DrewEckhardt

When I lived in Seattle Beavers and Otters flew base leg past my apartment window on their way to a Lake Union landing. I liked that a lot (especially Beavers with the original 985 radials). In Sunnyvale C130 pilots making their 3 required landings for proficiency fly over my place descending with their gear down on their way into Moffet Field which is pretty neat too. Base leg on a right hand approach is the only thing which makes sense, although officially they have a left hand pattern there.

We want ALL the programs, or perhaps more precisely the people we can vote for want that. Would that be the 43% who do not pay income taxes? Perhaps the bottom earning 75% of 4-member households who are eligible for ACA health insurance subsidies? Or the bottom earning 90% who are carried by the top earning decile who have a larger ratio between share of income + payroll taxes and income than the entire rest of the OECD 24 which includes Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, The Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and The United Kingdom? For the sake of argument I'll accept that those people will get fed up and vote differently. The average successful senate campaign runs $10.5M for a six year term, or $1.7M a year and nearly 10X the $174K paid by the position. That arithmetic only works because some one pays for the campaign. That some one is PACs (like the National Association of Realtors, ranked first in donations to candidates) and the 0.4% of natural people making campaign contributions large enough to require reporting with the majority totaling $10K per couple for primary and general election for many candidates. They do that because they get something in return like government spending or favorable tax treatment. IOW, voters are choosing between candidates which funnel money to special interests and/or collect less in taxes from them whose campaigns were paid for by those groups. The only way around that is to out-spend the people making money off government largesse which isn't going to happen. In theory places which allow citizens to legislate via a ballot process could opt for a proportional representation with people not working that way gaining a toehold and perhaps advancing from there, although with the powers that be having free speech, owning media companies, and having huge (PhRMA spent $150M on ACA) advertising budgets that seems unlikely to go anywhere. [QUOTE] The only thing that is dragging down the 'problem' is that somehow may people think that the country can be run on nothing, [/QUOTE] No, although the US Government has demonstrated that it can run on a top tax rate of 7% applied to incomes above $11,630,303 in 2013 dollars with the first $69,782 exempt for single people ($93,042 for married couples) and next $465,212 taxed at just 1%. You're getting a lot for your taxes - a government pension which will replace 30% of your earnings, a higher incarceration rate than China or the former Soviet Union, and military 5X bigger than #2, 10X bigger than the next NATO country, and 30X bigger than Canada eh?

So what's the news? As the old joke goes Q: How do you know a politician is lying? A: Their lips are moving.

Capitalism is wonderful. It is. Go down to Mexico and you can pay $25 cash for doctor visits or $35 for a one day hospital stay with a private room (one in America charged my insurance company $12,000 and I had to share with a guy having his knee replaced). Those are totals not insurance co-pays. While "capitalism" elsewhere and "corporatism" in America both start with the letter 'C' they are very different, much like the difference between "socialism" elsewhere and "corporatism" here with both ending in "ism." With capitalism companies compete in free markets with the interaction between supply and demand curves producing lower prices and/or more value for the same money. With corporatism they get laws passed on their behalf so that doesn't happen. For example, the most profitable forms of health insurance can be paid for with pre-tax dollars which lets the providers collect up to double the money for the same difference in take-home pay.

