By MARSHA MERCER
The latest skirmish in the Capitol over the Affordable Care
Act – the false claim that it would force 2.3 million people onto the jobless
rolls -- reveals more about the sorry state of our politics than a search for
sound policy. That’s a shame.
Most congressional Democrats, spooked by the botched rollout
of insurance exchanges, distance themselves from the unpopular law. They cling
to the rosy view that one day it will be as popular as Medicare – and can only hope
voters warm to it by the midterm elections.
Congressional Republicans have such animosity for Obamacare
that they look for the dark side of every study or report. They disavow the
very policies they once championed.
A few years ago, Republicans abandoned support for the individual
mandate – the requirement that everyone have health insurance – even though it
was a Republican idea, endorsed by the conservative Heritage Foundation. It
became a horrible idea once President Barack Obama adopted it.
This week, the health law’s haters were quick to tweet that
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office had projected that the law would
cost 2.3 million jobs over 10 years. The report said no such thing.
The study, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,”
does estimate an employment reduction of 2.3 million people by 2024 -- due not to
employer layoffs but to employee choice.
Some Americans have long been tied to jobs because they
couldn’t obtain or couldn’t afford health insurance on their own, a phenomenon
called “job lock.” Now, the near-universal availability of health insurance
under the law means no one has to stay in a job because of benefits. People
have options. They can quit, reduce their work
hours, retire early or go into business for themselves.
Being handed a pink slip is one thing, saying “take this job
and shove it” quite another, as Douglas Elmendorf, CBO director, explained Wednesday
at a hearing of the House Budget Committee:
“The reason that we don’t use the term `lost jobs’ is
because there is a critical difference between people who would like to work
and can’t find a job – or have a job that was lost for reasons beyond their
control – and people who choose not to work.
“If somebody comes up to you and says, ‘Well the boss said
I’m being laid off because we don’t have enough business to pay me,’ that
person feels bad about that and we sympathize with them…If somebody comes up to
you and says, `I’ve decided to retire or I’ve decided to stay home and spend
more time with my family or spend more time doing my hobby,’ they don’t feel
bad about it – they feel good about it. And we don’t sympathize. We say
congratulations,” Elmendorf said.
Job seekers
will snap up the jobs those people leave behind, he said, and the overall
unemployment rate is projected to decline.
Under the health law, low- and moderate-income people can
get immediate tax credits to pay for insurance. The tax credits phase out with
higher income and may provide a disincentive for some workers to put in more
hours, CBO says.
Critics claim that the law encourages slackers, and that’s terrible
policy. They didn’t always think so.
In 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain
proposed a health care plan that would have ended job lock. Heritage Foundation
analysts Robert E. Moffitt and Nina Owcharenko praised the plan.
“Individuals
would no longer feel obligated to stay with their employers simply because they
need to keep their employer-based insurance. If the worker lost a job, changed
jobs or retired early, he or she could buy an insurance policy and offset its
cost with the McCain health care tax credit,” they wrote.
In the Budget Committee hearing, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of
Maryland, the top Democrat on the committee, cited Heritage’s previous support.
“Well, the Affordable
Care Act does end that job lock. It allows Americans to choose to spend more
time with their family or pursue their dreams. And that is not a bad thing;
it's a good thing,” he said.
I agree.
Mobility in the workplace was good when McCain proposed it, and it’s good now.
©2014 Marsha
Mercer. All rights reserved.
It seems to me that anythiing that discourages one person to work while making another person pay his/her freight connot be good for the country or the people involved. This is one of the very few times I disagree with Ms Mercer who is almost always correct.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete