OT: Health insurance

Page 9 of 11  
wrote:

If they can give you your Obamaphone, why can't they do everything else?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I use my reaganphone and love it...possibly the only thing I've ever thanked the conservatives for
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Being as old as I am, I sometimes keep company with my grammaphone.
http://static6.depositphotos.com/1059523/566/i/950/depositphotos_5666661-Gramophone.jpg
Now, that's a record! And I know how to play her. Better than an Obama phone, any day.
. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .
On 8/24/2013 10:16 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 24 Aug 2013 19:16:47 -0700, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

I'm sure you do. You are a common loser, after all.
It's a shame you can't even spell "Obama", though. Perhaps you should go to a re-education camp. You'd love it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that's what you radicals would love, put everyone that disagrees with you in "re-education" camps, give them striped uniforms, make them work for little or nothing and then give them a free cremation when you've used them up
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/24/2013 3:05 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

I hear what you're saying but it does make sense to insure everyone and at least somewhat level the playing field. As it is, middle class suckers like us are footing the bill for almost everyone else. I was just billed all most $1k for a yearly physical. Fortunately I got the insurance, (almost worthless despite the cost) to pay most of it, but still, the charges were bordering on insanity. If I hadn't fought the insurance company for every charge I would have had to pay the bill myself. I'm sure many do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 4:26:10 PM UTC-4, gonjah wrote:

The only problem is, who do you think the suckers are going to be who will be paying for most of the newly insured? It's the same folks already paying high prices, one way or another, for healthcare.
I was

I've seen nothing under Obamacare that changes any of that. There were a lot of vague promises about how it was all going to save a lot of costs. But in reality, people's costs have escalated. And despite being assured that anyone that had insurance and was happy with it, they could keep it, nothing would change, well a lot have learned that isn't true. People have either seen their policy costs go up, their companies drop or lessen coverage, etc. Now many people are starting to see their work hours cut to 29.5, so the companies won't have to provide insurance. So, those poor bastards still don't have company provided insurance, but now they have less pay.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 05:18:05 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

One would think so, with a reasonable plan but this atrocity puts the costs onto those who can least afford it; the young. Those just out of school (and paying for the loans the government is pushing on them) will bear the burden of the older, richer people, as well as the bums.
Since the young tend to be leftists, maybe this isn't a complete nightmare. Maybe they'll learn.

You can't educate a leftist. They won't listen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/26/2013 7:18 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Good points. And I see Massachusetts costs are still rising. There are some benefits, but the goal of *reducing* costs have still not been met.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does any one family really pay as much tax toward school funding as it costs the schools to educate their children? Here in Michigan, our schools are paid for from sales tax, so it isn't easy to guesstimate how much a random family pays in sales tax (and I believe there are other uses for sales tax funds).
However, it used to be that property taxes paid for schools, and I'm very certain that my property tax bill for a year is much less than what the schools get for a child. The switch from property tax to sales tax funding of the schools was supposed to be revenue-neutral, so I think using my property taxes as a placeholder for the funds now raised by sales tax holds water.
Clearly, the money for vouchers is coming not only from the parents' taxes but from that of other people. (Like me: I have no children, but I pay sales tax just as everybody else does.)
Cindy Hamilton
--





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:45:13 PM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

None of which has anything to do with the issue. Parents are paying taxes, a substantial portion of which go towards public education. When they are denied a choice of where to educate their children, then they are helping to pay to educate everyone else's children and also paying entirely for their own children. Nothing fair about that. You also seem to neglect the fact that kids only stay in public school for 13 years. If you're 65 years old, you've been paying property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, whatever for a hell of a lot longer than 13 years. And that indeed would have more than paid to educate a couple of kids.
And as far as money goes, the liberal solution is to just keep pouring even more money into failed public schools. In NJ, for decades now, courtesy of a screwly liberal NJ Supreme Court, we've been pouring far more money per student into Camden, Asbury Park, etc as we are into most of the wealthiest towns in the state. The kids are still dumb as ever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/20/2013 2:20 PM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

If you're looking for someone to blame, it ain't the teachers and the schools. Blame the parent(s) and their selfish lifestyles!
Most parents (I use that term loosely) are so focused on climbing the corporate ladder, they find little time to devote to their children.
But hey, as long as they have a couple of late model SUVs in the driveway of their McMansion, what else matters?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08-20-2013 16:30, Socrates wrote:

Or they are so focused on not getting evicted that they find little time to devote to their children. They can't get good jobs because they aren't educated. So they work two jobs and the kids raise themselves. Which puts the kids into the same position.
So how about we help both groups to be better parents? Otherwise the descendants of the first group will eventually be in the second group.
--
Wes Groleau

“A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/21/2013 12:54 AM, Wes Groleau wrote:

That actually falls into two categories. The uneducated and low income workers that have to work two jobs to keep a modest apartment and 10 year old car.
The other group is the good income couple that has a huge house they don't need, a Beemer and huge SUV and can barely make the mortgage and are maxed out on credit cards.
Same results, but one couple just looks prettier waiting for the sheriff

Probably too late to do anything for the parents, but you can hopefully get the kids to understand they have to make a life for themselves and they can control their own destiny.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a very hard cycle to interrupt. For a while, good manufacturing jobs that paid very well allowed a lot of people to enter the middle class and take their children along with them. That path for upward mobility it slowly closing out in America and our politicians should be hard at work figuring out how to maintain American prosperity. That's a tall order in a world where rising industrial states like China and India are exerting enormous downward pressure on American wages.

