TreeA10

What do Tiger Woods and baby seals have in common? Both were clubbed by Swedes.

That is all well and good but it appear that he and many others knowingly lied with the goal of re-election and selling a program. The result of that lie is causing mental stress and financial instability for millions of people. But despite this, at the present time no changes are going to be made to the program because they need customers to get a taste. Usually if someone tells a half truth, gives rosy projections, and outright lies so they can steal from people, they are running some type of Ponzi scheme, investment fraud, or other con and they are referred to as criminals.

I agree on the wealth redistribution. Obama and Reid have said in public they want single payer healthcare, i.e. full government control of healthcare. Destroying the current system of insurance and healthcare leaves the possibility of government stepping in to fix the problem. The fact government created the problem is irrelevant. So you may not be the only one hoping it fails.

I agree with Helodude. I don't think we have seen the end of the tsunami of the individual mandate but that shock wave will pale in comparison to the employer mandate. Nsplayr, so lying to 4-5% of the population is okay? What is that percentage of the population not okay? 6%? 10%? When should I worry that the president of our country is lying to us and how will I know he is only lying to a percentage of the population that we are okay with throwing under the bus?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846 Saudi Arabia saying they are ready and could buy nukes from Pakistan to counter an Iranian threat. With such a successful leading from behind policy in the Middle East, I do not understand why they would be worried.

All those motivated progressive young people that voted for "Hope and Change" need to be thanked for the generous donation of their economic future to all the old folks. Carl Schramm: How ObamaCare Rips Off the 'Young Healthies' When ObamaCare is under attack, its defenders retreat to several well-worn claims. Among them is a provision that compels insurance companies to allow parents to keep their "children" ages of 21 to 26 on their family policies. Yet this part of the Affordable Care Act was not engineered in response to any noticeable interest group. Instead, political considerations are responsible for the provision—which is an unnecessary and a deceptive ripoff of the "young healthies." The first consideration is that young adults facing chronic unemployment—thanks to government policies that have retarded economic growth—commonly return to their parents' home. Understanding that this is what the economic "new normal" looks like, the Obama administration sought to avoid a potential political storm by providing a benefit normally connected to holding a job for one of its most reliable support groups. Second, government's actuaries are well aware that this much-touted benefit basically costs nothing. Actuarial and other research suggests that the average male sees a physician six times between the ages of 21 and 35. The parental coverage provision seemed like a "freebie" for the administration's universal coverage sales pitch. Third, ObamaCare's financing won't work unless "young healthies" (or their parents) pay through the nose for coverage under parental plans or via the individual mandate. The 18-26 age group is the lowest user of care, the least costly to cover and the most profitable of all health-insurance coverage. Yet the group faces extraordinarily high ObamaCare rates. A Manhattan Institute analysis of Health and Human Services numbers notes that a 27-year-old male will pay 99% higher premiums under ObamaCare than he would under previously prevailing market rates. One reason is that the law now limits insurers to charging the sickest seniors no more than three times the amount they charge their youngest customers. Given that 64-year-olds use on average six times as much health care as 19-year-olds, the Affordable Care Act forces young people to pay considerably more than the cost of their own care. Young men and women who pay a fine instead of buying coverage are not making an irrational choice. They know how little care they need and use. They also may be beginning to understand that the high cost of their plans reflects the redistribution of their wealth to older people and a bunch of mandated services that don't make sense for them. Still, young healthies might see it in their interest to purchase a more affordable health policy that provides simple preventive care (check ups) and major medical coverage in the event of an accident or costly (and rare) episode of disease. There is such a cheaper alternative; I helped to devise it. In 1993 I was president of Fortis (now Assurant AIZ +1.50% ) Health Care, a major health-insurance company. Sam Shriver, one of our brokers, noted that students graduating from Loyola College in Baltimore (he sold these students their group health-care coverage) were without health insurance before they landed their first jobs. We devised a "transition" product to provide graduates with two years of affordable coverage. The product became very successful because it provided catastrophic coverage, including for things like motorcycle accidents, and was inexpensive. It became one of the company's most popular products and was copied by many carriers in the individual market. Health policies that cover catastrophic care may still be sold to individuals up to age 30—but buyers are likely to be subject to an annual fine for nonconforming coverage. Suppose the federal government simply provided everyone under the age of 26 with a voucher to buy simple primary care/catastrophic plans that many companies could provide tomorrow. The number of uninsured would be greatly reduced at a fraction of the cost of covering them under ObamaCare. A similar approach might have been used for those who do not qualify for Medicaid because they make too much money but not enough to purchase a plan, perhaps because of pre-existing conditions. The government could provide them with a voucher enabling them to buy a private health plan. This approach—coupled with federal legislation limiting medical malpractice claims and permitting carriers to offer more efficient multistate products—would provide health reform without the current drama of incompetency and injustice that will inevitably deny us all affordable care. Mr. Schramm is University Professor at Syracuse University. He was president of Fortis (now Assurant) Health Care.

Just had to pass it to see what was in it. The audacity of those that voted for the law that are now acting upset with the law, should be thrown out of office for general stupidity.

Woman runs over boyfriend 3 times for McDonald's Tennessee woman upset boyfriend wanted to go to a different restaurant, police say Published On: Nov 04 2013 10:30:07 AM EST Police in Tennessee say a woman ran over her boyfriend three times after he refused to go to McDonald's with her. Crystal Greer Brooks, 33, of Kingsport was apparently upset that her boyfriend wanted to eat at a different restaurant, police told the Kingsport Times-News. Officers were called to West Carters Valley Road shortly after midnight last Wednesday. They found Brooks' boyfriend with abrasions to his arms and back. His clothing "appeared torn, consistent with being dragged on the pavement," the Times-News reported. He told police Brooks forced him over to the side of the road, then got in his pickup truck and ran him over -- three times. Brooks has been charged with aggravated assault.

As a former Safety guy, I'm not sure the guys in that office are driving the boat. My guess would be higher ups that either want to do some CYA or control the data to shape the report to their liking. IIRC, the 4 star could change causal factors to just about anything before the report is sent out to the masses. The AF Safety Center could put the causal factors back where they belong but the report is filed and never sent back out afterward. Other than that, it makes no sense to not take advantage of the mistakes of others to prevent mistakes in the future.

I think Mr. Twain would also apply this to TV and internet news. “If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're mis-informed.” ― Mark Twain

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. No judgement or skills required, it makes a lot of noise and gives the impression to those you work for that you are actually doing something.

No, it matters because RETIRED generals who are not worried about maintaining their jobs are speaking up. Same reason it is a good thing to speak to young officers and enlisted guys about how things are going because they usually will speak their minds.

Runners World - offensive. Got it. According to the strict interpretation of Sharia law, men might go on a rape fest (not sure if they sing rape songs while actually committing the act but I will look into that) if they view so much as an ankle or wrist or the form of an arm or leg. Not actually viewing said arm or leg but just the form, hence the all encompassing clothing. So, Liquid, what is acceptable? Give me a definition of what I can see or what can be shown. Now, you keep saying leave this stuff at home but my understanding is that military members are in the military 24/7 and therefore subject to the UCMJ even off base, off duty, etc. So which is it? Is this material acceptable or not? I think you are trying to go down a road of policing behavior that will stir up far more hate and discontent than problem solve. Side story. Best line ever from a flight atttendant. I am riding the jumpseat of a 777 from Chicago to Dallas enjoying the conversation with a pair of Captains flying this thing when a flight attendant comes up and sits down in the other jumpseat. She is very, very attractive. Mediterranean features, great figure. She starts complaining about the status of her love life and the inability to find that special person. She says to the guy in the right seat, "Married?" Gets a yep. Looks to the guy in the left seat, "Married?" Another yep. Looks at me, "Married?" I say yes. After a heavy sigh, she says, "I'm just looking for man who likes to eat Italian...and if he's hungry, I can cook, too." Stunned silence was best description of the flight deck environment. Oddly enough, the jet did not spin violently out of control, the cockpit did not burst into flames, the crew found DFW and actually landed on the correct runway with the gear down. Going down the road towards Warrior Monk status is not going to make the military a better fighting force because not everybody wants to be a Warrior Monk. I'm not sure what world you live in but somehow you want our military members to completely disregard everything they see, hear, or read that is circulated in the public realm or at least be able to flip some type of internal switch so that this world they live in for a MAJORITY of their lives, vs the 8 hour work day, does not rear its deemed offensive head (Can I say head?). You can get the military you want but you are going to need a whole lot of crosses to crucify those that do not meet your criteria.

