Then, the other day I was out driving and came across a malfunctioning stoplight and all hell broke loose. No one was moving, and when they did move, they all moved at once from all directions. People were visibly frustrated and I wouldn’t doubt if some of the weaker drivers just sat there and cried.

If the 4-way stop can’t work in this society anymore, we’re screwed.

An Indiana man who says he dreamed two years ago of a bearded man slaying Osama bin Laden has given a painting of the dramatic scene to a Colorado man arrested in Pakistan while hunting for the al-Qaida leader.

Jerry Cool, 63, told The Star Press of Muncie that he was “shocked” when he saw Gary Faulkner talking on CBS’s “Late Show With David Letterman” on June 28 about his arrest in northern Pakistan earlier that month.

“Once I saw Gary on TV, I knew that was him in my vision,” Cool told the newspaper. “To me, he’s the only one that deserves that painting.”

Faulkner, a bearded, 52-year-old unemployed construction worker from Greeley, Colo., says he traveled to Pakistan to kill bin Laden. He was carrying a pistol, a sword and night-vision goggles when detained in mid-June near the border with Afghanistan.

Cool, who has a beard himself, said that in 2008, he dreamed of a “man with gray hair and a dark beard” killing the al-Qaida leader, and that he committed the scene to canvas.

What a conversation that must have been with his family. I imagine it like this:

Faulkner: “Honey, I’m off to capture Bin Laden!”
Wife: “Don’t forget your pistol, dear.”

Wouldn’t it have been a real hoot if this guy finds and captures Bin Laden and does what the entire US Military has been trying to do for a decade?

If I could find an attractive libertarian who speaks with a southern accent and enjoys cooking, I may have to pinch myself.

That’s Alton Brown second from left who hosts “Good Eats”, my favorite Food Network show, for those of you that don’t recognize him.

You know things aren’t going well in Massachusetts when supporters of RomneyCare write “there’s some evidence that the reforms signed into law by Mitt Romney in 2006 are struggling.”  That’s how The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein puts it in a post defending RomneyCare.  The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn offers a similar defense.

Klein mentions only a few of the difficulties confronting Massachusetts.  Here are a few more:

• The Commonwealth Fund reports that even though Massachusetts already had the highest health insurance premiums in the nation, premiums rose faster post-RomneyCare than anywhere else; 21-46 percent faster than the national average.
• A recent study estimates that RomneyCare has so far increased employer-sponsored health-insurance premiums by an average of 6 percent.
• The success that Klein sees in Massachusetts’ individual market — which accounts for just 4 percent of the private market — is merely the product of shifting costs to workers with job-based coverage.
• Contrary to Klein’s post hoc spin that RomneyCare “was never an attempt to control costs,” Romney himself promised that “the costs of health care will be reduced.”
• Aaron Yelowitz and I find evidence suggesting that uninsured Massachusetts residents are responding to the individual mandate not by obtaining coverage but by concealing their insurance status.  Coverage gains may therefore be less than official estimates suggest.
• Evidence is mounting that, despite stiffer penalties than ObamaCare will impose, increasing numbers of people are gaming the individual mandate by only purchasing health insurance when they need medical care. Such behavior could ultimately cause the “private” insurance market to collapse.

So. Let’s recap: Massachusetts’s universal healthcare system is making healthcare more expensive, isn’t saving anyone money and people are trying to figure out ways around it because they either don’t want it or can’t afford it. And, ObamaCare was “modeled after RomneyCare”.

Super.

Obama wasn’t wrong to bring the healthcare debate to the front of the nation’s attention, but the resulting bill sure does smell like crap.

Health Care vs. the Penalty (on your federal taxes)

• Joe— a single, 26 year old, Indianapolis male making $40,000/year.
  • Now pays approximately $131/month for health coverage.
  • Removal of annual & lifetime limits, no pre-existing conditions = PRICE WILL RISE.
  • Under PPACA [the healthcare bill], Joe will likely pay around $200/month.
  • Penalty for Joe to forego insurance under health care reform = Approximately $400 (greater of $95 or 1% of income in 2014).
  • Joe forgoes [insurance coverage] and breaks his arm—he will still receive care and be immediately enrolled.

I had this discussion with my dad yesterday. I, as a sane human being, will be looking very closely at healthcare come 2014 when I will be 27 years old. I currently pay $100 a month for insurance. If the penalties for NOT enrolling in healthcare are less than paying for insurance, you’d better believe I’ll just pay the penalties. It’s what everyone in Massachusetts does now.

Right after that, NPR did another story on a small town of a couple thousand in Texas that legalized alcohol sales and now the town has new stores, new industries and population decline has slowed.

Funny how such little government interaction, in either situation, can make a difference.

This got me thinking about the 10% tax on tanning salon services thanks to the healthcare bill. I call it the pale-people’s tax. Evidently, the argument is that having the tax will decrease the “unwanted” behavior. If that’s the case, why doesn’t the government just pass a law that says “no tanning”? Or, pass a million dollar tax on tanning services and be all passive about it and still achieve the same thing.

The reason is because taxes are only passed on things that  are “undefendable”. Gambling, alcohol, cigarettes, tanning and likely soda and salt pretty soon. We could never pass a tax on books  because too many people would be pissed.

The sad thing is that these taxes only hurt poor people who are more likely to use these kinds of products. You can call them uninformed people (wink wink, nudge nudge), if you want. Wealthy people don’t care about a few extra bucks on their tan. Poor people are the ones paying the added extortion money for something the government has deemed “unhealthy”.

Clearly, I fall on the side of letting people burn up to a crisp on their own dime and time if they want. I just wish the government would admit they’re only taxing these “bad” things for the extra money. At least we haven’t become so nannied that they are just coming out to say “No tanning! No salt! No fats! No soda!”