CBS Evening News said last night that our economy grew 2.8% in the third quarter, after growing 2.5% in the second quarter. That would have our economy growing 11% for the year, which would be awesome. In actuality, our economy grew at an annual rate of 2.8% in the third quarter, which is a bit less exciting.
The Washington Post says today that the economy, "added 204,000 jobs in October, defying expectations of a weak labor market." As usual, they used data from the Employer Survey, which counts one person working two jobs as two people employed. From the Household Survey we find that the unemployment rate increased to 7.3% last week. It was reported by most media as "essentially unchanged," which is what they do when it rises, while when it drops by the same amount they say it "dropped slightly." It never "rises slightly," it only "drops slightly."
The article goes on to say that "This is good news for the economy," despite the report revealing that the labor force decreased by a whopping 730,000 people even though the population increased by 213,000.
Participation in the labor force dropped from 63.2% to 62.8% and workers who are "part time for economic reasons" increased by 125,000. The unemployment among people with "some college" rose by .3% and for college graduates it rose .1%. How all of that that is "good news for the economy" escapes me.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Insuring Without Risk
One of the features of “health care reform” is that it mandates what every policy must cover, including such things as pregnancy, addiction treatment, etc. This is widely applauded as preventing insurance companies from offering “junk policies” which don’t adequately cover people, and are compared to government safety standards mandated for automobiles.
The weakness of that defense is that while the government mandates safety standards for cars, it doesn’t mandate features. All cars have to have brakes, and the government mandates standards for the type of brakes that are furnished, for instance, but the government does not mandate that all cars must have air conditioning.
In its mandate that all policies must provide things such as birth control, the government is mandating features, not standards. A single male, for instance, would prefer to buy a policy that excludes that feature, since single males are exceedingly unlikely to become pregnant, and don’t carry health insurance for their girlfriends. The government requires, however, that any health insurance which they buy be priced on the basis that the insurer might have to pay the cost of the insured’s birth control and/or pregnancy.
In obtaining insurance for our home, we chose to include earthquake insurance but not flood insurance because we live in Southern California, which is long overdue for an earthquake but has not been hit by a hurricane in recorded history, and we are two hundred feet above the San Diego River flood plain. Using the “health care reform” mandate guidelines, we would be required to carry equal amounts of hurricane and flood insurance, because risk is not part of the equation.
Insuring against that for which you are not at risk; priceless.
The weakness of that defense is that while the government mandates safety standards for cars, it doesn’t mandate features. All cars have to have brakes, and the government mandates standards for the type of brakes that are furnished, for instance, but the government does not mandate that all cars must have air conditioning.
In its mandate that all policies must provide things such as birth control, the government is mandating features, not standards. A single male, for instance, would prefer to buy a policy that excludes that feature, since single males are exceedingly unlikely to become pregnant, and don’t carry health insurance for their girlfriends. The government requires, however, that any health insurance which they buy be priced on the basis that the insurer might have to pay the cost of the insured’s birth control and/or pregnancy.
In obtaining insurance for our home, we chose to include earthquake insurance but not flood insurance because we live in Southern California, which is long overdue for an earthquake but has not been hit by a hurricane in recorded history, and we are two hundred feet above the San Diego River flood plain. Using the “health care reform” mandate guidelines, we would be required to carry equal amounts of hurricane and flood insurance, because risk is not part of the equation.
Insuring against that for which you are not at risk; priceless.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Tribal Wars
The media analyzed the elections endlessly last night, telling us both that the results signaled the death of the Tea Party and that they revealed a surprising degree of strength in the Tea Party. Apparently the Tea Party is strong but nonetheless dead? The operation was a success but the patient died? The media is absurd? Whatever.
Chris Christie won in a state in which Democrats overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans, which should mean the Democratic Party is dead but somehow doesn’t, but does mean that he will beat Hillary Clinton for the White House in 2016. I don’t make this shit up, I’m just repeating what I was told by the media last night. I paid close attention to this stuff, because no football games were on last night.
Democrat loyalists are, however, apparently becoming a little bit frantic since one of them said this morning that, “Any Democrat who voted for Chris Christie should be horsewhipped.” That’s taking tribalism pretty seriously. I don’t even want to think what the next step might be.
Chris Christie won in a state in which Democrats overwhelmingly outnumber Republicans, which should mean the Democratic Party is dead but somehow doesn’t, but does mean that he will beat Hillary Clinton for the White House in 2016. I don’t make this shit up, I’m just repeating what I was told by the media last night. I paid close attention to this stuff, because no football games were on last night.
Democrat loyalists are, however, apparently becoming a little bit frantic since one of them said this morning that, “Any Democrat who voted for Chris Christie should be horsewhipped.” That’s taking tribalism pretty seriously. I don’t even want to think what the next step might be.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
NFL Bullies?
If you're following the story about "issues" between Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin, in which Martin left the Dolphins in a snit over being bullied and Incognito has been suspended from the team for "actions detrimental to the team," some clarity may be reached by knowing that Martin is an Ivy League graduate and speaks proper English. He probably does not insert the verbal pause "uh" five times into each sentence.
And now you know why gay football players have not "come out."
And now you know why gay football players have not "come out."
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Lowering Costs
Regarding my little post about health care costs, I'm not preaching against the ACA here, even though at times I have said that it should have been a better program and I dislike some of the flaws that are built into it. I'm making a different point here. I’m asking where are the promised and currently advertised cost saving benefits of the program.
When someone is telling me that the sky is blue and I look and observe that it is gray, I don't merely assume that I am wrong or that I cannot trust my eyes. I ask what is the difference between "his blue" and "my gray." I find out that he lives 300 miles east of me and that the rainstorm that is covering my sky has not yet reached where he lives and that explains it. His sky is blue, mine is gray and the discrepancy is explained.
