In her highly anticipated speech on the economy Monday, Hillary Clinton was heavy on rhetoric and short on specifics, promising to reveal her actual policy proposals in the weeks ahead.

But this week, she also dropped a not-so-subtle hint about a big one.

In a questionnaire for the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which endorsed her this week, Clinton noted that the so-called “Cadillac tax” levied under Obamacare is one area she is “examining.”

The Cadillac Tax is a surcharge on expensive health care plans. It’s a crucial provision of Obamacare, bringing in much-needed revenue and trying to curb the incentive for employers to offer outlandish insurance plans to their workers. But it doesn’t kick in until 2018, so it’s going to be the next president’s problem.

If Clinton opposes it, she’ll be running against nearly every U.S. health policy expert and the White House. They all see it as clunky but necessary to reduce health care costs.

But politically, fighting the Cadillac tax is a winner. Republicans hate it because it increases revenue and is simply part of Obamacare. And unions object to it because they often negotiate generous health plans in lieu of higher take-home pay. It’s no wonder that — as POLITICO’s Brian Faler reported in a deep look at the topic in April — the Cadillac tax is shaping up to be the next big Obamacare fight.

Clinton didn’t say exactly what she’d do, but in her response to the AFT questionnaire, she began to stake out a position. “As currently structured,” Clinton wrote, “I worry that it may create an incentive to substantially lower the value of the benefits package and shift more and more costs to consumers.”

What does that mean exactly? Clinton’s campaign didn’t respond to a request for comment.

“I would be surprised to see her call for eliminating the tax, since it would open her to attacks for undermining the progress made on containing health costs (not from her primary opponents, but from MSM and health policy experts),” Guy Molyneaux, a Democratic strategist, wrote in an email. “But I could certainly see her calling for changes that would ease the impact on union plans.”

Easing the impact won’t be easy, particularly as Republicans are almost certain to retain at least the House in the next Congress. They aren’t going to accept a carve-out for unions. But repealing it altogether is also difficult, since it would require finding $87 billion in additional revenue or spending offsets. Like so many other issues in Washington these days, lawmakers face a fraught issue with a specific deadline, and no clear solution — but a lot of political points to score by complaining about it.

Authors: