DrewEckhardt

That's not a good idea in America. The government has rigged the game to make private policies more expensive, where the obvious motivation is keeping people in more expensive group plans which make for higher insurance company profits. For a middle class Californian subject to 25% Federal, 9.3% California, 6.2% FICA, 1.45% Medicare, and 1% California SDI taxes who'd cost $500 to insure his company can buy him $500 worth of insurance or increase his salary by $875, pay the matching 6.2% FICA and 1.45% Medicare taxes, and spend $942 to let him buy his own at the same price which is 88% more. Of course, he may be unable able to buy the same coverage for $500 on his own due to adverse selection in the private market. Jobs which pay well where employees don't need every last time to scrape by tend to come with employer provided coverage because it's a more affordable way to increase pay and compete with other companies. Jobs which don't pay well tend not to provide insurance. People working those low paying jobs have tighter budgets and fewer assets to protect which makes them more likely to not purchase health insurance, except when they're guaranteed to come out ahead due to a history of sickness and/or injury. When I looked at the California ACA plans, I found they either offered much less coverage or cost much more than my small group plan with the same 80% minimum medical loss ratio with adverse selection being the logical explanation.

Only if you're working as a prostitute where your vocation requires having sex. Otherwise non-procreative sex is just an optional recreational pursuit like skydiving. We don't expect the government to pay for jumping out of airplanes and shouldn't expect it to pay for jumping between the sheets. Abstinence has fewer side effects than hormones and costs less.

No ACA which would be better except for people poor but not poor enough for Medicaid, or old/infirm but not enough for Medicare and with the old and infirm having neither veterans' benefits nor employer plans. [QUOTE] How about links to articles or opinion pieces that clearly outline the Republican/Conservative plans for providing the ~50 million people without health insurance some form of affordable health care?q [/QUOTE] Before the shenanigans I was paying $80/month for my adult son's plan not $155. While the old plan didn't cover as much preventative care, healthy young people won't use enough of that to account for $900 worth of difference. [QUOTE] In this case I am not deliberately being a dick. I really want to know what the proposed alternatives are. [/QUOTE] Most people had access to affordable insurance before ACA passed. Many decided they'd rather have big cable/satellite packages and pocket computers with internet access, and while unfortunate that wasn't costing the rest of us very much with only 5.9% of hospital costs going uncollected. While helping those without access is a fine idea, the right approach would have been expanding existing not-for-profit government insurance and health care services like Medicare and the Veterans Affairs hospital system NOT requiring people to buy insurance from private for-profit companies allowed to markup everything they sell by 25% with no limit and providing help for those earning up to the 75% income level (assuming a family of 4) to spend more where similar government cash infusions and other market manipulations have caused eduction cost increases to quadruple inflation since 1980. ACA was supposedly about helping people, not helping the health care industries profit more at our expense.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say excessive speed was involved. Terminal testosterone poisoning.

Yup. You could donate $1,000,000 with strings attached, $1,100,000 with strings attached, $1,200,000 with strings attached, etc. You could pay a good lawyer $800/hour, a decent lawyer $400/hour, or a less experienced litigator $200/hour to fight it in court. Or you could go for public outrage with a low cost video and free post to youtube.

Not in America.

Because that would cut government budgets in organizations like the DEA and profits for powerful political forces like the private prison industry and correctional officers' unions. where everything "affects" commerce. It's different because Federal law makes it illegal to prescribe marijuana. That's not the government position. According to Henry Anslinger who became head of the newly created Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1930 and held the position through 1962 although miscegenation may have been a bigger concern

Most of the rich people I've known and met lived frugal lifestyles and invested money for decades, started companies designed to grow exponentially, and/or were early employees at such companies. Reading, getting up early, exercising, etc. didn't have much to do with it. You can live a decent lifestyle indefinitely without another pay check. Other definitions tend to confuse income with wealth. Ideally you have more than you need to do that and can give some to your children to allow them to pursue whatever career they want regardless of the compensation which goes with it. No, becoming rich by the time you grow old is prudent in a country where Social Security can replace less than 1/3 of a higher earning person's income and is likely to become means tested because most people would rather buy expensive crap like bigger houses. You can do that as a public servant - the people retiring at 55 with a $90K pension have an annuity worth somewhat over $2M at current prices. You can do that on your own - $1000/month into tax advantaged retirement accounts will get you $1M of current dollars in 28 years (assuming historic S&P 500 7% real returns with dividends reinvested) and let you draw $40K/year. Another decade will double your million and practical draw. $1K/month is only a little more than average sized car payments for a couple. Saving more is a prudent hedge against market declines and early retirement due to sickness, injury, age discrimination, etc.

comparing to Canada is a bit silly. [/QUOTE] It's very reasonable. [QUOTE] When you eliminate the US border (and our mutual assistance) and the polar edges, there's not all that much coastline to defend. [/QUOTE] Canada has significantly more coastline than America and the Arctic north is where they're arguing with Russia over who has sovereignty and can exploit the mineral deposits.

But that wouldn't make us feel good.

That is not entirely accurate. IF you jump someplace which enforces the USPA re-currency thresholds, it could be way more expensive to go through re-currecny training and/or supervised recurrency jump than to have paid for a higher license with a longer currecncy threshold. Assuming you actually wait that long. I never went more than 30 days between jumps over my first 10 years and probably would have kept up the pace if I hadn't herniated my L4-L5 disc in a horrible sneezing accident. It's also worth noting that you don't need to be current to get a license.

You mean like how we've limited military spending to just 4X the second place country, 11X the next NATO country, and 30X our northern neighbor with the same land mass and similar labor costs? ( Disregarding homeland security, military pensions, veterans affairs, a lot of our intelligence and nuclear spending, and interest on past expenditures on such things ) While "socialism" and "corporatism" both end in "ism" they are very different.

Nope. You're forgetting the corporatist interests who pay for the congress creatures' election campaigns and employ them in lucrative lobbying positions when they move on. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) spent a lot of money getting Obamacare passed and if they don't get a good return on their investment selling things like statins they won't be giving any congress critters cushy seven figure jobs like they did Representative Billy Tauzin who got a seven figure gig as their CEO and president after he did good work passing Medicare Part D (if the name sounds familiar that's because he was the guy who negotiated with Obama to remove the profit-killing ACA provision allowing re-import of prescription drugs). The National Cattleman's Beef Association wants us to eat beef and has a PAC. The National Corn Growers Association and Iowa Corn Growers Association make piles of money when people chow down on corn-fed beef and guzzle soda made from high-fructose corn syrup. They have PACs too. Etc. I don't think required compliance with a government food pyramid is unlikely, although what's in it will have at least as much to do with who spent money as the food's impact on our heath. If ACA as passed was really about saving money we'd have not-for-profit government insurance like Medicare or Tricare, not a mandate to buy product from for profit companies allowed a 25% markup on whatever health service they provide (assuming small group and individual plans with an 80% minimum medical loss ratio). Obviously that's not the case and astute readers will observe that with a gross margin legally limited to 20% (15% for large group plans, much more for catastrophic plans) they can only make more money by providing more health care with one approach being not doing things to make people healthier. Although they all end in "ism", "socialism", "capitalism", and "corporatism" are very different things.

It's BS because North Dakota which borders Minnesota on the West is solidly Republican leading to 1. A 3% unemployment rate versus Minnesota's 5.1% 2. 22,000 more jobs than people 3. 22 year old children with no experience getting jobs paying $100K/year I'll refrain from mentioning that correlation does not imply causality, just like the New York Times opinion piece neglected that key point. I'll also refrain from pointing out that two parties nearly alike are the inevitable result of first-past-the-post electoral systems and that both Democrats and Republicans are freedom-hating big government schmucks with minor differences. To generalize Democrats want to pay for growth in government with higher taxes on a minority of the population and control what sort of guns people can own. Republicans want to pay for growth in government with inflation and control what people do with their crotches. People whose money, guns, or genitals one of the parties is trying to control often vote the other way. Unfortunately that only matters when they live in a geographically defined district where voters political views are close enough to 50-50 that the election is up for grabs, where said districts are often Gerrymandered to preserve the incumbents' power.

No, I think it could be too high. Roomba robotic vacuums start at just $200, which would be just $0.10 / hour assuming a 2000 hour life time. When you artificially increase the price of labor beyond the value of what it produces companies find market alternatives so instead of a bunch of jobs with low wages you have just a few which match or exceed the required wage. For instance, instead of employing eight checkers my corner grocery store has eight machines with one supervisor to deal with problems and alcohol sales which the state requires to be completed by humans.

I didn't bother getting a license until I had well over 1000 jumps and was moving someplace people didn't know me with the DZO requiring at least a C license for people landing on the airport. I didn't get an A-license because 50 jumps was quickly approaching, B because 100 was just around the corner (night jumps merely require skydivers to be B qualified including the live water training), C because 100 didn't take long and 200 was coming, and D (for a long time) because I did fine jumping for an increasing number of years (11 with three years at Quincy, a couple at Couch Freaks, periodic trips to Eloy, etc.) without one. I would have gotten it sooner because I'd need a pro rating to jump into my wedding, but the city nixed that idea after a local jumper on a demo exercised poor judgement and hit a spectator.

84% of Democrats are irrelevant because 1. They are not members of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America whose members stand to make billions off ACA. 2. They are not part of the 0.4% of natural people making campaign contributions large enough to require FEC reporting. 3. They are not going to vote for a Republican next time 4. In the unlikely event they do vote for a Republican he or she will also act on behalf of PhRMA, like those who had House + Senate majorities and held the Presidency when they passed Medicare Part D. The Republican they vote for might do such good work for PhRMA that they give them a seven figure job as their president and CEO like Representative Billy Tauzin. Billy Tauzin was also the guy who negotiated with Obama to remove onerous profit-killing restrictions from ACA like the prescription drug reimport provision.

The Santa Clara 49ers are my favorite American handegg team mostly because they're local - I can see the stadium from my subdivision. Rugby and real football are better sports, but like they say when in Rome...

No, because "sex crime against a minor" is so broadly defined and law enforcement personal often abuse such broadly written laws where the accused didn't violate the spirit of the law but will be convicted for breaking its letter by a jury leaving the judge's sentencing discretion as the only mechanism that can provide justice. My wife and I have a very secluded yard, as in the least obstructed side is blocked by a six foot high privacy fence. It's a great place to hang out with palm trees and tropical plants and would be a fine site for outdoor sex on a warm summer day. Our neighbors on the other side of that six foot (I wanted a taller fence, but that's all city code allows) fence are schmucks who installed a security camera that sees over its top (we've checked, and this is legal). A sufficiently inclusive law would make us sex criminals with a minor victim if their daughter watched the security camera footage of us doing our thing in our private yard.

ACA passed because PhRMA spent money and allegedly worked with the White House to pass it, a lot like they did with Medicare Part D. Failing to do their best to keep it would violate their member company executives fiduciary duty to their share holders.

Our thermonuclear warheads didn't prevent 9/11/2001. OTOH, US aggression towards nuclear powers is rather limited. Maybe countries like Iraq and Iran should have them too. All in the name of peace, of course.

Although there's no tax penalty for not buying a car.

That's totally different because it would make less money for corporations not more. ACA passed because it makes more money for health care companies (even insurance companies, they just don't like it yet because their actuaries don't have enough data to reliably predict how much more they'll need to spend so they can set profitable rates without loosing to the competition). For example, PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the same lobbying organization which thanked Republican Representative Billy Tauzin with a seven figure job as their president and CEO for help passing Medicare Part D) wisely spun up a pair of 501(c)(4) organizations which spent $150M on advertising coordinated with the White House to land millions of new customers for its members bringing their own money plus billions of tax dollars to their table.

Bacon wrapped dates stuffed with chorizo are very tasty too. I also like a little bacon with its grease in my cassoulet; it goes nice with the duck legs and their fat.

It's hard to tell as a working person. Most of the 93% make it confusing by spending less on things you can't see like saving for their retirement and children's educations, and more on things you can like bigger houses and newer cars. Most also borrow money so they can spend tomorrow's earnings today. The difference will become more apparent when you're old, retired, and traveling around the world with no drop in your standard of living while they're scraping by on Social Security and food stamps. The numbers also don't differentiate based on the local cost of living. $100K/year goes a lot farther where $500 pays the mortgage on a 3 bedroom 2 bathroom ranch than where it's $2500 for a one-bedroom apartment. Where jobs go hand in hand with high housing costs moving is not an option and relative earnings skewed much higher.