Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Dave
Staff member
He's been a conservative freak for a while now, they just finally got sick of dealing with it. What I love about it is the butthurt masses that are saying that he was fired for being conservative and that they were curtailing his 1st Amendment rights. Uh...no, they really didn't. He is allowed to say anything he wants, but his bosses have the right to say, "We don't want that kind of pub so please leave." I wish people would get that.
But a lot of those people are the sames ones who are PISSED about the Harriet Tubman thing. So take that for what it's worth.
But a lot of those people are the sames ones who are PISSED about the Harriet Tubman thing. So take that for what it's worth.
Plus it's also not like Fox Sports isn't going to back up the money truck to his front door. They already have Cowherd, Whitlock, Travis amongst their shitty assholes that were fired for being shitty assholes ranks
Lowe's Negotiates Flat Fee for certain medical procedures directly with select hospitals.
It seems even the free market is beginning to reject the premise of insurance itself.
It seems even the free market is beginning to reject the premise of insurance itself.
GasBandit
Staff member
The problem with the modern insurance paradigm, as I've probably stated a few dozen times, is that it isn't actually insurance. It's treated as a pre-payment plan for medical care. "I pay my $250 a month, so I've already paid! Give me every single test and every single treatment and send the bill to the insurance company!"
Medical INSURANCE would be low premium, high deductible. As in, covering costs of catastrophic illness or injury, but not what you use for more routine things.
You should need insurance for things like cancer and getting hit by a bus.
The flu, maybe you pay out of pocket.
Then, since the consumer is now no longer dissociated from the transaction, and there's no insurance company dickering, etc, maybe market forces won't be completely occluded from doing their job and bringing down costs.
Amazing things already happen when you shop around and let the hospitals know you'll be paying up front in cash with no insurance involved.
And a lot of the above is really about two things:
- hospitals needing to making a certain amount on each treatment to cover costs and insurance being unwilling to pay it, so costs are inflated so the negotiated price is where it needs to be
and
- hospitals and insurance companies feel obligated to run a battery of tests for liability reasons, as courts routinely side with patients on negligence issues. This is just, but it does put everyone in a tight spot.
This is mostly not the consumer's fault. We've been trained over the years to never question the price of certain goods and services by the very people selling us things. It's just that it's now biting everyone in the ass.
- hospitals needing to making a certain amount on each treatment to cover costs and insurance being unwilling to pay it, so costs are inflated so the negotiated price is where it needs to be
and
- hospitals and insurance companies feel obligated to run a battery of tests for liability reasons, as courts routinely side with patients on negligence issues. This is just, but it does put everyone in a tight spot.
This is mostly not the consumer's fault. We've been trained over the years to never question the price of certain goods and services by the very people selling us things. It's just that it's now biting everyone in the ass.
GasBandit
Staff member
We've also been trained to think that it's just the way things are that somebody else pays for our health care. Which, if I can repeat myself and say something I'm sure you already know, was not in fact the case until WW2 wage controls (themselves a government attempt to thwart the normal operation of the market) led employers to figure out a loophole to offer higher compensation to employees - and thus employer-provided health insurance was born.
Dave
Staff member
Why are Bernie fans not wanting to vote for Hillary? Because not only is she a part of the establishment, but she's a liar, an opportunist, and jut an all around terrible person. If the right had ANYONE worth a shit they'd roll into the white house on waves of populism.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...orrect-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...orrect-commenters-on-reddit-and-facebook.html
You can't imagine how relieved I am Walker got knocked out so early. That disaster on a national level would have been shameful.
Japan has first test-flight of it's domestically-developed stealth fighter: http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20160422_12/
Interesting stats from the article:
Developed since: 2009 - 6-ish years
Cost: 39.4 Billion Yen - $360 Million dollars (presumably USD)
Airframe and engines developed in-country.
Just HOW much money have you guys spent on your JSF? What stats are comparable here? And to be fair, how do they compare in capability? And remember, $360 for the FIRST plane. I'll bet that the production cost is a hell of a lot lower.
Interesting stats from the article:
Developed since: 2009 - 6-ish years
Cost: 39.4 Billion Yen - $360 Million dollars (presumably USD)
Airframe and engines developed in-country.
Just HOW much money have you guys spent on your JSF? What stats are comparable here? And to be fair, how do they compare in capability? And remember, $360 for the FIRST plane. I'll bet that the production cost is a hell of a lot lower.
We spent $1.5 trillion on the F-35 program (adjusted for inflation), with each plane costing about $100+ million.
It really is, especially considering what we actually need RIGHT NOW is another ground attack specialist in the vein of the Thunderbolt... but none of the Air Force generals want to make one because they are all obsessed with some kind of big, upcoming air war that has never really happened.
We need more work horse planes like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets too.
We need more work horse planes like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets too.
We've developed technologies (patroit, iron shield, etc) that knock long distance missiles out of the sky. Further, long distance missiles have a much greater cost per missile and thus per mission than air to ground missiles. Lastly, we're developing drones to deliver them which further reduces costs.
So the upshot is that smaller air to ground missiles are preferred, and while we're still transitioning to drones, we're going to keep extending our power over land via flights with bombs and missiles rather than long distance missiles and bombs.
As such, fighter jets - used mainly for bombing - have a slight advantage in the whole equation.
The A-10 keeps alive, barely, because of the delays on over-runs on the F-35, which still hasn't shown it will be capable of the same type of close-air support the much slower and more armored A-10 provides.
The F-18 is a Navy plane, Air Force don't care. The F-15 is the workhorse of the AF, was supposed to be mostly replaced by the F-22, and they are considering asking to restart production on the F-22 which they stopped production on early.
When I was in the AF, my base, our plane was the A-10, with the 23rd Tactical Fighter Wing Flying Tigers. Those are some awesome planes that some crazy Brits came up with.
"Hey, we got this 30mm gatling cannon, what can we do with it?"
"Let's make it fly!"
"Okay. "
GasBandit
Staff member
You might need to update that soon.
