Back in 1984 Eddie Murphy did a skit on Saturday Night Live where he pretended to be a white person--finding out that when blacks aren't around, whites act very differently--giving each other stuff for free, partying and serving drinks on the bus and not requiring collateral or even identification to get loans at the bank. The skit is still considered one of the funniest things ever aired on SNL--and it cemented Murphy's status as one of the leading "cutting edge comedians" of his era.
Now fast forward to the Super Bowl broadcast of 2013 and the Volkswagen ad featuring a white businessman whose Beetle makes his so happy that he speaks at all times like a care-free, Jamaican Rastafarian. After a ride in his Bug, the guy's Asian co-worker and his WASP boss adopt the accent as well.
That ad is coming under attack from the liberals at the New York Times and NBC News for being "blatantly racist". "Blackface with Voices" is how a Times reporter put it. About the only phrase missing from the Today Show segment was "You know, Volkswagen used to make cars for Hilter--so they have a history of racial insensitivitiy here." It should probably be pointed out here that since NBC isn't broadcasting this year's Super Bowl, they will not be getting a single penny of the EIGHT-MILLION DOLLARS VW is paying CBS to air that aid during the game. I wonder how many Today Show segments would be dedicated to it if Al Michaels and Cris Collinsworth were calling the action on Sunday.
Anyway, for you white guys scoring along at home, it is still not okay for us to make jokes about Blacks, Asians, Jamaicans, Muslims, Women, Jews, Gays, Lesbians, Bi-Sexuals, Transgenders, Short People, The Handicapped, Jehovah's Witnesses, Blondes, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Welfare Recipients or Anyone Who Considers Attempts at Humor to be Bullying in School or the Workplace. That pretty much leaves Catholic Priests, Mormon Presidential Candidates and Republicans as acceptable targets of humor nowadays. No wonder everyone is in a bad mood--not enough humor in our society anymore.
Oh, and can someone find Dave Chappelle so we can have something "racially insensitive"--I mean "funny", since he is Black--on TV again?
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Ray Lewis Is a Bad Man (Literally)
Given the way the sports networks were slurping on Ray Lewis this post-season, reports about possible doping violations were probably not going to be part of the narrative during Super Bowl week. This was supposed to be a glorious end to a hall of fame career--with Lewis riding off into the sunset with another ring--after coming back from a torn triceps muscle injury that sidelined him for about half the regular season.
With the Ravens not being one of the top seeds in the AFC, I'm sure ESPN, CBS and Fox thought that the Ray Lewis Retirement Tour was just going to be a one or two week thing. Just show his megalomaniacal pre-game introduction dance, air his nonsensical pre-game "pep talks", rush the field to capture his kneeling at mid-field crying and babbling on the gound, and then let him ramble on in a post-game interview Wild Card Weekend and we should be done. But then the Ravens beat Indianapolis--so the whole dog and pony show was repeated for another week--with the expectation that Baltimore would certainly lose to Denver.
And it looked like that would be the case--until the Bronco's secondary suffered a collective brain cramp and blew a last-minute lead. All of a sudden, Ray Lewis was "willing his team to victory!!" And we had to put up with another week of crying, shouting, dancing and proseltyzing. Then New England choked away another win against the Ravens--and all of a sudden we could look forward to another two weeks of hearing about Ray Lewis' greatness and amazing personal transformation!
Then the "real" Ray Lewis had to show up and ruin the feel good story of the year. Personally, I didn't even know that deer antler velvet had healing properties in humans--and that it was on the NFL's banned substance list. (You have to go on the assumption that if it's on the list--someone before Ray Lewis had been using it.) Further ruining the sports media love affair is the re-emergence of the families of the two men killed by Lewis' "posse" in Atlanta during Super Bowl week in 2000, with their accusations that Lewis was never fully honest with investigators--even after murder charges against him were dismissed in a plea deal. (As Ray would tell you, "Snitches get stitches")
So now Super Bowl pre-game producers are faced with a tough decision: air all of the "We love Ray Lewis" pieces that you know they've spent the past ten days taping and editing--or try to push the "face of this Super Bowl" into the background just in case the doping allegations turn out to be true. Either way, I would hope that the lesson we all learn is not to glorify bad people.
