The Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare will decrease the incentive for
Americans to work! Democrats are spinning this by telling us not having a job is
"liberating". So why not have the headline read, "Applications for
liberated people's benefits rise to 339K"? Democrats have it completely
backward; its the taxpayers who need liberation and unemployed people pay no
Thid, That's a willful misreading of the CBO report, which
projects up to 2.5M workers who are only working for the health benefits will be
able to leave the workforce. Given the high levels of unemployed and
underemployed who would love to change places with people who don't need to
work other than to maintain insurance coverage, that's not a bad thing.
Thid's got it right. We have lost something when not working is the goal.
People who give up looking for work and "settle" for cheap insurance
instead have lost the work ethic.Obama is spinning his insurance plan as a
way to break free from the man and finds 2.5 million permanently unemployed to
be acceptable collateral damage.If only those 100 million people on the
employment sidelines could support themselves and pay health insurance premiums.
But they can't. Obama's got record numbers of people on food stamps
and others on disability.Not to mention all those degreed young people
pouring coffee for a living.That's not my vision of America.
"We have lost something when not working is the goal. People who give up
looking for work and "settle" for cheap insurance instead have lost the
work ethic."Nonsense. If people don't need to work other
than for the insurance benefits, it's a gross over-generalization to chalk
up 2.5M individual circumstances to a lost work ethic. We're talking about
a senior citizen who wants to retire but can't because he'll lose
insurance. Or a mother who wants to rely on her husband's income to stay
home and raise her children, but can't afford the insurance hit. Or a woman
who needs to provide for a sick family member but can't leave the workforce
without losing the insurance necessary for treatment.My vision of
America is one where people have the ability to weigh their individual
circumstances when it comes to the choice to work or not, and who aren't
enslaved to the need to work solely to guarantee health insurance.
@ Reb; Please tell us when you met anyone who got ahead or achieved anything by
not working! Who is going to pay for all these people who are living their
dreams by not working? We all know the answer to that don't we? When will
taxpayers say ENOUGH and vote these idiots out of office that think America can
be great with more people on welfare, food stamps or health insurance subsidies?
"Please tell us when you met anyone who got ahead or achieved anything by
not working!"If getting ahead isn't the priority, who
cares? For some people, individual achievement isn't tied to work. Good
for them. The point is that they have the ability to choose based on tradeoffs
instead of having to work for to provide healthcare. Isn't choice
something conservatives always harp on? Why force someone who doesn't need
income to do so simply to maintain health coverage? Leaving aside
the moral question of whether we should require one to work to have access to
health insurance, I don't see what the conservative problem with this is.
From an economic perspective, it creates a more efficient labor force by
encouraging those who don't need the income to drop out of the workforce to
be replaced by one of the many who seek full-time employment. That's
classic Econ 101 taught by Adam Smith.
Look at the success on Indian Reservations.Benefits in action.