The recent cover story in the Christian Science Monitor illustrates just how much the world is changing. Retirees in this country are leaving the Unite States for Latin America in their golden years. Why? Their money lasts longer there with cheaper goods and more affordable health care.
The exodus south is being driven by a confluence of factors. The baby boom generation – the largest in history – is reaching retirement age, and millions are looking for places to spend the next phase of their lives. As the most educated, well-traveled, and adventurous generation in history, many of these boomers are deciding to retire outside the country – including in Latin America.
They're also looking for places that will allow them to stretch their 401(k)s after they lost a lot of money in the last stock market collapse. With the US economy remaining so tentative, and health-care costs so aggressive, retirees want to live where they can afford greens fees and where a trip to the emergency room won't bankrupt them.
It really helps to live in countries where the opposition party isn't trying to actively sabotage your health care system.
The bigger view of all of this, though, is how people are moving to consider themselves citizens of the world and not citizens of a particular country. I was particularly stuck by the story of James Cummiskey, the 20 year marine veteran who now owns his own coffee exporting business in Columbia. In the age of globalization, business can be conducted virtually anywhere so it makes sense to live in a country where you can make your dollars last longer.
As the article indicates, it isn't just Latin America. American retirees are moving all over the world. Perhaps that should tell us something about our current standard of living.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Monday, December 09, 2013
Why Do Those Charities Want Your Old T-Shirts?
We still have a landline phone, and 19 out of 20 calls are either 1) a scam for ripping off the elderly with a "free" health monitor that will cost them thousands of dollars, or 2) a notification that a truck from some charity or other will be in the neighborhood to collect old clothing.
I might be weird, but I wear my old clothing until it's worn out. I wear t-shirts until they get holes in the armpits, sweatshirts till the cuffs are frayed, and jeans till they get holes in the seat. Then I turn them into rags and use them to dust and clean my bike chain. Anyway, who could possibly want my old t-shirts?
Now I know who: people in Africa. From a story on NPR:
Jeff Steinberg had a maroon and white lacrosse jersey that he wore for years. It said "Denver Lacrosse" on the front and had his number, 5, on the back.Our old t-shirts are being packed into container ships, exported to Kenya where they sell for 15 cents. Often they are cut, resized (all those XL and XXL shirts are way too big for Africans), washed, ironed, tailored, and ultimately resold for a couple of bucks.
Then, one day, he cleaned out his closet and took the shirt to a Goodwill store in Miami. He figured that was the end of it. But some months after that, Steinberg found himself in Sierra Leone for work. He was walking down the street, and he saw a guy selling ice cream and cold drinks, wearing a Denver Lacrosse jersey.
Over the years I've noticed on the news that people in other countries wear American t-shirts a lot. Why, I wondered, are so many Africans fans of the Chicago Bulls and the New England Patriots?
It turns out they're not. These countries are so desperately poor compared to us that they have entire industries based on the stuff that we just toss out.
I guess it's great that this stuff is being recycled. It's a lot more benign than the nasty recycling of electronics, in which circuit boards are sent to third-world countries and burned to recover precious metals, exposing the workers -- frequently children -- to highly toxic fumes.
But it really puts into perspective how wealthy the average American is compared to the average Kenyan.
And then you realize that there are some Americans who are almost as badly off as those Kenyans, who get their pick of our castoffs before we ship them off to Kenya. And they work for Walmart and McDonalds.
The Metric of Success
A commenter recently asked what my metric for success was in terms of the Affordable Care Act. I've answered this question many times in posts and comments and one need only click here to peruse my answers over the last couple of years. In fact, I recently highlighted one such quantification that bounced off the bubble into outer space. Oh well.
Yet, unlike my conservative colleagues, I strive to be reflective. So, it is in that spirit that we start today with a new tag called "health care success." Today, I will highlight two main metrics of quantitative success that will be integral in judging the effectiveness of the ACA. As the numbers start to come in showing increased enrollment in health care insurance, we will be able to see the number of people insured in this country rise. Right now we stand at 84.6 percent insured. So, the first metric of success is to get as many of that 15.4 percent uninsured to have coverage. If we can have a total of 95 percent of the nation covered with health insurance by 2016, I'd say it was successful. That's about three quarters of that 15 percent or 30 million people. We may not be able to know this for certain until the next census (2020) but I think there will be plenty of data by the next presidential election to give us a clearer picture.
But what about that last five percent? Well, that's where my second metric comes into play. Those that don't get insurance will have to pay a fee which will offset the costs of the program. Will that fee and all the newly insured people be able to achieve the overall goal of the ACA in reducing the amount of money we spend on health care? Currently we each spend $8,233 per year and the U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP. How does that compare with other countries?
Terrible. Just terrible. This is why we had to have health care reform. Obviously, the goal here is to control growth, as I noted the other day, and the ACA is already doing that. Now we have to look at the goal numbers in terms of dollars spent per person and our GDP (adjusted for inflation, of course). A minor success would be for us to spend $8,232 per person-1 dollar less than we are now. A major one would be for us to spend as much as Norway does at $5,388 per person. I'm going to set the goal of $6,700 dollars per person which falls right in between as my measure of success. With GDP, a minor success would be to get it to 16 percent. A major success would be 11.5 percent, putting us right in the middle of many European countries. I'll set the goal here at 14 percent of GDP. \
Of course, quantifying health care success is only one piece of the puzzle. What about quality of care? We could meet these goals but what if the care level falls? In the coming months, I'll be discussing other metrics that will indicate success in terms of our new health care law. Look for the tag "health care success!"
Yet, unlike my conservative colleagues, I strive to be reflective. So, it is in that spirit that we start today with a new tag called "health care success." Today, I will highlight two main metrics of quantitative success that will be integral in judging the effectiveness of the ACA. As the numbers start to come in showing increased enrollment in health care insurance, we will be able to see the number of people insured in this country rise. Right now we stand at 84.6 percent insured. So, the first metric of success is to get as many of that 15.4 percent uninsured to have coverage. If we can have a total of 95 percent of the nation covered with health insurance by 2016, I'd say it was successful. That's about three quarters of that 15 percent or 30 million people. We may not be able to know this for certain until the next census (2020) but I think there will be plenty of data by the next presidential election to give us a clearer picture.
