My favorite comment on Democrat spin celebrating the new joblessness under Obamacare

Unemployment LineOver at JustOneMinute, Tom Maguire explains just how weak the Democrat spin is when it comes to celebrating the end of “job lock.”  It’s a great post, but as quite often happens over at my blog, the real brilliance appears in the reader comments.  From Ignatz:

I believe the Republican idea was to decouple insurance from employment not decouple the employee from employment.

Why do I like that?  Because it sums up in one sentence what it took me an entire post to write.

Hat tip:  American Thinker

Democrats gloating about the end of “job lock,” hide the reality of “poverty lock” and “job loss”

Unemployment LineWhen the CBO announced that Obamacare was going to have a deleterious impact on jobs over the next few years (as in 2.5 million fewer people in the work force), those opposed to Obamacare not unnaturally glommed on to those numbers as proof that Obamacare is an economic disaster.  After a moment of stunned silence, however, Democrats came roaring back with celebratory paeans to the end of “job lock.” James Taranto helpfully rounded up some good examples, beginning with Paul Krugman:

In his New York Times column today, former Enron adviser Paul Krugman cheers the news that ObamaCare subsidies are expected to have a greater-than-expected disincentive effect on work:

On Wednesday, Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, said the obvious: losing your job and choosing to work less aren’t the same thing. If you lose your job, you suffer immense personal and financial hardship. If, on the other hand, you choose to work less and spend more time with your family, “we don’t sympathize. We say congratulations.”

And now you know everything you need to know about the latest falsehood in the ever-mendacious campaign against health reform.

Although it was charitable of Krugman to warn readers off the rest of his column, those who heeded his admonition not to read on missed his amusingly worded nod in the general direction of reality: “More subtly, the incentive to work will be somewhat reduced by health insurance subsidies that fall as your income rises.”

Krugman, of course, was not alone.  He was just the most obnoxious voice in the rising Leftist chorus chanting “Hallelujah!  Job lock is over!”  James Taranto again:

E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: “Oh my God, say opponents of the ACA, here is the government encouraging sloth! That’s true only if you wish to take away the choices the law gives that 64-year-old or to those moms and dads looking for more time to care for their children. Many on the right love family values until they are taken seriously enough to involve giving parents/workers more control over their lives.”

Ron Fournier, National Journal: “The GOP has seized on CBO’s conclusion that the equivalent of more than 2 million Americans would use Obamacare subsidies to leave the workforce. No longer tied to jobs merely to cling to health insurance, some people will retire early, work part time, start a business, or spend more time with their families.”

Eric Boehlert, MediaMutters (on Twitter): “CBO: Obamacare will give workers more choices; some workers might chose [sic] to work less to spend more time w/ families….RW condemns as awful?” (Beats us what radiological warfare has to do with anything.)

Salon’s Alex Pareene is so excited, he wants to expand the welfare state even more: “Universal income and healthcare won’t create a Marxist (or even Keynesian) utopia of leisure. . . . But it’d give people the ability to spend more time with their families, to enrich themselves, to get educated, and even to just [futz] around a little more.”

Taranto goes on to note that, before the above spinning began, “leaving to spend more time with the family” was almost invariably a Washington, D.C., euphemism for “been fired” or “about to be arrested/indicted.”

Behind the puff and spin, though, as is often the case with Democrat pronouncements, lurk the lies and misinformation.  Two examples struck me.

First, regarding “job block,” this is a concept that’s been floating around for quite a while now.  Back in 2012, when Nancy Pelosi enthused about becoming a “whatever,” “job lock” referred to situations in which people with preexisting conditions were trapped in terrible jobs because they couldn’t risk leaving their employer-provided insurance policy behind.  Many people, of all political stripes, recognized that this was a problem.  (Republicans suggested fixes such as high risk pools or the ability to buy cheaper coverage across state lines.)

What the Democrats are so excitedly celebrating here is a new type of job lock, one that applies, not to people with preexisting health conditions but, instead, one that applies to people with preexisting low-paying jobs.  Why?  Because thanks to Obamacare, a large cadre of people suddenly cannot afford to move up professionally.  They cannot afford to look for a better paying job.  Heck!  They can’t even afford to get a pay raise.  After all, if they’re one of the unlucky ones, moving up by the wrong dollar will cost them $20,000.00.

