patrick.net

CL says

I guess to slice it another way, what percent of the US population pays more than 50% in taxes?

That's a different question, and since you fail to appreciate any of my comments (after you realized I haven't joined the cult of Obamneycare), and you've mischaracterized them in the past (again, after realizing that I'm not a cult member), I'll let you do your own homework rather than trying to find an answer for you. I was mainly replying to errc, whom I like, and then my SIWOTI caused me to reply to HydroHypochondriac. On a related point, outside the dot-con sector, some (maybe most) people count "income" as the difference between gross receipts and the costs of doing business, e.g. cost of goods sold, but in SFBA's dot-con world they don't always think of that, because they're burning speculators' money without earning any income but getting rich because there's a sucker born every minute. I can imagine Bernie Madoff felt himself superior, as you do, compared to the little people paying taxes and working for a living.

curious2 says

Thanks but it looks like you didn't read very carefully. Here is the OP question:

OK, for Aspergers, insinuating that an unidentified person is wrong in an anonymous forum is calling them a liar. It being a victim-less accusation is no matter. It's still an accusation. My mistake.

YesYNot says

OK, for Aspergers

Douché! :)

I don't get the aspergers reference?

errc says

I don't get the aspergers reference?

From brainbalancecenters.com, some clues:

- Intense obsession with one or two specific, narrow subjects
- Engages in one-sided, long-winded conversations
- Poor capacity for small talk
- Memorizes information and facts easily, especially related to cherished interests
- Violent outbursts, tantrums, or meltdowns
- Difficulty making friends among peers
- Poor understanding of humor
- Does not empathize or read others well; lack of a theory of mind; may see others as cardboard cutouts
- May be extremely literal or have difficulty understanding the nuances of language, despite having a good vocabulary

HydroCabron says

mell says

can be prevented or at least mitigated with lifestyle changes.

There is a long list of conditions and injuries which either cannot be eliminated by lifestyle changes, or cannot be reduced in likelihood by lifestyle choices.

Better shoes will keep you from falling down stairs. They won't prevent it from happening entirely.

People who eat every conceivable sort of diet - including all the diets I have seen here, still can get colon cancer.

Of course nobody can eliminate all the risk, but the odds are much more favorable than you quoted, the "good shoes" don't just help they skew the odds very much in favor of you not developing a chronic condition. There are two main parts contributing to health-care inflation, one is the inherent cronyism (price gouging, pill/procedure pushing often making things worse, lack of transparency, multitude of competition barriers), the other one is out lifestyle. Obesity is a national epidemic and you can increase your changes dramatically simply by losing weight and eating healthy. 90% of the patients with high blood sugar or high cholesterol/blood pressure could simply reverse it by losing weight, eliminating carbs from their diet and exercising.

mell says

Obesity is a national epidemic and you can increase your changes dramatically simply by losing weight and eating healthy. 90% of the patients with high blood sugar or high cholesterol/blood pressure could simply reverse it by losing weight, eliminating carbs from their diet and exercising.

I don't believe 90%. That seems ridiculously high. Any research to back that up? Maybe 90% of obese people. There are lots of people with normal weights running around with high blood sugar/cholesterol/blood pressure. The new standards for cholesterol are ridiculous anyway. If you are over 55 you would have to be an ultra marathoner with 0% body fat to avoid being on cholesterol lowering meds.

You missed some the the biggest factors in health care inflation, profits tacked onto every single thing and the huge cost of running insurance.

bob2356 says

You missed some the the biggest factors in health care inflation, profits tacked onto every single thing and the huge cost of running insurance.

Agreed, I included the insurance part under cronyism. Profits tacked onto every single thing yes, but with usury-style margins, and a lot of those things are unnecessary in the first place.

bob2356 says

I don't believe 90%. That seems ridiculously high. Any research to back that up? Maybe 90% of obese people. There are lots of people with normal weights running around with high blood sugar/cholesterol/blood pressure. The new standards for cholesterol are ridiculous anyway. If you are over 55 you would have to be an ultra marathoner with 0% body fat to avoid being on cholesterol lowering meds.

Agreed on cholesterol, but it doesn't cause heart disease anyways. The oxidized form does contribute, but the largest part is simply a byproduct of inflammatory processes which cause heart disease (not the cholesterol itself). Wrt the diabetes math, while there is presumably some genetic predisposition it does not cause diabetes by itself. So those who don't seem to be living an unhealthy lifestyle and are not overweight and have blood sugar issues are the ones who need to do even more, e.g. eliminate carbs from their diet, and possibly tread even lighter weight-wise. Very few viruses may play a role as well, but all in all you don't even arrive at 10% of people that MUST get diabetes due to genetic/environmental/viral factors combined regardless of their lifestyle. I have seen recoveries from relatively severe Type-2 diabetes (where the MD said medication is necessary by any means) from changing eating habits (avoiding carbs) and weight-loss alone. This is anecdotal, but the MD was proven wrong in all of those cases and ended up supporting the natural therapy. In any case there are no hard numbers as these are difficult to establish, but there aren't any on the drug-advocating side either.

People often don't count all the taxes they actually pay or that are baked into the services and products. There are employer taxes, there are fees and taxes baked into sales (and no it's not just the sales tax, sales tax comes in after). The numbers are high, and if you have no way to write a lot of it off, you are going to pay a lot too.

And it's a shame, because in CA and NY money doesn't go very far. In Indiana if you make 60,000 you live like a king, in many cities in CA with that same income you live on a verge of poverty after taxes. Because the tax system is crooked, designed to take as much as possible from the middle class. And it needs to change. Middle class can't avoid taxes by getting paid via Caiman Islands or something else like that, that's for the wealthy. Little guy does it, and you go to jail next day, government can squeeze the little guy pretty fast.

mell says

but all in all you don't even arrive at 10% of people that MUST get diabetes due to genetic/environmental/viral factors combined regardless of their lifestyle

That's not what i've read. Here is some contradictory research. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25515001 The number here is 1 in 3 or 33% who are normal bmi with diabetes. They do respond to weight loss also, the current theory is there is a fat threshold that when crossed triggers diabetes which is independent of bmi. There was a big article about this a couple years ago, but I can't find it right now.

errc says

I don't get the aspergers reference?

What hydrocabron posted fits with curious2 posts to some degree. If the shoe fits..

.bob2356 says

The number here is 1 in 3 or 33% who are normal bmi with diabetes.

The personal fat thresholds vary. Also, it is more the visceral fat (around organs) that makes a difference. That's why waste circumference (pants size) is important more so than how much you can pinch.

errc says

I don't get the aspergers reference?

They're flattering me by diagnosing me with Asperger's Syndrome, the currently most fashionable way to increase autism diagnoses. As Obamneycare cult members, they'd have me hopped up on at least four prescriptions if they could. They're so excited about the prospect that HydroHypochondriac has even taken me off Ignore for the occasion. Here are the diagnostic criteria he posted:

HydroCabron says

***

From brainbalancecenters.com, some clues:

- Intense obsession with one or two specific, narrow subjects
- Engages in one-sided, long-winded conversations
- Poor capacity for small talk
- Memorizes information and facts easily, especially related to cherished interests
- Violent outbursts, tantrums, or meltdowns
- Difficulty making friends among peers
- Poor understanding of humor
- Does not empathize or read others well; lack of a theory of mind; may see others as cardboard cutouts
- May be extremely literal or have difficulty understanding the nuances of language, despite having a good vocabulary

I'll think about these, but meanwhile I'll respond to two.

First, I do not experience "Violent outbursts, tantrums, or meltdowns." To the contrary, when people say something really obnoxious, I simply quote them, and let their own words defile them.

Last, looking at my PatNet posts and comments, I found at least five different broad subjects, plus many narrow subjects that were each the topics of only single posts. HydroHypochondriac can only remember the one he cherishes (Obamneycare), and it drives him to Ignore me. In reality, 80% of my posts and most of my comments are about other interests.

Still, I never deny being an idiot, and I am flattered by the "savant" part of my new Interwebs diagnosis. The diagnosis originated with YesYNot, who is a lying troll, and was echoed by tatupu70, who is an ordinary troll. YesYNot tried to pretend that his lies were jokes, but they weren't, and most of them were not even close to the line, as anybody who reads them can see. Even a broken clock is right twice a day though, and I will add Aspergers to my long list of topics to read more about, so thanks for that.

Regarding taxes for businesses, another way to get a high tax percentage is have a low profit margin business where sales tax is paid.

Let's say you buy $80 in goods + $6 in tax and have $100 in revenue.
Then, you are paying $6 in tax on $14 in profit (income). Then, pay normal taxes on that income.

hat hydrocabron posted fits with curious2 posts to some degree. If the shoe fits..

