Moderators: eCat, hedge, Cletus
Saint wrote:If you're making $325,000 a year, you're rich. If you choose to make bad investments or overextend yourself, that doesn't change the fact that you have substantially more income than most.
Clearly you are rich. You are in the top 1 to 3% in the country. You have all the necessities in life plus a lot of extras. How you spend it is a function of discipline. But rich, definitely. Wealthy?? Depends on whether you are making money based on your own efforts or the efforts of others, or the work of your money. If it's your own efforts, then you are limited by your ability to perform. If you are living off of the efforts of others (i.e., employees) or off of investments (your money working for you), then you are wealthy.Dr. Strangelove wrote:Here's a question for the board...if you make $325,000 in annual take-home pay, are you rich? If not, what would you have to be making to feel 'rich'?
Code: Select all
By Michael Hiltzik
January 30, 2014, 5:20 p.m.
The centerpiece of the Republican party's attack on the Affordable Care Act following President Obama's State of the Union address this week was the story of "Bette."
Bette was an otherwise unidentified Washington state resident featured in the official GOP response to the Obama speech delivered by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.). According to Rodgers, Bette had written her a letter stating that she had "hoped the president’s healthcare law would save her money – but found out instead that her premiums were going up nearly $700 a month." The lesson, according to Rodgers: "This law is not working."
Bette has now been tracked down by her hometown Spokane Spokesman-Review. She's Bette Grenier, who owns a small business with her husband. Unsurprisingly, her story is much different from the sketchy description provided by Rodgers. That description perplexed experts, including Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who couldn't understand how a state resident "would have no choice but to pay $700 per month more for a policy that meets the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements," the newspaper reported.
Grenier told the newspaper that she wrote Rodgers after her insurance company informed her that her $552-a-month catastrophic health plan would not be offered in 2014. It offered her an alternative plan complying with the ACA at $1,052 a month.
But that sounds like her insurer trying to steer her to an overpriced option. A compliant plan meeting the Affordable Care Act's coverage mandates actually is available from Washington's insurance exchange for much less -- and with a deductible far lower than the $10,000 she was paying under the old plan and broader coverage, though lacking a provision for four free doctor visits a year provided by her old plan.
Grenier said she had flatly refused to even investigate her options on the exchange. "I wouldn’t go on that Obama website at all,” she said. “We liked our old plan. It worked for us, but they can’t offer it anymore.”
Instead, she and her husband "have decided to go without coverage," the newspaper reported.
Does this make sense? Grenier deliberately decided to forgo the options available to her and her family from the Affordable Care Act, despite the knowledge that they might be more suitable for her than her old insurance or the plan being hawked by her insurer -- she says a friend of hers found a plan for a mere $129 a month.
But her plight has nothing to do with Obamacare. It's a product of her own apparently flawed decision to refuse even to look into the benefits the healthcare law might provide. And it's another sign of how threadbare the GOP criticism of the Affordable Care Act has become. If this is the best they can conjure up for what might be one of the best-watched TV appearances a back-bench Republican congresswoman gets to deliver, shouldn't they give up already?
Did Obama say that if you liked your plan, you could keep your plan?Owlman wrote:Why do they just accept what people tell them??? DO YOUR HOMEWORK!
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... z2s1BKbQUO
Another bogus Obamacare story: The GOP's 'Bette'Code: Select all
By Michael Hiltzik January 30, 2014, 5:20 p.m. The centerpiece of the Republican party's attack on the Affordable Care Act following President Obama's State of the Union address this week was the story of "Bette." Bette was an otherwise unidentified Washington state resident featured in the official GOP response to the Obama speech delivered by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.). According to Rodgers, Bette had written her a letter stating that she had "hoped the president’s healthcare law would save her money – but found out instead that her premiums were going up nearly $700 a month." The lesson, according to Rodgers: "This law is not working." Bette has now been tracked down by her hometown Spokane Spokesman-Review. She's Bette Grenier, who owns a small business with her husband. Unsurprisingly, her story is much different from the sketchy description provided by Rodgers. That description perplexed experts, including Washington State Insurance Commissioner Mike Kreidler, who couldn't understand how a state resident "would have no choice but to pay $700 per month more for a policy that meets the Affordable Care Act’s coverage requirements," the newspaper reported. Grenier told the newspaper that she wrote Rodgers after her insurance company informed her that her $552-a-month catastrophic health plan would not be offered in 2014. It offered her an alternative plan complying with the ACA at $1,052 a month. But that sounds like her insurer trying to steer her to an overpriced option. A compliant plan meeting the Affordable Care Act's coverage mandates actually is available from Washington's insurance exchange for much less -- and with a deductible far lower than the $10,000 she was paying under the old plan and broader coverage, though lacking a provision for four free doctor visits a year provided by her old plan. Grenier said she had flatly refused to even investigate her options on the exchange. "I wouldn’t go on that Obama website at all,” she said. “We liked our old plan. It worked for us, but they can’t offer it anymore.” Instead, she and her husband "have decided to go without coverage," the newspaper reported. Does this make sense? Grenier deliberately decided to forgo the options available to her and her family from the Affordable Care Act, despite the knowledge that they might be more suitable for her than her old insurance or the plan being hawked by her insurer -- she says a friend of hers found a plan for a mere $129 a month. But her plight has nothing to do with Obamacare. It's a product of her own apparently flawed decision to refuse even to look into the benefits the healthcare law might provide. And it's another sign of how threadbare the GOP criticism of the Affordable Care Act has become. If this is the best they can conjure up for what might be one of the best-watched TV appearances a back-bench Republican congresswoman gets to deliver, shouldn't they give up already?
we are doing that too. I also just got approved 8 "morale and attrition" improvement regional meetings for next year - translation - company sanctioned drunk fest 2014Bklyn wrote:Review and bonus season is upon me (or wrapping up, I should say) and I have a team of 11 that I have to give their assessment to...it's a motherfucker.
I need to add a managerial layer below me with a couple of slots just so I don't have to deal with this madness directly.
Uh No. You are doing the same thing that Rodgers did and that is the problem. The Quote from the article is right above. "According to Rodgers, Bette had written her a letter stating that she had "hoped the president’s healthcare law would save her money – but found out instead that her premiums were going up nearly $700 a month."sardis wrote:Ok, so Bette's insurance company says they no longer can offer her current $550 a month catastrophic plan because it is not ACA compliant. The closest plan to her old that is compliant would cost over $1,200. The cheapest plan the insurance can offer her is $1,053. The Washington state exchange chief says the cheapest plan Bette can get on the exchange is $100 less than that. That means the absolute cheapest Bette can buy on the exchange is $953 a month. So, instead of the claimed $700 a month increase, Bette's increase would be only $ 400 a month as long as she chooses the exchange plan over the private one.
Is this the looseness of facts that has you absolutely appalled?
not answering my question, answers my questionOwlman wrote:Did the Republican spokesperson do their due diligence or not?