Driver to drive?

[Martin Brown]

On 17/09/2012 03:53, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

The reality is that it's far cheaper to skip insurance until you need
it. IOW, Obamacare defeats the whole principle of insurance: paying
for protection against something you hope won't happen, so that you're
covered if it does.

Actually this does seem to be a common American position.

Americans only ever want to buy insurance for some rare but catastrophic
outcome after they know that they will be making a claim. Not
surprisingly insurers will not allow someone to insure against something
where a major claim is already in progress.

A few US expats are expelled from Belgium each year after being made
personally bankrupt by failure to have "illegal worker insurance" or
"domestic third party claims insurance" for instance. There is a "bank
account insurance" too but that only results in serious hardship for the
surviving spouse rather than loss of all personal assets.

The notes for expats in English make clear what insurances you should
have and how much it costs (comparatively little). The consequences of
not having it can be disastrous if someone claims against you.

It astonished me that financially sophisticated high wage professionals
would skimp on this insurance to save pennies and then whine incessantly
about how it wasn't fair when they were bankrupted.

Health insurance is all about paying to have a system to look after
people who are sick according to their medical needs as opposed to their
ability to pay. Most people would prefer to stay healthy and never need
to "get their money's worth" out of the system.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[John Byrns]

In article <jnrc585h41ohsp0rh2qanrvrn5bdqo1p6o@4ax.com>,
flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:26:01 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com
wrote:

On 9/15/2012 8:48 AM, Nico Coesel wrote:
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:14:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

The reality...

The International Franchise Association held a convention in
Washington this week where most of the Radio Shack, Dunkin Donuts,
Curves and other franchisers were grumbling about new federal
regulations, especially the impact of Obamacare.

Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of
those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81
percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028
for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a
year. Employees pay $995.

Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for
all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times
more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just
over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales.
As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000."

So his profit margin is 3%? That doesn't sound like a healthy business
to begin with. That is more like a social employment facility. OTOH if
he raises the price of his product by 1.5% he already covered the
costs of the healthcare plane.


The company profit is 3%.

How much does "Mr Barr" take home ?

Opps sorry, I'm not suppose to ask that kind of question.

hamilton

The bigger question is why would you ask when it's none of your
business but the manner in which you did suggests you want to know if
he has 'enough to steal'.

Is the word "steal" in the phrase "enough to steal" a euphemism for "tax"?

--
Regards,

John Byrns

Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

John Byrns wrote:

In article <jnrc585h41ohsp0rh2qanrvrn5bdqo1p6o@4ax.com>,
flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

The bigger question is why would you ask when it's none of your
business but the manner in which you did suggests you want to know
if he has 'enough to steal'.

Is the word "steal" in the phrase "enough to steal" a euphemism for
"tax"?

When it comes to spending money on things that the Constitution does not
authorize government to buy, 'tax' is the euphemism and 'steal' is the
dysphemism.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

 

[Charlie E.]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 15:36:08 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com>
wrote:

On 9/16/2012 2:39 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

hamilton wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Like VA healthcare.

Yes, this is all true.

But, who is running those programs?


Democrats, appointed by Obama.

DHS, Bush

Or should we forget about that, since it does not fit _your_ definition.

Or, have you forgotten that most of those appointees serve at the
discretion of the president, i.e. most of them were replaced when the
new boss took over.

 

[Charlie E.]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:13:13 -0700, miso <miso@sushi.com> wrote:

But Bluecross is in the business of charging for something that they
fight to not deliver. I hated battling with them. Kaiser, for a fixed
fee, contracts to do whatever is needed, no hassles. They have a
strong incentive to keep their members healthy and to minimize
overhead.



You hear the horror stories about Kaiser, but than again, they treat a
lot of people, so of course it is more likely that they will have the
occasional bad press. I know people that swear by Kaiser. Also, it is a
good union shop.

I had them for several years. Will never go back. Too many things
were considered 'extras' such as skin tags, non-cancerous growths and
such.

 

[flipper]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:26:57 -0500, John Byrns <byrnsj@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

In article <jnrc585h41ohsp0rh2qanrvrn5bdqo1p6o@4ax.com>,
flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:26:01 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com
wrote:

On 9/15/2012 8:48 AM, Nico Coesel wrote:
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:14:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

The reality...

The International Franchise Association held a convention in
Washington this week where most of the Radio Shack, Dunkin Donuts,
Curves and other franchisers were grumbling about new federal
regulations, especially the impact of Obamacare.

Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of
those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81
percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028
for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a
year. Employees pay $995.

Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for
all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times
more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just
over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales.
As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000."

So his profit margin is 3%? That doesn't sound like a healthy business
to begin with. That is more like a social employment facility. OTOH if
he raises the price of his product by 1.5% he already covered the
costs of the healthcare plane.


The company profit is 3%.

How much does "Mr Barr" take home ?

Opps sorry, I'm not suppose to ask that kind of question.

hamilton

The bigger question is why would you ask when it's none of your
business but the manner in which you did suggests you want to know if
he has 'enough to steal'.

Is the word "steal" in the phrase "enough to steal" a euphemism for "tax"?

No. In this context 'tax' is a euphemism for organized theft where it
is argued that if you have enough thieves to 'out vote' the victims
then theft is 'legal', just as a 'democratic majority' could 'vote' to
enslave a minority, or exterminate the 'inferior races', or establish
an official religion and outlaw all others, or silence dissent and ban
'untruthful' books.

It's what the founding fathers feared as the "tyranny of the majority"
and why they insisted on a Constitution that limited 'government
powers' and what 'the majority' could do with them.

 

[flipper]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:07:23 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com>
wrote:

On 9/16/2012 6:31 PM, flipper wrote:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 10:26:01 -0600, hamilton <hamilton@nothere.com
wrote:

On 9/15/2012 8:48 AM, Nico Coesel wrote:
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:14:58 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

The reality...

The International Franchise Association held a convention in
Washington this week where most of the Radio Shack, Dunkin Donuts,
Curves and other franchisers were grumbling about new federal
regulations, especially the impact of Obamacare.

Barr has 23 stores with 421 employees, 109 of whom are full-time. Of
those, he provides 30 with health insurance. Barr said he pays 81
percent of their Blue Cross Blue Shield policy, or $4,073 of $5,028
for individuals, more for families, for a total bill of $129,000 a
year. Employees pay $995.

Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for
all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times
more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just
over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales.
As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000."

So his profit margin is 3%? That doesn't sound like a healthy business
to begin with. That is more like a social employment facility. OTOH if
he raises the price of his product by 1.5% he already covered the
costs of the healthcare plane.


The company profit is 3%.

How much does "Mr Barr" take home ?

Opps sorry, I'm not suppose to ask that kind of question.

hamilton

The bigger question is why would you ask when it's none of your
business but the manner in which you did suggests you want to know if
he has 'enough to steal'.


Opps, am I that transparent ?

If you are admitting to it then apparently so.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 18/09/2012 06:42, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 17, 4:02 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:
On 17/09/2012 03:53, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

The reality is that it's far cheaper to skip insurance until you need
it. IOW, Obamacare defeats the whole principle of insurance: paying
for protection against something you hope won't happen, so that you're
covered if it does.

Actually this does seem to be a common American position.

Americans only ever want to buy insurance for some rare but catastrophic
outcome after they know that they will be making a claim. Not
surprisingly insurers will not allow someone to insure against something
where a major claim is already in progress.

A few US expats are expelled from Belgium each year after being made
personally bankrupt by failure to have "illegal worker insurance" or
"domestic third party claims insurance" for instance. There is a "bank
account insurance" too but that only results in serious hardship for the
surviving spouse rather than loss of all personal assets.

The notes for expats in English make clear what insurances you should
have and how much it costs (comparatively little). The consequences of
not having it can be disastrous if someone claims against you.

What's illegal worker insurance? Or 3rd party claims insurance?
These are foreign to me.

OK. They do need some explanation but the concepts are simple.

If you employ someone (even *illegally* as some rich expats tend to do
for cleaners and gardeners) then you are automatically liable for any
injuries that they suffer on their way to work upto and including death
in a car crash. Belgian roads are pretty dangerous with a mix of
"priorite a droite" and normal junctions. You will also be sued by the
state for employing illegal worker(s) if you get caught as well.

The other is if for example you fail to clear the path in front of your
house of snow or a workman falls off your roof and is injured they can
sue you. Belgians think nothing of suing neighbours this way.

Here, we don't toss out illegals for not having insurance. We don't
toss them out at all, mostly. And if they drive uninsured (most) and
cause harm (disproportionately common), little happens, if anything.

Belgium only throws them out because they have been made bankrupt due to
failure to have purchased appropriate insurance to cover what are almost
unlimited liabilities. The rules are clear enough and explained in great
detail in the expat secondment notes. Napoleonic code has some pretty
draconian measures that you need to be aware of as a expat.

It astonished me that financially sophisticated high wage professionals
would skimp on this insurance to save pennies and then whine incessantly
about how it wasn't fair when they were bankrupted.

Health insurance is all about paying to have a system to look after
people who are sick according to their medical needs as opposed to their
ability to pay. Most people would prefer to stay healthy and never need
to "get their money's worth" out of the system.

The Obama plan isn't health insurance at all. It's subsidized medical
care (different from health, and different from insurance), with
hidden taxes to make it look cheaper.

Most of the civilised world consider it entirely normal to treat the
sick - only in America is it normal only to treat properly only those
with sufficient funds to pay for treatment. The USA is also populated
now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.

It is actually cheaper to treat people early rather than leave minor
ailments until they become critical life threatening emergencies that
even the US health industry is not quite callous enough to ignore.

You will recall that one of my UK coworkers was in a dispute with his US
medical insurers over neonatal care that nearly killed his newborn child
because the local hospital lacked the right facilities and they would
not call in a helicopter until they were sure they would get paid.

Health insurance is exercising, brushing your teeth, and eating
right. It ain't perfect, but it ups your chances a bunch.

Again these things are considered normal in the ROW.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

On Sep 17, 4:02 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

On 17/09/2012 03:53, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

The reality is that it's far cheaper to skip insurance until you need
it.  IOW, Obamacare defeats the whole principle of insurance: paying
for protection against something you hope won't happen, so that you're
covered if it does.

Actually this does seem to be a common American position.

Americans only ever want to buy insurance for some rare but catastrophic
outcome after they know that they will be making a claim. Not
surprisingly insurers will not allow someone to insure against something
where a major claim is already in progress.

A few US expats are expelled from Belgium each year after being made
personally bankrupt by failure to have "illegal worker insurance" or
"domestic third party claims insurance" for instance. There is a "bank
account insurance" too but that only results in serious hardship for the
surviving spouse rather than loss of all personal assets.

The notes for expats in English make clear what insurances you should
have and how much it costs (comparatively little). The consequences of
not having it can be disastrous if someone claims against you.

What's illegal worker insurance? Or 3rd party claims insurance?
These are foreign to me.

Here, we don't toss out illegals for not having insurance. We don't
toss them out at all, mostly. And if they drive uninsured (most) and
cause harm (disproportionately common), little happens, if anything.

It astonished me that financially sophisticated high wage professionals
would skimp on this insurance to save pennies and then whine incessantly
about how it wasn't fair when they were bankrupted.

Health insurance is all about paying to have a system to look after
people who are sick according to their medical needs as opposed to their
ability to pay. Most people would prefer to stay healthy and never need
to "get their money's worth" out of the system.

The Obama plan isn't health insurance at all. It's subsidized medical
care (different from health, and different from insurance), with
hidden taxes to make it look cheaper.

Health insurance is exercising, brushing your teeth, and eating
right. It ain't perfect, but it ups your chances a bunch.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:21:46 +0100, Martin Brown
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

snip
You will recall that one of my UK coworkers was in a dispute with his US
medical insurers over neonatal care that nearly killed his newborn child
because the local hospital lacked the right facilities and they would
not call in a helicopter until they were sure they would get paid.
snip

I'd like to add a personal story to this, to strengthen your
argument on this point. I posted the story here, back in
2006, but it bears repeating.

My brother was almost refused care at a full care hospital
(if you want names, here it is: Meridian Park, just off of
the Nyberg Rd exit of I5, south of Portland and Tigard -- it
is on a size scale with the biggest hospitals in a metro area
of about 2 million people.)

It was an emergency, as he'd swallowed broken glass and was
in severe pain by the time of arrival at the hospital. But he
had no insurance and those at the desk simply refused to let
him even talk to a doctor about it. They told him he would
have to leave and find another hospital (the nearest would be
about 20-25 minutes drive.) It was only because there was an
attorney in the waiting room, who overheard the discussion,
stood up and then told the receptionist that he would
personally bring suit against the hospital unless they helped
my brother see a doctor right away, that they capitulated and
let him speak to a doctor.

When I got down there (later), the doctor told me that if it
had been as little as another hour, my brother would
certainly have been dead. They got to him in time. But only
because of the efforts of a good samaritan who luckily
happened to be there at the right time.

Jon

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Martin Brown wrote:

The USA is also populated
now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.

If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.

 

[Martin Brown]

On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

The USA is also populated
now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.

If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.

America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.aspxthe

The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having
what is considered a normal healthy body weight.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[tm]

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...

On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

The USA is also populated
now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.

If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.

America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.aspxthe

The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having
what is considered a normal healthy body weight.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver
failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs

 

[Jon Kirwan]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...









On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

  The USA is also populated
now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.

    If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.

America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as...

The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having
what is considered a normal healthy body weight.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver
failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs

Then you'd better move to Monaco.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

tells us that that the only country where more than half the
population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.

Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even
chance of surviving past 85.

I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is
apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.

The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco

"Monaco levies no income tax on individuals. The
absence of a personal income tax in the principality
has attracted to it a considerable number of wealthy
'tax refugee' residents from European countries who
derive the majority of their income from activity
outside Monaco."

Wealth is HIGHLY correlated to life expectancy.

Jon

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 18, 7:42 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 17, 4:02 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk
wrote:

On 17/09/2012 03:53, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

The reality is that it's far cheaper to skip insurance until you need
it.  IOW, Obamacare defeats the whole principle of insurance: paying
for protection against something you hope won't happen, so that you're
covered if it does.

Actually this does seem to be a common American position.

Americans only ever want to buy insurance for some rare but catastrophic
outcome after they know that they will be making a claim. Not
surprisingly insurers will not allow someone to insure against something
where a major claim is already in progress.

A few US expats are expelled from Belgium each year after being made
personally bankrupt by failure to have "illegal worker insurance" or
"domestic third party claims insurance" for instance. There is a "bank
account insurance" too but that only results in serious hardship for the
surviving spouse rather than loss of all personal assets.

The notes for expats in English make clear what insurances you should
have and how much it costs (comparatively little). The consequences of
not having it can be disastrous if someone claims against you.

What's illegal worker insurance?  Or 3rd party claims insurance?
These are foreign to me.

Here, we don't toss out illegals for not having insurance.  We don't
toss them out at all, mostly.  And if they drive uninsured (most) and
cause harm (disproportionately common), little happens, if anything.

It astonished me that financially sophisticated high wage professionals
would skimp on this insurance to save pennies and then whine incessantly
about how it wasn't fair when they were bankrupted.

Health insurance is all about paying to have a system to look after
people who are sick according to their medical needs as opposed to their
ability to pay. Most people would prefer to stay healthy and never need
to "get their money's worth" out of the system.

The Obama plan isn't health insurance at all.  It's subsidized medical
care (different from health, and different from insurance), with
hidden taxes to make it look cheaper.

Health insurance is exercising, brushing your teeth, and eating
right.  It ain't perfect, but it ups your chances a bunch.

You left out "choosing your parents carefully" which helps a whole lot
more.

In fact that isn't health insurance at all. Insurance is about sharing
risk, not minimising it.

Sensible insurers would adjust their tariffs to match the individual
risks they are insuring but the problem of doing this with health
insurance is that most of the risk is determined by your choice of
parents. Most societies figure that it makes more sense to spread the
costs evenly (or load the rich a bit because they can afford it)
rather than relying on the free market to optimise the distribution of
health care.

There are several arguments for taking this approach. The argument
that ought to appeal to an economic flat-earther like you is that it
turns out to be cheaper to cover everybody.

People who think in terms of social equity use other arguments, but
you wouldn't understand them.

One argument that you might understand, if you thought about it, is
that health care also serves as a society-wide protection system
against epidemics, where it works a whole lot better if everybody
thinks that they are covered. Plagues kill people from every walk of
life, and the well-off who have mastered enlightened self-interest
want to spend enough money on keeping the poor healthy to prevent them
becoming "Typhoid Marys" of one sort or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoid_Mary

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...









On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

  The USA is also populated
now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.

    If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.

America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as...

The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having
what is considered a normal healthy body weight.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver
failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs

Then you'd better move to Monaco.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

tells us that that the only country where more than half the
population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.

Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even
chance of surviving past 85.

I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is
apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.

The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, Jon Kirwan wrote:

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman

bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:



On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message



news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...



















On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:



Martin Brown wrote:



  The USA is also populated

now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help..



    If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.



America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs.



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity



http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as....



The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having

what is considered a normal healthy body weight.



--

Regards,

Martin Brown



My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver

failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs



Then you'd better move to Monaco.



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html



tells us that that the only country where more than half the

population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.



Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even

chance of surviving past 85.



I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is

apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.



The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.



See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco



"Monaco levies no income tax on individuals. The

absence of a personal income tax in the principality

has attracted to it a considerable number of wealthy

'tax refugee' residents from European countries who

derive the majority of their income from activity

outside Monaco."



Wealth is HIGHLY correlated to life expectancy.



