Disclaimer

And we use more advanced tech. then anyone else in the world.

We do?

The first heart transplant was in South Africa, btw.

You can pick whatever arbitrary baseline you want for this experiment, but when doing analysis, the RFROR is the baseline.

The baseline should really be an index like the S&P 500.

The true baseline is always the Fed rate on T-bills which is generally accepted as the risk-free rate of return.

http://www.bankrate.com/rates/interest-rates/treasury.aspx

So using the short term 3-month rate.... 0.095% or $100,007.81

Then the money market (baseline) with the paltry .84% APY finishes with:

$100,069.06

Everyone that does worse should let someone else manage their money.

Meh, to your credit... the original link in the other thread doesn't work anymore... so, you kinda half contributed.

Search on the web... how about search on the forum?!

Edit: Damn, Brown beat me to it.

Wow... you are a Republican talking point machine over there.

50% pay no FEDERAL taxes due to them being elderly or "working poor", but most of that 50% very well do pay taxes.

http://www.politicususa.com/half-americans-taxes.html

As was pointed out earlier... do you take the standard deductions when you file your taxes? Mortgage interest? Then you're a welfare queen buddy.

Some get them... like huge conglomerates who benefit the most from the this consumer driven economy, but then take all the spoils out of this country (on paper only)... yea that's fair. And that's a horrible example because if you use that analogy the people with the "coupons" are getting $4 off gallon to fill up their Porsches, Bentleys, Ferraris, and Lambos, while the regular folks have no coupons and fill up their Taurus and Impalas.

I'm not playing stupid, you'll have to clarify your exact definition of welfare because if you think corporate taxes are mostly going to pay "lazy people who just collect a check everything for nothing" -- then you're more ignorant than I thought.

The point was.. the ACTUAL tax rate is pretty meaningless. Why even bother with that number? Kind of like how the MSRP on a vehicle is meaningless, who pays MSRP for anything? That's just an artificial starting point to brag to your buddies what a great deal you got.

I didn't realize you have an expanded definition of welfare... you literally mean welfare, as in the military is welfare because it protects the welfare state? That's kind of a broad definition and useless to make your point isn't it?

Slippery slope.

Ahhh, my favorite logical fallacy.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/

Where did you get the idea that I make 70k?

1% tax penalty rate for not having insurance of $695 = $69500/yr, right? Unless you were projecting in the future... you didn't make that clear

Your right that I don't have coverage now. Of course I haven't asked you to pay for anything in over 10 years even when I did have coverage, I didn't use it. Just lucky I guess.

That's all it was, luck.

Looks like I'll just have to wait and see how much this is going to cost me.

Until then, complain about it. My g/f is a good cook, but I don't know what my g/f is cooking for dinner, I just know that I won't like it.

Oh, and thank you for the implication that I'm fat, stupid and clumsy.

Way to make a point! You go man, your on a roll!

Really? You're gonna play the martyr-card on one of the various hypothetical reasons I could be charged with your health-carelessness. I don't know you, I haven't met you, but I must've touched a nerve there with you, so maybe I've gotten lucky and guessed the truth? I dunno, but get over yourself.

I found another reference to the link, try this one:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/#

That link works, but I didn't play around with NOT having insurance in the prior link because I filled it out as if I had insurance. I don't really care about the people that already HAVE insurance, it's the ones without right now that worry me and makes me upset when you figure out why a hospital charges $6 for a single Q-tip - to cover the folks that don't pay for their own care.

Let's talk about corporate taxes, which are higher in the US than almost all of the industrialized world. And where do those taxes go? Mostly to the ACTUAL welfare. Oh, and that high rate also chases a lot of jobs overseas where the corps can do business easier.

Respouting Republican talking points without the research... love it.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/30/456005/reminder-corporate-taxes-very-low/?mobile=nc

ZOMFG!! All these taxes... these poor corporations that have to pay them. Wait, no they don't. http://ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/

Finally, I especially want to see the data that shows that most corporate taxes go to ACTUAL welfare. You can't cite "my butt" as a reliable source of information.

Failboat Brian.

This was your chance to sell him an Austrian vtwin.

Seriously, I know the 750s and 1ks are cheap and plentiful, but if you are REALLY REALLY sure that you're gonna miss the 'busa torque, you should be hunting for SV1ks, Ducatis, or KTMs (see: baller status for the latter two suggestions) -- you're gonna have much more fun on a lightweight twin than a lightweight i4-bike. That is, if fun is your goal and not laptimes.

Which is exactly why that idea would never fly.

Look, I'm a pretty stoic guy. My threshold for compassion isn't as low as others', but I can still empathize and realize that idea would not resonate with the vast majority of people.

That being said -- just tell me the rules of the game, and I'll play the best I can within those rules. If the rules are no one gets treated without insurance or some way to verify your ability to pay, then you better believe insurance would be a priority for me.

That is what I paid at my last job that I could get health care at, way back in 2008. $40 and change/every 2 weeks. Say $100/mo. for a round number.

I got the number from the link I thoughtfully provided and will again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...eans-for-you/#

Hit the button at the bottom after filling in the form to see what your cost is.

Here is mine:

====

Right now:If you have been unable to obtain health insurance as a result of a pre-existing medical condition, you may be able to buy it through one of the “high risk pools” the law has set up in each state through the end of 2013. But the premiums in the pools vary and can be high.

