A thoughtful expression of a libertarian ideal

Published on 24 October 2012 Hits: 11631

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - William Shakespeare

A rose is but a rose. At least that's what everybody says...and they're right. You can try to try to say something is completely different than it is, but ultimately things come down to "it is what it is". A rose is a rose just like a catastrophe is a catastrophe even when some try to redefine it as an "achievement".

What has me thinking about this is that I am wondering just when Obama and the Dems are going to finally tell their strongest constituencies -- and poorest wage earners among us -- that the "rose" they've been claiming to have given the working poor (disproportionally minorities) is something quite different indeed. When will they come clean and finally let the working poor (disproportionally minorities) in on the gag? The "gag" being that they knowingly set them up for financial devastation in the mandatory health insurance law (otherwise known as Obamacare). Instead of a rose, Obama and others on the left have done nothing less than level the poor with a crippling blow. You see, truth be told, the working poor (disproportionally minorities) will be financially crushed by the easily foreseeable downstream effects of the law.

To see this only takes a minimum of foresight. All one has to do is simply ask "Who is not providing insurance and what will they do when they are required to?"

A vast majority of employers not providing insurance are in price sensitive and cost conscious industries meaning if one segment of cost goes up for them, that extra expense has to be recovered somewhere else. As employers supply insurance to those who they haven't previously covered, they will look to recover the cost of either adding insurance coverage or (more likely) paying the $2000 tax for not supplying insurance. The most likely avenue for cost recovery is for them to reduce going wages to make up for the cost of the insurance (and/or $2000 tax). That keeps their labor costs in line. To be sure the working poor (disproportionally minorities) won't overtly be asked to take a pay-cut, instead they will be laid off and their replacements will be hired at a lower wage...$2000 less a year. Once those working poor (disproportionally minorities) who were laid off are rehired -- at the same lower wage by another company doing the same thing -- they will end up making significantly less money meaning there will be even less money for them to try to put food in their already bare pantries. They won't be able to buy their babies new clothes and they'll be starving, but hey...at least they'll be able to take care of that pesky rash!

For companies unable to reduce wages because they pay minimum wage, they will be forced to raise prices. Now, the rich shop at Sachs, the poor (disproportionally minorities) shop at the Dollar Store. Guess which store will be forced to raise their prices. It will be the store where the poor shop (disproportionally minorities), meaning -- again -- that the poor (disproportionally minorities) will have less food in their already bare pantries because they will almost exclusively suffer the price inflation caused by Obamacare.

Question: If you know consequences are going to happen, can you really call them "unintended"?

Add to that the fact that a leading driver of income mobility for the poor (disproportionally minorities) is the creation of small businesses. Those businesses' success -- even mild success -- pull the poor (disproportionally minorities) out of poverty. By adding major additional costs to small business creation and growth, far fewer poor (disproportionally minorities) will be able to afford to start businesses -- while the rich will still be able to -- again meaning the poor (disproportionally minorities) will have their path out of poverty essentially cut off. Again, the working poor (disproportionally minorities) get screwed by the foreseeable consequences of this law. In this case it even makes it easier for the rich (disproportionally whites) to get ahead as their own small businesses will face less competition. It actually exacerbates class caste.

All of this was easily foreseeable and known to Democrats, including Obama from the earliest stages of creating the law -- regardless of their public position of "looking out for minorities and the working poor" -- yet they marched on and now trumpet this legislation as a shining "achievement". I'm at a loss, but I guess the "achievement" is stabbing the working poor (disproportionally minorities) in the back and having them like it because that's the only one I see. What the Obama administration and Democrats have really "achieved" is throwing the working poor and minorities under a crushing financial bus while smiling and patting them on the back. And they're the empathetic ones???

It's funny, I've brought this to several liberals' attention and they fantastically find a way to rationalize ignoring this 800-pound gorilla in the room. It's like it somehow doesn't exist to them because the person pointing it out is a conservative. The most common response has been for them to tell me that "it's easy for you to say", insinuating that the working poor will love this. That's ridiculous.

If the working poor wanted to prioritize buying health insurance above putting food in their bare pantries, then they would already be doing it. They could easily be buying insurance now...if that's what they prioritized. All they would have to do is to stop buying food for their pantries, but they don't because they prioritize food, rent and clothing above insurance. All this law does is it takes that decision away from them. It forces them to prioritize purchasing insurance above paying rent, clothing their child, putting food in their pantries, all without their assent. Deny it all you like liberals, but there is still an 800-pound gorilla in the room...sitting on the working poor's (disproportionally minorities) laps...crushing them.

What may be even more ridiculous is that a vast majority of them don't even need the insurance that is going to cost them so much. You see the working poor (disproportionally minorities) are primarily in a group affectionately labeled the "Young Invincibles". There is a reason they go by that moniker. They don't get sick or at least very, very, very few do. Most require only a couple hundred dollars of health care a year. A physical and a lollipop and it's going to cost them thousands in lost salary and higher prices. Nice job Dems.

Say all you want about the Republicans (I'm not one of them), but at least they're not glad-handing minorities and the poor while pushing them over a fiscal cliff like the Dems are. Neither are they making the same overt efforts as the Dems to keep minorities and the working poor wallowing in poverty. Doesn't one have to question why it is they keep doing that?

Get alerted of each new post!

Simply enter your valid email address, submit it and Feedburner will inform you whenever "Then Atlas Spoke" has a new blog post ready to read.