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

soupsoup:

For the first time scientists have printed human embryonic stem cells using a 3D printer.

The Heriot-Watt University team’s research could eventually lead to human organs being printed on demand and an end to animal drug testing. Jim Drury of Reuters reports.

3-D printing is already changing the planet but this news might be the ultimate “HOLY SHIT, SCIENCE!” moment. 

THEY HAVE A PRINTER WHICH PRINTS HUMAN TISSUE CELLS USING STEM CELL INK!!!! 

STEM CELL INK!!! 

BIO INK!!!

21st-century-classical-liberal:

shit eater eating shit

21st-century-classical-liberal:

shit eater eating shit

(via eltigrechico)

barticles:

In France, firms with 50 or more employees face far more stringent regulation than those with 49 or fewer. By an amazing coincidence, there are a large number of firms with exactly 49 employees.
The employer insurance mandate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — aka Obamacare — kicks in at 50 full-time employees. By an amazing coincidence, many firms have begun shifting employees to part-time status. Peter Suderman at Reason suspects it also will lead to far more 49-employee companies here in the U.S.
And, I suspect, he’s right.

barticles:

In France, firms with 50 or more employees face far more stringent regulation than those with 49 or fewer. By an amazing coincidence, there are a large number of firms with exactly 49 employees.

The employer insurance mandate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — aka Obamacare — kicks in at 50 full-time employees. By an amazing coincidence, many firms have begun shifting employees to part-time status.
 Peter Suderman at Reason suspects it also will lead to far more 49-employee companies here in the U.S.

And, I suspect, he’s right.

(via libertarians-and-stoya-deactiva)

I convinced myself to go to a quarterly meeting

I usually skip these since I write the script and build yhe spreadsheets anf slides.

It’s been years since I’ve attended because it’s redundent info but today we’re discussing Obamacare/PPACA impact on the company.

Should be interesting.

moralanarchism:

Krugman: “Death panels and sales taxes is how we do this”

Brietbart reports (My highlight):

Nobel Prize winning “economist” Paul Krugman spoke at Sixth & I Historic Synagogue in Washington, D.C. last week. During the Q&A session following the lecture, an audience member asked him about the rising national debt.

Earlier in the evening, Krugman had already vocalized his satisfaction at President Obama’s apparent lack of concern over the exploding cumulative deficit. However, in a moment of brutal honesty, the esteemed Princeton professor revealed his long term prognosis. According to the professor,

Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.

lalibertarienne:

conservativetildeath:

If they don’t want that shit why would we?!?!?!

Well, they do have the Federal Employee Program, which is essentially the same thing. Not condoning it, just putting into perspective.

If I were the owner of this van, I’d feel dumb as hell. Why? Because there is nothing exempting the President or Congress on page 114, line 22. 
I’ve gone through a large portion of the ACA and I’ve certainly read all the exemption sections (did you know the word ‘exemption’ is in the ACA 42 times?). 
The words “Obama” “Michelle” and the word “Vice President” aren’t in the document. Congress is in there, 252 times. 
There are 1,000 different ways you can make a legitimate argument against the ACA/Obamacare but this is the one you went with? A made up reason that you didn’t even factcheck before you painted it on your van?
Brilliant. 
This is why no one takes the naysayers seriously. Because so many of us will regurgitate anything we hear. 
Here’s two PDF copies, you guys can check for yourselves:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
and here:
http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

lalibertarienne:

conservativetildeath:

If they don’t want that shit why would we?!?!?!

Well, they do have the Federal Employee Program, which is essentially the same thing. Not condoning it, just putting into perspective.

If I were the owner of this van, I’d feel dumb as hell. Why? Because there is nothing exempting the President or Congress on page 114, line 22. 

I’ve gone through a large portion of the ACA and I’ve certainly read all the exemption sections (did you know the word ‘exemption’ is in the ACA 42 times?). 

The words “Obama” “Michelle” and the word “Vice President” aren’t in the document. Congress is in there, 252 times. 

There are 1,000 different ways you can make a legitimate argument against the ACA/Obamacare but this is the one you went with? A made up reason that you didn’t even factcheck before you painted it on your van?

Brilliant. 

This is why no one takes the naysayers seriously. Because so many of us will regurgitate anything we hear. 

Here’s two PDF copies, you guys can check for yourselves:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf

and here:

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

Why the Public’s Growing Disdain for the Supreme Court May Help Obamacare

robertreich:

The public’s growing disdain of the Supreme Court increases the odds that a majority will uphold the constitutionality of Obamacare.

The latest New York Times CBS Poll shows just 44 percent of Americans approve the job the Supreme Court is doing. Fully three-quarters say justices’ decisions are sometimes influenced by their personal political views.

The trend is clearly downward. Approval of the Court reached 66 percent in the late 1980s, and by 2000 had slipped to around 50 percent.

As the Times points out, the decline may stem in part from Americans’ growing distrust in recent years of major institutions in general and the government in particular.

But it’s just as likely to reflect a sense that the Court is more political, especially after it divided in such partisan ways in the 5-4 decisions Bush v. Gore (which decided the 2000 presidential race) and Citizen’s United (which in 2010 opened the floodgates to unlimited campaign spending).

Americans’ diminishing respect for the Court can be heard on the right and left of our increasingly polarized political spectrum.

A few months ago, while a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich stated that the political branches were “not bound” by the Supreme Court. Gingrich is known for making bizarre claims. The remarkable thing about this one was the silence with which it was greeted, not only by other Republican hopefuls but also by Democrats.

Last week I was on a left-leaning radio talk show whose host suddenly went on a riff about how the Constitution doesn’t really give the Supreme Court the power to overturn laws for being unconstitutional, and it shouldn’t have that power.

All this is deeply dangerous for the Court, and for our system of government.

Almost 225 years ago, Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist (Number 78, June 14, 1788) noted the fragility of our third branch of government, whose power rests completely on public respect for its judgement:

The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. [Yet lacking sword or purse, the judiciary] is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

The immediate question is whether the Chief Justice, John Roberts, understands the tenuous position of the Court he now runs. If he does, he’ll do whatever he can to avoid another 5-4 split on the upcoming decision over the constitutionality of the Obama healthcare law.

My guess is he’ll try to get Anthony Kennedy to join with him and with the four Democratic appointees to uphold the law’s constitutionality, relying primarily on an opinion by Judge Laurence Silberman of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – a Republican appointee with impeccable conservative credentials, who found the law to be constitutional.

WHAT ABOUT THE PUBLIC’S GROWNING DISDAIN FOR OBAMACARE?

lalibertarienne:

Obesity in America: To Win, We Have to Lose Government (by ReasonTV)

A good diet consists of nutritious food, ample exercise and zero government.