No one has done more in proving government incompetence than government itself.

asker

sexweapons asked: I read your Mercedes/ACA post and I have to say it is one of the most ridiculous, biased analogies I have ever read. As someone from the UK (where healthcare is state-provided in the form of the NHS), I couldn't help but see that you have gotten several points wrong and exaggerated several others grossly. The last line is the most ridiculous one of them all, saying that a state provision would result in higher prices and lower quality. Try reading up on other countries' healthcare systems.

social-darwin-awards:

conservateriamoderata:

sugashane:

I’m sick of all the bumbling and foolish counter-arguments so here’s a few curt points:

1. You’re from the UK, not from the US. Unless you have any sort of experience with the US medical field, I’m going to guess that you are as clueless as you sound. 

2. Prices are going up: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

3. It will most likely lower quality as experienced doctors consider leaving the industry: http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcsiegel/2012/08/12/will-your-doctor-quit-obamacare-foretells-mass-exodus-from-patient-care/

4. Your healthcare system sucks. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-dalrymple-british-health-system-20120808

5. We fought you and won, therefore GTFO. 

just reblogging for 5. because it made me giggle

You fought the ACA and lost, therefore GTFO. ;)

The only one losing in the ACA fight is the credibility of the Obama Administration and it’s supporters. 

Oh, also, the ACA is committing digital seppuku as we speak. 

Good day, Sir. 

laliberty:

"If you like your plan, you can keep it."

Or so went the narrative, in its attempts to make the cramming of a non-partisan policy down our collective throats more palatable.

It was a lie.

It’s a lie now, as reports of cancellations and price increases keep pouring in (stories like this from a former Obamacare supporter). An NBC investigation reports that “50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.””  

But it was a lie then, too.

Indeed, the Obama administration knew full well it was rubbish:

We already know that administration policymakers were aware that President Obama’s promise that people who like their plans can keep them under Obamacare was not true, because estimates built into early regulations indicated that many plans would lose their grandfathered, protected status.

report in today’s Wall Street Journal indicates that senior White House advisers were also concerned that the promise could not be fulfilled, but decided to let the president make it anyway: 

When the question arose, Mr. Obama’s advisers decided that the assertion was fair, interviews with more than a dozen people involved in crafting and explaining the president’s health-care plan show.

But at times, there was second-guessing. At one point, aides discussed whether Mr. Obama might use more in-depth discussions, such as media interviews, to explain the nuances of the succinct line in his stump speeches, a former aide said. Officials worried, though, that delving into details such as the small number of people who might lose insurance could be confusing and would clutter the president’s message.

"You try to talk about health care in broad, intelligible points that cut through, and you inevitably lose some accuracy when you do that," the former official said.

The former official added that in the midst of a hard-fought political debate “if you like your plan, you can probably keep it” isn’t a salable point.

So they apparently decided the president should repeatedly make a promise that wasn’t true, and whose impacts would be felt by millions of Americans, simply because they hoped that would make it easier to sell the legislation they wanted to pass. 

From the aforementioned NBC report:

[That up to 80% of insured will lose their existig coverage should not] come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date — the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example — the policy would not be grandfathered.

Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”  

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them. 

Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said  Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today. 

And now, with so many publicly acknowledging his blatant lie regarding the [Un]Affordable Health Care Act, Obama’s in ret-con mode hoping to Jedi mind-trick the public into making them think he said something different. 

Obama is retroactively adding a caveat to his promisehe is covering up an old lie with a new one:

Here’s how Obama described his promise yesterday: “Now, if you had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

This isn’t just an update. It’s a backwards revision. Obama is not just changing his claim going forward—he’s attempting to alter what he said in the past as well. …

You can see what he actually said in the video above.

Got that? If you’re happy with your plan, nobody’s changing it. If you like your plan, you can keep it. You will keep it. Nobody’s changing it. 

There are no exceptions here, no qualifications or caveats. It’s a promise, as Obama has said, period. No matter what. 

This is what Obama actually said. But now he’s saying it’s not. He’s covering for his old lie with a new one—an insistence that he never misled in the first place. And he’s hoping that everyone just goes along. The most ardent fanboys might buy it. But most people, I suspect, will see it for the artless and desperate revisionism that it is.

This airbrushing of history isn’t something new, mind you. After all, eugenics was central to progressivism and racism was and is central to a desire for a minimum wage - uncomfortable truths are always given a fresh coat of fiction in order to advance a necessary ideological precept. Fortunately, we live in the age of the internet where the truth is harder to keep under wraps.

But that hasn’t stopped the compliant media from their usual apologetics:

This is a gut-check moment for the mostly left-of-center journalists who have made such a show these past few years of dropping false equivalence and calling out political bullshit at the source. You can subject the policy and politics of Obamacare to truth-scans, or you can carry water for the president. You cannot do both, at least without a laugh track.

There’s a lot in that last piece about administration officials and the media telling lies while calling ideological opponents liars. Fun stuff.

Krugman, as is his wont, gets in on the obfuscation.

And all these lies will continue. Because enough people want to believe them. That’s how he got elected in the first place: he’s a slick salesman, and he tells people what they want to hear. How can anyone trust what emerges from a cloud of lies?

The president’s promises that individuals could keep health plans and doctors were false, and his senior advisers knew it, but decided to mislead people anyway because it made for a better sales pitch. The administration’s repeated assurances that the exchange system was on schedule and on track to work were either intentionally incompetent or deliberately misleading. Obama promised the exchanges would work fine despite not having run complete system tests; multiple senior administration officials claimed they didn’t have enrollment data, even though it’s clear that Obamacare’s overseers had early numbers in hand. On health care, the administration has never had much to offer except distraction, deception, and false hope designed to bolster its own reputation and hide the empty promises it could not keep.

With this record of evasions and incompetence, it is impossible to trust anything the administration says about the health law and its implementation. The only questions that remain are how bad it becomes, for how long, and what deceptions remain to be revealed. What, in other words, are we being given false hope about now?

Unfortunately, too many are comfortable being lied to by political leaders:

President Obama knew that his rhetoric about the Affordable Care Act was misleading and that many people who bought insurance on the individual market would be forced to get new policies when Obamacare made their policies illegal. The Chicago Tribune’s Clarence Page thinks that Obama knowingly lied, but he isn’t that upset about it, because “that’s one of those political lies, you know.”

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied to Congress about NSA surveillance while under oath. He was not forced to resign his post, let alone prosecuted, and in some circles more ire has been aimed at the man questioning him.

Dick Cheney remains widely respected among Republicans despite repeatedly deceiving Americans about the threat Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed to the United States. In interviews, mainstream media figures continue to give his words the same presumption of truth extended to people who’ve never misled as he did.

Bill Clinton lied under oath and in a finger-wagging statement to the American people. He is, nevertheless, one of the most trusted political figures in the United States today.

There are important ways in which every lie or misleading statement is not equal. If we look at the consequences of every Bush administration misdirection prior to the Iraq War — a multitrillion-dollar conflict that killed 5,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis — their deceit was orders of magnitude more damaging than, say, Clinton and his allies subverting a sexual-misconduct lawsuit while under oath.

But there is one way in which all lies government officials tell are alike: To different degrees, they all subvert self-government by depriving Americans of accurate information as we make political judgments. They all diminish an almost depleted store of trust that’s needed for functional governance. …

Our ability to govern ourselves is undermined when Clapper lies about surveillance, when Gen. Keith Alexander misleads about NSA activities abroad, when Obama misleads in the course of defending his health care proposal, and when Sen. Dianne Feinstein suggests absurdly low-ball estimates of innocents killed in drone strikes. There are many more examples of objectionable lies, untruths, and propaganda efforts, but aren’t the ones listed enough to raise general alarm?

Disgusting. 

asker

sexweapons asked: I read your Mercedes/ACA post and I have to say it is one of the most ridiculous, biased analogies I have ever read. As someone from the UK (where healthcare is state-provided in the form of the NHS), I couldn't help but see that you have gotten several points wrong and exaggerated several others grossly. The last line is the most ridiculous one of them all, saying that a state provision would result in higher prices and lower quality. Try reading up on other countries' healthcare systems.

I’m sick of all the bumbling and foolish counter-arguments so here’s a few curt points:

1. You’re from the UK, not from the US. Unless you have any sort of experience with the US medical field, I’m going to guess that you are as clueless as you sound. 

2. Prices are going up: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

3. It will most likely lower quality as experienced doctors consider leaving the industry: http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcsiegel/2012/08/12/will-your-doctor-quit-obamacare-foretells-mass-exodus-from-patient-care/

4. Your healthcare system sucks. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/08/opinion/la-oe-dalrymple-british-health-system-20120808

5. We fought you and won, therefore GTFO. 

A friend of mine is pregnant and she’s due January 10th. She was telling me that she and her husband are rooting that the baby comes in December and I asked why.

Turns out that Obamacare made it so that their insurance plan will no longer exist after December 31st. They can switch to another plan through one of the exchanges but here’s the worst part; the deliver was only going to cost them $500 on their current insurance, it will cost them $5000 if they switch to an offered plan that’s the same price as they currently pay. 

If that’s not enough to make you angry, you probably have an Obama sticker on your car. 

Why don’t we force everyone to buy a Mercedes S-Class?

themuselim:

sugashane:

The Mercedes Benz S-Class is one of the safest cars on the road. Driving such a safe car would save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives a year. If we got everyone to buy one, it will bring the cost down from 100k a car to 70k. I know most can’t afford it but those of us that want it can get a 30k discount. 

How do we get everyone to buy a new Mercedes Benz?

What if Mercedes helped write a legislative bill and contributed to enough campaigns in Congress. Then imagine if the original idea was pitched by a Mercedes Benz super fan who is also the President of the nation. Now top that off with the fact that no one really knows what’s in the 10,000 pages of the Affordable Car Act but the premise sounds good and the super popular President is behind it so why not? 

Now imagine that the Affordable Car Act passed as law and all 300 million citizens were forced to give up their cars if they weren’t as safe as a Mercedes and to buy the S-Class. If you didn’t but an S-Class, you’d have to pay 1% of your salary to the IRS every single year until you bought an S-Class.

Let’s take it one step further and imagine that car companies started to reposes your current car if it didn’t meet the safety standards of the Affordable Care Act even though you love your current car, you picked it out yourself from a variety of choices and you’ve have it for a while and it’s right in your budget. 

Now imagine that Mercedes now has a monopoly that’s enforced via a government mandate and that they can slowly increase prices, degrade the quality of their product and that you’d still be forced to buy the S-Class because it’s “the law of the land”. 

How ridiculous does that sound? And yet, that’s exactly what the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare is.

Wow. I’m sorry but this is quite possibly the dumbest analogy I have ever read.

First of all, the LACK of owning an S-Class does not directly cause hundreds of thousands of lives a year. Being uninsured, however, does have a direct and empircally identifiable impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands MILLIONS of american citizens. 48.2 Million to be exact.

Neither does lack of owning health insurance. In fact, for the majority of people, health insurance costs them more money then they will ever benefit. That’s how insurance works. 

Where lack of insurance does have an impact is if you get sick, get treatment and can’t afford to pay it back. Lack of healthcare insurance doesn’t mean lack of healthcare. Doctor’s won’t and legally can’t refuse to treat you. They have to treat you. You also don’t have to give the hospital any real information. On top of that, many hospitals, like Olive View, will treat you for free. 

So lack of insurance doesn’t mean you will have a detriment. 

Likewise, yes, a lack of an S-Class doesn’t mean you’ll lose your life, just like lack of insurance doesn’t mean you’ll lose your life. But lack of an S-Class in an accident means that you’re more likely to be injured or die vs being in an S-Class. An S-Class is much, much safer than the average vehicle, say a ford escort. 

Second, your numerical comparisons are completely stupid. The median household income in 2013 is $50k. An insurance policy that is completely unsubsidized under obamacare would reflect about 5% of the average family’s income. 

Insurance for me and my family (of 3) is $677 dollars a month, $100 more than I currently pay. That’s not 5% of income. I don’t know where you get you’re numbers from, but mine are directly from Covered California. 

A discounted S-Class would cost 140% of an entire year’s income with your proposed discount. To put this in perspective, your analogy would only make sense if the median household income was in the ballpark of TWO MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. Only then would the numbers be comparable.

You’re short-sighted and foolish. 

A vehicle, like an S-Class has a depreciation timeline of 7 years (at least) and last much longer than that. An S-Class can easily go 10 years. That 70k would be split up over just as many years, bringing it’s yearly cost (about 7k/year) on par with health insurance, which costs me about $7k a year. Oh wow, look at that. The numbers match…

Also the affordable care act is not even close to 10,000 pages, it’s actually around 950 pages (still quite long honestly but still).

You’re right, it’s not 10,000 pages.

You’re wrong, it’s not 950 pages. 

It’s more than 10,000 pages

The actual legislative act is (I think) 906 pages long. But all of the regulations to enforce the law (taxes, fines, subsidies, etc) add up to 

The total page count for the ACA is 10,535 pages in the Federal Registar. You can tap dance around the numbers and such, but without everyone of those pages, the law is not the same. 

And I have no idea where you pulled your sob story about needing to get rid of your car, obamacare doesn’t force anyone to forfeit their existing insurance provider.

LOL. You sure about that?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-29/yes-people-are-losing-their-insurance-under-obamacare

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57609737/obamacare-more-than-2-million-people-getting-booted-from-existing-health-insurance-plans/

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/10/28/affordable-care-act-cancellations/3293001/

What planet do you live on?

Also you clearly have NO idea what a monopoly is, because although there may be few S-class models, there are hundreds of insurance providers and they are competing in the same market.

Yes. And now they don’t have to compete with the alternative to insurance, no insurance. You no longer have an option to not buy insurance, therefore you grant the insurance industry a mandated monopoly. 

This is like you wanting to ride a bike and the gov’t making you buy an S-Class. Sure, you can also buy an R8 or a Tesla or a 7 Series, but you’re stuck buying a car of a certain cost. The car companies, collectively, have a monopoly. You MUST go to them. 

Obamacare is a tax. Everyone already pays taxes on their income if they exceed a certain income. The only difference now is that you get life-saving and financially protective benefits when you pay this tax.

Don’t get me started on taxes…

You could have gotten those same exact benefits without the tax and government mandate.

asker

Anonymous asked: Is there any social safety net you do believe in? Yea Obamacare sucks, but if noone paid $200 for that advil, would the drug companies make enough to create the next drug? Where's the enhanced profit to pay for R&D? Why does it cost so much more for an MRI here vs abroad? Or medical school in general? Absent Defense, and maybe not even that, is there anything you believe the government should be involved in?

Social Security if the worst ponzi scheme in human history (besides the dollar, but that’s one long and complex story for another time). I don’t know much about Medicare or Medicaid, I just know that we keep having to reform it because it always on the brink of going broke. Sounds like a real winner. 

I don’t know if there is anything I support to be run by the gov’t. Not saying that government was never necessary or that it hasn’t done any good. I just think that we’ve come to the point that there are too many people, access to information is much better with the internet and wireless communication and that people are ready (ready enough) to evolve passed this idea of government. 

Yes, people would come up with an advil, even if they couldn’t charge $200 for it. People create things without having “money” as a motivator all the time. But there is always an incentive. Doesn’t have to be profit. It could be that they have a need to fill or they just like creating, but there’s always an incentive. But for many, it is money. Not solely, but mainly. 

You’re also right to say that $200 for an advil is the market rate and the market always finds the most efficient price. Yes, I’d agree with that, but it’s not an efficient market, there are certain artificial prices floors and inflators. So while $200 is the market rate given the market conditions, I think that we can fix the conditions.

Most of the R&D costs in this country have to do with gov’t regulations and trials and retrials and all of the costs that are tied up in there. Those same costs don’t exist around the world and you can find many drugs in markets (legal, as well) outside of America that aren’t legal here. Not because they’re ruled illegal, but because they haven’t passed the approval process yet. 

Then there’s the issue of such his litigation costs for both doctors and pharma. But that’s also a different story. We are a litigious culture, and I know you’re a lawyer and you might not agree, but high volume of laws and suits is a death spell for a country. We’re eating ourselves from the inside out in many industries. 

The craziest part about the cost of procedures in this country is that other countries have to import machines and operators from western countries, like America and they still cost less over there. Why is that? I don’t really know but if I had to guess, I’d say the admin (insurance) costs, legal costs and the abuse of services since people don’t directly pay for an MRI. If you only think the cost of the MRI to you is the $50 co-pay, how much more likely are you to force your way into a machine for your knee pain? What if you knew that it would cost you $50 co-pay and premiums would go up $10/month for the rest of your life? We don’t EVER calculate for that second cost. In many ways, this cost being hidden makes people more willing to get care but in many more ways, it adds to the total cost of the system and we all end up paying for that system. A side note: I was just doing research for a business proposal about imaging costs; it costs about $100 for an MRI in Eastern Europe/Russia (without insurance!) 

