Monthly Archives: February 2014

Team USA sponsor Liberty Mutual to air ads during the Olympics

Posted on by

Screen-grab from Liberty Mutual ad.

By Chris Reidy/Globe Staff/February 6, 2014

Liberty Mutual Insurance, the large Boston-based insurance company, is getting ready to air new TV ads tied to its Olympic sponsorship of Team USA.

The ads, which were created by the companys long-time ad agency Hill Holliday of Boston, feature Olympic athletes from the past who overcame personal setbacks to go on to later triumphs. A subplot of the ads is that Liberty Mutual can help its customers come back from their own setbacks, such as natural disasters and car accidents, so they can move on with their lives.

For every setback, theres a chance to come back and rise, Paul Alexander, the companys chief communications officer, said. And insurance can be the bridge between the setback and the comeback.

This is Liberty Mutuals first Olympics, said Alexander, who noted that Liberty Mutual is the only Boston-based company to be a Team USA sponsor.

After debuting on NBC during the Opening Ceremonies of the Winter Games, the broadcast spots will continue to air throughout the Olympic Winter Games coverage on NBCs family of broadcast networks and will be supported by a significant number of additional broadcast assets, including billboard and bumpers, to promote Liberty Mutual Insurances status as official partner of the USOC and Team USA, Liberty Mutual said.

Some other insurance companies use their advertising to boast of having the lowest rates. Liberty Mutual, in contrast, sees its target audience as adults between 35 and 54 who are willing to pay a little more for better coverage and service, Alexander said.

Liberty Mutuals Olympics ads are not just about trying to sell insurance; they are also about trying to energize the companys employees. Over the past 12 months or so, the company as organized a series of employee events at which past Olympians put in appearances.

Its about building pride, excitement, motivation, and engagement, Alexander said of this effort. With these events, weve touched 30,000 of our 40,000 employees.

Here is the original post:

Team USA sponsor Liberty Mutual to air ads during the Olympics

Thoughts on Cass Sunsteins criticisms of libertarianism …

Posted on by

Harvard Law Professor (and recent OIRA head) Cass Sunstein has had some columns lately on Bloomberg View that seem to be squarely in my wheelhouse as an originalist and a libertarian. The most recent one is Resist the Sirens Call of Originalism. Before that was How to Spot a Paranoid Libertarian.

The columns have a striking similarity, in that they both attack extremist or caricatured versions of originalism and libertarianism, and appear to concede that the moderate version has some virtues.

Paranoid libertarianism, says Sunstein, is defined by five characteristics: 1, a belief that government will inevitably abuse its authority in any given area; 2, a presumption of bad faith by government officials; 3, a sense of victimization; 4, a refusal to engage in tradeoffs; and 5, an enthusiasm for slippery slope arguments. (These characteristics seem overlapping to me.)

Yet so far as I can tell, Sunsteins criticism of the category has nothing to do with non-paranoid libertarians, or with those who identify as classical liberals. For a good example on the other side, see this recent column by Richard Epstein, who distinguishes classical liberalism from libertarianism.

It is a little less transparent, but the same thing seems to be going on in Sunsteins column on originalism. Sunsteins three objections to originalism are 1, that the Constitution itself may not embrace originalism since it uses abstract terms; 2, some things (like wire-tapping) were unanticipated by the framers; and 3, originalism would deeply unsettle modern law, unless it embraces precedent, in which case it doesnt count as originalism.

Objections 1 and 2 are simply not true of most sophisticated originalists, who acknowledge that when a constitutional provision was intended to have broad or evolving scope, the originalist thing to do is to give it broad or evolving scope. (This also makes it easy to accommodate new situations.)

To be sure, originalists do sometimes argue that people like Sunstein are far too quick to assume that a provision is broad and abstract, but this a difference in application, not theory. Serious originalists ought to agree with Sunstein that a provision should not be interpreted to be more originalist than it was originally intended to be.

Objection 3 brings us back to a recurring theme of my recent originalist posts. Critics of originalism dont get to just declare that embracing precedent which nearly all originalists do, to differing extents is not the originalist position. Or if they do wish to define originalism so as to exclude most of its practioners, then they ought to be clear that they are attacking only an extreme version of the theory.

So it seems to me that the upshot of Sunsteins columns ought to be: extreme originalism and paranoid libertarianism are bad, though regular originalism and libertarianism are (apparently?) fine. Yet I fear that by the fallacy of mood affiliation, readers may think Sunstein has also struck a blow against regular originalism and regular libertarianism.

Visit link:

Thoughts on Cass Sunsteins criticisms of libertarianism ...

Libertarianism | graalbones

Posted on by

The idea that one may get along without the help of others is so obviously false that its affirmation amounts to a confession of some form of ignorance at best. One cannot grow to adulthood without help from others. That should settle the matter. Apparently however, some adults believe themselves capable of getting along without the help of others. To this I would simply say Show me. Can the entrepreneur get along without customers, or the industrialist without workers? The simple truth is, they cannot. Yet somehow I dont expect the simple truth to be taken seriously, which is a sign of something. They tend to regard their customers or workers as interchangeable parts. They tend to think that they are therefore more needed than in need. But this is not the normal state of affairs. Yes, the addict needs the dealer more than the dealer needs him. But non-addicts do not need the dealer at all. Likewise, those not addicted to convenience can do without the vast majority of what the industrialist and the entrepreneur have to offer. Now all of this is rather obvious. What blinds us to it is our addiction to convenience. (I say our to include myself as such an addict. My only advantage is to have recognized the problem.)

Like Loading...

. Bookmark the

.

Go here to read the rest:

Libertarianism | graalbones

Rand Paul tries to sell social conservatives on libertarianism

Posted on by

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is, from all indications, planning to run for president in 2016. Yet while Tea Party Republicans love Paul in part for his known affinity for libertarianism, that same reputation poses a bit of an obstacle for Paul when it comes to wooing social conservatives, who tend to see libertarianism as morally bankrupt and depraved. If Paul wants to have any shot at being the GOPs nominee in 2016, hell have to either win over, or at least placate, these still-vital members of the GOP coalition.

Thats the context you need to understand to interpret Pauls recent speech for the American Principles Project(APP), a right-wing activist group that holds very conservative views on abortion and same-sex marriage.

While speaking to the APP, the anti-choice Paul tried to assuage his audiences fears by insisting that libertarianism and social conservatism can work together in perfect harmony. To some, thats sort of still a bad word, Paul said of libertarianism. To others, its a word that may expand the party.

Libertarian doesnt mean libertine, Paul continued. To many of us, libertarian means freedom and liberty. But we also see that freedom needs tradition.

Paul then tried to tie his support for prison reform as fundamentally Christian in nature. I think there are things we can and should talk about, as Christians, who believe in forgiveness, Paul said.I think the criminal justice system should have some element of forgiveness.

Hoping to seal the deal, Paul then played his trump card: implicitly comparing himself to Ronald Reagan.

Everybody else told Reagan to shut up, too, he said. They said, Shut up and wait your turn.

Go here to see the original:

Rand Paul tries to sell social conservatives on libertarianism

The Libertarian Solution, Sundays at 2pm EST on the …

Posted on by

President Obama has embraced the notion that lies and misinformation are more important than honesty and truth when ideology is at stake. Lies are antithetical to truth and should be rejected immediately regardless of political ideology. When criteria permits dishonesty there is no rational basis for discussion. Case in point with the healthcare debate or the Afghanistan War. Read Article

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has released it's 2013 10,000 Commandments report and the highlights are... interesting. Read Article

The common response to raising prices in a disaster scenario is one of disgust, that shopkeepers are greedy, out for themselves, and taking advantage of the situation in order to line their own pockets. But increased prices in such situations are actually a good thing. Read Article

America just keeps getting fatter and fatter, and politicians keep proposing (imposing) more and more solutions to the problem. Raise taxes on unhealthy foods. Have bureaucrats prepare our lunches. Take away happy meal toys. But what's the real (obvious) solution (that they blatantly ignore)? Read Article

So called health care inflation plagues us and brings the public to give the government the power to "fix" the problem. Now with the Republicans in power, no doubt Obamacare will continue, though in some altered form. Are health care costs really skyrocketing? Read Article

Continued here:

The Libertarian Solution, Sundays at 2pm EST on the ...

Paul: 'Libertarian' isn't 'libertine'

Posted on by

Sen. Rand Paul on Wednesday outlined his vision for the future of the Republican Party, offering a conservative case for embracing the libertarian-leaning wing of the GOP, of which he is a pillar.

Paul, a Kentucky Republican and possible 2016 presidential contender, outlined several more libertarian issues that could help the party move forward during a speech at a patriotically themed gala in Washington.

To some thats sort of still a bad word, Paul said of libertarian. To others its a word that may expand the party.

(PHOTOS: Highlights from Rand Pauls filibuster)

In the speech sponsored by the American Principles Project, a deeply conservative organization with a special focus on social issues, Paul offered up jokes and wry commentary. But he also sought to bridge the oft-perceived gap between libertarians and strict social conservatives.

Libertarian doesnt mean libertine, he said. To many of us libertarian means freedom and liberty. But we also see that freedom needs tradition.

He added: I dont see libertarianism as, you can do whatever you want. There is a role for government, theres a role for family, theres a role for marriage, theres a role for the protection of life.

Paul stressed that the value of marriage is economic, as well as moral and religious, and that those virtues can be communicated through families and communities as well as through the government.

(QUIZ: Do you know Rand Paul?)

He also singled out criminal justice reform as one area that could help the Republican Party expand and improve its brand.

Read more:

Paul: 'Libertarian' isn't 'libertine'

Three N.D. Libertarians file to run for office

Posted on by

Three North Dakota Libertarian Party candidates for statewide office have filed their certificates of endorsement with the secretary of state's office for this year's election cycle.

The party has candidates in the races for Congress, secretary of state and tax commissioner.

Fargo businessman Jack Seaman, making his first run for office, announced his intent to run for Congress in October. He has been a Fargo resident since 1985 and owns MinDak Gold Exchange.

He has listed his top campaign issues as including repeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and an audit and subsequent abolition of the Federal Reserve.

Seaman is the only party candidate with a website, http://jackfornd.com .

Running for secretary of state is Roland Riemers, who has made multiple runs for office earlier. He is owner of Affordable Apartments, LLC in Grand Forks and the chairman of the North Dakota Libertarian Party.

He ran for governor twice, in 2004 and 2012. In the 2004 race, he ran as an Independent.

In 2012, improper paperwork filing by his running mate prompted his removal from the ballot on the Libertarian Party ticket. He later re-entered the race as an Independent.

He ran as an Independent in 2006 for the U.S. Senate, and later ran for Grand Forks County sheriff in 2010.

Fargo resident Anthony Mangnall is running for North Dakota tax commissioner. Hes a producer for Rush Street Productions in Fargo.

Read more here:

Three N.D. Libertarians file to run for office

A key facilitator of mRNA editing uncovered

Posted on by

4 hours ago Messenger were RNAs charted, with A's and I's representing specific nucleotides. ADR-1 does not alter editing activity of ADR-2 at all of the hundreds of newly found editing sites, but the ability of ADR-1 to bind to these mRNAs is required for its regulatory activity at the majority of ADR-1 affected editing sites. Credit: Heather A. Hundley

Molecular biologists from Indiana University are part of a team that has identified a protein that regulates the information present in a large number of messenger ribonucleic acid molecules that are important for carrying genetic information from DNA to protein synthesis.

The new work, published today in Cell Reports, finds that the protein ADR-1 binds to messenger ribonucleic acid, or mRNA, and then enhances RNA editing, a process that allows a gene to be present as multiple mRNAs that can then each affect gene expression differently.

Organisms ranging from sea anemone to humans utilize RNA editing to express different mRNAs at various times in development. Decreased mRNA editing has been reported in patients with neuropathological diseases like epilepsy, schizophrenia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and several types of cancer, including glioblastomas (brain tumors).

Using the model organism, Caenorhabditis elegans, the researchers identified over 400 new mRNA editing sitesthe majority regulated by ADR-1and declared the protein the first global regulator of RNA editing.

"What we've determined is that this protein's ability to alter editing of mRNAs is not specific to just a few genes, but instead, its ability to bind to mRNAs is required for proper RNA editing of most mRNAs," said Michael C. Washburn, a graduate student in the IU College of Arts and Sciences' Department of Biology and first author on the paper with Boyko Kakaradov of the University of California, San Diego.

Working in the laboratory of Heather A. Hundley, corresponding author on the paper and an assistant professor of biochemistry and molecular biology in the IU School of Medicine's Medical Sciences Program at Bloomington, Washburn and undergraduate Medical Sciences program student Emily Wheeler collaborated with the team from UCSD to show that the region of ADR-1 protein that binds to target mRNAs in C. elegans is also required for regulating editing. This region is present in many human proteins, and a protein similar to ADR-1 is specifically expressed in human neurons.

"So it is likely that a similar mechanism exists to regulate editing in humans," Hundley said. "Further work in our lab will be aimed at understanding the detailed mechanism of how these proteins regulate editing, in turn providing an inroad to developing therapeutics that modulate editing for the treatment of human diseases."

C. elegans is a microscopic worm that like humans highly expresses a family of proteins in the nervous system called ADARsadenosine deaminases that act on RNAa family that includes ADR-1.

ADARs change specific nucleotides (molecular building blocks for DNA and RNA) in RNA, in a process called adenosine-to-inosine editing, or A-to-I editing, that diversifies genetic information to specify different amino acids, splice sites and structures. Scientists currently estimate there are between 400,000 and 1 million A-to-I editing events in noncoding regions of the human transcriptome.

Read more here:

A key facilitator of mRNA editing uncovered

New report forecasts health care reform law will decrease U.S. labor supply – Video

Posted on by


New report forecasts health care reform law will decrease U.S. labor supply
In the Congressional Budget Office #39;s economic outlook report for 2014, analysts predicted that as many as 2.3 million will stop working or work less as a res...

By: PBS NewsHour

See the original post here:

New report forecasts health care reform law will decrease U.S. labor supply - Video

Obamacare and jobs reports: Health care law could cost more than 2 million jobs – Video

Posted on by


Obamacare and jobs reports: Health care law could cost more than 2 million jobs
A report conducted by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that because of the Affordable Care Act, the equivalent of two million workers w...

By: CBS This Morning

More:

Obamacare and jobs reports: Health care law could cost more than 2 million jobs - Video

Health care deadline to qualify for federal subsidy is March 31

Posted on by

by Rudy Herndon Staff Writer Moab Times Independent

The looming date marks the end of the current open enrollment period under the new Affordable Care Act insurance marketplace at http://www.healthcare.gov. Its also the last chance this year that consumers will have to qualify for direct federal subsidies, which can lower their overall health insurance costs, depending on their annual income levels.

If youre going to receive a subsidy ... time is of the essence, Moab Regional Hospital Marketing and Communications Director Jen Sadoff said.

Fortunately, free help is readily available for local residents who want to find the best deals out there, yet may have trouble navigating the new marketplace on their own.

Moab Regional Hospital and the Moab Free Health Clinic recently teamed up to raise awareness about the options that are offered through marketplace, and to guide residents through the application process.

Interest to date has been strong especially among older and middle-aged residents, according to Moab Free Health Clinic Executive Director Allyson OConnor. But OConnor and Sadoff are encouraging younger people and anyone else who needs health insurance to take advantage of the services theyre offering at no cost.

The plans can be complex, OConnor said. Thats the value of going to either a certified application counselor at the hospital or the free health clinic, or going to a commercial insurance representative.

OConnor estimated that 60 percent of the free health clinics patients will qualify for some type of subsidy.

