Quantcast

Comments about ‘Applications for jobless benefits rise to 339K’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Feb. 13 2014 8:17 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Thid Barker
Victor, ID

The Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare will decrease the incentive for Americans to work! Democrats are spinning this by telling us not having a job is "liberating". So why not have the headline read, "Applications for liberated people's benefits rise to 339K"? Democrats have it completely backward; its the taxpayers who need liberation and unemployed people pay no taxes!

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

Thid,

That's a willful misreading of the CBO report, which projects up to 2.5M workers who are only working for the health benefits will be able to leave the workforce. Given the high levels of unemployed and underemployed who would love to change places with people who don't need to work other than to maintain insurance coverage, that's not a bad thing.

Say No to BO
Mapleton, UT

Thid's got it right. We have lost something when not working is the goal. People who give up looking for work and "settle" for cheap insurance instead have lost the work ethic.
Obama is spinning his insurance plan as a way to break free from the man and finds 2.5 million permanently unemployed to be acceptable collateral damage.
If only those 100 million people on the employment sidelines could support themselves and pay health insurance premiums. But they can't. Obama's got record numbers of people on food stamps and others on disability.
Not to mention all those degreed young people pouring coffee for a living.
That's not my vision of America.

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

"We have lost something when not working is the goal. People who give up looking for work and "settle" for cheap insurance instead have lost the work ethic."

Nonsense. If people don't need to work other than for the insurance benefits, it's a gross over-generalization to chalk up 2.5M individual circumstances to a lost work ethic. We're talking about a senior citizen who wants to retire but can't because he'll lose insurance. Or a mother who wants to rely on her husband's income to stay home and raise her children, but can't afford the insurance hit. Or a woman who needs to provide for a sick family member but can't leave the workforce without losing the insurance necessary for treatment.

My vision of America is one where people have the ability to weigh their individual circumstances when it comes to the choice to work or not, and who aren't enslaved to the need to work solely to guarantee health insurance.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Reb; Please tell us when you met anyone who got ahead or achieved anything by not working! Who is going to pay for all these people who are living their dreams by not working? We all know the answer to that don't we? When will taxpayers say ENOUGH and vote these idiots out of office that think America can be great with more people on welfare, food stamps or health insurance subsidies?

Unreconstructed Reb
Chantilly, VA

"Please tell us when you met anyone who got ahead or achieved anything by not working!"

If getting ahead isn't the priority, who cares? For some people, individual achievement isn't tied to work. Good for them. The point is that they have the ability to choose based on tradeoffs instead of having to work for to provide healthcare. Isn't choice something conservatives always harp on? Why force someone who doesn't need income to do so simply to maintain health coverage?

Leaving aside the moral question of whether we should require one to work to have access to health insurance, I don't see what the conservative problem with this is. From an economic perspective, it creates a more efficient labor force by encouraging those who don't need the income to drop out of the workforce to be replaced by one of the many who seek full-time employment. That's classic Econ 101 taught by Adam Smith.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Look at the success on Indian Reservations.

Benefits in action.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments