Post up your "NEW" and "AFFORDABLE" health care rate

I would trade my current plan for 'real' socialized plan I had in my first 25 years of life
Covered from day you born to day you die with no out of the pocket expense. That was real socialized medicine.

 

I had that until the ACA showed up. Now I have out of pocket. Can't have those cadillac plans...

Fuck Barry and the ears he flew in on.

 

At least you didn't have a kid on Jan 1st this year like I did.

 

Nah. Motorcyclists are more beautiful, smarter, and ballsier than the average schmuck. I think it's a good thing if we add to the gene pool.

Plus, the more we all reproduce the more racers there will be, bikes and parts will become cheaper and more plentiful and I can go to the track more, there will be more places to race, and hundred dollar bills will fall from the sky funding my crash and medical copayment budget.

However, this obviously doesn't apply to anyone helping Range Rovers test their suspension or doing annual rides of the century.

 

2013 3Q revenue of $35.3 billion, net profit of $6.9 billion.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/07/23Apple-Reports-Third-Quarter-Results.html

Apple Inc results fell short of Wall Street's lofty expectations

 

Shoulda told the wifey to push harder, man. "Think of the rebate, hon!" "Are you sure you won't consider a Cesarean?"

 

No it's not, it's a pretty piss poor health care law but it's not socialized medicine.

Oh, and when you're thanking Obama for the plan, don't forget to give a shout out to Newt and the boys.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...e-think-tank-invented-the-individual-mandate/

 

In the industry I am in 40%GP and above is where I can do no wrong. 30%GP some serious questions are being asked and if you hit 20% without serious justification you better have your resume very refreshed.
I just get a kick out of people whining about businesses making "obscene" profits when they do not have a fucking clue what they are talking about. 8% is not obscene profits. If there was so much money to be made people would be lining up to do it. If someone thinks they could do something better they should get off of their ass and do it.
(And before Papa finds a post where I was whining and should have gotten off of my ass and did something I am fully aware that I can be somewhat hypocritical at times!)

 

In the underground utility market we used to get 25-35% profit on our sales. The sales guys were making well into six figures. One sales guy made over $480K one year, with his largest paycheck being $68K for one month. After the collapse and the market went to shit, you're lucky to get 10-15% out of a job.

 

FWIW, if I go below 32% GP I am a dead man. It is our absolute bottom.

 

Our Government in a nutshell. $643 Million spent on the healthcare.gov website.

Price tag is six and a half times higher than original $94million contact.

Contractor CGI Federal built the site and demanded more money from the government as costs soared.

Only a handful of Americans have been able to sign up for the health insurance exchanges on Healthcare.gov.

Site still is issuing error messages when users try to sign in.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ost-634MILLION-doesnt-work.html#ixzz2hQR12Nn2
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2452404/Obamacare-website-cost-634MILLION-doesnt-work.html

 

We have the same issue here. It's like they build things and don't put themselves in the shoes of the user. I build files for people too and mine never have these issues......because I test it. I don't see how people build sites like this and don't test it by trying to break it before launching. Boggles my mind that people never do testing.

 

While it's crazy that the website is having the issues that it's having, and clearly, the ball has been dropped, the feeding frenzy of incorrect reports is off the hook.

How a 94 million website contract get expanded to the 634 million is beyond me.

Fact checking is your friend. I'll be the first to state I don't have the chops to give a ballpark guess of the proper cost of a national healthcare site that has the scope and capacity of the one in question.

"The GAO states that the “highest volume” of that $394 million was related to the development of “information technology systems,” a more detailed look at that cost shows that a portion that $394 million was spent on things like call centers and collection services. Take that out, and you’re left with roughly $363 million spent on technology-related costs to the healthcare exchanges – the bulk of which ($88 million) went to CGI Federal, the company awarded a $93.7 million contract to build Healthcare.gov and other technology portions of the FFEs."

Did they spend a shit ton of money? yes. Did they get there money's worth?, no. Did the website cost 634 mil?

No.

I have insurance, the premium increase is about up 4% for 2014, ACA has been blamed. I don't know if that true or not, But the premium has increased about the same amount, give or take each of the 5 years before that.

Please return to your feeding frenzy.

 

That's pretty weak, as even that linked article points out.
Even weaker if the claimants aren't embracing other Heritage Foundation recommendations.

 

You guys realize that gross profit (GP) and net profit aren't even similar, right?

40% or more in GP is necessary to pay sales general and administrative (SGA) expenses, commissions, salaries, other overhead, debt payments, taxes, various writedowns/writeoffs, etc.

What is left after that is net profit.

 

I bet Amazon could have added the whole thing to their website and handled every transaction without blinking an eye.
The fact that they didn't design it to handle easily anticipated traffic is just mind-boggling.

 

Conservatives sue to enforce ObamaCare employer mandate

I don't know why this hasn't happened sooner, or why Congress hasn't challenged Obama's illegal decisions to ignore certain parts of the law.
This has become his modus operandi with too many laws.
The law is only sacrosanct when it suits his political aims.

 

It is and always was a republican idea.

 

You're not right often, but in this case the blind squirrel has found the nut.

 

Because a couple guys you assume are Republicans advocated it does not turn it into a Republican stand on the issue.
That's an extreme stretch.