Your friend is a victim of either misinformation or poor understanding. I've been working, and occasionally changing jobs, for over 40 years, and have never been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, and believe me -- as time passes and one ages, the list of pre-existing conditions can get pretty impressive. As long as there is no gap in coverage, pre-existing conditions are not a consideration in employer-provided health insurance plans.

You used the term "healthcare", but you seem to be talking about "health insurance", as most employers don't pay for healthcare; they pay for insurance.

It's not like it's hard to figure out the costs. Every company I have ever worked for periodically sends a letter to employees telling them all about all the hidden costs the company bears. I have a company-subsidized health insurance plan. My contribution towards the premium is about $350/month. My company's contribution is about $600/month, making the total premium around $950/month.

The "Covered California" policy offering the closest coverage to the plan I currently have, costs over $1800/month. And by the way, "closest" isn't very close; the deductible, co-insurance, and co-pay are all significantly higher. On top of that, the doctor my wife and I have been seeing for the past 12 years doesn't belong to any of the ACA marketplace plans. I discussed this with him a month ago during my annual physical, and he told me that the reimbursement rates for the ACA plans were set at 60% of Medicare rates, making it a money-losing proposition. This is one of the reasons there aren't very many doctors and hospitals participating.

I can't speak to the VA, but the Medicare efficiency numbers tossed around by government health care advocates are somewhat misleading. A lot of Medicare's administrative costs are actually borne by other agencies, such as IRS (collects the taxes that fund the program), Social Security Adminstration (collects premiums from participants), and HHS (manages accounting, auditing, and fraud issues; pays for marketing and building costs). Taking these factors into account, Medicare is at best no more efficient than the private health insurance industry on an overhead cost per patient basis.

Worker gets laid off, loses employer-provided health plan. Worker can't find full-time employement; becomes consultant to pay bills; buys health insurance. Conclusion: buying health insurance motivates worker to become consultant!

Translation: if we can remove one of the incentives for companies to provide health care plans, then more people will be forced to buy private health insurance! Yay!

Rote memorization is also an effective way to learn the rules of grammar. More people should try it.

Kinda, sorta... well, not really. The notification that the Japanese ambassador was supposed to deliver 30 minutes before the attack, but didn't deliver until after the attack had started, wasn't a declaration of war, or a warning that Hawaii was going to be attacked; it was a formal notification that negotiations were being broken off.

There is no denying that there were breakdowns in communication within US government and military that lessened the chances that we would figure out that an attack was imminent, and there were some moves by the Army (particularly the failure to disperse aircraft on the ground) that in hindsight look really boneheaded, but in the end, the Japanese successfully obscured their intentions and the attack was a complete surprise.

As usual, generalizations aren't woth a damn.

Should the Imperial Navy gave told the US Navy they were coming in 1941? Should Ike have let Adolf know it was going to be Normandy? Maybe the Brits should have told the Germans about Bletchley Park?

Sometimes obscurity is all you have to begin with. Sometimes it's all you'll ever have.

You're a little confused. The act of making classified information public does not automatically declassify that information. Because of that, it is illegal for a person with clearance to reveal that information even though it has been made public. However, it is not illegal for anyone, with or without clearance, to read information in a newspaper or other public publication, regardless of its security classification.

I have held a secret clearance for 36 years and have been polygraphed exactly zero times. But then, I work for a defense contractor, not the Federal government.

Only the employee's contribution (6.2% of wages) is capped. The employer contributes 6.2% of wages, with no maximum. But you didn't say "12.4% of wages, you said 12.4% of all income, which would include income from other sources (e.g., interest and investment). Is that what you meant? I don't have a problem with removing the cap on wages, even though it would cost me thousands of dollars every year. But I do have a problem with the idea of a payroll tax on income derived from investing money on which I've already paid the tax.

Ok, right and wrong; legal and illegal, I understand.

A bit upthread, you said, " I get why it is necessary to regulate air traffic in general, because collision is a very real threat and it really can only be prevented via compliance with standardized procedures. That doesn't apply to stuff near the earth." But it absolutely does apply to stuff near the earth. Part of the FAA's charter, and a major topic in the FARs, is preventing damage and injury to property and people on the ground. This is not something new with the advent of UAVs.

In parting, If you really think the law is immaterial, you should take another look at the subject line of this thread ;-)

Because the FAA has authority over things that fly in US airspace under human control. Look, I understand your argument, but you're trying to apply logic to a situation governed by law and not by logical argument. How YOU would regulate it is immaterial; you're not the Federal government.

By the way, the FAA has authority over things that fly in US airspace but not under human control (e.g., fully autonomous drones flying a flight plan) as well; I just didn't want to complicate the discussion. And no, a rock falling through the air does not qualify as a drone flying a flight plan, even though its path through the air is determined by the laws of physics and prevailing weather conditions.

Consider this: A person might be able to eventually get their point across by scratching in the dirt and making hooting noises. That does not make them effective communicators. Errors in grammar, syntax and spelling distract from the discussion, as evidenced by Crimson Avenger's comment and the comments in response.

For garden-variety rocks, you're correct. But a rock is not a remotely piloted aircraft, is it? If the rock is remotely piloted, it is appropriate for the FAA to deal with.

Right. Let's repeal the Motor Vehicle Code. As long as you don't hit any pedestrians or cause any wrecks, running red lights and driving drunk and tailgating and excessive speed shouldn't be a problem at all.