-------------

Oh, now it makes sense. Curious is always making valid points about how crappy ppaca is, and you democrat fan boys don't know how to defend it, nor why you'd defend Heritage Foundation's most damaging work that they've thrusted upon the populace. So you resort to calling him a retard. That's pathetic, but hey, high five one another all you'd like. It's what people like you do

Douche' !!!

P.S. Against my better judgment, I decided to reply to one more criterion of my new diagnosis, only because it presents an opportunity to remember some truly wonderful people who have made life better for many of us.

curious2 says

- Poor understanding of humor

I love George Carlin, Rodney Dangerfield, Phyllis Diller, Joan Rivers, Johnny Carson, Abbott&Costello, and many more whom PatNetters have never heard of and who should be remembered more often. I love John Candy, John Belushi, and Chris Farley, and I wish they could all have lived longer, though I understand why they couldn't. I love comedy, and believe truly that laughter is often the best medicine. That drives the Obamneycare crowd even more nuts than they were already. Have a laugh at yourself: others are going to laugh at you anyway, so be the first.

errc says

Oh, now it makes sense. Curious is always making valid points about how crappy ppaca is

We'd welcome a discussion of ACA with someone more rhetorically sophisticated than a 1960s Berkeley leftist (or the modern equivalent, an angry campus SJW) repeatedly spluttering his insider insult jargon (“Obamneycare," "Running Dog Imperialist," “PharmaTroll," "KMT Fascist"), but instead we get Lil' Aspy, and his tone-deaf nitpicking. There are some who feel superior based on past vindications of their analysis or ideology. Aspy begins with an unshakeable belief in his own superiority, which is why his flabby posts always stray from the topic into a gurgling flume of stray insults, caviling and irrelevant venom.

The difference between you and Aspy is that you're honest: You basically think that mainstream medicine is snake oil, that government dietary guidelines are garbage; you might occasionally speculate out of frustration that your adversaries are on drugs - an understandable occasional result of the frustration of Internet arguments. You treat other people as having the same rights and dignity which you possess.

Aspy, by contrast, seeks the arguments because he believes he is superior, and repeatedly states that anyone other than him is on drugs, because he can't conceive of other human beings as real.

www.youtube.com/embed/KgzQuE1pR1w

errc says

Curious is always making valid points about

He makes some good points and I've never called him stupid, but the conversation goes off the rails when he mis interprets things. He doesn't take people at their word, and doesn't get sarcasm. Appreciating George Carlin doesn't mean that you don't have sub par perception of humor and personal skills.

YesYNot says

the conversation goes off the rails when he mis interprets things. He doesn't take people at their word, and doesn't get sarcasm. Appreciating George Carlin doesn't mean that you don't have sub par perception of humor and personal skills.

Though YesYNot insists on getting the last word, and usually I let him, I will compromise this time by linking to what he said before. I don't take obvious liars at their word, because that would be stupid. I looked again at his comment that first persuaded me he's a lying troll, and I still don't get the sarcasm or humor. Whether that reflects subpar perception on my part, I will leave for others to judge. As for personal skills, I do have a very low opinion of lying, especially where it risks getting other people killed, so I have been less friendly towards YesYNot since then. He is obsessive though, and lies about having lied, so I won't be surprised if he insists on getting the last word again, even though I will link again to ensure the last words are already his.

Oh aspy, I was impressed at your restraint so far on this thread. Exercise that restraint some more, and move forward.

bob2356 says

mell says

but all in all you don't even arrive at 10% of people that MUST get diabetes due to genetic/environmental/viral factors combined regardless of their lifestyle

That's not what i've read. Here is some contradictory research. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25515001 The number here is 1 in 3 or 33% who are normal bmi with diabetes. They do respond to weight loss also, the current theory is there is a fat threshold that when crossed triggers diabetes which is independent of bmi. There was a big article about this a couple years ago, but I can't find it right now.

I am not discounting the fat threshold and it may play a bigger role than the BMI itself as you can have a relatively high BMI with all muscles and no fat. Still the majority of people with high BMI also have high fat, and in the abstract it says that the median BMI was "just" 28. 28 is freaking high unless you're a strength athlete. We have definitely evolved to a society where overweight is the new normal. My BMI is between 24-25 and likely a bit skewed as I am very tall with a muscular build, however I would like it to be lower - or - pack more muscle and less fat for the same weight. Yet I have had people telling me that I look or may look "too skinny" if I lose any (more) weight. That is crazy. Same goes for women, if you look at what was supposed to be model size and a reasonable clothing size in general and how the sizes have blown up now (aka "normalized") you know people in most western countries are overweight. In fact, there is no contradiction that those with "normal" BMI respond as well as like I mentioned those with a predisposition to develop it easier likely need to maintain even less weight / body fat than the others. And the fastest way to lose weight that is mostly compromised of fat is to go very low carb into a continuous or repeated state of mild ketosis.