Medical school is expensive because it can be. It’s a highly specialized school with years and years of education and training and there’s a very limited number of positions. The real question should be “Why is medical school as cheap as a Law degree or a Masters in Business?” A 3rd tangent topic is how big of a scam 3 years of law school is. It’s probably a big driver in increased medical costs. All there lawyers with very few corporate jobs waiting for them. What’s the best place to go? Personal injury. No offense to all my PI attorneys, but the abuse in this sector is rampant and disgusting. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Every time you promise a client a payout, you’re fucking the entire system, including your client.

What should the gov’t be involved in? Not sure. I know that we can scale it back. Way back. Get them out of a lot of industry. Maybe we can just leave them to run the courts and postal service and make those services self-sufficient. Perhaps some form of military which scales down every year until it’s not there anymore. Private courts are very possible as is mitigation. The postal service won’t last, I like to just see it try mainly because their failure would be funny and their survival would be cool to see. 

But obviously none of this can just happen overnight. Anyone who thinks so is silly. Got to peel back the layers of the onion. But eventually, I don’t think there should be anything run by a gov’t unless it’s agreed upon by 100% of the people who fund it. 

Voting should go digital. We should be informed of every single issue and vote on it via some sort of web access. You don’t have to vote, but if you do, you also have to pay for the services you vote for. e.g. you want trash service and I don’t. You vote yes, I vote no. For everyone that voted yes, a second tax notice is served and you see what the cost is. You either accept it (that’s your final YES vote) and you pay that fee or you say NO (if you said NO the first time, you’re left alone, you don’t pay for it and you don’t get garbage collection from the city). It’s pretty simple. 

Same with voting for war. You vote YES, you get a bill AND you have to serve. You want war, cool. I don’t. You can pay for it and fight it and give your life for it. 

If it’s anything worth paying for people will pay for it and if it’s useless, people won’t. This way you only get the services you want and you only pay “tax” on services you want/need/use. If you want to use the roads, you pay the fee, get a pass and you can drive. If you don’t have the pass, you can’t get on the roads. If you’re caught on a paid road without a license, you’re kicked off and they can impound your property and use it as payment for your usage because you’re trespassing. 

This way no majority can force a minority into paying for anything. It’s no longer rule by majority. It’s rule by individuals for individuals. 200+ years ago, we didn’t have the technology for this and a democratic republic was the best option. Today, we do, yet we refuse to evolve our culture and adapt technology to make life better for everyone. 

This was way too long. i apologize.

Why don’t we force everyone to buy a Mercedes S-Class?

The Mercedes Benz S-Class is one of the safest cars on the road. Driving such a safe car would save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives a year. If we got everyone to buy one, it will bring the cost down from 100k a car to 70k. I know most can’t afford it but those of us that want it can get a 30k discount. 

How do we get everyone to buy a new Mercedes Benz?

What if Mercedes helped write a legislative bill and contributed to enough campaigns in Congress. Then imagine if the original idea was pitched by a Mercedes Benz super fan who is also the President of the nation. Now top that off with the fact that no one really knows what’s in the 10,000 pages of the Affordable Car Act but the premise sounds good and the super popular President is behind it so why not? 

Now imagine that the Affordable Car Act passed as law and all 300 million citizens were forced to give up their cars if they weren’t as safe as a Mercedes and to buy the S-Class. If you didn’t but an S-Class, you’d have to pay 1% of your salary to the IRS every single year until you bought an S-Class.

Let’s take it one step further and imagine that car companies started to reposes your current car if it didn’t meet the safety standards of the Affordable Care Act even though you love your current car, you picked it out yourself from a variety of choices and you’ve have it for a while and it’s right in your budget. 

Now imagine that Mercedes now has a monopoly that’s enforced via a government mandate and that they can slowly increase prices, degrade the quality of their product and that you’d still be forced to buy the S-Class because it’s “the law of the land”. 

How ridiculous does that sound? And yet, that’s exactly what the Affordable Care Act - Obamacare is.

How the GOP failed to embrace the ideas that they pretend to embrace.

Think about how clueless the GOP is. They keep on trying to cling to this idea of the “free market” and yet they keep on demonstrating that they don’t know a single thing about how the free market operates. They fail to utilize it and incorporate it into their plans of action. In wanting to see the ACA/Obamacare fail, it would have been the perfect opportunity to rely on the power of the market to disband the albatross law, but they failed to realize this possibility or they don’t actually believe in it. In fact, the GOP went the complete opposite direction and tried to unilaterally shutdown the government and force people’s hand. That’s as far from their ‘free market principles’ as you can get. 

