Health Insurance
09-28-2017, 09:48 PM
#62
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,607
Total Cats: 4,102
I don't see a problem. Maybe it embodies the rediculous bullshit gopers are tired of dealing with?
Also gopers are used to being vilified and demonized constantly, you'll learn to endure...they had to, or else the violent mob would attack them.
Also gopers are used to being vilified and demonized constantly, you'll learn to endure...they had to, or else the violent mob would attack them.
Last edited by Braineack; 09-28-2017 at 10:02 PM.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 01:54 AM
#64
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lakewood (Green Mountain) CO.
Posts: 250
Total Cats: -63
Sure does sound a lot like you think that all the brown people you see working are illegal. I work in the construction industry here in Florida and I can tell you most of them are actually here legally these days, even if they are brown skinned and don't speak English. After the huge construction boom went bust in 2007 and 2008 the work dried up for them and most of the illegals went home in a mass migration. They have not returned in great numbers in this area at least. It is very difficult to find labor currently. And it is more difficult to get here and to stay here as an illegal than it was in the early 2000s. That being said, I do know one illegal Guatemalan and one illegal from Oaxaca Mexico.
Even though everyone can apply for those jobs, it is mostly undocumented individuals, who end up getting said jobs. Are the undocumented truly lowering the salaries, or are those companies/employers, trying to keep their costs low, to remain competitive; as nobody wants to sell a $10 tomato or a $15 pound of chicken?
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 08:26 AM
#65
I identify as a bear.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,206
Total Cats: 6,707
Like Brainey, I'm also curious as to what is meant by this.
Is the only thing wrong with the Republican party in the US is that it is spending too much of its time / effort accusing those who are more left-leaning in the political spectrum of inventing new genders? (Seems to me like the GOP has bigger problems than gender-awareness, but what do I know?)
If yes, is this because you feel that there are not yet enough recognized genders, or that needlessly inventing new genders is not a significant topic of discussion as relates to politics in the US?
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 09:08 AM
#66
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,607
Total Cats: 4,102
back to paying for sex changes for minors:
AMERICA IS ON A DISASTROUS COURSE
Editorial by Kevin Ryan
Once a year the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issues a long-term budget outlook. It should be required reading for everyone who thinks government should be in charge of things like retirement savings and healthcare.
...
The latest projection shows that we are on a fiscal path that is becoming exponentially worse. There are no more rosy scenarios.
The CBO projects that the annual deficit will rise over the next three decades from 2.9% of GDP in 2017 to 9.8% in 2047, because of unchecked spending growth in 3 big drivers: Social Security, government health care programs, and interest on the government’s debt.
Much of the spending growth for Social Security and Medicare results from the aging of the population: As the percentage of the population age 65 or older grows sharply, the number of beneficiaries of those programs rises to unsustainable levels.
The other approaching fiscal disaster is the result of the debt itself. For more than 30 years, interest rates have been falling, reducing the cost of borrowing and allowing the U.S. to amass enormous amounts of debt. Well, the days of record low interest rates are over. And all that debt we now have is going to become more and more expensive to pay for.
The result of higher interest payments and the increased costs of the government’s social security and healthcare programs will be an explosion in debt that will make our profligate spending up to now seem downright thrifty.
The result won’t just stretch our resources to the breaking point, it will also crowd out all other government spending, leaving us less able to respond to financial crises, natural disasters, wars, etc. Indeed, while the CBO projects an explosion in interest, social security, and health programs, it forecasts a corresponding decline in infrastructure, defense, research, and everything else.
At the outset of the 2007–2009 recession, federal debt held by the public was below 40% of GDP. Today it’s twice as high. By 2047, it will be at 150% of GDP.
And that doesn’t include state, local, and private sector debt.
And that’s if we don’t have another major recession, which decreases incomes and tax revenue.
In other words, thanks to government spending, we are now headed toward financial disaster.
And for those of you who think the government can rescue us from the various problems they caused, just consider the recent effort to repeal Obamacare. If lawmakers are too scared to take away one relatively small, failing entitlement program, imagine how much more difficult it will be to address social security and medicare.
Read the CBO report. Forward it to your friends. Make sure everyone knows the consequences of their refusal to let go of programs that are dooming their and their family’s future. It’s time to stop acting like spoiled children and start waking up to reality.
SOURCE: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52480-ltbo.pdf
Editorial by Kevin Ryan
Once a year the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issues a long-term budget outlook. It should be required reading for everyone who thinks government should be in charge of things like retirement savings and healthcare.
...
The latest projection shows that we are on a fiscal path that is becoming exponentially worse. There are no more rosy scenarios.
The CBO projects that the annual deficit will rise over the next three decades from 2.9% of GDP in 2017 to 9.8% in 2047, because of unchecked spending growth in 3 big drivers: Social Security, government health care programs, and interest on the government’s debt.
