DougH

If you cap the government premiums at a level below the actual cost you will only accomplish two things: 1. you will put private insurance out of business because you can't run a private business in a net operating loss year after year, but the goverment can do exactly that for eternity. 2. you will run a progam deficit, and be forced to subsidize the program with tax revenue. It won't lower costs in the system, but it will wreck havoc on the system. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Because individuals would get whacked with the government stick, and would lose their social initiatives, if they showed some desire to get off their asses. Better off to keep sucking on the gubmint carrot. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Kids that end up homeless because their parents are junkies, sad. Kids that end up homeless because their parents lost their jobs, sad. Kids that end up homeless because their parents, or parent, had waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too many kids but the government kept the checks coming, pretty sad practice. My girlfriend works in healthcare in a low income area. The obscene thing is that most of the uninsured individuals that end up in the hospital are there for substance abuse related problems. They have a obscene lack of responsibility, and it is obscene that we foot the bill. Sometimes people need a helping hand, other times people need a kick in the ass. Most of the time when you need a helping had you can't get one to save your life because it is being squandered by people that really need a kick in the ass instead. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Gun control in California is working almost as well as their get tough on crime stance!!! Helps to fatten the correction officers' pockets, but doesn't do jack shit to make the average citizen safer. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

The people who will actually have the cash to buy insurance currently, not taking into account the impact of such an outlay, are not the individuals who I am referring to. Those individuals have jobs and already contribute in the form of payroll and income taxes. You are forcing them to buy insurance for others who don't do the same. So how does the guy getting the free lunch pitch in? This may seem cynical, but you don't encourage better behavior with hands outs. I see it in my own town all the time. Single mother, no job, government assistance, and more kids than my girlfriend and I could responsibly afford with both of our incomes combined. But that is just us, responsibility goes out the window when the goverment foots the bill. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Insurance is a gamble. And it is an expensive gamble. And depending on how much money you make sometimes it doesn't make sense to buy it! I don't like forcing people to gamble against their will. The insurance company is gambling, based on their actuaries calculations, that your premiums will exceed your costs. You are gambling that the you will have a major health event that will make the premiums money well spent. If I didn't have health insurance through my employer I wouldn't carry it. The current cost of private premiums, and my lowered quality of life from having much less in cash flow, wouldn't cut it. I doubt that "spreading the pain around" is going to bring premiums to an affordable level. So what you have is a money grab. People are being forced to take a big hit to their quality of life, for little benefit. How about spreading the pain around to the noncontributing individuals, instead of the young middle class. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Unless, of course, they suffer some sort of devastating injury doing what 25-year-olds tend to do (i.e. take more risks than 50-year-olds on average). Then they cost at least as much as the older insured people. Wendy P. I don't disagree that on an individual level a 25-year-old with no health insurance will incur an large expense in the event of a major health event. But you can't look at insurance on the individual level. Overall younger people incur less health costs. If that wasn't true then you wouldn't have people trying to get them pushed into the system. Actuaries know that young people are the least expensive to insure. People who have to lowest need of insurance, are going to be paying inflated premiums (because they are subsidizing the poor and high risk individuals). More money for the insurance companies, more money for the welfare nation. In return the younger individuals who are forced in will use on average a small small fraction of the premiums they pay in. Maybe a annual checkup here and there. This is money out of there pockets, that has little benefit to them. The average income of younger people drops every year, and now they are coming back for some more wealth distribution. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

HAAAA!! That is a good one! Last time I checked uninsured 25 year olds weren't causing unchecked spending by health care providers, or running up the medicare deficit. Should have said 'the reason for pushing more healthy low risk individual into the insurance market is so we can use them to subsidize the poor and ederly, and two so we can pad our P&L statements' This a tax on the middle class plain and simple. What a load of crap! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Yes it should, they are a credit risk!! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I guess I wasn't clear enough. Pay for it with credit, then go right online and pay it down. You don't have to wait for the statement to cut. Here is something people don't often take into account. You should pay in full every month if you have the means too. Carrying a balance is just throwing money out the window. But, even if you pay in full every month it is the balance on the statement that gets reported to the CRA's. I pay all of my cards online, multiple times a month, and try to only let one report a balance. The rest allways report as zero balance. By paying multiple times a month I keep the spending in check. When there isn't enough to cover future purchases the purchases stop. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

