Mischievous goodness from Crossroads GPS, which entered the following submission to HHS' pro-Obamacare propaganda video contest. Something tells me this entry won't win a dime of taxpayer-funded prize money:
"It's fun paying for things you don't even use!"
Bonus points for the serious-sounding voiceover lady dropping a "come on, brah" mid-clip. We've written about why Obamacare is especially bad medicine for young people on numerous occasions. Put simply, the law relies on over-charging younger and healthier Americans to subsidize older and sicker people. If the the former group declines to throw money away and chooses to pay the mandate tax instead, Obamacare's business model collapses. That's why the administration has reached out to celebrities to try to woo young people into taking action that cuts against their clear economic interests. The spot above singles out said celebrities for some richly-deserved mockery. (Sports leagues, like the NFL, have taken a pass on joining the Obamacare promotion brigade). Liberal commentators retort that the young will eventually benefit from Obamacare because young people tend to grow old. Chris Conover responds to that argument at Forbes:
So when I did some actual analysis of this latest idea, it did not surprise me to learn that this claim is dead wrong. Once the time value of money is taken into account, the average young person will be worse off under Obamacare even if they live long enough to be a near-elderly person who pays premiums that are well below actuarially fair rates. In the short run, millions of young will be better off without Obamacare. A recent study by the National Center for Public Policy Research shows that: About 3.7 million of those ages 18-34 will be at least $500 better off if they forgo insurance and pay the penalty. [And] more than 3 million will be $1,000 better off if they go the same route...But in the long run, the story is the same. It is relatively straightforward to test this claim empirically.
Two additional points: First, maybe the younger set would have been willing to buy into a system that jacks up their costs in order to help cover more people...if it had been marketed as such. Maybe not. Instead, they were told their premiums would drop dramatically, when in fact the opposite will be the case -- including for the majority of young people who qualify for government subsidies. Other side effects of the law are also disproportionately harmful to young people: High youth unemployment rates and the trend toward part-time and temporary hiring. Second, why should young folks pour money down the drain to prop up a law that even one of its chief supporters now admits is an unsustainable placeholder? Yes, the young grow old -- but based on Harry Reid's recent concession, the new, expensive system probably won't be in place by the time the current crop of young Americans would be most likely to need it. Unlike Social Security and Medicare -- huge, insolvency-bound programs that young people are forced to pay into -- Obamacare has an opt-out route. It makes all the sense in the world for young people to take advantage of it. Meanwhile, the administration continues to pooh-pooh real concerns about the adverse affects the "Affordable" Care Act is having on businesses large and small. These developments are dismissed as "anecdotal" evidence or outright lies. Empirical evidence reveals that the White House is wrong, and the so-called anecdotes continue to pour in. Last week it was UPS and UVA. Now Delta Airlines joins the list:
We'll see what actions Delta takes to defray the $100 million in added costs. Whatever they choose to do, it won't happen in a vacuum. Just as DHL and FedEx are undoubtedly analyzing (and possibly emulating) what UPS has done, United, American and other major US carriers will be watching Delta like a hawk. When one industry leader takes the plunge on, say, dropping coverage for spouses and families, that company's action makes it easier for its competitors to follow suit. The resulting spiral will lead to more Americans what happened to the president's "you can keep your plan" pledge, with some workers actually pleading with their bosses not to offer employer-based coverage any more.
UPDATE - You can't keep your plan, Jersey edition.