marketplaces.
  • Form 1095-B, sent to employees of businesses with fewer than 50 full-time employees
  • Form 1095-C, sent to employees of businesses with more than 50 full-time employees

The Affordable Care Act changed employers’ role in the U.S. health care system. The ACA fundamentally altered the employer-based system by making the provision of health benefits mandatory rather than voluntary for employers with more than 50 employees and establishing minimum criteria for affordability and coverage. In addition, a “play or pay” model was created, providing employers with an exit: employees would no longer become uninsured if their employers dropped benefits but could instead purchase guaranteed and potentially subsidized insurance through public exchanges.

Two financial milestones are leading employers to evaluate whether they want to play or pay. In 2015, employers with more than 100 employees became subject to a shared-responsibility penalty for coverage that didn’t meet federal standards; further down the road, a 40% excise tax on coverage over a maximum dollar value (the so-called Cadillac tax) is due to go into effect (implementation was originally set for 2018, but Congress recently voted to delay it by 2 years). Although it’s still early in the game, employers are making key decisions that affect patients, health care providers, and insurers.

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas) on Wednesday gave a nod of approval to a proposal about Obamacare’s Cadillac tax in the White House’s 2017 budget.

“While we will disagree more than we agree today, I do believe that there are some important areas of cooperation. I’m glad that the White House has finally faced reality in one area and agreed that the so-called Cadillac tax is not workable,” Brady said during a hearing on the proposed budget.