More on the “Obamacare will let you quit your job” front
I happened to catch this segment last night. It shows how far liberals and the left are willing to go these days in admitting their devotion to the idea that people who decide not to work should be supported by others who do work. I guess that’s what the word “entitlement” has come to mean:
[ADDENDUM: (I added this in a comment to this post, but I’m going to highlight it here, too.)
This clip from the Hannity show is also strange (although hardly unusual) in that the premises of the discussion are never made clear (nor did Biden make them clear).
Are we talking only about single mothers? If a single mother can afford to quit her job to raise her children just because of Obamacare, where does her money come from? Is she independently wealthy, and if so, why did health insurance premiums hold her back before and keep her in her job? Or is the discussion only limited to single mothers with pre-existing conditions, a small group? And how are they to eat and clothe and house themselves and their children if they now quit their jobs? Is health insurance their only expense? Plus, even prior to Obamacare, people with pre-existing conditions could get health insurance on the individual market (not tied to employment) in most states, often subsidized or at least with premiums capped by law, and in some states at the same rates as other people without pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue” states, for example).
Plus, if the idea was to subsidize mothers (or fathers) to stay home with young children, why clothe that idea in the guise of Obamacare? Why not pass a bill to subsidize mothers or fathers to stay home with young children? Because, of course, it wouldn’t have been passed and could not be sustained financially. So is it “fair” to allow some to stay home at the expense of those who must work? What are the criteria to decide who the lucky ones will be?]
Of course, we, here, realize that this is a fatalistic utopian dream. The false premise is that there will always be someone working (and having enough) to be able to subsidize those that do not work (socialism can not exist in a vacuum). But it’s a death spiral.
As more people feed from the govt trough, the incentive for everyone else is to stop working (“why should I subsidize those bums?”). Eventually. as if it were a replay of Social Security, the net cash flow turns negative (more being paid out than revenue coming in) and the system collapses.
To me, this is mostly a good lesson in how easily the left can flip a discussion into one where they can label the right as being mean, hardhearted, hypocritical, etc., and, in this case specifically, as being anti-family. Too bad Hannity led off with Biden’s example of a working mother. He would have been better off starting with something like Nancy Pelosi’s “artists” who will be free to do their own thing because of ACA.
Apparently there’s no shame in being a “moocher”.
Ayn Rand had their number 50 years ago.
Lizzy:
But it’s so much more out in the open now. People used to be more secretive about sentiments like that. They used to think they had to hide them and mouth other platitudes about it being temporary or it being limited to people who were downtrodden or something like that.
These people are smooth crazy. Sean should see to it that these insightful “analysts” stay at home. They offer nothing to the discussion unless delusional blarney has value.
This wasn’t an episode of Candid Camera was it? I kept looking for Alan Funt.
That’s what’s so disturbing: the Left is now promoting the “moocher” lifestyle, and just as openly demonizing the producers as was done in Atlas Shrugged.
I see videos like this one, or that Obamaphone! lady, and immediately think of the book’s depiction of the unrepentant, entitled moochers given so much (such as someone else’s small business), who then squander it and claim “It’s not my fault!” I just never thought we’d actually have her book’s characters come to life here in America.
Thalpy,
A primary problem is that most of the talking heads, even the conservative ones, just aren’t very perceptive. They fail to grasp the underlying (false) premise (see my comment above @2:35). All one really has to do is ask how long it would take to arrive at the same fiscal destination we now see with Social Security — they don’t have that answer because they don’t see this as the same program (even though it is).
Lizzy,
Don’t forget Peggy Johnson in 2008 (Obama’s going to pay my mortgage and put gas in my car).
T:
This clip from the Hannity show is also strange (although hardly unusual) in that the premises of the discussion are never made clear (nor did Biden make them clear).
Are we talking only about single mothers? If a single mother can afford to quit her job to raise her children just because of Obamacare, where does her money come from? Is she independently wealthy, and if so, why did health insurance premiums hold her back before and keep her in her job? Or is the discussion only limited to single mothers with pre-existing conditions, a small group? And how are they to eat and clothe and house themselves and their children if they now quit their jobs? Is health insurance their only expense? Plus, even prior to Obamacare, people with pre-existing conditions could get health insurance on the individual market (not tied to employment) in most states, often subsidized or at least with premiums capped by law, and in some states at the same rates as other people without pre-existing conditions (“guaranteed issue” states, for example).
Plus, if the idea was to subsidize mothers (or fathers) to stay home with young children, why clothe that idea in the guise of Obamacare? Why not pass a bill to subsidize mothers or fathers to stay home with young children? Because, of course, it wouldn’t have been passed and could not be sustained financially. So is it “fair” to allow some to stay home at the expense of those who must work? What are the criteria to decide who the lucky ones will be?
Lizzy:
Also Julia, from Obama’s 2012 campaign.
Neoneocon,
“. . . if the idea was to subsidize mothers (or fathers) to stay home with young children, why clothe that idea in the guise of Obamacare?”
