While perusing the Weekly Standard’s website, I came across a blog that pointed me to a Wall Street Journal piece about the reality of Obamacare, as described in the WSJ by David Gamage, an assistant professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley. His WSJ piece identifies him this way: “During the academic years 2010-12, he worked at the Treasury Department on the implementation of the tax provisions of health-care reform.”
Here is what Gamage, who by the way supports the law, says awaits the American public.
Consider a low-income American supporting a family of four deciding whether to take a part-time job that pays $36,000 a year or a full-time job that pays $42,000 a year. According to my research, accepting the higher-paying job could result in the family losing over $10,000 a year in health-care subsidies.
Moreover, by switching low-income employees to part-time positions, rather than offering them health insurance, an employer will be able to save over $3,000 a year by avoiding ObamaCare’s employer-mandate penalties. Without further reforms, many employers and employees will jointly benefit if employers make low-income employees part-timers rather than offering them health insurance. The losers will be taxpayers, who will need to fund the subsidies that these employees will be eligible for.
We should not be surprised. Reformers have pointed this out time and time again. Now, unless this monstrosity is repealed, the scenario above is just one of the many consequences we will be forced by government to endure.