The ACA was described for one full year of debate prior to its passage as a program to provide insurance for people who didn't have it and to lower the cost of health care. The latter was not some secondary unimportant discussion, it was a fundamental and important goal of the program, otherwise it offered nothing for people who already had insurance, which is some 85% of the people in the country. What it offered for 15% was insurance availability, and what it offered for 85% was a reduction in the terrifying increases in the cost of health care. Without the promise of lowering costs it would have had very little support, because it would have offered nothing for the majority of voters, and it would not have passed.
After it passed there has been much praise about how well it is lowering the cost of health care, and that is at odds with my observation. I don't see it doing that and I want to know why your skies are blue and mine are gray. I'm not going to assume that gray is blue merely because you tell me so or you claim that I'm colorblind. I’m not going to accept your assurance that the program is a success despite, “sure some people will pay higher costs,” because that was never advertised as part of the deal.
The program was not sold as “some people will pay higher costs and some people will save money.” The program was sold as being a program that would “lower the cost of health care.” It is, apparently, providing insurance for people who previously didn’t have it and it is, apparently, doing so at affordable costs to those people, but where is it “lowering the cost of health care” for the rest of us?
Before ACA passed my health care expenses were increasing about 10% per year. Then they increased 25% and 30% and I was told that ACA hadn't fully kicked in yet. Well it fully kicks in next year and my costs are going up 77%. Who is getting the savings promised by ACA, and why are they getting them while I am not? How many people are seeing the same thing I am and are not having their voices heard?
Look, I would even be willing to pay a bit more for health insurance in order for people without insurance to get insurance, if that was the way the program had been sold to me, just as I am willing to pay higher taxes for people to have a social safety net,. But that was not the deal that was sold and is being touted as today’s success. Don’t promise me lower costs and then piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.
If the way it's working out is that some people are paying higher costs in order for people without insurance to get it, then we should admit that that's the way it's working out. We should admit that Plan A of insuring the uninsurable along with lower costs didn’t work and so we’re going with Plan B which is to insure the uninsurable and raise costs. But I’m fed up with being told that ACA is lowering costs and watching costs go up faster than ever.
When someone is telling me that the sky is blue and I look and observe that it is gray, I don't merely assume that I am wrong or that I cannot trust my eyes. I ask what is the difference between "his blue" and "my gray." I find out that he lives 300 miles east of me and that the rainstorm that is covering my sky has not yet reached where he lives and that explains it. His sky is blue, mine is gray and the discrepancy is explained.
The ACA was described for one full year of debate prior to its passage as a program to provide insurance for people who didn't have it and to lower the cost of health care. The latter was not some secondary unimportant discussion, it was a fundamental and important goal of the program, otherwise it offered nothing for people who already had insurance, which is some 85% of the people in the country. What it offered for 15% was insurance availability, and what it offered for 85% was a reduction in the terrifying increases in the cost of health care. Without the promise of lowering costs it would have had very little support, because it would have offered nothing for the majority of voters, and it would not have passed.
After it passed there has been much praise about how well it is lowering the cost of health care, and that is at odds with my observation. I don't see it doing that and I want to know why your skies are blue and mine are gray. I'm not going to assume that gray is blue merely because you tell me so or you claim that I'm colorblind. I’m not going to accept your assurance that the program is a success despite, “sure some people will pay higher costs,” because that was never advertised as part of the deal.
The program was not sold as “some people will pay higher costs and some people will save money.” The program was sold as being a program that would “lower the cost of health care.” It is, apparently, providing insurance for people who previously didn’t have it and it is, apparently, doing so at affordable costs to those people, but where is it “lowering the cost of health care” for the rest of us?
Before ACA passed my health care expenses were increasing about 10% per year. Then they increased 25% and 30% and I was told that ACA hadn't fully kicked in yet. Well it fully kicks in next year and my costs are going up 77%. Who is getting the savings promised by ACA, and why are they getting them while I am not? How many people are seeing the same thing I am and are not having their voices heard?
Look, I would even be willing to pay a bit more for health insurance in order for people without insurance to get insurance, if that was the way the program had been sold to me, just as I am willing to pay higher taxes for people to have a social safety net,. But that was not the deal that was sold and is being touted as today’s success. Don’t promise me lower costs and then piss in my ear and tell me it's raining.
If the way it's working out is that some people are paying higher costs in order for people without insurance to get it, then we should admit that that's the way it's working out. We should admit that Plan A of insuring the uninsurable along with lower costs didn’t work and so we’re going with Plan B which is to insure the uninsurable and raise costs. But I’m fed up with being told that ACA is lowering costs and watching costs go up faster than ever.
Friday, November 1, 2013
Side Effects
One of the medications prescribed for our cat, which is labeled for "Feline Molly Robinson," has displayed on its label, "Warning; may cause slight drowsiness." Seriously? On medication for a cat?
It kind of shakes your confidence in the vetinary pharmacy. Should you be dispensing medication for a feline if you think that "slight drowsiness" is in any way remotely detectable in a cat? Or that anyone tending the cat would notice and be concerned by it?
It kind of shakes your confidence in the vetinary pharmacy. Should you be dispensing medication for a feline if you think that "slight drowsiness" is in any way remotely detectable in a cat? Or that anyone tending the cat would notice and be concerned by it?
Bending The Cost
We just got the information for next year's health insurance from my wife's employer. Between premiums and increases in deductibles and copays, what we pay for health care next year will increase by 77% over our cost in 2013. "Health care reform" is doing such a wonderful job of "bending the curve" of the cost of health care. 77% increase.
2013's increase was 25%, and 2012's was 30%. Helluva job, Democrats.
2013's increase was 25%, and 2012's was 30%. Helluva job, Democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)