Thinking about it, rather than saying that people are “job locked” under Obamacare, it’s more accurate to say that they’re “poverty locked.”  While they can’t move up economically that’s to the $20,000 penalty for doing so, they can move down:  they can take a series of low-paying jobs or, if they really want to, just leave the work force entirely.  After all, that’s already what several million people have done in the Age of Obama.

The other Democrat lie is the implication that this thrilling “no job-lock status quo” can last indefinitely.  In fact, the subsidies that people to have health insurance while holding low-paying jobs or being unemployed come about because other people are generating wealth that the government can take and redistribute.  However, as more and more people find that creating taxable wealth for themselves is a counterproductive proposition (earn a dollar more in pay, pay $20,000 more for insurance), fewer people will be earning the kind of salaries that will fund all the subsidies.  This is the perfect illustration of the Thatcher dictum — i.e., that socialism is wonderful until you run out of other people’s money.

The Democrats can spin the CBO’s prediction as much as they like, but the sorry fact is that it creates poverty-lock or job-loss, and that’s both personally demoralizing and economically unsustainable.  In the end, people will find that they’ve gotten more than they bargained for.  Not only will they be poverty-locked and job-lost, they’ll also be uninsured.

Will Obamacare see America replicate Britain’s early 20th Century slide into irrelevancy?

Victorian women in EnglandWhen I was at UC Berkeley, I had two good professors from whom I actually learned something.  One of them was Sheldon Rothblatt, who then taught a class covering England from the Industrial Revolution to the dawn of World War I.  He was a delightful teacher, able to infuse life and color into what would have been, in less skilled hands, a drab recital of capitalist oppression and Marxist struggles.

Looking back, I realize that Professor Rothblatt, unlike the usual Marxist cohort in Cal’s history department, viewed people as individuals with wants and desires, rather than as mere cogs in an endless struggle between oppressed masses and oppressive upper classes.  Prof. Rothblatt’s recognition that individuals count may go a long way to explaining the answer he gave when someone asked why the Industrial Revolution was petering out in England at the beginning of the 20th Century while, in America, it kept roaring on.

If I remember correctly, Prof. Rothblatt said that the end of the Industrial Revolution in England lay with the working classes.  The problem wasn’t that they were too oppressed.  Instead, between the downward pressure from the class system (“an Englishman’s way of speaking absolutely classifies him“), and the rising level of (comparative) luxury brought about by the Industrial Revolution, working-class Englishmen simply stopped trying very hard.  They knew that, no matter the effort they put in, they wouldn’t be able to break through the class ceiling.  Additionally, provided that they weren’t living in abysmal poverty, they had more creature comforts than they could ever have imagined.  So why work?

In America at the beginning of the 20th Century, things were different.  The working classes knew that, with effort, they could rise up and their children could rise up even more.  Heck, John D. Rockefeller went from a very shabby childhood to being one of the richest men in the world.  Andrew Carnegie, the son of a Scottish weaver, did the same.  While most wouldn’t reach those rarefied heights, there was no doubt that, with hard work, geographic mobility, and America’s open class system, a man or a woman, or that man’s or woman’s descendents, could realistically attain middle class or even wealthy status.  In addition, as the original poor gained economically because of the Industrial Revolution, thereby leaving the working class behind, there was a constant influx of (legal) immigrants to provide fresh, hope-filled labor for the factory floor.  Yes, many people fell by the wayside, but even more people ascended American society’s ranks — and that was itself an incentive for continued effort.

