Parsing Health Impact Of Tax Bill: Déjà Vu On Obamacare; ‘Lambs’ In The Senate Don’t Press For Improvements

Modern Healthcare: Tax Reform Should Mean Improving The Economy, But Not At The Expense Of Our Healthcare System
When congressional leaders set their sights on comprehensive tax reform, the aims were to improve our tax system and create a tax code that suited our country's economic needs. This should have meant finding a way to improve the health of our economy—not harm our healthcare. Instead of bipartisan progress, the current tax reform debate has devolved into an eerie case of déjà vu—echoing this summer's failed healthcare repeal efforts. Between the Senate's individual mandate repeal—yet another iteration of "repeal without replace"—and cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the tax bill, as it stands today, is set to do more harm than good to America's health. (John Rother, 11/29)

The Washington Post: No Serious Lawmaker Should Support This Tax Bill
Similarly, the federal “pay-as-you-go” law requires that tax cuts and entitlement increases be paid for in the year they’re enacted; it that doesn’t happen, automatic cuts in Medicare and other important programs are supposed to be triggered automatically. But GOP leaders are now publicly stating that once their tax bill is approved, they will follow quickly with legislation to exempt the just-passed tax cuts from this trigger. Why would anybody think they won’t end up doing the same with the trigger, if the need arises? (Robert E. Rubin, 11/29)

The New York Times: The Senate Is Rushing To Pass Its Tax Bill Because It Stinks
This rush to the Senate floor has been orchestrated by Mr. McConnell, following the same playbook he used in the failed effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The longer people have to study the details, the less likely the bill is to pass. People should know by now about the big stuff: the giant permanent corporate tax-rate cut, the small and temporary tax cuts for the middle class, the repeal of the A.C.A.’s individual mandate and the $1.4 trillion added to the federal deficit over 10 years. But other provisions are not as well understood and deserve to be called out. Here are three. (11/29)

The Wall Street Journal: The Rubio-Schumer Amendment
On Wednesday Mr. Rubio and his political sidecar, Mike Lee of Utah, announced that they’ll file an amendment to the tax bill to change the $2,000 child tax credit. They want to make the credit refundable up to a person’s payroll tax liability, among other expensive tweaks. To pay for the changes, Messrs. Rubio and Lee would increase the corporate tax rate to 22% from the bill’s 20%. If Mr. Rubio thinks payroll taxes are too high, he can propose a payroll tax cut. But then he’d have to weather the political fight of going after funding for Medicare and Social Security. So instead his back-door plan is to expand a refundable credit, which delivers checks to folks who owe no federal income tax. This is a disincentive to work and we would have thought antithetical to conservative principles. (11/29)

Arizona Republic: John McCain Can Lead (Again) With His Vote On Senate Tax Bill
Once again, the nation waits for Sen. John McCain to show us who he is. Will he be that reliable party guy who does the politically expedient thing and votes yes on the Senate tax cut bill? (Laurie Roberts, 11/29)

The New York Times: Lambs Of The Senate
The Republican senators who aren’t yet committed to voting for the tax bill have a huge amount of leverage. They are not using it. Instead, they mostly seem to be folding — accepting vague promises from President Trump (who doesn’t exactly have a good record of keeping his word) and Mitch McConnell. That was Tuesday’s theme on Capitol Hill. Susan Collins, who has said she is worried about the damage the bill will do to health care, no longer seems to be insisting on any legislation to reduce the damage. (David Leonhardt, 11/29)

Huffington Post: Even With ‘Fixes,’ The GOP Tax Cut Plan Would Likely Damage Health Care
The tax cut bill would eliminate the mandate. If that happens, experts warn, both health insurance premiums and the number of people without coverage will go up. Insurers would be more likely to exit markets altogether. Now some Republicans are talking about passing yet another piece of legislation, in order to make sure insurance markets don’t deteriorate. It’s not a crazy idea. But the new legislation would have only a modest impact ― and, even then, only on a temporary basis. (Jonathan Cohn, 11/29)