muff528

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content

    4,127

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by muff528

  3. lawrocket

    When there is a paradigm shift, it's usually the result of the believers in the previous paradigm dying off and not because they changed their minds on the basis of observed fact.

    To suggests that scientists don't have egos is ridiculous. If a person has made a career and achieved fame out of advocating a certain theory, don't expect the person to be able to flip a switch and say, "I've been wrong the past thirty years." The vast majority of people don't work that way.



    ...especially if they made a sh*tpot full of money promoting that theory.

  4. rehmwa

    ......


    can we arbitrarily define when one body is orbiting the other body? how about if the center of rotation of the system lies within the physical volume of one of the bodies....? I'm ok with that. (Simple case, empty universe except for the two bodies)



    If we use that definition, the earth has not orbited the sun in the last ~20 years. (but more than 2 bodies at play.)

    Edit to add: Found a better chart here. Center of mass has been within the sun's volume for the last couple of years.

  9. kallend

    ******

    Since the writer of the article you cited wrote this:

    Then, however, Obama went on the offensive against America’s most useless major that doesn’t have the word “studies” or “gender” in it.

    It seems that the mocking was primarily in the eyes of the writer.

    YOU see what you want to see.



    No. In the context of his speech, Obama was definitely poo-pooing Art History degrees. The writer was simply implying that there are other fields of study that Obama could have attacked that are even more useless than Art History ... at least in terms of finding a well-paying job.

    So there's clearly agreement that Art History is a useless degree "in terms of finding a well-paying job".

    You and the writer agree with Obama.

    Does ANYONE dispute Obama's statement? If so, I recommend that you look up the ROI on an art history degree. There may be good reasons for a kid to get a degree in Art History, but ROI is not one of them.

    Yes, I agree with Obama on the point of his speech. I also agree with him in that I, too, "love art history".

    I was only trying to understand your point ...re: whether it was Obama or the writer who was mocking the choice of Art History as a major. (or whether the writer only perceived Obama's statement as "mockery".)

  10. kallend



    Since the writer of the article you cited wrote this:

    Then, however, Obama went on the offensive against America’s most useless major that doesn’t have the word “studies” or “gender” in it.

    It seems that the mocking was primarily in the eyes of the writer.

    YOU see what you want to see.



    No. In the context of his speech, Obama was definitely poo-pooing Art History degrees. The writer was simply implying that there are other fields of study that Obama could have attacked that are even more useless than Art History ... at least in terms of finding a well-paying job.

  14. Quote



    :D:D:D I've had the "good stuff" from all over the world but there's just something about being able to grab a Hershey's chocolate candy bar (with almonds... double yum) or a bag of Hershey's Kisses from Wawa when the craving strikes.



    Agree. While I do appreciate the difference, I seldom turn down a Hershey bar. :)
    Quote

    One of my childhood holdouts along with Spaghettio's with Meatballs. :)



    Sorry ...here's where I have to draw the line! :P

  19. oldwomanc6

    I don't know if my info was compromised, but my bank sent me a new cc mid-cycle. No explanatory note with it. This was the card I used when I shopped there once during the time period they say was affected.

    It makes me wonder if they did that with every one of their customers who shopped there recently. If I was the cc company, that's what I would do. Seems an easier way of dealing with any potential fraud on these accounts--being proactive, that is.



    I used a debit card at Target once during the affected period. My bank sent a letter a couple of weeks ago assuring me that I would not be responsible for any fraudulent activity that might occur and that they were going to replace my card. I received the new card (with a new acct. number) a few days ago. I thought that was pretty quick reaction considering the number of cards that were potentially compromised.

  20. kallend

    *********

    The difference is that before the ACA, these decisions were made by insurance companies, doctors and patients/families with some consideration for the patient. After ACA, they will be made by government bureaucrats .



    WRONG. INCORRECT. FALSE.

    You should check your facts BEFORE making an ass of yourself.

    I can't be right or wrong yet. I'm only making a prediction.

    Sure you can - you're WRONG.

    Well, I hope you're right. But, I haven't yet seen anything to suggest this will not end with some form of rationing. ...even more so if "single-payer" is eventually forced on us.

    ...and now, this

  21. Stumpy

    *********....

    "Well sure - its worked out OK ....."
    :S



    Let us know when this part happens.

    For a start, how about you reread this thread. (Or at least the OP)

    One guy gets a free butt probe while millions who have been stripped of their perfectly good health insurance live in fear of financial devastation, or worse, by some illness or accident. Man, I 'd hate to see what happens when it doesn't work out OK.

  23. jclalor



    Quote

    I, also have "better" coverage through work. I also have a 300+ % increase in premiums and potentially thousands increase in co-pays and deductibles. Like I said before, I'm paying for coverage I don't need or want. And, like PiLFy says, you free butt-check may not be so free by the time all the paperwork is finished.



    Health insurance cost rose at the lowest level in years ( single digits) and yours went up over 300%? it sounds to me like your the one that's really taking it up the ass. It's no surprise that some less than scrupulous employers are trying to pass on more and more cost to the employee and then they blame it on Obama.

    Then again, if you feel the compensation being offered at your work is inadequate, you should probably venture out onto the open market and find and employer willing to compensate you what you think is fair for your skills. The free market is very good at this.



    My health care plan cost did not rise because of increase in health insurance costs. It rose as a direct result of Obamacare. My BCBS plan, which was more than adequate for me, was cancelled on 10/1 because it did not comply with the ACA guidelines. It was rendered illegal by Obamacare. Premiums were $353.68/month. Even though Obama decreed that we could all go back to our old plans for another year, I'm SOL because BCBS no longer offers this outlaw plan. The replacement plan from BCBS (equivalent deductible and total out-of-pocket) premium was $1366.84 per month. That's over 386% increase (For comparison, these premiums are only for me and do not include additional premiums for my son.) I'm sure the new plan had many perks and extras that would have been nice as well as coverage that could never apply to me. But for the difference in premiums, I'll pay for my own preventive care.

    We did just recently (within the last couple of weeks) change plans and provider. So considering premium increase only, the 300% is really only about 200% now. But the potential out-of-pocket expense is much higher, but still manageable. I'm employed by a small company. We employees were directly involved in searching for a suitable replacement. I chose a balance between more affordable premiums and higher potential out-of-pocket expenses. Premiums now are $740.60 per month. My company pays half in all cases. I fall somewhere in the 60-64 age range.

  25. jclalor

    You do realize that people who are buying insurance through the exchanges only represent a small percentage of the population?



    Doesn't matter how you buy your "insurance". All (non-exempt) plans must comply with the same minimum requirements. The only real difference is that if you want to qualify for the phantom tax credits, you have to go through the exchanges. If your business provides a group plan, you must participate in that plan rather than go to the exchanges. You can then try to qualify for premium assistance through the HHS website. Bottom line is that if you need relief you must stick your neck out on a website that is full of security holes. (You may now be able to do this in person. That'll probably go pretty smoothly.) You obviously think that only a "small percentage of the population" will need assistance in the form of tax credits or premium help. If so, then why in the world did we need the ACA? Also, the amount of the tax credits which are estimated at the exchange site may not be the reality at tax time next April. These estimates are based on projected enrollment figures, which right now are pretty dismal. It may happen that the "small percentage of the population" that is depending on premium relief and promised tax credits, will be getting a big surprise at tax time next year.

    Quote

    Those of us who have had insurance through our employers now have much better coverage as a result; no lifetime cap, preventative care provided, keeping your children on your policy, and pre-existing conditions covered.



    I, also have "better" coverage through work. I also have a 300+ % increase in premiums and potentially thousands increase in co-pays and deductibles. Like I said before, I'm paying for coverage I don't need or want. And, like PiLFy says, you free butt-check may not be so free by the time all the paperwork is sorted out.

    Quote

    Making a prediction predicated on "just wait and see" is not much of a prediction. Peddling fear, that's all that you guys have left.



    "Prophesy" would probably have been a better word.