Wednesday, February 5, 2014

Finally You Can Live in Poverty If You Want!

If one remembers way back in 2008, candidate Obama said the need  for ObamaCare, was to insure 30 million uninsured? Well the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has released a new study Obamacare and jobs: CBO adds fuel to fire which lists, amongst other problems, that by 2016 there will still be 30 million people uninsured. Further,when it was predicted that businesses will have to start cutting the hours of full time employees because of the increased cost of ObamaCare, the President scoffed. Well the CBO now says  this will occur (2 million full-time jobs lost by 2016), but the driving force will be the employees choice, not the employer. The logic is ObamaCare is so expensive, that employees will not want to make too much money and lose their ObamaCare subsidies (I'm not kidding), so they will request their hours be cut back; in other words, this "choice" aspect of ObamaCare allows an employee to decide if they want to live in poverty with subsidized healthcare and food stamps, or have a confining and passe full time job that leaves little time to really enjoy life.

The Democrat spin machine, in a last gasp attempt to save themselves from hugh losses this year in the 2014 mid-terms (Don't kid yourself, this CBO report was a bombshell exploding over the Democrats), has come out with an amazing prospective; that being that having to have a job is bad. The Democrats are now telling use that the need to make a living should be a decision made by the worker, not economic necessity; one political cartoon actually compared ObamaCare to the Emancipation Proclamation (in other words having a job is slavery).


The end result will no doubt  (assuming the unlikely event that a sizable number will buy into the belief that work is slavery) create another underclass and like everything else in ObamaCare, the devil will be in the details. Yes, your healthcare is now portable, but if you are trying to support a family, it is still highly unlikely that most will be unable to afford the level of healthcare that was available from their previous employer; even with government subsides. The reason is ObamaCare, only has price controls for the worker, but not the family the worker is supporting; and traditionally employment does offer cheaper plans that have more choices in healthcare plans than individual plans. Since, for the vast majority of Americans, unemployment means they are no longer bringing money into the household, it will create complete dependence on government. This in turn means the unemployed will be cycled, not into a subsidized ObamaCare plan, but into a state Medicaid programs, which have been bolstered by ObamaCare funds for this very reason. The member will then have to deal with the Medicaid system, which is notoriously difficult to negotiate and restrictive as to the care it will provide; and unlike private healthcare there will be no government watch dog to turn to is cases of inadequate care, since it is run by the government run. Also Medicaid programs do not allow members to have any significant liquid assets, and the state has been empowered to pursue compensation for the cost of the members Medicaid services, when person dies (unlike Medicare which is an entitlement); since a house is not a liquid asset,  a person is  able to retain ownership, but it will be fair game after the member does.

In many of Pope Francis addresses, he has speaks about employment being a fundamental need and right;  "I wish to extend an invitation to everyone to greater solidarity and to encourage those in public office to spare no effort to give new impetus to employment," he said. "This means caring for the dignity of the person." What Pope Francis is bringing to the surface is the hard wired need in every person to have meaningful work in order to maintain their dignity. It therefore is really doubtful the Democrats will ever be able to sell the idea that the loss of jobs because of ObamaCare will be a discretionary by an underclass that would prefer to not work, but be dependent on government instead. The reality of course is completely different. While the loss of jobs due to ObamaCare will in some cases be discretionary, the reason will not be because the employee has decided to enjoy the benefits of the unemployed (something President Obama has been pushing, to try and mitigate his high unemployment numbers), but because they will not be able afford ObamaCare without the government assistance (subsidies), which will disappear if the employee makes too much money.  

If you listen to the main street media, Democrats and President Obama may not know that most Americans are primarily concerned about the economy and employment (not gun control or immigration), so it does not make sense that President Obama and the Democrats continuously push to subsidize unemployment (it was been universally accepted that the majority of the citizenry does not want charity, they want jobs). But since the welfare state is unable to create private employment, the only tool in their belt is government assistance and dependency; even when it has to be forced onto the citizenry

1 comment:

  1. When all those uninsured (by choice) Americans receive their tax punishment for noncompliance at the end of the year you will then see the resulting increase in incoming revenue to the treasury and thus the opportunity for the "administration" to boast of the great job they are doing to lower the deficit.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.