The world Today.

[orange808]

Shuffling the chairs around on the Titanic again? Property values continue to skyrocket in your hometown despite all these problems you keep bringing up as you call people.lazy. You keep strategically avoiding race, but I know what you're picturing.

You also kept randomly jumping from city to city to find examples as your arguments crashed down at your feet.

Then, you pretend it all never happened.

Fuck. I even learned some things looking at Seattle, but I had some idea of what I'd find and a genuine interest in the evidence. You have your bullshit world view carved into granite.

I'm bored now.

[emphatic]

You keep strategically avoiding race, but I know what you're picturing.

How to call someone a racist without actually doing it - while showing you yourself is the one with prejudice .

[BulletMagnet]

I'm not here to "praise the banks". I just get sick of people complaining about the rich and the sport without seeing the bottom fall out with any substitution for capitalism.

Nobody disputes that doing away with the current setup overnight without an alternate ready to go would have enormous consequences; the thing is, if you're truly in favor of something different in even an abstract sense, even if you ignore the soup-to-nuts alternatives that people have proposed replacing our present system with, you could instead simply refer to things we used to very successfully do, but, primarily due to the rising influence of the wealthy, don't do anymore.

As has been repeated by myself and others on here countless times, most of the people who refer to the 1950's as an idyllic time that we should return to somehow ignore the parts where taxes (90 percent federal rate at the top under Eisenhower), regulations (both stock buybacks and banks mixing consumer and investment activity were outlawed by FDR until Reagan and Clinton brought them back), and union membership (over a third of all workers) were much, much more robust than now...and somehow, despite the wailing doomspeak that inevitably arises whenever even a tiny step back in this general direction is proposed nowadays, it was, notable structural inequities notwithstanding, the most prosperous period in the country's history.

Before you try to stop me, yes, there are plenty of differences between the country and the world now versus then, but the over-arching point here is that, even with so many additional checks on their power and wealth put in place, rich people were still plenty rich, and still plenty eager to do business, but - get this - instead of bragging in reports and press releases about how much they'd made for their investors, they bragged about how highly they paid their workers. Can you fucking imagine that being the dominant corporate culture in this country? Guess what - it WAS! And in a great many ways, at the very least compared to what we have now, it worked!

Even for those hesitant to endorse radical change in this area, the question is not whether or not the wealthy still have a part to play in our economy: it's how big of a part that might be, and, even more pertinently, how many of the terms they get to dictate for themselves. Considering just how swimmingly things have turned out for everyone except them as upper-end tax cuts, deregulation and worker disempowerment have become the near-undisputed default, I frankly question the good faith of anyone who still says we ought to simply take their word for it.

And the repercussions of accountability are slavery.

I, for one, would absolutely love to see how any corporation which relies on sweatshop or slave labor abroad - or, for that matter, takes advantage of overseas tax shelters - would react if the government actually got serious with them, and said, full stop, "bring the jobs and earnings back here, or you are not allowed to do business in this country. Considering how eager they are kiss China's ass over incredibly minor "offenses" in order to retain access to that customer base and avoid "disruption", it would be absolutely amazing, and frankly hilarious, to see how quickly they'd piss themselves and fold if the home front actually called their bluff for once (and sorry, Trump's taxpayer-funded bribe to Carrier doesn't count).

[o.pwuaioc]

@o.pwuaioc Who are you? Either way you lost me at "cultural fascism is fast growing" Good luck on your journeys as an ANTICULFA..

LOL. Dude, you've gone full qultist already. Thanks for not hiding it.

As has been repeated by myself and others on here countless times, most of the people who refer to the 1950's as an idyllic time that we should return to somehow ignore the parts where taxes (90 percent federal rate at the top under Eisenhower), regulations (both stock buybacks and banks mixing consumer and investment activity were outlawed by FDR until Reagan and Clinton brought them back), and union membership (over a third of all workers) were much, much more robust than now...and somehow, despite the wailing doomspeak that inevitably arises whenever even a tiny step back in this general direction is proposed nowadays, it was, notable structural inequities notwithstanding, the most prosperous period in the country's history.

Before you try to stop me, yes, there are plenty of differences between the country and the world now versus then, but the over-arching point here is that, even with so many additional checks on their power and wealth put in place, rich people were still plenty rich, and still plenty eager to do business, but - get this - instead of bragging in reports and press releases about how much they'd made for their investors, they bragged about how highly they paid their workers. Can you fucking imagine that being the dominant corporate culture in this country? Guess what - it WAS! And in a great many ways, at the very least compared to what we have now, it worked!

You can go back even further. Those same types who get upset at just mention firearm regulation are always shocked to learn—and then deny—that Texas, e.g., banned pistols without a court approved certificate of good character.

Many as well don't deny those parts of the 50s and 60s you've mentioned, but deny, without evidence, that they led to the boom we had experienced.

It's a form of willful ignorance, and it coincides conveniently enough for them with the attacks on education and denial of past events. Right now the brouhaha is over the long-standing effects of slavery, but once you let the lion out of its cage, good luck reining that back in.

[Hoagtech]

@o.pwuaioc Who are you? Either way you lost me at "cultural fascism is fast growing" Good luck on your journeys as an ANTICULFA..

LOL. Dude, you've gone full qultist already. Thanks for not hiding it.

No and most people who think freely do not believe in Q'anon.

Your just showing your prejudice you glory hog.

Sorry if I'm a little "burnt out" on your terminology. I'm sick of anti economy policy and think we should think simpler and work harder.



No one is racist trying to "save the budget" or Q for that matter..

I don't why the Q reside in Liberal minds as much as they do. I've never met one to date and can still think of so many reasons the aggressive policies of the left have failed us.

[o.pwuaioc]

I don't why the Q reside in Liberal minds as much as they do. I've never met one to date and can still think of so many reasons the aggressive policies of the left have failed us.

Oh, I wonder:

Good luck on your journeys as an ANTICULFA..

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... At the very least you've been brainwashed by duck propaganda.

And none of this is anti-economy discussion. It's anti-wealth gap, it's anti-monopoly, it's anti-abuse. "Work harder" is bullshit and a lie, one that only the gullible fall for. Please tell me that Elon Musk, who posts on Twitter dozens of times a day, is actually working harder than a fisherman in Philippines or a migrant construction worker in Dubai.

[emphatic]

Please tell me that Elon Musk, who posts on Twitter dozens of times a day, is actually working harder than a fisherman in Philippines or a migrant construction worker in Dubai.

How does a fisherman in the Phillipines' work effort affect people living in the west's day-to-day life? Elon Musk's output affects millions of people. Does his work require heavy lifting - why, does it matter to the economy?

[orange808]

You keep strategically avoiding race, but I know what you're picturing.

How to call someone a racist without actually doing it - while showing you yourself is the one with prejudice .

Uh huh. Because, I call people ditch diggers and throw around "lazy drug addict" dog whistles and hint at lazy "welfare queens" in my posts.

lmao. smh

I've heard all rhetoric before. I know what sorts of people say these things.

[ED-057]

I am curious how you manage to split "the rich" (who are, in your view, despite having dictated nearly every decision that's led us to where we are right now, not the problem, but the solution) from "the technocrats" (who are apparently the problem) into two disparate groups, despite the fact that both are, ostensibly, doing precisely the same thing from precisely the same position, and would both very readily agree with your prescription of "nobody should even attempt to solve anything until we decide we're rich enough".

I am curious how you manage to split "the uniparty establishment" (who are, in your view, despite having dictated nearly every decision that's led us to where we are right now, not the problem, but the solution) from "the rich" (who are apparently the problem) into two disparate groups, despite the fact that both are, ostensibly, doing precisely the same thing from precisely the same position, and would both very readily agree with your prescription of "nobody should even attempt to solve anything until we decide we're rich enough".