But what about that last five percent? Well, that's where my second metric comes into play. Those that don't get insurance will have to pay a fee which will offset the costs of the program. Will that fee and all the newly insured people be able to achieve the overall goal of the ACA in reducing the amount of money we spend on health care? Currently we each spend $8,233 per year and the U.S. health care costs now eat up 17.6 percent of GDP. How does that compare with other countries?
Terrible. Just terrible. This is why we had to have health care reform. Obviously, the goal here is to control growth, as I noted the other day, and the ACA is already doing that. Now we have to look at the goal numbers in terms of dollars spent per person and our GDP (adjusted for inflation, of course). A minor success would be for us to spend $8,232 per person-1 dollar less than we are now. A major one would be for us to spend as much as Norway does at $5,388 per person. I'm going to set the goal of $6,700 dollars per person which falls right in between as my measure of success. With GDP, a minor success would be to get it to 16 percent. A major success would be 11.5 percent, putting us right in the middle of many European countries. I'll set the goal here at 14 percent of GDP. \
Of course, quantifying health care success is only one piece of the puzzle. What about quality of care? We could meet these goals but what if the care level falls? In the coming months, I'll be discussing other metrics that will indicate success in terms of our new health care law. Look for the tag "health care success!"
Sunday, December 08, 2013
Parroting Atheists
It seems that some Christian conservatives aren't the only ones that think Jesus would have carried an AR-15. I guess atheists do as well. You know that you are in trouble as a devout Christian when you are parroting atheist talking points.
As I have mentioned previously, the "but to bring a sword" has to be looked at in context. Here is the rest of the quote.
For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
So, the word "sword" is a metaphor for conflict between familial relations over the new word of Christ.
Here's another great explanation of the meaning and context of the verse.
As I have mentioned previously, the "but to bring a sword" has to be looked at in context. Here is the rest of the quote.
For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.
So, the word "sword" is a metaphor for conflict between familial relations over the new word of Christ.
Here's another great explanation of the meaning and context of the verse.
Saturday, December 07, 2013
'Tis The Season
It's the holidays and that means it's time to give back to those less fortunate than ourselves. With this spirit in mind, I thought I would answer all of the questions that a commenter (Not My Name) has been asking this year and give not only him a Christmas present but the four people that read his comments a gift as well. I've already answered many of them in posts or comments previously but he seems like he needs the attention and is lacking something pretty significant in his social life to spend as much time as he has writing in my comments section. So I thought one post with all my answers would be a great way to lift him out of his depression.
Question: Is the Constitution law?
The context of this question was the 2nd amendment and I have already answered it pretty thoroughly. Yet there is a more concise way to answer...
Answer: Yes, the perfectly legal to amend and continually open to interpretation, as evidenced by 200+ years of tort, United States Constitution is law.
Question: Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up?
Answer: Because they often can't pay and due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a law signed by Ronald Reagan and a bipartisan Congress, every person must be cared for regardless of their financial situation. The story of Sharon Ford was a primary driver behind this law. Note the pro life tone to what transpired and consider this recent post of mine. As the link notes, taxpayers pick up the cost via public dollars or raised rates that stem from cash strapped hospitals picking up the tab.
Here NMN assumes that he has led me down a path that will show me that the government is the problem. Yet this same government stepped in to pass this law so we could save lives. Would NMN get rid of this law and let unborn babies like Sharon Ford's child die? I suppose only he can answer that but a reversal of this law would save taxpayers money so I guess he has a real puzzler on his hands. Maybe he should consult the Bible. On second thought, maybe not, as we can see from the next two questions.
Question: Faith in what?
Answer: Your faith in Jesus and God. It's very, very weak. That's why you need others to believe exactly as you do lest you be tempted to stray from Republican Jesus. You claim to be a "rugged individualist" yet positively can't stand the fact that someone might think differently than you not just with your religious faith but your political faith as well. Like the communists and socialists you decry, you want everyone to believe exactly as you do otherwise you condemn them. You also make the mistake of having faith in conservative political leaders and ideologies. Faith is reserved for spiritual matters not for issues like the economy or health care. Even here your faith is weak as well. I'm not responsible for your insecurities. You are. And Jesus is very clear about people that judge and cast the first stone.
One other note on this question. NMN has refused, despite repeated queries, to outright reject the various sects of Christianity that don't conform exactly to his warped version of it. He's certainly rejected my Christian beliefs. I wonder why he hasn't rejected the Unitarian Church, for example. Or the peace churches.
Primary Question: Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?
Related Questions: What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly?
Answer: As a writer myself, I say no to the primary question because maybe someone else can dream up something even more wonderful than I intended. Being a reflective person, I welcome it, of course:) Perhaps I could inspire someone to a higher meaning, right? The other day in class I was offering a critique of John Maynard Keynes and a student raised his hand and said, "It seems that you are saying that Keynes' theories are too psychologically based." I hadn't actually said that but he took what I was saying and brought it to a higher level. It was magnificent. But really, it depends on the author. Bob Dylan would say yes. John Lennon would say no. NMN also seems to be lacking here in his understanding of the use of metaphor. Perhaps he doesn't understand symbolism either.
Anyway, the context of this question and the related ones is the Bible and the author's intent. As with all of his Bible, legal, constitutional, and morality related questions, NMN assumes he is the authority on the author's intent and proceeds (as always) with great hubris. He recently intimated that he is a more valid interpreter of the Bible than the pope. Wow, he's smart!
So, the question he lacks the courage to ask is "Am I the authority on Biblical interpretation, constitutional interpretation, and morality in terms of spiritual and civic law?" Or, more briefly, "Do I know what God is thinking?" The answer is no (and it's no for me as well) because he continually makes false assumptions based on emotions and a completely instransigent ideology. The failure is not with the authors but with NMN himself because he misinterprets, either purposefully, through ignorance or both, the author's intent. And, as I have mentioned far too many times, he also purposefully misinterprets what I say and turns my writings into gotcha questions (so, how long have you been beating your wife?) in order to go for the win and show off for the TSM people that read his comments. Does he know any other way? Thus far, the answer is no.
Primary Question: Do you think it's okay to punish a child for the parent's crime?
Answer: No, but I wish it were OK to punish parents for children's crimes. There would be a lot less gun deaths and spree shootings if that were the case. Perhaps parents would think twice about having guns in the house with their mentally ill child if their asses were on the line.
The background to this question is abortion and NMN falsely assumes (more on false assumptions aka lying below) that the moment of inception equals a child. It does not. Science (remember facts, evidence and logic?) shows us that there is not a fetus until the 10th week of development. The link above has detailed images of development and people can judge for themselves as to what constitutes a "child." For me that's towards the end of the first trimester which is why I have no problem with a federal ban on abortion extended to include the 2nd trimester. I'd even consider going back earlier with a ban when brain, heart and lung functions are more fully developed. A question that NMN or other pro life folks need to answer...is something human if it has no heart?
Of course, there is no such thing as compromise in NMN's world. Even I have to consider that my views may be wrong. Can the child survive outside of the womb? When? What of the mother's rights? Is her body now a ward of the state? This is a gray area because it's not as cut and dried as human-not human. And the Right doesn't do well at all with gray areas. It's not a person at every stage of neonatal development and even when it is in my view, should the fetus really be granted 14th amendment rights? Consider as well that the same argument against banning guns (only criminals will have guns) applies here. Only criminals will provide abortions and there will have to be funds for enforcement and personnel assigned to police it. Who is going to pay for it? Imagine what happened during Prohibition with liquor happening with abortion in terms of crime. Witness what is happening now with drugs. It would be a nightmare. NMN, like many on the Right, don't really think before they bloviate about nearly all of the issues facing our country today. Recall this as well.
If we left behind the rock solid stubbornness of both sides in the abortion debate, we might actually be able to solve this problem. Abortion is not birth control and it should be harder to obtain. Single woman in their 20s are the group that need to be targeted as they have the most abortions. At a certain stage (earlier than what is legal now), they should not be allowed to have an abortion unless their life is threatened. If they are raped or a victim of incest, they should use the day after pill or terminate in the first couple of weeks. Family planning and sex education need to be improved. People have to behave more responsibly when it comes to sex. Overall, there needs to be societal shift so demand for abortion is reduced it not all together eliminated. As with most issues, the Right can't help but focus on supply when they should be focusing on demand. Get rid of the demand and you get rid of abortion.
Primary Question: Is "false" equal to "truth"?
Related Questions: Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration?
Answer: No, false does not equal truth and NMN does an excellent job of illustrating this given the content of the primary question and the related questions. Honestly, all of his questions are, in one way or another, based on false assumptions about the issues of the day or, in this case, me and what I am asserting. With me, that's part and parcel to his childish games.
The context of this specific line of query (along with all of the other gun questions he asks) is based on the false assumption and an inconsolable paranoia that the federal government is out to get our guns. For NMN, any changes to gun laws will result in tyranny. Our system of checks and balances make this highly unlikely. Consider how difficult it is to pass something as simple as a budget let alone a new law on the regulation of guns. A tyranny assumes swift and decisive action not government by sedimentation which is what we have now. He pulls half truths, spins, or simply lies with this category of questions.
Joe Biden's comment is quite different than what NMN has described and essentially (and hilariously) asks, "Why even have laws?" In fact, this very question is at the root of conservative whining. Like the adolescent that simply can't take the rules of the house, conservatives grouse about having to follow rules they don't like. New rules are the worst, man! They suck, and like, the Right doesn't want to do them and stuff. Of course, the rest of the adults in our country recognize that as our society evolves, problems arise and sometimes need to be addressed with (gasp!) new laws. Pretending that a problem doesn't exist or will magically go away (the conservative go to thinking these days) doesn't work.
The background check question is a half truth at best and based on opinions and heresay, not the actual law or an evidence based argument. The Manchin-Toomey bill is available here for review and a Google search (unaided by someone as biased as me:)) will show the full story on his related questions. And why can't we figure out a way to improve gun safety while honoring the 2nd amendment? We are the greatest nation on the planet, aren't we? I find it amusing that someone such as NMN decries those who "hate America" yet appears to be doing just that. Clearly the thinks very little of the leaders of this country and the people in it but that's the adolescent problem with authority again. Equally as amusing is the fact that NMN spends a lot of time and energy debunking things that Democrats say, accusing them of being incompetent liars, but on the issue of universal background checks, they are now suddenly "telling the truth." Wow...it's a Christmas miracle!!
Will NMN accept this gift in the spirit of the season and be gracious? Will his obsession with me continue? Or something else? Or will he reject my gift, take it back, psychotically keep asking the questions over and over again, circle jerk for juris, GD, 6Kings and Larry, and pretend that I never answered the questions? Honestly, it doesn't really matter.
Because in the final analysis we will never, ever see the kind of our nation he claims he wants. The trajectory of our country is evolving to fit the age of globalization and leaving behind backwards, hateful, and ignorant thinking. NMN's comments and questions are great examples of the fear that only comes with the realization that old ideologies are quickly becoming irrelevant.
Question: Is the Constitution law?
The context of this question was the 2nd amendment and I have already answered it pretty thoroughly. Yet there is a more concise way to answer...
Answer: Yes, the perfectly legal to amend and continually open to interpretation, as evidenced by 200+ years of tort, United States Constitution is law.
Question: Why would an uninsured person going to the ER cause insurance rates to go up?
Answer: Because they often can't pay and due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a law signed by Ronald Reagan and a bipartisan Congress, every person must be cared for regardless of their financial situation. The story of Sharon Ford was a primary driver behind this law. Note the pro life tone to what transpired and consider this recent post of mine. As the link notes, taxpayers pick up the cost via public dollars or raised rates that stem from cash strapped hospitals picking up the tab.
Here NMN assumes that he has led me down a path that will show me that the government is the problem. Yet this same government stepped in to pass this law so we could save lives. Would NMN get rid of this law and let unborn babies like Sharon Ford's child die? I suppose only he can answer that but a reversal of this law would save taxpayers money so I guess he has a real puzzler on his hands. Maybe he should consult the Bible. On second thought, maybe not, as we can see from the next two questions.
