Moochers and Takers Feel Entitled to a Profitable Business
Obama’s re-election has (allegedly) triggered massive layoffs across America.
Is this for real? Some of these business owners say that they are forced to lay people off or close shop because the ACA penalizes businesses that have over 50 employees and do not provide health insurance. That provision of the ACA takes effect only in January 2014. And are we supposed to be surprised that Research in Motion is laying people off?
But let’s suppose this is for real. What we are being told is that there are many businesses whose profits or even survival depend on not providing adequate health insurance to their employees.
Romney told us that no one dies because they lack health insurance. That claim happens to be false. But Romney is right that the these uninsured employees will “consume” healthcare. Maybe they have Medicaid or Medicare. Or maybe they will go to the ER. Or maybe they will go to a community-subsidized clinic of some kind. Or maybe they will raise money from the community for a sick or injured child. In short, the community provides for the healthcare that the employers don’t.
Such employers clearly profit from the fact that a significant part of their employees’ expenses is paid by the taxpayer (and, to a much lesser extent, by private charities). That is not a situation of the employer’s making. But when someone thinks that they are entitled to run a business that can make a profit only when other people pay for their employees’ basic needs—I call that person a moocher and a taker.
Same goes for the whining coal mine owners:
Your business is profitable, in part, because everyone else pays for your pollution and for the results of global warming.