Are liberals more pro-woman? A cool graph from a natural experiment | The Incidental Economist

Interesting how the more daughters a representative has, the more likely he/she is to support women's issues compared to the mean for his/her party.

Some interesting graphs about mortality

Go to the post for an explanation on these graphs or read the whole 100+ page paper itself.

Sleeping eight hours does not come naturally | BBC News

Something to make me feel better when I'm up in the middle of the night feeding the baby.

Religion & the individual mandate | The Incidental Economist

As the court cases and appeals of the Affordable Care Act move on through the system, I have a feeling this particular charge is going to gain traction on the Right.

Why is the McRib Sandwich only a temporary item at McDonald's? | The Incidental Economist

I never noticed this. I don't get why someone else would either.

Poverty And School Performance

Matt Yglesias has a great post at Think Progress about how parents' socioeconomic factors are a very large component in a child's educational success, as typified by this picture that is posted with the caption "This only works if mom can read."

This post is worth the time to read even if you're not a regular Matt Yglesias and/or Think Progress reader.

"Your life is not your own."

Great post at The Incidental Economist about Ezra Klein's post at The Washington Post on the libertarian view on health care. A few great points below.

From Ezra Klein:

"It’s all well and good to say personal responsibility is the bedrock of liberty, but even the hardest of libertarians has always understood that there are places where your person ends and mine begins. Generally, we think of this in terms of violent intrusion or property transgressions. But in health care, it has to do with compassion.

We are a decent society, and we do not want to look in people’s pockets for an insurance card when they fall to the floor with chest pains. If we’re not going to look in their pockets, however, we need some answer for who pays when they wake up — or, God forbid, after they stop breathing — in the hospital."

From TIE:

"...my life is not entirely my own to the extent (some) libertarians may think it is or ought to be. I am not the only one who cares about the consequences of my decisions. I am not the only one who suffers or enjoys what comes of them. I am not the only one who cares about whether I live or die. I am not the only one who matters.

It’s not just some vague “society” that cares about my life. It’s much more concrete than that. It’s the people I see every day, that I live with, for whom I’m, in part, responsible and on whom I rely. It’s my family, friends, and co-workers. They all care about my life. I care about theirs. My life is not entirely my own."

Both are excellent reads and really clarify why libertarianism, like liberalism or conservatism, is not a 'one size fits all' solution to the world.

The Incidental Economist - Why the cheers mattered...

This is very well said and truly explains the context and the issues at hand.

The Incidental Economist - Physician fees and salaries in the US and other countries

Interesting post about physician fees and salaries in the US and other countries. Worth checking out.

Why not national single payer now?

Great question. The Incidental Economist explains it has more to do with politics than health care or policy.

Breakdown of Appeals Court Ruling on Health Care Reform

The Incidental Economist breaks down nicely the nuances of the court ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

Additionally, Ezra Klein has an informative and detailed post on what the future holds for health care reform.

How the ACA will affect employer-sponsored insurance - The Incidental Economist

Interesting post at The Incidental Economist about how the ACA will affect employer-sponsored insurance. Check it out.

Single payer resources - The Incidental Economist

The Incidental Economist blog posts some great sources of information on what a single-payer healthcare system would actually cost. It's worth checking out if you're curious as to whether or not a single-payer healthcare model would solve the nation's deficit problems. Chances are it will, but don't tell any Republicans because they're conditioned to ignore that fact.

This is not a painting!

Seriously, this picture is an actual photograph taken by a National Geographic photographer in Namibia.

The magic 18% number and its (un)reality...

A blog post at The Incidental Economist as well as Matt Miller's column in The Washington Post both talk about how capping taxes at 18% of GDP is a pipe dream:

"...if we maintain our 40 year historical average of 18 percent of GDP raised in taxes, the we will have a deficit simply due to paying for interest, health care, social security and defense in 2021. That means that even with no FBI, FAA, NIH, NEA, Homeland Security, and nothing else but these line items–18% of GDP collected in taxes still won’t be enough to produce a balanced budget. With NO federal spending other than these categories, we will have a deficit in 10 years if our tax code brings in 18% of GDP."

Miller goes on to write about how capping federal spending at 18% is not possible in this day-and-age either:

"The “cap, cut and balance” plan passed by the House Tuesday night captures Republican denial perfectly. The plan would cap federal spending at 19.9 percent of GDP by 2018, with the goal of lowering it to18 percent over time. Similar caps have been endorsed by most of the GOP’s presidential candidates.

You’d never know from listening to Republicans that these goals are mathematically and politically unattainable.

But they are. Why? If there’s one fact you need to emblazon in your mind to make sense of the current debate, it is that Ronald Reagan ran the federal government at 22 percent of GDP back when our population was much younger. (Under President Obama, the extraordinary measures enacted to fight the recession – plus a collapse in the denominator, GDP -- have boosted spending to around 24 percent, while revenue has dropped to 15 percent from its 18-19 percent longtime average).

It is simply not plausible to argue that as we double the number of seniors on Social Security and Medicare, Uncle Sam will be able to operate at spending levels 10 to 20 percent below those over which America’s modern conservative icon presided. (Though, as [The Washington Post's] Dana Milbank notes, Reagan agreed to raise taxes 11 times.) Today there’s no question: Taxes must rise."

Read both articles. You'll be much smarter having done so.