Don’t get me wrong, I like seeing the government shutdown, but I’m no fan of hypocrisy or the tarnishing of such valid ideas as free market economics. 

If you want to stop the ACA/Obamacare, you don’t need to enact a coercive government shutdown, you simply need to let the free market kill the ACA (yes, even with all of the tax fines and such). Obamacare will only work if young healthy people pay for insurance that they don’t want or need. This demographic rarely uses their insurance to begin with and their for all of their contributions will go to mitigate the costs of older or more sickly customers who are typically a large burden on the system. Given the high price of insurance that the targeted youth will have to pay, even accounting for the fines they will face, I doubt that the majority from the target audience is going opt in. We’re already seeing them complain about increased costs and many are making the sound economic choice of not purchasing insurance. 

And this is exactly why the government had to force tax fines on to people, to force them to buy a product that they don’t want or need. But still, people are opting to not buy in and that’s why, given current projections, the ACA is well on it’s way to failure. 

The Free Market, even with all the government bullshit, is still doing what it does best, driving the market. 

riley-the-redd:

thevoluntaryistpunk:

priceofliberty:

batamotel:

MAKE IT VIRAL BOYCOTT FOREVER 21Retail company Forever 21 sent this letter to all full time/non-management employees informing them that they will be demoted to part time, they and their families will lose their health and dental benefits, and they will no longer qualify for paid time off. Employees believe the company is punishing them to retaliate against Obamacare.We were asked to share this by one of our fans, and now we are asking you to do the same. Don’t underestimate the power of your SHARE. Two weeks ago, US Uncut was the first place to widely publish McDonald’s now notorious budget, and it went viral across mainstream media. Thank you.

"Company punishing them to retaliate against Obamacare" uh no they’re changing your status so they don’t have to comply with Obamacare.
we said this would happen.

Yeah, boycott Forever 21, because that’s definitely going to help their employees get more hours.OBAMACARE IS THE PROBLEM. Come on, people.

NO employee at my job is allowed to work over 29 hours, besides the managers…because obamacare.

"I can’t believe companies are trying to cut costs or pass them on to customers" - Economically illiterate people everywhere. 

riley-the-redd:

thevoluntaryistpunk:

priceofliberty:

batamotel:

MAKE IT VIRAL

BOYCOTT FOREVER 21

Retail company Forever 21 sent this letter to all full time/non-management employees informing them that they will be demoted to part time, they and their families will lose their health and dental benefits, and they will no longer qualify for paid time off. Employees believe the company is punishing them to retaliate against Obamacare.

We were asked to share this by one of our fans, and now we are asking you to do the same. Don’t underestimate the power of your SHARE. Two weeks ago, US Uncut was the first place to widely publish McDonald’s now notorious budget, and it went viral across mainstream media. Thank you.

"Company punishing them to retaliate against Obamacare" uh no they’re changing your status so they don’t have to comply with Obamacare.

we said this would happen.

Yeah, boycott Forever 21, because that’s definitely going to help their employees get more hours.

OBAMACARE IS THE PROBLEM. Come on, people.

NO employee at my job is allowed to work over 29 hours, besides the managers…because obamacare.

"I can’t believe companies are trying to cut costs or pass them on to customers" - Economically illiterate people everywhere. 

(via the-oceanid)

I will never not reblog this when it pops up. 
Idiocracy caught in the act. 

I will never not reblog this when it pops up. 

Idiocracy caught in the act. 

(via antigovernmentextremist)

The Price Of Free Breast Pumps

The Affordable Care Act — aka Obamacare — requires health insurers to pay for breast pumps. For many insurance plans, the new rule kicked in at the start of this year.

On today’s show, we visit a breast pump boutique that has suddenly become a medical supply superstore. And we look at happens when a device goes from being something people have to pay for out of their own pocket to being free for anyone with insurance.

My wife and I were talking about breast pumps and I remembered this podcast from a few months ago so I figured I’d post it. 

Just another reminder that nothing is ever, ever, ever, EVER free. 

It’s hard to find a lot of good “Free Market” media outside of social media and youtube but NPR’s Planet Money does a really good job staying neutral and even leaning towards free market principles. 

Two other really good economics podcasts are Freakonomics (pretty neutral to free market leaning) and EconTalk (very free market, libertarians and even Anarcho-Capitalist). 

ArtistNPR's Planet Money
TitleThe Price Of Free Breast Pumps