The furious spin continues:
Obamacare isn’t killing jobs. It is just removing jobs that people didn’t
want, anyway, and only took so that they could get health insurance.
This relies on several specious prerequisites that I don’t
necessarily agree with:
1.
Assumption #1 - People were taking on jobs
because, and ONLY because, they needed them to get health insurance. Forget about the fact that there was
insurance available on the individual market before ACA. Forget that it was actually cheaper than it
is now, post-ACA. Who are these
people? Jobs with health insurance
aren’t entry-level jobs. These aren’t
jobs people were “just taking to get health insurance.”
2.
Assumption #2 – People who lost their jobs are
being “liberated” from jobs that they hated.
How the fuck can they make this statement? How do they know that every person who lost
their job due to ACA “hated” their job?
How do they know that the only reason that these people kept their
“hated” job was health insurance, and not, you know, a PAYCHECK? Both of which are apparently worth more than
not having a job they “hate” or else they wouldn’t have had the job,
right? Besides, and maybe more
importantly, at what point in time did it become a function of the United
States Federal Government to “save” people from having jobs they don’t
like?
3.
Assumption #3 - ACA is somehow going to provide
food and lodging for these people who no longer have jobs. This is an assumption that none of the
proponents of this furious spin exercise have actually touted, but they must
believe it, because health insurance does more than just cover a percentage of
your health expenses after you’ve covered a deductible, right? It also gives you a monthly stipend that you
can use to pay rent, and put food on your family’s table, and… wait, insurance doesn’t do that? Only a job can? But wait, that could mean that these people
who lost their jobs would be worse off, right?
4.
Assumption #4 - ACA will allow a person to pay
for a health plan without being tied to a job. However, it won’t give the
person money to pay for the plan, unless they are subsidized in some manner
(the pre-requisites to which I admit I’m fuzzy on). How does this change anything from the
individual insurance market, which allowed a person to pay for health insurance
without having a job? Other than ACA has
made individual plans more expensive, and thus, more difficult to pay for? So unless these people are subsidized, they
are worse off. If they lose their job,
will they be subsidized? Is the country
better off forcing people out of the workforce and onto the dole? Is this really a goal to which we should
aspire?
5.
ACA expands freedom, by untying people from jobs
they don’t like…
…By forcing
other people to work to subsidize them...
…Which is not
enhancing freedom by any stretch of the imagination. This is an argument that they’ve made, and in
fact, done so quite shamefully, couching it in terms of “shouldn’t
freedom-loving conservatives love the ACA because it creates all this freedom?”
as if “freedom” can actually exist in a climate where one man is being looted
at gunpoint for another’s benefit.
No comments:
Post a Comment