THATCHER: Common sense for restaurant-menu labeling - Washington Times
Let me get this straight. If there are more than 20 restaurants operating in a chain, there food is inherently more harmful for human consumption than if there are 19 or fewer restaurants? And this is somehow related to healthcare, or why else would it be in the PPACA under section 4205 of that piece of legislation?
"The law’s Section 4205 requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to list calorie-content information for each menu item on a board at every establishment."
I really can't imagine just how the federal government regulators and/or legislators think this should be something they are responsible for controlling.
Friday, January 31, 2014
Monday, January 6, 2014
Obamacare Legal Challenge
Attorneys General Letter to HHS Secretary
The Obama administration has arbitrarily changed the law as passed in 2010 on numerous occasions. The attorneys general from several states are challenging those changes in a letter, to be followed by a law suit. They claim the president has no authority to change a law without going back to congress.
Imagine if the following occurred at a basketball game. Before the opening tip of the game the officials told both teams that they were not going to call fouls on the home team until the second half, but all fouls by the visitors would still be called. Or imagine the plate umpire telling coaches during ground rules that all pitches thrown by the home team pitcher through the first 4 innings would be called strikes.
That is the same as what is currently happening with changes to the law for business exemptions to mandates, congressional subsidies, and many other changes to the law made by the Obama administration.
The constitution is still the document authority for all things involving the US government, including the president. Laws are passed by congress, signed or vetoed by the president, and subsequently enforced by the executive branch. The oath of office mandates the president faithfully execute the laws, which means he has no authority to arbitrarily change law, make exemptions or exceptions, or ignore those laws.
The Obama administration has arbitrarily changed the law as passed in 2010 on numerous occasions. The attorneys general from several states are challenging those changes in a letter, to be followed by a law suit. They claim the president has no authority to change a law without going back to congress.
Imagine if the following occurred at a basketball game. Before the opening tip of the game the officials told both teams that they were not going to call fouls on the home team until the second half, but all fouls by the visitors would still be called. Or imagine the plate umpire telling coaches during ground rules that all pitches thrown by the home team pitcher through the first 4 innings would be called strikes.
That is the same as what is currently happening with changes to the law for business exemptions to mandates, congressional subsidies, and many other changes to the law made by the Obama administration.
The constitution is still the document authority for all things involving the US government, including the president. Laws are passed by congress, signed or vetoed by the president, and subsequently enforced by the executive branch. The oath of office mandates the president faithfully execute the laws, which means he has no authority to arbitrarily change law, make exemptions or exceptions, or ignore those laws.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Playoff Game Tickets
I am somewhat troubled by the complaining about greed of the NFL over playoff tickets. The NFL is a product, and they can charge whatever they want for tickets to their events. Fans have the choice of paying or not. It is not your right to be able to view the games on TV.
Many people are claiming the NFL is greedy by charging the supposedly high price for tickets. All season long those tickets were bought up, and all home games for the Bengals were sold out. No one I heard of complained then. But now!
I do find the TV black out rules illogical. If I want to watch the game on TV then many people need to buy tickets to see the game in the stadium. Or I need to buy a ticket to see the game in person so others can watch it on TV. This makes no sense to me.
But economics should prevail. There re roughly 66,000 tickets for each game at Paul Brown Stadium (PBS). If the price is too high, not all will be sold. If the price is too low, then many who want tickets won't be able to buy them before they sell out. The optimal price is one that sells exactly the number of ticket available for sale.
The point being, the price should be set where demand equals supply. If you want to see the game badly enough, go buy a ticket. Otherwise stop complaining.
Many people are claiming the NFL is greedy by charging the supposedly high price for tickets. All season long those tickets were bought up, and all home games for the Bengals were sold out. No one I heard of complained then. But now!
I do find the TV black out rules illogical. If I want to watch the game on TV then many people need to buy tickets to see the game in the stadium. Or I need to buy a ticket to see the game in person so others can watch it on TV. This makes no sense to me.
But economics should prevail. There re roughly 66,000 tickets for each game at Paul Brown Stadium (PBS). If the price is too high, not all will be sold. If the price is too low, then many who want tickets won't be able to buy them before they sell out. The optimal price is one that sells exactly the number of ticket available for sale.
