The Housing Bubble

“…after about 3 years of no weekends…”

Three years is just the beginning for the dads out there.

I was referring to maintaining a depreciating asset but you’re right when it comes to kids.

Now stack on top of it the added pressure of acquiring the kitchen granite so you can irradiate yourself and family.

goon….i’ve always had a hard time eating anything green except peppers, pickles

I think my mom was very good at destroying vegetables and i still think broccoli spinach…..no no no no way…

Canned or frozen spinach is disgusting goop. Fresh spinach, though? Awesome!

I prefer the seasons but thanks anyways.

It’s just the progressivism of California that is the mental illness. The ones who wish to seem, including the $30k millionaires are all in the same camp as “progressives.” because it is stylish to be a wacko like Pelosi.

When you have to finance it for decades and dedicate 35%+ of your monthly income every month of those decades, it’s symbolic of stupidity.

Even if I paid cash at 1997 price???

And 15 years of taxes, maintenance, insurance….

yes.

“And 15 years of taxes, maintenance, insurance…”

+1 But one would pay these expenses passed along by their landlord.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with a paid-off home if you didn’t pay too much for it. I really wanted a home with a shop, a man cave, but after looking at a few nice places that had some acreage too I realized that didn’t want to pay the hefty expenses either; seventies recession(s) scar tissue I suppose.

“if you didn’t pay too much for it.”

Correct.

But let’s be clear here….. if you bought a house from 1997 to current, you paid too much.

I don’t understand your comment. I wasn’t arguing in favor of Obamacare (this time ). I was just pointing out that the author could have applied those “10 lessons” — which I copied verbatim from the article — to anything “socialist” like funding the EPA or making someone pay for someone else’s social security, or nobody being accountable for Benghazi. Sure, he’s got an Obamacare example for each, albeit 2 3 and 9 are kind of a stretch.

Oxide. You are correct. Many socialistic goals bring the same results.

No republican votes necessary, and it gives them good cover.

Let’s call it a Republican sh*t sandwich, with Mitt being one piece of bread and Roberts the other. Cool.

This could never have happened without the Republicans.

The NeoCon wing of the Republican party backed ObamaCare. All of the Democrat/Progresssive party did.

If anyone is going to stop this train wreck, it’ll be libertarians and/or Tea Partiers. Everyone else is too invested in the train wreck to be interested in stopping it. Your loss is their gain, both financially and politically.

No one from the NeoCon-Progressive Party is going to fix it. Don’t waste your time looking in that direction.

Bush Sr. was a Neocon. Reagan wasn’t. It’s why Bush didn’t like Reagan much. Romney, McCain and Graham also are NeoCons. So are both Bushes.

CharlieTango,
If you go back and look at what’s in the ACA there were lot’s of republican amendments stuffed in there. The final vote was a political decision so take that with a grain of salt.
I think Obamacare is the worst piece of legislation since the Patriot Act.
Jack Smith AKA Bluestar

“The NeoCon wing of the Republican party backed ObamaCare.”

“Bush Sr. was a Neocon. Reagan wasn’t. It’s why Bush didn’t like Reagan much. Romney, McCain and Graham also are NeoCons. So are both Bushes.”

Well, thank you. Somebody FINALLY got what I was driving at.

It has been interesting to read about the neocon consultants screwing over their own with their election “advice”. Cucinelli missed the governorship narrowly, which he could have won had he brought up the issue of illegal immigration. But the consultants wouldn’t let him, so he talked about everything else under the sun. Meanwhile Rove & Co. rake in the cash. Not for nothing do they call the Repubs the “stupid party”. They did the same for Romney, but I’m glad they soaked him good.

Jose,

When trying to back a point that has a political bent, use the phrase NeoCon when talking to conservatives. In using the word “Republican” you have much less a chance of getting your point across successfully. The term “Republican” is as extinct as “Democrat” to most people nowadays.

“NeoCon” is not synonymous with “conservative”. Today’s conservatives are the libertarians/paleoconservatives.

NeoCons, like Progressives, assume they know what is good for you. For NeoCons, what’s good for you is religious fundamentalism.

For Progressives, it’s governmental fundamentalism.

Both NeoCons and Progressives expect you to bow down to their respective God. Fundamentalism (really meaning “do as I say or else”) is their game.

NeoCons and Progressives have much in common.

Here’s why I use the term “Republican”: because that party has been hi-jacked.

Then again, I read a Paul Craig Roberts column the other day that called Abraham Lincoln the Pol Pot of the US and I couldn’t agree more. It has been painful to me, who once had a serious case of Lincoln worship, to be stripped of my delusions about the man over the past few years. And it makes me wonder if he wasn’t the first Neo-con and the first to hijack the Republican party.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas

Now this is coming from the White House, so it’s the best they’ve got in terms of arguing that the Republicans had a hand in the ACA.

If you want to say that the Republican’s “own” the ACA because of these ideas, you really don’t understand the core of the problem with the bill.

It’s like blaming the structural flaws in a building on the interior designer.

I use “Republican” because that’s the official designation after the Congressman’s name.

I’m pretty sure that the NeoCons were Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz. Is this Rush’s new meme, equating Progressives with the invade-Iraq crowd? Really, Progressives are just liberals who are coattailing off of Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican who by godfrey luvved him some gummint regulations.

“If you want to say that the Republican’s “own” the ACA because of these ideas, you really don’t understand the core of the problem with the bill.”

So what is it that you perceive to be the core of the problem with the bill?

Obamacare was originally a Heritage idea, tested by a Republican in Massachusetts, whose final version included many Republican amendments. If Democrats had their druthers, we would have Medicare for all, but conservative Democrats wouldn’t support it.

If we had continued with the old health insurance, your health insurance would have continued to increase and coverage would have continued to decline. Eventually, most of us would have been on catastrophic plans and the health care bubble would painfully pop. And Medicare would either have become unacceptable to providers or its costs would have increased too much.

What was you preferred solution to this? Be in the 1% so that you could afford health care? That only works for 1% of us?

‘If Democrats had their druthers, we would have Medicare for all, but conservative Democrats wouldn’t support it’

Huh?

‘Be in the 1% so that you could afford health care”

I believe more than 80% had health insurance previously. That’s a good deal more than 1%.

‘San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.’

‘Since 1995, Hammack and Brothers have received their health coverage from Kaiser Permanente, where Brothers worked until 2009 as a dietitian and diabetes educator. “We’ve both been in very good health all of our lives – exercise, don’t smoke, drink lightly, healthy weight, no health issues, and so on,” Hammack told me.’

‘The couple — Lee, 60, and JoEllen, 59 — have been paying $550 a month for their health coverage — a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans Obama has criticized. But recently, Kaiser informed them the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The couple would need to find another one. The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.’

“From all of the sob stories I’ve heard and read, ours is the most extreme,” Lee told me in an email last week.’

‘I’ve been skeptical about media stories featuring those who claimed they would be worse off because their insurance policies were being canceled on account of the ACA. In many cases, it turns out, the consumers could have found cheaper coverage through the new health insurance marketplaces, or their plans weren’t very good to begin with. Some didn’t know they could qualify for subsidies that would lower their insurance premiums.’

‘So I tried to find flaws in what Hammack told me. I couldn’t find any.’

‘The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 a month for the two of them (more than $15,000 a year). And for that higher amount, what would they get? A higher deductible ($4,500), a higher out-of-pocket maximum ($6,350), higher hospital costs (40 percent of the cost) and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.’

‘When they shopped around and looked for a different plan on California’s new health insurance marketplace, Covered California, the cheapest one was $975, with hefty deductibles and copays.’

‘donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election’

Boy, Lee and JoEllen, you kinda screwed up.

Other than the libertarian view that the government should be smaller, the two most likely solutions to the uninsured problem are a MA style system, or a single payer. That much is clear.

However, different states have different economies household incomes, demographics, etc., so a one-size fits all solution is problematic from the get-go. That said, a few problems that seem apparent with how the ACA is set up:

1. Too rigid a view as to what is “acceptable” health insurance (disallowing catastrophic coverage plans, requiring young men to pay for pregnancy coverage, and higher deductible plans, etc.);
2. Too narrow a gap between what the highest risk payers need to pay, and the lowest risk (only 3x), which leads to the plans being too expensive for “young invincibles” relative to the “penalties” that they need to pay. I read an article that on average, the young use 1/6th the health care than those who are older…the young folks have essentially with twice the cost burden than they should. Following that math, it makes their signing up less compelling despite the penalties, and if the “young invincibles” don’t sign up relatively early, the premiums for all will rise, making it even less likely that they will sign up;
3. No changes to the fundamental problem that has led to there being too few insurance companies providing policies…namely the compensation structure between insurance companies and healthcare providers. The way the current compensation schemes are set up, the large insurance companies have a HUGE advantage, which is why there isn’t more competition;
4. NOT requiring politicians to “eat their own cooking”, so they don’t even care to read the fine print of their own legislation to see how complex it is to implement.

requiring young men to pay for pregnancy coverage

Because women get pregnant by themselves?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165776/uninsured-americans-ignoring-health-exchange-sites.aspx

According to Gallup, only 22% of uninsured plan to buy insurance…a byproduct of the math not making sense?

Can you guess the main composition of these 22%?

Do you think they are:

a) the “young and healthy” who would need to pay a multiple of the penalty cost to get coverage they don’t use?; or
b) those with health issues who previously could get coverage at all, or at prices that were way too expensive?

I disagree with the point…women’s coverage should include prenatal care, etc., just like only men’s coverage should protect against testicular cancer.

Different probabilities of different issues between the sexes should result in different costs.

That said, let’s address your point head on: Should a sterile man be required to pay for a policy that covers pregnancy?

“I believe more than 80% had health insurance previously. That’s a good deal more than 1%.”

I was projecting the trend. In less than 30 years, most of us would have been unable to afford any meaningful insurance. In less than 30 years, Medicare would have been rejected by most providers or it would have been bankrupt.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Obamacare was an attempt to preserve a declining health care system. It may or may not work. But doing nothing was guaranteed failure. When doing a course correction, it is less abrupt if you make it sooner rather than later.

“No changes to the fundamental problem that has led to there being too few insurance companies providing policies…namely the compensation structure between insurance companies and healthcare providers. The way the current compensation schemes are set up, the large insurance companies have a HUGE advantage, which is why there isn’t more competition;”

Perhaps a public option should have been available in states with 1 or 2 insurance companies. The insurance companies would wail and might even pull out of those states.

“Perhaps a public option should have been available in states with 1 or 2 insurance companies. The insurance companies would wail and might even pull out of those states.”

Perhaps monopolistic practices by large insurance companies should be banned.

Oh, wait, we can’t do that, because that would mean that Medicare wouldn’t be able to force pricing onto providers either.

Make it illegal for HC providers to charge different patients different rates for the same service (insurance companies included), and watch the competition come out of the woodwork, and insurance company profits shrink.

“it cemented in the minds of the American people who was deadset against this pig!”

Because nobody’s mentioning that the Republicans made it ALL possible. If Sh*ttens hadn’t instituted the program in Mass, this would NEVER have happened, not after the whole Hillarycare brou-ha-HAH! Mitty greased the wheels, Roberts gave it the force of law.

But thanks for playing!

Keep dreaming that somehow you can spin this to help your bosses. It won’t work no matter how many of these trial balloons you float. It’s named OBAMACARE!

Pride goeth before the fall.

Wait, wait, now I’ve got it. The Republicans were FOR it before they were AGAINST it, right? No, wait, then they were FOR it.

Where do you think the Dems get their crappy ideas, anyway? I like to died watching Obama and Kerry with their Iraq redux over Syria. Now THERE was a moment.

Trial balloons. Fail. Try again

“Because nobody’s mentioning that the Republicans made it ALL possible. If Sh*ttens hadn’t instituted the program in Mass, this would NEVER have happened…

What? It’s Romney’s fault at the federal level because he instituted it at the state level?

What about the other 49 governors, senators, house reps, the president, the rest of the Supreme Court?

Your spin is bizarre this time out, jose.

ObamaCare is the fault of NeoCon-Progressive Party members and their minions far-and-wide.

It’s fun to watch the Dems go “Hey, it worked for the Republicans. Wha’ hoppen?”

“Your spin is bizarre this time out, jose.”

Why? He provided the template. Period.

I’m just keepin’ it real here, Mac. People need to know how and where this began. The dems would NEVER have put this pig forth if Romney hadn’t had “success” with it in Mass, and you know it.

What about HillaryCare?

Not the same as ObamaCare, granted, but do you really think that ObamaCare wasn’t already in the works decades before?

You don’t write 2,000 pages of crap and add thousands of pages of regulations to regulate that crap in 2-3 years.

Pus, the infamous “we need to pass it to see what’s in it” line. Likely, very few in the NeoCon-Progressive Party had a clue what was in ObamaCare.

What’s in ObamaCare has been on paper somewhere for many years. Likely as a Plan B way to enact statist healthcare en route to a full-blown socialist society.

Interestingly, ObamaCare is actually Fascist. For now, anyway. Somewhere along the line, the statists had to accept a Fascist document because they realized that at least in the USA, a socialist agenda would not take root unless corporations were first part of it.

Sh*ttens

That’s really clever. Whover came up with that should be a professional comedian. Why don’t you just simplify it and call him Sh!t Romney?

Not the same as ObamaCare, granted, but do you really think that ObamaCare wasn’t already in the works decades before?

You don’t write 2,000 pages of crap and add thousands of pages of regulations to regulate that crap in 2-3 years.

Yes, the ideas behind Obamacare, most importantly the individual mandate, were initially developed by people at the conservative Heritage Foundation around 1990.

‘the ideas behind Obamacare, most importantly the individual mandate, were initially developed by…’

I’ve seen that posted several times. What does it mean? How does it matter?

I was paying very close attention when this thing was being debated in the senate. They went through 4 or 5 “plans” before they came up with something that would pass. Not something that would work, but would pass. I’m sure that a bunch of lobbyists and old fart politicians (who’ve never had a real job in their lives) have the wisdom to re-create a large segment of the economy in the course of a few months.

We hear people say, ‘oh, it works in Canada.’ This isn’t the same thing they have in Canada.

I’ve seen that posted several times. What does it mean? How does it matter?

MacBeth wrote that Obamacare must have been in the works for decades. It turns out that he was correct. I just provided a little detail.

It doesn’t matter much, especially in terms of health care itself. What’s interesting is the politics of it, that the same people who promoted an idea in the past are no vehemently against it now. It shows the effect of Tea Party sentiment on the Republican Party.

The correct Pelosi quote is “‘We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”.

“They went through 4 or 5 “plans” before they came up with something that would pass. Not something that would work, but would pass.”

This is the crux of the problem with our system of governance. Do you prefer the Chinese style?

‘our system of governance’

Yeah, allowing the government to destroy entire sections of the economy is how things have always worked.

^
One has to wonder what the motive is.

“Yeah, allowing the government to destroy entire sections of the economy is how things have always worked.”

Public option was rejected because it would have devastated the insurance sector. Is allowing bubbles to implode a sector any better? We saw the impact of the housing bubble popping. It almost took down the whole finance sector.

If Obamacare is the disaster that the Republicans are predicting, then we will try something else. The trajectory we were on was unsustainable. Would you have preferred ending Medicare? That would devastate the health care sector.

‘Would you have preferred ending Medicare?’

I’m not fond of Ponzi schemes. The demographics of our population is dooming a lot of these things like social security. This country can’t afford all this stuff.

But it’s typical of politicians; health care prices soar year after year; hey let’s create a new entitlement balanced on the back of young people! They are already paying for your retirement, why not your doctor bills too?

I still contend that if not for Medicare, we would not have had the advances in medicine that we have now. Much less money would have flowed into health care and much less research would have been done, at least in this country.

“Comment by MightyMike
2013-11-08 10:40:45
Sh*ttens

That’s really clever. Whover came up with that should be a professional comedian. Why don’t you just simplify it and call him Sh!t Romney?”

I thought about it, and you’re absolutely right, Mike. That was a really stupid, tasteless, humorless corruption of the name. I apologize to you and any other members of the blog who were offended by it. I dunno what got into me. I just really can’t stand the guy, but there was no call for that.

You all just wait til the neocon progressives usher in the successor to Obamacare. It will make this current one look smooth and fair to the few taxpayers.

Stick’em up… it’s a shakedown.

“I hate to have to break it to ya, but we’re in a death spiral here. The momentum is down, down, down….and OUT!…”

A few months ago, I probably would have agreed with you.

But now, with the astonishing level of federal incompetence and evil intent once veiled by ObamaCare propagandists (but now on full display), I am seeing things differently.

ObamaCare just might be the thing that galvanizes the population toward saving The Constitution and freedom for individuals.

