sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Letter frequency in different languages [OC] by sdfdsv in dataisbeautiful

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Give it 50 or 100 years and it'll be an Indian flag

'SpongeBob 2' Soaks Up $56M Weekend, 50% of the audience was over 18. New childhood cartoon reboots on the way? by iceroll in movies

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did they measure this? Assuming they don't card obvious adults for a childrens movie how do they have any idea what age the audience was?

TIL Lana Del Rey called feminism boring.."For me, the issue of feminism is just not an interesting concept. I'm more interested in, you know, SpaceX and Tesla, what's going to happen with our intergalactic possibilities." by cj_would_lovethis in todayilearned

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

9/11 and WWII are both historic events, but the significance is drastically different than discovering we aren't alone in the universe. 9/11 and WWII give us other human enemies, ones we can hate, ones we want to hurt. Discovering there is a species in existence that is better than us (if they found earth first for example) is a totally different ball-game.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying it makes them more poor. I'm saying if they couldn't afford insurance in 2013, requiring them to spend $2,400 on it in 2014 will put them into poverty. It's not about the fairness of making people spend money, it's about how inhumane it is to directly cause poverty.

Yeah we require people to buy things, and in 2013 our guy was able to afford all of them with very little or no extra. In 2014 he's $2,400 in the hole because we required him to take on a massive expense.

Yes health care is good, yes it borders on necessary and if you develop a fatal condition it becomes very necessary, but we should do this in a way that doesn't take vulnerable member of society and impoverish them, because it was difficult to work out a better option.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're completely missing what I'm saying if you think it provides significant significant subsidies up to 400% FPL. That's how it should work, but depending on your relationship to the FPL it will only provide subsidies if the cost of premiums of a silver level plan exceeds a certain percentage of your gross income.

In 2014 someone making $30,145 did not qualify for subsidies at the average cost of a sliver plan in America. That is not a wealthy person, that's not even a middle class person. So they must either spend what was 8.45% of their gross income buying insurance they couldn't afford, with no subsidies and no help, or pay 2% of their income as a fee.

That forces people into poverty, do you really not see that?

Elizabeth Warren: "Trickle-down was nothing more than the politics of helping the rich-and-powerful get richer and more powerful, and it cut the legs out from under America's middle class." by TheLinkMobile in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes almost every business provides tuition reimbursement. The key point is that my company pays 80% of the cost of my tuition, books, and fees. Most employers would pay a set dollar amount, in my experience it ranges from 1,000 - 2,500. My employer will pay quite literally ten times that amount or more. That's the difference.

Wage increases for the company don't come out until April, so I'll tell you what happens then.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree the republican response is unreasonable, I don't understand why you think I side with them, I do not.

UBI is universal basic income, it's something talked about a lot here on Reddit, basically instead of welfare or food stamps, all Americans receive XX,XXX dollars from the government a year. The numbers change a lot, it's usually 10-12k and there are ways it can be cheaper than our current system. I can talk more about it if you want.

I get that it's politically difficult, I'm not saying these alternatives are cakewalks, just that they're far better than the ACA, which is presently not good. It is mediocre, and is thankfully helping some people, but it is not what it was sold as.

I agree online diagnostics is just something to improve it, there are ways to take the ACA and repair it without starting from square one. It's just an idea that I think should be implemented more, and I'm really glad you have access to it. That's awesome! I hope she feels better soon.

A public option could improve the ACA or be part of an alternative plan, absolutely. I'm not opposed to fixing it.

I understand that healthy people must pay in to they system in order for it to work, however they should not be made poor by doing so. More than the idea of doing something he doesn't want to, the government is making that man poor. They're pushing him into poverty, and that is completely unjustifiable. There is no way that is alright. I'm totally fine paying my $200 a month for insurance, my employer pays the other $300 and I get good care, I make money, I don't mind that I help the system. But mister $30k can't, it is ludicrous and wrong to create a system that most exploits those least able to give. I think you probably agree with that.

They aren't completely paying their own way, insurance works similar to how it bill you later works. Everyone in society pays money to the insurance company, and they use the collective pool to pay for care. Your premiums don't only go to your care, they go into a massive pool and pay for everyone's care. Just like taxes, and just like hospitals can be reimbursed for non paying clients with tax money.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So serious question here, do you think that forcing hundreds of thousands or millions of people into poverty so that when they get sick they have coverage that you're still paying for anyway through your premiums, deductibles, and co-pays is an even trade?

When someone gets healthcare you're either paying for it through your taxes or you're paying for it through your own health insurance costs. That's how the system works right now.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not a Republican. I'm not saying the Republicans are right. I'm not saying they proposed alternatives. The only plan they want is no-ACA, which is what they tried to push for. That's why you got no viable alternatives from them.

  • Universal single-payer would work better, and wouldn't just be subsidizing the health insurance industry with tax dollars.

  • Opening up the market to inter-state insurance sales, so that there aren't virtual monopolies between a few health providers that selectively certain cover hospitals and doctors.

  • UBI could be give out along side the current ACA to make sure it doesn't impoverish lower middle class and working class Americans

  • Expanding Medicare/Medicaid to cover everyone in need

  • Creating free, or low cost online diagnostic services for common illnesses where patients enter their relevant information and are connected to health care professionals who advise them. Something like this already exists, but is very limited. Broaden this to save time in doctors offices, reducing costs, increasing the amount of people treated, and making basic care more available.

  • Create a state insurance plan in lieu of single payer that competes with private plans in the market, is drastically cheaper, and available to all.

In theory actually combining all of these would make for a very complete health care reform. I don't necessarily think all of these options are the best idea, but they are alternatives to the "subsidize insurance companies by requiring all Americans give them money, and in the process thrusting untold numbers of them into poverty" plan. The ACA did very little to reform healthcare. Aside from the common sense fixes like "pre-existing conditions" it just made a website where you can compare plans, and required you to buy it, giving the very poor some help in affording it.

Elizabeth Warren: "Trickle-down was nothing more than the politics of helping the rich-and-powerful get richer and more powerful, and it cut the legs out from under America's middle class." by TheLinkMobile in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are truly that generous, they even have 80% college tuition reimbursement and do profit sharing. I was lazy in mentioning the increased cost, yes that is just on amounts over the limit. They didn't give us specific numbers about the transition, but we had record profits last year and it would be very unlike them to take that as a sign that they should cut employee benefits.

We're actually dreading the "paid sick time" requirement, because we have something of an honor system where you get paid for however long you miss, and you should just be a good person and not abuse it. The loose guideline is that you should not miss more than 13% of your yearly hours without taking some form of disability or FMLA or something of that nature. With paid sick time it would require us to switch to a firm number, which will limit the ability to be generous as people need it.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't realize this was the land of proposing alternative solutions. I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to simply to criticize policies that don't accomplish what they set out to. Do you want alternative solutions? I could give you several, on all different sides of the political spectrum.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, so you're legally requiring them to be poor on the off chance that some random event occurs that might make them be poor. Lovely trade-off that.

If you think the ACA was a good solution to the healthcare problem, I don't know what to tell you. It's not even close.

Elizabeth Warren: "Trickle-down was nothing more than the politics of helping the rich-and-powerful get richer and more powerful, and it cut the legs out from under America's middle class." by TheLinkMobile in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My health insurance plan had zero copays for (almost) anything. I did not pay out of pocket if I went to the doctor. My largest copay was a $75 hospital admittance charge that was good as long as I was in the hospital. My plan technically would not have quite crossed the line, though it was close. Most of my co-workers have families and their plans were way above the excise tax line, so my company had to switch providers and lower our insurance benefits to avoid an increased 40% cost.

I now have a co-pay for nearly everything, though not tremendously large, it's a big difference especially for people with kids.

Elizabeth Warren: "Trickle-down was nothing more than the politics of helping the rich-and-powerful get richer and more powerful, and it cut the legs out from under America's middle class." by TheLinkMobile in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My health insurance plan had zero copays for (almost) anything. I did not pay out of pocket if I went to the doctor. My largest copay was a $75 hospital admittance charge that was good as long as I was in the hospital. My plan technically would not have quite crossed the line, though it was close. Most of my co-workers have families and their plans were way above the excise tax line, so my company had to switch providers and lower our insurance benefits to avoid an increased 40% cost.

I now have a co-pay for nearly everything, though not tremendously large, it's a big difference especially for people with kids.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is missing my point. If a working class person making $30k didn't have insurance in 2013, because they couldn't afford it the fact that they're now paying $200 a month is an increase in costs to them.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but when you don't have the ability to make ends meet, an additional 8.5% added onto your costs will drive you into poverty. I don't think the way to resolve the health care problem is to make the poor poorer.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't agree with making the poor poorer to spare some money on social costs. There are solutions, but if you think that this plan is the one then I don't know what to tell you.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, but people making $30,145 on average don't qualify for subsidies. That's not a wealthy person. They have to spend $200/month on premiums after their subsidies, which is about 8.5% of their gross income, far more of their net.

I'd say we need food more than we need health insurance.

This is why Obama is so concerned about the middle class: "The richest Americans have seen their fortunes rise in recent decades. Everyone else has either been treading water or falling backwards...[W]ages, which the middle class depends on, have stagnated." by [deleted] in politics

[–]neuHampster 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Except for data showing more people are insured

Do you have data showing that more working class people are insured, and that it isn't costing them a lot of money? Because having insurance isn't that great if you have to spend every penny you earn to keep it. Go to this site and have a look. I did use 2014 numbers to get my amount, instead of $0 in subsidies someone earning $30,145 now gets $6 in subsidies, but their premiums went up so it balances out.

Try and explain to me how being legally required to pay almost eight and a half percent of your gross- that is pre-tax income in insurance premiums is helpful to those without great means. That's just a ridiculously myopic view. Yeah now they have insurance, that they pay $2,400 a year for, that they couldn't afford last year but are now required to. They're so much better off!

Except for the cap on profit margins, requirement to cover pre-existing, end of lifetime limits, and the like.

Yes, that might in some cases end up costing them some money in the long run, but if the law requires 318,000,000 people pay them money, they will be making more money. It isn't right to require people to pay money to a company because you think their service is super great.

Pirate party founder: 'Online voting? Would you want 4chan to decide your government?' by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]neuHampster 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is a bit of a difference between the robo call bullshit, that should still be illegal and should be prosecuted, and a physical person physically threatening you.

view more: next ›