The point being, the price should be set where demand equals supply. If you want to see the game badly enough, go buy a ticket. Otherwise stop complaining.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
A Challenge to Our Beliefs
A Challenge to Our Beliefs
I Think I Can't! Who would buy a book with that title? Apparently there are many.
"What low-income whites in England and ghetto blacks in the United States have in common is a generations-long indoctrination in victimhood"
I Think I Can't! Who would buy a book with that title? Apparently there are many.
"What low-income whites in England and ghetto blacks in the United States have in common is a generations-long indoctrination in victimhood"
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
The Cost of the ACA
There are many things about the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare) that supporters of this law don't want you to understand. So I'll help you understand it.
You can force insurance companies to cover all sorts of illnesses and injuries, including those insurees are experiencing before signing up (pre-existing condition). It is a worthy cause, and a most would argue in favor of it. But it comes with a huge cost. Imagine not having insurance, having your house burn to the ground, then you go buy home owner insurance the next day, and the policy dictates the insurer must rebuild your house. That is a pre-existing condition.
Insurance is a bet that something terrible will or will not occur. You think it will occur, and the insurance policy pays off when it does.
Mandating all sorts of minimum or mandatory coverage could also be worthy, but not without costs.
Adding 30 million uninsured people to the rolls also adds costs for insurance companies. Since many of them don't have it because they cannot afford it, someone must pay for the coverage they get.
All this adds huge costs to the insurance companies. Someone must pay. And what happens if you don't pay? Never fear, subsidies from the government will pay the insurance companies for this also. Guess where the government gets that money?
The ACA was never a sound policy and certainly is not a sound law. We'll all find how just how so in due time.
You can force insurance companies to cover all sorts of illnesses and injuries, including those insurees are experiencing before signing up (pre-existing condition). It is a worthy cause, and a most would argue in favor of it. But it comes with a huge cost. Imagine not having insurance, having your house burn to the ground, then you go buy home owner insurance the next day, and the policy dictates the insurer must rebuild your house. That is a pre-existing condition.
Insurance is a bet that something terrible will or will not occur. You think it will occur, and the insurance policy pays off when it does.
Mandating all sorts of minimum or mandatory coverage could also be worthy, but not without costs.
Adding 30 million uninsured people to the rolls also adds costs for insurance companies. Since many of them don't have it because they cannot afford it, someone must pay for the coverage they get.
All this adds huge costs to the insurance companies. Someone must pay. And what happens if you don't pay? Never fear, subsidies from the government will pay the insurance companies for this also. Guess where the government gets that money?
The ACA was never a sound policy and certainly is not a sound law. We'll all find how just how so in due time.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
When Rich Get Richer, So Do the Poor
1993-2000 The Top 1% income rose 98.7%, and the bottom 99% rose 20.3%
2000-2002 The Top 1% dropped -30.8%, the Bottom 99% dropped -6.5%
2002-2007 The Top 1% rose 61.8%, and the Bottom 99% rose 6.8%
2007-2009 The Top 1% dropped -36.3%, and the Bottom 99% dropped -11.6%
2009-2012 The Top 1% rose 31.4%, and the bottom 99% rose 0.4%
See a trend yet? When the rich get richer, so do the poor. When rich get poorer, so do the poor.
Source Data (Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley)
Another piece of information from this report is this. When the rich get richer, the poverty rate declines. When the rich get poorer, the poverty rate increases.
2000-2002 The Top 1% dropped -30.8%, the Bottom 99% dropped -6.5%
2002-2007 The Top 1% rose 61.8%, and the Bottom 99% rose 6.8%
2007-2009 The Top 1% dropped -36.3%, and the Bottom 99% dropped -11.6%
2009-2012 The Top 1% rose 31.4%, and the bottom 99% rose 0.4%
See a trend yet? When the rich get richer, so do the poor. When rich get poorer, so do the poor.
Source Data (Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley)
Another piece of information from this report is this. When the rich get richer, the poverty rate declines. When the rich get poorer, the poverty rate increases.
The A.C.O.R.N. Doesn't Fall Far From The Tree
Truth About Navigators
Project Veritas, the same people that exposed A.C.O.R.N. are now exposing fraud and lying by the Healthcare.gov navigators.
Project Veritas, the same people that exposed A.C.O.R.N. are now exposing fraud and lying by the Healthcare.gov navigators.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)