ShcShc11

Obama actually terrifies alot of people who value their individual freedom, and who value their country enough to not want it awash in unsustainable debt driven by utopian dreams completely detached from any fiscal reality they live in. I think we discussed this previously Its weird to have people say "Obama is detached from fiscal reality" when its pretty obvious that you're not sure what is happening with the economy neither (or what happened). If there's something "utopian", it is the idea that the economy will fix itself under the idea of free market when the financial institutions were near-collapse...the idea that the economy can rebound by restraining money when people were hoarding their money. The idea that 1970 stagflation recession has remotely any resemblance with an economy near the zero-bound monetary policy. Ignoring 1990 Japanese "lost-decade" recession and returning to very simple messages of "all debts are bad. Its like a family taking too much debt, etc..."\ Hugs and Cheers! Shc

I approve this topic.

Aren't European Tandems that expensive? ...around 350-400 Euros? which is at least 440$ U.S Hugs & Cheers Shc

http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/article/-/13237870/the-birdman/ Good video though whuffos might see Jeb as being super angry on the death-wish question (when we all know he was just being Jeb). Hugs & Cheers! Shc.

for a cash-strapped person, tandem is the last thing he should do. Might as well get 10 mins of Wind-tunnels where he'l definitely learn something instead of 1 skydive jump where he is just a "tourist". just imo. Hugs & Cheers! Shc

Each AFF level I fail costs me £200. That's what I earn in a week. I honestly can't afford to fail another level. Plenty of people have been to wind tunnels, can that help? And this is the "just keep trying" approach which to be honest I've never really believed in. It doesn't give any useful information about how to actually practice or what to do. I'm currently making a lot of mistakes and doing things wrong. I have no reason to believe that carrying on in the same way is going to lead to improvements. Obviously whatever I do will involve "move skydiving", but "more skydiving" on its own is not productive. It's like if someone is having trouble learning to drive, you can't just say "drive more". It's dangerous and pointless and won't help them, they'll just reinforce bad habits. yes yes yes. Go to wind tunnels. It helps you SO much more with muscle memory that you can just focus on other problems that isin't position-related during the skydive. Tunnels.help.a lot! Think hard about your financial situation because skydiving can be very draining on the $$, but don't give up because you think "you can't fix it". I don't think there's any reason to quit until at least after practicing a lot in the tunnels. Cheers! Shc

I second missing boobies options.

His main platform is to bring back the gold standard. That.is.horrible. It is the gold standard that is one of the main cause of 1930s Great Depression. Europe has its own version of the "gold standard" (The Euro Currency) and the 2008 Depression is now longer and worse than their 1930 Great Depression. His austrian economic thoughts constantly predicted hyperinflation in the U.S in 2009-2010-2011-2012. They were not just wrong; the contrary happened. He wants to bring troops from countries like South Korea where U.S troops are absolutely vital to the countries' defense. I like Ron Paul in the sense that he stuck with the same policies for over a decade, but they don't make it right. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. p-s: The election is downright simple: Is the economy perceived to be going better or is it perceived as tanking? Everything else is pretty much secondary. Essentially, the U.S is relying for the Euro not catastrophically collapsing all of a sudden. Cheers!

I've given this a lot of thought as my lady and I are expecting our first son in just under three months. I look at it like this: life is short and precious. You never know how long you are going to be here. So many people live as if they're going to be 100, that in all their years of living, they haven't lived much at all. what kind of example is that? who would wish a perfectly safe and perfectly empty life for their kid? Doing something that affirms life, that celebrates your time on this planet, is not selfish. It is setting an example that your kids can look up to. By jumping you can show them that dad is not fenced by life, but steps boldly into a dangerous world with preparation and dedication. That they too can live up to their potential if they so choose, and that fear of bad things happening is no reason to lock yourself into a prison cell voluntarily. But it takes hard work and dedication to do so safely. And it takes a conscious choice to do something that others are afraid to, but in that choice is freedom. But with that freedom comes responsibility. Make sure you are not wreckless. That you are listening to that voice in your head that says "do you *really* need to be on this jump?" When the winds are gusty or the jump is sketchy, just have the gumption to step aside and be responsible for your safety because you know others count on it. Be the man you're meant to be, not the kid who just hucks it and sees what happens. failing to be prudent in this sport is selfish. participating in it, however, is not. be safe, be vigilant of yourself and those on your jump, and as much as it sucks, don't do things like BASE, and you should have a clear conscience. at least that is what works for me. Great comment! Cheers! Shc

