Lying Media continue to provide air cover for Dem candidates pushing "free" health care

One of the unavoidable realities of being a college-age American is that you have no direct knowledge of anything that happened more than about ten years earlier.  That's not a knock on y'all, but simply a fact that 9-year-olds don't pay attention to politics or history--nor should they.

Unfortunately, not knowing recent history leaves you totally vulnerable, since when the Lying Mainstream Media tells you outrageously false things you have no idea they're lying.

That's great for them, great for the lying Left but disastrous for you and the nation.

That's one of the reasons I write this blog:  To show you how the mainstream media lies to you.

In the latest example:  every major Democratic candidate for president supports some variation of "Medicare for all," also cunningly called "single payer healthcare" (cuz no one outside DC knows what the hell that means).  It means the government would run every aspect of health care.  If you think that's good you need to see how Britain's "NHS" works, or any other nationalized health scheme.

When the Dems aren't in front of national TV they also call it "free healthcare," because they know their moronic base loves "free" stuff.  But "free," as everyone should instantly recognize, is a brazen lie.  It's not free.  As should be obvious to all but the dumbest voter, someone ends up paying for it.  Duh.

The question is, who pays?  The Lying Mainstream Media almost never asks the candidates that question, because the answer reveals the scam:  If you pay taxes, you'll pay the cost of the Dems' supposedly-"free" healthcare.  But since lots of people in this country simply don't work--not "can't find a job," but just prefer to sit on their asses and drink and get high all day--they don't pay any federal or state income tax.

But per the Democrats, they MUST get health care.  After all, the Dems claim that's a basic human right, eh?  Like the right to free food, free housing, free income and so on.  But since they don't pay taxes, guess who'll pay for their health care?

Yep:  you.  So right off the bat, the 42 percent of Americans who don't pay federal income taxes totally support this Dem/socialist scheme.  "Yay, free health care!"

Of course the Lying Mainstream Media know this is crap, but they don't care.  Their job is to help the Democrats regain the White House, and the senate, and from their perspective lying is perfectly reasonable.  So let me show you how brazenly one of the flagship liberal media outlets lied about a similar scam--the so-called "Affordable Care Act"--to help boost support for Obama.

One of the allegedly "great" accomplishments of emperor Barack Hussein Obama and every Democrat in congress was the so-called "Affordable Care Act."  Back in early 2014 the Congressional Budget Office released an analysis forecasting that the ACA would cause 2.5 MILLION full-time jobs to be lost.

Since most rational adults thing of full-time jobs as a Good Thing, this should have been horrible news.  But never fear:  On Feb 4th, 2014 the NY Times covered for Obozo and the Dems, running an editorial headlined

"Freeing Workers From the Insurance Trap"

The editorial explained that Obamacare causing 2.5 MILLION full-time jobs to be lost was actually...wait for it...a good thing.  That it was actually "liberating."

You probably think I'm kidding, but read their editorial at the link.  In any case, here's what I wrote about that editorial at the time:

The NY Times--like virtually all the Lying Mainstream Media--has always supported Obama (and all Democrats).  So as their king's mis-steps have become increasingly obvious, they've had to do some amazing leaps of illogic in their editorials to try to rationalize his incompetence (if that's what it is).

The pretzel-logic makes for some amazing reading.  Case in point is this Times editorial published yesterday, titled "Freeing Workers From the Insurance Trap," in which the paper's editorial board actually claims that cutting the number of full-time Americans with jobs by 2.5 million is a good thing.

That's not a typo.  They really did claim that.  Take a look:

A new report found that by reducing the number of full-time workers over the coming decade, the health care law will have a liberating impact for millions.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade. That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law.

Of course Republicans immediately tried to brand the findings as “devastating” and stark evidence of President Obama’s health care reform as a failure and a job killer. [Those nasty Rethuglicans again!  Lying that causing jobs to be lost is a "job killer."  Shame!] It is no such thing.

The report estimated that thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act, and to the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums, many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits. The cumulative effect on the labor supply will be the equivalent of 2.5 million fewer full-time workers by 2024.

Employees with a pre-existing condition will now be able to quit their job because insurers now have to insure all Americans regardless of their health status, at the same premium as everyone else. Some may have felt they needed to keep working to pay for health insurance, but now new government subsidies will help pay premiums, making it easier for them to quit their jobs.

Ah, those sweet, sweet "government subsidies," right?  Wait...do I hear a couple of you saying that the only way gruberment gets money is from taxes, so what the Times calls "government" subsidies are actually...wait for it...money taxpayers pay to other people so the Dems can buy votes?

Eh, no matter.  What matters is that the Times assures voters that the predicted loss of 2.5 million jobs would NOT increase unemployment, nor even "underemployment"!  This is nothing short of magic, citizen!  Only really, really smaht people could spin a loss of 2.5 million jobs so you think it will NOT cause unemployment--or even "underemployment"--to increase. 

The report clearly stated that health reform would not produce an increase in unemployment (workers unable to find jobs) or underemployment (part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week). It also found “no compelling evidence” that, as of now, part-time employment has increased as a result of the reform law, a frequent claim of critics. Whether that will hold up after a mandate that requires employers to provide coverage, which was delayed until 2015, kicks in is uncertain.

Holy shit.  Hard to see that much crap in such a short space and still function.

Can someone tell me how 2.5 MILLION fewer full-time workers can translate to NO increase in unemployment?  Of course I'm just an unenlightened resident of Flyover Country, so I prolly don't understand that sophisticated NY logic.

Yeh, dat's it.

Next thing ya know the Times will be claiming that massive layoffs of their own employees (cuz the Times is losing money by the millions) will also be "liberating."  Cuz, you know, all them enlightened former employees would much rather be free to collect unemployment than have a job.

It is such a drag having to get up and go to work every day.  Won't it be great when NO ONE has to work anymore?  After the Democrats succeed in getting "the government" to pay for everyone's food, clothing, housing and entertainment, and have imported millions of immigrants to do all the work?  I am so looking forward to that!

Wait, are you saying there's already a pressure group formed to let the illegal immigrants get the same free-health-care deal as American citizens?  Why, that's wonderful!  Compassionate!  Virtuous!  But then who'll do the *work*? 

If this no-one-has-to-work scheme was being pushed by anyone but Democrats I might suspect it could be based on a logical flaw that no one has yet discovered!

Amazingly, the Times editorial praising the loss of jobs exactly echoed Nancy Pelosi, who absolutely crowed that one of the WONDERFUL things about Obamacare was that it would "free Americans from 'job lock.'  Ask your parents if they recall hearing Pelosi say that.

"Job lock."  Cuz Dems believe no one should stay in a job just because it has superb benefits, like health insurance.   I mean, everyone should be free to do anything they want--including sit at home and watch TV--and still get everything they want, right?

It's right there in the Constitution, citizen.