Sometimes the citizenry needs to suffer at the hands of elitists before stopping them.

This really seems to be be the inflection point.

There’s going to be change but not what the Change crowd wagered on.

Let me fix it for you then. Million MORE Americans. Thanks Obama!

TJ,

Let’s take your comment as given that totalitarianism as defined as big government is leftist. How then do we get most “conservatives” to admit that people such as Romney and Christie are leftists?

As I see it, THAT is the problem politically right now. Many of my “conservative” friends ask my “liberal” friends why they are so ashamed to admit being “liberals.” I would ask my “conservative” friends why THEY are ashamed to admit that they are voting for leftists. Thoughts?

How then do we get most “conservatives” to admit that people such as Romney and Christie are leftists?

true conservatives already admit that. the problem is that many people think they were conservatives when they weren’t. many people think ‘republican’ is synonymous with ‘conservative’. it isn’t. ‘republican’ is just a name. anyone can say they are a republican. these days, most republicans are leftists. they have infiltrated the party. that’s why i’m a registered independent. most republicans aren’t conservative.

I would ask my “conservative” friends why THEY are ashamed to admit that they are voting for leftists. Thoughts?

that would be a good question and you’d be courageous to ask it. most of them probably don’t know that they, themselves, have leftist leanings. when i confront them with this, they get intensely angry and deny they lean left. the left has done a good job disguising itself.

consider.. olympia snowe was a republican. yet her voting record was more liberal than harry reid!! i don’t even know how it’s possible to be more left than harry reid. yet, she called herself a republican and probably called herself a conservative also. you have to look at what they do, not what they say.. they are a bunch of liars. at least the democrats aren’t hypocrites about being leftists (for the most part).

“olympia snowe was a republican. yet her voting record was more liberal than harry reid!! “

There are regional differences in outlook. A liberal Democrat in the south is a conservative Republican in the northeast. Snowe was Republican because her views are to the right end of the spectrum in Maine. Reid is a Democrat because his views are to the left end of the spectrum in Nevada.

You poor deluded souls…….Repubs/Tea Party types are going to get exactly what they want. But they aren’t going to like it.

In my business, it used to be that the FAA was the “world leader” when it came to aircraft safety regulation. Not any more. Now, because of a lack of funding/personnel/credibility, the FAA pretty much follows whatever the Euros/IATA/ICAO says. And the Chinese/Indians/etc. are following what the Euros are doing, not the USA.

The short version……if you plan on flying anywhere other than the lower 48, you will have to comply with Euro rules, or else you can’t fly, do business there.

The moral? “Free markets” and “deregulation” are a fantasy. A need for order/regulation will be filled by someone. In this case, the regulatory hat has been passed from someone that you might have some influence with (the FAA), to someone else you have zero influence with (the ICAO/IATA).

Good luck telling the French and Germans that they are full of crap.

There are regional differences in outlook.

which should make absolutely no difference on where you actually fall on the political spectrum.

if you want to know where you fall, take this test. it’s one of the most accurate out there if you answer the questions honestly.

http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

the problem is that many people think they were conservatives when they weren’t.

Thanks TJ. I’ll admit over the past few years when I heard people on this board bash on leftists my first thought had been to wonder “what were your thoughts 2001-2008?” I now realize many here have the same perspective that you do above. As opposed to oxide (a few posts below), I do think MacBeth’s NeoCon/Progressive meme has legs. I also think in this context you and Rio probably agree more than you two realize on the fascism/socialism discussion.

On this board the context is important, but it’s tedious to have to explain it with each post. Maybe Ben can create a poster’s definitions page that we can refer to…

“which should make absolutely no difference on where you actually fall on the political spectrum.”

You missed my point. On a nationwide scale, Snowe is centrist. On a Maine scale, she is conservative. On a Nevada scale, she is liberal. She runs in Maine, so she runs as a Republican. This is because the more conservative voters congregate in the Republican party. If she lived in Nevada, she might run as a Democrat because she would have better success there in a primary as a Democrat than as a Republican.

You appear to be a black and white thinker. You expect the Republican and Democratic parties to have the same agenda in all 50 states. The reality is that the parties respond to local conditions.

“totalitarianism can ONLY happen with big government. it is obvious left.”

Dictators are big government?