I have watched rather closely how the state tries to rehabilitate a neighbor crack addict and mother of two. The only thing that I am sure of is that kids need to be taken away from clearly drug-addled parents, and maybe forever. Harsh? Yes, but these kids aren't getting parenting - they're just living with someone that has similar DNA. Until the courts say "putting this kid back with its biological parent is not good for it" and make it stick, the cycle will continue.

Temporary unemployment could be a boon instead of a drain. Anyone getting UI needs to be either cleaning streets or getting some sort of education certification that might lead to a better job than street sweeping. Paying able-bodied people to stay home and watch cable should never happen yet it does, time and time again.
--
Bobby G.



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 5:07:44 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:

There's a world of hurt coming to China, Asia and probably ultimately here too. If you saw 60 Mins on Sunday, they had a story on real estate speculation in China. I was over there a couple years ago, and saw it for myself. They had construction crews working 24/7. I remember looking out the window at 3AM in Shanghai and seeing all the arc welding flashes, all the cement trucks arriving in a line, constructing building everywhere. But then when you look closer, it was obvious that so many of the finished buildings, especially condos, were totally empty. We went to a brand new mall in Bejing, full of everything from dept stores to high-end fashion stores. Only problem was that in the middle of the day, it was totally devoid of customers. I took pics basically showing the whole place was empty. It was obvious this was a disasterous bubble waiting to cave in. I kept thinking what this would do to the rest of the world economy, which 2 years ago was very shakey.
So, Leslie Stahl went there and did a story. She's one big dufus, but the story is accurate. My favorite, she sees new building after new building empty. She showed entire malls, with no tenents. Whole cities built that are empty. She points out that in the aftermath of communism investing in real estate was one of the few investments the Chinese people could easily make, and it's typical for them to own 6 or 10 properties purely for speculation. Then she keeps asking "Do you think this could be a bubble"? They have built entire cities of empty housing, where a condo costs 45 times a years salary. That would mean that in the USA, a family earning $75K would be looking at a house costing $3.3mil. Problem is, few people in China can afford that, so the houses are not occupied, it's just people shuffling paper, on the theory that prices can only go up.
The question she should have been asking is who owns all the paper on this disaster? I would not be surprised that it extends all over Asia. And you have to wonder what exposure Europe and even the USA will have to what's going to happen there. The amazing thing is that unlike the US housing bubble, what's going on in China is so obvious, anyone can see it. This is in the class of the Tulip mania in Holland in the 1600s, where people speculating convinced themselves that tulip bulbs were worth as much as a house.
It's looks like it's finally about to collapse and when it does, it's not going to be good for the world economy. Another curions aspect, Stahl says the govt is finally starting to act. Remember the China one child policy, she says? So, I'm thinking they've lifted that so that now people can have 3 children, maybe then they'll need more housing. No, not exactly. They now have a one real estate property policy. Unbelievable. Exactly what you don't need, because that's going to really kick the skids out from under this house of cards. Probably doesn't matter though. This is so bad that there is no way out.
If you get a chance to see the 60 mins story, it's one of those things everyone should see.

Yet oddly almost all your positions are 100% in line with the libs who not only have no problem with all the above, they have increased it and are clearly in favor of doing far more of it given the chance.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/20/2013 1:45 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

Sure, but over time. The cost of a student in our schools was said to be $5000. My two kids spent a total of 9 years in public schools (the rest was private schools). It is about 18 years of my tax dollars to educate them. But I've been paying property taxes for 47 years.
The tax funded public shools did not educate them as well as the cheaper to operate private schools that I paid for though. Public schools are not a good value in our experience, but that varies in each location.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@adi.com (Cindy Hamilton) wrote:

No, but most of the systems I am familiar with put out a specific amount of money that the state pays to the school for the kid. (Indiana schools send things home to parents pleading to make sure their kids get to schools the one day the state does the headcount and decides what the schools get). THAT is the amount of money that goes in on vouchers (at least in Indiana).
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, August 16, 2013 1:59:25 PM UTC-4, net cop wrote:

Really? Many states have no income tax, not even 1%. NJ's tops out at 9%. So clearly the income tax is s not proportional or in line with salaries as compared to many other states. Then there are the crushing property taxes that have nothing to do with salary or income. Here, a senior citizen living on social security in a 2500 sq ft house can be paying $8K or more in real estate tax. Then you go to buy something and you're hit with a 7% sales tax.

It used to be, but the libs have turned it into hell.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Assuming NJ is like NY, the taxes in NY on a $150,000 house are about ten times as high as they are in AZ. Salaries in NY are nowhere near 10 times as high, outside of NYC I doubt they are even 50% higher then AZ. The taxes in NY, and I'm assuming NJ but could be wrong, are just absence. I considered buying a second home sort of setup in NY but the taxes alone would cost more then my house payment in AZ. Just absurdly high.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.