This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - pdxmike
Has Trump had ANY successes yet?Apparently with Trump, defeats may be bigger than de hands.
This pic is from the Zone.Wow, I can almost hear her saying, "Moose and squarel".
SUP Leave--I agree with a lot of what you say. I'm more libertarian than anything else--not a fan of government being involved in anything unless it's really necessary, so don't like the idea of more government involvement in health care.
I work for myself so have my own insurance and can afford it, but many people cannot. Costs are getting ridiculous. It's like housing in cities where the median income household falls far short of the cost of median housing, and people are paying half or more of their income for crappy housing. But with healthcare, you can't solve that by moving. Yes, you can (hopefully) find an employer who will pay your insurance, but you're still paying for it in the form of it being an enormous part of your compensation. If you're paying half your income for housing, and a quarter (or at least some large amount) for health insurance, that doesn't leave much, and you don't have to be financially irresponsible or lazy to find yourself in that position.
You're right, the coughing argument isn't the important argument for mandating coverage. But the costs of insurance when only half the people are buying it is. Or, you go towards universal coverage.
And like you said, we're already heavily subsidizing healthcare, either through hospitals being subsidized for providing care, subsidizing insurance, etc. It's nowhere near an unmeddled market.
Even the idea of shopping around for medical procedure costs and finding the best price isn't anything like buying a shirt or a car. It's one thing if it's a planned, straightforward procedure you're planning ahead for, but lots of care isn't for those things. You can't say, "Wait, hold off on that tourniquet, I want to shop around!" Neither can a doctor always know how much something will cost ahead of time.
Basically it's a mess, and the old ideas like "you could afford insurance if you didn't eat out (or upgrade your phone) so often" no longer work (and not saying you or anyone else here is saying that). A lot of people are also at the point they feel it's not even worth trying, and they have some validity to that position.
What does my purchase of health insurance do to you? Nothing. If I don't purchase it? Nothing.That's the problem--that's not true. If you don't have insurance, and can pay for anything out of pocket, I'd say it's true. But if you go into an emergency room needing some expensive treatment, but without insurance or your own funds, you most likely won't be left to die--you'll get treated, and my insurance will go up next year. If we'd just not treat anyone who can't pay, then it would be different.
But even then, if you have no insurance, and get a cough but don't get it treated because you know you're not covered, then cough on me and I get your bubonic plague or whatever it is you're carrying because you didn't get treated, that affects me. You could argue that having insurance isn't a guarantee you would have gone in for treatment anyway, and the proper legal recourse for me would be to sue you for not getting treated (whether you were insured or not). I'd say in an idealized world that's true, but it's not very practical, especially if I'm dead by then.
I'd compare it to police or fire protection. If you could opt out of fire protection, the fire department wouldn't be likely to stand by and watch you burn alive. But even if they were willing to do that, their letting your house burn down still exposes all your neighbors to increased danger, thus increased their costs for their fire protection, in comparison to if you had fire protection so they could put out a small fire before it became a danger to everyone around you.
Plus, you're freeloading off of all your neighbors, because when they pay for fire protection, that means if their houses catch on fire, the fires are more likely to be put out before they become a danger to you or your property. Thus you get a safety benefit of fire protection without paying for it. That goes back to all your neighbors with health insurance getting their contagious diseases caught early and treated, so you get the benefit of their buying insurance without paying for any yourself.
I love Seattle--grew up there and still spend lots of time there. Housing affordability is the big issue, as has already been said. Lots of Portlanders have a weird hatred of Seattle, maybe because they can't admit it's as good or better in many things Portland thinks too highly of itself for. Best thing about Seattle is its natural setting---Lake Washington and Sound, with mountains all around. Yes, there's all kinds of things within a few hours' drive, but also plenty to like within the city. But today, I might choose a smaller city near Seattle. Tacoma is vastly underrated. Bellingham is great. Anywhere in Puget Sound is great. Then go into Seattle for your big-city fix--or better yet, go to Vancouver (BC, not WA!) for one of the world's great cosmopolitan cities.
And I paddle (not surf) in the Sound all summer in board shorts, and sometimes swim (but that takes some easing in). Coming back here after being in Lake Washington or the Sound, the Willamette feels like a sewer.
If you haven't lived in Seattle for 20 years, and are basing your impressions of it on what it was like then, falling into Lake Union will be the least of your problems. If you want an affordable place to live in Seattle, Charleston might be a good place to look. Or Everett. Or Puyallup.
Paddling and falling into Lake Union is safe. But I don't know if you can beat Lake Washington on a nice summer as a perfect paddling or swimming location. Sound is always cold. Lakes are per Rich's comment, and perfect in summer.
Whatís the difference between a garbanzo bean and a chickpea you ask?You get the Number One Joke award.
**joke** Why? **/joke**Why?
Hey WW, it was way funnier than that accountant/pencil joke I had to endure at my last seminar.Everyone knows the answer to that one, but they don't always know that the pencil should be a #2 pencil.
I bet their opinion of you hasn't changed much.Actually, I can see them thinking the aqua shoes were weird, but it's hard to imagine them thinking it was weird more recently seeing a 135-lb. dog floating by on his own board.
@pdxmikeI never used them after high school or college, except I think we messed around with them a few years ago. Like I said in the old link, it was really hard to keep your legs from splaying outwards. It may have worked better in still water, but the Sound isn't usually that calm.
I used them with two short raft oars, but they might work better with a kayak or standup paddle. The flaps never really worked because they didn't drop down enough to catch water when you pushed back, so I used the oars. If you lashed them together and used a standup paddle, that might be best of all, but at that point you're basically just paddling a horrible standup board.
Best thing is being out there in the same place doing standup, saying hello to some of the same people sitting on their decks who remember me out there on my weird aqua shoes in the 70s.