Obama Zombies: How the Obama Machine Brainwashed My Generation

  In reality, we have been handed a broken health-care policy, not by greed, not by selfish "profit-mongers" (I'm sure Erica works for free, eh?), but by selfish government bureaucrats who think they can devise a health-care scheme for 300 million Americans.

  The moral outrage is that young Americans are not paying for their own retirement, their own health care, but for that of others. Obama likes to talk about capping premiums that people will pay and subsidizing costs (with your money). But why doesn't he cap taxes? Why won't he cap regulation? People know best how to spend their own money.

  Shawn Tully, editor at large at Fortune magazine, identified freedoms lost under ObamaCare. Keep in mind that there's little freedom to begin with. Still, the Democrat plan doubles down on stupid.

  The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.20

  The Department of Health and Human Services will be able to define what types of coverage are offered in these "exchanges," including the mandates that are driving up state insurance markets, as we touched on. Connecticut, for instance, forces providers to cover hair transplants, hearing aids, and breast reconstruction. Now, I know people like Erica don't like to get into the "nuance" of the debate and just like to speak in "general" terms, but why on God's green earth should young people have to cover any of that? Moreover, how does federalizing such superfluous mandates ensure that prices will go down? The thing is, liberals don't care about cost. All their pet programs--all of them--are dead broke. Yet they spend away. In a free system we would get to choose our coverage. But in Obama's system a health commissioner would. Seriously.

  The Heritage Foundation points this out about ObamaCare:

  The Health Choices Commissioner will decide what services health insurance must cover, and under what conditions. These choice ("standards") will apply to both employer-sponsored insurance and insurance purchased through the Health Insurance Exchange, which will be operated by the Health Choices Administration. There will be no other legal way to buy health insurance. There will, however, be a "Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman" to provide you with "assistance" in "choosing a qualified health benefits plan in which to enroll"--from among the plan or plans the Commissioner has already chosen, of course.21

  I thought we fought a revolution to rid ourselves from kings.

  In any event, ObamaCare also adopts "community ratings," which, as you may remember, means that patients pay the same rate regardless of age or health status. This no doubt drastically harms young people, as our level of care is much less than older folks. In fact, insurance companies will be forbidden from charging older people more than twice what they charge young people. Normally, the ratio is 5 to 1, but now it's 2 to 1. It's a significant transfer of wealth from the young to old.

  As Tully points out, "So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000."

  If car insurance companies had to charge everyone the same regardless of driving history, what would happen? Would your car insurance decrease or increase? In fact, this brings up a necessary point that is missed in this whole debate: Why don't you watch your own health care? You see, there is a big difference between health care and medical care. Health-care management is up to individuals. It's all the essentials we learn as a kid: eating right, exercise, watch those trans fats, lots of greens, lots of fruits, get good rest, don't be stressed, etc. That's health care, and it is entirely your personal responsibility.

  If you have medical complications because of your diet, which consists of eating Wendy's every night of the week, then why should taxpayers have to pay for your bad choices? Is that harsh? Hell no! What's harsh is bankrupting a generation and not talking honestly about incentives and personal responsibility.

  Hey, kids, forgo the latest Jordans, forgo the flat-screen TV, forgo the vacations, forgo the nights eating out, forgo the blingbling, forgo the $120 cell phone plan. You don't need all the gizmos and gadgets. Grow up and rely on yourself for a change. Now, that's change we can believe in! If people are paying the costs themselves, they are their best prevention method. That's the real preventive cure. When the government controls costs, it will also allocate care. It's basic economics.

  Any piece of legislation that forces--yes, forces--young people to purchase insurance that bureaucrats deem acceptable will be a disaster. And if young people decide not to opt in, they will be taxed. Taxed for not buying into a government-devised health-care scheme! To put this in perspective, our founding fathers went ape on a single, minuscule tax on tea. It's true that young people are accurately called the "young invincibles" because, barring some catastrophic accident or illness, we rarely get sick. Even the liberal Kaiser Family Foundation, in a survey of young people, acknowledges that 95 percent of all young people report that they are in good or excellent health. Yes, 95 percent. Why would we want to install community-rating standards or extra mandates that would drive up the cost for virtually every young person in order to subsidize older folks? When John Fund of the Wall Street Journal pointed this out in an op-ed, that Obama's disastrous health-care plans mean "lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young," Rock the Vote--stalwart defenders of liberalism, not the youth--responded thus:

  Mr. Fund believes young people will face higher costs if reform passes and cites as evidence proposals that would limit insurance companies to a 2-to-1 ratio on age-based health care premiums--that is, insurance companies would only be able to charge older people double what they charge younger people for the same coverage. While the 2-to-1 ratio is designed to keep costs down for older people, Mr. Fund believes that will come at the expense of young people.

