Eh who needs FEMA right now anyway
Comments
-
Too small didn't read
Why not wait for the apocalypse to happen then blame Trump for mid term votes? -
Don't forget to stock up for the weekend.
-
And watch the big game with friends
-
That's a proper emergency kit he has right there.PurpleThrobber said:
Don't forget to stock up for the weekend. -
Its the extra one in the back pocket that shows he is really dialed indflea said:
That's a proper emergency kit he has right there.PurpleThrobber said:
Don't forget to stock up for the weekend. -
Hahahahahhaha. This dude is legit as fuck.PurpleThrobber said:
Don't forget to stock up for the weekend. -
Obviously he was only doing that to get food and diapers for his children.
-
Why is enforcement of the law reprehensible?2001400ex said: -
Will be @Swaye this weekend when Florence hits. I'll have to text him game updates again.PurpleThrobber said:
Don't forget to stock up for the weekend. -
Someone needs to do a "Where are they now" segment on this true American hero.PurpleThrobber said:
Don't forget to stock up for the weekend. -
Tangential but you know what always amazes me? That hurricanes are still seen as an unforeseeable, unpredictable, act of god. Coming from California and working in construction where literally everything has to be built to earthquake standards it blew me away spending time in the gulf and Atlantic states where very few things are built to withstand hurricanes. The last major earthquake in SoCal was Northridge over 20 years ago. Hurricanes are literally fucking seasonal. I can understand why Puerto Rico construction standards are low because the place is half a step from being third world developmentally but why everything else built in the Gulf in the last 20-30yrs isn't built with the geographic risk mitigated is fucking mind-numbing.
-
Because Southerners are stupid?UW_Doog_Bot said:Tangential but you know what always amazes me? That hurricanes are still seen as an unforeseeable, unpredictable, act of god. Coming from California and working in construction where literally everything has to be built to earthquake standards it blew me away spending time in the gulf and Atlantic states where very few things are built to withstand hurricanes. The last major earthquake in SoCal was Northridge over 20 years ago. Hurricanes are literally fucking seasonal. I can understand why Puerto Rico construction standards are low because the place is half a step from being third world developmentally but why everything else built in the Gulf in the last 20-30yrs isn't built with the geographic risk mitigated is fucking mind-numbing.
-
Jesus hondo it's not the off-season anymore.
No one wants to read your horseshit articles -
Standards for new buildings are built for Category 3+ hurricanes...had the eye wall go over my house a few years back and had minimal damage. The only thing that really gets torn up are the old houses/buildings, buildings on the coast that get hit with storm surges, and buildings that get hit with the small tornadoes that pop up in hurricanes.UW_Doog_Bot said:Tangential but you know what always amazes me? That hurricanes are still seen as an unforeseeable, unpredictable, act of god. Coming from California and working in construction where literally everything has to be built to earthquake standards it blew me away spending time in the gulf and Atlantic states where very few things are built to withstand hurricanes. The last major earthquake in SoCal was Northridge over 20 years ago. Hurricanes are literally fucking seasonal. I can understand why Puerto Rico construction standards are low because the place is half a step from being third world developmentally but why everything else built in the Gulf in the last 20-30yrs isn't built with the geographic risk mitigated is fucking mind-numbing.
-
Enjoy watching HGTV's Beachfront Bargain Hunt when people buy some bungalow five feet above sea level anywhere along the Gulf or Atlantic. Oh, it's on stilts, that'll save you
Wife has engineered several beachfront properties in the area over the years. They have to be designed to take seismic loads, obviously, but also dynamic loads of hillside coming down on them from above and wave loads from hundred-year storms. They end up being million-dollar reinforced concrete bunker complexes. But they never have to be rebuilt
NYT has a pretty good array of articles on the dysfunctional federal flood insurance program -
YKW.BearsWiin said:Enjoy watching HGTV's Beachfront Bargain Hunt when people buy some bungalow five feet above sea level anywhere along the Gulf or Atlantic. Oh, it's on stilts, that'll save you
Wife has engineered several beachfront properties in the area over the years. They have to be designed to take seismic loads, obviously, but also dynamic loads of hillside coming down on them from above and wave loads from hundred-year storms. They end up being million-dollar reinforced concrete bunker complexes. But they never have to be rebuilt
NYT has a pretty good array of articles on the dysfunctional federal flood insurance program
I laffed at take Seismic loads though. -
Wow, who would have ever guessed that Federal government would create perverse incentives that cost the tax payers billions. If you can't get private insurance there is no fucking way that the Federal Government should be offering it. Thanks liberals.BearsWiin said:Enjoy watching HGTV's Beachfront Bargain Hunt when people buy some bungalow five feet above sea level anywhere along the Gulf or Atlantic. Oh, it's on stilts, that'll save you
Wife has engineered several beachfront properties in the area over the years. They have to be designed to take seismic loads, obviously, but also dynamic loads of hillside coming down on them from above and wave loads from hundred-year storms. They end up being million-dollar reinforced concrete bunker complexes. But they never have to be rebuilt
NYT has a pretty good array of articles on the dysfunctional federal flood insurance program -
I have scoured the interwebs so go ahead and flag - but there’s a hottie in the end of BeachFront Bargain Hunt promos that is totally brb, yo. Little black bikini, fedora, tight ass.BearsWiin said:Enjoy watching HGTV's Beachfront Bargain Hunt when people buy some bungalow five feet above sea level anywhere along the Gulf or Atlantic. Oh, it's on stilts, that'll save you
Wife has engineered several beachfront properties in the area over the years. They have to be designed to take seismic loads, obviously, but also dynamic loads of hillside coming down on them from above and wave loads from hundred-year storms. They end up being million-dollar reinforced concrete bunker complexes. But they never have to be rebuilt
NYT has a pretty good array of articles on the dysfunctional federal flood insurance program
Maybe Uncle Race can find a pic. -
I dunno, I think a lot of federal insurance programs have worked out okay, considering all the pros and the cons:SFGbob said:Wow, who would have ever guessed that Federal government would create perverse incentives that cost the tax payers billions. If you can't get private insurance there is no fucking way that the Federal Government should be offering it. Thanks liberals.
FDIC
Medicare
Medicaid
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
There are a lot of fair criticisms to be made of many federal insurance programs and the perverse incentives or moral hazards they might create. Of course, that's true for private insurance programs too. Economic theory has long recognized these problems in the private-insurance context. But it doesn't follow that federal (or private) insurance programs should be eliminated. -
Lol you've never seen the Katrina beer looter guy? That was like one of the original internet memesSwaye said:
Hahahahahhaha. This dude is legit as fuck.PurpleThrobber said:
Don't forget to stock up for the weekend.
Guess that DSL is hard to come by on the rez -
PurpleThrobber said:
I have scoured the interwebs so go ahead and flag - but there’s a hottie in the end of BeachFront Bargain Hunt promos that is totally brb, yo. Little black bikini, fedora, tight ass.
Maybe Uncle Race can find a pic.
The guy on the right? #IStandWithThrobber
-
We'll just have to disagree on how great Medicare and Medicaid have worked out. Both programs are financial disasters. The cost of Medicare alone in 1965 was estimated by the government to be $500 million a year. In 1965 dollars that would be a little less than $4 billion a year today. Last year we spent over $700 billion on Medicare up from $425 Billion just ten years early. Yeah, that's worked out just fucking great.Squirt said:
I dunno, I think a lot of federal insurance programs have worked out okay, considering all the pros and the cons:SFGbob said:Wow, who would have ever guessed that Federal government would create perverse incentives that cost the tax payers billions. If you can't get private insurance there is no fucking way that the Federal Government should be offering it. Thanks liberals.
FDIC
Medicare
Medicaid
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
There are a lot of fair criticisms to be made of many federal insurance programs and the perverse incentives or moral hazards they might create. Of course, that's true for private insurance programs too. Economic theory has long recognized these problems in the private-insurance context. But it doesn't follow that federal (or private) insurance programs should be eliminated.
Our biggest Federal expenditure right now is for Medicare and Medicaid. -
BearsWiin said:
Enjoy watching HGTV's Beachfront Bargain Hunt when people buy some bungalow five feet above sea level anywhere along the Gulf or Atlantic. Oh, it's on stilts, that'll save you
Wife has engineered several beachfront properties in the area over the years. They have to be designed to take seismic loads, obviously, but also dynamic loads of hillside coming down on them from above and wave loads from hundred-year storms. They end up being million-dollar reinforced concrete bunker complexes. But they never have to be rebuilt
NYT has a pretty good array of articles on the dysfunctional federal flood insurance program
But does it take victory-coitus loads?
Axing for a fren.
-
Pitchfork51 said:
Jesus hondo it's not the off-season anymore.
No one wants to read your horseshit articles
Trying to make sense of the 'off-season' qualifier.
-
Wut? Why am I not surprised you didn't fact check your own claim.SFGbob said:
We'll just have to disagree on how great Medicare and Medicaid have worked out. Both programs are financial disasters. The cost of Medicare alone in 1965 was estimated by the government to be $500 million a year. In 1965 dollars that would be a little less than $4 billion a year today. Last year we spent over $700 billion on Medicare up from $425 Billion just ten years early. Yeah, that's worked out just fucking great.Squirt said:
I dunno, I think a lot of federal insurance programs have worked out okay, considering all the pros and the cons:SFGbob said:Wow, who would have ever guessed that Federal government would create perverse incentives that cost the tax payers billions. If you can't get private insurance there is no fucking way that the Federal Government should be offering it. Thanks liberals.
FDIC
Medicare
Medicaid
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
There are a lot of fair criticisms to be made of many federal insurance programs and the perverse incentives or moral hazards they might create. Of course, that's true for private insurance programs too. Economic theory has long recognized these problems in the private-insurance context. But it doesn't follow that federal (or private) insurance programs should be eliminated.
Our biggest Federal expenditure right now is for Medicare and Medicaid.
As for DeMint’s other figure, he uses the slippery word “likewise” to suggest that his next figure is a similar comparison. But what he is actually doing is plucking a 1965 figure — $500 million a year — and suggesting that was also a prediction for 1990. The quote — that Medicare Part B would require “federal appropriations of about $500 million a year from general tax revenues” — is not from a budget document but appears to come from an obscure and relatively minor New York Times article that appeared on March 11, 1965. But it was not a 50-year estimate, like the previous statistic.
Califano also mentions the $500 million number in his article. He says that this was the price of getting the Medicare bill out of the Senate Finance Committee — to “agree to pay hospitals on a cost-plus basis, and doctors’ fees that were ‘reasonable,’ ‘customary’ and ‘prevailing’ in their communities, thereby giving physicians the power to raise their own fees.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/21/jim-demints-claims-about-medicare-cost-estimates-from-1965/ -
No problem disagreeing on Medicare and Medicaid.
My main point is that some federal insurance programs are good to have, warts and all, and your argument attacking them in general is overstated.
But let's talk about Medicare. There's reason to doubt the figure you give of $500 million for Medicare costs in 1965. But even if we assume that figure is correct, you're still making an apples-to-oranges comparison. The number of Medicare beneficiaries has grown as the population has aged, and the per-beneficiary costs have increased as life expectancy has grown (older people are more expensive). These points are discussed here (PDF). Of course, an aging population only partly explains the growth of Medicare costs. Health-care costs have increased for everyone, even when adjusting for inflation. So it doesn't seem correct to compare the costs of Medicare in 1965 with the costs of the program as it exists today.
A better way to evaluate Medicare's costs would be to compare them to those of private health-insurance plans. Here there are data reflecting favorably on Medicare. I found numbers here (PDF) showing between 1970 and 2009 that the average annual increase in spending was 8.3% for Medicare but 9.3% for private health insurance. Over the period 1985-2009, the figure was 8.5% for Medicare overall and 6.7% per individual beneficiary. Those figures decreased in 2010-17 after passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Do private health-insurance plans outperform Medicare? Medicare is expensive--no one disputes that--but I haven't seen any evidence that private health insurers do better.
-
I don't care how much people spend on their private health insurance plans. Private health insurance plans aren't going bankrupt and blowing a hole through the Federal budget.
As far as the $500 million figure, take it up with LBJ, it was the number he was using to pass that piece of shit.
https://washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/8/obamacare-wrecks-medicare-by-design-but-why/ -
See the article I posted. A better way to measure is percent of payroll. It's up some from when it was passed but not a lot.Squirt said:No problem disagreeing on Medicare and Medicaid.
My main point is that some federal insurance programs are good to have, warts and all, and your argument attacking them in general is overstated.
But let's talk about Medicare. There's reason to doubt the figure you give of $500 million for Medicare costs in 1965. But even if we assume that figure is correct, you're still making an apples-to-oranges comparison. The number of Medicare beneficiaries has grown as the population has aged, and the per-beneficiary costs have increased as life expectancy has grown (older people are more expensive). These points are discussed here (PDF). Of course, an aging population only partly explains the growth of Medicare costs. Health-care costs have increased for everyone, even when adjusting for inflation. So it doesn't seem correct to compare the costs of Medicare in 1965 with the costs of the program as it exists today.
A better way to evaluate Medicare's costs would be to compare them to those of private health-insurance plans. Here there are data reflecting favorably on Medicare. I found numbers here (PDF) showing between 1970 and 2009 that the average annual increase in spending was 8.3% for Medicare but 9.3% for private health insurance. Over the period 1985-2009, the figure was 8.5% for Medicare overall and 6.7% per individual beneficiary. Those figures decreased in 2010-17 after passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Do private health-insurance plans outperform Medicare? Medicare is expensive--no one disputes that--but I haven't seen any evidence that private health insurers do better.
Yes Medicare and Medicaid are out of control. But it's not like politicians on both sides of the aisle haven't sent that for 30 years and politicians on both sides of the aisle have done little to nothing to fix it. -
I look at the problem differently, @SFGbob. I prefer a healthcare system that provides the best health outcomes for the greatest number of people at the lowest cost, and I don't care whether private industry or a government plan gets us there.
TL; DR: This is me:
-
Shocking that your article doesn't include a link. Mine does, read it. Oh yeah, and your article has this nugget. For reals. Like life expectancy goes up linear forever.SFGbob said:I don't care how much people spend on their private health insurance plans. Private health insurance plans aren't going bankrupt and blowing a hole through the Federal budget.
As far as the $500 million figure, take it up with LBJ, it was the number he was using to pass that piece of shit.
https://washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/8/obamacare-wrecks-medicare-by-design-but-why/
Not quite. The average U.S. life expectancy in 1965, the first year of Medicare, was 70.2 years. Forty years later, in 2005, it rose to 77.4 years, an improvement of 10 percent. Compare that to the 40 years before Medicare, from 1925 to 1965, when life expectancy improved by nearly twice that - 19 percent.
