City Journal Winter 2016

Current Issue:

Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Joel Zinberg
The Obamacare Lock-Out Effect « Back to Story

View Comments (9)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.

Showing 9 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
ObamaCare is horribly destructive to job creation at the low end. I advise startups and early-stage IT companies. Not a single founder intends to let his enterprise get above 50 employees. One of the techniques they will use is to outsource to an offshore labor pool rather than to hire domestic workers.

It matters not that the 50 employee limit has been raised to 100. These entrepreneurs know that unless they can jump up in size they had better not enter this Zone of Waiver, lest it become a very costly entrapment.

I am so sorry for people with low-valued skills. Full time jobs at this end of the value scale are going to all but disappear. The only jobs available will be part time with no benefits. To make ends meet, people will be forced to hold multiple part-time jobs. They will work more hours per week than previously, and have a lower standard of living due to much higher commute costs.

Thanks libs! Your long awaited socialist Utopia sucks for the people you claimed to care about most.
"These people will not gain new economic freedom. On the contrary, they will be “locked out” from moving to a better job that might raise their income but jeopardize their subsidized health care...."

Poor argument. It assumes such people would WANT a "better" job...or ANY job, since hopping on the FREE STUFF TRAIN means getting a more and more luxurious "someone else's" expense.
Elmendorf said that hundreds of thousands of women with children were going to cut back from full time jobs. This is going to happen so they could spend more time raising their children.

Obamacare does three things: insurance reform with required pay-out ratios, elimination of the "phony referral" systems particularly where chronic care patients are victimized, and expansion of Medicaid.

Also, the assertion that working poor getting subsidies for health care will somehow "lock" anyone in or out of anything beggars reason. Possibly that's why this conclusion is stated with no logical support.

Anyone going to a higher paying job will be getting more income by a ratio of 5:1 over what can be lost in subsidies. 5:1. Nobody turns down a raise that gives a 5:1 benefit.

Please, apply arithmetic.
Mr. Nail,
I really hope you don't think economists are "professionals" in the same sense of the word as are doctors. Medicine is, in varying parts, an art and a science. There is, however, no science in economics, notwithstanding what its practitioners may say. The good doctor is probably in a better position to make statements re economics than are many so-called "trained economists".
James - Longdrycree Ranch February 25, 2014 at 11:37 AM
I spoke with a woman who has knowledge of outlying districts from Russia's main cities. In those out of the way places, one may observe the harsh reality of Obamacare as fashioned by Doctrs Berwick, Emmanuel, and the MIt joker.
Old age if 50 to 60, and there is no Rx and help for those who old and used up by the "system."
Obamacare is inspired by the great collective experiments of Russia and British Labour party and other hubs of neglect in Europe.
I have no confidence in any system that herds millions into lines that have no end other than the mortuary.
How cruel, how uncaring, how Utopian. The Chinese harvest organs, and I am sure the Obamacare will finally conclude there is money to be made from American organ harvest. After all, life to Obama is a commodity.
Just remember, ObamaCare is not supposed to work. It's merely a stepping stone to single payer.
More casualties of the train wreck.
To John Nail,
If the federal government stopped mandating being middle manager for people's health insurance, it would be much more affordable. But as long as the federal government continues to interfere as has been doing ever since the 1930's it will become more and more chaotic and expensive and ineffcient. The more the federal government gets involved in monetary policy or social policy where there is no federal involvement not required by the US Constitution the worse it gets. My mother grew up in the 1930's (the depression) and there was no such thing as health insurance. If they could not pay for it in one lump sum they made payments on it until it was paid off. In essence there was no interference in the doctor/patient relationship. You can still negotiate with a doctor to pay cash for services rendered and leave insurance out of the picture and it will be much cheaper. Talk to your doctor, see what he says. You might be very surprised.
Doctor, the nicest thing I can say is focus on practicing medicine and leave economics to,the real professionals.

Your article sounds like your expertise came from staying in a Holiday Inn Express last nite.