The San Francisco Gate promoted gaming the system over the weekend. Columnist Kathleen Pender described how those under California’s Obamacare exchanges can benefit financially by working less to get major subsidies under the exchange:
People whose 2014 income will be a little too high to get subsidized health insurance from Covered California next year should start thinking now about ways to lower it to increase their odds of getting the valuable tax subsidy.
“If they can adjust (their income), they should,” says Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow with the Kaiser Family Foundation. “It’s not cheating, it’s allowed.”
The column encourages lowballing your own income to qualify for subsidies. One example explains how an older couple could earn less to get more:
Proctor estimates that her 2014 household income will be $64,000, about $2,000 over the limit. If she and her husband could reduce their income to $62,000, they could get a tax subsidy of $1,207 per month to offset the purchase of health care on Covered California.
In other words, Covered California is incentivizing this couple to curtail their contribution the economic pie. Since their subsidies must be covered by tax increases elsewhere, this is a double hit to the economy.
Federally, Obamacare is incentivizing the government to add more debt – as people take advantage of the benefits of “free” money. By making less (adding less to the economic pie and the federal tax base), Proctor and her husband will take more money from the federal government, which is made up by other taxpayers. Furthermore, the debt added because of their decision – and the decision of many other Americans – will hurt the economy’s growth.
It’s a triple hit to the economy.
PJMedia succinctly outlines the big-picture consequences:
This, right here, is the toxic essence of the welfare state. It’s already been proven over and over that for the lower classes, welfare incentivizes permanent dependence: Since one gets more money receiving a raft of federal entitlements than one would get earning a salary at a low-level job, it’s a rational economic decision to remain unemployed, on purpose. Which millions of Americans do, generation after generation, creating a permanent underclass that only consumes the common treasury without ever contributing anything to it.
What Obamacare does, as demonstrated by this eye-opening article, is bring the same economic disincentive to the middle class: It is now a rational economic decision for the average American to earn less money. And to earn less you must work less, and when you work less, you contribute less to the common good.
This is why the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare. Lower taxes, less debt, more economic gain for people across all income brackets, and a healthy sense of community are goals for every income bracket. Nothing good comes from making people dependent on government, which Obamacare promises en masse.