America has changed dramatically since then in three very significant ways.  First, we’ve lost our geographic mobility.  I know that sounds funny in a day and age of trains, planes, and automobiles, but it’s true.  We are heavily weighed down by both tangible and intangible assets.  If my husband were to lose his job (God forbid!), and if there were no employment prospects here, moving to find work would be reasonable.  Nevertheless, we would find it incredibly difficult to move.  Every room in our house is crammed with stuff that would have to be sorted, sold, packed, and transported and then, at the other end, we’d have to unpack, re-sort, and probably sell some more.  Unlike people in days of old, who might have had only a few clothes, a Bible, and a cook pot, we have four computers (one for each of us), hundreds of clothes (between the four of us), thousands of books (mostly mine), televisions, kitchen gadgets, appliances, dishes and cookware, cleaning supplies, furniture (too much, since my husband can’t bear to part with old when we buy new), family photographs, art work, knick-knacks — and that’s probably only a partial inventory of the tangible clutter that is a modern life.

A move also requires transporting our intangibles.  We have to engage in the tiresome task of changing our bank accounts.  In the old days, you’d just deposit or withdraw money.  Now the paperwork of setting up a new account to comply with the bank’s requirements, the state’s requirements, and the fed’s requirements can take hours.  We have to sever all our ties to cable companies, phone companies, and utilities, and then recreate new ties at our destination.  We need to change our address with credit card companies and make sure that Amazon ships more clutter to our new address not our old.  As I remember from my last move, it was almost a year before I’d managed to transfer every bit of data from my old address to my new one.

Second, illegal immigration means that our new crop of workers remain as perpetual bottom feeders, stultifying America’s former dynamic of moving from the bottom of the heap up to the middle or beyond.  We give the illegals marginal jobs, welfare, and food stamps, but they are, as their community organizers like to say, stuck in the shadows, something that severely limits upward mobility.  The appropriate course of action for our nation to take, of course, isn’t to grant amnesty, which is an invitation to yet another large batch of economically stultifying illegal shadow workers.  It is, instead, to shut down our borders, deny welfare to illegal immigrants and education to their children, put pressure on companies that employ them, and watch them self-deport.  Meanwhile, if we do indeed need all these workers, we should dramatically boost our legal immigrant quota and enable more people to come here freely and work openly.

Third, and most significantly, we’ve now got Obamacare, which acts as a disincentive to hard work.  John Podhoretz neatly summarizes the key points of the CBO’s most recent report about Obamacare’s effect on employment:

If that’s not startling enough [that the number of uninsured will stay the same or even rise, there’s also the telling projection about ObamaCare’s impact on employment — “a decline in the number of full-time-equivalent workers of about 2.0 million in 2017, rising to about 2.5 million in 2024.”

Overall employment will rise, the report says, but not steady, secure, long-term assured employment. The possibility of securing government-provided health-care without employment will give people a new incentive to avoid it. “The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply,” the report says.

Indeed, overall, between 2017 and 2024, the actual amount of work done in this country will decline by as much as 2 percent.

How come? Because of perverse incentives ObamaCare provides in the form of subsidies to some and higher taxes to others.

First, the report says Americans will “choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive.”

Here’s why: Poor people get certain subsidies, which disappear once a worker achieves a certain level of compensation. So it may be better to work less, or not work at all, rather than reach that higher pay level, because the pay increase won’t offset the loss of the subsidy.

For those at the bottom economically who once had dreams of “movin’ on up,” Obama has placed insuperable hurdles in their way:  any incremental increase in wages from working longer hours or at a more demanding (but better paying) job will be offset by a dramatic increase in healthcare costs, resulting in either more work for less money or more work for the same money — neither of which is an appealing option.  Only those workers who are able to make the unlikely leap from poor to rich overnight will be able to bypass this barrier without suffering.

What all this means is that the modern American worker is now situated in the same way as the late 19th century English worker:  Where the English worker knew that the class barrier meant that harder work wouldn’t see him rewarded for his effort, the modern American knows that the Obamacare barrier means that harder work will not see him rewarded for his effort.  Where the English worker was frozen geographically because there were no better alternatives elsewhere (that class thing again), the American worker is likewise frozen, both because Obamacare’s perverse incentives apply everywhere and because moving is just too gosh darn difficult.

Lastly, just as that long-ago English worker had reached a level of comfort that made him willing to accept class and geographic limitations, so too has the American worker reached a fairly comfortable dead end.  He’s certainly not living lavishly.  However, thanks to Obamacare, unemployment, food stamps, and welfare, he’s getting an endless vacation.  He may not be basking on a Tahitian beach, taking in Broadway shows, or touring Europe’s cities, but he’s surfing the internet, talking to friends on his smart phone, and getting high scores on Call of Duty, all while receiving a bi-monthly check from both state and federal governments.  And when this sedentary lifestyle starts to have consequences — everything from carpal tunnel syndrome to life-threatening blood clots — he knows he’ll get free medical care that’s every bit as good as the Cuban medical care that multi-millionaire communist Michael Moore has raved about.

Some of you might be shaking your heads and saying “But no one would want to live that way.  It’s a squalid, marginal lifestyle.”  Well, as I’ve written here before, there are a lot of people who think it a fine way to live.  At the very least, it sure beats working.  For these people, the journey from a poorly paid job to permanent welfare is a much easier trip, both practically and economically, than working harder to make more money, only to see the extra wages vanish into the endless maw that is Obamacare.

While walking the dogs this morning, I listened to Mark Steyn, who was guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh.  He pointed out that the real sin of welfare isn’t wasted money but is, instead, wasted humans.  As Betty Friedan (of all people) said in a talk I heard 20 or so years ago, there are three ingredients to a quality old age:  strong family ties, strong community ties, and work (i.e., a reason to get home in the morning).  Much as we humans like to do nothing, the fact is that the Victorians were right when they sagely opined that “idle hands are the Devil’s playground.”  Given too much free time, which is what’s about to happen to vast numbers of Americans thanks to Obamacare’s negative incentives, idle hands create tremendous societal wounds as people, rendered meaningless, engaging in destructive or self-destructive behavior.

Many people looking back at the early 20th Century think that World War I and World War II (followed by the loss of India) destroyed England.  They didn’t.  Those earthshaking events were actually the exclamation points on a society that had already run dry by 1914.  Once a society stops striving, it starts dying.  It happened there and, unless we can put the brakes on the slippery slope we’re now sliding down, it will happen here.

 

Jimmy Kimmel launches savage, pointed attack against young people’s ignorant support for Obamacare

I knew that late night talk show hosts were finally starting to see Obama and Obamacare as target-rich environments, but this one still surprised me:

Time will tell if these intermittent bursts of honesty from the Left will make a difference, or if the media’s monolithic hold on the narrative is strong enough to withstand occasional (and probably sanctioned) attacks from outliers.

Using social media to defend the Constitution and the Little Sisters of the Poor

Little Sisters of the PoorA caller to the Rush Limbaugh show today asked Rush how to get the media to change its tune. Rush’s response was that this will never happen. The media is an arm of the Democrat Party and that’s the end of it. Conservatives have to make their case outside of the media, he said. It can be done too, Rush added, pointing to Scott Walker’s success in fighting back an attempted recall and in beginning to make changes to Wisconsin’s hard Left culture.

What Rush left unspoken, since his show ended there, are the practical steps that ordinary people can take to expose other people (Leftists and non-political types alike) to facts and ideas that the media refuses to cover or contemplate. I happen to believe that Social Media is a wonderful way, both to learn what ordinary Progressives think (it’s seldom pretty) and to introduce new ideas to people whose world is contained within the four corners of the MSM.

I had a most illuminating Facebook conversation with a Progressive just today regarding the Obama administration’s full throttle effort to force the Little Sisters of the Poor – a Catholic charity staffed by nuns – to fund abortions.

On Facebook, since I’m fully aware of my liberal friends’ biases, I’m always careful to cite to sources that they belief are reliably leftist. After all, events sometimes force even the Washington Post or the New York Times to be honest about the facts.

This time, I linked to the USA Today editorial stating that the Obama administration has gone too far by attacking the nuns. I figured that, even though USA Today lacks the status of the New York Times (New York Times readers think that they’re the most intelligent and informed news consumers in America), it still has liberal street creds.

Oy, was I wrong! A Facebook friend who used to be a real friend decades ago when we were both non-political, went completely ballistic. He first offered a nasty opinion about the Church. When I politely asked him to back up his views with data, he doubled down on his attacks against the Church and stated explicitly destroying religious people’s political reach has to trump the Bill of Rights.