YesYNot says

Also, it is more the visceral fat (around organs)

another place where BMI fails miserably. Lot of south asians have normal BMI but relatively high rates of CVD and T2DM. This is correlated with them being "skinny fat" IOW, having significant deposits of visceral fat

MMR says

BMI fails miserably.

Bmi is not a measure of fat. It is simply an easy to measure risk factor. As such, it fails at what it is not and excels at what it is.

Since Curious questions the "high functioning" part, can we just say "autistic"? Do autistic people bring every conversation, no matter how innocuous, to Obamneycare? Is that a symptom?

Could be, but I am no expert on mental disorders. Whatever it is, I am confident that we could narrow his particular flavor of illness down to the "people you avoid at parties".

CL says

Since Curious questions the "high functioning" part, can we just say "autistic"? Do autistic people bring every conversation, no matter how innocuous, to Obamneycare?

As anyone can see, 80% of my posts have nothing to do with Obamneycare. This post asked about tax liability, which cannot be understood accurately without considering the Obamneycare tax penalty. Besides, I wasn't even the first in this thread to point out the Obamneycare tax penalty. You posted questions and I answered honestly and you reply in a way that shows you are an ungrateful partisan whose priority is partisan high fiving rather than objective fact. I helped you in a prior thread too, but this time you seem to have been "triggered" by the mention of relevant facts about your cherished Obamneycare, which I hadn't mentioned in the prior thread. You should just thank me and move on.

CL says

can we just say "autistic"?

From http://www.autism.org.uk/labels

High-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome are both part of the autism spectrum. The main difference between the two is thought to be in language development: people with Asperger syndrome, typically, will not have had delayed language development when younger.

Of course we don't know if Aspy is actually on the spectrum, but if so, we would not be able to differentiate between Aspergers and autism. I'm going to use Aspy as hydro suggested so that nobody searching for Aspergers happens to stumble onto this train wreck of a conversation.

As I explained here, it's not the spectrum issues that are the problem so much as the bitterness. Combined, they produce:
CL says

Whatever it is, I am confident that we could narrow his particular flavor of illness down to the "people you avoid at parties".

so that nobody searching for Aspergers happens to stumble onto this train wreck of a conversation

--------

I just read the entire thread. And i can see why you would not want anyone to read it.

Either you guys felt dumb for getting owned, and your only comeback to the facts you don't like is to call the messenger a retard; or I'm somewhere on the spectrum myself. Possibly both

errc says

Either you guys felt dumb for getting owned, and your only comeback to the facts you don't like is to call the messenger a retard; or I'm somewhere on the spectrum myself. Possibly both

I can only speak for myself, this thread is not why I'm calling him aspy, and I agree with much of what he's written about taxes here. My reasons are based on interacting with him over the last 4 months, and it's spelled out so some degree in this comment:
http://patrick.net/?p=1286891&c=1279137#comment-1279137

But it's not just one instance. It's a pattern over many threads.

YesYNot says

But it's not just one instance. It's a pattern over many threads.

Though YesYNot insists on getting the last word, and usually I let him, I will compromise again by linking to what he said before. I looked again at his comment that first persuaded me he's a lying troll, and it contained neither sarcasm nor humor. In subsequent comments, he appeared to endorse many current Democrats' proposals to conscript young American men to kill and die on behalf of MIC sponsors in America's current military misadventures, in addition to endorsing Democrats' historic decisions to conscript young men to kill and die on behalf of patronage network sponsors in both Viet Nam and World War I (which he later changed to World War II). He claimed later to have been joking, but I will leave that for others to judge: maybe he has an incredibly horrible sense of humor and likes to joke about actually slaughtering innocent people, in addition to lying about refugees. In terms of diagnoses, he might be a pathological liar, i.e. a person who lies compulsively and out of all proportion to any discernible goal. When counting the lies of a compulsive liar, one may reasonably include some examples that might have seemed borderline if they had come from someone who doesn't lie compulsively. YesYNot is also obsessive, and insists on lying about having lied, so I won't be surprised if he insists on getting the last word again, even though I will link again to ensure the last words are already his.