because people like those burritos and bowls, Chipotle has the ability to increase prices.
Why do sellers raise prices? because they can. Why do they lower prices? because they have to. >>
That is the reason given in college economics courses, yet it is rarely that simple.
As a former manufacturers representative that worked closely with many mass merchant suppliers, the reason for raising and lowering prices was almost always based on the cost of production.
Sellers of goods and services are scared witless of losing market share and typically raise prices only when their costs demand it. Regarding Chipotle, the 11% year to date hike in commodity prices no doubt forced their hand.
<< <i>Yellen doesn't seem to live in the same World as me >>
It is a well orchestrated attempt by the administration to grossly understate consumer inflation to tamp down SSI cost of living increases.
Rather than take the high road and explain to the nation that we are overspent across the board on the federal budget and SSI benefits need to be adjusted downward (would also have to change the law as currently written) the most transparent government of all time would rather lie to the public and hope that they don't notice near double digit hikes in groceries, healthcare and education.
It would also give treasury debt holders fits when they discover that they are losing 5% or more annually on the low interest bearing instruments.
Why do sellers raise prices? because they can. Why do they lower prices? because they have to.
I don't necessarily agree. Sometimes, sellers have to raise prices or go out of business. Sometimes, I'll raise the price on a quote if I think that the customer is a problem child.
They don't always lower prices because they have to. Generally, they lower prices to gain share.
When prices are manipulated and when the gov picks winners and losers, you just never know what's coming next.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
For someone who grew up reading Asimov, Heinlein, and others, living in the present is sort of worth doing science-fiction work and paying futuristic prices
<< <i>My eyes went bad before computers at the ripe old age of 8. >>
Likewise
I found out that I was nearsighted during my Army basic training stint on the firing range. The instructor could not understand why I kept shooting at the distance markers instead of the targets. Been wearing spectacles ever since.
"Bongo drive 1984 Lincoln that looks like old coin dug from ground."
<< <i>What happened to people in 1600 that had bad eyes and no access to glasses? What did those people do? How were they treated by society? >>
Most folks were farmers at the time, and unless they were truly blind, could continue to grow food and raise livestock.
Good thing about farming was, there was a job for everyone. The strong could plow the fields, the weak could mend and produce clothing, the simple minded could churn milk or feed the chickens.
Today those that are less than able often get a government check and food stamps and miss out on the opportunity to be productive.
<< <i>What happened to people in 1600 that had bad eyes and no access to glasses? What did those people do? How were they treated by society? >>
Most folks were farmers at the time, and unless they were truly blind, could continue to grow food and raise livestock.
Good thing about farming was, there was a job for everyone. The strong could plow the fields, the weak could mend and produce clothing, the simple minded could churn milk or feed the chickens.
Today those that are less than able often get a government check and food stamps and miss out on the opportunity to be productive. >>
I nearly forgot about the utopian paradise of indentured servitude.
Even us poor people are getting hit hard with inflation, not just you middle class snobs
I have a particular Hobby that requires me to wallow in water and mud. I also do major work projects at times. I started going to the Salvation Army clothing stores 30 yrs ago to buy loose fitting dress slacks that are great for those projects. They stand up amazingly well and are comfortable with the big crotches and triple closures.
A few yrs ago, perhaps 2007 or so, they use to cost me $1.50 a pair. I just went in last wk to resupply, now they are $7.50 each unless the buttons are ripped off, then $4.99 each. WTF, that's more than the cost of new Levi jeans when I was in the Army, lol
I can see how the Guberment justifies the CPLie. No doubt people subsitute for other things when they can no longer afford what use to be a standard of living. Problem is, I guess all those people that can't afford Dept stores are putting the supply crimp on the Thrift stores driving prices up ........ what happens to those people that can't afford the 7.50 now ? Which is gonna be me once silver goes back to $6 ozt ...... jeesh, it'll cost me an ASE for some dead dude's slacks.
<< <i>I can see how the Guberment justifies the CPLie. No doubt people subsitute for other things when they can no longer afford what use to be a standard of living. >>
Well said. The way the fed counts it, ones inflation can never exceed their income, even though they have switched from Porterhouse steak to hamburger to Ramen Noodles.
Stopped into Burger King this afternoon to pick up some chicken Nuggets for the significant other.
Was quite impressed by the cleanliness of the place and the cheerful and seemingly well trained staff.
On the way home I thought about the $10,00 (if that) hourly wage that they earn. $20,000 a year if full time. If single, knock out $5000 of that for taxes and another 8% of the gross for the Affordable? Care Act. That would leave $13,400 in annual take home. $1116 per month for an honest and medium difficulty job.
I am not a proponent of setting and raising minimum wages. Many other opportunities seemed available though a generation ago for someone who perhaps had a high school degree, and was anxious to work hard.
Shameful as well that the administration is so quick to confiscate hard earn income from healthy, young individuals and hand it over to the top 1% income medicine men, even though their godlike services may never be needed.
Actually this is evidence of an aging population that is concerned with wealth building rather than jet skis, strollers and dog groomers.
I would really like to hear what this guy has to say but when words and phrases such as "Untied States, morons, Nobody wants the USGovt bonds anymore, except for Belgium operating as hidey hole", any coherent and logical meaning is completely lost. Just look at the ads on the website...selling PMs and advertising brokerage firms. I thought the idea was to buy PMs and get out of the stock market? At least there is an ad for "kool-aid", er, Capri Sun fruit punch.
<< <i>Actually this is evidence of an aging population that is concerned with wealth building rather than jet skis, strollers and dog groomers. >>
Actually, this is evidence of a decline in borrowing to fund consumption (belt tightening) and that real income (non-debt) is coiling like a spring on the sidelines. When that pent up demand is eventually unleashed you will see a reversal of its temporary deflationary symptoms.
Demographics has nothing to do with reduced borrowing and increased dollar hoarding. Economic uncertainty and a fear of financial security is your culprit - a result of failed economic leadership/managment.
Demographics have nothing to do with reduced borrowing and increased dollar hoarding
Keep believing that. I see old people out buying new TVs and sports cars and boats everyday, and spending on kid's stuff, and new houses and trips to DisneyWorld. Im sure old people are very content in knowing they are going to live longer than they thought and didnt save enough, so they are spending and spending to suffocate their realizations.
BTW---Why are you awake in the middle of the night?
<< <i>I see old people out buying new TVs and sports cars and boats everyday, and spending on kid's stuff, and new houses and trips to DisneyWorld. >>
And this is not the same as "jet skis, strollers and dog groomers?" The recent rapid decline in velocity (spending) is a direct result in the decline of new consumer debt (where "unsustainable" does have consequences). Now if we can just get congress to show some restraint.
<< <i>BTW---Why are you awake in the middle of the night? >>
<< <i>Stopped into Burger King this afternoon to pick up some chicken Nuggets for the significant other.
Was quite impressed by the cleanliness of the place and the cheerful and seemingly well trained staff.
On the way home I thought about the $10,00 (if that) hourly wage that they earn. $20,000 a year if full time. If single, knock out $5000 of that for taxes and another 8% of the gross for the Affordable? Care Act. That would leave $13,400 in annual take home. $1116 per month for an honest and medium difficulty job.
I am not a proponent of setting and raising minimum wages. Many other opportunities seemed available though a generation ago for someone who perhaps had a high school degree, and was anxious to work hard.
Shameful as well that the administration is so quick to confiscate hard earn income from healthy, young individuals and hand it over to the top 1% income medicine men, even though their godlike services may never be needed. >>
Glad to see you coming around to the tremendous societal benefits of a progressive tax structure.
<< <i>Stopped into Burger King this afternoon to pick up some chicken Nuggets for the significant other.
Was quite impressed by the cleanliness of the place and the cheerful and seemingly well trained staff.
On the way home I thought about the $10,00 (if that) hourly wage that they earn. $20,000 a year if full time. If single, knock out $5000 of that for taxes and another 8% of the gross for the Affordable? Care Act. That would leave $13,400 in annual take home. $1116 per month for an honest and medium difficulty job.
I am not a proponent of setting and raising minimum wages. Many other opportunities seemed available though a generation ago for someone who perhaps had a high school degree, and was anxious to work hard.
Shameful as well that the administration is so quick to confiscate hard earn income from healthy, young individuals and hand it over to the top 1% income medicine men, even though their godlike services may never be needed. >>
Glad to see you coming around to the tremendous societal benefits of a progressive tax structure. >>
In a service heavy economy, and specifically for burger flippers, an artificially high minimum wage ends up putting the worker further behind as those costs are passed back onto them as consumers at a rate above the wage increase. A very recent study showed that if all of Mickey D's management worked for free and paid to the hourly staff, the amount the hourly workers could benefit would be about 1½¢ an hour.
A progressive tax structure to "spread the wealth" accomplishes nothing economically positive.
Scandinavia might beg to disagree. Besides, the tax brackets of the USA skew markedly differently than those of McDonalds employees. To extrapolate about the US economy from that particular study is a flawed presumption.
<< <i>Glad to see you coming around to the tremendous societal benefits of a progressive tax structure. >>
Our tax structure is anything but progressive. Low income singles get hosed. Middle class singles get doubly hosed. Wealthy singles with sharp accountants skate.
ACA is a disaster that hammers the young and healthy and often broke, for the benefit of the older and typically wealthier. Truly a special interest legislation, out of control.
agreed on part a. but re: part b, anyone talking definitively about ACA at this point is being overly political - we don't know the full consequences yet, negative or positive. its true impact will likely fall somewhere in between and vary from person to person, as these things usually do.
<< <i>anyone talking definitively about ACA at this point is being overly political - we don't know the full consequences yet, negative or positive >>
You will appear wiser on this subject if you do some research first. Undoubtedly and without question, younger, healthier people are being herded into the program to supplement those who are typically older and with health issues. Of course a given person could have a large unexpected expense, but on an actuarial basis, they are getting shafted.
Conversely, an 18 year old driver pays significantly more for auto insurance that the fifty year old simply because of his pool risk.
He then purchase the health insurance, and the benefit of age evaporates.
<< <i>anyone talking definitively about ACA at this point is being overly political - we don't know the full consequences yet, negative or positive >>
You will appear wiser on this subject if you do some research first. Undoubtedly and without question, younger, healthier people are being herded into the program to supplement those who are typically older and with health issues. Of course a given person could have a large unexpected expense, but on an actuarial basis, they are getting shafted.
Conversely, an 18 year old driver pays significantly more for auto insurance that the fifty year old simply because of his pool risk.
He then purchase the health insurance, and the benefit of age evaporates. >>
Yeah, that's how insurance works. I havent' had a car accident in years and years, and my premiums go toward those unfortunate few who do, and to the folks that administer insurance plans and fix cars and repair hurt bodies.
<< <i>Yeah, that's how insurance works. I havent' had a car accident in years and years, and my premiums go toward those unfortunate few who do, and to the folks that administer insurance plans and fix cars and repair hurt bodies. >>
and their shareholders.
apologies for hijacking this thread a bit too. back to the (lack of) inflation!
flat rate income tax, just like state sales tax. Millionaires, pennyaires all pay the same percentage. No exemptions, no credits. It can be that simple and that fair. Anything else is a penalty against hard work, innovation and taking financial risk. Penalizing the wealthy only motivates them to steal from us elsewhere.
<< <i>Yeah, that's how insurance works. I havent' had a car accident in years and years, and my premiums go toward those unfortunate few who do, and to the folks that administer insurance plans and fix cars and repair hurt bodies. >>
And I assume that you pay significantly less than the higher risk driver that has had three recent speeding tickets.
With the ACA, the 50 year old man who eats right and exercises daily, pays the same as the 400 pound alcoholic that smokes 3 packs of cigarettes each day.
many countries with universal free health care tax booze and cigarettes heavily in order to slightly recoup the additional costs that individuals using those substances have on the health system over time. USA could do the same - but it would probably cause riots in the streets, hehe.
before leaving this discussion behind, I think we can agree that the biggest ACA beneficiary to-date seems to be the insurance companies, not a political party.
<< <i>before leaving this discussion behind, I think we can agree that the biggest ACA beneficiary to-date seems to be the insurance companies, not a political party. >>
Probably true, as the rate increases necessary to float this rusty ship will accrue to the middle income workers as well as the taxpayers.
<< <i>Besides, the tax brackets of the USA skew markedly differently than those of McDonalds employees. To extrapolate about the US economy from that particular study is a flawed presumption. >>
There's no extrapolation. Please feel free to link to any[/] economic model that shows that artificially high minimum wages, or progressive tax brackets benefit the economy, or more specifically, the people it's supposed to 'help'. Let me save you some time. Don't bother. They don't exist.
If a methodologically flawed and disowned report is your best source for this mind-bogglingly false assessment, then perhaps you should re-think your assumptions.
<< <i>Most likely the entire health industry that acutally wrote the ACA. Lobbists, should be outlawed. >>
I would rather focus attention upon dishonest politicians. >>
There should be a website that calls out all the pork each politician has voted in favor of, Of each corporate/union entity they are related or associated with and the benefits/compensation each receives.
<< <i>Most likely the entire health industry that acutally wrote the ACA. Lobbists, should be outlawed. >>
I would rather focus attention upon dishonest politicians. >>
There should be a website that calls out all the pork each politician has voted in favor of, Of each corporate/union entity they are related or associated with and the benefits/compensation each receives. >>
Agree. Problem is though that 53% of the voters don't care.
<< <i>There should be a website that calls out all the pork each politician has voted in favor of, Of each corporate/union entity they are related or associated with and the benefits/compensation each receives. >>
There's actually quite a few that are trying to do this - here's one. Note that 'official' lobbying spening is dropping while 'dark pool' lobbying is increasing. The marketization of lobbying, as it were.
Comments
<< <i>Chipotle plans first price hike in 3 years
because people like those burritos and bowls, Chipotle has the ability to increase prices.
Why do sellers raise prices? because they can. Why do they lower prices? because they have to. >>
That is the reason given in college economics courses, yet it is rarely that simple.
As a former manufacturers representative that worked closely with many mass merchant suppliers, the reason for raising and lowering prices was almost always based on the cost of production.
Sellers of goods and services are scared witless of losing market share and typically raise prices only when their costs demand it. Regarding Chipotle, the 11% year to date hike in commodity prices no doubt forced their hand.
Yellen doesn't seem to live in the same World as me
<< <i>Yellen doesn't seem to live in the same World as me >>
It is a well orchestrated attempt by the administration to grossly understate consumer inflation to tamp down SSI cost of living increases.
Rather than take the high road and explain to the nation that we are overspent across the board on the federal budget and SSI benefits need to be adjusted downward (would also have to change the law as currently written) the most transparent government of all time would rather lie to the public and hope that they don't notice near double digit hikes in groceries, healthcare and education.
It would also give treasury debt holders fits when they discover that they are losing 5% or more annually on the low interest bearing instruments.
I don't necessarily agree. Sometimes, sellers have to raise prices or go out of business. Sometimes, I'll raise the price on a quote if I think that the customer is a problem child.
They don't always lower prices because they have to. Generally, they lower prices to gain share.
When prices are manipulated and when the gov picks winners and losers, you just never know what's coming next.
I knew it would happen.
the most expensive ingredient in your beer is? TAXES
Private rockets and space robots
kinda Earth-like planet discovered
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
25% hike.
The fed will no doubt convince me that I see better with these, so the price has really fallen.
Still looking for offset items that negate these double digit hikes.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Back in the good old days we didn't even have contact lenses. Darn lifestyle choices. >>
Perhaps coincidental, but I did not need vision correction until a couple years after buying my first computer. Not a problem in the olden days!
What happened to people in 1600 that had bad eyes and no access to glasses? What did those people do? How were they treated by society?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>My eyes went bad before computers at the ripe old age of 8. >>
Likewise
I found out that I was nearsighted during my Army basic training stint on the firing range. The instructor could not understand why I kept shooting at the distance markers instead of the targets. Been wearing spectacles ever since.
<< <i>What happened to people in 1600 that had bad eyes and no access to glasses? What did those people do? How were they treated by society? >>
Most folks were farmers at the time, and unless they were truly blind, could continue to grow food and raise livestock.
Good thing about farming was, there was a job for everyone. The strong could plow the fields, the weak could mend and produce clothing, the simple minded could churn milk or feed the chickens.
Today those that are less than able often get a government check and food stamps and miss out on the opportunity to be productive.
<< <i>
<< <i>What happened to people in 1600 that had bad eyes and no access to glasses? What did those people do? How were they treated by society? >>
Most folks were farmers at the time, and unless they were truly blind, could continue to grow food and raise livestock.
Good thing about farming was, there was a job for everyone. The strong could plow the fields, the weak could mend and produce clothing, the simple minded could churn milk or feed the chickens.
Today those that are less than able often get a government check and food stamps and miss out on the opportunity to be productive. >>
I nearly forgot about the utopian paradise of indentured servitude.
<< <i>I nearly forgot about the utopian paradise of indentured servitude. >>
No paradise in 1600. Same is true today.
Freedom's just another word for "nothing left to lose"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Even us poor people are getting hit hard with inflation, not just you middle class snobs
I have a particular Hobby that requires me to wallow in water and mud. I also do major work projects at times. I started going to the Salvation Army clothing stores 30 yrs ago to buy loose fitting dress slacks that are great for those projects. They stand up amazingly well and are comfortable with the big crotches and triple closures.
A few yrs ago, perhaps 2007 or so, they use to cost me $1.50 a pair. I just went in last wk to resupply, now they are $7.50 each unless the buttons are ripped off, then $4.99 each. WTF, that's more than the cost of new Levi jeans when I was in the Army, lol
I can see how the Guberment justifies the CPLie. No doubt people subsitute for other things when they can no longer afford what use to be a standard of living. Problem is, I guess all those people that can't afford Dept stores are putting the supply crimp on the Thrift stores driving prices up ........ what happens to those people that can't afford the 7.50 now ? Which is gonna be me once silver goes back to $6 ozt ...... jeesh, it'll cost me an ASE for some dead dude's slacks.
<< <i>I can see how the Guberment justifies the CPLie. No doubt people subsitute for other things when they can no longer afford what use to be a standard of living. >>
Well said. The way the fed counts it, ones inflation can never exceed their income, even though they have switched from Porterhouse steak to hamburger to Ramen Noodles.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Was quite impressed by the cleanliness of the place and the cheerful and seemingly well trained staff.
On the way home I thought about the $10,00 (if that) hourly wage that they earn. $20,000 a year if full time. If single, knock out $5000 of that for taxes and another 8% of the gross for the Affordable? Care Act. That would leave $13,400 in annual take home. $1116 per month for an honest and medium difficulty job.
I am not a proponent of setting and raising minimum wages. Many other opportunities seemed available though a generation ago for someone who perhaps had a high school degree, and was anxious to work hard.
Shameful as well that the administration is so quick to confiscate hard earn income from healthy, young individuals and hand it over to the top 1% income medicine men, even though their godlike services may never be needed.
But regarding the chicken nuggets, I remember paying $6.99 for a 20 piece in college, now its $4.99.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>A person making $20,000 per year would pay very little in taxes. If they have a kid or 2, they might even get back more than they pay in. >>
Explains the inflation in my tax bill.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Jim Wille makes a few good points how money supply inflation is destroying capital and money velocity >>
Actually this is evidence of an aging population that is concerned with wealth building rather than jet skis, strollers and dog groomers.
I would really like to hear what this guy has to say but when words and phrases such as "Untied States, morons, Nobody wants the USGovt bonds anymore, except for Belgium operating as hidey hole", any coherent and logical meaning is completely lost. Just look at the ads on the website...selling PMs and advertising brokerage firms. I thought the idea was to buy PMs and get out of the stock market? At least there is an ad for "kool-aid", er, Capri Sun fruit punch.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>Actually this is evidence of an aging population that is concerned with wealth building rather than jet skis, strollers and dog groomers. >>
Actually, this is evidence of a decline in borrowing to fund consumption (belt tightening) and that real income (non-debt) is coiling like a spring on the sidelines. When that pent up demand is eventually unleashed you will see a reversal of its temporary deflationary symptoms.
Demographics has nothing to do with reduced borrowing and increased dollar hoarding. Economic uncertainty and a fear of financial security is your culprit - a result of failed economic leadership/managment.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Keep believing that. I see old people out buying new TVs and sports cars and boats everyday, and spending on kid's stuff, and new houses and trips to DisneyWorld.
BTW---Why are you awake in the middle of the night?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>I see old people out buying new TVs and sports cars and boats everyday, and spending on kid's stuff, and new houses and trips to DisneyWorld. >>
And this is not the same as "jet skis, strollers and dog groomers?" The recent rapid decline in velocity (spending) is a direct result in the decline of new consumer debt (where "unsustainable" does have consequences). Now if we can just get congress to show some restraint.
<< <i>BTW---Why are you awake in the middle of the night? >>
Rust never sleeps.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Stopped into Burger King this afternoon to pick up some chicken Nuggets for the significant other.
Was quite impressed by the cleanliness of the place and the cheerful and seemingly well trained staff.
On the way home I thought about the $10,00 (if that) hourly wage that they earn. $20,000 a year if full time. If single, knock out $5000 of that for taxes and another 8% of the gross for the Affordable? Care Act. That would leave $13,400 in annual take home. $1116 per month for an honest and medium difficulty job.
I am not a proponent of setting and raising minimum wages. Many other opportunities seemed available though a generation ago for someone who perhaps had a high school degree, and was anxious to work hard.
Shameful as well that the administration is so quick to confiscate hard earn income from healthy, young individuals and hand it over to the top 1% income medicine men, even though their godlike services may never be needed. >>
Glad to see you coming around to the tremendous societal benefits of a progressive tax structure.
Agreed. Old people usually spend cash rather than use debt which has very little multiplier effect. Hard to see this trend ending anytime soon.
And you should get some rest. I've heard lack of sleep can lead to paranoid and delusional thoughts.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>Stopped into Burger King this afternoon to pick up some chicken Nuggets for the significant other.
Was quite impressed by the cleanliness of the place and the cheerful and seemingly well trained staff.
On the way home I thought about the $10,00 (if that) hourly wage that they earn. $20,000 a year if full time. If single, knock out $5000 of that for taxes and another 8% of the gross for the Affordable? Care Act. That would leave $13,400 in annual take home. $1116 per month for an honest and medium difficulty job.
I am not a proponent of setting and raising minimum wages. Many other opportunities seemed available though a generation ago for someone who perhaps had a high school degree, and was anxious to work hard.
Shameful as well that the administration is so quick to confiscate hard earn income from healthy, young individuals and hand it over to the top 1% income medicine men, even though their godlike services may never be needed. >>
Glad to see you coming around to the tremendous societal benefits of a progressive tax structure. >>
In a service heavy economy, and specifically for burger flippers, an artificially high minimum wage ends up putting the worker further behind as those costs are passed back onto them as consumers at a rate above the wage increase. A very recent study showed that if all of Mickey D's management worked for free and paid to the hourly staff, the amount the hourly workers could benefit would be about 1½¢ an hour.
A progressive tax structure to "spread the wealth" accomplishes nothing economically positive.
<< <i>Glad to see you coming around to the tremendous societal benefits of a progressive tax structure. >>
Our tax structure is anything but progressive. Low income singles get hosed. Middle class singles get doubly hosed. Wealthy singles with sharp accountants skate.
ACA is a disaster that hammers the young and healthy and often broke, for the benefit of the older and typically wealthier. Truly a special interest legislation, out of control.
<< <i>anyone talking definitively about ACA at this point is being overly political - we don't know the full consequences yet, negative or positive >>
You will appear wiser on this subject if you do some research first. Undoubtedly and without question, younger, healthier people are being herded into the program to supplement those who are typically older and with health issues. Of course a given person could have a large unexpected expense, but on an actuarial basis, they are getting shafted.
Conversely, an 18 year old driver pays significantly more for auto insurance that the fifty year old simply because of his pool risk.
He then purchase the health insurance, and the benefit of age evaporates.
<< <i>
<< <i>anyone talking definitively about ACA at this point is being overly political - we don't know the full consequences yet, negative or positive >>
You will appear wiser on this subject if you do some research first. Undoubtedly and without question, younger, healthier people are being herded into the program to supplement those who are typically older and with health issues. Of course a given person could have a large unexpected expense, but on an actuarial basis, they are getting shafted.