The truth is that humans are social animals and the best organized cultures succeed the best. In Iraq, Syria, and Libya deposing strong leaders has led to chaos as new leaders attempt to establish themselves. Are the citizens of those countries better off now? Do they have better sanitation, medical care, food supply?

“The moral? “Free markets” and “deregulation” are a fantasy. A need for order/regulation will be filled by someone. In this case, the regulatory hat has been passed from someone that you might have some influence with (the FAA), to someone else you have zero influence with (the ICAO/IATA). “

This is a really good point.

The truth is that humans are social animals and the best organized cultures succeed the best.

That’s a tautology, isn’t it?

“That’s a tautology, isn’t it?”

Perhaps so. In any case, not well stated and maybe not well thought out.

What I was getting at is that well organized societies tend to dominate less organized societies. This might lead to thinking that centrally controlled economies work better. That doesn’t seemed to have worked for the Soviet Union or communist China.

And it may be that technology is the determining factor and not social structure. The Hittites were able to dominate the ancient Middle East due to superior chariots.

You can’t stop this train.

Careful, don’t assume for me.

Yes, sir. Anything else?

BTW, you might want to be careful in your use of “us”. Don’t assume I’m part of the “us” you are referring to.

+1.

Organize

I don’t think that this “Neocon-Progressive” meme is gaining any traction, MacBeth. You’d have to use a tiny font to fit it onto a bumper sticker, it’s too hard to spell on a protest sign, and it’s too many syllables to remember or speak. But feel free to repeat it a few more times.

Actually, I do cook on a Coleman camp stove. Best coffee ever on it as well.

An RV cooktop perks heavenly coffee that is Chock.

The $23,400 was the total. Parts, labor and permits. It’s costs me $300 extra for tree trimming when I had to move the array to the other side of my property too. I went with a ground mount system so I don’t have to mess with the roof and I could aim them for max power year round. I also went with microinverters since it gives me panel level monitoring. With a central or string inverter if you have a bad panel or partial shading it can degrade the whole system.

Yes. We see and read what you type.

Did you not pay $140 or more per square foot for a multidecade-old house?

The cost to build a bridge in DC is no different than the cost to build a bridge in CT.

That’s pretty funny. Many years ago someone in DC thought about funding a study to explore a good place for another bridge over the Potomac River from VA to MD, probably a little outside the currently American Legion Bridge (the Beltway). The value of everybody’s mansion in tony Potomac ($$$) instantly craaaatered a little. They hadn’t even built the bridge, or decided to build one. Just thinking about doing a study about it was enough to raise hackles.

Overpaying has nothing to do with commutes, knitting or Little house on the prairie.

Did you not pay $140 or more per square foot for a multidecade-old house?

Actually I think that figure covers just the land. Land is a lot cheaper in Oil City but I wanted a sane commute.

Just how badly did you get bamboozled?

Living in NYC in those days was good training for never committing to a location (and it is the norm to rent there.) As the building went bad, we moved. Later on (mid-80’s) a lot of places went co-op, so I bought the small apartment I had (it was very cheap.) About four years in, after an invasion of waterbugs, I wanted out and hated not just being able to go. I sublet it to a series of friends until I finally got rid of it. Silver lining was it had tripled in value.

Like the Housing, too many people’s jobs/income depends on keeping health care prices inflated.

And like housing and education, healthcare is more expesive more than it should be because of the government.

” I have no incentive to care about my health whatsoever.”

Feeling good is its own reward.

I do care about my health, of course, but if I wanted to do high risk behaviors, I wouldn’t bear any of the huge financial costs it could place on the system.

I’m a vegetarian and I bike/run/walk everywhere, strength train a few days a wk, rarely drink more than 2 glasses of anything.

Maybe I should develop a meth habit and go to an expensive rehab. My insurance would pay for virtually the entire thing. And my work couldn’t and wouldn’t fire me; I wouldn’t even have to tell them I’m in drug rehab, I would just cite inpatient medical issues.

Not to mention the lower % of Oxygen at that elevation would probably bother me.

It’s actually the density that changes…the composition not too much. But yeah…14k is HIGH.

That was really tough, I had to stop multiple times.

I have hiked/climbed 100+ peaks above 13,000′ since I moved here, but biking uphill taxes your muscles a lot (alot) differently. Most of my road biking experience is on the flats.