Much of the spending growth for Social Security and Medicare results from the aging of the population: As the percentage of the population age 65 or older grows sharply, the number of beneficiaries of those programs rises to unsustainable levels.
The other approaching fiscal disaster is the result of the debt itself. For more than 30 years, interest rates have been falling, reducing the cost of borrowing and allowing the U.S. to amass enormous amounts of debt. Well, the days of record low interest rates are over. And all that debt we now have is going to become more and more expensive to pay for.
The result of higher interest payments and the increased costs of the government’s social security and healthcare programs will be an explosion in debt that will make our profligate spending up to now seem downright thrifty.
The result won’t just stretch our resources to the breaking point, it will also crowd out all other government spending, leaving us less able to respond to financial crises, natural disasters, wars, etc. Indeed, while the CBO projects an explosion in interest, social security, and health programs, it forecasts a corresponding decline in infrastructure, defense, research, and everything else.
At the outset of the 2007–2009 recession, federal debt held by the public was below 40% of GDP. Today it’s twice as high. By 2047, it will be at 150% of GDP.
And that doesn’t include state, local, and private sector debt.
And that’s if we don’t have another major recession, which decreases incomes and tax revenue.
In other words, thanks to government spending, we are now headed toward financial disaster.
And for those of you who think the government can rescue us from the various problems they caused, just consider the recent effort to repeal Obamacare. If lawmakers are too scared to take away one relatively small, failing entitlement program, imagine how much more difficult it will be to address social security and medicare.
Read the CBO report. Forward it to your friends. Make sure everyone knows the consequences of their refusal to let go of programs that are dooming their and their family’s future. It’s time to stop acting like spoiled children and start waking up to reality.
SOURCE: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52480-ltbo.pdf
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 10:22 AM
#67
Back to healthcare for a moment. I cannot remember exactly what podcast I heard this on but it sounded intriguing.
Basically the idea was that pre-existing conditions are covered, insurance is severed from employment, but the cost cap is removed. The concept relies on the truth that a 23 year old only consumes on average about $1,300 healthcare dollars a year and a 65 year old consumes something like $70k a year.
IF you are someone who for your whole life did not pay for health insurance, you would have to pay an extraordinary amount of money when you finally DO buy in, because the likelihood is high that you will be consuming many healthcare dollars. If you buy in while you are young, you will pay a higher dollar amount than you would consume on average over the course of the year, but what you are doing is paying into a pot that means that your total lifetime contribution is enough so that when you get older and not in the prime dollar earning parts of your life you won't have to pay the full amount. I think it was something like a bell curve of sorts. Provided you stay in the health care market continuously, you will pay a low'ish amount when you are young, a slightly higher amount when you are "old" (55-65?) and from say, 29-54 it is higher, peaking at say, 50 years old.
IF we are to keep our health care in the private market as opposed to single payer, we have to figure out a way to reward people for staying continuously insured and caring for their health. We also need to mitigate the high health care costs when people become older and leave the workforce.
If I find the podcast I will share it. It was quite good.
Basically the idea was that pre-existing conditions are covered, insurance is severed from employment, but the cost cap is removed. The concept relies on the truth that a 23 year old only consumes on average about $1,300 healthcare dollars a year and a 65 year old consumes something like $70k a year.
IF you are someone who for your whole life did not pay for health insurance, you would have to pay an extraordinary amount of money when you finally DO buy in, because the likelihood is high that you will be consuming many healthcare dollars. If you buy in while you are young, you will pay a higher dollar amount than you would consume on average over the course of the year, but what you are doing is paying into a pot that means that your total lifetime contribution is enough so that when you get older and not in the prime dollar earning parts of your life you won't have to pay the full amount. I think it was something like a bell curve of sorts. Provided you stay in the health care market continuously, you will pay a low'ish amount when you are young, a slightly higher amount when you are "old" (55-65?) and from say, 29-54 it is higher, peaking at say, 50 years old.
IF we are to keep our health care in the private market as opposed to single payer, we have to figure out a way to reward people for staying continuously insured and caring for their health. We also need to mitigate the high health care costs when people become older and leave the workforce.
If I find the podcast I will share it. It was quite good.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 11:06 AM
#68
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,102
This, basically. In short, the GOP spends entirely too much time railing against social issues with no impact on the economic well-being of the country. I feel genuinely bad for genuine conservatives, because while I might disagree with much of their policy platform, I can at least respect it. They have little to no representation in our current GOP-dominated federal government.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 11:18 AM
#69
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,188
Total Cats: 1,684
This, basically. In short, the GOP spends entirely too much time railing against social issues with no impact on the economic well-being of the country. I feel genuinely bad for genuine conservatives, because while I might disagree with much of their policy platform, I can at least respect it. They have little to no representation in our current GOP-dominated federal government.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 11:33 AM
#71
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,188
Total Cats: 1,684
I am all for separate bathrooms. Mostly because every custodian I have ever talked to who has to clean bathrooms has always said that the women bathroom is always far nastier and dirtier then the male bathroom. I just enjoy pooping in a clean bathroom and don't want that messed up by having to share.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 12:37 PM
#72
I identify as a bear.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,206
Total Cats: 6,707
This, basically. In short, the GOP spends entirely too much time railing against social issues with no impact on the economic well-being of the country. I feel genuinely bad for genuine conservatives, because while I might disagree with much of their policy platform, I can at least respect it. They have little to no representation in our current GOP-dominated federal government.
