That makes perfect sense. It wouldn't be your employer deciding to pass on higher rates to their employees during a crappy labor market.
By the way, if your health plan didn't spend a sufficient amount of their premiums on care, they are forced to send rebates. Now, since yours is technically provided by your employer, the rebates would come to them. I'm sure they'll be willing to share, if you all yell loud enough.
My Dad's 71, a skilled mechanical engineer, and computers are something he will never understand.
A democratic society, if we are to have one, requires at least a low bandwidth connection, even at high cost. Since the postal service operates at a profit, less these ridiculous pension funding schemes, this assault on the postal service is nothing less than an attack on democracy itself.
I recall the stupidity of it when I bought the game Civilization 4. Played it a few times, then suddenly, it didn't work.
Called tech support. They asked if I had put it in a disc burner, which of course I had. I had one optical drive on that machine, that read and wrote. They put DRM on there that would toast the disk if you tried to copy it, which didn't actually work correctly. They had a lot of paying customers who had $50 coasters.
They graciously offered to send me new media if I sent them, at my expense, the bad disk.
Screw that. I torrented that bad boy.
If that makes me a pirate, then that makes them fraud artists.
There's no reason that we shouldn't have a popular vote for president. It is ridiculous that my vote cast in CA doesn't mean the same thing as someone's vote does in a "swing state" where they go from one side to the other.
I've studied economics. Everyone always makes perfectly rational decisions.
No one ever did something they regretted due to a simple mistake. Especially when young and in perhaps some cases suffering from mental health issues. The very definition of irrationality.
I get what you're saying. These people are just looking for a signal, and the pricing of not quite enough money to get enough to eat is just what they are attuned to. Especially with a crying baby. That's what every depressed 19 year old needs.
If the evaluation of incentives is even one tick of rational, then we're needlessly condemning those children to poverty and perhaps starvation. When we have plenty of food.
Wait, I care about it. And I want people to care about it.
But there needs to be a sense of reality. We can't go freaking out about anecdotal claims of fraud which in total actually result in losses that could also be found in rounding errors.
That's throwing out the good for the impossible perfect.
And while we're at it, as I'm sure you are making some assumption about my politics to the negative, let me say that I'm against the fact that even one quarter of a cent of my earnings went to pay for this: