btq96r

They're right in that they're not a good use of tax money. Flying over near empty stadiums when the federal government borrowed $3,000,000,000,000 in one fiscal year is a waste of resources and training hours. I can't imagine flyovers is much of a benefit beyond the flight hours, and right now we need to streamline as much of the operations and training budget as we can while still having combat readiness. So, sorry/not sorry, we shouldn't be seeing flyovers for a random 4pm game early in the season.

I really want simple economics to force them out of business...but there's always going to be people in the gun community who panic buy overpriced ammo and crap gear/accessories, so CTD more or less has a well carved niche of a place to exist. I'll always give my business to PSA and Primary Arms over these asshats.

Some real life scene from Narcos right there.

Looks like it's only for currently serving and retired. Those who didn't serve 20 years aren't eligible.

Wish that I was on ol' Rocky Top Down in the Tennessee hills Ain't no ballers up on Rocky Top Ain't no football skills Once I had a game on Rocky Top Was up 2 TDs at the half Came out the locker room, coasted to victory, I still laugh about that Rocky Top, you'll always be An easy win for me Good ol' Rocky Top Scrubs of the SEC Scrubs of the SEC

Since 1993, we've had a few times where both chambers of Congress and the Presidency were held by a single party on both the D and R side...nothing of significance has happened with regards to guns. It's become an issue both sides use to froth up a base, but an absolute non priority once they have actual power to wield. Republicans don't truly want gun rights, and Democrats don't want the backlash it could bring. They'll just use the issue as campaign fodder.

We’re going away. Pack your ####, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. -George Carlin

A question mark makes it a question. When I want to accuse someone, I use a period. And the question still stands. Sure, I could lose some weight and exercise more...but I don't think my danger of dying from COVID is where the risk is. While I'm sure I'll be fine, I only have a coin flip odds of not having symptoms. I don't want the possibility the misery a respiratory illness could bring, nor do I don't want to have to miss time at work (at cost to me in PTO days), or have to use medical service (at cost to me in $$$) because you don't seem to think wearing a mask under recommended situations during a pandemic until a vaccine is available is part of your obligation as a member of society. See, that's an accusation.

This astounds me. You're saying if you knew you were an asymptomatic carrier, you wouldn't care about infecting others?

Masks with two or more layers can keep respitory droplets from spreading. Simple cloths like bandanas, neck gators less so. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/cloth-face-cover-guidance.html

@TresMon what considerations do you have for OWB outside of range/competition use? @billyblazes makes a good point about retention needs. For myself, I usually only carry OWB when I have a large enough coat to cover it up, or when I have it in a cross-draw position while driving. The holster I posted a link for doesn't have retention beyond keeping the gun secure from falling out while you move around...it won't stop anyone from yanking it out with standard drawing pressure.

I've got this one as my OWB holster, and I love it. Takes some work to get *just right*, but worth it. https://comp-tac.com/international-holster-belt-paddle-drop-offset-holster-comp-tac/

When it was released 14 years ago, it was nothing more than an absurdly over the top laugh generator. Now, you'll think it was an instructional video being followed very closely.

The Founding Fathers didn't anticipate Congress delegating their lawmaking authority to enable a three day work week with lots of "district work periods".

He's 74 years old, overweight, and doesn't exercise. Not great things to bring to a fight with a respiratory illness. To his credit, he's avoided smoking and drinking over his lifetime, which is great because the compounding effects aren't present. Still, COVID-19 can easily exacerbate any of his risk factors with age and fitness. Clearly he's got all the medical attention anyone could ever get, and the odds are still very tilted in his favor. But it's not something that can just be waived away given all the factors.

I was thinking it would be aimed more at the jury.

Maybe they're trying to tie in a belief that the prosecution is political?

Oh, he ain't gonna be out of circulation unless the virus forces the issue. I'll have to disagree with your thoughts here, no way his advisors want him stuck in the residence on a reduced schedule with nothing to do but tweet and call into Fox News shows during the lull. Think "executive time" galore.