With the Ravens not being one of the top seeds in the AFC, I'm sure ESPN, CBS and Fox thought that the Ray Lewis Retirement Tour was just going to be a one or two week thing. Just show his megalomaniacal pre-game introduction dance, air his nonsensical pre-game "pep talks", rush the field to capture his kneeling at mid-field crying and babbling on the gound, and then let him ramble on in a post-game interview Wild Card Weekend and we should be done. But then the Ravens beat Indianapolis--so the whole dog and pony show was repeated for another week--with the expectation that Baltimore would certainly lose to Denver.
And it looked like that would be the case--until the Bronco's secondary suffered a collective brain cramp and blew a last-minute lead. All of a sudden, Ray Lewis was "willing his team to victory!!" And we had to put up with another week of crying, shouting, dancing and proseltyzing. Then New England choked away another win against the Ravens--and all of a sudden we could look forward to another two weeks of hearing about Ray Lewis' greatness and amazing personal transformation!
Then the "real" Ray Lewis had to show up and ruin the feel good story of the year. Personally, I didn't even know that deer antler velvet had healing properties in humans--and that it was on the NFL's banned substance list. (You have to go on the assumption that if it's on the list--someone before Ray Lewis had been using it.) Further ruining the sports media love affair is the re-emergence of the families of the two men killed by Lewis' "posse" in Atlanta during Super Bowl week in 2000, with their accusations that Lewis was never fully honest with investigators--even after murder charges against him were dismissed in a plea deal. (As Ray would tell you, "Snitches get stitches")
So now Super Bowl pre-game producers are faced with a tough decision: air all of the "We love Ray Lewis" pieces that you know they've spent the past ten days taping and editing--or try to push the "face of this Super Bowl" into the background just in case the doping allegations turn out to be true. Either way, I would hope that the lesson we all learn is not to glorify bad people.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Victim Mentality Example #8,387,241
Yesterday's announcement that stores can now charge consumers a credit card processing fee was met with the predictable response. "Big banks are screwing us again!" was a common theme in the Twitter-sphere. "I'm never shopping anywhere that charges a fee" was also posted quite a bit. The overnight anchor for ABC even called it "Another blow to consumers". And we had the obligatory story of shoppers in the local malls saying they would likely buy less if they had to pay the fee.
The thing that everyone seems to have missed here is that a credit card processing fee has been charged for decades. It's just that until now, retailers weren't allowed to pass that along to the customer. Instead, stores would just spread the cost across all merchandise they sold--including that purchased by those of us that pay cash or use debit cards. Yet, as soon as everyone heard about "credit card fee" they jumped right into the "victim mentality" that is pervasive in our society today by reacting "Those greedy banks are screwing us again."
But I want you to ask yourself, why should the credit card companies cover the cost of your purchase and carry your debt for free? I'll grant you that the Electronic Funds Transfer systems used for nearly all plastic transactions are less labor-intensive than the old paper-based process (remember the old "slider" thing that gave you a carbon copy receipt?)--but there is still some expense to make the transaction happen.
And unlike the fees--I mean "taxes" of ObamaCare--the credit card processing fees are completely avoidable. We have this thing called "cash" that works just like a credit card--except it carries no fees to use it--and by spending it at the point of sale, you avoid interest payments as well. We also have debit cards, that are PIN protected and withdraw money directly from your checking account to pay the retailer. Those transactions are currently exempt from the processing fee (although if that were to change in the future, you can always go back to cash).
Unfortunately for many Americans, the options I just mentioned are not available to them--because it would require actually having the money to buy something BEFORE you go to the store. Their money is spent before they even get it--paying for all of the stuff they bought last month, or the month before that, or even a couple of years ago. For those folks, they will have to consider the most drastic option: STOP SHOPPING FOR NON-ESSENTIAL ITEMS FOR A WHILE.
There have actually been some retailers that have rewarded the cash shopper for some time already. Most notably, the Exclusive Company has always had a "cash price" and a "regular price" on their cd's and stereo equipment. Some gas stations have also had lower "cash prices"--below that posted on the signs by the street. And then there are the quaint few stores and restaurants that have NEVER accepted credit cards. They have been saving all of their customers money by never having to spread out those processing fees to all transactions.
All of this concern is likely for naught, none of the major retailers will add the credit card fee anytime soon--out of fear of losing a competitive edge. But as we have seen in the airline industry, as soon as one makes the jump and adds the fee, they will all get in the pool. And then we will have to hear about all those "poor shoppers" that are getting "ripped off" again.
