I keep hearing about all this republican information getting debunked but I can't seem to find where. Sure, there were a few people claiming the sky was falling for them who lied for attention but I have never seen anything that has disproved or debunked what the GP is stating.

I myself am in a similar situation to the GP. I had a catastrophic plan with a HSA maxed out. I rarely spent more than $1000 a year in medical expenses and the catastrophic plan only had a $2000 deductible. Now the cheapest plan I can find that meets the ACA criteria costs me 200% more a week/month and has a deductible higher then I have spent on medical costs in the last 6 years combined ($4500).

I would love to see you debunk that as it would mean I would save money or be at the same expense as before. So go ahead and do it. While you are at it, post a link to all this debunking.

Profitable is the correct term. If a risk pool pays too much out, it doesn't make a profit- it is unprofitable. If it breaks even, there is no profit and little motivation to participate. If it is skewed towards the young and healthy, it will be profitable. Companies do not typically stay in business when they are not making a profit or losing money. It's likely the number one reason why they discontinue products or close down.

So if anything, viable equals profitable. It seems to be one in the same, one sounds a little softer then the other but either could be used.

The problem of putting companies or people in jail is that often the tax dodging is more or less legal. Do you know what the real definition of a loop hole is, someone you didn't intend using a provision law in a way you didn't intend it to be used. But what you intended isn't the law so a lot if not all of the tax dodging is within the law- hence the problem with jailing someone.

Now sometimes you can get judges to read into something and cause the loophole to be closed by judicial decree (more or less), but that is often seen as an after the fact law and typically wouldn't be criminally prosecuted (no jail time)- even if back taxes and penalties could be taken.

I tell people all the time they are idiots for using face book and twitter. Especially when they tweet they are getting coffee or some stupid shit like that. Let's go on face book and brag about the big settlement of my dad's lawsuit just to get it revoked with no recourse. A bagillion likes I guess. But I doubt any push of reality was anywhere close to equal to the advertising for the services.

It doesn't really matter if the sign ups are people who otherwise lost insurance from some other means- even if it is due to obamacare. The number of people signed up or enrolled in the exchanges were never about the number of people uninsured who are now insured.

The point of needing a number of people was in order to make the exchange profitable for the insurance companies so the government wouldn't need to bail them out (which is built into the law if for some reason the insurance market place becomes a loss to the insurance companies for participating). If the participation pool wasn't large enough to absorb the costs of the sick we knew would use it, then the policies offered are unsustainable. So even if the pool ends up being 2 people who didn't have insurance plus 7 million who lost their coverage, it would still be a success as it would be self sustainable.

The government could pass a law saying that everyone making under $100k a year had to use the exchanges and the number would still not matter as long as the pool of insured is large enough. That is why the number of enrolled verses the number who purchased insurance is so important. It's like slashdot that has user id numbers in the millions but less the 20,000 comments by probably 10,000 people a day (I pulled that off my ass considering that most stories get less than 500 comments and believe it to be high). So a lot of people created accounts but don't actually participate often outside of viewing maybe. Or maybe a twitter analogy might be better, 10,000 followers means exactly what when they don't run out and purchase whatever you are promoting or vote the way you would like them to. There was something about paid followers a while back where companies employed drones and clone accounts in order to up their numbers. And yet they don't purchase or vote (that we know of). So right now, all we know is that people made accounts. We don't know how many purchased a product that would make the exchanges sustainable. Well, someone might know, but they will not tell us who ultimately flips the bill with taxation.

More likely than not, it is because no matter how nasty and illegal you want to think hiding those assets off shore in havens might be, there is a possibility that it is done legally even if not ethically.

Look at it this way, several years ago, I purchased a rehab home. I moved into it, rented the old home out which made it my primary residence. I then used a grant through the utility company paid for by the state in order to remove the old plaster and lath, install modern insulation, seal the walls and drywall them. I had to pay for the ceilings but the rest came from the state through the utility company. But I also replaced the single pain windows with a tax program the state had so the difference in the trim actually allowed the purchase of the drywall on the ceilings. So essentially, I gutted and insulated the entire home, upgraded the windows for free if you accept spending money I would have already paid in taxes as not being a new expense.

  I then replaced the aging roof shingles (slate) with Owens Corning 25 year shingles under another program for energy efficiency by the feds granted to the state. Because I went from slate to asphalt shingles, I had to install a venting system and all which ended costing me about $3000 but everything else was covered by the program. But there is more, I bought new appliances too with another energy grant through the utility company which was through the state so I ended up only paying 40% of the cost of those.

Basically, by the time it was all said and done, I spend about 5 years of my taxes on an investment home instead of paying the state and federal governments and got a bunch of free (think refunds) money on top of what I would have paid in. It was all legal as long as I lived in the house another 5 years. I sold it off at the height of the real estate bubble and made a killing. This was a tax shelter much the same way as those off shore havens work. It's all legal even though you think they shouldn't be.