You’ll notice as you read our Facebook conversation that I was relentlessly pleasant, and that was true despite his frequently offensive statements. I also left on the table several issues that he raised as part of his attack on the church and the constitution. That was deliberate.

It quickly became clear to me that nothing I could say would change his mind. (And it will become clear to you too as you read on.) However, I was mindful of the fact that about 150 other people, almost all Progressives (because of the liberal enclaves in which I’ve always lived) would also be reading this back and forth.

Given the invisible audience I could reasonably assume I had, given that many people have told me that they sign on to Facebook solely to read what I post, I stuck to a very narrowly focused goal. I wanted to provide a reasonable intellectual foundation supporting the nuns’ position. I live in hope that Democrats who are beginning to feel uncomfortable about the administration’s decision to bully nuns will think about what I said. I was therefore worried that if I got too confrontational or started following red herrings with a die-hard ideologue, I’d lose my more important, albeit invisible and silent, audience.

The following is a non-verbatim rendering of my Facebook conversation. I’ve carefully retained the gist of what he and I said, but have changed the words to protect his privacy. He was a jerk, but even jerks deserve privacy. He wrote on my Facebook wall assuming that his identity wouldn’t be broadcast far and wide, and I have to honor that.

So, to set the stage, I linked, without comment, to USA Today’s editorial about the Obama regime’s overreach in its demand that nuns fund abortions and birth control. The following written dialogue ensued.

Him: They shouldn’t get any special treatment just because of their beliefs. None of the rest of us do.

Me: I’m not clear what you mean about “special treatment.” This is the first law ever that’s forced religious organizations and people to fund something that’s doctrinally prohibited.

Him: I don’t get why, just because they’re religious Christians attacking birth control, their beliefs trump other strongly held religious beliefs.

Me: I’m still confused. What are some examples of the government forcing people to act in opposition to strongly held religious beliefs or to fund others to commit those same types of acts?

Him: Okay. It’s not fair that religious organizations are tax exempt, which means I have to pay more taxes, essentially funding them. Lots of states won’t allow gay marriage because these tax-exempt churches have campaigned against it. Also, just because the Hobby Lobby owners don’t like birth control, they refuse to provide it to their employees.

Me: Given how political churches have gotten, you’re right about doing away with those tax breaks. [When I wrote those words, I was actually thinking about how political Leftist churches have gotten, but the point is the same.] Still, your other examples seem to me to miss the point. The editorial is talking about the fact that the government is using its taxing authority to force religious groups or individuals (or business owners) to engage in or fund activities that are antithetical to core belief systems. As far as I can tell, that runs directly counter to the 1st Amendment’s promise that the government cannot interfere with Americans’ freedom of worship.

Him: You’re trying to pick and choose your arguments. Religious people aren’t trying to defund that military. After all, don’t a lot of religions prohibit killing?

Me: [I made the decision here to ignore the red herring about religions and killing.] Your argument ignores the Constitution, which expressly contemplates a military as a core government function. There is a way to change that so as to allow conscientious objectors to refuse to pay taxes designated for the military, but you’d need a constitutional amendment. Unlike funding a standing army as part of the government, though, there’s nothing in the Constitution that mandates that private citizens are entitled to contraception and the morning-after pill, or that other citizens must pay for those services. That means the people and groups opposed to the ACA mandate have the stronger constitutional argument.

Him: The Constitution is irrelevant to this. What enrages me is that powerful people use religion to manipulate and control other people.

Me: I’m confused again. The nuns aren’t manipulating or controlling anyone. They’re asking that the government refrain from manipulating and controlling them by forcing them to pay for something that their religion prohibits. The Church has been opposing abortion and birth control for thousands of years, while the ACA’s demand that all Americans pay for all other Americans’ birth control and morning after pills is just four years old. Isn’t it unreasonable to ask the Catholic church to give up two thousand years of faith just because of the ACA, especially when the church as the 1st Amendment on its side?

Him: It’s obvious that the church never cares about death and suffering until it suits them. At that point, nothing stops the church.

