You're the one who volunteered it on a horse racing blog.

I'm glad. I wish my dad and maternal aunt (and hell, for that matter, my grandparents, who both died at 65 from heart attacks) could have stopped, too. My aunt actually survived a heart attack at 62 and still couldn't kick the habit. She didn't survive the second one a couple of years later.

A few years ago, i was in a hospital parking lot....shaking my head at a patient. Wheeled himself out to curb, iv in tow, hacking and coughing in his wheelchair while having a smoke. Smh

In liberal parlance . . . "pro choice" . . . I do not think it means what you think it means.

Since you apparently missed this when i posted it earlier...

Hey, its a free country, you can do what you want. Hope it works out for you

It's not free to not take health insurance, biggun.

Believe me. I know what it means.:D

Since I have now been informed that this is a horse racing blog (I thought it was the political section :zz:), who do you like for the Oaks? I'm hoping Dothraki Queen gets in. I really like her. I don't have any particular choice in the race. It would be kind of nice if Rachel's daughter won since Rachel won't be having anymore foals and it looks like her colt may be having soundness issues.

I knew you did. ;)

I like Rachel's Valentina, Land Over Sea and Lewis Bay, but really feel like this race is wide open and look for one or more of the current longer shots like Go Maggie Go to hit the board. But wait, I like Cathryn Sophia and Weep No More, too... :o

Think I'm going to skip this one and just enjoy the race. I like Exaggerator (have a future bet on him), Creator, and Lani in the Derby. :)

“The joke speech is the most fun part of this, but the things I’m the most proud of were the most serious speeches, I think,” Lovett said. “Health care. Economic speeches.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkqn6wsrUfs

Ah ha ha ha ha ha!

Because lying in order to get policies in place is so funny!

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...rs-Get-Screwed

Screwed we are.

A friend who has written group health plans for 15 years is getting out, heading for the property & casualty market. He says it's unsustainable, and that it was designed as such.

of course it's unsustainable. I've said that since day one. the way it was set up, the exchanges will go into a death spiral.

New York Health Insurers Propose Big Rate Hikes for 2017

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/articl...rea?news-image

I do appreciate chutzpah... Not only do they basically write the law they then point to it as they raise their already astronomical prices. Did any one in the exec suite take a cut in compensation? :rolleyes: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Parasites.aspx

http://www.ibtimes.com/rising-costs-...panies-1938699

yeah, cry me a river.
and just the other day, I was reading about the ratio between ceo's pay and their workers. yeah, the workers pay is the problem, like trump says...:rolleyes:

http://fortune.com/2015/06/22/ceo-vs-worker-pay/

Yeah, Oprah makes waaaay too much money. What gives her the right?

Yeah totally fine with Bezos and Zuckerberg making **** tons of money but heaven forbid health care ceo's make less actually. They're a bigger threat than the previous two who control a large portion of the media.

It's the responsibility of our elected officials to read the bill. Most of the problems of the ACA is due to those morons not reading what they agreed to.

That is what plebs do at rent-a-centers.

Unacceptable and I'll be damned if the dishonest commies and other assorted circus freaks lie about it and try to lay blame on private capitalists.

This country is permanently divided. A continuous downward spiral that only proves that the Union should've let the South secede. This multicultural utopia isn't working and the stats don't lie. No matter how hard the liberals try to hide them.

I didn't know she was a health care ceo.

and why is it ok for rich folks to make tons, but let the rest of us ask for a raise, and we get told to suck it? what's the rationale for that?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...e-ceo-pay-gap/

Americans estimated that the ratio of CEO pay to unskilled worker pay is about 30-to-1, new research by scholars at the Harvard Business School and Thailand’s Chulalongkorn University reveals. In reality, the average S&P 500 company CEO earned 354 times what the average U.S. worker did in 2012, the researchers say. Americans said that ideally that gap would be 6.7-to-1.

the ratio between me and my employees is three to one. not 350 to one.


and then there's this:

This pay disparity between CEOs and working people in the U.S. has exploded in the past three decades. After hovering between 20-to-1 and 30-to-1 from the 1960s through the late 1980s, the ratio doubled to roughly 60-to-1 under President George H. W. Bush, leapt to more than 100-to-1 at the outset of President Clinton’s term, and spiked to nearly 400-to-1 at the height of the dot-com bubble at the turn of the millenium. Subsequent recessions have only made minor, temporary dents in the figure.

Oprah is a high paid CEO. They're the enemy, right? Like in the Fortune article?

who said they're the enemy?
my point is that the line of 'we can't afford to give workers a raise' is bullshit. these companies make more money than ever, but in the last 40 years or so, it's been titled drastically to giving most of the pay to the top, and nothing to the rest...and then people wonder why the economy hasn't grown as it ought.

are you comfortable with the change in the ratio? if so, why?

Not a real news site.

So, you get told to suck it if you ask for a raise, but you have employees? Who are you asking for a raise? Why do you only pay them a third of what you make?