If you apply the technique of substitution to this, it gets far more outrageous. Instead of white, male, christian, use another ethnicity, sex, or religion. You would hear a cacophony of righteous indignation over the application of racial stereotypes, institutionally approved discrimination, and hate speech. There would be marches, Congressional investigations, and Al Sharpton on the Pentagon steps with a megaphone. The far scarier aspect of this is that the command structure approved, published, and instituted this program which tells me that the Pentagon sees no problem with this. UFB.

I was thinking exactly that. SImilar to when the CINC addressed cases of sexual harassment/assault thus putting undo command influence on legal proceedings that is immediately used by the accused as a defense. I'm all for innocent until proven guilty but I'm not for the guilty going free due to commander sponsored stupidity. Again, the AF has enough problems without idiots inventing more.

Pawnman, you have already failed, dude. Don't even leave the briefing room. I detect a noticeable lack of fabulosity in your line-up. No rainbow in your coalition, so to speak. If you can up your diversity accounting, your mission will be a successful even if your bombs only prove that gravity works because you don't hit squat or get shot down enroute. Consider a "two-fer." A gay female with transgender issues might be all that is needed to make your plan a winner. Regarding the idiot and the bikini picture. The problem is crusaders like Liquid who are driving the bus that somehow think we can isolate ourselves from our society at large. Reminds me of that movie "The Village" where people were unhappy with the way the world was going so they built a large wall and sealed themselves off from the rest of humanity. That actually might work at Cannon but the rest the AF deals with societal interactions involving commonly accepted topics, images, words on television, radio, internet, magazines, books, parties, beaches, malls, or just walking down the street that are now deemed offensive by a few inside the AF. Unfortunately, this is going to continue because there is no scale. Any offense is deemed valid. A Supreme Court justice, when writing about hard core pornography wrote, "I know it when I see it and the motion picture in this case is not it." Nobody is willing to stand up and say "This is not offense worthy, thanks for your input." Instead, we have people inventing problems (black eye or bikini picture) and getting animated over the response or lack thereof to the invented issue. No doubt the AF has real problems. Defining the problem is the first step. If your definition of the problem iincludes "Everybody else's generally accepted behavior on the planet", then I think you are going to have a real hard time fixing your problem.

Thought I heard the F-35 guys were going to be using a HANS device like used in NASCAR due to the helmet weight.

If it is AF policy to not display such items and this person intentionally displays such an item, is this person guilty of violation of AF policy? What other rules are okay to violate to see if someone calls you on it? Speeding? Altitude restrictions? Financial fraud? I don't think this is should be an acceptable technique for the evaluation of AF guidance.

This is not being taught at the Weapons school....yet. Apparently, for better mission effectiveness in the future, you can't push to the target until you have fullfilled certain quotas guaranteeing a diverse package. (Can I still say package or has that gone on the "do not say" list, also?) https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362539/pentagons-chief-personnel-and-readiness-officer-diversity-and-inclusion-critical

Who was the rocket surgeon that spent money on this test? For half the price in $1 and $20 increments, you could have gone to Vegas and completed this study. Not sure how the AF is going to remove this genetic defect out of everybody but I expect some of you guys will hear about it in the near future. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/29/body-shape-objectification-technology/3287287/

If that is what is happening in AMC, it is an absolute pile of chickenshit. Nobody ever goes out and flies a perfect ride every time. Just does not happen. If the guy could get safely to and from the target, handle an IFE, and fly an approach in order to get another jet and go out and kill more bad guys, he was good to go. Throwing down Q-3s from Mt. Olympus is an even higher level of chickenshit. UFB. Micromanagement at its worse.

Hey, here is some good news, pages of regulation regarding governing the healthcare of Americans has topped 11.5 MILLION pages. Healthcare for all will certainly be better now. https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/11588500-words-obamacare-regs-30x-long-law

No. In my years as an evaluator I've had guys commit some interesting errors like report initial at 500 feet, forget to reset an altimeter (WTF is an A-10 guy doing above FL180??), get lost and attempt to fly over KRDU, take me IFR in a pop, and a plethora of other weird stuff. Those all resulted in downgrades and were debriefed appropriately. The only Q-3 was a great dude on a Single engine approach that over finessed the approach and forgot the gear. Hard to overlook that one as a "momentary deviation but correcting" when I had to make a call to remind him on a 2 mile final.

A boomer can Q3 a pilot?

I am sure this chart explains where to find the answer. Seriously, what could possibly go wrong? https://www.jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e6dbf03-ca4a-44be-9de4-a100c43fb5c8