In addition to the point that you make (that Obamacare wouldn’t have otherwise passed) this is another example of the left’s propensity to simply use whatever argument seems to work at any given time contradiction or hypocrisy be damned. Feminism, which Progressives ardently support, has for years derided women who choose to be “stay at home moms” rather than pursue careers (remember Hillary Clinton’s baking cookies remark), yet it is the state’s duty and responsibility to support these moms who are suddenly held up as paragon’s of femininity.
This is why I keep harping on identifying and harpooning the underlying false premise. It’s impossible to argue with someone when they’re constantly changing their argument especially when a subsequent argument contradicts their initial position. I frequently watch Fox news’ The Five and am astounded. None of it’s participants are uneducated people, but it is amazing how often they let a Beckel or Williams expound based on an error or faulty logic without zeroing in on the false premise. They just don’t see it.
I say again, if one gets wrapped up in the details of the debate without challenging its erroneous basis, one is accepting the false premise and playing on the Progressive field. This is a losing proposition especially with adversaries who contradict themselves and then deny the contradiction.
In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
they are just pushing that marxist trope…
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. Voltaire
Their devotion to the idea that people who decide not to work should be supported by others who do work….
why is that so foreign..
that was the description of every wife before feminism and the state taking up that position
husband state has to get the money to make the ladies ‘s happy and have no responsibility regardless.
and why are the entitled entitled?
to take entitlement away from the white males, and distribute to the better people of the world.
heck.. its gotten so far, the ladies now argue that they are entitled to orgasms…
it was even a TED Subject!!
Undressing the Orgasm
Women’s Orgasms
Research suggests that men don’t believe that women are entitled to orgasms in a casual context — whereas they are somewhat more likely to believe that women deserve orgasms in ongoing romantic situations. And, perhaps, women are more comfortable communicating their needs in ongoing relationships because they also feel more entitled to pleasure when a relational context exists
men dont even think that way..
but women have a huge library of women talking for men in a convenient way to confirm what women think!!!
they are now working on the ORGASM GAP
in an article called the orgasm gap
to Quote:
“Out of nerves, insecurity, or a lack of entitlement, women often prioritize men’s pleasure too”
even more interesting is that term
over at psych forums about depression, we find women suffer deep depressoin from a lack fo entitlement..
and why? she is depressed and afraid of turning into those hated over entitled women..
we must treat people differently to achieve equal outcomes… so women who are equal, get to have perks to make them more equal
[edited for length by n-n]
A nation of bastards… that’ll really work.
Neither Biden nor the liberal talking heads are interested in whether Obamacare is actually fair or workable. All isms of the left involve, to one degree or another, a rejection of reality. And rejection of reality requires rejection of logic, reason and fact.
All on the left are operating out of the premise that there’s plenty of money, that the rich are simply stealing it. After all, we’re the richest nation in history, how can there be poverty? That premise leads to the conclusion that capitalism inherently facilitates the greedy unethically leveraging all of a society’s wealth into the hands of the greedy. Thus, the Wolf of Wall Street.
They’re ALL Marxists in that they’ve all accepted Marx’s originating premise.
And because they have, no matter how much they take from the rich, it will never be enough. And of course, ‘the rich’ is an arbitrary definition, so who is ‘rich’ will inevitably be defined lower and lower.
But once they’ve taken all the income and assets of the rich, they won’t believe there is no more to be had. They’ll be certain its lies, that the rich have hidden their wealth and that they must be forced to give it up. Once Marx’s premise is accepted, the corollary of which is that accountability lies outside the self, torture and murder of the rich follow as surely as the night follows the day.
And after they’ve killed all the rich, they’ll turn to the demagogue and live in the darkness they’ve created. Socialism leads to Communism which leads to Orwell’s 1984… it’s the nature of the beast.
The Democrats don’t know what they are talking about. An unmarried woman with children and no job would be put in Medicaid. There would be no insurance subsidy under the ACA.
In other words her situation is unaffected by the ACA. She would also be eligible for food stamps and rent subsidy and various other welfare benefits.
Slaves and serfs need jobs… what?
They are lucky to be living on the land of the Democrat masters!
Know your place.
Eventually. as if it were a replay of Social Security, the net cash flow turns negative (more being paid out than revenue coming in) and the system collapses.
The system never collapses for the rulers. Even if people must starve as in North Korea, the nomenklatura, the ruling class, will still have Obama’s specialty beef and temperature controlled house.
So long as the rulers are alive, at least.
Its ponzi schemes all the way down.
artfldgr:
Especially prior to feminism, the quid pro quo for marriage was that the wife made a contribution that had economic value, too, in terms of the work she did in the home and the raising of the children. Before urbanization got going, that contribution could often be quite immense (for example, on the farm, but not just limited to the farm). Even in urban settings, before modern conveniences were commonplace, both women and men often had very difficult lives filled with work for both of them. Only the most wealthy marriages fit any sort of pattern resembling what you are describing. It was not the norm.
A couple of these posts remind me of a conversation I had with my grandfather, who had been a Menshevik in the revolution.
He evidently had not heard of profit-sharing plans run by many employers for their employees (this was around 1980), but never mind.