Guess the rallies are off for a few weeks.

Healthcare is one of those things where a free market solution isn't practical. You might be talking about things like selling insurance across state lines, coverage mandates Obamacare brought, but those are minuscule issues on the whole. The government is actually one half of the inequitable way the system is being propped up; the other being younger folks paying premiums above what they consume for commercial coverage. Insuring the elderly, who consume much more medical services than the young, at an affordable price point just doesn't work out. So, the government needs to do it by taxing the population at large. It's one thing for some items like standard primary care physician visits, and small routine procedures that don't take a lot of time or resources to be put onto an open market where competition can be healthy. But larger surgeries, more complicated patient management, and a lot of imaging costs money in time for those performing it, and the equipment used. Medicare sets a lower rate than physicians want, but not one that would necessarily close their doors unless they had profit to chase elsewhere. Hospitals might not be able to be as concierge as they're becoming if we expanded Medicare, but they could still function. Medicare for All isn't going to be pleasant to the system, but take the cries of woe from the medical industry, their lobbyists, and all associated with a jar of salt, because they can still make it work, I think. At that point, we'd probably have to regulate any healthcare provider off of publicly traded markets so that they don't have to worry about shareholder value in the form of rising stock price from market expansion or dividends. They should be investing that money in staff, equipment, or lowering costs instead of pleasing T. Rowe Price, Vanguard, & BlackRock account managers.

Freedom means assumed risks, like those who probably shouldn't be carrying firearms if they choose. I don't see the situation getting better, but I have to be willing to assume that risk if I believe everybody in compliance with our rules as a society has the right to keep and bear arms.

There's a huge difference in what the medical industry charges, and what they collect via contract with commercial payors. It's honestly as messed a practice as anything I've seen when a physician will accept one rate from Medicare, that rate plus say 50% from a commercial payor, and charge an individual the Medicare rate plus say 100% if they are uninsured. The job losses might not be as many as you think. It's more intensive for doctors and hospitals to do billing and collection for private insurance than it is for Medicare; and honestly, plenty of that is outsourced overseas. As to what jobs would be lost at insurance companies if they were removed from the system...Medicare uses private companies in different regions to administrate the claims & payment process, so as Medicare claims rose, they would need to add staffing to meet demand on processing them. Very transferable skills for someone working in a cubical (or remote these days probably) at Blue Cross or Humana to do essentially the same job for a government contracted company.

This has been a good thread. Retirement is something on my mind as well, even though I'm a few years shy of 40, now's the time I should be thinking and planning for it, right? I'd love to retire at 60 if I can be financially independent. Seeing my Dad in his early 70s is letting me know a mental decline could be sooner than I would hope, so getting some good retirement years in for travel and experiences before I have to go low key would be nice. But like others here, medical coverage is where I keep coming back to. It's sad that my seemingly best option would be foreign residency where healthcare is provided or very low cost. If Medicare lowered their age to 60 or even a few years less, I think more people would retire, or reduce their hours to part time where benefits don't kick in. More people retiring or talking less hours would open up positions or time for younger workers, letting them earn more, which should be a good thing to the unemployment rate. More flexibility in lifestyle would be a positive society benefit for sure to those who would want to take more gentle slope to retirement instead of just working full bore until they hit Medicare eligibility. I'd say any savings a company made in insurance costs would find their way to employees or investment in the business...but I know how the world works when profit is found on a balance sheet. We can argue over the ways government would have to pay for it (some indivudial contribution between 60 and 65 isn't a non-starter), but lowering the Medicare age has the potential to be an overall benefit to companies that would be able to reduce their costs of insurance. Say what you want about government run healthcare (ie: the Veterans Health System), but government insurance like Medicare and Medicaid works well enough. It's a fixed rate that has less surprises for patients than commercial insurance, and doesn't put a company with profit motive on the decision line for approving procedures.