This week’s Sunday New York Times carried an editorial about some shortcomings of the Affordable Care Act (Read article here). In particular, it cites a recent interpretation of a particular clause of the law made by the Internal Revenue Service which results in more modest subsidies for health insurance coverage than it feels is appropriate. The paper notes, “The problem arises from murky language in the law.”
I know this is an emotionally charged issue, but it does provide a teaching moment for the future when huge pieces of legislation are again proposed – that laws should really be read, understood, debated and vetted before being voted on. Perhaps amendments can now be instituted to both fix problems and reduce bureaucracy in its (ACA) implementation. This would not only relieve the burden on families, but also give business more control, which could make their profits somewhat more predictable and result in a potential lift to equity investments.
All comments and questions are welcomed.
Bob Bilkie, CFA