The tax code is so complex that even IRS officials cannot follow it enough to stay out of trouble with their own taxes. What is obvious isn't always illegal and what is illegal may only be illegal in certain situations. And what is obviously illegal can be perfectly legal if your accountant structures something specifically with the intent of making it legal. Then again, people have been wrong before and get busted for thinking their illegal thing was legal but it turned out to be illegal. If that confused you a bit, it was supposed to just like the tax code.

The thing about it is, and lets simplify this as you being the one in court, if the court orders you to turn something over, you cannot say it's in another country and be done with it. You can say you sold it, disposed of it, or otherwise no longer have access or control over it, but if you still maintain control over it, you will be held accountable for either turning it over or failing to.

Now this might work differently if you are a third party from another country and I'm in court because I know you. This essentially would be the case if you paid me to do your email on servers inside your country. I would still be held accountable for failing to turn it over and might be able to make the case that I don't have legal access to it depending on you and the other country's laws. But I cannot hide something in another country and expect not to be subject to any court's orders on it when I remain in their jurisdiction- which seems to be the case here.

It's been that way a lot longer than 20 years. The difference now is that instead of buying large yachts and other luxury items as business expenses that can be depreciated then resold as a capital gain later, other countries have lowered their tax rates so moving the funds around makes more sense.

But if you really want to blame a president, you can blame Clinton because all of this off shoring wasn't prevalent until he became president and enacted policies that globalized companies in the way we see them today. You can say it was in the works before he was president, but he enacted NAFTA and several other free trade agreements that made this possible and likely.

People like red hair, some like blue eyes, some like tall partners and some like skinny partners. There are simply too many factors outside of race including access to meeting people for it to be about race or any hangups on race.

I would even say cultural differences play a role that limit this and that is ancillary to race. There are absolutely no indications of any racial problems by people making free choices that may not even come close to race being part off.

Lol . So someone who is married to the same race is a bigot?

Thats hillarious. But just in case you didn't mean all non interracial marriages were bigoted, why are some and not others. You will find why its funny.

Those are all perfectly legitimate points that have never affected me in any way (iPad Mini 1st gen, 32GB, Wi-Fi). With iTunes Match, my several thousands of MP3s are available in iTunes all the time. My documents are in iCloud and I don't have to store them all locally. And the flipside to "having" to buy apps (which you don't really) is that you can buy apps because developers are actually supporting it. I mean, I know I'm drinking the kool aid and all but it sure is tasty.

You have your preferences, but they're just that: preferences. You like the fact that you can use SD cards and USB drives to expand your tablet; I like that I've never wanted to. Summary: there are no better tablets out there for me for my money.

No... how do you figure?

There simply are not enough minorities for everything to aleays reflect the racial makup of the country. This is especially true when you consider groups like families. It will spumd strange but theresre not enough black people for every neighborhood in the us to be 15 or 20 percent or whatever yhe current census counts put the black population at. This is because of families without even bothering with reasons why a person might want to live somewhere specific. I mean several years ago, i turned down a good job in another state because my grandmother needed a lot of help before she passed. My sister needs to stay in the same town as my mom because of her kids.

There are all sorts of innocent reasons that have nothing to do with race

You never used 10.4, did you?

Certain versions of 10.4 would randomly corrupt the filesystem such that files would start occupying the same chunk of disk space (crosslinked files, I think the term is?)

I saw someone get fired because of that bug (well, not really. She was fired because she was working on client files on her computer and not on the servers, which were backed up...and then the files were hosed by MacOS.)

I think it wasn't until 10.6 or so that many of the mystery problems (that cropped up and went away if you deleted+re-added something...printer, network interface, so on etc) were by and large solved.

10.7 and 10.8 are by and large rock solid. Any time someone comes to us complaining their Mac is crashing randomly, it's *always* a hardware failure. 10.9 is quite solid as well; I wish I could say the same for my late-2013 retina MBP. That and the changes to how MBP's sleep (no sleep indicator, and no way to separate "screen goes to sleep" from "computer goes to sleep", without hacking plists) pisses me off, but has yet to piss me off enough to get down to the Apple Store to have it looked at.

Wrong. Statistical analysis can point to racism but doesn't always and doesn't have to. Equal oppertunity does not mean equal outcome. There are many more mariages for instance that are not mixed race than there are that are mixed race. This doesn't mean a majority of married people are racist.

But their "JUST an OpenBSD implementation"s seem to be imminently portable to other platforms with minimal work. See OpenSSH as perhaps the shining example of this. If I were porting code to a new platform, I'd rather start with something from the OpenBSD guys than just about anyone else. That's why I donated to the project this morning.