Conversely, an 18 year old driver pays significantly more for auto insurance that the fifty year old simply because of his pool risk.
He then purchase the health insurance, and the benefit of age evaporates. >>
Yeah, that's how insurance works. I havent' had a car accident in years and years, and my premiums go toward those unfortunate few who do, and to the folks that administer insurance plans and fix cars and repair hurt bodies.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Yeah, that's how insurance works. I havent' had a car accident in years and years, and my premiums go toward those unfortunate few who do, and to the folks that administer insurance plans and fix cars and repair hurt bodies. >>
and their shareholders.
apologies for hijacking this thread a bit too. back to the (lack of) inflation!
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>Yeah, that's how insurance works. I havent' had a car accident in years and years, and my premiums go toward those unfortunate few who do, and to the folks that administer insurance plans and fix cars and repair hurt bodies. >>
And I assume that you pay significantly less than the higher risk driver that has had three recent speeding tickets.
With the ACA, the 50 year old man who eats right and exercises daily, pays the same as the 400 pound alcoholic that smokes 3 packs of cigarettes each day.
before leaving this discussion behind, I think we can agree that the biggest ACA beneficiary to-date seems to be the insurance companies, not a political party.
<< <i>before leaving this discussion behind, I think we can agree that the biggest ACA beneficiary to-date seems to be the insurance companies, not a political party. >>
Probably true, as the rate increases necessary to float this rusty ship will accrue to the middle income workers as well as the taxpayers.
<< <i>Scandinavia might beg to disagree. >>
I bet they don't beg to differ.
UN Study says Sweden to be a third world country in 15 years, worse than Libya.
<< <i>Besides, the tax brackets of the USA skew markedly differently than those of McDonalds employees. To extrapolate about the US economy from that particular study is a flawed presumption. >>
There's no extrapolation. Please feel free to link to any[/] economic model that shows that artificially high minimum wages, or progressive tax brackets benefit the economy, or more specifically, the people it's supposed to 'help'. Let me save you some time. Don't bother. They don't exist.
<< <i>I think we can agree that the biggest ACA beneficiary to-date seems to be the insurance companies, not a political party. >>
Most likely the entire health industry that acutally wrote the ACA. Lobbists, should be outlawed.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
<< <i>
<< <i>I think we can agree that the biggest ACA beneficiary to-date seems to be the insurance companies, not a political party. >>
Most likely the entire health industry that acutally wrote the ACA. Lobbists, should be outlawed. >>
Problem is many are members of congress, at least unofficially until they leave office and begin their speaking tours.
<< <i>
I bet they don't beg to differ.
UN Study says Sweden to be a third world country in 15 years, worse than Libya.
>>
If a methodologically flawed and disowned report is your best source for this mind-bogglingly false assessment, then perhaps you should re-think your assumptions.
<< <i>Most likely the entire health industry that acutally wrote the ACA. Lobbists, should be outlawed. >>
+1
<< <i>Most likely the entire health industry that acutally wrote the ACA. Lobbists, should be outlawed. >>
I would rather focus attention upon dishonest politicians.
<< <i>
<< <i>Most likely the entire health industry that acutally wrote the ACA. Lobbists, should be outlawed. >>
I would rather focus attention upon dishonest politicians. >>
There should be a website that calls out all the pork each politician has voted in favor of, Of each corporate/union entity they are related or associated with and the benefits/compensation each receives.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Most likely the entire health industry that acutally wrote the ACA. Lobbists, should be outlawed. >>
I would rather focus attention upon dishonest politicians. >>
There should be a website that calls out all the pork each politician has voted in favor of, Of each corporate/union entity they are related or associated with and the benefits/compensation each receives. >>
Agree. Problem is though that 53% of the voters don't care.
<< <i>There should be a website that calls out all the pork each politician has voted in favor of, Of each corporate/union entity they are related or associated with and the benefits/compensation each receives. >>
There's actually quite a few that are trying to do this - here's one. Note that 'official' lobbying spening is dropping while 'dark pool' lobbying is increasing. The marketization of lobbying, as it were.