Dangerous Thoughtlessness: Why I’m Not So Excited About ACA’s Health Care Refund Checks

July 17, 2012

“This is how the world works. All energy flows according to the whims of the Great Magnet. What a fool I was to defy him.” ~Raoul Duke

Paul Abrams is excited about free money showing up in his mailbox. He told us all about it in this Huffington Post editorial:

I Pledge My Health Insurance Refund to President Obama’s Re-Election. Will You Join Me?

Some of his reasoning seems arbitrary to me. For example:

You see, under our new healthcare insurance system, the insurers have to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect from us on actual healthcare. Before, they would just pocket it, and provide for executive bonuses, yachts, private jets, memberships to country clubs — all of which are wonderful, it is fine for them and others to enjoy them, but not with my healthcare dollars, thank you very much.

Why is it fine for them and others to enjoy these luxuries, but not with his healthcare dollars? What about his health care dollars so different in substance for his standard issue Federal Reserve notes that the government must dictate special rules as to how they may be allocated within businesses?  Read the rest of this entry »


Links of August 9th, 2011: The Prophet Ron; S&P Debt Downgrade; Fashion Police; a Liter of Light; others…..

August 7, 2011
  1. Ron Paul predicted the fall of the housing market as early as 2003.

    I think I’m leaning toward Gary Johnson this time around because I like him better on social issues, but I will gladly pass this on, as I would be just about as satisfied with a Ron Paul win in 2012.

  2. Who are “Standard & Poor’s” and why do they hate America? Either they are with us or they are with the terrorists.

  3. If the DEA wishes to gain adherents, it really should renounce such a weak representation of its anti-marijuana stance. Long story short, anyone who advocates for the criminalization of medical marijuana patients primarily on the grounds that smoking it is harmful must also address vaporization as an alternative means of delivery. If they do not, then they are either too ignorant to have a valid opinion on the subject or they are deliberately engaging in sophistry. This past January, the DEA put out a position paper of their own, which I’ll have to address next time.  Read the rest of this entry »


Links for December 27, 2010: Four Loko and Net-Neutrality

December 26, 2010
  • You can not really understand a moral panic like this in rational terms. … You can still mix Red Bull and vodka.

  • I’m not really a computer wizard, so I can’t speak about the the accuracy and completeness, but the last 17 seconds of the video explains why the net-neutrality movement has not yet won me over.

  • Read the rest of this entry »


    links for 2010-02-04

    February 5, 2010
    1. Huffington Post | Mark Green: Why Citizen’s United Is a Fraud: A Guide for Non-Lawyers

      I commented earlier that the parties must have wanted to talk about the First Amendment because it played such a prominent role in the oral arguments. Here it is clarified that this was not an issue in lower courts and it was not an issue during an earlier trip to the Supreme Court. So it looks like I need to go back a little further to research the origins.

    2. PBS | Bill Moyers Journal: Monica Youn and Zephyr Teachout

      The errors of thought: 1) Corporations all speak with the same voice. 2) They speak in opposition to “the people”. It just might be the case that some corporations may agree with some of “the people” on some of the issues. If you save money at Wal-mart, or if you buy a Ford automobile that enriches your life, then, in at least one sense, your interests are in line with those of the corporations. You will cheer for those corporations when they spend gobs of money to speak in your interest in opposition to other corporations who disagree. As to the judicial over-reaching, Youn and Teachout claim that the parties stipulated that this case would not be about a narrow issue and not the First Amendment. For what it’s worth, the oral argument available at SCOTUSWiki speaks of nothing but the First Amendment for at least the first ten pages of its transcript (all I’ve listened to so far: http://is.gd/7F0Kw). Somebody other than the justices was interested in discussing the issue.

      Update: I’m interested in reviewing the “activism” question. See the above link for more info. I need to review the case thoroughly and come to my own conclusion. Read the rest of this entry »