ObamaCare Sets New Standard for "Poor" in America

|
Posted: Aug 12, 2009 8:22 PM
The Wall Street Journal ran an interesting piece today, examining how ObamaCare proposals will grant government subsidies to individuals you wouldn't normally think would qualify.  The Journal reports:

Most versions of the proposed overhaul floating around Capitol Hill, including the one endorsed by Mr. Obama, define “low-income” people who would be eligible for government subsidies to buy health insurance as including those with incomes almost twice the median household income.

Under the proposal, slightly more than one in five of the nation’s households – through the redistribution of income in taxes they pay – could be subsidizing the health insurance of the other four in five families, even though many of those who would receive government largess have incomes well above the national average.

The government, under Mr. Obama’s overhaul, would help buy health insurance for families of four that earn up to $88,000 a year.

To put this in perspective, the median household income in the U.S. – the point at which half the households make more and half earn less – is roughly $50,000.

In other words, under ObamaCare, half of America's families would receive subsidies from the federal government to pay for health care.   An annual income of $88,000 is 60% higher than the national median income, four times the level of poverty for a family of four.  If the president is so confident the new plan will save money, why will people with such high earnings levels need government subsidies? 

Where's that money going to come from?  If the government confiscated all the earnings of America's richest individuals, we still wouldn't have enough to pay for these subsidies.  Obama undoubtedly knows that if an $88,000 income level is the cut-off for government subsidy, 80% of the country's population would qualify. 

Since this plan doesn't seem to be based in logic, is it just a sour attempt to garner political support?