The thing that everyone seems to have missed here is that a credit card processing fee has been charged for decades. It's just that until now, retailers weren't allowed to pass that along to the customer. Instead, stores would just spread the cost across all merchandise they sold--including that purchased by those of us that pay cash or use debit cards. Yet, as soon as everyone heard about "credit card fee" they jumped right into the "victim mentality" that is pervasive in our society today by reacting "Those greedy banks are screwing us again."
But I want you to ask yourself, why should the credit card companies cover the cost of your purchase and carry your debt for free? I'll grant you that the Electronic Funds Transfer systems used for nearly all plastic transactions are less labor-intensive than the old paper-based process (remember the old "slider" thing that gave you a carbon copy receipt?)--but there is still some expense to make the transaction happen.
And unlike the fees--I mean "taxes" of ObamaCare--the credit card processing fees are completely avoidable. We have this thing called "cash" that works just like a credit card--except it carries no fees to use it--and by spending it at the point of sale, you avoid interest payments as well. We also have debit cards, that are PIN protected and withdraw money directly from your checking account to pay the retailer. Those transactions are currently exempt from the processing fee (although if that were to change in the future, you can always go back to cash).
Unfortunately for many Americans, the options I just mentioned are not available to them--because it would require actually having the money to buy something BEFORE you go to the store. Their money is spent before they even get it--paying for all of the stuff they bought last month, or the month before that, or even a couple of years ago. For those folks, they will have to consider the most drastic option: STOP SHOPPING FOR NON-ESSENTIAL ITEMS FOR A WHILE.
There have actually been some retailers that have rewarded the cash shopper for some time already. Most notably, the Exclusive Company has always had a "cash price" and a "regular price" on their cd's and stereo equipment. Some gas stations have also had lower "cash prices"--below that posted on the signs by the street. And then there are the quaint few stores and restaurants that have NEVER accepted credit cards. They have been saving all of their customers money by never having to spread out those processing fees to all transactions.
All of this concern is likely for naught, none of the major retailers will add the credit card fee anytime soon--out of fear of losing a competitive edge. But as we have seen in the airline industry, as soon as one makes the jump and adds the fee, they will all get in the pool. And then we will have to hear about all those "poor shoppers" that are getting "ripped off" again.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Like Finding a Godiva Chocolate in a Manure Pit
You may want to sit down for this one: I have actually found something to like in the Affordable Care Act. Don't call the police to report an invasion of the body-snatchers. Don't send an ambulance to treat a man suffering from delusion or insanity. There is actually some semblance of intelligence in ObamaCare.
I'm talking about the measure included in the law that smokers will have to pay more for their health insurance starting next year. Apparently one of the things that we "had to pass the bill to find out what's in it" is a 50% surcharge on insurance premiums for long-time tobacco users. There are two things in this that I like:
1--It treats health insurance like real insurance. Smokers already pay more for life insurance--because they are a much higher risk to suffer an early death. Reckless drivers pay more for their auto insurance than those without traffic tickets--because they are a higher risk to have an accident. Yet for decades, health insurers have not been allowed to charge those that put themselves (and therefore the pool) at risk for huge payouts by routinely engaging in behavior--like smoking--that is going to make you very sick. What's more, those that have been smoking for years will pay a larger surcharge. Why should the guy who works out, maintains his weight and doesn't smoke or drink to excess pay the same as the overweight guy who doesn't leave the couch except to get another beer from the fridge all night? That is the way insurance is supposed to work--as a "bet" on whether your are going to need to claim more than what you pay in each year. It's not meant to be a subsidy for everyone so that they don't have to pay above X % if their medical bills every year.
2--I don't have to pay for this. Unlike nearly every other component of the Affordable Care Act, the taxpayer will not have to foot the bill for this extra expense. In fact, it is written into the language of the bill--the taxpayer-funded subsidies that will account for the vast majority of the payments for the policies sold through the health insurance exchanges CANNOT be used to pay for the smoker surcharge. Who would believe that we would find this precious nugget of personal responsibility hidden in this giant boondoggle?