Question: Faith in what?
Answer: Your faith in Jesus and God. It's very, very weak. That's why you need others to believe exactly as you do lest you be tempted to stray from Republican Jesus. You claim to be a "rugged individualist" yet positively can't stand the fact that someone might think differently than you not just with your religious faith but your political faith as well. Like the communists and socialists you decry, you want everyone to believe exactly as you do otherwise you condemn them. You also make the mistake of having faith in conservative political leaders and ideologies. Faith is reserved for spiritual matters not for issues like the economy or health care. Even here your faith is weak as well. I'm not responsible for your insecurities. You are. And Jesus is very clear about people that judge and cast the first stone.
One other note on this question. NMN has refused, despite repeated queries, to outright reject the various sects of Christianity that don't conform exactly to his warped version of it. He's certainly rejected my Christian beliefs. I wonder why he hasn't rejected the Unitarian Church, for example. Or the peace churches.
Primary Question: Authors of words have a meaning they intend to communicate, and that meaning is the only valid "interpretation" of any writing. Do you agree or disagree?
Related Questions: What makes you think God is UNABLE to do what mere humans can do—get someone to write what they want written? So you're claiming that the Jeremiah 31:33-34 prophecy has already come to pass? That every single person in the world sees and accepts Yahweh as his/her God, even Juris Imprudent? That there is no disagreement about God because we all know Him directly?
Answer: As a writer myself, I say no to the primary question because maybe someone else can dream up something even more wonderful than I intended. Being a reflective person, I welcome it, of course:) Perhaps I could inspire someone to a higher meaning, right? The other day in class I was offering a critique of John Maynard Keynes and a student raised his hand and said, "It seems that you are saying that Keynes' theories are too psychologically based." I hadn't actually said that but he took what I was saying and brought it to a higher level. It was magnificent. But really, it depends on the author. Bob Dylan would say yes. John Lennon would say no. NMN also seems to be lacking here in his understanding of the use of metaphor. Perhaps he doesn't understand symbolism either.
Anyway, the context of this question and the related ones is the Bible and the author's intent. As with all of his Bible, legal, constitutional, and morality related questions, NMN assumes he is the authority on the author's intent and proceeds (as always) with great hubris. He recently intimated that he is a more valid interpreter of the Bible than the pope. Wow, he's smart!
So, the question he lacks the courage to ask is "Am I the authority on Biblical interpretation, constitutional interpretation, and morality in terms of spiritual and civic law?" Or, more briefly, "Do I know what God is thinking?" The answer is no (and it's no for me as well) because he continually makes false assumptions based on emotions and a completely instransigent ideology. The failure is not with the authors but with NMN himself because he misinterprets, either purposefully, through ignorance or both, the author's intent. And, as I have mentioned far too many times, he also purposefully misinterprets what I say and turns my writings into gotcha questions (so, how long have you been beating your wife?) in order to go for the win and show off for the TSM people that read his comments. Does he know any other way? Thus far, the answer is no.
Primary Question: Do you think it's okay to punish a child for the parent's crime?
Answer: No, but I wish it were OK to punish parents for children's crimes. There would be a lot less gun deaths and spree shootings if that were the case. Perhaps parents would think twice about having guns in the house with their mentally ill child if their asses were on the line.
The background to this question is abortion and NMN falsely assumes (more on false assumptions aka lying below) that the moment of inception equals a child. It does not. Science (remember facts, evidence and logic?) shows us that there is not a fetus until the 10th week of development. The link above has detailed images of development and people can judge for themselves as to what constitutes a "child." For me that's towards the end of the first trimester which is why I have no problem with a federal ban on abortion extended to include the 2nd trimester. I'd even consider going back earlier with a ban when brain, heart and lung functions are more fully developed. A question that NMN or other pro life folks need to answer...is something human if it has no heart?
Of course, there is no such thing as compromise in NMN's world. Even I have to consider that my views may be wrong. Can the child survive outside of the womb? When? What of the mother's rights? Is her body now a ward of the state? This is a gray area because it's not as cut and dried as human-not human. And the Right doesn't do well at all with gray areas. It's not a person at every stage of neonatal development and even when it is in my view, should the fetus really be granted 14th amendment rights? Consider as well that the same argument against banning guns (only criminals will have guns) applies here. Only criminals will provide abortions and there will have to be funds for enforcement and personnel assigned to police it. Who is going to pay for it? Imagine what happened during Prohibition with liquor happening with abortion in terms of crime. Witness what is happening now with drugs. It would be a nightmare. NMN, like many on the Right, don't really think before they bloviate about nearly all of the issues facing our country today. Recall this as well.
If we left behind the rock solid stubbornness of both sides in the abortion debate, we might actually be able to solve this problem. Abortion is not birth control and it should be harder to obtain. Single woman in their 20s are the group that need to be targeted as they have the most abortions. At a certain stage (earlier than what is legal now), they should not be allowed to have an abortion unless their life is threatened. If they are raped or a victim of incest, they should use the day after pill or terminate in the first couple of weeks. Family planning and sex education need to be improved. People have to behave more responsibly when it comes to sex. Overall, there needs to be societal shift so demand for abortion is reduced it not all together eliminated. As with most issues, the Right can't help but focus on supply when they should be focusing on demand. Get rid of the demand and you get rid of abortion.
Primary Question: Is "false" equal to "truth"?
Related Questions: Even Joe Biden admits that the administration's gun control actions won't stop the shootings. So why do those things? Since the leaders of the Democrat's effort to implement universal background checks say that "any bill without a records provision would be as toothless as an honor system", do you still assert that "[n]o one is talking about universal registration" and/or that it can be implemented without registration?
Answer: No, false does not equal truth and NMN does an excellent job of illustrating this given the content of the primary question and the related questions. Honestly, all of his questions are, in one way or another, based on false assumptions about the issues of the day or, in this case, me and what I am asserting. With me, that's part and parcel to his childish games.
The context of this specific line of query (along with all of the other gun questions he asks) is based on the false assumption and an inconsolable paranoia that the federal government is out to get our guns. For NMN, any changes to gun laws will result in tyranny. Our system of checks and balances make this highly unlikely. Consider how difficult it is to pass something as simple as a budget let alone a new law on the regulation of guns. A tyranny assumes swift and decisive action not government by sedimentation which is what we have now. He pulls half truths, spins, or simply lies with this category of questions.
Joe Biden's comment is quite different than what NMN has described and essentially (and hilariously) asks, "Why even have laws?" In fact, this very question is at the root of conservative whining. Like the adolescent that simply can't take the rules of the house, conservatives grouse about having to follow rules they don't like. New rules are the worst, man! They suck, and like, the Right doesn't want to do them and stuff. Of course, the rest of the adults in our country recognize that as our society evolves, problems arise and sometimes need to be addressed with (gasp!) new laws. Pretending that a problem doesn't exist or will magically go away (the conservative go to thinking these days) doesn't work.
The background check question is a half truth at best and based on opinions and heresay, not the actual law or an evidence based argument. The Manchin-Toomey bill is available here for review and a Google search (unaided by someone as biased as me:)) will show the full story on his related questions. And why can't we figure out a way to improve gun safety while honoring the 2nd amendment? We are the greatest nation on the planet, aren't we? I find it amusing that someone such as NMN decries those who "hate America" yet appears to be doing just that. Clearly the thinks very little of the leaders of this country and the people in it but that's the adolescent problem with authority again. Equally as amusing is the fact that NMN spends a lot of time and energy debunking things that Democrats say, accusing them of being incompetent liars, but on the issue of universal background checks, they are now suddenly "telling the truth." Wow...it's a Christmas miracle!!
Will NMN accept this gift in the spirit of the season and be gracious? Will his obsession with me continue? Or something else? Or will he reject my gift, take it back, psychotically keep asking the questions over and over again, circle jerk for juris, GD, 6Kings and Larry, and pretend that I never answered the questions? Honestly, it doesn't really matter.
Because in the final analysis we will never, ever see the kind of our nation he claims he wants. The trajectory of our country is evolving to fit the age of globalization and leaving behind backwards, hateful, and ignorant thinking. NMN's comments and questions are great examples of the fear that only comes with the realization that old ideologies are quickly becoming irrelevant.
Anecdata
Remember all those Obamacare horror stories? Not looking so bad now.
Oh, really? Why? Well, read the piece. But how did this happen?
The failure of the exchanges created an information vacuum as far as Obamacare successes went; in rushed the individual stories of those who claimed to have been hurt by the changes to the market. It didn't matter that these stories are, even without enrollment numbers from the exchanges, demonstrably unrepresentative!
In steps...anecdata!
Statisticians dismiss the practice of using personal stories to argue about an objective reality as "anecdata", but it might be more accurate to call the "Obamacare horror stories" that have taken over social media "urban legends". There are urban legends about a lot of things – from spiders in hairdos to red velvet cake. Some are funny, some feature a satisfying come-uppance, but folklorists agree that the stickiest of them, the ones that last for generations and resist debunking are the ones that live off ignorance and feed off fear. As one researcher put it: "It's a lack of information coupled with these fears that tends to give rise to new legends. When demand exceeds supply, people will fill in the gaps with their own information … they'll just make it up."
I can't think of a better description of the conservative media ecosystem at the moment.
Neither can I. I quite enjoyed the torpedoeing of some of the more prominent "horror" stories.
Oh, really? Why? Well, read the piece. But how did this happen?
The failure of the exchanges created an information vacuum as far as Obamacare successes went; in rushed the individual stories of those who claimed to have been hurt by the changes to the market. It didn't matter that these stories are, even without enrollment numbers from the exchanges, demonstrably unrepresentative!
In steps...anecdata!
Statisticians dismiss the practice of using personal stories to argue about an objective reality as "anecdata", but it might be more accurate to call the "Obamacare horror stories" that have taken over social media "urban legends". There are urban legends about a lot of things – from spiders in hairdos to red velvet cake. Some are funny, some feature a satisfying come-uppance, but folklorists agree that the stickiest of them, the ones that last for generations and resist debunking are the ones that live off ignorance and feed off fear. As one researcher put it: "It's a lack of information coupled with these fears that tends to give rise to new legends. When demand exceeds supply, people will fill in the gaps with their own information … they'll just make it up."
I can't think of a better description of the conservative media ecosystem at the moment.
Neither can I. I quite enjoyed the torpedoeing of some of the more prominent "horror" stories.
Friday, December 06, 2013
Careful What You Wish For
This recent piece from the Christian Science Monitor illustrates the pitfalls of requiring a photo ID to vote.
As Wisconsin implements its law, it is opening a window into why a photo ID can be so difficult for the elderly to obtain. But it is also highlighting what some activists are calling a "war against the Greatest Generation" as federal and state budget cuts fall disproportionately on the elderly. Whether it is the government shutdown making it harder to obtain veteran's benefits or cuts to food stamps or state welfare programs, many in the Greatest Generation feel that they are now being left in the cold.
So, they might end up alienating their own base? Wow. That's rilly smart! Well, folks like Genevieve Kujawski can rest assured that Democrats will protect their right to vote even if it is against them.
As Wisconsin implements its law, it is opening a window into why a photo ID can be so difficult for the elderly to obtain. But it is also highlighting what some activists are calling a "war against the Greatest Generation" as federal and state budget cuts fall disproportionately on the elderly. Whether it is the government shutdown making it harder to obtain veteran's benefits or cuts to food stamps or state welfare programs, many in the Greatest Generation feel that they are now being left in the cold.
So, they might end up alienating their own base? Wow. That's rilly smart! Well, folks like Genevieve Kujawski can rest assured that Democrats will protect their right to vote even if it is against them.
A Very Overheated Religious War
The situation in the Central African Republic is simply terrible. Roving gangs of Christian extremists in the capital of Bangui have been targeting Muslim neighborhoods and wantonly killing people in the name of their God for retribution against Muslims gangs that have done the same. I'm not sure what God they worship but it certainly isn't the Christian one. Thou shall not kill, remember?
French troops are arriving in the coming days to hopefully keep the peace. They are also sending air support to hopefully quell any future uprisings. AP is reporting that the French are reluctantly going in which strikes me as complete bullshit as they are partly responsible for the situation on the ground. The CAR has never gotten over the Scramble for Africa. French meddling in the region created the power struggles that we see today. So, this is largely blowback from colonization over a century ago.
It's going to take a lot more than 1200 troops to stop what is now clearly genocide. The United Nations needs to have a robust and permanent presence there and the French need to invest far more resources (especially financial) than they are now. It's very quickly becoming too late and far too many people have died.
French troops are arriving in the coming days to hopefully keep the peace. They are also sending air support to hopefully quell any future uprisings. AP is reporting that the French are reluctantly going in which strikes me as complete bullshit as they are partly responsible for the situation on the ground. The CAR has never gotten over the Scramble for Africa. French meddling in the region created the power struggles that we see today. So, this is largely blowback from colonization over a century ago.
It's going to take a lot more than 1200 troops to stop what is now clearly genocide. The United Nations needs to have a robust and permanent presence there and the French need to invest far more resources (especially financial) than they are now. It's very quickly becoming too late and far too many people have died.
3.6 Percent
The United States Economy grew at the much faster pace of 3.6 percent in the third quarter than originally thought. Second quarter growth was also revised upward to 2.5 percent. The reasons for this growth include private inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures, exports, and state and local government spending.
Very welcome news indeed!
Very welcome news indeed!
Discovery!
I have been searching for awhile now for a way to address the often prejudiced and sometimes racist attitudes towards the president without provoking the usual shrill and hysterical reaction from the Right. I have now found such a way.
First of all, was that really the cover of the National Review? Yes it was. Talk about a dog whistle! Chait is dead on right with his analysis in this piece. Here are some my favorite bits...
It is bizarre to ascribe haughtiness and a lack of a capacity for embarrassment to a president whose most recent notable public appearance was a profusely and even flamboyantly contrite press conference spent repeatedly confessing to “fumbles” and “mistakes.” Why would Hillyer believe such a factually bizarre thing? One answer is that, by the evidence of this column, Hillyer believes all sorts of factually bizarre things. But most African-Americans, and many liberal whites, would read Hillyer’s rant as the cultural heir to Northup’s overseer: a southern white reactionary enraged that a calm, dignified, educated black man has failed to prostrate himself.
But are Hillyer and other conservatives really that bad?
Before plunging further into a poisonously defensive racial debate, I should note that I feel certain Hillyer opposes slavery and legal segregation, and highly confident he abhors racial discrimination, and believes in his heart full economic and social equality for African-Americans would be a blessing. (More than two decades ago, Hillyer worked against the candidacy of David Duke.) His feeling of offense at Obama’s putative haughtiness (“chin jutting out”) might be a long-ago-imbibed white southern upbringing bubbling to the surface, but more likely a flailing partisan rage that could just as easily have been directed at a white Democrat.
You can accept the most benign account of his thought process – and I do – while still being struck by the simple fact that Hillyer finds nothing uncomfortable at all about wrapping himself in a racist trope. He is either unaware of the freighted connotation of calling a black man uppity, or he doesn’t care. In the absence of a racial slur or an explicitly bigoted attack, no racial alarm bells sound in his brain.
So, they are just ignorant and don't want to reflect and change. Shocking...
Of course, this part of a larger problem.
The broad social structure of white supremacy is not a part of the working conservative definition of racism. Conservatives see racism as a series of discrete acts of overt oppression. After slavery had disappeared, but before legal segregation had, conservatives considered it preposterous to claim that blacks suffered any systematic disadvantage in American life.
Hence the recent racism is over tweet. They simply can't out of the black-white mindset. If racism isn't over, then the blacks and liberal whites must be continually crying wolf and trying to get free hand outs or something.
Pay close attention to how the president is criticized by the Right. The framework for the criticism is exactly how Chait describes it.
First of all, was that really the cover of the National Review? Yes it was. Talk about a dog whistle! Chait is dead on right with his analysis in this piece. Here are some my favorite bits...
It is bizarre to ascribe haughtiness and a lack of a capacity for embarrassment to a president whose most recent notable public appearance was a profusely and even flamboyantly contrite press conference spent repeatedly confessing to “fumbles” and “mistakes.” Why would Hillyer believe such a factually bizarre thing? One answer is that, by the evidence of this column, Hillyer believes all sorts of factually bizarre things. But most African-Americans, and many liberal whites, would read Hillyer’s rant as the cultural heir to Northup’s overseer: a southern white reactionary enraged that a calm, dignified, educated black man has failed to prostrate himself.
But are Hillyer and other conservatives really that bad?
Before plunging further into a poisonously defensive racial debate, I should note that I feel certain Hillyer opposes slavery and legal segregation, and highly confident he abhors racial discrimination, and believes in his heart full economic and social equality for African-Americans would be a blessing. (More than two decades ago, Hillyer worked against the candidacy of David Duke.) His feeling of offense at Obama’s putative haughtiness (“chin jutting out”) might be a long-ago-imbibed white southern upbringing bubbling to the surface, but more likely a flailing partisan rage that could just as easily have been directed at a white Democrat.
You can accept the most benign account of his thought process – and I do – while still being struck by the simple fact that Hillyer finds nothing uncomfortable at all about wrapping himself in a racist trope. He is either unaware of the freighted connotation of calling a black man uppity, or he doesn’t care. In the absence of a racial slur or an explicitly bigoted attack, no racial alarm bells sound in his brain.
So, they are just ignorant and don't want to reflect and change. Shocking...
Of course, this part of a larger problem.
The broad social structure of white supremacy is not a part of the working conservative definition of racism. Conservatives see racism as a series of discrete acts of overt oppression. After slavery had disappeared, but before legal segregation had, conservatives considered it preposterous to claim that blacks suffered any systematic disadvantage in American life.
Hence the recent racism is over tweet. They simply can't out of the black-white mindset. If racism isn't over, then the blacks and liberal whites must be continually crying wolf and trying to get free hand outs or something.
Pay close attention to how the president is criticized by the Right. The framework for the criticism is exactly how Chait describes it.
Thursday, December 05, 2013
Oh, Are They?
Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon
From the article...
