@yofuckreddit's banner p

yofuckreddit


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 17:26:20 UTC
Verified Email

				

User ID: 646

yofuckreddit


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 17:26:20 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 646

Verified Email

I love the story and see people elevate themselves regularly. I would never say that everyone is beyond help, even in a large family.

I kinda think demonstrably overcoming the background disadvantages of one's origins or condition can be attractive all its own.

Agreed here. I have found that hiring people with food service and military experience for the white-collar work I do is almost always a good move, and the people I know who have successfully elevated themselves are more enjoyable as friends (as a group) than those who haven't.

Another person mentioned (according to JD Vance) that there's no silver bullet to lifting people out of poverty and dysfunction, even at the scale of personal relationships. Offering your hand to the proverbial crabs to lift themselves up is admirable, but your dad and OP should generally be prepared for some of them to fall back in. Regardless of how much you help.

I've been a gun owner for 15 years and lived in purple areas. It's not everyone, but I get plenty of "you don't seem like the type" and incredulity.

I'm not referring to any sort of legally required reasoning defense. I suppose if you preferred being a closeted gun owner, you could avoid it entirely.

we could collectively band together to oppose it and to mitigate its effects.

Not really. Murdering 10+ children is always going to be easy unless we make the cure worse than the disease. We've already increased security at schools to a pretty high degree; any more and they'll start to look too much like jails. Not to mention Gun Control which we have proved over and over again we can't agree on.

I hate to say it, but if we're assuming that we have to have either the mass shooting of children or assassinations of well-paid executives, I'll take the latter every time.

You point to the reality of the situation. The reality is that this sort of killing is going to have its own supply and demand curve, so I'd rather have less of it.

For Guns: To own a gun in modern America, you also have to defend your reasoning for having one to friends. You have to go to FFLs, which are staffed exclusively by assholes instead of by mail. Only people who are really into it will deal with the trouble.

You've obviously heard you're marrying someone's family along with them. Very much so here.

Anyone in your situation will always wonder where to draw the line regarding when you help. If your post is any indication, you may struggle to define that line at an appropriate place, even if you figure out the best way to help from this thread.

Are you going to be able to stomach the physical abuse of your nieces and nephews? Endure holidays with disgusting food prepared with questionable food safety by your in-laws? Deal with your children being influenced by their traumatized cousins?

You will have to constantly watch people just one degree separate from you be some variant of miserable or even a little evil. I have to deal with this situation ~2.5 degrees removed, and it's a fucking drag. I can't imagine it being any closer.

Maybe this girl is worth it. Many fantastic crabs are willing and able to get out of buckets in the backwater places of America. But supreme caution is warranted here.

I tried to check out daddit today, lot of dead kids under "top". Ruined my evening!

If they've already reached their statutory minimum of 85% of premiums collected paid out in claims, doesn't paying additional claims reduce profits?

For a given year? Yes. Then, the next year, they will destroy and recreate the plans with higher premiums.

at some point they have to try to stop paying claims to cover admin and shareholder returns

This is true, and I'd be interested to see how claim denial rates line up with a given FY cycle. They could be just vastly incompetent, making all of their customers hate them for no reason by being unable to predict claim demand, even with the vast swaths of data they have.

More likely though, it has to do with being lower price in any competitive market. After all - consumers generally don't see the premiums, but do see the denials. They may be making another $3k a year because their employer saved money on health insurance, but that's rarely transparent to an employee.

I also loved it. I've caught a couple people calling it fascist also admitting they haven't read it. Very fun book.

I hadn't seen any of those stories yet. The last is particularly interesting. I will Google it but a link from you may be nice too.

The problem with complaints about claim denial rates are that all insurers in America make more money the more claims they approve. They are only allowed to make a specified margin between premiums and claims.

There are only two "evil" reasons to deny claims:

  • Fewer approvals mean lower premiums. In any market with competition (not many in the US) then UHC can be cheaper
  • Denying Claims lowers administrative costs somehow and allows a greater allocation of margin to profit

in the near-abroad France's position in Francophone Africa, already weakened by the military coups last year, as Chad ended the defense pact that legalizes French presence within hours of Senegal's president calling on French to close its military bases there

I've always been curious about France's work in Africa. How much of this is driven by noble humanitarianism vs natural resource access vs maintaining the remnants of their colonial power?

For a state I consider generally left-of-center and focused on its own welfare state, I forget how much of a military presence they have.

Sure. It's a simple device. I haven't done it, but I'd be surprised if the average joe's DIY can is as quiet as the products other people develop. This one, if DIY, failed to return the gun to battery multiple times. Like I said - not a compromise I would make, even against a soft target.

No homo, but ass play from a woman is great. You're ceding the use of maybe 33% of your erogenous zone.

This is true. I'm not sure I would necessarily trust the success of an assassination attempt to one I made myself, but there are obvious reasons to DIY of course

Firearms training sufficient to clear multiple malfunctions

The shooter was using subsonic ammunition that did not have the necessary oomph behind it to work the action - he knew the slide was going to need to be racked after each shot.

He also either stole the suppressor (unlikely) or passed a very rigorous background check by the ATF to acquire it. Recently, wait times for suppressors have dropped from ~6 months to just a couple of days, a rare instance of a government org suddenly getting more efficient.

the vast majority of cases it's mental illness or nihilism

Have you seen the video? It's not a crackhead deciding to go off his rocker. This is someone who is relatively practiced with firearms and cool under fire.

Maybe he's a vet with PTSD or something, but this is different from the vast incompetence exhibited by both trump assasins.

WhiningCoil is correct in that the ACA means insurers make more money through larger claims. There's no downward pressure to reduce costs from insurance companies. When they destroy last year's plans and remake new ones (to get around ACA's maximum cost increases!) they just make them more expensive. There's no consequences for introducing a massive headache to everyone, every year, forever.

If your argument is that Obamacare increased premiums, you would expect to see the slope of the line increase after the ACA was passed, correct?

That's actually not my argument. I agree that the data shows premiums have continually outpaced inflation at the same horrific rate for the past 30 years. Obama promised that the ACA would reduce premiums. The CBO - which is trotted out as "non-partisan" by every NPC every time we're ramming through another enshittification mechanism through our legislature - predicted Premiums would drop by 13% by 2016.

Do you have any data about outcomes deteriorating?

The market competition we were promised was a lie. Instead we've watched massive mergers and regional monopolies emerge. Longer wait times, fewer services at urgent care, the death of the family practice, monopolies on software and technology, deductibles have tripled.

You can't just ask for data as a rebuttal - you would have to be blind to think the system is providing any more value for the money today then it did in 08.

In that vein, you and I both know that there's no "data" to point directly to a trojan horse, but the level of incompetence that the ACA has exhibited could easily count as malice. Almost every single promise was an outright lie, with perhaps the exception of covering the obese smokers who didn't have insurance. It's genuinely difficult to think of a more destructive force in the average american's health and wealth in my lifetime.

The rate increase is only slightly higher for family than individuals. They're essentially the same.

Premiums are only one component of healthcare costs. A "straight line" is one thing, the slope of the line is what matters. Family premiums are up 89% since 2008, compared to ~43% cumulative inflation.. Outcomes and features have degraded since ACA, I'd argue.

Your point (the overall rate of change pre-and-post ACA) seems valid. However, I don't think "things continued to get way worse at the same rate" counts as a victory.

Obamacare accelerated the inevitable failure of this healthcare system and was only engineered to be a pernicious trojan horse for single-payer.

My first thought was along your lines, since pretty much all previous colonizations followed a similar pattern.

However, 3-5 years in a spaceship to land on a barren wasteland is vastly different. The voyage of the Mayflower was 2 months across the Atlantic to a land of unmatched natural bounty. The migrants floating across the Mediterranean only have to stomach a couple of days before landing on a rich, permissive welfare state with prebuilt infrastructure. Even with SpaceX bringing back indentured servitude to cover travel costs, the first folks landing on Mars will be a different breed than previous colonists. It's going to be much more like Antarctica, which, from what I understand, is generally an elite crew compared to the rest of humanity.

Thank you - good call!

This is an interesting discussion but clean up your AI slop. Literally just delete most of the content.