The articles detailing the smoker surcharge hint at possible higher insurance rates for the obese in the future--as a means to curb the literal growth of America over the past few decades. But don't hold your breath waiting for that one. You see, one in five Americans smoke--but one in three Americans are obese--with more than half of the population being at least somewhat overweight. And those are percentages that scare even the most liberal of politicians. It's far easier to sell the idea of 1% or 20% "paying their fair share"--than it is to expect 33% or 55% to literally "carry their own weight".
I'm talking about the measure included in the law that smokers will have to pay more for their health insurance starting next year. Apparently one of the things that we "had to pass the bill to find out what's in it" is a 50% surcharge on insurance premiums for long-time tobacco users. There are two things in this that I like:
1--It treats health insurance like real insurance. Smokers already pay more for life insurance--because they are a much higher risk to suffer an early death. Reckless drivers pay more for their auto insurance than those without traffic tickets--because they are a higher risk to have an accident. Yet for decades, health insurers have not been allowed to charge those that put themselves (and therefore the pool) at risk for huge payouts by routinely engaging in behavior--like smoking--that is going to make you very sick. What's more, those that have been smoking for years will pay a larger surcharge. Why should the guy who works out, maintains his weight and doesn't smoke or drink to excess pay the same as the overweight guy who doesn't leave the couch except to get another beer from the fridge all night? That is the way insurance is supposed to work--as a "bet" on whether your are going to need to claim more than what you pay in each year. It's not meant to be a subsidy for everyone so that they don't have to pay above X % if their medical bills every year.
2--I don't have to pay for this. Unlike nearly every other component of the Affordable Care Act, the taxpayer will not have to foot the bill for this extra expense. In fact, it is written into the language of the bill--the taxpayer-funded subsidies that will account for the vast majority of the payments for the policies sold through the health insurance exchanges CANNOT be used to pay for the smoker surcharge. Who would believe that we would find this precious nugget of personal responsibility hidden in this giant boondoggle?
The articles detailing the smoker surcharge hint at possible higher insurance rates for the obese in the future--as a means to curb the literal growth of America over the past few decades. But don't hold your breath waiting for that one. You see, one in five Americans smoke--but one in three Americans are obese--with more than half of the population being at least somewhat overweight. And those are percentages that scare even the most liberal of politicians. It's far easier to sell the idea of 1% or 20% "paying their fair share"--than it is to expect 33% or 55% to literally "carry their own weight".
Friday, January 25, 2013
Leveling the Playing Field?
Having officiated basketball games for the Special Olympics--and having seen Paralympian in action--I can tell you that these programs have done a wonderful job of allowing the handicapped and disabled to participate in--and learn the valuable lessons from--competitive sports. But, apparently the Obama Administration doesn't think those private organizations are doing a very good job. How else to explain yesterday's order from Arne Duncan and the US Education Department that public schools must provide co-curricular sports options to disabled students?
The Associated Press article on Thursday's order details a couple of examples of highly-functioning students that have been granted rules modifications in order to compete with "able bodied" students in the past. A blind wrestler's opponents were required to maintain physical contact with him at all times--since he could not see them if they attempted to elude his grasp. But at what point are you bending the rules to where true competition is being compromised?
For the past few seasons, the Menasha Boys Basketball program has had a player with only one fully-functional arm. He has played within the regular rules of basketball his entire career and has earned the opportunity to play--showcasing the adjustments that he has had to make to compete with his peers. Under this new order, can he now request that defenders not be allowed to force him to dribble to his disabled side?
The story also details an Ohio high schooler who "runs" track in a wheelchair. He has always had to be alone in heats--never allowed to compete head to head with able-bodied runners. He hopes the order will allow him to "run" with everybody else from now on. So does that mean that wheelchair-bound children should compete side by side in other sports as well? Will we have wheelchair basketball players--which is played with different rules on dribbling and defending--on the court with kids that can run and jump? And will sled hockey players need to be included with regular skaters?
If you are saying "no" to these questions, then you need to come up with a way for already cash-strapped school districts to develop alternative options for kids who want to play these sports. And, you had better find a way to provide equal access to facilities as well--or you will have lawsuits on your hands. Ask any of our local athletic directors how hard it is to schedule games and practices for basketball with six boys and girls teams already competing for gym time.
