We have been told that, due to the disincentives to work contained in the law, ObamaCare will reduce the supply of labor by the equivalent of 2 million full-time employees over the next several years. Because the taxpayer-financed subsidies contained in ObamaCare provide incentives for individuals to work less or stop working entirely, taxpayers will be picking up the tab (and likely working more in order to satisfy this tab) so that a smaller of number able-bodied individuals can get subsidized health insurance. Note that this is not necessarily a matter of people being deadbeats; to the contrary, the government is making it more expensive to work more (ie, would working an extra five hours per week to earn an additional $7500 a year be worth doing if be doing so you lose $7500 in health care subsidies?). The ObamaCare subsidy structure is akin to a stiff marginal tax hike for the millions of individuals at or near the edge of so-called subsidy cliff. Nancy Pelosi said this is a good thing because, by liberating people to quit working at an income-generating job, these individuals will be able to pursue things such as poetry. People are, of course, free to pursue happiness as they see fit. And a good health care reform goal is to make insurance personal and portable. The issue seems to me to be whether it makes good policy and/or whether it is fair to make taxpayers shoulder the burden so that some can enjoy the ability to stop working while receiving subsidized insurance? What do you think?
Posted on: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 02:10:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015