Even for those hesitant to endorse radical change in this area, the question is not whether or not the wealthy still have a part to play in our economy: it's how big of a part that might be, and, even more pertinently, how many of the terms they get to dictate for themselves.

The people who matter have already answered this question and their answer is "as much as we can get away with."

P.S. "Nothing would fundamentally change"

[orange808]

Please tell me that Elon Musk, who posts on Twitter dozens of times a day, is actually working harder than a fisherman in Philippines or a migrant construction worker in Dubai.

How does a fisherman in the Phillipines' work effort affect people living in the west's day-to-day life? Elon Musk's output affects millions of people. Does his work require heavy lifting - why, does it matter to the economy?

Musk didn't invent any of his company's innovations and he got the chance to start the company from his father's exploitation of people in Africa that labored very hard for almost nothing.

He's a figurehead in his own company.

At least Bill Gates cleaned up and polished DOS after he bought it (while milking Atari paychecks and not working). That's more actual engineering ability than Musk. Shucks, Gates raced the beam. Significantly more challenging than what Musk wrote.

[o.pwuaioc]

Please tell me that Elon Musk, who posts on Twitter dozens of times a day, is actually working harder than a fisherman in Philippines or a migrant construction worker in Dubai.

How does a fisherman in the Phillipines' work effort affect people living in the west's day-to-day life? Elon Musk's output affects millions of people. Does his work require heavy lifting - why, does it matter to the economy?

Musk didn't invent any of his company's innovations and he got the chance to start the company from his father's exploitation of people in Africa that labored very hard for almost nothing.

He's a figurehead.

And you really have it all here. Next thing you know Putin is praised for being "brilliant." Some people just love the taste of leather boots.

Meanwhile, if every farmer and fisherman stopped working, the world would collapse.

I also love the shifting goalposts. Con A: "People need to work harder!" Rebuttal: "These people work hard." Con B: "Yeah, but fuck those people! I love my heroes being edgelords who inherited daddy's diamond mine blood money!"

[Hoagtech]

You keep strategically avoiding race, but I know what you're picturing.

How to call someone a racist without actually doing it - while showing you yourself is the one with prejudice .

Uh huh. Because, I call people ditch diggers and throw around "lazy drug addict" dog whistles and hint at lazy "welfare queens" in my posts.

lmao. smh

I've heard all rhetoric before. I know what sorts of people say these things.

Since you brought it up I'm as surprised as emphatic was that you brought race into a political repercussions examples.

I never thought race was ever a part of it and "ditch digging" is a poverty based labor reference throughout the times and has nothing to with race such a "cotton picker".

It sucks you have to make race a part of an economy issue, because common sense and budgeting are interfered with your lack of inclusion of conservative spending matters in general. You seem to be casually pulling in our past conversations so Ill stick with a point to the OP that "failing to plan is planning to to fail" and "Tears in a bucket, Fuck it" are the my themes of status quo and the time for obstruction of revenue is NOT NOW.

[emphatic]

Musk didn't invent any of his company's innovations and he got the chance to start the company from his father's exploitation of people in Africa that labored very hard for almost nothing.

It seems (judging by what you post) you deem any successful employer as villains - so without Elon Musk to bash on, the CEO for TESLA in another dimension would be the target of your vitriol instead, no matter how they got to that position. Did Elon exploit workers or did he put his father's riches to good use for the greater good?

[o.pwuaioc]

Musk didn't invent any of his company's innovations and he got the chance to start the company from his father's exploitation of people in Africa that labored very hard for almost nothing.

It seems (judging by what you post) you deem any successful employer as villains - so without Elon Musk to bash on, the CEO for TESLA in another dimension would be the target of your vitriol instead, no matter how they got to that position. Did Elon exploit workers or did he put his father's riches to good use for the greater good?

I'll let orange speak for himself, but there is absolutely nothing in that statement that supports your strawman. Did he attack each and every CEO? No. He attacked specifically the vocal one who used old blood money to buy his way into companies and take credit for it.

Or do you think every CEO inherits their "father's exploitation of people in Africa that labored very hard for almost nothing"?