I say we as in we workers. like my husband, my kids, etc not we as in me personally. the suck it from people like you, who defend rich getting richer, and think it's ok for everyone else to fight over what's left.

and it's not a real news site? is the info correct tho?

Too much money in too few hands brought on the last depression. These few hands are now buying legislation that will further enrich them but it is all good since ole Bezos and Zuck made billions it means you also will since this is the land of opportunity. Funny how the retired folk think this is still the 70's where a degree and hard work was all you need. The bus doesnt stop rolling once they get off it. Their perspective is outdated. Thing was back in the day you layed off workers when things were going bad and hired people when things were going good. TOday you lay people off when things are going bad and out source jobs and lay people off when things are going good and then you simply change the way unemployment numbers are calculated so it all looks rosy to those that stop at the headline.

Who should decide how much an employee is paid?

You create a false climate crisis to destroy the nation's energy industry so you can enrich the backward nomads so they can have a small chance at a global caliphate.

You over-regulate every aspect of the average Americans lives to the point they mentally and physically submit to the state. You threaten their dependence and mold them into conforming parrots where they spread the failed message of socialism to the impoverished masses.

Socialism implemented. Millions die. Everything goes back to tribalism.

The weak-chinned cucks who cried when the wild animal was taken out of its natural habitat and put in a zoo raged and whined when others tried to prevent the wild animal from migrating to their neighborhood.

Whoda thunkit? Won't shed a tear.

what, are you Socrates answering questions with questions? why are you ok with what this has become?
for the longest time, if one had a job, one could make it. not anymore. who had the power to change that? I'd wager it's the one's reaping the rewards from how things are now, with an ever tilted field. bought and paid for by the very rich, enacted by their puppets, and defended by...old dog.

:tro::tro::tro:

:tro:

You seem to operate under the assumption that it's a closed system, with a finite amount of money.

Understand that the rich will always get richer. Money begets money. But your problem is with CEOs who you believe are overpaid. So, let's get to the meat of it. Who do you believe should decide how much money an employee should be paid for his or her services?

Actually, a lot of money is now in a closed loop system, the financial world.
As for who decides the pay. I would imagine it is the same who always decided. The issue is why did the pay get skewed? How do we repair that? How did it get as it is, from where it was? I already said, above, how that is.

Oh, is this supposed to be me, and you giving it a trophy? How clever of people who have not met me to attack in such a way. The misogyny is amazing. Cannot handle a woman who won't back down, so attack her looks. What next, rape comments?
By the way, i am a size six. Not big at all. Ask bob, he met me. Or steve, or brian spencer, or chuck.

Ok, old dog. Forget all that i wrote. You wont answer any of the questions anyway. So, one question very simple question.
Should what has occurred just be left alone and accepted?

You don't know who you are...so why should you garner an iota of respect?

If I recall correctly, you told all of us years ago that you leaned conservative.

Did you have a mentally debilitating stroke? Are you a paid shill and the original shill of your account retired?

I always had my doubts about your credibility. Mainly because I've never met a true conservative from Arclintonsas.

It is what it is. What do you think should be done about it? Get the government involved to regulate salaries, stock options and other forms of compensation? It does no good to bitch about what other people are paid, but if you're going to do it what's your "solution?"

I don't worry about what others are paid (unless I'm being smarmy). I am concerned with my compensation, and act accordingly. All of this talk by Bernie and other socialists about higher taxes on the rich (making them pay "their fair share") is just the politics of envy, and I have no time for it.

Steve should just rename this forum to "It is what it is" and shut the ****ing thing down for entry.. Save us from killing each other over stuff that simply "is what it is" and all our opining can't change.

Her response is going to be an unrelated, generalized tangent/tantrum from your specific point that is going to include a perceived attack against her (victim).

She can't logically answer your question, so she's going to go on about how no one knows her or what she thinks and that it is despicable / amazing that we only have Trump and Clintion to choose from, and yada yada yada ...snooze

Seen this movie before :(

What this doesn't tell you is the ones satisfied are subsidized. The workers don't like it.

Welfare queens absolutely love it. Why wouldn't they when the working class has to actually cover their deductibles and premiums.

If people weren't in fear of their livelihoods they would be rioting in the streets over this massive wealth redistribution.

Only a buffoon would support the ACA. It is absolutely indefensible.

If a buffoon likes the ACA cause it no longer allows insurance companies to collect from you for years and then boot you out when you actually get sick than I am one BIG ****ING Buffoon! If a buffoon likes the ACA cause if you get sick and lose your job you can't be turned down then I am one big ****ing Buffoon. Of course there are things you cited that I don't like but the 2 things I cite protect me and my family and are truly insurance. I sir am a big ****ing Buffoon and have been called much worse.

You're a habitual appeaser. They "throw you a crumb and you kill 100 people for the crumb" type mentality.

You won't get it. You never will. The ACA wouldn't exist without the constantly cowed such as yourself.

Congrats. You're "guaranteed" to not lose everything. Even though Hospitals are shutting down and merging and doctors are retiring at a record pace.

F.uck it. Just as long as they "guarantee" I won't go broke. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: