I cannot get enough of people smacking each other around at The Rebel Outpost. Latest fun exchange: 24fan: Leave it to Westley (Mr. "I'll steal an old woman's pension as long as I gets paid") to recommend firing people. To get you back for calling me a dick .... Westley, people like you are cockroaches and this forum is your roach motel, where you will spend the rest of eternity. What a great service this forum performs, keeping you out of society. Elisha: Get a job in the actuarial field and be there for at least 6 months - then you can start talking smack. (24fan has been talking crap all over the place, and getting smacked down each time. I think the moderators think he's too much fun to ban. Westley gave very good advice about when it's a good idea to fire an employee. Westley has employees, so he's got experience in this field; 24fan has got bupkus when it comes to job experience.) |
Bitch fight! I love a good bitch-slapping on the actuarial boards. Here's a quote from one thread: Person A: I fail to understand what point that makes. Person B: That's because you're denser than iridium and your college education failed you. (Yes, there's more meat to it than that, mainly someone trying to point out you won't find actuarial jobs by looking at Monster.com. There aren't that many actuarial-types out there, so almost all actuarial jobs are posted through recruiters. Once you get to a certain level, they contact =you=, not vice versa. I'm not even credential yet, and I'm getting calls.) |
Originally Posted by Cheerio When you gonna let me tap that?... |
A chemical used in manufacturing office desks has been found to cause a life-threatening disease. a. For each of the following, describe whether an injured office worker would benefit more from the claim being filed under a workers' compensation policy instead of under a products liability policy:
|
On March 25, the U.S. House of Representatives voted for a fiscally irresponsible so–called Medicare “doc fix” that will add $141 billion to the deficit over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The U.S. Senate will likely vote on the bill later today, and the same lobbyists who dragged Obamacare into the end zone in 2010 are hoping for another win. This one will be even better, because it will be bipartisan. Nobody denies the way Medicare pays doctors today is flawed. Every year, Congress has to increase the scheduled amount of money because if it did not, fees would drop by about one fifth. Many doctors would stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. There are two major differences between this so-called “fix” and previous ones. The first one is real: Previous increases have been offset by cuts to other government spending, and this one is not. The second one is fiction: That this doc fix is a permanent solution to the fee problem. That fiction was debunked last week in a report published by Medicare’s Chief Actuary. First, the Chief Actuary has a significantly higher estimate of the gross cost of increasing physicians’ fees over the next 10 years than the CBO did. As shown in Table 1, the differences are trivial for the first few years, but they grow with time. Over the entire 11-year period, the Chief Actuary estimates the increase in payments will be $205 billion, $29 billion more than CBO’s estimate. ...... There is not really any good news in the Chief Actuary’s report. Yes, because H.R. 2 cuts some payments to hospitals, he estimates a $387 billion reduction in Medicare’s hospital “trust fund” liabilities. However, this is not very exciting because it amounts to less than two percent of that $20,385 billion liability, and only delays bankruptcy by one year from 2030 to 2031. Further, it is less than the $500 billion that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates H.R. 2 will add to the national debt. This so-called “doc fix” promises little reward to either physicians or taxpayers, and imposes new risks on both. This doc fix needs to be fixed, as I have proposed in a new Issue Brief. |
ESPN has suspended Britt McHenry for one week, effective immediately, after a video surfaced of the Washington D.C.-based reporter berating a woman working for a towing company. McHenry can be heard repeatedly and mercilessly attacking the employee in what appears to be security footage of the incident. Among the things said: (NSFW WARNING LANGUAGE) Spoiler: - “I’m in the news, sweetheart.” - “I will ****ing sue this place.” - “That’s why I have a degree and you don’t.” - “I wouldn’t work in a scumbag place like this.” - “Makes my skin crawl even being here.” - “Yep, that’s all you care about is just taking people’s money. With no education, no skill set, just wanted to clarify that.” - “Do you feel good about your job? - “So I can be a college dropout and do the same thing?” - “Why? Because I have a brain? And you don’t?” - “Maybe if I was missing some teeth they would hire me, huh?” - “‘Cause they [the employee’s teeth] look so stunning … ‘Cause I’m on television and you’re in a ****ing trailer, honey.” - “Lose some weight, baby girl.” In a statement published to Twitter on Thursday, McHenry apologized for her actions: In an intense and stressful moment, I allowed my emotions to get the best of me and said some insulting and regrettable things. As frustrated as I was, I should always choose to be respectful and take the high road. I am so sorry for my actions and will learn from this mistake. |
I just got a call from the owners of my 30 year term life policy. I bought it back in '99 from (Company), but this was some other company that partners with them. I had expected him to try to get me to convert it to Whole Life or something, so I told him right up front I wasn't interested. But then he crossed me up and told me he was advising me to drop the policy, since the odds were against me ever getting paid for it. I<snip>So he was spouting all sorts of statistics at me, like "there's only a 2% chance it will ever pay off" - duh!, that's why it's insurance. "Nobody would ever go to a casino if they only had a 2% chance of winning" - they play the lottery, though, don't they? "It will get too expensive and you'll eventually drop it, so might as well do it now" - 30 years of premiums will only total 8.5% of the policy value. He was jolly the whole time, and kept saying "I bet you didn't expect me to recommend this, did you?" So, what was that all about? I got the policy back before there were changes in the insurance industry regarding term life, and I think it's pretty damn cheap. Especially for someone with diabetes, high BP, and high cholesterol. I wonder if they got hold of my medical records (didn't have any of those back when I got the policy). Or if it's just a policy with too high a payout for the price? Any ideas from those in the know? |
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest called out Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Thursday after Grassley blamed Democrats for not confirming Loretta Lynch while they controlled the Senate. Earnest accused Grassley of being "duplicitous" when he said earlier this week that Democrats could have confirmed Lynch in December before they handed over control of the Senate to Republicans. Last year, Grassley had urged Democrats to wait until Republicans took control of the Senate before beginning Lynch's confirmation hearings. During the White House press briefing on Thursday, Earnest said Grassley made an "astounding display of duplicity," which he said was sad because Grassley had a reputation as "somebody who is true to his word." Earnest also suggested that perhaps Grassley, who was first elected to the House in 1974 and the Senate in 1980, had been in Washington too long. Earlier this week, Grassley said that Democrats could have confirmed Loretta Lynch in last year if they had wanted to. But back in September, Grassley urged Democrats to wait until Republicans had control of the upper chamber. “Rather than rush a nominee through the Senate in a lame-duck session, I hope the president will now take his time to nominate a qualified individual who can start fresh relationships with Congress so that we can solve the problems facing our country,” Grassley said in September. In a statement, Grassley spokesperson Beth Levine said that the White House was "rewriting history." Democrats, she said, could have confirmed Lynch last year, but instead chose to push through federal judges. "If nothing else, the White House certainly is good at rewriting history. The fact of the matter is that when Eric Holder announced his intention to step down in September, Senate Democrats had a 55 seat majority. If you believe the White House and Senate Democrats had Republicans’ best interests in mind when they delayed consideration of the Lynch nomination last fall, you hadn’t watched how Harry Reid ran the Senate," Levine said. " It was abundantly clear then – just as it is now – that Senate Democrats’ priorities didn’t include the Lynch nomination." It has been 159 days since Obama nominated Lynch to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. While the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to send Lynch's nomination to the full Senate in February, Earnest said on Thursday that she has waited longer than the last seven Attorney General nominees combined for the full body to confirm her. On Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said that he would try to force a vote on Lynch's nomination. Republicans have refused to move on Lynch's nomination until a standoff over an anti-sex trafficking bill is resolved. Democrats have refused to support the bill because it contains anti-abortion language. This story has been updated to include comment from a Grassley spokesperson. |
On Wednesday, every player will once again wear Robinson's iconic No. 42 as a way to honor the man who changed the course of baseball with grace and humility despite adversity. |
Copyright © 2010 World Class Bodybuilding
Blogger Templates by Splashy Templates
PSD design by Katrin Wegmann
