members of Congress and their staffers currently have health insurance through their employer – the federal government. No other employer has been legally required to drop its employee’s health care plan and have them buy coverage on the exchanges. Like most other large employers, the federal government contributes a portion to the premiums of its employees. In fact, like many employers, the federal government pays most of the premiums for its workers; an average of 72 percent on Capitol Hill. The law didn’t account for the continued employer contribution for these federal workers who would now be buying their insurance on the exchanges. The exchanges were designed to help people without health insurance and people with overly expensive health insurance. It became clear that without their employer contribution, members and their staffers would essentially be getting a cut in pay and benefits equal to thousands of dollars. Even Grassley, the provision’s author, had said the government should continue to contribute to lawmakers’ and staffers’ premiums. What the Obama administration has done is ruled that the congressional workers will continue to receive the employer contribution to help them buy their insurance on the exchange.

Although news accounts have frequently described Cadillac coverage as plans catering to Wall Street titans, with annual premiums of $40,000, not everyone with high-cost coverage is wealthy or even especially well-off. Some union workers and employees of businesses with a preponderance of older or sicker workers may also have premiums in the Cadillac range. In the Democrats' reconciliation bill - actually an amendment to the Senate-passed health bill - a high-cost health plan is defined as costing more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family, including worker and employer contributions to flexible spending or health savings accounts. The cost does not include stand-alone vision or dental benefits. The tax would not be imposed until 2018, giving health plans more time to benefit from possible cost savings from other reform measures. Employers with a preponderance of older or female workers who have higher-than-average health costs would receive a break in the form of higher thresholds.