If you have the discipline to pay for things only in cash, then pay with a credit card that gives you points or rebates and pay in full each month. You get a great credit, points or rebates, and you are in the same financial position, only better. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Please give me your address. I want to do some landscaping. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

"When I get home I am going to punch you momma in the mouth, because there is nooooooo way you came from my loins" Sheriff Bufford T. Justice "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I was thinking the other day that a portable wind tunnel, and a booth selling tunnel flights AND tandem package gift certificates (jump + video) would be the Cat's Meow at a state fair or multiple state exhibition. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Even maintenance free batteries can leak. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I still like that scenario better than a cut spectra rc, and a reserve container that I now can't open on my own accord! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

First, chill man Second, I mean i'm not ready to jump with a full camera setup...having that on your helmet vs an iPhone on your chest strap is a biiiiit different. Third, I know I've been in this sport for a short time and don't have much experience or haven't 'seen it all'...but thank you for the breaking news flash They recommend 200 jumps for any camera setup, not just a full helmet mounted one. There is more snags to jumping camera than snags. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Google search points to the "detector" being a couple thousand not hundred. I also couldn't find one source for new units, or any used units on ebay or CL. Looks like a radio telemetry setup for falconry would be a cheaper approach. Those receivers are in the 500-2000 range, and the transmitters are a 100 and up. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Sounds like a patch of cotton "felt" on that part of the tail would be a better solution. My triatholon has something similar at the top for the retract. CRW pilot chute system. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Thanks man. Unfortunately for you this is my second exam passed. First starts with a F, Second... nope no F; so no beer for you and please try to follow along. Academic types! On second thought maybe I will buy beer just to celebrate, and sunday is my birthday! "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I recieved my score back yesterday night for my second CPA exam. This section was on auditing, nice 4.5 hour exam! I don't know how I did it, and I still don't believe it, but I scored a 99!!! Two down, two more to go before I am a certified bean counter. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

you'd kill a person over trivial property Yes. And I wouldn't ever have the slightest bit of remorse. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

Are you being argumentative for the hell of it??? We conduct a charge better than air. So does a 747, a golden condor, and Marvin the Martian's space ship. It doesn't really matter what you compare us to, the point is that we are more conductive than air. Unfortunately our skin doesn't have as nice of a faraday cage effect compared to the metal aircraft skin. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I have used a hanging strobe on about 25 night jumps, which still leaves me far from being and expert, but my exeperinces have all been very sucesfull. These were all on canopies 175 and smaller, with wingloadings around 1.2 and higher. Based on my personal experince the light not under you, it trails below and well behind because of the relative wind, and drag on the line you hang it from, and the strobe itself. I have never seen my strobe in the air unless I deliberately look down and back through my legs. I have never seen it on landing until after I have hauled it back in using the line, or I have turned around the retrieve it. On a bigger canopy with less airspeed it might hang more under the jumper though. I can't argue about the snag hazard, that is why I use real light line. I would rather loose a strobe in a tree than get snagged. Fly your approach accordingly, and it would probably best not to fly so close to obstacles on night jumps that you are worried about snagging a strobe on a short hang line! On landing you don't even feel it, it just lands first, and bounces behind you until you touch down. I won't discount the possible pitfalls, but I think they are balanced by the ability to run a brighter strobe, not blocking part of the light, and getting it away from your person. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P

I got a good one from the paragear catalog... forget them model, firelight II or something. I have it on a 15 foot or so string. I turn it on after opening, with my eyes closed lol, and drop it between the legs. 360 degrees of coverage, and it isn't flashing in your face because it trails slightly behind you due to the relative wind. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P