There are only two rational choices: switch between the two for the perceived benefits, or remain on Standard year-round. If only one were observed year-round, people and organizations would adjust their schedules to be at what they consider the optimal actual times of day. Some might even have summer and winter schedules. They could and would as easily do this with Standard time as with Daylight. All else thus being equal, only an idiot would suggest that it is better to observe the time of the time zone one hour to the east. Any aliens visiting a planet on which everyone set their clocks one hour off would surely conclude that there is no intelligent life there.

The biggest winners from the law include people between the ages of 18 and 34; blacks; Hispanics; and people who live in rural areas.

The article defines "winner" in an odd and deliberately deceptive way, as meaning anyone who did not have a medical insurance policy and now does. Under that definition, even someone who was coerced into something harmful to their self-interest is a "winner".

Uh, why?

The text is perfectly ambiguous. He took it one way, and you the other. But he still should have known better, since there were no headlines in 2009 about a lab-made hybrid killing thousands.

Perhaps you should read what you are replying to before replying.

Well said, sir.

The state is never subject to the rules it dictates to its subjects, so there is no contradiction.

For people who understand how pointless it is to perpetually have clocks set one hour off, it should promote Russophilia.

I've worked for everything from tiny startups to massive multinationals, and have never been given that option. The larger companies tend to be paternalistic. They think they know better than you do what's in your interest.

Those exceptions, which authorize insurance companies to provide the coverage instead of the employers

If ever there were a case of smoke-and-mirrors, this is it. Saying that the insurer, not the company paying for the policy, is (wink, wink) paying for a benefit offered to the insured under the policy, a benefit the insurer does not simply give away to all comers, is transparently absurd. Whatever you may think about forcing companies to pay for policies that cover particular things, at least be honest about it.

But an employer has no more right to say how an employee uses a benefit as they do their earned money.

Oh, really? They do it all the time. An employer's very choice to give you a particular defined benefit rather than the money they pay for it is itself saying how you can use it. Just try to get a large employer to give you the money in lieu of the benefit. Or even to buy a different kind of insurance plan than the one they dictate. Good luck with that.

Not a rounding error. A decimal point shifted left three places.

Always self-selecting. If we are to achieve diversity, the US state needs to drop the bourgeois freedom thing altogether, and simply assign its subjects into educational tracks and positions in public corporations.

Any ten-year-old, and any honest judge, knows that "Ikea Hackers" are not Ikea.

If you believe that money which has been taken from you by threat of violence somehow remains "your" money, you are pathetically delusional.