  He ignores two critical facts. First, under proposals currently being considered in Congress, coverage would be made more affordable because premiums for young people would be based on their income levels. Second, premium increases would be addressed by the government in the form of credits. As such, young people's costs will remain low because of income-based premiums and subsidies to make up cost differences--not because insurance companies have free rein to discriminate against older people.22

  Shall we remember how this group flacking for Obama posits itself as nonpartisan? Regardless, Rock the Vote is run by idiots, and here's why. Notice that they don't rebut Fund's correct point that premiums would increase on the new mandated ratio, but they instead defend the new and costly mandates by saying that the government will step in and provide "credits," which are basically welfare payments, to people who can't afford coverage. Again, it's the liberal two-step in action! The government's mandates, by Rock the Vote's own admission, would drive up the cost of coverage. But that's fine, because good ol' Uncle Sam will step in to subsidize the medical bill (with your tax dollars).

  Health-care costs are high because of government intervention, yet the liberal machine advocates more government policies that will increase the price of admission.

  The fact is that 70 percent of young people have insurance, and out of that 30 percent who do not have insurance, 94 percent report being in good and excellent health, compared to the 95 percent of all young adults--uninsured and insured--who claim that same health status.23 Yes, Zombies, the drop-off is only 1 percent. There is no crisis. There is no emergency. Yet, as we've seen, the political left wants costly mandates that drive up the price for families and young people.

  Obama and his liberal cohorts like to bemoan the fact that the United States is the only industrialized nation that doesn't en- sure health care for every single citizen. They view this as a detriment. It's a great fluffy, substance-free talking point. But it misses the entire scope of what America is. The very core of our being is that we trust
people over politicians. It's on that principle that America has been the center of opportunity. It is a testament to our Constitution and our self-reliance that the government has not (yet) taken over our health-care system. It's to be celebrated and admired.

  7

  The Economic Igor

  The Five Economic Lies Liberals Tell and Sell to Obama Zombies in Training

  In the left's magical land, the laws of supply and demand don't exist. They think that they can just wave a wand and give everyone more money without any consequences. It doesn't work like that. Liberals portray themselves as helping the little guy, helping families, but in reality, liberals help the little guy all right . . . they help him stay little!

  The liberal machine tells at least five economic whoppers to hoodwink Obama Zombies in training. So let's start with one of the biggies: the Virtues of the Minimum Wage.

  Liberal support for having and raising the minimum wage is ubiquitous. As of July 2009, the minimum wage--varying in each state--is federally at $7.25. During the campaign trail, Obama promised to raise the minimum wage even further, to $9.50 an hour, which means that in the last five years, the minimum wage would have skyrocketed 85 percent.1 That's all a cause of celebration for the left. They view it as helping "working families" and the "poor." For the late senator Ted Kennedy, it was one of his trademark issues. He famously erupted at conservatives in the Senate for trying to block increases to the minimum wage; Kennedy accused them of tampering with the economic prosperity of others.

  And as Politico noted, the minimum-wage issue is specifically messaged toward younger people: "Through events on the Hill, visits to college campuses and regional conference calls to college newspaper editors, majority leaders in Congress are working to convince this potentially powerful voting bloc that they're delivering on a youth agenda."2 Liberals on Capitol Hill emphasize the increase in the minimum wage as part of their youth outreach, Politico added, because it "disproportionately affects young workers." It is a message that Obama continues during his failed presidency. At a Labor Day speech in Cincinnati, he praised much of the "labor movement" for, among other things, the minimum wage, which makes our "economy the envy of the world."3

  The Zombie is especially susceptible to the minimum-wage talk. It's all emotion and no substance. The Zombie thinks to himself, If we only raise the minimum wage higher for workers who are trying to feed their family of six, then we can increase their standard of living. This family will now have bread to feed themselves!

  First off, most people on the minimum wage are young, usually teenagers. The families of four or six are statistically the exception. But what these do-gooders fail to grasp is that artificially raising wages comes at a cost to the worker, and that cost, especially during hard economic times, is getting fired. Raising the minimum wage hurts low-income workers, forfeits jobs, and negatively impacts the American economy. Minimum-wage jobs are entry points in the job market. Even though they try, liberals can't escape basic economics: There's an inverse relationship between price and demand, which means that the more expensive it is to employ workers, the fewer of them there will be. You may say, "But Jason, the minimum wage will add hundreds more dollars a month to a worker's salary, which translates into thousands more per year. It's fairness, Jason! Why are you against fairness?!"

  Here's my response: If the minimum wage at $7.25 is such a great thing, why stop there? If it increases standards of living and disposable income, and if there are no negative economic effects, how about we raise it to $15? Why not mandate that every person make at least $50 an hour! That's $8,000 a month, which comes out to nearly $100,000 a year! We'd all be rich people!