[BulletMagnet]

P.S. "Nothing would fundamentally change"

Indeed, as my previous post describes, absolutely nothing of substance has changed whatsoever in this country's relationship between the rich and the working class - let alone the rich and the "establishment" making societal decisions - since at least the 1950's, so it's obviously not even worth talking about. Boy, you certainly owned this lib.

That is to say, you've somehow managed to create even less of a response to my post than its original recipient has.

[neorichieb1971]

Think of it this way, if your western local country was cheaper to live in, wages wouldn't need to be as high and offshore workers wouldn't really need to exist. But the cost of living keeps going up and up.. That Indian, Chinese or Mexico offshore worker looks inviting to an employer all the sudden. Its not really racist to say it. You're only saying it to preserve work locally to keep your local communities thriving.

What I see with my own eyes is that money is channelling towards fewer people these days. Amazon sells everything, google is the only search engine you will ever need, most people are buying Tesla's if they want an electric vehicle. All credit card companies are US based from what I can tell. All the streaming services for video are US based. And so on it goes. Apart from the credit cards, everything else seems to have been born out of the internet. The internet, that gives you information all over the world is the crippling factor that destroys local communities in my humble opinion. Employers that are successful go where the talent is and that inevitably hurts the local economy. Every successful business is somehow tied into the internet. The internet and capitalism allow highest bidders to come from anywhere. With few rules and regulations around it, some communities will start to struggle to live where they grew up if there are no jobs, or the property market exceeds local wages.


Everyone on this forum is going be from a different walk of life. Some thriving, some struggling, some in between.

I will say this about myself. I never aimed to be successful in life. I never, and still don't aim to make lots of money. I'm strange in that I buy a lot of shit to make me happy, because in some regard owning shit instead of money makes me feel like my work has done something for me. Having a billion dollars/pounds would have me run out of things to buy. The world shouldn't force me to want to be ultra successful to be happy. I should be able to be happy with just modest things. I buy trinkets (thats what I call them, games, movies and other merchandise). Life only becomes a problem for me when what I "need" is more than I can afford. I only know 2 lives, one with a job, one without. I know which I prefer. All jobs should pay a living wage it doesn't matter what it is. No government should spend billions on military if the people its protecting are struggling like fuck. The capitalist "model" should change if its favouring only a few, thats my opinion and you're welcome to it.

If the world wants to be greener, then people need to work where they live. You can't have companies based in places where the monthly property values are 100x the wage because then everyone has to commute and thats not green. Countries should be self sufficient so that needs are not pressured by wars and government fall outs.

My son recently said "why are Americans getting forced to buy Electric vehicles?". My answer was possibly not correct. But I said that the USA is a role model for the rest of the world. If the USA does it, countries seem to follow. Density of population in the USA is low in most areas so its quite possible for a USA citizen not to understand that pollution kills. As for electric vehicles, I said in some circumstances an EV is possibly the best answer. Not everyone needs a V8 truck. I'm not in the US so I don't know if there is pressure on folk to buy EV's, but I know they have their place and people should have a choice. If 30% of people buy EV's, that might be good for the world. It should help make fuel cheaper, but thats not happening its going the other way. Maybe EV's and low fuel prices cannot co-exist and the consensus among many is that fuel needs to be high to push EVs saleability.

I fear a crunch period is coming, or is happening right now. The world wants to stay with the rules its been used to for 100 years, maybe the rules need to change. It doesn't matter if its transport, guns, healthcare or property. If you see the model isn't working, it should change. Some will not like it, but common sense isn't so "common" anymore. It seems to be more quick fixes or no change at all.

[ED-057]

P.S. "Nothing would fundamentally change"

Indeed, as my previous post describes, absolutely nothing of substance has changed whatsoever

It was Joe Biden who spoke the words "Nothing would fundamentally change" in 2019.