Gross expense vs Net Expense is quite an important distinction. The Net Expense comes to about 1.2 T$ for the 2012-2022 era, which is on par from the 950B$ estimate for the 2010-2020 era. The topic is about: Did ACA cost much more than the estimate given by the Democrats during its inception? The clear answer is: no. No, the cost did not double. No, it is not that much more expensive. Look at Page 11 of the CBO 2012 and compare it to its first study. I hope you’re a supporter of Michelle Obama’s “eat healthy” initiatives. I remember when she was boo’ed from a Nascar audience because they wanted to prevent “Government from controlling what they eat”. This isin’t a simple case of “More cost = Better quality”. From the WHO study in 2000 to the 2010 healthcare study, America’s healthcare has consistently been graded among the worst in Western countries. Healthcare is indeed an expensive endeavour, a very complicated one. But to say the U.S healthcare has the highest quality because people pay more is not true (or at the very least heavily disputed in numerous studies on healthcare quality). If I have to say a definite positive on the U.S healthcare (and which I argue in favour when I debate this among some colleagues), it promotes a lot of expensive R&D on crucial drugs such as Provenge and Benlysta. Even if the drug company (e.g: Sanofi) HQ is overseas, the profits in the U.S does in effect “subsidize” the drugs for other countries. However, in terms of quality care for the average U.S citizens, it is simply not there. No. It is not just Keynes. It is economic 101 and it is something that has been repeated quite often by Milton Friedmann- the man who helped bring the supply-side of economics. Of course, over the years, the bastardization of supply-side economics is unrecognizable in terms of what Friedmann’s theory said. The old systems relied on insurance for doctors to get reimbursement. The new system relies on insurance companies for doctors to get reimbursement. Inefficient compared to what? The old system relied on insurance for doctors to get reimbursement- where the doctors would use a good percentage of their time on paper works than helping the patients. Doctors are unsure to prescribe clients with life-saving drugs such as Provenge because they are “unsure that insurance companies would reimburse them”. I’m not even sure if you completely understand the point of the reform because you seem to think “Government has taken over Health Care” as if the U.S is now under a Universal Healthcare system (which is not). The way health insurance as it was conceived didn’t work. If insurers are left free to deny coverage at will such as the State of California, they give cheap policies to young+healthy and refuse anybody who actually need it. If, like in NY, the insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, it doesn’t work neither. Premiums are expensive as heck and only the ones who really need it buys it. In ACA and RomneyCare, everyone purchases the insurance so that both healthy and sick are in the risk pool. It worked quite wonderfully in RomneyCare for six years. Though I like the fact that you express your opinion, you still have a very black and white approach to economy where anything Government does is bad. Everything is in the details. Can Government spending be good or bad? The answer should always be: it depends. It depends on the fine details. This is another comment where you make it seem very black and white. Just because the cost is lower doesn’t necessarily mean it’s rationed (and vice-versa). We shouldn’t rely on generalities on something as important and complex as health care reform. 1$ higher cost =/= Better quality The way health insurance as it was conceived didn’t work. If insurers are left free to deny coverage at will such as the State of California, they give cheap policies to young+healthy and refuse anybody who actually need it. If, like in NY, the insurers have to cover people with pre-existing conditions, it doesn’t work neither. Premiums are expensive as heck and only the ones who really need it buys it. In ACA and RomneyCare, everyone purchases the insurance so that both healthy and sick are in the risk pool. It worked quite wonderfully in RomneyCare for six years. How do you not care about RomneyCare? RomneyCare is proof that the system can work and is working. If you want to seriously discuss about Government inefficiencies in healthcare, then give a real-life example from RomneyCare. It gives a lot more weight than just spelling out generalities. As I’ve written, the extensive study on Romneycare has proven to be overwhelmingly positive. The paragraph about California/NY should give a better idea why ACA and RomneyCare were conceived in the first place. Cheers! Hope you guys are enjoying the sun Shc

If its a hoax, they sure did a good enough job to fool Wired and the Financial Times. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/humans-with-bird-wings/ http://www.humanbirdwings.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/page281.pdf Let's hope its not, but still skeptical like everyone else. Cheers! Shc

eeee....ouch.

People can go for the 400$ Argus

I'm not sure anymore if you're arguing in good faith or not. If you look at the CBO Study, the point is to look at Net Expense. The whole campaign was based on net expense, not Gross Expense. The initial CBO projection was based on net, not gross. When you look at a firm's Financial Statements, do you look at the Gross Revenue or the Net Income? Do you look at a company like Dendreon and go: "oh its a great company because its Gross Revenue is high!". Of course not. There was never any claim of 100B$ per year- and if there was, it was done in bad faith. But as far as I know, this 100B$ is your creation. First, the U.S was/is already paying 17% of its GDP on healthcare without ACA and that in itself is unsustainable. Its the highest among Western countries and quality that is often lacking. Second, you have to understand how money works. Money that goes through the Government does not necessarily mean that all of it is "wasted". You have to look at the net effect of it. The CBO mentions (quite clearly) that it doesn’t add in other net effects such as medical care cost reductions. See summary of post in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/cbo-health-reform-to-cut-deficit-by-50-billion-more-than-we-thought/2011/08/25/gIQAXgPSES_blog.html Why yes, it can be a deficit reduction. Again, I understand that it sounds completely counter-intuitive. If I remember correctly, we also discussed about fiscal policies. Those too sound counter-intuitive, but it is what the numbers say. Past studies show the same trend. Somehow, I always thought that skydivers (out of all people) would be much more open-minded- to at least look at the details and figure out that there is much more elaborate story to it. “Because the Government is always bad and wasteful!!!” The CBO’s current study and past studies indicate that ACA is on track of its costs. If you want full coverage to everyone, then Universal Health Care is the answer. But that has been rejected quite adamantly in the 1990s. And would obviously gone nowhere in 2010. Have you read CBO’s past studies?? This has ALWAYS been projected from the beginning. Doom and Gloom. Have you looked at RomneyCare? Are you going to read the study done on RomneyCare and still proclaim this? This is more than "Government is good or bad". Its easy to cling on stereotypes, but the ones who have studied them clearly says that they are false. Hard to believe huh??! Source: The most extensive studies conducted on RomneyCare is by Jonathan Gruber. His studies are found here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17168 Had RomneyCare failed catastrophically, then I would have my doubts too. But the numbers say otherwise. Cheers! Shc

Lol. I think Mr. Cloth definitely earned the right and it is saving lives and helping newer jumpers get over their psychological hump. Its still worth discussing about the overall cost.

Tell me where the number 940B$ come from. I'l tell you where it comes from: Its the estimated cost on a 10-year basis FROM 2010 [/B]. (2010-2020). The new CBO is based on 2012-2022 and considering how ACA (aka Obamacare) doesn't start until 2014, the budget consideration has not been revised upwards. Again, this is like saying: Facebook's average cost 2008-2018 is higher than 2004-2014. I know its hard to understand how Obamacare's cost is lower than budgeted/predicted, but that is what the CBO says. This whole 1.76T$ non-sense is worse than Enron cooking the number. Cheers! Shc

Just out of curiosity, have you guys read the actual CBO report? Maybe its because I have to read it at work, but it clearly says: "CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period" A rational and honest discussion would be where people actually read the paper haha But yes, the projected cost by the CBO (the same study we are talking about in this topic) says that the projected cost ARE LESS than what was previously estimated. The number 1,762B is the Gross expense (not the Net expense). Its the equivalent of saying Itunes for Apple cost 1.3Billion $ a year therefore Apple should drop Itunes. And why haven't anyone mentioned RomneyCare and its studies? The most extensive studies conducted on RomneyCare is by Jonathan Gruber. His studies are found here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17168 The conclusion of that paper clearly states: The quality of care didn't suffer, the program cost is on par to the projection and would indicate that ObamaCare's projected cost has been exaggerated (yes, exaggerated) and the number of people without insurance is down significantly. RomneyCare has been implemented for six years now. So yes, point is: Double the cost my arse. The CBO study indicates that ACA (aka: ObamaCare) is cheaper than the initial cost projections. Ah DZ Speaker's Corner. It never changes. Cheers! Shc"" [/ quote] I forgot to put Link to CBO Study: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

Just out of curiosity, have you guys read the actual CBO report? Maybe its because I have to read it at work, but it clearly says: "CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period" A rational and honest discussion would be where people actually read the paper haha But yes, the projected cost by the CBO (the same study we are talking about in this topic) says that the projected cost ARE LESS than what was previously estimated. The number 1,762B is the Gross expense (not the Net expense). Its the equivalent of saying Itunes for Apple cost 1.3Billion $ a year therefore Apple should drop Itunes. And why haven't anyone mentioned RomneyCare and its studies? The most extensive studies conducted on RomneyCare is by Jonathan Gruber. His studies are found here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17168 The conclusion of that paper clearly states: The quality of care didn't suffer, the program cost is on par to the projection and would indicate that ObamaCare's projected cost has been exaggerated (yes, exaggerated) and the number of people without insurance is down significantly. RomneyCare has been implemented for six years now. So yes, point is: Double the cost my arse. The CBO study indicates that ACA ObamaCare is cheaper than the initial cost projections. Ah DZ Speaker's Corner. It never changes. Cheers! Shc

Nice thank you. almost like porn for skydivers.

He was there for 12 years. So perhaps he tried and failed. But my feeling is that something turned sour for him (say annual bonus or a promotion event) and he decided to do some bridge burning on his way out of town. Probably not. Every Investment bankers at one of their life will have a "I have no life" epiphany. Some will stay in spite of it because of the glamour- many just leave. If it was just an annual bonus or promotion with Goldman Sachs, he would leave GS and go for another Investment Bank. By writing that OP letter, he effectively barred himself from the WHOLE Investment Banking sector. He knew he was leaving that sector for good else he wouldn't have published it. There's probably a hidden agenda for writing it. Cheers. Shc.

In 2006, Health Care cost 15.3% of United States' GDP- far more than most countries. To make matters worse, the system doesn't cover everybody and the healthcare service received is ranked worse than other Western countries. Heck, the 2010 study listed the U.S healthcare quality around the bottom. To compensate, the right-wing publishes horror stories of Government healthcare. Studies vs stories. Its really odd how people keep on clinging on simple catchphrases like "all Government spending is bad". Another day in bizzaro world where people seem to prefer the old system of low-quality healthcare and high cost. Cheers! Shc

This is pretty accurate .. ah the good ol' times.

I used to work with Starbucks a long time ago. I personally didn't care if people tipped or not. 5$ for 98% hot steamed milk is pretty expensive enough.

woohoo!

The Rubber Broke.... happens to everyone once in a while...