Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Knave, Dec 3, 2016.
Sorry - 2% of Americans make 100-105k/year. 44% make more than 100k.
We did, in Iraq, from 2003-20011. That's a conservative estimate.
We discussed your posts about it in depth and it didn't add up back then either:
If you believe this chart, health costs starting outstripping inflation about 1975. The lines converged around 1979, then we had 2 solid decades+ where they did not. They briefly touched in 2000, then again in 2005 for a year, then again in 2011, and since then they're pretty tight.
Figured people on this thread would find this interesting.
The costs don't go waaay down, the only thing that changes is who pays the cost. I am not sure why that is such a difficult concept for you to understand?
I am questioning this "we" part, is this from that old bullshit story that claims our soldiers were going around Iraq murdering families.
I believe it was the guardian that came out with that bullshit story.
ok, maybe I am being dumb this morning.
2% of individual Americans (1 single person) make more than 100K.
44% of families (married couples, or households with head of household I guess), make more than 100K for the household.
Is that what you are trying to say?
And I made up my $22,000 annual premium too. LOL! Just because you won't aknowledge the truth does make something untrue.
Here's the same chart for health costs but with a 10 year rolling average to smooth it out.
It's relatively steady from the beginning of this chart to about 1977, then there's an inexplicable dip, then from about 1986 through about 2001 we have the era that has created the notion of "out of control spiraling health costs." The era of newly steady inflation is now as long as the era that has been driving our policy for a couple of decades now.
It just appears to coincide with the time the Baby Boomers reached their forties, when they could maximize their purchasing power. Purely coincidental.
Oh my holy god I'm glad this is an anonymous soccer blog where we all live in different places because I would have slapped you so hard across the face.
It would appear that in the last seventy-two hours, "kill = murder," "autocracy = totalitarian dictatorship," and "Constitutional responsibility = Must Protect Everyone All The Time."
One million Iraqis died as a result of the US invasion in Iraq. The completely unnecessary invasion. If we had not invaded, those 1 million would ostensibly not have died. Therefore, our actions led to the deaths of 1 million. Sure, our soldiers didn't always pull the trigger, but because there are more ways to die in wars than being killed by a U.S. soldier (no really - it's true! there's starvation and bomb collateral and errant fire and on and on)...
It's stunning that I've had to explain these things in the past week. Absolutely stunning.
Yes, and I'm okay with a billionaire paying for those costs with tax revenue because s/he can afford it easily. You're not, I take it?
Again what is the link, because the one article I remember everyone quoting was the one that specifically claimed it was US soldiers doing the killing.
Perhaps you have a different link that makes a different claim, all I am asking is for the link so I can read it myself.
Again, you don't give us the details and we slice and dice it looks like something doesn't add up. I'm not going to visit your misguiding quotes again. If you pay $22,000 you are either a) not shopping around, B) making too much money or c) bullsh!ting. I call c).
And as we discussed at great length in the precursor of this thread, you friend was economically illiterate.
There are maybe a thousand different places you could have gone to obtain this information. Here are a few:
Many report 500,000 civilian deaths as a result of the war, which is lower than my 1 million claim but still an ungodly amount.
ok, that is fine, I am not arguing against that, every time a despotic dictator is removed and the country falls into chaos (definitely our fault) many deaths happen.
around 160K-185K direct from violence and about 200K from the collapse of the state.
So yes if Saddam Hussain had stayed in power, many of the 500K or so death would not have happened. Just like if Marshal Tito of the former Yugoslavia had not dies (or at least left a competent leader behind) the Balkan wars could have been avoided or postponed.
At least in Syria we did nothing to cause the chaos, so out hands are relatively clean on the hundred of thousands of deaths (we have killed our share with bombings) that have occurred there.
I believe this is the case the Russians makes, it is better to support the dictator in Syria than to do what we (USA) did in Iraq and remove the dictator.
Good, you did not link to that bullshit guardian story, that is what I was looking for.
Huh? I gave you all the details, all you have to do is plug them into Brummies calculator and you come up with this:
Estimated financial help:
$0 per month ($0 per year)
as a premium tax credit. This covers 0% of the monthly costs.
Your cost for a silver plan:
$1,879 per month ($22,544 per year)
in premiums (which equals 23.12% of your household income).
The most you have to pay for a silver plan:
Without financial help, your silver plan would cost:
$1,879 per month ($22,544 per year)
What other details do you need?
No she wasn't and the ACA did cause her to stop working. Such a great system you support.
When we discussed her situation before, it became very clear she had made an economically illiterate decision. You now trying to claim otherwise to suit your "agenda" is predictable but just doesn't cut it. In fact, when you were asked to back up your assertion with actual information, you replied "These were questions I wasn't going to ask an emotional friend".
You're full of shit.
I thought you were a big fan of high deductible insurance coupled with an HSA?
Yeah, just like my Obamacare plan wouldn't cost me $22,500. You going to dispute that too?
I am, but not at Obamacare prices. I actually have a high deductible plan coupled with an HSA.
Odd, I never commented on your plan. Try again.
I hope you advised your economically illiterate friend to go that route instead of retiring, because retiring would have caused her contributions to an HSA to have garnered much less of a tax reduction compared to if she had kept working.
You have no choice with Obamacare. The real problem is both the deductibles and the premiums are so high, hence my comment that people are finding out that access to health insurance isn't the same as access to health care.