I'm not even going to try to guess whether
a) You didn't know the origin of the quote, and thought that it had something to do with tax rates in the '50s, leading to a bizarre nonsequitor.
b) You did know the origin of the quote, but your teleprompter malfunctioned.
c) You were making an attempt to sarcastically reframe something that you mistakenly thought I was saying.
d) all of the above

I'll note that you refrained from quoting the portion of the post which challenged you to explain the difference between the establishment that gave us winner-take-all corporate rule and the establishment that you also regularly speak in favor of.

[GaijinPunch]

The one that was sold to buy the newer one might have been though.

Oh now, you sound like that nutty pinko Thomas Piketty !!

You're right. Inheritances do cover a lot of down payments on a new mcMansion. I imagine the actual installments are still very expensive.

Just pointing out that just b/c a house is new doesn't mean it's not old money. As long as they cant get in at a normal-ish time that's really all that matters. Installments are set - and can be paid for w/ the same inheritance.

[drauch]

Glad we have another Prelude to the Apocalypse!

[BulletMagnet]

It was Joe Biden who spoke the words "Nothing would fundamentally change" in 2019.

Absent snark for the sake of snark I honestly can't figure out how this is supposed to relate to my previous post, as yes, Biden and his "moderate" cohort are openly and proudly "status quo" people and nobody (except the corporate apologists, according to whom they are somehow simultaneously ineffectual, rudderless non-entities and rabid, cunning, dangerous Socialists ) pretends otherwise or pins hope for any major societal shift on them, since the closest thing to a recommendation they could claim in this area is that their opposition is openly determined to actively shift the country backwards into outright sharecropper/indentured servant territory.

I could just as easily have responded to your post with "I Really Don't Care, Do U?" and added just as much substance to the discussion as you did.

...looking ever so slightly beyond Biden and company, however, I could, say, point out that certain members of the "uniparty" are offering, just to cite one example, concrete proposals to shore up Social Security by doing the minimally sane thing and raising the contribution cap instead of the retirement age, but other members of said uniparty - nobody in particular, of course, I mean, you can't even tell them apart - are not only refusing to offer a cogent alternative but won't even respond unless it's behind closed doors...but I suppose drawing attention to that sort of thing would be dreadfully rude of me, wouldn't it?

I'll note that you refrained from quoting the portion of the post which challenged you to explain the difference between the establishment that gave us winner-take-all corporate rule and the establishment that you also regularly speak in favor of.

Christ on a crutch, dude.

If I may be blunt, nobody is that fucking thick, and you do yourself no favors, especially within discussions of matters of import, by pretending you are (not to mention inevitably debasing yourself even further in the aftermath by pissing and moaning about how all the biased people won't take you seriously and don't respect you ). Well here it is again, in boldface this time:

Indeed, as my previous post describes, absolutely nothing of substance has changed whatsoever in this country's relationship between the rich and the working class - let alone the rich and the "establishment" making societal decisions - since at least the 1950's, so it's obviously not even worth talking about.

Against my better judgement, let me just ask you this: if a major factor, if not the deciding factor, in terms of the balance of power between owners and workers, then versus now, isn't that the "establishment" back then was infinitely more willing than today to impose and enforce strict limits on the management class, placing a hard ceiling on, to borrow your words, "how much they could get away with", then what is it?

[ED-057]

Let me just ask you this: if a major factor, if not the deciding factor, in terms of the balance of power between owners and workers, then versus now, isn't that the "establishment" back then was infinitely more willing than today to impose and enforce strict limits on the management class, placing a hard ceiling on, to borrow your words, "how much they could get away with", then what is it?

It is a major factor. Wasn't that your point? I thought it was your point. And I agreed with it. I said to myself "BulletMagnet has identified the establishment as being at fault!" Right?

The establishment is failing to serve the people. What should be done about it?

My plan, modest though it is, is to stop giving them my money, stop voting for them, and stop believing their lies. What is your plan?

[BulletMagnet]

What is your plan?

Another thing I already very explicitly mentioned: we already, to a significant extent, know what an establishment that does serve the people looks like, because to a significant extent we used to have one, which is why I facepalmed so forcefully when you sniffed that I "failed to explain the difference" between "that" establishment and "this" one.

