Muda69

Everything that has massive government regulation has increased in price...who would have thought?

Clinton mocks: ‘China, if you’re listening, why don’t you get Trump’s tax returns?’: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/01/hillary-clinton-china-tax-returns-1296868

https://reason.com/2019/05/02/here-are-3-bad-reasons-were-still-in-afghanistan/ Agreed. It is far, far past the time to get out of Afghanistan. And while Mr. Trump may not yet be totally beholden to the military-industrial complex his string of national security advisers surely are.

Right?

R.I.P. Peter Mayhew, Star Wars' Chewbacca: https://news.avclub.com/r-i-p-peter-mayhew-star-wars-chewbacca-1834489871 A sad day. Truly an American icon, Mr. Mayhew will be missed.

"We" in this particular case also means the citizens of Clark County, who elected them to the position of judge in the first place. Methinks Mr. Adams and Mr. Jacobs face some explaining to do to those citizens who elected them, regardless of some disciplinary commission's ruling.

Exactly. Are we not supposed to hold public servants, elected judges nonetheless, to a higher standard of behavior?

Not to mention going to a training class in the morning hungover after only probably 3-4 hours of sleep. Nice behavior for an elected official being trained on probably the taxpayer's dime.

Not when they supposedly in Indianapolis for for training purpose, which one could logically conclude was being paid for by taxpayers. As for "out on the town" did you even read the article?: That sounds like "out on the town' to me. And for your information Frankfort, Indiana currently doesn't have a White Castle.................

"Interstate Commerce"

Why Social Democracy is Failing Europe: https://mises.org/wire/why-social-democracy-failing-europe

Gillibrand Proposes Giving Every Voter $600 To Donate to Campaigns: https://reason.com/2019/05/01/gillibrand-proposes-giving-every-voter-600-to-donate-to-campaigns/ Frankly what a stupid plan.

https://reason.com/2019/05/02/10-colleges-where-you-wont-have-to-walk-on-eggshells/ Congratulations to Purdue University for making this list.

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2019/05/02/clark-county-indiana-judges-shot-at-white-castles-indianapolis-what-know/3649427002/ Hmm. If I were a resident of Clark County I would want to why two elected officials, judges of the law nonetheless, were doing "out on the town" at 3am. Doesn't seem to be behavior conductive to their purpose for being in Indianapolis in the first place, a purpose very likely being paid for by Clark County taxpayers.

Baloney. It most certainly is crony capitalism. You as a private citizen effectively can't sue Merck if one of their vaccines causes harm to you or a family member: https://www.policymed.com/2011/03/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-protecting-vaccine-makers-from-state-lawsuits.html

Meh, she's a city kid, not a country kid. Millions more like her out there.

Lots of guarantees, none of them leading to anything but earlier death and the depravities of socialism.: https://spectator.org/medicare-for-all/

American Interventionists Hurt the Cause of Freedom in Venezuela: https://mises.org/wire/american-interventionists-hurt-cause-freedom-venezuela Indeed, humanitarian interventions have hardly been slam dunks even in cases like the Rwandan Genocide, as Stephen Wertheim noted: Given that the current socialism-induced disaster in Venezuela hardly rises to a level even approaching the Rwandan Genocide, it's hard to see how US's record on foreign interventions in recent decades could possibly be overlooked in favor or yet another invasion. Of course, opposing US bombing of Venezuelans — which is what "humanitarian intervention" likely means — is not the same thing as supporting the Maduro regime itself. Nor is the fact that immoral opportunists like John Bolton and Michael Pompeo hate the Maduro regime reason enough to like it. The problem with Pomeo and Friends isn't that they badmouth kleptocrat politicians like Maduro. The problem is US Bolton, et al incessantly push the line that is is either moral or effective to launch yet another "humanitarian" war. Nor do these interventionists even offer a critique that is either unique or insightful. Nearly anyone who isn't a true sympathizer with socialist regimes — i.e., Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn — can see the transformation of the Venezuelan economy from a mixed economy to a largely socialist one — known as Chavismo — has been predictably terrible for the Venezuelan standard of living. By most accounts, shortages are rampant, blackouts are frequent, the entrepreneurial economy has been decimated, and homicide rates are way up. Proving the Chavistas Right And this is why its so unfortunate the US administration has essentially declared war on the current regime. By declaring war on Maduro, the US administration only helps the regime shore up its base, play the victim, and draw on nationalist tendencies to secure its position. For example, supporters of Maduro — and his predecessor Hugo Chavez — always drew a sizable amount of support from Venezuelan nationalists who opposed any US meddling in domestic affairs, and who suspected the US was seeking constantly to essentially turn Venezuela into a puppet regime. Chavez bragged repeatedly about his ability to withstand us efforts at replacing him through various CIA machinations and coup attempts. Whether these were real or imagined, both Chavez and Maduro were able to solidify their base through fears of US meddling. Now, by explicitly declaring war on the Venezuelan regime, the US regime has only confirmed what Chavez and Maduro have claimed all along. The Administration has, in a sense, legitimized Chavismo foreign policy. Moreover, the US declaration of War against the regime has served to make it easier to accuse all opponents of the regime as US stooges. It's easy to see how this works just by observing American politics. In the United States nowadays, it's quite easy to be accused of being in service to the Kremlin — as John McCain said of Rand Paul — by taking certain political positions. Specifically, anyone who supports the Trump Administration — which is said to be in the thrall of Vladimir Putin — or who pushes a relatively restrained foreign policy, opens himself to labels such as "foreign agent" or "traitor." These terms are thrown around casually as if it's simply self-evident that anyone who opposes the CIA's latest scheme, or who points out James Comey's obvious bias and incompetence, must be doing Moscow's bidding. Now, imagine if the Russian state had come out in 2016 and said it openly supported the Trump candidacy and planned to invade the United States if Trump were not elected. Clearly, this would inflame sentiments of nationalism and whip up support for those who were seen as enemies of the Kremlin. It would become easy to accuse anyone who supported "Russia's man Trump" as a traitor. Being "pro-American" might become synonymous with opposing Donald Trump. The analogy fails in some respects, of course, because no well-informed person thinks Russia can actually invade North America. In Venezuela, on the other hand, the threat of invasion by the US is very plausible and real. Thus, the stakes in real life in Venezuela are far higher than in our imagined US scenario. Faced with a very possible invasion — and aware of the US's abysmal record on spreading "freedom" in Latin America — many Venezuelans may be even more inclined to support a regime they don't like if it's perceived as a bulwark against becoming a puppet state of the United States. Moreover, US sanctions against Venezuela provide a scapegoat for the regime's failed economic policies. As the Venezuelan economy continues to stagnate, the regime can simple say "we'd be doing much better if we didn't have these US sanctions to contend with." The same phenomenon has been observed in Iran for decades. Various US administration repeatedly threaten Iran with invasion, sanctions, and destruction, yet the residents there don't rise up to welcome their new American overlords. Indeed, the constant war of words only gives the Iranian regime a convenient scapegoat. Americans are no different. Thus, by choosing sides in the Venezuelan conflict, the US has likely made the replacement of Maduro even less likely. The internal conflict has been transformed from a fight over which factions shall control the central government, and turned into a referendum on preventing US control of Venezuela. The thought of US control, of course, isn't opposed by everyone. But given the long history of Latin American nationalism — which is often reminiscent of US nationalism — it's not hard to see why many Venezuelans have failed to take the streets to demand the current regime be replaced by the CIA's preferred candidate. The United States of America is not the world's cop.