Jon

And to whom do you attribute that completely inaccurate observation? It must be predicated on being a member of the sedentary population. You obviously never lived in the country or the mountains. There are plenty of men who live to nearly 100 and spent a lifetime doing menial low paying labor, but they were well nourished and lived free of the toxins of industrialized society. Heck, some of them are still procreating at 85, and many don't even begin regular doctor visits until their mid-70s. And these people were far from living the health nut lifestyle, smoking and drinking, eating lots of red fat marbled meat, butter, cream, sugar, etc.

 

[josephkk]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 23:56:41 -0700, miso <miso@sushi.com> wrote:

"That $315,000 increase is equal to just over half his annual profit,
after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales."

Ask me if I give a shit about someone making $630k a year. Ok, I don't.

Barr is an ignorant asshole. He doesn't deserve his franchises.

First of all, all his competitors are in the same boat. They have to
provide the same insurance. If he needs to raise prices to cover the
insurance, then they will too. If he is so fucking stupid that he
doesn't know this, then someone should buy his franchises and let him
retire. He can stand on the corner with a 3 corner hat and rant about
Ron Paul all day.

This shithead has 421 employees, but only provides 30 with insurance.
You know what that means? The rest are paid so poorly that they can't
afford insurance on the open market, so they just clog up the emergency
room when they are sick. The hospitals are required to treat everyone,
so the cost is then spread to those that do pay their bills. I PAY MY
HEALTHCARE INSURANCE. SO SHOULD EVERYONE ELSE!

Barr is a leach upon society. He can't go out of business fast enough in
my opinion. Let someone with a bit more business savvy take up the slack.

Wow, the green eyed monster is alive and well in you isn't it.

?-)

 

[josephkk]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 17:59:09 -0700, miso <miso@sushi.com> wrote:

How much does "Mr Barr" take home ?

Opps sorry, I'm not suppose to ask that kind of question.

hamilton

He owns it all, so he is taking home $630k a year.

Like hell. You have obviously have never been self-employed. You would
lucky to take home so much as half of it, with about 15% going to various
social security items and about 30% in income taxes at that level. Then
there is various State taxes, get the picture?

Maybe not yet, what is the difference between your gross pay and your take
home? The self-employed have to pay all the employer taxes as well out of
the same gross. Maybe now you can figure it out. Finally how much
capital investment is tied up in owning all those franchises? They aren't
cheap, how is that paid for?

?-)

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 19, 4:23 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.f...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:04:44 PM UTC-4, Jon Kirwan wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:43:49 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 18, 11:31 pm, "tm" <No_one_h...@white-house.gov> wrote:

"Martin Brown" <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:QQ46s.1170$4o5.529@newsfe23.iad...

On 18/09/2012 16:22, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Martin Brown wrote:

  The USA is also populated

now with vastly overweight unfit hypochondriacs which doesn't help.

    If we aren't careful, we'll catch up with Europe in that sad race.

America is the undisputed world leader in fat unfit hypochondriacs..

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156707/majority-overweight-obese-states.as...

The majority of Americans are now overweight with only a minority having

what is considered a normal healthy body weight.

--

Regards,

Martin Brown

My goal is to die of a heart attack, a stroke, cancer, and kidney and liver

failure, all at the same time. Anytime after 85 YRs

Then you'd better move to Monaco.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder....

tells us that that the only country where more than half the

population survives past 85 - they survive on average for 89.68 years.

Even there, it probably only the women who have a better than even

chance of surviving past 85.

I'm moving back to Australia in a month, where average age of death is

apparently 81.90 - which puts us nineth on the list.

The US is 50th, with an average life expectancy of 78.49 year.

See:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monaco

   "Monaco levies no income tax on individuals. The

    absence of a personal income tax in the principality

    has attracted to it a considerable number of wealthy

    'tax refugee' residents from European countries who

    derive the majority of their income from activity

    outside Monaco."

Wealth is HIGHLY correlated to life expectancy.

Jon

And to whom do you attribute that completely inaccurate observation?

It's not inaccurate, but it does conflate a lot of different effects.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health/life-expectancy.aspx

suggests that it's true from nation to nation and within at least one
nation - Canada.

It must be predicated on being a member of the sedentary population. You obviously never lived in the country or the mountains. There
are plenty of men who live to nearly 100 and spent a lifetime doing menial low paying labor, but they were well nourished and lived
free of the toxins of industrialized society. Heck, some of them are still procreating at 85, and many don't even begin regular doctor > visits until their mid-70s. And these people were far from living the health nut lifestyle, smoking and drinking, eating lots of red
fat marbled meat, butter, cream, sugar, etc.

Which doesn't really tie up with the observation that life expectancy
is lower in the rural area of Canada.

Education level correlates positively with both health and income, and
may explain a lot of the positive correlation between wealth and life
expectancy.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen