ObamaCare will cost Delta Airlines nearly $100 million next year.
Cato study: Welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states.
More than a third of House Republicans urged their leader Thursday to trigger a government shutdown rather than fund the implementation of ObamaCare.
Local governments are cutting hours over ObamaCare costs.
NPR: Despite promises by President Obama that people can keep the insurance they have once ObamaCare is in full effect, millions will have to upgrade to more expensive policies.
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more great content just like it.
Subscribe via RSS Feed
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
“ObamaCare will cost Delta Air Lines nearly $100 million next year.”
It will cost a lot of companies a lot of money. Who is going to pay for this? The consumers. Through higher prices, reduction in quality and/or loss of access.
“Local governments are cutting hours over ObamaCare costs.”
Obama is lucky the implementation is taking so long. Who would want to be in office when the full effects are felt?
They could always just expand welfare programs to hide the damage…
I think they will probably try to delay a lot of this until they are out of office.
As a colleague of mine pointed out, if this is such a great thing for the country, why would you delay its inception in any way?
“Cato study: Welfare pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states.”
Incredibly depressing. There has to be an incentive to better yourself.
Minimum-wage isn’t all that much… I don’t think that most people can survive on it.
Healthy people definitely can if they are willing to give up luxuries.
People with health problems need special targeted programs, not welfare.
It’s not necessarily the minimum wage that is the valuded need. Its the experience gained from working a little and getting that first reference
Definitely. People don’t spend their entire life on minimum wage, it is a transitory stage that helps them develop skills.
That number is for a single mother with 2 children.
I know there is the work disincentive effect of the welfare, but there are a lot of issues going on:
1. Single women with children are much more likely to be less educated and be facing the minimum wage payment for a lengthy period.
2. The minimum wage income, for this family, will hurt the children of this family. The welfare benefits is an attempt, at least, to uplift these children.
3. If you lower the welfare benefits so that, on the margin, you choose to work, the children are hurt, because the mother is leaving for large amounts of time. You will have to expand child care credits; hopefully to reputable locations where the children will be developmentally active.
4. Hopefully the change from ’95 to ’13 is, for many of the students (in inflation-adjusted terms) temporary due to the continued economic downswing. Permanent changes aren’t desirable either.
5. You can offset a lot of the work deterrents by changing welfare benefits to child care credits or the EITC; though higher welfare benefits do encourage less labor supply, this effect is swamped by the previous effects.
A Canadian study did show that providing support based on successful job search and acquisition has a temporary effect (though higher long-term income, based on what you earned during the program). More government involvement (weekly meetings, help with interviews and resumes) expands on this effect.
6. Ah yes. It is becoming more common knowledge that staying on welfare really hurts your chances of getting back in the labor market. Not only do your skills erode considerably, you become highly unattractive. That means that the effect in the Cato study may be over-stated a tad.
7. Several studies of AFDC (back in the 90′s) helped immensely provide for single mothers (Gruber, for example). It was a consumption-smoothing device. Reducing benefits by a $1 reduced consumption by about $0.51 (food was $0.37 of this).
That’s a heavy burden. Suggests that the alternatives aren’t great for this group.
All in all, welfare is important, but the incentive effects have been disastrous recently.
“More than a third of House Republicans urged their leader Thursday to trigger a government shutdown rather than fund the implementation of ObamaCare.”
ObamaCare is every bit as bad as they say. I support a little temporary pain to defund a permanent nightmare.
“NPR: Despite promises by President Obama that people can keep the insurance they have once ObamaCare is in full effect, millions will have to upgrade to more expensive policies.”
Wait… NPR reported this? Who twisted their arm?
You mean the government lied to us? This can’t be!!!
Proponents of ObamaCare are so enamored with the idea of universal coverage for the poor and sick that they cannot see the forest for the trees. The biggest problem with health care in this country is that its cost is too high. As a nation, we spend nearly 18% of GDP on medical care. How is requiring comprehensive coverage going to alleviate that problem? Obviously, it won’t — ObamaCare essentially requires people to spend more of our national income on medical care.
I think that you are right. Most ObamaCare supporters believe that universal coverage is a moral imperative, so results don’t matter. There is too much religion-like fanaticism in policy.
More than a third of House Republicans urged their leader Thursday to trigger a government shutdown rather than fund the implementation of ObamaCare
-What happens after the proposed shutdown?
Get Health Alerts by Email: