kgambit

Was the first one due to an employer who opted to discontinue providing coverage? My costs went up as follows: increase of 15% in health care premiums (yoy) increase of 40% in annual deductible (yoy) increase in office co-pays for primary care physician increase in office co-pays for specialist referrals increase in prescription drug co-pays (non-generics) It wasn't totally bad news: No changes in dental care premiums or coverage No changes in vision care premiums of coverage (I just got the rollout in the mail yesterday but I can't say I am surprised by the increase).

The problem is they have a short deadline. Anyone not insured by February is subject to fines taxes for not enrolling - whether the system was too crap to allow them to register or not. Okay I didn't realize the deadline, that's does makes things more serious but still not insurmountable. There would have to be an extension to this deadline if the system isn't stable, that would be the only logical option Bruce, please take a look at this article and tell me what you think. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/18/what_if_obamacare_software_crashes_and_burns_120373.html I shouldn't be surprised that the government sat around until spring of 2013 to start getting the system put together, and effing wasted nearly three full years that could have spent fine-tuning the system.

QFT

That links to WSJ for me, not DB.... The article I read at DB was an opinion bit by a bloke named Nick Gillespie, who I would argue is generally biased. If I'm reading the wrong article, I apologize. You probably are. Sorry. Didn't realise they'd crosslinked. I also don't generally read the Beast. So apologies if it's too biased. The Beast article doesn't paint a rosy picture but it's clearly biased. My favorite line: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/17/the-abysmal-pathetic-obamacare-rollout.html

The stronghold is optional. If you don't think it makes sense for the character you want to play then don't accept it. Your choice.

Cats watching squirrel on back deck. And yes, those are big cats. Guy on the right topped out at 26 pounds.

Where was this one taken?

Is the barometer for successful recovery a return to the pre-bubble-burst values? Sorry for the slow reply. It took me some time to find a graph with all three Shiller indices on it. One way to define the recovery is when housing prices have regained values comensurate with historical price trends. It doesn't matter when the peak of the bubble occurs or exactly when the bubble actually starts as long as we pick a comparison point that is free of the bubble influence. Robert Shiller "defined" the start of the bubble as 1997. Fair enough. Who am I to argue with a Nobel Laureate? In fact, let's start four years before that in 1993. That should be safe, right? Shiller tracks 3 housing price indices; the CS-10 and CS-20 (which measure housing prices in the 10 and 20 largest US metro markets) and US National. Here are the values from yesterday, October 17: Shiller National - 146 Shiller 20 - 162 (called CS20) Shiller 10 - 176 (called CS10) Here's Shiller's Metro 10 and Metro 20 price indices from 2001 to July 2013: Now look at this plot (you'll have to click on the link to open it): http://www.chpcny.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Summary-CSHomePrice_History_Jan1987toJuly2013WebVersion.jpg The trend line shows how the (CS10) index would have changed if home prices had appreciated at the historically expected rate of 5% per annum starting with Jan 1993 prices. (That's also in the midst of a small pre-bubble price slump so the projection is going to come in a bit low) You're free to check my trend line projections: I used 5% annual appreciation with a starting value of ~76 on January 1, 1993 until October 1, 2013. That 5% figure was derived from an analysis of 50+ years of national housing prices. It's the appreciation rate that was used to project the price trend on that graph - I didn't pick it out of the blue. My calculated historical trend price index value was 209 (which actually apears to be a bit lower than the graph). A couple of weeks difference in timing isn't going to make a huge difference in the final value projection. My personal experience with house value appreciation over long time frames tells me that 5% is not only reasonable but that it's dead on. That's anecdotal so YMMV Back to the trend. The difference between the current value of the CS10 index (176) and the calculated historical trend projection (209) represents a 16% loss of home equity. 16% is pretty significant and until the housing market recoups that lost value, imo the recovery isn't complete. I think the comparison probably understates the lost equity for two reasons: 1) the CS10 index has historically been the highest of all the housing price indices. 2) the 5% appreciation rate is based on historical national prices trends not just the 10 large metro markets. The National price and CS10 indices were nearly identical in 1993. Over time, the national and metro indices have separated; possibly due to a reduction of available land in metro areas for housing development which would tend to apply additional upward pressure on housing prices. Since the starting values are nearly identical, the national price projection would be identical if we use the 5% national appreciation rate. If you use that rate for a projected current national price, and then compare to Shiller's National price index (146) the equity loss is actually closer to 30%. In any case, the two calculations provide upper and lower bounds on how much housing prices are still devalued. It's also certainly possible that the housing market is still undergoing a correction to a over-compensated deflation of the original bubble. Something akin to a damped pendulum. The most recent price trends show short term increase in values. so maybe the over compensation is working itself out. Either way, housing prices are still suppressed. On the flip side, housing starts are still down. As I said, the economic news wasn't entirely bad.

Chicken with spinach, mushrooms, fontina cheese and bacon with green peas and yellow rice. My wife said, "Just consider the chicken as a delivery system for the bacon".

I'm not sure whether that's even possible with the group seeds and all that. It's not - if the current FIFA rankings are used.

No problem Bruce, we're good.

No. Computer speakers (at least if we are talking about the little pair sets) probably won't cut it for stereo sound delivery. Given that you don't want to go with a 5.1+ surround system, I would recommend a separate amp and a 2.0 or 2.1 system and use a pair of floor standing speakers instead of the little computer pairs. Without knowing your budget, I would set the KEF Q500s (yes they are obscenely priced) as my high end and work my way down: http://www.accessories4less.com/index.php?page=item&id=KEFQ500BLK&gclid=CL_f2qW1nroCFYuk4AodOXAA1Q KEF and Tannoy are the top of the line and you'll pay thru the nose unless you find a clearance sale. Then Polk and Infinity, The Polk Audio TSi300s run about 350$ a pair. What's your budget like? I'm in the midst of doing a home theater upgrade and just started looking at speakers. Let me know what you find. Anybody that has any other speaker recommendations please chime in. My needs are bit different than Enoch's. I'm looking to go with at least a 5.1 surround and possibly a 7.2. I've got the TV and Blu-ray all picked out, several options for the AVR; just trying to decide on the speakers.

Just for grins, I did a quick housing search for that general area. A house comparable to ours (4 bedroom, 3100 sq ft) would be at least 2.5 times more expensive in Ca. Crazy is an understatement.

Holy Smoke Walsie Gratz !!! What professional accreditation are we talking about? Nude leapfrog. You have an intern program?

Sorry about the condo situation. That sucks. I agree that the housing market was out of control and the 2008 bubble prices were grossly overvalued. You must be kidding. A week? Actual construction times for a wood and timber frame house in the US can run around 2 to 5 months. It varies a lot by area, contractor, and whether the house is custom or spec. You might be able to cut the construction time substantially by using pre-fab materials and offsite construction as in Europe. I know very few people who are capable of designing their own house let alone building one. I don't know about the relative building or material costs in Europe but for the US the price breakdown is typically 40% materials, 40% labor and 20% profit (the profit figure is substantially lower for major home building firms like Schumacher). There are also land costs that need to be included and as Wals pointed out those can seriously inflate prices. My wife and I have done some overseas house hunting and we've been amazed at the prices per square foot (or sq meters if you prefer) for European homes. They seem a lot higher than comparable US houses. sorry for the double post guys.

Sorry Kgambit but I have to disagree with you if you don't think that the US economy isn't recovering. I watched numerous interviews with authoritative financial experts this week like Howard Lutnick, CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald and Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs and they all had the message. The USA is seeing an economic recovery albeit slow. They made several points that include Strong GDP Unemployment that is understandable and manageable. This still needs to be address Companies are profitable and have positive liquidity Of course you can find fault but compared to most countries around the world the data isn't bad. The did mention this political fighting over the debt ceiling hasn't helped the economy as markets and investors don't like uncertainty but you should blame the conservative Republicans for that I don't want to offend you (because you know I like you ) but it seems that this view from you and others that the USA economy isn't doing well is based more around the fact that to admit you are seeing a recovery is to admit Obama has done some things right. And the general consensus from Republicans is that Obama is the worst president ever and his policies and presidency are tantamount to economic suicide so you can't accept that maybe, just maybe his presidency is responsible for the economic recovery the USA needs? Bruce, you aren't offending me, but please reread what I wrote. I did not say the economy was not recovering; I said the recovery was slow and sluggish which is exactly what your financial CEOs are saying. Just to remind you, here's exactly what I said: That last comment was in reference to the folks in this thread posting rosey pictures of the recovery. Maybe those comments come across as overly negative but they are not inaccurate. I actually agree with all the GS points: the strong GDP (although I think the growth rate is slower than it could/should be), unemployment is down (but still too high and the actual unemployment rate is higher than people think) and corporate profits are up And I maintain that the signs of an extremely sluggish (albeit improving) housing market and stagnation in job growth (as evidenced by stubborn unemployment numbers) are signs that the recovery is not as strong or as widespread as some folks claim it is. Yes, things are better but they still aren't as good as they could be or need to be. I think we're arguing a matter of degree here. There is no disputing the fact that the economy is improving, but there is also no disputing the fact that this is the slowest economic recovery since WW2. That is just a fact. My comments are not because I don't like Obama (although it is true that I don't like him and that should be no secret to anyone). It's because the recovery and economy are simply not as strong as they need to be. Obama and a horde of poop flinging congressional monkeys are both responsible for slow improvement. Obama doesn't get a free pass because someone else created the mess. Period. (And I think I've made my dislike of our current government more than clear.) Maybe I'm being unrealistic in my expectations, but history would seem to be on my side in what a strong recovery should look like. This isn't it.