My biggest fear with orders like this from The Government is that primary schools will choose to follow the same path universities and colleges took following the institution of Title IX: if we don't have the money to meet the "equal opportunity" requirement for all sports, then we will just cut men's programs until the women are "equal". Keep in mind, the definition of 'disabled" has changed drastically in recent years, with the increased diagnoses of various levels of autism in children and Attention Deficit Hyper-activity Disorder.
This will certainly give meaning to the phrase "It's a whole new ball game."
The Associated Press article on Thursday's order details a couple of examples of highly-functioning students that have been granted rules modifications in order to compete with "able bodied" students in the past. A blind wrestler's opponents were required to maintain physical contact with him at all times--since he could not see them if they attempted to elude his grasp. But at what point are you bending the rules to where true competition is being compromised?
For the past few seasons, the Menasha Boys Basketball program has had a player with only one fully-functional arm. He has played within the regular rules of basketball his entire career and has earned the opportunity to play--showcasing the adjustments that he has had to make to compete with his peers. Under this new order, can he now request that defenders not be allowed to force him to dribble to his disabled side?
The story also details an Ohio high schooler who "runs" track in a wheelchair. He has always had to be alone in heats--never allowed to compete head to head with able-bodied runners. He hopes the order will allow him to "run" with everybody else from now on. So does that mean that wheelchair-bound children should compete side by side in other sports as well? Will we have wheelchair basketball players--which is played with different rules on dribbling and defending--on the court with kids that can run and jump? And will sled hockey players need to be included with regular skaters?
If you are saying "no" to these questions, then you need to come up with a way for already cash-strapped school districts to develop alternative options for kids who want to play these sports. And, you had better find a way to provide equal access to facilities as well--or you will have lawsuits on your hands. Ask any of our local athletic directors how hard it is to schedule games and practices for basketball with six boys and girls teams already competing for gym time.
My biggest fear with orders like this from The Government is that primary schools will choose to follow the same path universities and colleges took following the institution of Title IX: if we don't have the money to meet the "equal opportunity" requirement for all sports, then we will just cut men's programs until the women are "equal". Keep in mind, the definition of 'disabled" has changed drastically in recent years, with the increased diagnoses of various levels of autism in children and Attention Deficit Hyper-activity Disorder.
This will certainly give meaning to the phrase "It's a whole new ball game."
Thursday, January 24, 2013
The Difference It Does Make
By now you've heard the line that will likely come to define Hillary Clinton's time as Secretary of State. So really what difference does it make if the four Americans killed at the consulate in Benghazi died at the hands of an angry mob or Al Qaeda operatives? You could say that Secretary Clinton was correct, admission by the Obama Administration that organized Islamic militants were behind the attack did not suddenly bring the four victims back to life. And if Clinton was testifying in front of a board of inquiry trying to determine the exact manner in which each of the Americans was killed--who was doing it really wouldn't matter. But Clinton was testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations--which oversees the way the US relates with other countries. And the "version of the facts" that the Obama Administration chose to parlay to the world about what happened in Benghazi DOES make a HUGE difference.
The position forwarded by the Administration in the immediate hours after the attack--and then for a couple of weeks after that--was a mob of protesters, angered by an obscure internet video posted by an American filmmaker, grew out of control and took out their anger on the consulate--setting fire to the building and killing four of the people inside. You may recall President Obama in a press conference "apologizing" to the rioting masses across the Muslim world for an American exercising his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression. While not condoning the attack, the President gave the impression that those who carried it out were "rightly aggrieved" by American actions. We brought this upon ourselves by failing to be "tolerant" of their religion.
It was only after a few news outlets got wind of what actually happened in Benghazi that we and the rest of the world found out the "offensive video" had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks. It was trained militants that specifically targeted the consulate and those inside--and the chaos created by the protests provided them with good cover for the attack. What's more, we would also learn that those with "boots on the ground" in Benghazi had been warning of such an attack for some time--continuing a sad tradition of American leaders ignoring warnings of impending action against their own people.
And so Secretary Clinton, the "difference" is defending the American tradition of bringing freedom, democracy and human rights to all people--versus trying to appease those only interested in "killing in the name of......" It's pretty tough to defeat an enemy, if you do all you can not to properly identify them.
