The Congressional Budget Office has spoken: Obamacare to cost over 2 million American jobs, at a time we can least afford it.
The news media has finally connected the dots as to where we are headed. The fact of the matter is, no matter how much I support having people that need medical care being able to receive it, there is simply no mathematical way, whatsoever, that 30 million more people can be insured without cost– to someone.
What the news media is doing a bad job of explaining is this: Obamacare is a disincentive to work additional hours for people that are in most need of the insurance becasue they work part time, or in a low wage job, and someone is going to have to bear the cost of this. There simply are no “free” lunches.
Consider this example: A single mother works a part time job in a law firm during the day, and the law firm doesnt provide insurance to part time workers. To have insurance, the mother bartends on weekends to make enough money to buy her own individual health insurance to care for herself and her child. As a result of Obamacare’s subsidies, it makes no sense for the mother to keep the bartending job, since she is working basically to be able to pay for her own health insurance. She does what anyone with any sense would do– she quits that job, and since her income is now lower, she qualifies for the subsidies, so her insurance is paid for, and she only has to work the one part time job. Work less, same end result. It’s a winner for her.
The problem is this: That subsidy has to come from somewhere. Where, then, does the money come from? It comes from higher premiums from all of the rest of us, and higher taxes. Any time there is someone receiving a benefit, and the burden of having to “earn” that benefit is not borne by the recipient, it is a sure-fire way to destroy the very heart of an economic system that has allowed us all to enjoy the highest standard of living in the world. In this case, the mother receives not only the benefit of the insurance, but also of not bearing the burden of paying for it. It is a disincentive for this young woman to be productive, plain and simple, and to bear the burden of having to produce fruit of her labor to pay for things like healthcare, in this instance.
Sometimes it’s hard to see the unfairness in this becasue it involves a service (medical care), and there are strong emotional feelings regarding people’s health. Let’s, for an instant, however consider a different benefit. Let’s say instead of healthcare, we had a law in this country that promised a free Mercedes to every family unit, and that if that family could not ordinarily afford a Mercedes, the government would give them a free one. The mother, in this case, works her job as a weekend bartender to pay for a Mercedes. This new law passed, as I described above, and now the mother can quit her job as a bartender, and still get the Mercedes. After all, why would she work every weekend, when she can now stay home and have Saturday nights to herself, and still have the Mercedes?
That’s exactly what is happening with Obamacare, and why the CBO is correct in their analysis. It will cost us dearly as a nation in lost productivity. I don’t drive a Mercedes, since I dont want to have to afford it. If I wanted a Mercedes, I could always work more hours and get a second job. The difference is, I am “free” to make the decision about what I want, and what I am willing to do to get it. With Obamacare, I have no choice. Not only do I not have a choice as far as whether I want this insurance or not, but what is coming through higher taxes and lost productivity is a lower standard of living for all of us (i.e. a real plus a “hidden” tax on our work efforts) to pay for insurance for others. And this has a very distinct label: it’s called SOCIALISM.