When efforts to move things back into that direction crop up - and, as exemplified by my aforementioned example of fully funding Social Security without raising the retirement age, such efforts do exist, no matter how much of a personal thrill it is to declare every last iota of the murkily-defined "establishment" as completely beyond saving - latch onto them, imperfect as they inevitably are, demand more, and be very, very skeptical of those who insist "it'll never work!" because it already has.

[orange808]

It floors me. Everyone still asks how America would afford universal health care.

"Butz, howz willz we'z payz forz it?"
(The ultimate "look everyone: I'm a boomer!" response.)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236 ... y-country/

We already spend more than everyone else with worse outcomes and significantly less coverage. We would save money. In fact, I probably couldn't get Congress to approve current spending levels.

It's so unbelievably obvious, you'd have to be downright stupid to not see it. The United States has fallen so far behind on health care efficiency, it's not even up for debate, anymore.

Look out! Here come the Reagan Youth! The shameless Timmy McVeigh-type gun-humping morons are sure to shout, "Government waste!"

Well, the outcomes are better abroad for less money... Now, I didn't attend a religious school or grow up in Texas, but the current American "health care system" certainty checks the boxes for "waste", as I understand it. But, maybe that's just my fancy college degree talking. Although, it seems that Reagan lovers have no problem understanding graphs when it's their stock portfolio.

Here's a plan: take care of the obvious shit first.

[Sima Tuna]

The health care system is broken and will never be fixed because certain groups are making too much money shafting sick people.

[Hoagtech]

It floors me. Everyone still asks how America would afford universal health care.

"Butz, howz willz we'z payz forz it?"
(The ultimate "look everyone: I'm a boomer!" response.)

https://www.statista.com/statistics/236 ... y-country/

We already spend more than everyone else with worse outcomes and significantly less coverage. We would save money. In fact, I probably couldn't get Congress to approve current spending levels.

It's so unbelievably obvious, you'd have to be downright stupid to not see it. The United States has fallen so far behind on health care efficiency, it's not even up for debate, anymore.

Look out! Here come the Reagan Youth! The shameless Timmy McVeigh-type gun-humping morons are sure to shout, "Government waste!"

Well, the outcomes are better abroad for less money... Now, I didn't attend a religious school or grow up in Texas, but the current American "health care system" certainty checks the boxes for "waste", as I understand it. But, maybe that's just my fancy college degree talking. Although, it seems that Reagan lovers have no problem understanding graphs when it's their stock portfolio.

Here's a plan: take care of the obvious shit first.

Your totally right. It’s RACIST to think that universal healthcare tax shouldn’t be implemented immediately. Ditch Diggers need healthcare too!

[ED-057]

What is your plan?

Another thing I already very explicitly mentioned: we already, to a significant extent, know what an establishment that does serve the people looks like, because to a significant extent we used to have one, which is why I facepalmed so forcefully when you sniffed that I "failed to explain the difference" between "that" establishment and "this" one.

Yes, there are clear policy differences between the 'old' establishment and the current one. That's not what I meant for you to compare, but let's move on.

When efforts to move things back into that direction crop up - and, as exemplified by my aforementioned example of fully funding Social Security without raising the retirement age, such efforts do exist, no matter how much of a personal thrill it is to declare every last iota of the murkily-defined "establishment" as completely beyond saving - latch onto them, imperfect as they inevitably are, demand more, and be very, very skeptical of those who insist "it'll never work!" because it already has.

How many of those efforts will turn into results? It's a valid question.

I've seen way too many articles, interviews, documentaries, and books pertaining to the corruption of the ruling class to expect much from them. IMO, they'll consider changing course when problems get big enough to affect them, no sooner.

[BulletMagnet]

Ditch Diggers need healthcare too!

They...literally do. Like everyone else. Why do you seemingly think they shouldn't have it, especially considering how much more it ends up costing the rest of us in rate hikes when people who can't afford to see a doctor inevitably end up being forced into the emergency room?

