You can't choose the ways in which you'll be tested.
Robert J. Sawyer
Pro-Liberty Thought of the Day
Image of the Day
On the Border
Warren Buffett: JOTY Nomination
This may be my first nomination for a non-politician, but one of the richest people in the world decided to become the Democrats' poster boy for raising higher-income tax brackets then goes public how he proudly steps up to collect his fair share of Big Green subsidies:
“I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffett told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska this weekend. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”Grassley: Bad Elephant of the Year Nomination
For trying to rationalize Big Green subsidies, a perversion of the free market:
“Renewable energy supports thousands of jobs and generates billions of dollars in investment across the country,” said Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley in a statement. “Public policy continues to help renewable energy develop and generate electricity and fuel from natural resources. It’s good news for the economy and for energy diversity to restore these provisions.” Iowa has become a major wind power state due to federal and state incentives.Inspiration
Spend Now, Pay Later
HT Cato Institue. "More debt-financed expenditure now means higher taxes later. It’s that simple."
In April 2014, the Wellesley Annual Town Meeting approved … the acquisition of property at 494 Washington Street… A few citizens, determined to derail the acquisition, obtained sufficient signatures to put a referendum on the ballot requiring voters to confirm the Town Meeting vote
A YES vote on Question 1 … confirms the action taken by Town Meeting…
There is NO tax increase associated with this vote; the acquisition will be financed using short-term debt under the levy.Ricardian equivalence.
J. Wellington Wimpy. "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today,"
Facebook Corner
[The following comment is to one of my beloved nieces, a young middle school teacher. She had earlier mentioned ObamaCare, griping about her premium adjustments and deductibles and then questioned the "Affordable" in the ACA. I was confused: didn't her public school employer offer health insurance? She didn't have an individual policy or have to shop the state or federal exchange, did she? She explained that her group plan's costs have accordingly gone up because of ObamaCare. My comment follows:]
I've written about this in my political blog. ObamaCare increases costs by (1) increasing benefit mandates over and beyond your traditional state mandates and (2) two particularly expensive policies: guaranteed issue and community rating. Guaranteed issue means you can get insurance coverage at any time, even to the point of needing last-minute surgery, and thereby socialize your expenses to other policyholders; community rating means that older or sicker people get their premiums at a lower premium, even though insurance companies may lose money on them. There is no such thing as a free lunch; somebody has to pay the costs of people paying less than their net costs, or insurance companies would go out of business. There are at least 3 ways that the government tries to help out the insurance companies: (1) by guaranteeing them a supply of profitable new policyholders (the individual mandate applying to younger or healthier people whom rarely go to the doctor, say), (2) by allowing them premium increases and raising their deductibles, and (3) through subsidies (although the ones I see have been primarily for policyholder premium support), In addition, private sector plans implicitly subsidize the costs of Medicaid, Medicare, and other government health programs; ObamaCare expands Medicaid, the costs of which are split with states and it's picking up the states' portions of the increase for the first few years. The government is funding its direct costs (subsidies and government health programs) by mandate penalties, a variety of new taxes (a surtax on medical devices, a new investment tax, etc.), and certain cuts, primarily out of Medicare. But of course, it's not repaying insurers for the costs of new mandated benefits and coverage, which companies have to pass on through policyholders.
The side that voted for this program has been hyping things like letting adult children stay under their parents' plan until 26, "free" checkups, birth control, etc. Obviously if something doesn't cost anything, the companies would already be offering it; your doctors and nurses don't go off the clock when they perform these services. Expect the partisans to try the shift the blame of higher premiums and deductibles to "greedy" insurers.
The reason I asked about whether you had an individual or a group plan is because it's really hit the individual market hard and that market may soon wither away. Younger people in particular are getting hosed; in some markets, you used to be able to pay something like $150/month if you were healthy. But guaranteed issue and community rating shifts higher costs from other people.
I'm less certain how it applies to group plans like yours because it probably is restricted to teachers, administrators and their families. Your underwriting data is comingled with others in your group plan. It could be providers (hospitals and doctors) are passing along their new costs to all their customers (including health insurers) and/or insurers are passing their costs across all their policyholder base.
Of course, the "Affordable" Care Act is a good deal--for people whom are able to get insurance for less than its true costs (primarily the older or sicker people). I'm keeping my political opinions out of this discussion, but health insurance is not simply catastrophic insurance (say, for expensive cancer care) or like bodily injury/property damage for your car.
(Libertarian Republic). Santorum Dismisses Rand Paul’s 2016 Prospects: ‘The Republican Party Is Not A Libertarian Party’ (VIDEO) http://bit.ly/1kGHxj8
I think what the GOP needs to do in 2016 is to bring a different face, to prosecute a war against failed "Progressivism", the failed domestic and foreign policies over the past 20 years. We need a new coalition. In a few states in 2012, Ron Paul ran a second to Romney; I think Rand can build on that, and I think the momentum could be with him.
In the March 17, 2010 issue of Time, the magazine published an interview with Rand, where he said:
"They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian."
Take a look at the context. Libertarians are widely viewed as pot-smoking gadflies. He was a first-time candidate running in a red-leaning state, knowing his opponents wanted to dismiss his candidacy and relevance. His Dad ran in 2012 not as a libertarian, but as the "true" conservative. In reality, I consider the Paul's, Amash, Judge Napolitano and others like me, a fusion libertarian-conservative.
(Libertarian Republic). California Congresswoman Wants A $26 Minimum Wage In Her State [VIDEO] | The Libertarian Republic http://bit.ly/1muOnLd
How about a $26 maximum wage for legislators in or from California? I know--that's $26 more than what they contribute to the real economy...
(Bastiat Institute). In Seattle, lawmakers have recently increased the minimum wage to $15 per hour. Question: If increasing the minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment, then why stop at $15? This California lawmaker wants to bump it up to $26. Why not $50? Why does this California lawmaker only want folks to make $26 per hour? How mean of her!
No doubt she's anticipating the purchasing power of the Yellen dollar...
Political Humor: Mocking Common Core (First Part of Interview)
HT: National Review
 |
| Courtesy of Glenn McCoy via Libertarian Republic |
 |
| Courtesy of the original artist via LFC |
 |
| Via Kris Speelman |
ABBA, "Momma Mia"
