Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Link via Hot Air.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Under the Massachusetts proposal, if your care costs less than the annual allotment, then they keep the unused portion. If your care costs more, then the difference comes out of the providers’ pockets.Rationing under another name.
"A world-first experiment to try and reduce energy use for the day on the Isles of Scilly was foiled after a turn in the weather caused participants to use more electricity," London's Daily Telegraph reports.The link is here.
In the day-long experiment, Scilly people were asked to follow "a series of guidelines including switching off unnecessary lights and TVs when not in use and only filling kettles with the exact amount of water required." Result: Energy use dropped, but by only 1%.
The reason: "Organiser Dr Matt Prescott said the experiment was undermined by bad weather--which saw people using more power than usual." The experiment might well have been a success had it been conducted a day earlier, when it was sunny and warm.
Which leads us to a thought. What if there were a way of changing the climate so that the weather was warmer all over the world? We realize this is probably unrealistic, but if it could be done, it would be a great way to save energy.




Accidentally over billing the Federal Gummint: $22For all the things you want to destroy, there's the grandstanding US Attorney's Office.
Prosecuting a clerical error: $450,000
Abusing your power for a political agenda: Priceless.
It’s more akin to “my state because I need to be re-elected” but the thought is a close cousin.[2] Hmmm ... their logic opens some interesting possibilities. If they can essentially graduate the level at which the tax on benefits kicks in based upon the cost of benefits in given states, it seems to follow we should lobby for differentiating the federal income tax brackets by cost of living in a given state.
Jeez, I wouldn’t give them ideas.[3] The desire to help other people is admirable. The insistence on doing it with other people's money is less so. The willingness to carve out special exemptions for you and yours, at the expense of everyone else, is despicable.
Which is phrasing it politely.[4] [U]nfortunately, the Republicans have shown themselves to be lesser versions of evil than the Democrats. While going to hell slowly is better ..., the destination is the same.
Yes. This reminds me of the quote attributed to Mark Twain: "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on." It’s always a choice between the lesser of two evils; good never seems to get in the race.
Despite these state-level failures, President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are pushing forward a slate of similar reforms. Unlike most high-school science fair participants, they seem unaware that the point of doing experiments is to identify what actually works. Instead, they've identified what doesn't—and decided to do it again.It’s the classic definition of liberalism: doing the same thing over and over again, each time with the expectation that the outcome will be different.
“[T]his ridiculous hodgepodge, this hypertrophied Rube Goldberg apparatus, is not some startling aberration of the political process, induced by some Republican dark magic. This is the kind of thing the American political system produces. This is why all of our programs have a substantial element of the inexplicable and bizarre.”And she is absolutely right. The only way to significantly reduce the cost of healthcare in the U.S. is to significantly reduce government’s role in healthcare.