I honestly don't understand why this is a big deal.
I am all for separate bathrooms. Mostly because every custodian I have ever talked to who has to clean bathrooms has always said that the women bathroom is always far nastier and dirtier then the male bathroom. I just enjoy pooping in a clean bathroom and don't want that messed up by having to share.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 12:54 PM
#73
This, basically. In short, the GOP spends entirely too much time railing against social issues with no impact on the economic well-being of the country. I feel genuinely bad for genuine conservatives, because while I might disagree with much of their policy platform, I can at least respect it. They have little to no representation in our current GOP-dominated federal government.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 01:09 PM
#74
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,188
Total Cats: 1,684
What is security like to get up to that bathroom? I might be going to Baldwin NY soon to deliver a turbo setup. Might stop in NYC to grab some pizza and do some graffiti on a subway car. I would totally be game to sneaking into the Sears Tower and using a nice clean private bathroom, you know just for ***** and giggles.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 01:13 PM
#75
What is security like to get up to that bathroom? I might be going to Baldwin NY soon to deliver a turbo setup. Might stop in NYC to grab some pizza and do some graffiti on a subway car. I would totally be game to sneaking into the Sears Tower and using a nice clean private bathroom, you know just for ***** and giggles.
EDIT: If you do get there, I'd recommend Gene & Georgetti on N Franklin
Last edited by bahurd; 09-29-2017 at 01:52 PM.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 01:21 PM
#76
I identify as a bear.
Thread Starter
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,206
Total Cats: 6,707
What is security like to get up to that bathroom? I might be going to Baldwin NY soon to deliver a turbo setup. Might stop in NYC to grab some pizza and do some graffiti on a subway car. I would totally be game to sneaking into the Sears Tower and using a nice clean private bathroom, you know just for ***** and giggles.
The restroom is in fact quite nice. There are no tenants on that floor, just radio & TV transmitters, and hardly anyone ever uses it.
Last edited by Joe Perez; 09-29-2017 at 06:49 PM.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 05:34 PM
#78
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,607
Total Cats: 4,102
This, basically. In short, the GOP spends entirely too much time railing against social issues with no impact on the economic well-being of the country. I feel genuinely bad for genuine conservatives, because while I might disagree with much of their policy platform, I can at least respect it. They have little to no representation in our current GOP-dominated federal government.
don't you hate when a group decides to legislate stupid ****? or is is that you only hate it when the right does it?
this is the problem with legislating social issues in the first place, and why many here are so adamantly opposed to the democratic party (not to mention how they want to control everything else as well...). When republicans play the game, they just look equally retarded.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 05:34 PM
#79
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,188
Total Cats: 1,684
Well, from NYC you'd first take the LIRR train from Penn out to Jamaica station, then transfer to the E train to JFK airport. Get on an airplane and fly to Chicago. Assuming you come into O'Hare airport, take the blue line train down to the loop. Get off at the Jackson St stop, and go due west. Enter from the Franklin St lobby, and here you can either swipe your RFID badge at the turnstile or shoot all of the guards and hop over it. Once you're past security, take the express elevator up to the 66'th floor, then take the transfer elevator from 66 to 67, then take the left-side elevator bank to 98. (All of the elevator banks are clearly labeled with overhead signs in a nice art-deco style.)
The restroom is in fact quite nice. There are no tenants on that floor, just radio & TV transmitters, and hardly anyone ever uses it.
The restroom is in fact quite nice. There are no tenants on that floor, just radio & TV transmitters, and hardly anyone ever uses it.
Reply
0
0
09-29-2017, 05:46 PM
#80
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,102
do the democrats have a monopoly on issues with no impact on the economy or something?
don't you hate when a group decides to legislate stupid ****? or is is that you only hate it when the right does it?
this is the problem with legislating social issues in the first place, and why many here are so adamantly opposed to the democratic party (not to mention how they want to control everything else as well...). When republicans play the game, they just look equally retarded.
don't you hate when a group decides to legislate stupid ****? or is is that you only hate it when the right does it?
this is the problem with legislating social issues in the first place, and why many here are so adamantly opposed to the democratic party (not to mention how they want to control everything else as well...). When republicans play the game, they just look equally retarded.
Reply
0
0
