Beyond the House floor rhetoric over the "job killing" health care law, one potential problem identified by conservative thinkers is the "perverse" incentives for low-income workers through the law's insurance exchange subsidies. John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, told a Capitol Hill panel last week that the subsidies could push low-income workers to seek employment at companies that do not offer health insurance coverage. The thinking is that low-income employees stand to gain far more in savings through government subsidies on the exchanges than with the tax-free premium contributions they'd get if they stay on employer-sponsored coverage.
The health care law covers a certain amount of individuals and families' premiums and medical costs on the health insurance exchanges, provided they make 400 percent of the federal poverty line or less and are not offered employer-sponsored health insurance that is comprehensive and affordable.
Do you think the law's current schedule of subsidies will have to be reworked to avoid a movement of low-income workers to employers without health insurance? Will this make the health care law more expensive than estimated?