Me: You’re entitled to your opinions about the Church, but it seems to me that, no matter how you look at it, the constitutional edge on this question lies with the Little Sisters and with Hobby Lobby.

At which point he gave up.

My point isn’t that I made the best arguments in the world. I know I didn’t. I also know, as I stated before, that I let a lot of his mean-spirited or uninformed statements go by without comment. Looking at what I said, though, I feel that I succeeded in my initial goal, which was to appear reasonable and to present to passive onlookers solid arguments that might give them food for thought if they dislike seeing the President beat up nuns.

If this is accurate, it’s very revealing about Obamacare’s true goals

Obamacare error 404Earl forwarded me the following email, with the same caveat I’m giving you:  I do not know if the data is accurate — and I’m not going to check.  As with previous emails, I’m passing it along as is in regard to the facts.  Of course, should you investigate these facts, or have first-hand knowledge about them, I’d be delighted if you’d share your information with us.

What Obama-Care is Really About?!

I’m a 54 year old consulting engineer and make between $60,000 and $125,000 per year, depending on how hard I work and whether or not there are work projects out there for me.

My girlfriend is 61 and makes about $18,000 per year, working as a part-time mail clerk.

For me, making $60,000 a year, under Obama Care, the cheapest, lowest grade policy I can buy, which also happens to impose a $5,000 deductible, costs $482 per month.

For my girlfriend, the same exact policy, same deductible, costs $1 per month. That’s right, $1 per month. I’m not making this up.

Don’t believe me? Just go to www.coveredca.gov , the Obama Care website for California and enter the parameters I’ve mentioned above and see for yourself. By the way, my zip code is 93940. You’ll need to enter that.

So OK, clearly Obama Care is a scheme that involves putting the cost burden of healthcare onto the middle and upper-income wage earners. But there’s a lot more to it. Stick with me.

And before I make my next points, I’d like you to think about something:

I live in Monterey County, in Central California. We have a large land mass but just 426,000 residents – about the population of Colorado Springs or the city of Omaha.

But we do have a large Hispanic population, including a large number of illegal aliens, and to serve this group we have Natividad Medical Center, a massive, Federally subsidized county medical complex that takes up an area about one-third the size of the Chrysler Corporation automobile assembly plant in Belvedere, Illinois (see Google Earth View). Natividad has state-of-the-art operating rooms, Computer Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging, fully equipped, 24 hour emergency room, and much more. If you have no insurance, if you’ve been in a drive-by shooting or have overdosed on crack cocaine, this is where you go. And it’s essentially free, because almost everyone who ends up in the ER is uninsured.

Last year, 2,735 babies were born at Natividad. 32% of these were born to out-of-wedlock teenage mothers, 93% of which were Hispanic. Less than 20% could demonstrate proof of citizenship, and 71% listed their native language as Spanish. Of these 876 births, only 40 were covered under [any kind of] private health insurance. The taxpayers paid for the other 836. And in case you were wondering about the entire population – all 2,735 births – less than 24% involved insured coverage or even partial payment on behalf of the patient to the hospital in exchange for services. Keep this in mind as we move forward.

Now consider this:

If I want to upgrade my policy to a low-deductible premium policy, such as what I had with my last employer, my cost is $886 per month. But my girlfriend can upgrade her policy to the very same level, for just $4 per month. That’s right, $4 per month. $48 per year for a zero-deductible, premium healthcare policy – the kind of thing you get when you work at IBM (except of course, IBM employees pay an average of $170 per month out of pocket for their coverage).

I mean, it’s bad enough that I will be forced to subsidize the Obama Care scheme in the first place. But even if I agreed with the basic scheme, which of course I do not, I would never agree to subsidize premium policies. If I have to pay $482 a month for a budget policy, I sure as hell do not want the guy I’m subsidizing to get a better policy, for less that 1% of what I have to fork out each month for a low-end policy.

Why must I pay $482 per month for something the other guy gets for a dollar? And why should the other guy get to buy an $886 policy for $4 a month? Think about this: I have to pay $10,632 a year for the same thing that the other guy can get for $48. $10,000 of net income is 60 days of full time work as an engineer. $48 is something I could pay for collecting aluminum cans and plastic bottles, one day a month.