The best deals may be available to individuals who earn between $11,500 and $17,000 a year, according to Charlie Kulander, who serves as a certified application counselor at the free health clinic. Similar bargains may be out there for a two-person household with an annual income of $23,000, or a four-person family with a combined income of $36,000 a year, Kulander said.

Theyre going to get an incredible deal where in some cases they will pay $0 for their deductible [out-of-pocket expenses], he said.

Continued here:

Health care deadline to qualify for federal subsidy is March 31

The Lonely Death of the Republican Health-Care Plan

Posted on by

Last week, Republican Senators Tom Coburn, Richard Burr, and Orrin Hatch unveiled a health-care proposal or, at least, a close approximation of one. Conservatives hailed it as a seminal event, the moment when the Republican Party would finally dispel the accusation of mindless obstructionism and assert its full equal status as a vessel for serious health-care policymaking. Ross Douthat rejoiced, mirabile dictu,an actual health care reform proposal! The new plan explode[s] the myth, exulted a National Review editorial, that Obamacare or something like it is the only game in town.

Republicans are certainly going to have to abandon their indifference to policy and formulate an actual health-care reform policy. But the moment has not arrived, and the events since the plans hopeful emergence have made the gap between aspiration and reality painfully clear.

Within hours of the new plan coming into contact with political reality, things began to fall apart. The general outlines of the plan involved deregulating health insurance, so that healthy customers paid less for cheaper plans and sicker customers paid more, and shifting the tax burden off the wealthy and onto the middle class. Defining its effects more specifically has proven difficult. Its less a plan than an outline that, depending on how the authors filled in its missing details, could mean any number of wildly different things.

The first blow to its coherence came when the authors faced questions about their proposal to cap the tax deduction for employer-sponsored health insurance, a politically risky but economist-approved change that provided most of its money for covering the uninsured. Asked about this piece of their plan, the authors changed the language within hours to ratchet back its scope, insulating them from political attacks, but also neutering its value.

The next thing that happened was that, on Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office released a new budget update. The latest CBO estimate contained political gold for Republicans: It estimated that the availability of health insurance would spur workers to reduce their labor by the equivalent of two million jobs, a change Republicans could gleefully mischaracterize as destroying two million jobs. Of course any health reform plan would reduce employment this way if you give people the chance to leave the safety of employer-sponsored insurance without risking the horrors of the pre-Obamacare individual market, many of them will. The Republican proposal, sketchy though it was, would likely have approximately the same job-killing impact as Obamacare.

But while reveling in the potential new attack line, Republicans suddenly forgot that they had a plan other than repealing Obamacare. What was the fun in comparing Obamacare to a specific plan, with trade-offs and disruptions of if its own, when they could continue assailing every real or imagined downside of Obamacare, full stop?

Every Republican health-care reform plan in history has served the same purpose: to enable Republican politicians to say that they do indeed have a health-care reform plan, in order to block Democrats from enacting a health-care reform plan. Two of the sponsors of the new Republican plan, Coburn and Burr, also sponsored, along with Paul Ryan, a health-care plan in May 2009. It was a pretty good plan, albeit a somewhat vague one. It was based on replicating Mitt Romneys successful reform in Massachusetts in the other states. It set up health-care exchanges in every state, which would be regulated heavily. The plan, the authors wrote, prevents cherry picking when insurance companies choose to cover only healthy patients by equalizing risk across insurance companies and reversing the perverse incentives that leave those most vulnerable with the fewest options. It required that all health-insurance plans meet the same statutory standard used for the health benefits given to Members of Congress. Ezra Klein really liked it.

That sounds a lot like Obamacare, doesnt it? Indeed, it does. But Ryan, Coburn and Burr did not see their plan as fertile grounds for compromise. Instead they saw it as the free-market alternative to the European, socialistic horrors Democrats longed to impose upon America. In defending their plan, they pointedly contrasted it with Obamacares public option:

Nothing will rally ordinary Americans against the president's plan more than his allies arguing too forcefully for a system run by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington what we call the "public option" in the Obama plan

If Washington can effectively run a health program like Obama's public option, why are Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health programs in such disrepair?

Continued here:

The Lonely Death of the Republican Health-Care Plan