Archive for 2013

THE HILL: White House struggles to defend Obama healthcare claim. “The White House on Tuesday struggled to defend President Obama’s 2009 claim that people could keep their old health insurance under ObamaCare as thousands of people received notifications that their insurance companies were dropping their plans.”

It’s hard to defend the indefensible.

A STENY HOYER CONFESSION: Top Dem Admits: ‘We Knew.’ “House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer conceded to reporters today that Democrats knew people would not be able to keep their current health care plans under Obamacare and expressed qualified contrition for President Obama’s repeated vows to the contrary.”

The GOP ought to be able to identify the people whose plans are being cancelled and mail/message them. They should be an angry group — and at 16 million, bigger than Obama’s winning margin.

READER PEN PLUG FOLLOWUP: So a while back, reader Greg Shea asked me to plug his family’s line of made-in-the-USA pens. I did, and the Insta-Daughter messaged me that she thought they were pretty, so I ordered her some. She reports that she loves them: They’re “very pretty,” and “I used them on a quiz today and the ink doesn’t smear when I write quickly.” Sounds good!

WITH AMAZON’S Kindle Matchbook, buying a print edition of many books gets you a cheap Kindle copy, too. Even past purchases can qualify.

REWRITING GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC MODELS with Big Data.

THE STRANGE CAREER OF JUDGE GARY KREEP: The ability of prosecutors to effectively get rid of a judge who rules for defendants too often is just more evidence that prosecutors have too much power in our judicial system.

ED DRISCOLL INTERVIEWS HEATHER MAC DONALD ON California In Decline.

MOVING CLOSER TO THE GATTACA AGE?

Illustrations in the patent depict drop down menus with choices like: “I prefer a child with Low Risk of Colorectal Cancer; “High Probability of Green Eyes;” “100% Likely Sprinter;” and “Longest Expected Life Span” or “Least Expected Life Cost of Health Care.” All the choices are presented as probabilities because, in most cases, the technique 23andMe describes could not guarantee that a child will or will not have a certain trait. Their calculations would be based on an analysis of two adults’ genomes using DNA derived from blood or saliva, which does reflect the genes inside those adults’ sperm and eggs.

Or does it?