hardcandy

Modern day Silicon Valley is built on somewhat of a gold rush mentality. Why do you think people move out here and put up with much of the locally curated insanity? Because they think they have a chance to strike it rich. Maybe even really, really rich. And they're right; they probably have a better chance here than anywhere else in the world. Startup equity is what keeps people plugged into this particular Matrix. I love Silicon Valley but I recognize it for what it is.

I just priced out a (non ACA) catastrophic insurance policy with roughly the same deductible as my ACA plan. It came in at $75/mo versus the low $300/mo for what I pay for my ACA plan. I assume this reflects the fact that I am being risk pooled with other non smoking healthy mid 30s males without any pre-existing conditions. By ''fraud'' I meant that I feel like I am being charged too much for too little, and those price points would support that. Of course it's happening in the context of a subsidy that society has determined it wants to create as discussed elsewhere.

The ACA provided over $2 billion in startup funds for about three dozen non-profit health care co-ops (new insurance companies) who were meant to provide competition, increased choice and lower prices for consumers. Almost all of these co-ops are now bankrupt thanks to a medley of fraud and incompetence. As noted elsewhere in the thread, Land of Lincoln in IL just publicly announced their dissolution today. What happened? Well, it turns out running an insurance company is hard, and in return for doing that hard job, the executives, even of these non-profits, want to be paid a lot of money. In many cases the Government allocated startup funds to politically-connected individuals who sucked it out of the system and into their own pockets. So no, the grass isn't always greener. You can't just slap a ''non-profit'' label on something and expect problems to be fixed. And to the extent you pay executives less money, they will work less, and in the absence of that leadership, systemic future risks start to accumulate. The selfish profit motive is still one of the core values that our society depends upon in order to function the way we expect it to. Gordon Gekko put it one way: ''Greed is Good!''. Milton Friedman another: ''Nirvana is not for this world.'' Not yet, at least.

I've been self-employed for about a decade. Prior to ACA I had catastrophic insurance with IIRC about a $10k deductible for 25% of the ACA cost. But I was a healthy, non smoking male in my mid 20s (back then) with no pre-existing conditions. If you had pre-existing conditions then it doesn't surprise me that your ACA rates were the same or lower, which illustrates what ACA really is: a subsidy (tax) helping out the (mostly) old and (mostly) chronically ill paid for by the (mostly) young and (mostly) healthy. I prefer not to think of it as red-versus-blue partisanship and instead in objective economic terms. Personally I have no problem subsidizing people who are born with chronic illnesses, or fall on hard times; I have a few cancer survivors in my immediate family and I've seen the impact it can have. But I don't think that we should be subsidizing people who have diseases borne of negligence (adult onset diabetes and other obesity related diseases) who refuse to do anything to help themselves and as a result consume extreme amounts of health care resources. It's becoming clear that for the time being at least demand far exceeds supply in the health care services market, and that means having to decide how and when to ration care. I can afford to pay inflated ACA rates and I can afford to pay for private concierge-style care in the face of a supply-demand imbalance in the market. But what about the middle class family making $50k/year who is now spending 20% of their net take home income on health care? Unfortunately there aren't many easy answers in this debate and it's especially difficult to even start the discussion given how polarized it has become.

As a self-employed developer I have an ACA plan and I can tell you first-hand it feels like a total fraud. I pay $300/month but also have a $6k deductible, which means the plan doesn't really pay for anything until I've already spent $6k out of pocket. I have no problem with a $6k or even $20k deductible because I work hard to remain healthy but then my premiums for what is essentially a catastrophic policy should be much lower (around $75/month). Fortunately I can afford the extra amount, but I can see how it would be extremely painful for a family at the median income. My MD friends tell me the economics are based on people who work diligently to improve their health subsidizing people who could care less and actively sabotage themselves (e.g. non-compliant diabetics who eat like crap and don't medicate...not even diabetics as a whole). Unless and until the conversation about personal responsibility starts it seems hopeless. Whatever Obamacare started out trying to be, it has been twisted into something else and badly needs reform.

Hasn't IQ been proven to be not just partly, but mostly genetic? Barring exposure to outright toxic environmental conditions.

Don't give up hope unless you're really quite sure there is none to be had. My freshman college roommate was the most stereotypical shy, hover-parented, second generation Indian immigrant you could imagine. He worked hard to understand social dynamics and improve himself (zxcvvcxz's posts hint at where to start). My roommate was naturally charismatic but it had been repressed by certain dynamics within his culture. I watched him work hard to develop his personality and become more charismatic. I watched him lift in the gym until he became a giant. It was extremely difficult and I doubt everyone is capable of this but from a sample size of 1 I can at least tell you that it's possible and possible in the people that others would least expect it from. By the end of four years my then best friend was the smoothest, most confident mother fucker in the room and enjoyed success in social situations that his high school self couldn't have even imagined and there's no doubt it changed and will continue to change the course of the rest of his life.

One of the happiest days of my life was when I finally migrated 100+ personal domains away from GoDaddy over to Namecheap and was able to close my GoDaddy account forever.

I think he meant a loan secured by property that the kids would otherwise expect to inherit free and clear.

There is a growing theory that the majority of working middle class retirees will reverse mortgage their homes in retirement in order to supplement their cost of living (and pay inflated nursing home, health care, and end of life costs), leaving their kids with much less than expected inheritance. This would also exacerbate the inequality gap as wealthier families would have no need to go into debt and would rather continue to accumulate assets. Watch for Wall Street and associated marketing channels to put out financial products that make it ''stupid simple'' to qualify for and execute on a reverse mortgage as the start of this trend.

Either laundered foreign money continues to flow into the country and the bubble sustains itself, or the spigot is closed and there is a correction.

The only thing the Chinese respect is constant execution. You have to out execute them every day and constantly beat them in the market, in order to achieve a position of strength from which you can structure the deals you want. Despite what some other users have posted here, there's almost 0 respect for trademark or copyright law especially if you're a foreign company.

''you dropped 150 grand on a fuckin' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library!''