« | »

NYT: Obama-Care Frees Workers From Job Trap

From where else but the editorial board of the New York Times:

Freeing Workers From the Insurance Trap


The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade. That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law.

Testify! And just look at how the New York Times has graciously reduced their workforce in recent years. Their newly ‘liberated’ reporters and editors must have jumped for joy.

Of course, Republicans immediately tried to brand the findings as “devastating” and stark evidence of President Obama’s health care reform as a failure and a job killer. It is no such thing.

Of course, it isn’t. We are just too stupid to see the nuance of it all. As usual. Being forced out of the workforce is almost as wonderful as being on unemployment.

The report estimated that — thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums — many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. The cumulative effect on the labor supply is the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time workers by 2024.

Think back. Have you in your entire life ever met anyone who held on to a job they didn’t want because they didn’t want to lose their insurance coverage? It might happen to hamburger flipper jobs. But in the grownup world, we suspect it’s fairly rare.

Some workers may have had a pre-existing condition and will now be able to leave work because insurers must accept all applicants without regard to health status and charge premiums unrelated to health status. Some may have felt they needed to keep working to pay for health insurance, but now new government subsidies will help pay premiums, making it more possible for them to leave their jobs…

The Times editors have clearly not looked at the Obama-Care deductibles and co-pays. Even with premium subsidies, sick people are still going to have to pay a lot of money towards their healthcare, thanks to the high deductibles and co-pays. So, unless they are on welfare, they are still going to need to work. And if they are on welfare, they would also be on Medicaid and not Obama-Care.

The new law will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage. Workers can seek positions they are most qualified for and will no longer need to feel locked into a job they don’t like because they need insurance for themselves or their families. It is hard to view this as any kind of disaster.

‘Free at last. Thank God almighty, we’re free at last.’

And never mind that 2.3 million fewer people will be pulling the wagon, and 2.3 million more people will be riding in it. And never mind that 2.3 million fewer fulltime workers will mean that much lower taxes to pay for these and other government benefits. And never mind that 2.3 million fewer fulltime workers will mean that much less disposable income to fuel the economy.

And never mind that the fear of losing Obama-Care subsidies is going to stop 2.3 million people from trying to get ahead, and raise the income of themselves and their family. Which means income inequality is going to skyrocket. And here we thought income inequality was the worst thing since slavery.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, February 6th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “NYT: Obama-Care Frees Workers From Job Trap”

  1. mr_bill says:

    I’m waiting to read that the NYT was hacked by some satirists. There’s no way that actual adults can possibly believe that dreck. Millions of people are losing work and the NYT thinks they’re being “liberated.” The Jews in Auschwitz were liberated, Americans are being laid off because employers can’t afford this new law. That’s anything but liberating.

  2. Curiosity says:

    “Have you in your entire life ever met anyone who held on to a job they didn’t want because they didn’t want to lose their insurance coverage?”

    Probably a dozen or more, most of whom had dependents to care for. These people could have gotten temp jobs no problem, but they would have been uninsured.

    I started walking out of an interview where I found out they wanted to bring me on as a temp where I wouldn’t have had insurance. I had insurance from my half time gov’t job and wasn’t going to walk away (the interviewing company immediately agreed to make me a full employee). Of course, I was only leaving the job because they couldn’t make me full time, and taxes and food prices took a previously livable income and made it unviable.

    Most people staying on a job for health insurance reasons had technical degrees from vocational schools (we’ve had our economy gutted three times in the last ~5 years by large employers leaving or collapsing) or were semi-recent undergrad graduates. For what it’s worth, I graduated when it was easy to get a job (2007) only a year or two before employment rates plummeted for new graduates.

  3. GetBackJack says:




« Front Page | To Top
« | »