And that's exactly what the DJIA and the housing market sales charts looked like just before the 2008 bubble burst. So much for that type of simplistic analysis. We're just going to have to disagree Hurl. I am going to trust the actual economists as opposed to some anecdotal comments about trafiic patterns (in a state with notoriously long commutes) or increased housing sales (which may be due to still suppressed prices). Maybe California is different but nationally the picture isn't that rosy. Yep, the latest trend is up but the prices are horrendously suppressed to previous values. Okay the trends are up but look how suppressed the sales figures are - especially for new home sales. Edit: Nope. It isn't happening in California either. New housing starts substantially below historical trends Housing prices are recovering but still suppressed relative to 2004

The corporate profits are real, and they do drive the DJIA. What it doesn't represent is the entire US economy - just the corporate sector which has captured most of the economic gains while holding salaries (and benefits) down and deferring expansion. Without new industry or corporate expansion, US job growth is stagnant. A significant portion of the DJIA increase is being fueled by improvement in the Global economy: the rapid growth rate of markets in China and India help fuel the DJIA but don't do much for enlarging the domestic job market. The GDP growth rate (and housing bubble) that fueled the pre-2008 stock market rise was significantly higher than it is now and look what happened in 2008. I'm not saying that we're looking at another bubble. But I do think the economic growth is far poorer and slower than some people think it is. We're still looking at shortages in manufacturing jobs and those are going to be tough to replace.

^This. That game 2 victory was huge for Boston. Having to win 2 with Sanchez, Scherzer and Verlander in line isn't a huge task. It's also not a sure thing to win 2 either.

Let me fix that for you: The economy is not recovering quite well and it's happening because of a ridiculous government. You're kidding yourself if you think this is full blown recovery. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/the-output-gap/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2013/09/27/bubblecovery-why-our-economic-recovery-is-actually-an-illusion/ http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577311470997904292 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/business/economy/corporate-profits-soar-as-worker-income-limps.html?pagewanted=all I agree.

Pacific Rim. (rental - based on some of the comments here I wasn't buying it and sure wasn't paying full theatre ticket prices for it) Above average. All I was expecting was some big freaking mech warriors against oversized monsters with decent effects and decent action. And that's exactly what I got. Liked the Jaegars a lot more than the Kaiju.

But GD would you acknowledge that the USA economy is showing signs of recovery? Considering how bad things were? Yes, things are better, but this economic recovery is sluggish at best. This is the slowest job market recovery since WW2. Good news: Interest rates are still low Job growth is positive Unemployment rate has been consistently dropping (now at ~7.3%) US external debt per capita (50k$ per person) is only 23rd in the world behind such countries as UK, Germany, France, Australia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, http://mecometer.com/topic/external-debt-per-capita/ Housing market is heating up Bad news: Housing market may be headed to another bubble. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/business/housing-market-is-heating-up-if-not-yet-bubbling.html?_r=0 Job growth is simply treading water not actually expanding - new jobs added are barely sufficient to match population growth Job market is still 1.9 million jobs short of the high in January 2008 and 8.3 million jobs short of what the economy could support http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/august-jobs-report-unemployment-rate_n_3879325.html GDP is entirely too service industry based; manufacturing job losses have not been recovered "Real" Unemployment is 14.3%, according to Forbes columnist Dan Diamond Debt ceiling continues to increase in real terms Deficiti spending is at record highs GDP growth rate is (and has been) consistently below average at less then 2% average during Obama's term of office

Varosha, San Zhi, Wonderland, and Cinncinatti's subway system seem ripe for filmic exploitation. Varosha, Oradour-sur-Glane and the Cinci subway would be great for zombie flicks.

Purple