  Let's consider some facts. Only a small number of people out of a massive workforce earn the minimum wage--around 3 percent of wage earners, or about 2 million people, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. And the majority of those people are teenagers and young adults, working part-time and in school. In fact, most individuals earning minimum wage have a household income of around $50,000.4 Not too shabby. But regardless, raising the minimum wage, especially in down economic times, is a huge tax on business that is ultimately paid in the form of lost jobs and higher prices.

  Nestor Stewart, owner of Stewart Pharmacy in McMinnville, Tennessee, said that the increase in the minimum wage was "catastrophic."5 He explained that "higher wages" prevent him and other small-business owners from expanding their operation. "I've got to eliminate and be more conservative about these part-time employees," he said. "I have to. I have to have something left in the bottom line. It's just creating a terrible problem." As ABC News noted, Stewart will have to raise his pharmacy's prices to cover the new salary costs. No worries, Zombie! It's the liberal intention that counts. Disregard the results: Stewart's cutting down business hours, slashing employee work hours, and his inability now to hire students returning to college--it's the thought that counts, people!

  But this is not an isolated incident. According to economics professor David Neumark, "the bulk of the evidence--from scores of studies, using data mainly from the U.S. but also from many other countries--clearly shows that minimum wages reduce employment of young, low-skilled people. The best estimates from studies since the early 1990s suggest that the 11% minimum wage increase . . . will lead to the loss of an additional 300,000 jobs among teens and young adults. This is on top of the continuing job losses the recession is likely to throw our way."6

  Sorry, Zombies, but your Messiah is kicking young people's economic rear ends. Minimum-wage increases mandate unemployment. How's that for fairness? But don't listen to me. A report in the Journal of Economic Perspectives noted that 71 percent of economists at America's top universities--many of which are liberal havens--agree that "a minimum wage increases unemployment among the young and unskilled."7

  Currently, the teen unemployment rate tops 25 percent, and the unemployment rate for black teens is above 50 percent.8 For young adults, that rate is closing in on 20 percent, more than double the national unemployment rate.9

  Rather than reduce poverty, liberal policy is reducing opportunity for finding a job. What's more, even those young people whose jobs aren't slashed when the minimum wage is increased still get higher prices. If you have more money in your wallet, you have still been robbed of its buying power because of price inflation.

  But who needs rational economic thinking when you can instead feel all warm and fuzzy and special inside by conning Zombies into voting for you even though, in fact, you know you are killing jobs and inflating prices?

  SO NOW WE move on to the second economic lie the liberal machine uses to hypnotize future Obama Zombies--the evil, nefarious "wage gap" between men and women. Have you heard that women make seventy-seven cents to every dollar a man makes? It's been the liberal line for a while now. During the election, B.H.O. ran a TV ad in battleground states specifically targeting women, hyping up the inequity in pay between the sexes. The ad starts off by saying how many women work to support their families but are paid only seventy-seven cents to the dollar of their male counterparts. In the background we see women in professional attire and women in hard hats. The ad then accuses John McCain of not understanding our economy since he opposed a law that guaranteed equal pay for equal work.

  While on the stump in New Mexico, B.H.O. said this:

  The choice could not be clearer. It starts with equal pay. Sixty-two percent of working women in America earn half or more of their family's income. But women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2008. You'd think that Washington would be united in its determination to fight for equal pay.10

  So, are women really paid less than men?

  Yes, it is true that men tend to earn more than women, but don't assume it's gender discrimination. Let's walk through a scenario: If a business could really get the same quality of work from women for the same job at such a discounted rate, why wouldn't employers hire all women? It would be bad business to keep all men on hand. The smart employers
would drop their men and swoop up all the women for a discounted price. There's no way other businesses could compete. So perhaps there are other differences that account for the pay gap between men and women.

  Cait Murphy, an editor at Fortune, blew the phony wage gap myth out of the water, noting that men and women get paid differently because they're engaging in different lifestyle choices that affect pay scales. Murphy, who is a woman, cited peer- reviewed research done by another woman, June O'Neill, an economist who served as director of the Congressional Budget Office under Bill Clinton.

  As Murphy writes, "What [O'Neill] found was that women are much more likely over the course of their lives to cut back their hours or quit work altogether than men, for issues involving the family."11 Women's lifestyle choices matter when it comes to full-time employment because "you go part-time or take years out of the labor force, that has an effect on earnings down the line, due to loss of seniority or missed promotions."

  It has nothing to do with sexism. Murphy argues that "of women aged 25-44 with young children, more than a third were out of the labor force; of those women who did have jobs, 30% worked part-time." Again, this has considerable effects when one is moving in and out of the labor force, as many wages take into account seniority of service. Moreover, getting promotions is often a function of years served and experience gained.

  "All told," says Murphy, "women are more than twice as likely to work part-time as men and over the course of their lifetimes, work outside the home for 40% fewer years than men. That accounts for a significant chunk of the pay gap."

  But that's not all. There's also something, um, a bit more understated, but very important in determining wage factors. Murphy continues: