Yeah, so if I was getting smacked down even by mc mark (i love the guy but...) within 5 minutes of lumbering into a thread I'd do this too.
I don't have a problem with disconnecting healthcare from labor participation, but if we are going to decide that healthcare will either be tied to a job where your employer pays for it or to not working where the government pays for it, I'd rather it be tied to the job.
I don't think the CBO is talking about a large mass of people leaving well paying jobs with benefits so they can get on welfare and have subsidized health care. Despite conservative claims to the contrary, the vast majority of people don't choose to be poor if they have better alternatives. The majority of people that will be leaving their jobs are the ones that can afford it and/or want to pursue other opportunities.
So with full knowledge then that employer provided health care will never be able to provide universal coverage, insofar as universal employment is not possible (or even desirable, but that's anohter story) - you'd still opt to tie it to employment status because why?
Well I wouldn't ACTUALLY tie it to employment status. I've laid out my adjustments to ACA on this board multiple times. BUT, I don't think it's a win if people decide to quit working so they can pursue their hobbies now that the government will just subsidize their healthcare.
The CBO's estimate was that people would be leaving employment due to the availability of subsidies to pay for the health insurance as long as they weren't above certain income thresholds. Rich people who work to keep their health insurance are a very small percentage of the population. There are far more low income people who take jobs at places like a local grocery store simply to get the benefits.
Given that this is not in any way a likely consequence (you do know that food, clothing, shelter are not provided for by the ACA?) - I'm not sure why you're so worried? And of course, since you've written about this extensively, you do know htat we already live in a society with subsidized health care for the poorest citizens, right? Is the next step for you to describe the easy street lifestyle of somebody with (now better) access to health care, food stamps, and public housing? the ol' welfare queen riseth from the grave? if so please save it - nobody needs to hear it. The more likely scenario is somebody working less to do something they enjoy more - raise their kids, start a business, watch TV, run ultramarathons, post on internets - why is any of this "not a win"? People realizing their preferences is a win according to econ 101.
We are not talking about the poorest of citizens here. We are talking about people who may be lower middle class, potentially a two working partner household where one decides to stop working and gets subsidized health care. My next step has never been to use that nonsense. It's weird that you get off by being so unpleasant on the Internet on a daily basis. Do the people at your office treat you poorly or something? Why do you feel the need to be a punk constantly? You should get some counseling Sam.
And tell us why this is a bad thing again? I'll repeat since you didn't get it the first time because you were too busy being offended: The more likely scenario is somebody working less to do something they enjoy more - raise their kids, start a business, watch TV, run ultramarathons, post on internets - why is any of this "not a win"? People realizing their preferences is a win according to econ 101.
I don't consider it a win for someone to quit working so they can run marathons, post on the internet, watch tv, etc. and get government subsidies for their health insurance.
You gave the example, not me. I'm more than happy for them to do what they like with their life on their own dime. Getting a government subsidy to pay for the insurance is the problem, not the leaving the labor force that is the problem.
Maybe what I've seen is not representative, but most of the low income people I've worked with don't seem to only want health care. They certainly want it - but they want to make an income too. I guess a lot of people in this demographic can be flaky, but I find it hard to believe so many low income people would choose to get even poorer just because they have health care. But even in this scenario, I don't see the net negative. If a grocery clerk decides to leave their job and get subsidized health care, someone else - presumably who was getting subsidized health care - will take their place and now be on the grocery store plan. These aren't jobs that are disappearing, and we already have an excess of unemployed people to fill them.
I'm not worried about the labor force, sorry if that wasn't clear Major. Someone voluntarily leaving the labor force can actually be a good thing. I'm just not in favor of the ease at which someone can get a subsidy by staying home from work. Edit: And let's be clear, we are not talking about people in poverty who are trying to work to survive.
No, you're the one who framed it as them getting a big ol' check from Uncle Sam...but i digress. So you're in favor of a completely un-government subsidized health care system - more or less, a complete free market? Why shoudn't the government subsidize the health of its citizens? We've done it for 100's of years, and pretty much every other non-anarchical country in the world does this? You're going to have to explain.
Same reason you have to provide it to open bank accounts, etc. It's your federal ID number - the IRS would use that to track subsidy eligibility and properly account for that on your taxes.
