Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:05 AM) And these are things that are entirely tractable and have been done repeatedly. It's not something I'm going to do...because I'm not paid to do it. If you put me on a team of 20 people and asked me to get it done in 2 weeks, I could probably get it done. This is not an impossible problem. The law isn't that complex. Yes, you could apply a blanket study to multiple companies, but it would have no actual baring on what they actually end up doing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) Yeah but health benefits are part of the overall compensation package and employers get tax credits for them. It's not nearly as simple as Republicans are trying to paint it and abusing the McKinsey study to do so. It's cheaper for companies to simply cut insurance right now since there's no penalty. But they don't, because employees would leave and they'd have a hard time recruiting new ones. I dunno, on one hand I hope they're right and that these new exchanges really will result in affordable individual coverage such that employers can drop insurance and bump pay a little. Having health insurance tied to employment is a terrible system anyway. eta who's said companies will insure employees for any reason other than the owners/shareholders' long-term profits? This is a short term outlook. If companies, over time, begin giving much bigger salaries to employees and tell them they have to get their own insurance benefits, people may not care about this being part of their overall compensation package. This doesn't consider that if they cut insurance, that they'd increase benefits elsewhere (they would). They wouldn't have a hard time recruiting new employees or keeping old ones with such a deal.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 10:00 AM) You don't care what methodology anyone uses, it's impossible to know one way or the other. Your words. Taken out of context, you have an argument. Left in context, you do not. It's IMPOSSIBLE for you or anyone else to take a single study and apply it across multiple privately or publicly held companies, as you are not their CFO, and have no regard for what they are willing to spend money on, or lose money on (ie, benefits), so applying such a study is flawed from the beginning. You could do this, if you had inside information on what the company was planning to do, on a case by case basis...and only if you fully understood 100% of the health law as accepted by courts, how the tax write-offs would work, what penalties would be incurred, etc. Trying to blanket what a company would save/not save without knowing their finances to begin with, or what their plans are/are not is just completely dumb. Hence why I dismiss the 30% figure just as easily as I dismiss any others. Every company will go over this law, in detail, and make the decision based on their specific finances, abilities, and choices.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:58 AM) As are your statements about how it's impossible to figure out in advance whether this program will save people money or not. I never made such a statement. Hence why what you said is completely stupid.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 09:56 AM) Thankfully, money cannot be counted or added or subtracted. Because otherwise, people would do those types of calculations and produce estimates about future behavior. This was just stupid. Move along now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 08:07 AM) Yes, yes, I know, you reject all data and empiricism out of hand. But no one is claiming that those projections are absolute. Mistaking maps for the territory and all that. Just pointing out how ridiculous that "ZOMG! 30%!!!" crap is. No, I reject lack of common sense with this study and all studies. We agree, 30% IS crap. It's a number made up and pulled out of no where. As I said, and I repeat, it will come down to money. If 90% of companies find they can save tons of money by killing off their health benefits, the number will be closer to 90% over time, maybe not instantly (again, as the "study" implies), but over time it would move close and closer to the number in question. The opposite also holds true. What planet are you guys on, anyway? Well, whatever it is, on Earth, companies, especially American companies go for profits...profits, and more profits...and if you honestly believe a company would forfeit massive savings (profits) for the good of their employees, you may be right in 1% of ALL cases...but in the majority, you're delusional at best.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2011 -> 07:55 AM) So wait, there are 2 possible options for a decision? And it's a decision people/companies might have to make in the future? You know what would be really cool? If there was a way of evaluating what decision those companies might make. That would be a really useful guide. We could do things like look at past cases, or figure out intelligent ways to evaluate decision making, or even look at the bill and do the math ourselves. We could even call it a study. Actually no, theres one option for a decision, as both are reflected on the same option...MONEY. To think otherwise is foolish.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 02:49 PM) On the heels of the fabulous, open and transparent McKinsey study that claimed 30% of employers (might) drop insurance within two years is another study that actually did release it's methodology. Shockingly, this one is in line with every other independent study, leaving McKinsey as the outlier again: 3% drop in two decades. Hey, what's a couple of orders of magnitude and a few decades between friends, right? Oh, and the number of uninsured drops to nearly zero. All of these studies are BS, and none of them know for sure one way or the other, regardless of their "methodology". Here is a non-scientific non-political study conducted by me, with no methodology other than logic. And it's probably the ONLY non-political study you will ever find on this particular subject. If it turns out in a few years that companies can save themselves truckloads of money by dropping their insurance...they will. If it turns out in a few years that companies cannot save themselves truckloads of money by dropping their insurance...they will not. How's that for scientific? If somehow, this reform gave companies a means to save a ton of money (by design or by accident), they will use it. Profits > People. Let's not pretend we don't know that already.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 07:47 PM) What drives me nuts about cops is how they never want to admit when they were wrong, or got the wrong guy, or whatever, and just double down on whatever they were doing (cuz I guess it feels like all their work gets wasted). Or when they compound it and start covering each other (people will do things as part of a group that they wouldn't do on their own account). There are some undoubtedly stupid/bad cops out there. But applying that to all cops is like any other stereotype...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 06:38 PM) Cops use radars way way way too much. They are sold as you say as a replacement for lethal weapons, but they're regularly used to subdue people for minor offenses. That's because most cops would rather not take the chance anymore. You may not realize this, but a slight/minor scuffle with someone could end up in the loss of life, or otherwise. Let's see, off hand, last year my brothers partner was making an arrest for a simple "minor offense", and the person he arrested bit him...and then told him she had HIV...which she did. The medication this guy was on the following few weeks was insane. Something similar happened to another partner of his, only this time they stabbed him with a used heroin needle, tough that person didn't claim he had aids. ...now you wonder why they overuse these devices? And these occurrences are many, not few. I used to wonder, too...but I don't anymore. I read, on a daily basis, how s***ty cops are. How corrupt they are. How they use excessive force too much. I then get to read how "flash mobs" are busting peoples heads open in broad daylight and stealing their s***. The s*** they deal with everyday compared to what we deal with are apples an oranges. Let's not pretend we know. Hell, my brothers a cop so I *DO* know...but I still don't know. 99% of the people I deal with at my job on a daily basis are educated upstanding citizens. The opposite holds true for police...and it's very easy and convenient to forget that.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 23, 2011 -> 05:06 PM) When I was a teenager I had to go thru all kinds of rigamarole and shenanigans to get alcohol, but if I wanted drugs I didn't have to leave my block. Or at worst I woulda had to walk like 1/4 mile. This. There is no point in having a discussion about this, either, as nothing gets accomplished. The reality that exists and the ideals people have don't mesh in regard to gun laws. Regardless of that, in the end, those who hate guns will side with the anti gun laws, those who love them will not. Personally, I'm indifferent. I own a FOID card, but I've never owned a gun. That said, drugs are illegal in this country, yet easier to get than alcohol. If we banned all guns from the US, all you'll be doing is opening ANOTHER black market for the cartels.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 10:28 PM) I just feel like most wives would vehemently disagree with you, regardless of your reasoning. Also, I don't wear one, but unless it's gawdy, how does it affect typing? It's close to your palm, not the tip of your finger. Because it's between your fingers and a hinderance?