I looked at the website today and it was worse than I feared. The key thing to keep in mind is the IRS's High Deductible Health Plan definition. When you get your health insurance via such a plan you're allowed to fund a Health Savings Account with pre-tax dollars. As of $2013 that required a $1250 ($2500 family) deductible and $6250 ($12,500 family) out-of-pocket maximum. For a middle class Californian paying 28% Federal income tax and 9.3% state tax the inability to use a HSA or employer based Flexible Spending Account means that planned medical expenses like glasses and dentists visits cost 59% more in terms of what's left of your paycheck after health care. You cannot pay insurance premiums (except for Medicare, COBRA, and long-term-care insurance) with HSA money; other cynics would probably be right in suggesting that's intentional to keep people in expensive employer-based plans which are paid for with pre-tax money. The least expensive plan I could get for my wife and I is $700/month with a $5000 deductible ($10K family) and 40% co-insurance with a $6350 ($12.7K family) out-of-pocket maximum. Silver is $933/month with a $2000 deductible and 30% co-insurance with $6350 out of pocket maximum. This plan makes no sense with at most one unhealthy person or two people with minor pre-existing conditions - assuming a 28% Federal tax rate and 9.3% state tax rate you'd be better off with the bronze plan and setting up an Health Savings Account which would accumulate $4452 a year (you get to use pre-tax dollars which means the $233 you'd have post-tax is $371 pre-tax) with the difference in price disregarding investment gains. Gold would run $1100 a month with "no deductible" and 20% co-insurance up to $6350. This makes less sense than the silver plan because it's no longer a HDHP which is a 60% penalty on things like glasses and dental care for many people. It costs $7655 more than the bronze plan. With only one person developing health problems you'd be guaranteed to spend more because the bronze plan has a $6350 per-person out of pocket maximum. Platinum would be $1263/month with no-deductible and 10% co-insurance up to $4000. $10,775 more than the bronze plan. D-U-M-B. The chances of requiring health spending where you'd come out ahead versus the bronze plan are miniscule - either you're going to be way under or way over.

John is one of the "Older people" who: 1. Actual got on line. Not necessarily. He just said that his insurance went down, not that he did better buying through the exchanges. My group insurance went down due to my recent birthday (people my age are less expensive to insure than youngsters on the same plan) presumably because I'm no longer likely to spawn but am not yet old enough to suffer from expensive age-related infirmities. John could be in a similar situation or be in a group plan with age-based pricing and be old enough that the 3:1 rule dropped his high rate.

Facing a $7,275 a year pay cut like that I'd start looking for work elsewhere. My health plan paid for by pre-tax dollars runs $10,000 a year and I throw another $1,500 in a flexible spending account. With the governments' cut taken out of that $11,500 I'd only take home $7043. Having $11,500 to spend on my health care would take $18,775 which suggests such a move would be a $7200 pay cut. If I made less and had to pay FICA and SDI on it that would be a $9776 pay cut. Your employees might do the same if they can do arithmetic or later once they see the impact on their budget.. If they don't qualify for government subsidies their health care will become less affordable than it was before because they'll be buying individual plans which aren't allowed to exclude pre-existing conditions and have limits on the price difference between old and young peoples' premiums which are things that make group plans expensive, except they won't get the tax break which usually accompanies that.

A kid can take a can of gasoline from the garage, or mix and match chemicals for effects like chlorine gas and neither will show up on metal detectors. Here's a good idea: 1. Armed guards at all school entrances 2. Strip searches for everyone entering (or maybe they could just use the back-scatter xray machines we have at airports). No exceptions for a zero-tolerance policy that will make a difference. Some people would argue that saving lives doesn't justify infringing our rights although we're past that point and need to focus on what it will take to be effective.

I can't believe how many people jump on guns when other things are so much more likely to kill them and their children. Only 600 people of all ages are killed each year in firearms accidents, including those killed in hunting accidents. 33,000 people are killed each year by unintentional poisoning. It blows my mind how people can obsess about things they don't like but aren't likely to kill them while ignoring much more dangerous threats like cleaning supplies, swimming pools (3,500 non-boating accidental drownings occur each year), ladders and trees (26,000 people are killed by falls each year). A blanket law would be fine "children must be separated by lock and key from dangerous situations" but the obsession with firearms is ludicrous. In theory we're people with brains who can think, not animals driven by emotion and instinct.

Exactly. In fact with Obamacare we'll have life panels figuring out how to keep the dying with us for days and hours more whatever the cost. The rules are simple : insurance companies must spend at least 80% of what they collect on health care and preventative measures (for individual plans and small groups; for large group's it's 85%, and catastrophic plans have a lower requirement). All excess premium collections must be returned (my employer got back some tenths of a percent because our plan didn't spend enough). To look at another way insurers are allowed to slap a 25% markup on anything they care to spend. They can no longer make more money by spending less and pocketing the difference. To make more post ACA they must spend more. $1,000,000 spent on end-of-life care is $250,000 more they're allowed to keep for overhead and profits than spending nothing and letting someone die. They can make more by keeping people alive longer and must serve their fiduciary duty to share holders by doing so. "pro-life" Republicans should be thrilled.

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1251852630198&ssbinary=true Not so. That link doesn't work for me. This one does http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/HCPF/HCPF/1246453721518. and repeats what I said People with children have a lower threshold, and as of January 1st 2014 Colorado will be expanding Medicaid to cover everyone earning up to 100% of the poverty level as encouraged by ACA. There's also a state indigent care program although that's not insurance.

Thats why the taxpayers fund Medicaid. Prior to Obamacare, qualifying for Medicaid in Colorado as a single person required earning less than $100/month (as in one hundred, I did not leave off a zero). Lots of poor people weren't covered by Medicaid and literally could not afford insurance (period, as in not choose between insurance and larger apartment or even any place to live at all).

It depends on your goals. A rig which packs softer is more comfortable in the plane. A rig which packs tight is as small and therefore fashionable as possible, where the ideal is something the size of a kindergartner's backpack. A rig with a tight main compartment should be more tolerable of down-sizing; although if you're buying used gear that doesn't matter because you can spend about the same on depreciation regardless of how many mains and containers you go through. A rig which is more accommodating takes less skill to get the main into its deployment bag.

Just 50% more.

It did not. ACA requires minimum medical loss ratios (spending on healthcare and preventative services as a fraction of premium collections) of 80% for small-group/individual plans and 85% for large group plans with lower exceptions for high-deductible situations. Any excess collections must be refunded (my company got back a few tenths of a percent because the insurance company didn't guess quite right). It does not allow premium increases for pre-existing conditions and limits age related increases because old people can't be charged more than 3X young people. Apart from those limits insurers can raise their rates as much as they want, although boards of politically appointed people will review increases. In the unlikely event those increases are found to be "unreasonable" the insurers get kicked out of the exchanges they must participate in to gain access to consumers receiving federal subsidies. Of course this doesn't apply to insurers who choose not to participate in the exchanges like giant Aetna that opted out of California's exchange. Some felt they'd be more competitive if they kept prices the same and reduced what they sold consumers although that was a business decision not a government mandate.

Nope. The competitive (versus other employers who'll keep providing insurance) and fair thing to do is keep paying the employees what it takes to get them $432 worth of insurance with the same take-home pay left. If you don't buy the insurance you need to add what it'll take to cover the $432 plus taxes. Here in California for a middle class person that would take $432 / (1 - .28 federal tax - .062 FICA - .0145 Medicare - .093 California state tax - .01 California SDI) = $799.70 plus what you'll spend on your share of payroll taxes $799.70 * (1 + .062 FICA + .0145 Medicare) = $860 which is nearly twice as much totaling $5136 a year more. You spend far less on the same value compensation package by providing insurance. Astute readers and cynics would be correct pointing out how the health insurers have kept the laws favorable to their industry. I've assumed that your employees aren't earning more than the Social Security and SDI wage caps which lessens the impact because in the market for those sorts of employees insurance coverage is universal and you couldn't get away with no insurance. Some companies there even use 0 deductible, 0 out of pocket plans as a recruiting tool. I've also assumed they won't be getting any help from the government because 1. Health insurance usually goes with jobs that require skilled labor like that requiring a college degree 2. The cut-off for government assistance to a single person is about 2/3 of the average salary for college educated people. Skilled trades people bill at comparable rates so I'd speculate they get paid about as well, although the government makes it hard to find numbers by lumping such people into the broad "completed highschool" category with average pay skewed by janitors and burger flippers. If you want to cut spending do everyone a favor and switch to a High Deductible Health Plan where premiums are still paid before the government takes a huge tax bite and employees can use a Health Savings Account with the same tax treatment. For legal purposes this means a $1200 minimum annual deductible and $6050 out of pocket maximum for individuals and twice that for families. Increased deductibles and co-insurance maximums which don't cross that threshold preclude getting an HSA so the math may not work - while you can cover planned expenses like prescriptions via a Flexible Spending Account, that's use it or loose it within one plan year so it doesn't work well to cover unplanned expenses where you want to save towards the coinsurance maximum over a period of relatively healthy years. Some companies use HDHPs and make contributions to the employees HSA accounts which can combine lower payroll spending with more money left for employees after they pay for healthcare. People have an emotional reaction to "high deductible" although in most cases when you run the math (ACA lets insurers mark up the medical care they provide by 25% for small group plans) the total cost for healthcare can be less. At one employer I got a choice between two deductible levels, and by picking the higher one with the difference in premiums going into a FSA (spend it annually or loose it) I effectively eliminated the deductible and dropped my out-of-pocket costs. You could also give the employees more freedom in how they do their jobs (work when they want, sub-contract, use equipment of their choice, etc.) so the IRS doesn't consider them employees for tax purposes (just calling someone a contractor does not make it so and the government then gets mad that you've not paid your share of payroll taxes), make them contractors, and spend what you do now. You won't have to pay a fine if you grow because they won't be employees, and your contractors will be able to take an above-the-line deduction for health insurance premiums since they're self-employed.