Are you with me on this? Are you starting to get an idea what Obama-Care is really about?

Obama Care is not about dealing with inequities in the healthcare system. That’s just the cover story. The real story is that it is a massive, political power grab. Do you think anyone who can insure himself with a premium policy for $4 a month will vote for anyone but the political party that provides him such a deal? Obama Care is about enabling, subsidizing, and expanding the Left’s political power base, at taxpayer expense. Why would I vote for anyone but a Democrat if I can have babies for $4 a month? For that matter, why would I go to college or strive for a better job or income if it means I have to pay real money for healthcare coverage? Heck, why study engineering when I can be a schlep for $20K per year and buy a new F-150 with all the money I’m saving?

And think about those $4-a-month babies – think in terms of propagation models. Think of just how many babies will be born to irresponsible, under-educated mothers. Will we get a new crop of brain surgeons and particle physicists from the dollar baby club, or will we need more cops, criminal courts and prisons? One thing you can be certain of: At $4 a month, they’ll multiply, and multiply, and multiply. And not one of them will vote Republican.

Obama-Care: It’s all about political power.

Now, do you see where we are going?

Anti-Staples petition reveals the usual deficient Leftist logic

Obamacare error 404From Obamacare’s inception, its opponents warned that, as written, it would spell the death of the full-time worker in America.  By forcing employers to buy much more expensive insurance than before and, simultaneously, by saying that they need not insure employees working 30 hours a week or less, the law encouraged sensible employers, with an eye to its bottom line, to get rid of as many full-time employees as possible.

Now that Obamacare is becoming a reality, the same people who supported it are discovering what the law’s opponents already knew:  it’s a redistributive policy that drives insurance prices up, destroys doctor-patient relationships, and devastates the economy.  Smart people would attack these problems at the root, by demanding Obamacare’s repeal.  Democrats, of course, attack employers.  A perfect example of this is a petition I received from Change.org:

Staples: Don’t Cut Part-Time Hours Because of Obamacare!

Sue Whistleblower
Petition by
Sue Whistleblower
Framingham, United States

I am writing this petition as an anonymous person, as I fear my employer will persecute me if they knew my identity. My trust in the company I work for has been shaken, as they have enacted a new policy to reduce our hours, and I believe they are not telling the whole truth as to why.

I have worked as an Easy-Tech Representative at Staples, sold countless thousands of computers, protection plans, and services, and have made Staples far more money than they have paid me. I typically work 30-35 hours in a week, and have so for about 9 years now. I enjoy working at Staples, and the staff at my store have come to depend on me. I love my job. I recently got married, and am pregnant with my first child.

However, in mid-December, the company announced to the staff at my store: A new policy of limiting ALL part-time workers to 25 hours a week — with NO exceptions — for reasons of “Scheduling Flexibility”.

This left me heartbroken, as I knew 25 hours a week wouldn’t let me make ends meet, let alone have enough to start a family! I questioned my co-workers as to why they would make such a drastic change. Even the General Manager couldn’t get a straight answer out of the upper management. So I decided to do a little digging, and with the help of the internet, I came across what appears to be the answer: The Affordable Healthcare Act aka “Obamacare.”

I read about how countless other companies were slashing part-time hours to use a loophole in the law: You don’t have to pay for healthcare if your employees don’t work more than 30 hours a week. I also learned that the Aetna medical insurance plan that Staples provided didn’t count, as it didn’t provide enough coverage to meet the minimums.

I was stunned. The TRUE reason was obvious: Staples didn’t want to follow the law and provide better heathcare to its employees. Instead, its giving its part-time workers a de facto pay cut and saving money by using a loophole.

However, there is hope. Other major employers such as Darden Restaurants (owners of Olive Garden and Red Lobster) rescinded similar cuts after intense pressure. Our Government has also delayed the requirement until 2015, giving Congress time to sort things out. Corporations such as Starbucks and H-E-B have pledged NOT to reduce part time hours.

Will you join me in asking Staples to join companies like Starbucks and H-E-B to pledge NOT the cut part time employees’ hours?

