The New York Times editorial board has decided that the elimination of 2.5 million full-time jobs due to Obamacare is a great thing for the country.
The loss of all those jobs, the editorial board says, “is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law.”
The Times seems quite pleased that over two million Americans will be “liberated” from their jobs. How can they claim this is good? Because the paper seems to think that government is now paying for Americans’ health care.
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.
Notice what the Times is saying here. The paper thinks that healthcare subsidies should be given to workers so that they can work less and have more leisure time. Of course, this isn’t how Obamacare subsidies were sold. Such federal aid was supposed to go to those who couldn’t afford coverage, not those who wanted to get out of working full time.
The paper’s main point is that workers won’t feel “locked into a job” because they don’t want to lose their health insurance, and they can take jobs they may like better even if those new jobs do not offer health care as an important perk.
Was this the purpose of Obamacare?
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.