Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s Weekly Column: Taxed If You Do, Taxed If You Don’t
Taxed If You Do, Taxed If You Don’t
By Rep. Kristi Noem
April 10, 2015
When Benjamin Franklin said “In this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes,” I don’t know if even he knew the extent to which that would become true in America.
After the President’s health care law was enacted, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the mandates were in fact taxes on hardworking Americans. The most notable tax included was a tax on those who don’t have health insurance, but over the next few years, another tax will come into play: a tax on those who do have insurance.
It’s called the health insurance tax – or HIT. The President’s health care law included an annual multi-billion-dollar “fee” on health insurance companies, the costs of which will largely be passed directly on to consumers to the tune of $350 and $400 per year for a family plan.
Earlier this month, I met with local small businesses – many of whom helped pay for their employees’ health coverage long before the President’s mandates went into place. Now, they’re wondering how they can afford to continue providing it. Then again, they can’t afford not to either. One employer told me: “We can’t afford the insurance. We can’t afford the fine [if we don’t provide insurance]. And so, if we have to cut them to 30 hours, for them that means what? A third job?” He didn’t see that as a good option either.
These taxes have real-world implications on small businesses, on families, on folks’ financial independence. That’s something the administration doesn’t seem to understand.
Over the last few years, Congress has passed and the President has signed nearly a dozen reforms to the health care law that give people some relief. I want to do all I can to continue offering that relief, keeping in mind that my ultimate goal is to replace the President’s health care law with a patient-centered approach.
Currently, much of the focus centers on an ongoing Supreme Court case, King v. Burwell. As written, the law only provides subsidies to those who purchase insurance through state-run exchanges. But only 14 states opened their own exchanges. The other 36 states, including South Dakota, use the federally run exchange.
Through regulations, the IRS made the subsidies available to everyone who purchased health insurance on an exchange – regardless of whether it was a state- or federal-run exchange. The question before the Court now is whether the IRS broke the law in doing that. If the Court rules that they did, millions could lose the financial assistance they’ve been getting from the federal government to help pay for health insurance. The loss of that subsidy could undermine the President’s health care law, requiring that it be replaced.
A final decision will be issued by the Supreme Court in June, but Republicans in Congress are working on an alternative now. I’m hopeful this will allow us to move quickly and purposefully if the Court rules against the President.
Regardless of what happens in King v. Burwell, this debate is not over. I will remain committed to protecting hardworking taxpayers from the President’s health care law, which taxes you if you do and taxes you if you don’t.
###
Much has changed for Dennis and me in the last five years. Moving from Dell Rapids to Pierre to serve as governor and first lady has been quite the adventure. But there are other titles we’ve recently acquired that we value even more: grandpa and grandma.