The position forwarded by the Administration in the immediate hours after the attack--and then for a couple of weeks after that--was a mob of protesters, angered by an obscure internet video posted by an American filmmaker, grew out of control and took out their anger on the consulate--setting fire to the building and killing four of the people inside. You may recall President Obama in a press conference "apologizing" to the rioting masses across the Muslim world for an American exercising his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression. While not condoning the attack, the President gave the impression that those who carried it out were "rightly aggrieved" by American actions. We brought this upon ourselves by failing to be "tolerant" of their religion.
It was only after a few news outlets got wind of what actually happened in Benghazi that we and the rest of the world found out the "offensive video" had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks. It was trained militants that specifically targeted the consulate and those inside--and the chaos created by the protests provided them with good cover for the attack. What's more, we would also learn that those with "boots on the ground" in Benghazi had been warning of such an attack for some time--continuing a sad tradition of American leaders ignoring warnings of impending action against their own people.
And so Secretary Clinton, the "difference" is defending the American tradition of bringing freedom, democracy and human rights to all people--versus trying to appease those only interested in "killing in the name of......" It's pretty tough to defeat an enemy, if you do all you can not to properly identify them.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
What We Make
I know a number of local public sector employees are vexed that the local newspapers are printing their salaries and benefits for public review. Perhaps they should keep in mind that these salaries are line items in budgets that are required by law to be open to the public--and that the newspapers are simply doing the work for everyone of going to an office somewhere to see them. But if it will make you feel any better, here are my compensation numbers--for everyone to see:
Jonathan Krause--WOSH Program/News Director: Salary: $42, 850 Benefits: $2,145.12
In case you are wondering, the salary figure is $150 more than last year--because I did two additional sports broadcasts in 2012 than I did in 2011. Otherwise, the base salary for this position stayed the same for the FIFTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR. (That would be why those who complain about going two years with only a "cost of living adjustment" to their salaries don't usually find a sympathetic ear from me.) And that salary was paid out on a total of 3,016 hours of work for the year. No overtime for us salaried employees. (i'd figure out the hourly rate--but I wouldn't want to depress myself.) And that extra pay I did get required a good bit of driving on cold, showy winter nights to hotspots like Brillion, Hilbert and Seymour--or day trips down to Madison.
Some of you may be saying, "Wait a minute, those benefit numbers are way too low. You're not counting something!!" Remember, I am on a High Deductible Health Savings Account Plan that not only saves me money--but my employers as well. And the $5000 that I would have to pay out of pocket for medical expenses every year means that I make every health care decision very carefully. It's why I firmly believe that the only way we are going to "fix" health care is to make sure everyone has more "skin in the game".
And in case you are wondering, my employer pays 50% on my health insurance premium, a 30% match on my HSA contributions (which are the maximum allowed by the IRS--wouldn't want a responsible person to put away "too much" for their health care expenses--then we wouldn't need health care reform right?) and a 25% match on my 401(k) contributions.
So there are my numbers. Don't feel embarrassed at all by them either. Not sure why anyone else would be.
Jonathan Krause--WOSH Program/News Director: Salary: $42, 850 Benefits: $2,145.12
In case you are wondering, the salary figure is $150 more than last year--because I did two additional sports broadcasts in 2012 than I did in 2011. Otherwise, the base salary for this position stayed the same for the FIFTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR. (That would be why those who complain about going two years with only a "cost of living adjustment" to their salaries don't usually find a sympathetic ear from me.) And that salary was paid out on a total of 3,016 hours of work for the year. No overtime for us salaried employees. (i'd figure out the hourly rate--but I wouldn't want to depress myself.) And that extra pay I did get required a good bit of driving on cold, showy winter nights to hotspots like Brillion, Hilbert and Seymour--or day trips down to Madison.
Some of you may be saying, "Wait a minute, those benefit numbers are way too low. You're not counting something!!" Remember, I am on a High Deductible Health Savings Account Plan that not only saves me money--but my employers as well. And the $5000 that I would have to pay out of pocket for medical expenses every year means that I make every health care decision very carefully. It's why I firmly believe that the only way we are going to "fix" health care is to make sure everyone has more "skin in the game".
And in case you are wondering, my employer pays 50% on my health insurance premium, a 30% match on my HSA contributions (which are the maximum allowed by the IRS--wouldn't want a responsible person to put away "too much" for their health care expenses--then we wouldn't need health care reform right?) and a 25% match on my 401(k) contributions.
So there are my numbers. Don't feel embarrassed at all by them either. Not sure why anyone else would be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)