This morning I caught an editorial from the New York Times which just blew my mind. In light of the news that the CBO has identified 2.5 million full time jobs that will go away as a result of Obamacare, the paper of record let everyone know that this is working as intended.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade. That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law.
The new law will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage. Workers can seek positions they are most qualified for and will no longer need to feel locked into a job they don’t like because they need insurance for themselves or their families. It is hard to view this as any kind of disaster.
Without forcing you to sit through an entire article of spin, I'll summarize: There are 2.5 million people in America who previously held on to jobs for insurance related reasons or worked extra hours to qualify for insurance when in fact, they don't want to and now thanks to Obamacare, won't have to.
As Nancy Pelosi noted in 2010, "Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance or that people could start a business and be entrepreneurial and take risk, but not job loss because of a child with asthma or someone in the family is bipolar—you name it, any condition—is job locking."
Isn't that nice and tidy?
Obamacare: If you don’t want a job, you can’t keep it!
— Ben Howe (@BenHowe) February 5, 2014
The problem is that, as is the case when they scream at us over our arguments to end extended unemployment benefits, this "good news" misses the point entirely while at the same time acknowledging an uncomfortable truth about how human beings sometimes operate.
The effect on productivity alone should be concerning but let's just look at the one simple fact that they are openly admitting: government dependence is good.
Essentially what the democrats and the New York Times are saying is that people having the ability to not be concerned about or feel the need to work in order to support the necessities of life is a positive move. What they don't acknowledge is that someone still has to work for that, just not the person receiving the benefit. This is how welfare, wealth distribution and government dependence work. And the New York Times, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are cheerleading the fact that we're fostering that culture.
Welcome to fundamental change, America.