SCOTUS vs. "Obamneycare"

That's right, I said it. Obamneycare. And before Jindal "accidentally" said it. That's because while there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth (also lots of rejoicing) in the national arena today, it's all pretty amusing to observe. Obama's healthcare law is pretty close to Romney's as governor as MA. The Republicans are predictably all in disarray, with predictions of impending economic collapse now. Concurrently, the other side is a bit happier since they get to maintain the right to now demand healthcare all the time. (Another reform is actually needed, but that's a discussion for another time.)

Of course, quietly wading throughout the whole fray was the health insurance industry. Though some companies have recently come out saying they'll keep popular provisions, they really weren't very interested in the law while at the same time loving it. The law guarantees them the entire country as a customer base, and the country is still growing. That's guaranteed money.

What they didn't like was guaranteed expenses. The provision requiring them to make 80%/85% of expenditures be for patient treatments instead of on distributions to shareholders will make it very hard to continue to pay shareholders much of a profit. I can definitely see the government having to step in and "shore up" a couple insurance companies in the nearing future as the baby boomer generation continues to get on in age while simultaneously clamoring for the latest miracle treatments. Better to do that now preemptively rather than wait to react later.

Tax 'Fatty' Foods to Lower Obesity?

So it's been quite some time since I've last posted, but I'm back. I didn't actually go anywhere, I guess I just didn't feel up to posting for awhile. Anyway, for my next act, I have a response to an article ran by ABC recently on the possibility of adding an additional taxation on sweetened beverages to discourage their consumption. Disfrute.
If it was passed, the sweetened beverage industry would find a way to avoid having their products labeled as such by upping the amount of "natural" ingredients to qualify as such, slightly decreasing the amount of sugar (which wouldn't be a bad thing in itself) to not qualify as "sugar sweetened", or a combination of the above two methods. I predict a far smaller revenue stream than originally envisioned. At the same time, using part of those monies to offset the price of more natural foods could be a laudable goal, but I have little faith in modern political process promoting actual healthy foods instead of just being a handout to the industry w/ the biggest lobbyists.
At the same time, if they want to curb the obesity rate, they should impose a 15% increase in gasoline taxes and the other 5% on the aforementioned foods. Raising the price of gasoline would force people to really think before jumping in their car to zip down to the corner store instead of just walking or riding their bike. I think that policies which promote physical activity by making it a much more attractive economic alternative to driving will have a far greater effect on obesity rates than taxing foods ever will.

midterms

no, i'm not talking about midterm tests. although i'm sure that was figured out by the name of this blog. anyway, moving on. for the next two years of this country's history, i see complete and utter incompetence at the federal level of government. why? because the "tea party" element will hold a gun to the head of anyone who does not view government as operating in the way they'd like it to. (2nd amendment, right?) so although only a mere 4% of the country would consider themselves part of the tea party, they will have a far greater effect on government. from the sound of their rhetoric, the country will have had enough of them at the end of two years. cut medicare (hi rand paul)? privatize social security (sharron angle, we see you too)? that's going to be a tough sell as the first baby boomers are reaching 65 this year. and while something definitely needs to be done about those two entitlements in the near future, holding the entire government hostage is not how democracy works. this country was founded on the philosophy of serving the interests of the majority while retaining the rights of the minority. not for the minority to hold the majority hostage to their will.

why is bp being victimized?

I hear that plenty of protests against BP are planned for today calling for the government to take over the operation and seize all of BP's assets. I would like to know what the incentive is in that. Currently, the government is holding BP liable for the cleanup operations as well as damages. But if the feds were to take BP's assets, then clearly BP would no longer be able to be held liable without assets. Then, that would mean the government would be responsible for the cleanup and damages. *shudder* That sounds like a recipe for double disaster.
Secondly, I'm a bit puzzled as to why there is so much anger directed at BP. BP is a business. Businesses generally supply whatever is in demand. Last I checked, oil was very much in demand. So even if the leak is gushing 20,000 barrels of oil a day, that's only 1/1000 of the national daily usage. What am I saying? BP is drilling for oil through a 3 mile thick piece of earth that is a mile under the ocean because they know we will buy the oil once they bring it up and to market. Much pressure and blame is being heaped upon BP for allowing/causing the spill, but I would contend that anyone making that charge need only to look in the mirror to find BP's partner in crime. They wouldn't be digging for oil if it wasn't in demand. Sure it's easy to be an armchair environmental strategist and blast BP, but when it comes down to it, how many people will actually cut their oil usage willingly without complaining?
Since it's an election year, I don't see much progress happening on the front. But after the elections are over, maybe some level heads will show up on the state levels/Washington and we'll see some progress on the issue.

hola

from now on, i'll be putting any of my musings that are political on this blog instead of the other one. as i don't put out all that many as it is, this will probably become the blog with the most posts on it and i figured i'd put a new layout on this one as well. but anyway, beyond that, there isn't going to be much different.