Did you catch that wonderful logic?  “I read about how countless other companies were slashing part-time hours to use a loophole in the law: You don’t have to pay for healthcare if your employees don’t work more than 30 hours a week. I also learned that the Aetna medical insurance plan that Staples provided didn’t count, as it didn’t provide enough coverage to meet the minimums.  I was stunned. The TRUE reason was obvious: Staples didn’t want to follow the law and provide better heathcare to its employees. Instead, its giving its part-time workers a de facto pay cut and saving money by using a loophole.”

Let me sum that up:  The law is deficient because it creates a loophole whereby employers can save money by reducing full-time employees to part-time.  Staples is violating the law by taking advantage of this perfectly legal loophole.

Moreover, Sue Whistleblower has conceded that she was getting perfectly good healthcare already.  She nevertheless uses the Orwellian language that the law would force Staples to “provide better healthcare.”  What the law really did was give Staples permission to provide no healthcare at all.  After all, providing health care to the uninsured is what the exchanges are for.

In other words, Whistleblower got quality healthcare from her employer.  When the law made it too expensive for her employer to provide healthcare for everyone, the employer looked in the law for a way out.  The way out is for the employer to reduce employee hours and to dump the employee onto the mercies of the Obama exchanges.

Trader Joe’s explained all of this very well.

Found it on Facebook

Yup. This just about sums up the perversity that is Obamacare. (And no, I don’t know whether it’s true or not that it doesn’t cover hip replacements. The poster is good simply because it makes such a solid point about the inanity of mandatory — “free” — birth control coverage, which isn’t insurance at all but is, instead, pure redistribution.)

Obamacare joke

I’m getting the feeling that a lot of people are signed up for health care, but haven’t yet paid

kaiser_permanente_logoI’m fortunate (for at least one more year) because we get our Kaiser health insurance through my husband’s employer.  I like Kaiser and can highly recommend it for those of you who are searching for new insurance options in Norther California.

But I’m not writing this to shill for Kaiser.  Instead, I’d like to relay to you the important notice it has on its website:

If you enrolled in a Kaiser Permanente health plan through the Health Insurance Marketplace, thank you for choosing us as your partner in health.

If you applied for a January 1 effective date, you should receive a bill for your first month’s payment in the mail by January 11, if you haven’t received it already. In order for your coverage to be effective as of January 1, 2014, you must pay your first month’s premium no later than January 15, 2014.

Once you receive your bill, you can pay your premium online at kp.org/paypremium or by mail. (If by mail, payment must be postmarked on or before January 15, 2014.)

If you don’t receive your bill by January 11, 2014, please call us at 1-800-759-0584.

We look forward to a long and healthy relationship with you.

Welcome to Kaiser Permanente.

When I read that, it occurs to me that many have chosen, but few have paid.  Or maybe I’m just letting suspicion about the administration’s veracity when it reports sign-up numbers color my perceptions.

Found it on Facebook: Young California man automatically enrolled in Medi-Cal

Covered CaliforniaBecause California’s “Covered California” exchange seemed to get off to a good(ish) start, my Leftist friends on Facebook have been boasting that it proves that, if more states had agreed to have their own exchanges, the federal Obamacare exchange would have been a non-issue.  To which I now say “Not so fast, oh Leftist friends.”

Another one of my Facebook friends is a classic independent:  he’s a young man in his mid-20s, quite brilliant, with a computer degree from a top (way top) school.  Unsurprisingly, despite his youth, he has a very good job with an even better income.  That’s why I accept as absolute truth the message that this young man posted on his Facebook page.  (I’ve edited the message slightly, so as to protect his privacy.  The content is unchanged, but some of the vocabulary is different.)

I opened my mail today and discovered I’d been enrolled into Medi-Cal. I never applied for Medi-Cal, since I have an income and I have health insurance through a private insurance company.  The only thing that I did was to sign up for California’s exchange [Covered California].  I just wanted to compare prices, so I never completed an application.  Worse, now that I’m “on Medi-Cal,” I don’t know what to do to get off again.

This is your tax dollars at work.