It’s ironic that today, the same person that would actually support this policy is definitely carrying a smart phone, which must be charged constantly, has one or two or more plasma TV’s, matching set top boxes (always on), video game consoles for their kids (with same in their SUV of course!) and digital picture frames (always on), and certainly does not think twice about using central heat and air conditioning. These are the minions of the likes of Al Gore, who consume power (pun intended) with aplomb. How many airplane flights must this man have taken in his life? I am sure he always flies commercial on full flights. I am sure he never opts to use private planes, spewing clouds of jet exhaust from burning thousands of gallons of jet fuel. When I see Al Gore talking, I think of the hot air he spews as this powerful (pun intended) cloud of jet exhaust.

These minion pinheads insist that for the good of the planet, us private citizens should not be given the choice to buy a superior technology (the conventional light bulb) over an inferior one (the mousetrap light bulb). You see, private citizens do not understand that when it comes to the environment, we must act like communists, we must pledge our allegiance to centrally-planned-and-controlled governance… because we private citizens are A.) incapable of making good decisions on our own and B.) we private citizens need to be forced to sacrifice (by law). You see, this minion pinhead camp even got George Bush (43) to sign a law to make this happen. He’ll regret it in 2013 when he gets to buy these gems for the barn at his Crawford Ranch instead of regular light bulbs. Imagine, a good old barn under the Western skies with a porch light that looks like it comes from the sketchbook of a C student in industrial design.

Minion pinheads do not understand that private citizens can decide for themselves what light bulb to use. If they are interested in a 5 year payback on electricity savings by buying a more expensive, tacky, inferior product, because they like that kind of 5 year net neutral investment return, they will go and buy the ridiculous light bulbs made in China. If they just want something that has worked for them all their lives, and costs less than $1, and really doesn’t move the needle all that much, if at all, on their electric bill, they can decide to go that way. Unless of course, holier than thou pinheads and their overeducated leaders force these private citizens into the wrong personal choice, motivated by A.) the “good” of the planet and B.) egregious use of power (pun definitely intended).

Here’s a video that sums it up at VIDEO.

Maybe if these idiot policy makers got a pink slip instead of a promotion at the EPA, we could all save some money and keep our light bulbs.

As with most similar legislation, the truth is mostly in the math, not any talking points.

Right now, the total expenditure for US health care is $2.2 trillion. Therefore, the cost per American of current US health care expenditure is $7,200 per year.

Because on average, the vast majority of an individual’s healthcare needs happen either during an unexpected illness or during their later years, it is odd that healthcare insurance is a term policy. (Term policy means for each year I pay insurance, I am covered for that year only.)

The system assuredly would not be that way today, but for Medicare (and perhaps unions, another topic…). Only because Medicare kicks in as we age, and covers everyone, has market health insurance made any sense in the form of term policy. In the same way the cost of life insurance is enormously higher for an elderly person, term health insurance would be cost prohibitive for the elderly. The reason this system has survived is because enough of the expense of healthcare happens after Medicare kicks in, when the government starts footing the bill. Of course, this recent healthcare bill was marketed heavily as a means to prevent health insurance companies from cutting off or refusing customers. Again, I contend we wouldn’t have a market of term health insurance providers if Medicare did not already exist. We would have, at least in some large dose, a market of insurance that looks more like savings accounts, where a large portion of what you contribute is “saved,” to be applied in your later years when you need it.

The median income for a full time worker is about $39,000 in the US. If we assume that person works 40 years, they will earn $1.6 million in their lifetime. Their lifetime healthcare cost will be $500,000 (some statistics say the average American’s lifetime cost is $300,000, but because the fact is as a whole, we spend 2.2 trillion a year and there are 300 million of us, about $577,000 is spent per capita. So, depending which stat you prefer, 18 and 36% of a lifetime median income must be spent on our own healthcare if we are each paying our way.

Since during our working years, we generally are paying for our children’s healthcare, the percentage should be higher. If one of the parents does not work, their cost of care is not going to be any less, so that should be added equitably.

As far as Medicare goes, when we work, we contribute 2.9 percent of what we earn to Medicare. Half that amount comes from “our paycheck” and the other half the employer pays “on top” of our paycheck.

During that same 40 year work span at the same median income, the total contribution to Medicare is a mere $47,000 (accounting for both employee and employer contribution). So payments paid into Medicare only covers 8-16% of Average Americans’ healthcare, even though they are going to have most of their needs during that time. (The theory that the time value of money will grow the contributions along the way doesn’t count for much considering healthcare costs have vastly outpaced inflation, and investing this money in a way that would yield much more than 6% is misguided. If anything, this theory would be a negative argument!)

Original Medicare legislation was the largest chunk of socialized payment for healthcare because the pay-outs per capita are much larger than the median pay-ins. This was followed by the Prescription drug benefit passed during Bush’s term. The recent reforms and any changes coming from current legislation, I would contend, are dwarfed by these two.

To conservatives I would say this: aren’t health insurance companies collecting premiums from people at the ages when they are “cheaper” and letting Medicare pay for them when they are more expensive, offloading the cost of servicing the customers they collect from for decades to the government, right when those customers need the most servicing?

To liberals I would say this: You obviously have no problem with Medicare paying way more out than the average person puts in. Do you admit that Medicare burdens the federal government with a promise to people that they individually cannot pay for, and that it is a form of redistribution of wealth? Do you view Americans’ sense of entitlement that comes from exactly this type of entitlement as a challenge to global competitiveness?

One of many problems I have with artificially trying to create inflation is, across the universe of our economy, different products and services have different elasticity, and therefore will not inflate in equal measure. With an elastic product, demand will drop. Only things that have demand inelasticity will experience inflation in the short run (i.e. less than 5-10 years). Basic forms of food tend to have inelasticity because we have to eat. Recreational hunting birds are elastic, because if the price goes up, the hunter will just not buy. This little example is true across the economy. I think it also explains why (at least in my way of thinking) current policy has had a negative effect, if any, on jobs.

You may have heard the story of the research doctor trying to figure out why the hospital he worked at had exorbitant mortality rates. He tried and tried to uncover the reasons. He was an expert in his field. He brought in outside experts also to study the problem with him. After months of continued increases in mortality, the hospital was going to have to shut its doors because the patients feared going there. Then, this doctor left town for an extended vacation because he was depressed, and the other experts were sent home. Suddenly the mortality rate dropped when the patients were left to the care of only nurses. This doctor eventually, with the blood of all these dead patients on his hands, discovered that examining cadavers for research while also caring for living patients kills people. He and his well-intentioned team of doctors were the primary cause of the problem, even though they thought they were the solution.

Clothes is another fun topic, but hardly worth writing about.

Bottom line, slutty is mainstream and whorish is normalish.

I agree and rack my brain routinely on what puts people to work in the 21st century on a global scale.

Quit with your “sent from my iPad” signatures. I (kind of) get the now universal “sent from my iPhone” or “sent from my Blackberry” messages (perhaps to imply your misspellings and lack of polish is due merely to using your phone’s keyboard to type), but do yourself a favor and don’t do this with your iPad. Unless you think a faux hawk is still cool. Then, by all means, keep it up.

Nice article and great comment thread on the lack of a serious ecosystem anything remotely like Silicon Valley in Austin. It’s ok Austin, I still love you. And would rather live within your city limits than anywhere in California. But face it and embrace it, your creatives are mostly hippies and your investors scoff at your entrepreneurs.