Head Start versus ObamaCare
What happens when you artificially raise the cost of labor? Administrators of Head Start – generally portrayed as an “educational” program, although its educational benefits are virtually undetectable, so in practice it functions as an extremely inefficient taxpayer-supported day-care program – are discovering the answer to that question, and they don’t like it.
Although President Obama and his allies are fond of portraying Head Start as a victim of the austere horrors of sequestration, the Daily Caller interviewed program administrators at a national conference in Maryland recently, and they weren’t all that concerned about the sequester cuts, although they’re worried about more acute spending reductions to come in 2014. What’s killing them is ObamaCare.
In 2014, the impact of 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “is probably going to be a 9 percent [cost] increase, and significantly more the next year,” said Nancy Nordyk, director of the Head Start program in southern Oregon.
Rising healthcare costs will likely force Oregon to reduce some Head Start workers’ hours so they’re not eligible for the medical program, said Nordyk, who spoke to TheDC during a national Head Start conference held just outside D.C. in Maryland.
In one conference session on the pending healthcare bill, “some of the [managers for regional Head Start] organizations [said] ‘We don’t know what to do,’” said Elizabeth Steinberg, the CEO of Community Action Partnership in San Luis Obispo, Calif.
The worried managers come from “all over the country,” said Steinberg, whose Head Start program has 387 children.
Well, the standard response from snotty Obama apologists to businessmen who talk about cutting jobs and hours to cope with ObamaCare is to call them a bunch of greedy fatcats who don’t know how to run their own businesses. Let’s send a few guys from Slate to try that at the next Head Start convention and see how it goes.
To reduce Obamacare costs, Nordyk of Oregon will likely reduce full-time staffing, perhaps lay people off, and spend more hours on paperwork. “The bookkeeping information for it will be substantial because if you make a mistake, there’s quite a big [financial] penalty,” Nordyk said.
“I totally support full coverage… [but] it is a serious challenge” for the budget, she said,
“By January, we’re going to have increased costs” because of the health care law, said Steinberg, from San Luis Obispo. “But we but don’t know how much.”
Who wins when a $100 billion “education” boondoggle meets a failed trillion-dollar health care scheme in battle? We can only rest assured that taxpayers will lose, as usual.