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 08:50 PM) Have fun telling your wife that. It's all about setting early expectations. If you wear it for a year after you get married and suddenly take it off, she probably has every right to question it...but if you tell her from the start that wearing rings makes you feel uncomfortable, you probably have a much better shot at selling it. I don't like wearing them because it gets in my way when typing and working on computers, so I've never worn it on a daily basis. I wear it when we got out nice places, etc. and shes ok with that.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 03:56 PM) I'm so glad I bought a home in 2007. All that lost-house value is awesome. It's only lost if you sell today. People said the same things about all their stocks/401k's in 2007...then they panicked, sold them, and watched those same stocks skyrocket right back to where they were in a mere 2-3 years. Suckers panic under pressure. Winners hold steady and recognize that if it does [the system] completely collapse, it won't matter when or if you sold. The only difference will be in having no worthless paper, and having wheelbarrows full of it...which nobody will want a cent of. I may say a lot of negative things...but I have faith in this country. Mostly because every generation previous to ours said the SAME exact things I hear people say today...that the end is near...and everything is going to collapse. They then follow that brilliant outlook up with buy gold. Someone needs to notify these gold buyers that in a modern depression, food is worth more than gold. And a starving man would part with 5 pounds of yellow metal in exchange for a single meal. Or, the guy with the food can just wait until you stave to death in a mere few weeks, and take said worthless yellow metal for nothing. How's that for a positive outlook?