Starting in 2014:You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state's exchange with federal assistance. Based on your income, your annual premiums for that plan would be no more than $2,576 to $3,040. Your maximum out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and co-payments would be capped at 30 percent of the total cost.

Insurers can’t discriminate against you for having a pre-existing condition, and can only vary rates within a narrow range.

If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. At that point, assuming your current income remains the same and your household consists of 1 uninsured adult, you would be subject to a penalty of about $695. You are exempt from the penalty if the least expensive plan option in your area exceeds eight percent of your income.

=======

Basically this means, as it stands, that I will never get another tax return/refund check. I have a new car payment every month with no increase in income, no new car and no way out either.

This is going to suck big time.

I'm still not following (and your link brings up a 404-esque error this time).

If you're uninsured NOW -- then I want you to buy insurance since I'll still be footing YOUR bill for any medical issues you're involved in. Be it stubbing and breaking your toe, or getting into a car accident, or because you're fat and out of shape, or wrecking a bike while you're daydreaming about Obama being out of office in 6 more months -- unless you have some stockpile of funds that you plan on paying the hospital for your medical care.

If you don't want insurance, because you're better at life and health than statistics, then pay your 1% of your income tax -- as a single man making near $70k/yr, you can afford the $695 to keep going w/o insurance.

As soon as there's a law passed that says hospitals are not compelled to treat the sick or injured if they don't have insurance, I'd be on board with that.

I just hope you somehow remember to pin your insurance information on your unconscious body before the "amber lamps" shows up --- and then drives away.

It's Constitutional. And given the healthcare crisis in this country, it pretty much was the tipping point to institute a law following the "General welfare" clause.

I don't think kicking people in the balls would promote general welfare - unless the requirements were IQ-based, or fitness-based (like 'everyone who can't run a sub-30 minute 5k' doesn't need to have fat lazy kids, so kick them in the nuts!).

you ever done benefits coverage for a company? Fucking sucks to balance employee happiness vs realistic employer budget. This just makes it a lot harder to the point where companies will get rid of their programs all together or simply lay off people who cause the rates to go up

I don't need to have gone through a benefits exercise to understand the math. If my employer has 10 people on staff at 'x' salary and 'y'*10 benefits cost. If they add 3 more people, then they should increase the benefits pool to accomodate the three additional headcounts (y*13), not say "Well, everyone has the same benefits, it'll just be 10/13 * y now." So, my employer gets three additional people raising their productivity and profit, while I get my benefits reduced at the SAME workload. Not really a win for the employee, but a win-win for the employER.

As I said I don't know much about the bill and its merits and bullshits, just how it will effect employers employees

It would probably behoove you to dig a little deeper into the bill and what exactly it's affecting.

I don't see where you are going with "everyone will be involved in the system at some point". That doesn't mean the government should be involved in every business we all get involved with, I can't get my mind around the leap it takes to find it okay for the government to decide the businesses I use.

It's not, just health care. The fact that, by and large, everyone uses it (with some oddball rare exceptions), and via the other thread:

You are already paying for poor people's healthcare through taxes (Medicare) and higher medical costs (uninsured person goes to the ER for treatment and never pays).

Their involvement only means that the cost is driven up such as is already is now by making the businesses give away free services.

I don't know where you're pulling this information from and how it applies to this healthcare setting. No one is "giving away" anything.

For me it's only about $300/mo

In the old days when I could get health care through my employer it was about $70/mo. I sure am happy about the improvement.

Back when a hamburger was a nickel and you could get a root beer float from the soda jerk for a couple pennies.

So it's the gov'ts fault that healthcare is $300/mo (still dunno where you got that number from), not your employers for reducing your benefits coverage? Got it.

So, all opposed can decide to pay the tax.

We'd be having a different discussion if none of us ever used any portion of the health care system we have in this country, but the fact is most if not all persons are involved in the system at some point in their lives.

There is no mandate.

It's a tax. See above.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/dont-call-it-a-mandate-its-a-tax/

Don’t call it a mandate — it’s a tax

Salvaging the idea that Congress did have the power to try to expand health care to virtually all Americans, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of the crucial – and most controversial — feature of the Affordable Care Act. By a vote of 5-4, however, the Court did not sustain it as a command for Americans to buy insurance, but as a tax if they don’t. That is the way Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., was willing to vote for it, and his view prevailed. The other Justices split 4-4, with four wanting to uphold it as a mandate, and four opposed to it in any form.

Since President Obama signed the new law, it has been understood by almost everyone that the expansion of health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans without it could work — economically — only if the health insurance companies were guaranteed a large pool of customers. The mandate to buy health insurance by 2014 was the method Congress chose to supply that pool. It is not immediately clear whether the Court’s approach will produce as large a pool of new customers. The ACA’s key provision now amounts to an invitation to buy insurance, rather than an order to do so, with a not-very-big tax penalty for going without.

The decision to keep at least some foundation under the expanded coverage will lead almost certainly to renewed efforts by Republicans in Congress to repeal all or most of the new law. And, of course, the Court’s decision is guaranteed to become a very prominent fixture of debate in this year’s continuing presidential and congressional elections.

Breaking... ACA is upheld.

The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.

http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

I thought we had a "People of Walmart" thread, but I couldn't find it.

Just wanted to post that the photo I submitted (on the right) finally made it to the site... months later.

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/53750/wwib-fudge-me/

I can be persuaded to go tonight if anyone else wants to go.

Perfect weather.