He said that these employers ought to share their profits with their employees. He asked pointedly, what would it hurt the “boss” if he shared his profits with the workers? Wouldn’t it be right to share in the profits?
I said I have no problem at all with it, it’s a good idea, I’m in favor of it. But now: if the company has a bad year, can the boss take money back from the workers’ paychecks?
Silence.
That. Had. Never. Ever. Occured. To. Him.
— —
R.I.P., Grandpa.
Hillary, speaking at the University of Miami to days ago, UNDERLINED & emphasized the Democrat Koolaid of “follow your dream” with no worries about insurance. Never mind that whole American work ethic thingy, Kids…Just follow European social democracies sterling successes.
LOATHSOME. Despicable. Unforgivable.
I say again, if one gets wrapped up in the details of the debate without challenging its erroneous basis, one is accepting the false premise and playing on the Progressive field. This is a losing proposition especially with adversaries who contradict themselves and then deny the contradiction.
Amen, T! THAT drives me crazy.
And re Neo’s point about women’s work: I edited a book about women’s work before the Industrial Revolution (for which I thank the Lord). Here’s a sample:
–Spin raw cotton or flax into thread (remember spinning wheels?)
–Weave thread on a loom into cloth
–Cut and sew together the clothing for each member of the family: Two outfits each, one for workaday, one for “Sunday go to meeting”
–Use hog lard (your husband butchers the hog and you get some of the fat) and lye to make soap
–Tend that beehive and gather wax to make candles, by hand, on wicks you’ve woven out of that thread
–All the usual cleaning and cooking and childcare
–Tending to the vegetable garden
–Putting up all the food so it won’t spoil; canning, preserves
–Usually, killing the chicken for the night’s meal, and plucking, dressing, and roasting it
–Taking care of the chicken coop
–Helping your husband in the fields, especially if you don’t yet have children, or they’re too young to pitch in
You get the idea. Absolutely Everything was handmade, and both husband and wife worked like, well, field hands. Accounts of the sodbusters out west recount tales of women giving birth in the morning (try That on for size, Artful) and then hitting the fields in the afternoon for plowing.
BTW, the tinsmiths and peddlers were Real Popular. Can you imagine the thrill of buying something (with your carefully saved pennies) that you didn’t have to make from scratch?
Footnote: per the 1860 Census, the cash income for a yeoman farmer (family farm) in the South was $50. While an elderly female slave would run you $200; a skilled carpenter, ~$1200.
If you do the math, you will divine that slavery was very much a rich man’s game, and in fact, not quite 2% of white Southerners owned slaves.
Those 2% then dominated 98% of the South’s political, social, and intellectual policies. But the wars that were fought for those policies weren’t from the 2%. In fact, plantation class owners had draft exemptions although not all of them took it.
Beverly,
The further we get from the actual “hands on” daily grind of life, the more we lose our perspective.
As to the women’s work issue, I once had a discussion with a very educated man (a physician) who wondered why dresses became the culturally acceptable clothing for women (rather than pants). I pointed out to him that in most past societies even the better off had little access to multiple wardrobes (your two sets of clothing) and dresses were necessary to accommodate a woman whether she was pregnant or not; there was no such thing as a maternity wardrobe.
(Tangentially) this is a small revelation of one of the blessings that Western civilization and Western economies have provided; a heretofore unimaginable access to an absolute surfeit of goods across all economic levels which make our lives easier. . . you know, that same Western civ that leftists loath as the source of all global evil.
The Left is the source of evil. But without material wealth, their siren whisper would never have pulled in so many slaves that were once fully autonomous humans.
A fascinating and often funny TV series was on PBS, which y’all may remember, whereon they asked a modern family to live in painfully authentic old-time style: a Victorian family in London, e.g., and a few families on the American prairies.
What was amazing to me is how much they cheated. Like smuggling in modern shampoo, etc. Seems like you’d go whole-hog just to have an authentic experience. I don’t think any of the families lived like that for more than a couple of months.
“Victorian House”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdhqGUWGzjc
Very amusing.
Sean loves to oversimply the facts to try to support his incorrect interpretation. He assumes everyone that quits their job gets subsidized by Obamacara (supported on the backs of others).
The fact is that Obamacare does not offer healthcare subsidies to families with incomes below poverty level (this is likely the case for those he reports as not working at all). Those families with income below poverty level, must pay 100% of any health insurance premium that they obtained through Obamacare, or they must apply for Medicaid. And remember, Medicaid is administered through the States. So Sean can blame the support of poverty level families, on the State government where they reside, not Obama.
Also Sean doesn’t has an inibility to see a past today. He only sees a parent staying home to raise their children correctly, as a drain on the federal budget. He doesn’t realize that his own idea of a good parent, may emphasize the monetary safety of the children now, but is less able to develop better morality in the child. Unfortunately, these children will have more probability of draining the federal budget in their later years (ie. addiction treatments, incarceration, etc.)
As an example Sean would quickly agree with, think about the Kennedy Family. Very work and income oriented, as Sean would like to promote, but I think he would agree many of their children turned out morally dismal.