https://mises.org/wire/why-one-corporation-can-dictate-measles-policy-america In other words, if patients are given choices, lobbyists theorized some of them might receive only partial vaccinations, based on individual assessments of risk. Thus, the AAP has opted to reduce choices — and reduce opportunities to evaluate risk — and embrace an all-or-nothing plan designed to force patients into adopting a certain vaccination schedule. The general idea being pushed here is that doctors only have access to patients intermittently. Thus, in order to increase "efficiency" in vaccines, the ideal is to pack as many immunizations into a single doctor visit as possible. Faced with a choice of the composite vaccine or nothing, some people have opted for nothing. This is not surprising since their preferred option has been removed from the menu of choices. The result has likely been fewer measles vaccinations among those who dislike the composite vaccine. Lobbyists deliberately pushed for the removal of a non-coercive option that could have been used to vaccinate more people. Not surprisingly, many of those same people are now pushing for explicitly coercive laws to force the use of a specific vaccine preferred by a single huge pharmaceutical company. Merck's Government-Created Monopoly But why should patients be only able to access treatments provided by a single corporation? In a functioning marketplace — which the US pharmaceutical industry certainly is not — it is highly unlikely this sort of power would be enjoyed by a single firm. In a functioning marketplace, if there is a demand for other types of vaccines, it is likely other companies would step in to provide those services. Competition could be offered by new startups, or by foreign firms entering the marketplace. Unfortunately, we find the US government makes this sort of competition extraordinarily difficult. In Financing Vaccines in the 21st Century: Assuring Access and Availability, (published by the National Academies Press) the authors note the plethora of barriers to entry that preclude the entrance of other firms into the vaccine market. Some of these are market-based. The cost of producing and delivering vaccines is costly in terms of fixed costs. But many of these costs are government created as well. In an examination of how government-created limitations on vaccine production has led to bottlenecks and fragility in vaccine distribution, the authors write: Defenders of the status quo insist that regulations are necessary to ensure public safety, but experience suggests "the impact of regulation has been costly, without clear evidence of corresponding improvements in quality." The effect has been to cut off patients and parents from options that might have been available without government policy artificially raising costs to so high an extent. Particularly illustrative is the fact that American consumers do not have the option of accessing foreign vaccines that have already been in wide usage outside the US. This is especially relevant to the case of the MMR since the Japanese manufacturer Takeda Pharmaceutical company already produces an alternative composite vaccine containing only measles and rubella antigens. (It was specifically produced to provide an alternative to the MMR which some Japanese researches contended led to too many adverse reactions.) Moreover, at least as late as 2007, a single-antigen measles vaccine in the UK was "obtainable on a private basis" (i.e., not through the National Health Service) at least partially through imported vaccines. These options have been essentially abolished by government regulation in the US.3 Moreover, many medical professionals appear happy to embrace and push these monopolies, since monopoly power can be easily used to force certain politically-popular composite vaccines. Monopolists like Merck are happy to play along since this can help increase revenues by simultaneously reducing administrative costs and marketing only costlier composite vaccines.4 The end result is an excellent illustration of how partnerships between government regulators and private companies can be used to reduce consumer choices, and even, ultimately, to push coercive medical policies which mandate acceptance of what few choices remain. More crony capitalism. As one of the comments to Mr. McMaken's article states:

What Bernie Sanders Gets Wrong About Capitalism: https://reason.com/2019/05/01/what-bernie-sanders-gets-wrong-about-capitalism/

I'm concerned because the lower margins won't be caused by free market competition, but due to an effective government takeover of the system. The ends don't justify the means.

Nothing wrong with these bathing dresses, if women want to wear them:

Thank you for the succinct explanation. So Mr. Sanders's plan is to effectively destroy the private market segment of health care. How many hospitals, surgery centers, etc. would be forced to close? Are there currently hospitals that only serve Medicare or Medicaid recipients?

Please elaborate.