You mean like the US military with more substantial spending for less benefit? You mean like Social Security? Government spending programs grow like cancer, especially when there are profits to be made. Not coincidentally PhRMA (the PHarmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America PAC, same people who brought us Medicare Part D) spent $150M passing the new law. Gotta go rebalance my portfolio - I smell record profits with no end in sight.

People with pre-existing conditions will be able to get individual health insurance without going six months without and buying into a high risk pool. Old people won't pay more than 3X young people (although those young people will pay more - I'm paying $150 a month for my adult son not the $85 which preceded the changes). Preventative care and maternity will be covered (although people will pay more than they did for catastrophic coverage). Families of four at the 75th income percentile and below who buy private policies will get government assistance so they don't have to spend too much. Single people will get help too, but only when they make less than 2/3 of the average for college graduates. (people without the government covering their tab past some limit will pay more when prices rise like they always do with government money pouring into a market, like they have with education where each $1 of government aid lands a $0.60 price increase and price increases have quadrupled inflation since 1980). Children under 26 who aren't students can stay on their parents' group plan. (This often costs a lot more. Covering my adult son on my group plan would land the insurer 500 a month with $400 out of my paycheck versus the $85 I was spending to cover my adult son before the shenanigans. His policy isn't "as good" although $4980 a year in price difference covers a lot of doctor's visits). Obamacare has a lot of benefits. Unfortunately most of them will be for the health care industries (in the form of increased profits) and not the people. A law passed for the people would have extended the not-for-profit Medicare program which exists to insure the old and infirm to cover the somewhat old and infirm instead of ACA's for-profit scheme which covers these people through for-profit companies allowed a 25% markup on whatever they care to spend (like covering the $100/month patented form of a drug which lacks the inactive chiral form of its molecule not the $10/month form available as a generic which has extra inert fillings. Nexium with double the active ingredient as Prilosec did a little better in tests which makes it the preferred drug). I am pretty excited. It's going to be fun mocking Republicans when the life panels maximize profits through heroic measures. With insurers legally prohibited from making more profits by cutting costs we're going to see a lot of $1M end-of-life care packages which let them keep an extra $200,000.

No. We have offshoring because the _cost_ of living is so high. As long as they don't insist on luxury items like BMWs people can live as well for much less where $1500 rents a mansion with live-in servants to cook and clean than where $3000 gets a 2-bedroom apartment. The cost of living for the middle class is high largely because of corporatist governments which actively work to increase private company profits and therefore consumer prices on essential goods (housing, health care, education, food). Being poor elsewhere is worse with no running water, no windows with glass, etc. as opposed to relatively nice places with cable TV although those people are being replaced by robots (Foxconn planned to get a million running by 2014) and doomed anyway. [QUOTE] Life was cheaper then, and it cost less for average workers to support that lifestyle. [/QUOTE] The same homes doubling in real price although the long term average is flat, education price increases quadrupling inflation since 1980, and health care going up 14% a year for the last decade have nothing to do with how many bedrooms we have and putting $500 big-screen TVs in each one.

It's pretty straightforward. The Republicans want a big, powerful government run for corporations' benefit with its growth paid for by inflation. The Democrats want a big, powerful government run for corporations' benefit with its growth paid for by higher taxes. For nearly all practical purposes they're the same. They appoint the same Federal Reserve governors who give The National Association of Realtors (ranked first in donations to candidates for every election since 1998), National Association of Home Builders, and Mortgage Bankers Association of America PACs their quid pro quo in the form of $40B a month printed to buy mortgages, keep interest rates down, and home sales up. They both passed $100B/year bills funneling money into health care industries. Republican President Bush, Speaker Hastert, Senate, and House passed Medicare Part D with PHarmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America thanking Republican Representative Billy Tauzin for his help with a seven figure job as their president and CEO. PhRMA did a little negotiating with the Democrats to remove onerous provisions of ACA like the re-import provision and once happy spun up a pair of 501(c)(4) organizations which coordinated their $150M in spending with the White House. As a footnote, Obamacare was about the same as Republican Romneycare and the 1993 Republican health plan. They both support one of the world's most enormous Socialist organizations: the US military. Cooperative management of that economy, Government housing, Government healthcare, etc. When you ask they'll say it's about defense, but when you're spending 5X the second place country, 10X the next NATO country in your mutual defense pact, and 30X the first world country with the same land mass it's about creating government jobs not defense. (This ignores things like Veterans Affairs, military pensions, homeland security, the Department of Energy's work on nuclear weapons, and interest on previous military spending which aren't considered military spending and make the real numbers much worse). A disproportionate number of Democratic politicians claim to not like guns and try to pass related laws. Bush 41 pioneered the Executive Order as a gun control tool with his 1989 import ban, Arnold signed his share of anti-gun laws, the Republicans don't undo the Democrats' damage when they have their turn at being in charge, but the Democrats do more. Listen to Republican politicians and a disproportionate number don't like gays and abortion. Sometimes they actually pass laws to that effect. Our first-past-the-post electoral system inevitably leads to the two parties about alike and precludes third party elections. Where one's district hasn't been Gerrymandered and natural demographics don't lean too far to one side you can choose and perhaps elect one of the two based on such minor issues. Where it's skewed you can choose one, complain, and donate towards their victory in other districts. Either way keeping your dinner down requires ignoring the egregious things they do like the other side along with anything uniquely offensive they've managed which doesn't effect you personally enough to change your mind. Having the most punitive nee progressive tax system out of the OECD 24 without giving me value for my money like healthcare (that costs me another $15K/year in spending including employer contributions) or a pension replacing more than 30% of my income (I work around that by setting aside $17.5K of my money) hurts me, I like guns, don't want to marry a man, don't have a womb, and can afford to fly female family members to free places in the unlikely event something happens to legal abortion in a relevant jurisdiction so I hate Democratic politicians more and am therefore a Republican. That doesn't change when they doing the same things the Democrats do or other offensive things which don't affect my family. Other people have equally valid reasons to hate Republican politicians more, be Democrats, and ignore their team's negative issues. Given a real choice I'd vote geolibertarian with a broad view of the zero aggression principle but that's not a politically viable position. That said individual "liberals" and "conservatives" are fellow victims of the same oppressors and my friends include both sorts of people.

Buying used is probably lower risk since manufacturing errors should have been found before the rig got to you. I knew a woman who opened and was sitting really strangely in her harness. It turns out they left some essential stitching off that rig.

A new harness installed by the manufacturer for $400 is a lot less expensive than a new container, although the resulting rig would not be pin unless it started that that way. You can usually try on gear before buying, and where that's not practical you can call the manufacturer with the serial number, your measurements as if ordering a new rig, and ask how it's likely to work for you.

Whatever. School shooting are rare enough to be non-existent for all purposes except politics.

They correctly believe that the lives of innocent bystanders are more important than the difference between a truck's replacement cost and insurance coverage.

That's an awesome price for a rig + main with just a few jumps on them and PD optimum reserve with one pack job, although a 106 reserve is arguably too small for most people.