The Democrat War on Women has given One in Six People Genital Herpes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

Liberals say there’s nothing wrong with women being sexually active.  In fact, it’s empowering.  Young women naked on their backs with their legs spread pleasing men.  That’s the way liberals like their women.  Strong.  Independent.  Not enslaved in a marriage.  But out there having fun.  Enjoying life.  And to keep these young naked women on their backs liberals have given them free birth control in Obamacare.  And access to abortion when that fails.  So they can have all the casual sex men want to have with them.  And all of it consequence free (see New genital herpes drug shows promise in trials by Tracy Miller posted 1/16/2014 on the New York Daily News).

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in six people between the ages of 14 to 49 have an HSV-2, or genital herpes, infection.

The currently approved drugs to treat genital herpes don’t fully eliminate symptoms and only partly reduce the risk of spreading herpes, Dr. Anna Wald, professor of allergy and infectious diseases at the University of Washington School of Public Health, told LiveScience…

The study found no serious side effects associated with this dose of the [new] drug, though previous research found high doses of pritelivir were toxic when given to monkeys, LiveScience reported.

The new drug will undergo more tests and “is still a few years from the market,” Tyring said.

Well, consequence free for five out of six people.  Which means if you’re in a group with three couples one of the six will have genital herpes.  Which isn’t too bad.  Unless you’re the poor bastard that has casual sex with that one.

A 14 year old girl is not thinking about getting married and raising a family.  No.  She’s thinking about empowerment.  At least, one in six is.  Imagine this girl in her twenties.  When she is thinking about getting married and raising a family.  And how much fun that will be trying to meet the father of her future children when she has genital herpes.  That’ll put a damper on her finding her Prince Charming.  And her fairy tale wedding.  Which is the biggest thing in a woman’s life.  As any guy getting married will tell you.  They’d be fine with eloping to Las Vegas.  Not their fiancés.  They want the $4,000 wedding dress.  And the big church wedding.  One thing she never dreamed of having?  Genital herpes.  Which she got thanks to liberals who told her to live life and empower herself.

And yet it’s the Republicans that have a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Obama Recovery is Good for Wall Street but Bad for Main Street

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

The December jobs report was pretty bleak.  It showed that the unemployment rate fell to 6.7% and that the economy added 74,000 jobs.  Not great but good enough for some who say that President Obama’s policies are finally working after 5 some years of trying.  Which is ridiculous.  Because that unemployment rate doesn’t tell you how many people lost their jobs.  And how many people disappeared from the civilian labor force as they gave up trying to find work that just isn’t there.  Which hides the number of people who lost their jobs.  Because the Bureau of Labor Statistics doesn’t count anyone as unemployed if they are no longer looking for work.  But if you dig down into the jobs report you’ll find this data.  And see that for every person that entered the labor force about seven people left it in December (see The BLS Employment Situation Summary for December 2013 posted January 13th, 2014 on PITHOCRATES).  Which is anything but an economic recovery.

All during the Obama presidency the Federal Reserve has been stimulating the economy.  Right out of the Keynesian handbook.  By keeping interest rates near zero to encourage people to borrow money to buy things they don’t need.  But few have.  No.  The only people borrowing that money are rich investors.  Who are borrowing this ‘free’ money to spend in the stock market.  Helping Wall Street to do very well during the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.  While Main Street sees their median family income fall.  Still the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, thinks he did a heck of a job (see Bernanke Says QE Effective While Posing No Immediate Bubble Risk by Jeff Kearns and Joshua Zumbrun posted 1/16/2014 on Bloomberg).

Bernanke is seeking to define his legacy before stepping down on Jan. 31. During his eight-year tenure as leader of the Fed he piloted the economy through a financial crisis that led to the longest recession since the 1930s. He has tried to bolster growth by holding the target interest rate near zero and pushing forward with unprecedented bond buying known as QE.

“Those who have been saying for the last five years that we’re just on the brink of hyperinflation, I think I would just point them to this morning’s CPI number and suggest that inflation is not really a significant risk of this policy,” Bernanke said, referring to a Labor Department report showing the consumer price index rose 1.5 percent in the past year. The Fed has set an inflation target of 2 percent…

The Federal Open Market Committee (FDTR) announced plans last month to reduce monthly purchases to $75 billion from $85 billion, citing improvement in the labor market. The jobless rate last month fell to 6.7 percent, a five-year low.

The only reason why we don’t have hyperinflation is that everyone has depreciated their currency so much to boost exports and pay for bloated welfare states that all currencies are losing value.  And of all these bad currencies the American currency is the least bad of the lot.  Which is why some foreign nationals will pay to park their money in American banks.  Because the risk of it losing its value is so much greater in their home country.

But that doesn’t mean inflation hasn’t reared its ugly head in the US economy.  Just go to a grocery store and look at a bag of chips.  Or a box of cookies.  Or any packaged item that didn’t seem to get overly expensive during the Obama recession. A bag of chips may be the same $3-4 it was before the recession.  But notice the size of the bag.  It’s gotten smaller.  So, yes, consumer prices have not shown great inflation.  But packaging has gotten smaller.  So instead of paying more for the same quantity we are paying the same price for a lesser quantity.  Which means we may be buying 4 of something in a month instead of 3 of something.  It adds up.  Which is why there are so many more people on food stamps.  The Bernanke inflation is taking more of our paycheck to buy what it once did.

The economy is horrible.  Fewer people are in the labor force with each jobs report.  Our grocery packaging is shrinking.  And once the Fed stops its bond buying the stock market is going to fall.  A lot.  For every time rich investors think the economic data will show solid economic activity what do they do?  They sell their stocks.  Causing a stock market fall.  Why?  Why would investors leave the stock market when the data say the economy is getting stronger?  Which seems to go against common sense?  Because they know there’s been only one thing helping them get rich during the Obama presidency.  That ‘free’ money.  Once that source of cheap money goes away they will sell before those inflated stock prices fall back to earth.

The Obama recovery.  Good for Wall Street.  Bad for Main Street.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Left may no longer Love the Pope now that he went from Anti-Capitalist to Pro-Life

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

Awhile back the left was loving the new Pope.  Because he sounded like an anti-capitalist.  Now they no doubt love the Pope about as much as Sinead O’Conner.  Who once tore up a picture of the Pope on SNL can called him the real enemy  (see Pope Francis Calls Abortion ‘Horrific’ by Eliana Dockterman posted 1/13/2014 on Time).

Pope Francis called abortion “horrific” on Monday…

“It is horrific even to think that there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day,” he said in his toughest remarks to date on abortion in his “State of the World” address, Reuters reports.

If the left had their choice they’d probably taken a pro-choice Pope over a capitalist Pope.  For even though those on the far left despise capitalism they just worship abortion more.  Because it helps with their war on women argument.  Which gets women and young people to vote Democrat.  And once they do then they can wage a war on capitalism unencumbered.  Which is their real enemy.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , ,

Mom and Dad get a Big Assist from MTV in the Battle against Teen Pregnancy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

Parents can’t tell their kids anything.  For they know everything.  Thankfully for parents they got a little help from MTV.  Who kids will listen to even when they won’t listen to their parents (see Study: US reality shows contributed to record decline in teen pregnancy by Nicholas Tufnell, wired.co.uk, posted 1/13/2014 on ars technica).

A study from Wellesley College and the University of Maryland finds that MTV’s Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant contributed to a record decline in US teen pregnancy…

In an effort to find the “causal effect of specific media content on teen childbearing rates,” Kearney and Levine began an empirical investigation by studying Nielsen ratings (a US audience measurement system) as well as data, trends and metrics from Google and Twitter. The researchers then examined the impact on teen birth rates using Vital Statistics Natality microdata.

The figures revealed that Teen Mom and 16 and Pregnant often had extremely high ratings and a very dedicated following, causing many to search and discuss the themes explored on the shows. Specifically, searches and tweets on birth control and abortion spiked each time the show was broadcast, particularly in areas where it was popular.

Teen abortion rates also fell over this period, which Levine and Kearney see as further evidence that the shows are partly responsible for a reduction in pregnancies.

How about that?  MTV got something many have failed to do.  To get kids to listen to their parents.  For the fall in teen pregnancies AND the fall in teen abortions means one of two things.  Either kids acting irresponsibly in spreading STDs with active sex lives got more responsible when it came to birth control.  Or they are just having less sex.  Like Mom and Dad would have tried everything within their powers to get them to do.  And here’s a television show that Mom and Dad no doubt couldn’t stand tipping that argument in their favor.  Thank you MTV.  For telling our kids that Mom and Dad were right all along.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Abject Ignorance of things Economic is Destroying our Health Care System

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 18th, 2014

Week in Review

The problem in America these days is the mass ignorance of the people.  Thanks to a public school system that does not educate but programs our children to be good Democrat voters.  Higher education taken over by the leftist radicals of the Sixties that forever changed the curriculum to teach our children to distrust capitalism and love government.  When controlled by Democrats, of course.  And people who are for some reason respected for their economic prowess who are absolutely clueless on things economic (see The Daily Show Nails Why Healthcare Will Never Work As A Free Market by Christina Sterbenz posted 1/18/2014 on Business Insider).

Steven Brill, author of Time’s in-depth healthcare analysis “Bitter Pill,” appeared on The Daily Show this week to discuss his opinion of Obamacare.

Brill’s work exploded his career into a love-hate relationship with Obamacare, now leading to a book. Speaking with Jon Stewart, Brill certainly made his criticisms known but we also feel like he pinpointed exactly why healthcare just can’t work as a free market.

Brill told the story of a cancer patient forced to pay $13,700 out-of-pocket, up-front for transfusion of a drug. And that cost only constituted part of a greater $83,000 payment. Brill claims, however, the drug only cost the pharmaceutical company $300.

Stewart came back at Brill with the typical, conservative argument — creating a free market for healthcare where patients pick-and-choose their coverage to create competition and therefore, better options.

“Everyone says, well it’s a marketplace. That guy [the cancer patient] has no choice in buying that drug. His doctor told him, ‘This will save your life. You don’t take it, you’re gonna die,'” Brill responded.

He further argued free markets must host two aspects — a balance between buyers and sellers and secondly, knowledge — neither of which the current U.S. system offers.

“That cancer drug has a patent. That is a monopoly that the government has given the drug company. There is no other drug. That’s the drug,” Brill said.

Jon Stewart is a comedian.  So one can almost forgive his ignorance.  But you’d think a person writing for a publication with the word ‘business’ in its name would actually understand business.  But the author hasn’t a clue.  It’s not her fault.  It’s because of the politicizing of our educational system.  As her dual degrees in journalism and public affairs would have taught her squat about the classical, Austrian or the Chicago school of economics.  Instead filling her head with Keynesian nonsense.  The one economic school embraced by power-hungry governments everywhere that has a proven track record of failure.  For it was Keynesian policies that gave us the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, the dot-com bubble and recession of the late 1990s/early 2000s and the Great Recession.  Where massive government spending did not pull the economy out of recession but only made things worse.

Why does this pharmaceutical company have a patent?  Or perhaps a better question would be why do we have this one cancer drug?  Why is it that this one pharmaceutical company developed a cancer drug that works that no other pharmaceutical company or government developed?  Because of that patent.  The only reason they poured hundreds of millions of dollars into research and development and paid massive liability insurance premiums for taking a huge risk to put a drug onto the market that may harm or kill people.  They do this on the CHANCE that they may develop at least one successful drug that will pay all of their past costs for this one drug, the costs for the countless drugs that failed AND a profit for their investors.  Who took a huge risk investing, giving this pharmaceutical company the money to pay all of their employees over the years it took to come up with at least one drug that wasn’t a loser.

Does the author of this article work for free?  No.  Of course not.  She has bills.  As we all do.  Even the people working at pharmaceutical companies.  Who don’t work there for free.  Even if the vast majority of their work produces nothing that their employer can sell their employer still pays them.  Thanks to their investors who give them the money to do so until they can actually sell something.  But their investors do this only because of the CHANCE that this pharmaceutical will develop that miracle drug that everyone wants.  A miracle drug that would never come into being if it weren’t for investors who were willing to risk losing huge amounts of money.  Something only rich investors can afford to do.

Health care worked as a free market before General Motors made it an employee benefit thanks to FDR’s ceiling on wages.  Once people stopped paying for what they received all free market forces left the health care system.  And costs began to rise.  This whole “healthcare just can’t work as a free market” is a product of the dumbing down of our educational system.  One that produces people who don’t know the difference between insurance and health care.  Insurance protects our assets against a catastrophic and UNEXPECTED loss.  Like when Lloyds of London started selling marine insurance at that coffee shop.  Every shipper paid a small premium to protect against a POTENTIAL sinking and loss of cargo.  A POTENTIAL financial loss.  Not every ship sank, though.  In fact, most ships did not.  Which is why that little bit from everyone was able to pay the financial loss of the few that did.  For the ships that didn’t sink the shippers paid every other cost they incurred to ship things across those perilous oceans.

This is how insurance works.  Which isn’t how our current health insurance works.  Where people don’t expect to pay for anything out-of-pocket.  Not the unexpected catastrophic costs.  Or the EXPECTED small costs that everyone can budget for in their personal lives.  Childhood vaccinations, annual checkups, flu shots, childbirth, etc.  Even the unexpected things that have a low cost.  Like the stitches required when a child falls off of a bike.  Things that would cost less than someone’s annual cellular costs.  Or things that people can plan and save for (like a house, a car or a child).  When we pay these things out-of-pocket there are market forces in play.  For a doctor is not going to charge someone they’ve been seeing for years as much as a faceless insurance company.  Even today some doctors will waive some fees to help some of their long-time patients during a time of financial hardship.  Because there is a relationship between doctor and patient.

When we pay out-of-pocket doctors can’t charge as much.  Because they need patients.  If they charge too much their patients may find another good doctor that charges a little less.  Perhaps a younger one trying to establish a practice.  These are market forces.  Just like there are everywhere else in the economy.  Even a cancer patient requiring an expensive wonder drug would contribute to market forces if there was true insurance in our health care system.  Cancer is an unexpected and catastrophic cost.  But not everyone gets cancer.  Everyone would pay a small fee to insure against a financial loss that can result from cancer.  Where that little bit from everyone was able to pay the financial loss of the unfortunate few that receive a cancer diagnosis.  Because only a few from a large pool would incur this financial loss insurers would compete against other insurers for this business.  Just like they do to insure houses.  And ships crossing perilous oceans.

Health care would work better in the free market.  It doesn’t today because government changed that.  Starting with FDR putting a ceiling on wages.  Which forced employers to offer generous benefits to get the best workers to work for them when they couldn’t offer them more pay.  This was the beginning.  Now the health insurance industry is so bastardized that it doesn’t even resemble insurance anymore.  It’s just a massive cost transfer from one group of people to another.  Instead of a pooling of money to insure against financial risk.  For the few unexpected and catastrophic costs we could not afford and budget for to pay out-of-pocket.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,