That's not what I meant for you to compare, but let's move on.

I would honestly appreciate some clarity on this; if what the "establishment" (again, the precise portion of the absolutely massive, fluid entity that could be referred to by that name has never been stated outright) actually does somehow isn't supposed to be the focus here, what is?

How many of those efforts will turn into results? It's a valid question.

It is, but again, the thing to keep in mind is that, albeit imperfectly, a lot of things used to work a lot better than they do now. Meaningful, impactful progress didn't fail to happen; it was highly successful, but was then deliberately undone. Moreover, to dovetail from others' posts to that effect, other countries who have attempted to solve "impossible" problems in ways that many of us have resisted on cultural (not economic) grounds have also made enormous progress in those areas.

Perhaps most importantly, the people, "establishment" or otherwise, who throw up their hands and say "it'll never happen" - frequently, they infer, because they will refuse to actually line up behind it, if not openly sabotage it - are, none too surprisingly, the direct successors of those who dismantled, and continue to dismantle, the systems that helped to maintain some semblance of balance between owners and workers. If you really believe in effecting change by denying "them" your money, votes, and trust, this group is the first one you need to, at the very least, start viewing with infinitely more skepticism (especially when, as noted earlier, they refuse to so much as discuss their policy goals out in the open). You want "the problem" to get big enough that it directly affects them? Support alternatives where they clearly exist instead of lazily lumping "the establishment" into a single indistinct mass, and make it.

[Obiwanshinobi]

I'm doing relatively fine, although that's a combination of my pretty humble demands of life with my fairly good health (considering my age and not so healthy living habits). On the balance, I am something of an ascetic. I am not in debt and I've had much more luck than consideration in my life. Many folks wish me good luck and it seems to spare me serious worries so far.
On the other hand, there's no way I'm starting family where I live right now, and since I'm already of age when it won't get any easier to start one any more, I feel this is the time to make real decision whether to get serious about it, or not. There's been someone I can see getting busy to it with me lately, but one can't be really sure about such things with the ladies, until it gets done.
Let's just say if these days turn out to be the happiest days in my life, it won't be that bad after all.

[BIL]

Glad we have another Prelude to the Apocalypse!

Prelude to the Apocalypse 2: Preamble II Tha Prelude - BURGER Ist KRIEG

TWO times the AIDS?! Now it is... AIDS IN 3D

And all while ECCO VS WHITTY languishes in the shame of my double-post bump! 3; Which I should really append with a third post, apologising for the double post, as is tradition. But I've already maxed out my (very generous) Shumps Farm Big n Hard Long Member shitpost allowance for this morning. Can someone else contribute to EvW please? No pressure. I will most certainly continue the thread this evening, once my white-hot member has cooled off sufficiently to beat on the keyboard once more. Don't want to burn me fookin house down m8 3;

[GaijinPunch]

Well, the outcomes are better abroad for less money...

One thing that would help w/o the congressional fist fucking that the Universal Health Care debate causes would be some first, some transparency on the fucking cost of anything (below), and two, the government having some type of say in what's gauging. I got an MRI in Japan in 2010 or so. It was $60 with insurance and the doctor just set up the appointment willy nilly. If you want to pay out of pocket it's somewhere between $300-$500 -- for the same machine in the US that can cost thousands with very expensive insurance. The mind boggles.

I have a high deductible account so I can take advantage of an HSA, so I do pay more out of pocket than most but with a tax benefit. I got orthopedic inserts for my flat AF feet. Went to order them and everything which entails measuring, talking to a doctor for a bit, etc. Copay was $125 for an in-network doctor. Okay, livable. Went to pick them up 6 weeks later. The assistant shaved a bit off the toes so they'd fit in my shoes. Total time 10 minutes. Copay $125. WTF.

My advise to any American is get a second passport or a visa and retire abroad b/c there's no way this problem is gonna be fixed in the lifetime of anyone reading this, and frequency of doctor visits only go up w/ age.