In response to Why are Democrats Rarely Published for Saying Stupid Things?:
I hate to break this to you, Joel – but to Democrats and their media enablers – a shrinking workforce and more people on government subsidies is a “good thing,” as Ellison put it. More dependency on government = more votes for Democrats. That’s the insidious nature of Obamacare – it encourages Americans to quit their jobs in order to get their health care subsidy.
Democrats want to look like the good guys who care about the middle class, and stuffy old Republicans to look like scrooges who want Americans to work more than they need to.
The Washington Post put a big ‘ol smiley face on this dismal state of affairs in a piece entitled, “They quit their jobs, thanks to health-care law.”
Count Polly Lower among those who quit their jobs because of the health-care law.
It happened in September, when her boss abruptly changed her job description. She went from doing payroll, which she liked, to working on her boss’s schedule, which she loathed. At another time, she might have had to grit her teeth and accept the new position because she needed the health benefits.
But with the health-care law soon to take effect, she simply resigned — and hasn’t looked back.
“It was wonderful. It was very freeing,” said Lower, 56, of Bourbon, Ind., who is now babysitting her 5-year-old granddaughter full time. With the help of federal subsidies that kicked in Jan. 1, she is paying less than $500 a month for health coverage for herself and her husband.
Lower is an example of the latest controversy to spring up around the Affordable Care Act: its impact on the workforce.
Is it not a wonderful thing that a person nearing retirement age, who’s locked into a job she “loathes”, now has the freedom to quit her job and spend more time with her granddaughter? The Washington Post reports that she expected she would miss her job, but nope. “I’ve adjusted well,” she says.
I don’t begrudge her decision to retire early after a lifetime of work with the help of ObamaCare. I do begrudge the community organizers who designed this insidious law in such a way that it discourages people from working.
The Washington Post neglected to mention the other types of people who live a life of leisure thanks to government subsidies. People like Lucy, a 32 year old Austin welfare recipient and her husband – neither of whom feel the need to enter the workforce, because they get plenty enough “benefits” just laying around the house, smoking weed. They get $550.00 for rent $425.00 for food stamps, $150.00 for electric, free cell phone, $100.00 for water, Medicaid, and even free Christmas presents for her three kids. “Why should I work?” she asked. Her husband occasionally does odd jobs, but “he doesn’t really see the need for it”, she told an Austin morning talk show.
“…To all you workers out there preaching morality about those of us who live on welfare… can you really blame us? I get to sit around all day, visit my friends, smoke weed.. and we are still gonna get paid, on time every month…”She said “taxpayers are the fools.”
I don’t think that’s the kind of story the Washington Post wants to put a smiley face on – but that’s the sort of behavior any expansion of government enables.
Ben Domenech of the Heartland Institute appeared on MSNBC’s “All In With Chris Hayes” last week to discuss the implications of the CBO report.
Domenech said, “What kind of economy do you want? Do you want one where people are working more hours for themselves and their families? Or do you want one where some people are going to be working more hours to pay for the subsidies, and some people are going to be working fewer hours but they’ll have health care?”