The development is a striking departure from conservative orthodoxy and a reflection of growing divisions between the Republican Party and its business supporters. A new report by the environmental data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, some with close ties to Republicans, including ExxonMobil, Walmart and American Electric Power, are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans. Both supporters and opponents of action to fight global warming say the development is significant because businesses that chart a financial course to make money in a carbon-constrained future could be more inclined to support policies that address climate change.
As I have stated previously, eventually the private firms of this nation will accept the facts.
From the article...
The development is a striking departure from conservative orthodoxy and a reflection of growing divisions between the Republican Party and its business supporters. A new report by the environmental data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, some with close ties to Republicans, including ExxonMobil, Walmart and American Electric Power, are incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans. Both supporters and opponents of action to fight global warming say the development is significant because businesses that chart a financial course to make money in a carbon-constrained future could be more inclined to support policies that address climate change.
As I have stated previously, eventually the private firms of this nation will accept the facts.
Completely Inconsolable
I've had some rather lengthy discussions with my conservative friends of late that have led me to the same conclusion as Jamelle Bouie: No matter the facts, the GOP is committed to the message that Obamacare has failed.
The Republican complaints of two months ago were purely opportunistic. For them, it just doesn’t matter if Healthcare.gov is working, since Obamacare is destined to fail, reality be damned! At most, the broken website was useful fodder for attacks on the administration. Now that it’s made progress, the GOP will revert to its usual declarations that the Affordable Care Act is a hopeless disaster. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Americans have gained access to health insurance thanks to the Medicaid expansion or the exchanges, and many more will join their ranks as the deadline for coverage approaches.
They are completely inconsolable and it seems they want to stay that way.
The Republican complaints of two months ago were purely opportunistic. For them, it just doesn’t matter if Healthcare.gov is working, since Obamacare is destined to fail, reality be damned! At most, the broken website was useful fodder for attacks on the administration. Now that it’s made progress, the GOP will revert to its usual declarations that the Affordable Care Act is a hopeless disaster. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Americans have gained access to health insurance thanks to the Medicaid expansion or the exchanges, and many more will join their ranks as the deadline for coverage approaches.
They are completely inconsolable and it seems they want to stay that way.
Where's Her Apology?
Martin Bashir has resigned from MSNBC after taking Sarah Palin to the mat over her ridiculously awful comparison our debt to slavery. Not only was she insensitive but she demonstrated (once again) that she is sorely lacking in an understanding of our debt. On his Nov. 15 broadcast, Bashir called Palin "a world class idiot" because she made a comparison to slavery while discussing U.S. debt to China. The host then read an excerpt from the diary of a former plantation manager who wrote of forcing one slave to "S-H-I-T" in another slave's mouth, and said "if anyone truly qualified for a dose of [such] discipline... then she would be the outstanding candidate." He has since apologized for the remarks and now tendered his resignation from the network.
What I'm wondering is where is Sarah Palin's apology? Does she get to play with different rules?
Yes. Yes, she does.
In fact, so do all conservatives. They get to act like jack wagons because...well...they are. And their base eats it all up. But liberals don't get to act that way because they are the adults in the political arena, hence Bashir's resignation. If the Fox News personalities were held to the same standard, there would be no one working at the network.
Honestly, it's pretty fucking unfair if you ask me. It's almost like we simply have accepted that it's OK for conservatives like Sarah Palin to say offensive things. They get a pass and liberals don't.
What I'm wondering is where is Sarah Palin's apology? Does she get to play with different rules?
Yes. Yes, she does.
In fact, so do all conservatives. They get to act like jack wagons because...well...they are. And their base eats it all up. But liberals don't get to act that way because they are the adults in the political arena, hence Bashir's resignation. If the Fox News personalities were held to the same standard, there would be no one working at the network.
Honestly, it's pretty fucking unfair if you ask me. It's almost like we simply have accepted that it's OK for conservatives like Sarah Palin to say offensive things. They get a pass and liberals don't.
Great Deal of Hope
I think I have overreacted a tad to the somewhat glacial pace of guns and mental health legislation. Take a look at this.
The simple fact there are many deep red states answering the president's call gives me a great deal of hope. States are doing their own thing and that's just fine with me. Considering the Gun Cult is also a big supporter of states' rights, it seems to me they can't do anything about it. That really gives me a great deal of hope:)
What if there is a way to fix all this stuff and not change the lives of the Gun Cult? I think it may already be happening and it's just a little under the radar.
The simple fact there are many deep red states answering the president's call gives me a great deal of hope. States are doing their own thing and that's just fine with me. Considering the Gun Cult is also a big supporter of states' rights, it seems to me they can't do anything about it. That really gives me a great deal of hope:)
What if there is a way to fix all this stuff and not change the lives of the Gun Cult? I think it may already be happening and it's just a little under the radar.
Wednesday, December 04, 2013
The Idolatry of Money: Not Just Bad for the Soul
Pope Francis raised a lot of conservative hackles with his latest epistle, Evangelii Gaudium. He has been called a Marxist by the likes of Rush Limbaugh. Here's an excerpt:
No to the new idolatry of moneyThis relentless pursuit of profit isn't just bad for our souls, it's also bad for our social, economic and physical well-being. And it could well mean the end of modern medicine (see below).
55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.
The crash of 2008 was due to the laser-like focus on profit and personal gain, without regard to the broader consequences for future profits and the stability of the world's financial system. But this disease goes far beyond the financial sector.
Self-Destructive Profit Seeking in the Energy Sector
The relentless pursuit of profit is especially prevalent in the energy sector. In the United States there has been a mad rush to exploit the technology of hydraulic fracturing, causing contamination of aquifers, proper disposal of fracking waste, and even a precipitous and unsustainable drop in the price of natural gas: In 2012 the CEO of Exxon, Rex Tillerson, said, "We are all losing our shirts today."
That mindset spills into other areas. Minnesota and Wisconsin have been hit by a mad rush for sand mining (sand is needed for the fracking process). Developers wanted to tear up small towns along the Mississippi River for the sand. There was a lot of resistance as residents of these towns feared for their health: breathing the fine dust from sand mines can cause serious diseases like silicosis.
Some people didn't wait and got in on the sand rush, when it was selling for $200 a ton. Now, however, the price has plummeted, and they're selling it as cow bedding at $3.25 a ton. And companies are still clamoring to dig up those towns for their sand.
Profit Over Health
Focusing on profit rather than the common good is bad for our health. The food industry uses chemistry to make their products as addictive as possible, cramming more and more irresistible burgers, fries, chips and soda down our throats, causing an epidemic of obesity and diabetes and heart disease.
The meat and poultry industry directly feeds their animals antibiotics because it increases weight gain, increasing profit. Bacteria develop resistance to these antibiotics because of this overuse, causing flesh-eating superbugs for which there is no treatment. The same thing happens when doctors prescribe antibiotics for acne, or sore throats caused by viruses, or when patients don't take the full course of an antibiotic treatment for strep (or, worse, tuberculosis).
Antibiotic resistance would seem to be a new target for drug company profits. Alas, companies aren't interested because they can't milk them forever: you take antibiotics for a couple of days and then you're cured.
Focus on Cash Cows
Pharmaceutical companies would rather sell drugs for chronic conditions like diabetes and hypertension, which they can get a monopoly on for 20 years. They want to make drugs that cost their customers $10,000 or $20,000 a year for the rest of their lives (which most of us don't pay directly because of health insurance). All too often these new drugs aren't any better than the old drugs; they have a lot of new side effects that the drug companies just try to sweep under the rug.
And there's a lot of evidence that many of the drugs taken for chronic conditions are overused and provide only marginally better outcomes. Most patients would see more far more improvement by reducing stress, exercising, eating right and getting enough sleep. And they should just avoid foods that cause heartburn and allergic reactions instead of taking drugs for the symptoms.
But instead Big Pharma pushes for more blockbusters for chronic disease, and ignores mundane antibiotics to pursue the holy grail of profit. The problem is that when antibiotics become useless, medicine as we know it we know it will end, drastically reducing the need for all the drugs Big Pharma is cashing in on now.
Think about it: any kind of surgery requires antibiotics as a prophylactic measure. Even now the most common complication of surgery is infection. Without antibiotics any invasive medical procedure entails significant risk of death. Diabetics, heart attack victims and cancer patients will die from infections in huge numbers: they won't be taking those patented drugs for 20 years. Drug companies need antibiotics to maintain a large pool of customers for their other drugs.
The End of Modern Medicine?
Without antibiotics kidney, heart, liver and lung transplants are impossible. Many cancer treatments that suppress the immune system are impossible. Abdominal surgery is impossible. Dialysis is impossible because the port becomes infected. Artificial heart valve, knee and hip replacements become impossible. Cosmetic surgery would be insanely risky. Lasik and cataract surgery become far too dangerous, risking blindness and death from infection.
Most people would forgo any kind of elective surgery. We would rather suffer from agonizing neuropathies, torn ACLs, cataracts, retinal detachments (causing blindness) and crippling orthopedic problems for the rest of our lives than risk death from infection. Amputations for what are now minor infections would be commonplace. Battlefield wounds, which have become amazingly survivable with the advent of antibiotics, would once again be frequently fatal.
Death rates from car accidents, falls, food poisoning, child birth, caesarean sections, skin infections, pneumonia, etc., would skyrocket, killing from 1% to 9% to as many as 30% of patients.
It takes years to develop new antibiotics, and because of the way we do things, bacteria quickly develop resistance to new ones much faster than they used to. We need stop putting antibiotics in animal feed, and stop prescribing them for every whining brat and pimple-faced teenager who visits the doctor's office. And someone's got to step up and start developing new antibiotics now, because it takes years. If it ain't the drug companies, it's going to have to be universities and non-profit institutions funded by the government. That means we've got to stop whining about how high taxes are.
The total focus on profit without regard for the common good has to end. It's bad for our souls, it's bad for our environment, it's bad for our health and it's bad for our future.
Back To The Drawing Board
Midwest and national manufacturing grew in November, reports say.
From the article...
Factories making machinery, metal parts, furniture and other long-lasting goods saw product orders jump in November, which helped boost hiring across the manufacturing sector, according to two closely watched reports released Monday.
So, when people buy more things, the companies that make those things hire more people. Huh. I thought companies hired more people when they got tax cuts and demand had nothing to do with it. Apparently, I have been misinformed.
And growth is widespread?
For the nation, the Institute for Supply Management reported growth across several industries, including plastics, rubber, textiles, furniture, paper, metals, transportation equipment, computers and printing. In addition, U.S. manufacturing jobs grew, creating “the highest reading since April 2012,” said Bradley Holcomb, chairman of the Institute’s Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. Fifteen out of 18 manufacturing sectors grew, giving hope that the worst of the lackluster recovery is behind the nation.
And the cost of health care is seen as decreasing?
Over the next few years, the government is expected to spend billions of dollars less than originally projected on the law, analysts said, with both the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies for private insurance plans ending up less expensive than anticipated.
And now even the web site is working better? Sheesh!
Ah well, I guess it's back to the drawing board (and deep into the bubble) for the apocalypcists!
From the article...
Factories making machinery, metal parts, furniture and other long-lasting goods saw product orders jump in November, which helped boost hiring across the manufacturing sector, according to two closely watched reports released Monday.
So, when people buy more things, the companies that make those things hire more people. Huh. I thought companies hired more people when they got tax cuts and demand had nothing to do with it. Apparently, I have been misinformed.
And growth is widespread?
For the nation, the Institute for Supply Management reported growth across several industries, including plastics, rubber, textiles, furniture, paper, metals, transportation equipment, computers and printing. In addition, U.S. manufacturing jobs grew, creating “the highest reading since April 2012,” said Bradley Holcomb, chairman of the Institute’s Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. Fifteen out of 18 manufacturing sectors grew, giving hope that the worst of the lackluster recovery is behind the nation.
And the cost of health care is seen as decreasing?
Over the next few years, the government is expected to spend billions of dollars less than originally projected on the law, analysts said, with both the Medicaid expansion and the subsidies for private insurance plans ending up less expensive than anticipated.
And now even the web site is working better? Sheesh!
Ah well, I guess it's back to the drawing board (and deep into the bubble) for the apocalypcists!
Good Words
"The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking" (Albert Einstein)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)