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:11 PM) If I ever get married, I doubt I will wear my ring. I hate rings and necklaces and am just annoyed by watches. Count me in the jewelry is awkward group. I really only find rings awkward...so I don't wear them.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Jun 17, 2011 -> 06:17 PM) I don't know how the iCloud would work in a day and age of data caps. What if you want to watch a movie you uploaded to it, or listen to an album, only to find out you downloaded too much for the week and your ISP has throttled you. And if you use iCloud in conjunction with Netflix/Hulu/Online gaming, I could see yourself shattering your data cap. Or maybe, I'm wrong and I don't know how it works. All of these data caps we are seeing are a short term solution to limited capacity. As advances are made, you will see such things disappear. Just like we saw the old modem disappear, etc. I remember a time, dialing into BBS's, that depending on your call prefix, you would be charged by the minute on a sliding scale of distance. There wasn't just long distance. There was Class A calls (Initial connect is charged, and is untimed/free from that point on), Class B (Initial connect, +2 cents a minute), Class C (Initial charge, + 8 cents a minute, Class D (Initial charge, +15 cents a minute), and THEN there was long distance, and THEN there was international. Almost all of that is gone today. The same will be said of data caps in the years to come.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) Honestly I hate wearing jewelry. The only thing I wear is my wedding ring. Rings, necklaces, watches etc, always feel awkward and unnatural on my. I don't wear my wedding ring, never have.

QUOTE (IlliniKrush @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 10:08 AM) I hate having to pull out my phone to check the time This, not to mention, wearing a nice watch has little to do with needing to know the time. It's no different than a gold necklace, or an engagement ring, etc...it's an accessory that's actually useful (unlike the others I mentioned), that can be passed down from father to son, etc...especially if it's nice, and taken care of. My Rolex has never been broken, and I've had it for more than 5 years, and it looks new, despite the fact that I never take it off, including during two week long camping trips to the boundary waters, swimming in oceans, working every day, and any other activities, etc...

Before I got married, I bought a Rolex...a stainless GMT Master II, which I've had since early 2006. I've worn it everyday since I bought it, no matter where I go or what I do. Before that, I had a TAG, which I also loved. I gave that to my friend when I bought my Rolex. Needless to say, now that I'm married and support my family on the single income (me/wife/newborn), I don't have the money to buy things like this anymore, but I'm glad I have it anyway.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 9, 2011 -> 07:05 PM) Well, i'm mostly pointing out that it's also a liberal plan. But yeah, i'm much more moderate than you think. If he had given these "deals" to small to mid size companies, I would have been all for it. The big companies (and rich people) can suck a nut, at least in times like these. Don't you realize that on the Internets (esp Soxtalk), if you don't agree with the Liberal POV, that automagically makes you a Republican in the tank for the GOP? I've repeatedly shown disdain for both parties in numerous posts, yet I'm still considered a Republican here by many.

I saw Lebron in the parking lot before the game and asked him if he could break a dollar...he only gave me 75 cents in return. I see what I did thar...

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 27, 2011 -> 01:16 PM) The whole buy "american" company cars is such a scam anyways, nobody should be pointing out that buying a "foreign" car is unamerican. It's not un-American. However, anyone that does it, IMO, loses the ability to to cry about foreign nations "stealing our jobs". I'm not one that cries about it, either, it's a reality of a global economy. That said, there is nothing more infuriating than having to listen to a rant from someone about foreign jobs/outsourcing when they jump in their foreign cars and fly to foreign countries on all of their vacations, and spend their money there instead of here. Again, to clarify, I'm not crying about the reality of economics, or that people should buy only American, because I agree with you on that. But I also don't do it and then b**** about the things that go hand in hand with it.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ May 27, 2011 -> 10:22 AM) And you're right back to having to hack the phone.... My point exactly.

QUOTE (bmags @ May 27, 2011 -> 10:09 AM) My advice is it may be best to start with a vegetarian diet. My second advice is DONT SEEK MEAT SUBSITUTES. Tofu stirfry is one thing, but immediately on trying vegetarianism, my friends would try tofu burgers and it would turn them off. Look toward indian cuisine. Use Eggplant and lentils. Rice, beans, peppers, and lime are your friends. I've just seen that the quickest way to failure is typically the "What's the vegetarian answer for a burger" even though black bean burgers are pretty dope. But you could also start small by trying pescatarianism. This is actually something I was leaning toward. I'm reluctant to cut all meat out of my diet, which is why I lean toward keeping fish around...as I love fish. It's just other meals, where fish isn't present, I'm not sure what good recipes or combinations exist when it comes to vegetables without having to drown them in salad dressing to make it edible... Also, I have zero interest in meat substitutes of any kind.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 27, 2011 -> 10:04 AM) How were they? Did you use beans as the protein? I'm always here as a resource. And FYI this is my favorite recipe blog. Everything is outstanding. Ok, Mr. Resource, tell me some good places to eat, and/or some things I could try at restaurants that actually taste good. Also, I just checked that website, and some of that stuff seems harder to prepare than a good chop, which isn't easy. In short, what are some quick tips or easy recipes that could help a person get started on such a thing?