Leaderboard

There's one thing that I think needs to be understood in all this (and this will kind of bleed into the Force Shaping and Pilot Bonus threads)--and that is demographics. In my estimation, it has more to do with the mess the Air Force finds itself in than individual leaders' decisions. Here goes: - Leader selection: -- Our current batch of Air Force four-stars entered the Air Force between 1976-1980, and our current O-6s entered generally between 1983-1991 (pin-on somewhere around 22 years & stay as late as 30 yrs) -- Peak hiring in the last hiring boom was between 1996-2000ish -- What this means to me: Our current four-stars hit 20-year retirement eligibility, and our much of our current O-6 leadership hit bonus eligibility in the midst of the hiring boom and stayed in, while their peers were getting out in droves -- What this means to me is that Big Blue had a smaller pool of candidates from which to select future senior leaders, and it is quite possible that there was a decrease in quality as a result. Dudes that might have stayed in and made the Air Force a better place pulled chocks instead Note: I have no solid evidence of this, but choosing leaders from a smaller "gene pool" has to have a qualitative impact Looking forward: - Baby boomers are hitting age 65 in ever-increasing numbers; the peak of the Baby Boom was in 1961 (4.3 million--will hit 65 in 2026), so they'll be leaving huge holes in the workforce well into the future (for we pilots, as we know this translates into significant hiring) - At the same time Boomer retirements accelerate, those Air Force officers who were born in the worst of the Baby Bust years (lowest births in 1973, with only 3.14 million) will hit 20-year retirement eligibility (born in approx '73, commissioned in approx '95, retirement eligible in '15) - The year groups in and around the '95 year groups were ones in which Big Blue grossly underproduced pilots--and in particular produced way too few 11Ms To sum up: - In the next several years, rapidly increasing demand (most importantly pilots in our example, but they'll need experience across disciplines and industries) will be met by some of the lowest numbers of recently-retired Air Force pilots (and in particular mobility pilots) in many years - Historically high demand will meet historically low supply, which will lead the majority of those who stuck it out 20 yr retirement to walk into the readily-available airline--and other--jobs out there. Given the inevitably small (sts) number of pilots that bother to stay in past 20 yrs and thus meet their O-6 boards, how much quality control do you think Big Blue is going to have? If the bumpy ride we've had in the Air Force over the past several years is in any way due to poor quality control (driven by low numbers of folks who stayed in during the late-90s as stated above), then we're in for a really bumpy ride over the next decade and a half or so. - I guess the good news is that if you're a 15-20 year O-5 type and you've played the game reasonably well over the past several years, you'll have a historically good chance at making O-6. You won't have any competent minions (read grey beard O-4/O-5 types), since they'll find much greener pastures outside of the Air Force, you won't have any money for your organization, and you'll deal with senior leadership that for the most part has destroyed institutional morale . . . but you'll have some really cool, shiny birds on your shoulders. Good luck with that. I hope we get some combination of competent/inspirational leaders and useful bonuses to ensure that we retain what leadership talent we have. Rant off. Edited for a math error

Ha... but sometimes the salmon runs into a bear along the way. It never ends well for the salmon!

So....grandfathered. Just like the President promised.

I think you started drinking a little too early tonight...then again, you may be pretty far east of me. Children are the responsibility of their parents/guardians. If the local government decides they want to pay for the kid, then that's fine...I'm not an anarchist. But you're comparing a freak situation with routine care and food stamps? Same with the ER. Do I think the parents should be billed after all of this is done...bet your ass I do. And if they can't take care of their children, then they're negligent and should be dealt with via the courts. There's an incentive for people to have kids who can't afford them or take care of them properly...one reason the out of wedlock birthrate is pretty damn high, especially amongst the poorest. Or are you going to tell me that everything is just great? You're also forgetting that there are charities who help people in cases such as this scenario, in terms of covering bills, etc. Or am I lying and that there are no charities that help other people in times of need? If so, then I've been giving my money (voluntarily) away to fake organizations. I have no problems paying local taxes as well as having a federal tax system...like I said, I'm not an anarchist, and I believe in government, just limited, especially at the federal level. I can choose to live in a certain municipality or not...I can choose to live in a certain State...or not. When it comes to the federal government...see what I'm getting at? Oh, and we had hospitals before we had an income tax, we had roads before an income tax, we had prisons, police, firefighters, etc. Now another question for you--do you disagree that we have a wealth redistribution system in the US, especially at the federal level? If you want to voluntarily give your wealth away to certain groups, then go for it! Stop bitching and help people if you truly believe they need help. Government is pretty damn inefficient and takes money with the threat of force...in case you haven't learned.

I'm so glad I revived this thread... these have been some fantastic ideas.

I'm sure happy that I can pay for that

I get it, that's a "he's old" joke. Fuck you.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf For the TL:DR crowd the US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit reversed/remanded San Diego County's "good cause" requirement for issuing concealed carry permits. It's a pretty huge blow to anti-gun legislation in California as a whole. It will probably take a long time for this to trickle down, but the precedence has been set now. Good luck to California.

Again, I'm not sure why you think I should be paying for your coverage. That's where the "moderately affordable" comes from, BTW...people who would be paying sky-high insurance rates based on their risks get a break, and people who would be paying tiny premiums (particularly the young, healthy folks, college age kids who really don't need health insurance) instead pay bloated premiums to make up the difference. I'm curious how well this will all work out when everyone has insurance and decides they're going to get their damn money's worth. Ever try to make an appointment with a specialist on the base? That's what the entire healthcare system is about to become. Having everyone insured, especially through government-backed programs, is going to INCREASE, not DECREASE health care prices. It's much easier to bill a faceless bureaucracy with a limitless budget thousands of dollars for a box of kleenex and fresh sheets. The biggest reason health insurance costs have skyrocketed they way they have is because the people buying the service (patients) are so far separated from the people paying for it (insurance companies).

Holy shit dude, are you capable of writing out a coherent and logical thought?

Checks

translation: nope.

Jalepeno Popcorn, we're building a bar in my squadron, my SQ/CC gives a fuck, flight pay even though I fly robots, I haven't polished a boot since 2007, no more Blues Monday, and Schwartz doesn't work here any more.

So why didn't you, your family, and your community that you belong to (especially those who are liberal) take up a collection and pay for the medical bills? This is a serious question. If my brother needs help because things are out of his control and are negatively impacting his life, then my parents, and the rest of his siblings are the ones to help him out. You never commented on what I also said earlier--why didn't all those who support Obamacare take up a collection, or develop their own insurance company for high risk people to take care of the people you mention? Why do you fault a business for acting within the terms agreed upon by the both parties (the buyer and the seller)? I'm sure the insurance company was not in breach of the fine print, else, you could easily take them to court. You either are ducking this point, or you truly don't understand how the system works if you think other people are not going to be paying for these 'reduced costs' and/or 'available coverage' for your family member. I have backlash against theft...call me crazy. If a thug on the side of the road robs me at gun-point and then gives my property to some 'well deserving people', then I'm sure those said people will be helped in a good way and will definitely think the person who gave them the money. Again, you and your family, as well as whatever friends you all have, could have taken care of your family member's high medical bills...but you didn't, or at least you fail to do so now because she is 'getting help' from the government. This is all just another handout by the government funded by the taking of property from others. But I'm glad you feel good about it.

Sometimes, you just flat out can't get covered. This specific person rarely drinks alcohol, has never smoked and stays active (albeit not as active as a military member.) I'm not arguing that the ACA has it's flaws.... I don't believe that I should be paying for some fatty who smokes a pack a day and shits out 4 kids on welfare. Like most things in politics, it's the middle class that gets screwed.. those who make enough to not qualify for substantial subsidies, but get bent over backwards when it comes to premiums. However, not denying someone based on pre existing conditions, and then making it moderately affordable for them is something I am surprised is getting so much backlash. I wish the overall costs healthcare in America would come down and all this would be a moot point, but lucrative profit is what keeps the good ol' USA on the forefront of medical technology. I'm never going to be able to convince y'all that the ACA is fantastic (and I'm not saying it is,) but realize that it is helping some well deserving people in a good way.

I'm going to add some fuel to the fire but... Ever tried getting health insurance with a pre existing condition? For your car insurance reference, it's like someone hitting you with a car, your insurance dropping you, and being unable to get any other company. The ACA has a lot of issues, but it has done good for some specific loved ones.