The Fiscal Cliff

That sounds pretty similar to how when the right wants to cut social spending, the left characterizes it is "letting them die" and such.

lolz.

The entire charade is so akin to professional wrestling that so long as the two teams oppose each other, their fan base doesn't care which side of the fence they're on.
 
Exactly what kind of education and intellectual acumen does a fucking firefighter have to be an expert on medical innovation or science in general?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Plenty of innovation in medicine comes from universities and research centers in the US and abroad that are funded with government dollars rather than private money. For instance, in the US the National Institute of Health invests over $30 billion a year in research.

Having the medical industry for profit is terrible as it leads to drugs being patented and then sold for ridiculous prices (see cancer, HIV regiments that cost in the five figures each month) etc. and drive costs up and overwhelm the health care system--whether private or public in a given country. Plus private drug companies that are profit driven don't have a lot of motivation to find a vaccines or cures as they stand to make a lot more money selling drugs that just prolong life or alleviate symptoms and thus get taken for years by patients, rather than a vaccine or cure a patient pays for once. It's a terrible system.[/QUOTE]

I 100% back this statement ^
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

"
American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste.
These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world."

http://www.cato.org/publications/po...ve-why-america-leads-world-medical-innovation

"Policymakers should consider the impact of reform proposals on innovation. For example, proposals that increase spending on diagnostics and therapeutics could encourage such innovation. Expanding price controls, government health care programs, and health insurance regulation, on the other hand, could hinder America's ability to innovate."


Apologies accepted;-)
 
You read through both articles and considered them that fast? Wow.... Thanks for keeping an open mind.
 
I don't read from "research" institutions that start with their conclusions.

Just like I wouldn't go see a doctor who started with the diagnosis.
 
It's comforting to know that the industry in charge of keeping me alive is willing to hold innovation hostage because of a higher tax. Those are definitely the guys I want to be one of the barriers between myself and death.
 
[quote name='egofed']American health care has many problems. Health insurance is linked too tightly to employment, and too many people cannot afford insurance. Insurance companies put too much energy into avoiding payments. Personal medical records are kept on paper rather than in accessible electronic fashion. Emergency rooms are not always well suited to serve as last-resort health care for the poor. Most fundamentally, the lack of good measures of health care quality makes it hard to identify and eliminate waste.[/quote]
So what I'm seeing there is an argument for strong new regulation. Right? That's how you fix every single one of those problems, right?
These problems should be addressed, but it would be hasty to conclude that the United States should move closer to European health care institutions. The American health care system, high expenditures and all, is driving innovation for the entire world."
Click to expand...
Is there some reason why people wouldn't buy additional insurance on top of Obamacare? Government services are offered across the economic spectrum and yet people go above and beyond. The 401k industry is massive. AFLAC makes tons of money on the workers comp margin. Why wouldn't people also buy more health insurance and why wouldn't that continue to drive innovation?
"Policymakers should consider the impact of reform proposals on innovation. For example, proposals that increase spending on diagnostics and therapeutics could encourage such innovation.
Click to expand...
That's regulation. You're arguing for regulation.
 
There is a lot of talk about "innovation" being important in this thread but you need to be a bit cautious with that term in the medical field.

For example: to get a new drug on the market you need to only show that it is better than placebo (of course it stills takes the 5 - 10 years of testing) but it doesn't necessarily need to be compared to existing drugs.

Not saying that a lack of funds is a good thing but it might force us to compare existing treatments and optimize a bit...which also requires funds...

Anyway, Innovations need to occur within the system rather than "make new stuff". The "improved stuff" will come with streamlining.
 
That's another good point, innovation doesn't mean inventing yet another treatment for something which we already have good treatments for. For example, we don't really need more drugs for ED. We especially don't need more commercials advertising them....:roll:
 
Obama:
I want higher tax revenue based on "loophole reforms" and raising the top tier.

Boehner:
Raising taxes is unacceptable, we most use "loophole reforms".

So, if neither budges we get both. If Obama budges we get reform. If Boehner budges we get reform and different rates for one tier. All this arguing yet they're both going to raise taxes either nominally or by virtue of %. What the fuck people.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's another good point, innovation doesn't mean inventing yet another treatment for something which we already have good treatments for. For example, we don't really need more drugs for ED. We especially don't need more commercials advertising them....:roll:[/QUOTE]

Japan has universal healthcare that is famously stingy and that helps drive MRI machines that are like half the costs and probably the size of a cell phone.
 
[quote name='egofed']http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/08/08/the-federal-governments-war-on-medical-innovation/[/QUOTE]

Shorter article: "innovation in the medical industry is driven by the profit motive. As evidence, I will talk about two computers."

derrrrrrrrrrp.

Don't get angry with me for not reading the Cato article. If this is the best bullshit you can come up with support your arguments, then you are already well aware that you have nothing to support your claim.

(and that's independent of the laughably false converse of your argument: that no medical innovations have ever occurred in single-payer medical industries.)
 
[quote name='Clak'] For example, we don't really need more drugs for ED. ...:roll:[/QUOTE]

Why ya gotta go and make it all personal. Its not like I'm addicted to Tramadol. I can quit at anytime
Edit : Yeah I derailed this...


[quote name='egofed']

"Policymakers should consider the impact of reform proposals on innovation. For example, proposals that increase spending on diagnostics and therapeutics could encourage such innovation. Expanding price controls, government health care programs, and health insurance regulation, on the other hand, could hinder America's ability to innovate."


Apologies accepted;-)[/QUOTE]

If you read the PDF document , they arent advocating an all or none policy (which is actually surprising for Cato)
Cato is talking about a balanced approach.
For example, proposals that increase spending on diagnostics and therapeutics could encourage such innovation. On the other hand,
imposing price controls on pharmaceuticals
and health insurance would tend to reduce innovation
Click to expand...

I would say again : The aspect of price controls towards insurance providers are fairly loose. (This Policy Paper was written in 09) So when they're talking about imposing price controls , its a little inaccurate.
It also cites Massachusetts as a failure (which doesnt surprise me at all about Cato) If you're open minded , you'll note the failures in that state run system center around the free market: Taking on the role of controlling costs is the best angle for us.
Nobody can ever explain why we've never based our healthcare on results. We do that with everything else. .. You do it with your Car and your home appliances....

The point that America has generated the greatest innovation in Cancer treatments , but havent seen any results towards actual Cancer Patients and eradicating the disease is moot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So higher taxes and complex, bloated regulation won't slow any companies down? OK, it must be true because you guys said it.;-) Is it also false that the affluent of other socialized healthcare countries routinely come here to enjoy our ease of accessibility to advanced procedures? Question my knowledge on a subject all you want, it helps to broaden my mind, but maybe give your own qualifications also. I have no freaking idea what any of you, other than Bob, do for a living. I had to see a 45 year old lady naked on her toilet last night because she had drank herself to death. Her 4 year old had been living in the house since Monday with his dead mom. This also occurred in government subsidized housing...had to get my jab in at what damage the welfare state is causing.;-)

And not reading Cato but citing Maddow is hypocritical to me Myke. She always has her mind made up in advance also. I'll read it, but here's a hint, use YOUR own judgement to form an opinion. I'll say it again, the left and the right both lie and misrepresent facts.
 
[quote name='egofed']And not reading Cato but citing Maddow is hypocritical to me Myke. She always has her mind made up in advance also. I'll read it, but here's a hint, use YOUR own judgement to form an opinion. I'll say it again, the left and the right both lie and misrepresent facts.[/QUOTE]

Maddow reported on Senate votes.

Cato presented their own research.

apples = automobiles.
 
[quote name='egofed']Is it also false that the affluent of other socialized healthcare countries routinely come here to enjoy our ease of accessibility to advanced procedures?[/QUOTE]
So making the (what I consider very reasonable) assumptions that:

1. The affluent of other countries come here for advanced medical treatment and procedures (your words)
2. Said affluent purchase insurance above their own countries socialized systems, giving them access to our advanced procedures
3. Our own poor, even with Obamacare, will not have access to the most advanced medical treatment and procedures (ie OMG DEATH PANELS)
4. Our own affluent will also purchase insurance above coverage by Obamacare in order to maintain access to advanced medical treatment and procedures

Given those very logical conclusions, where is the money constraint on the part of our healthcare industry that researches advanced medical treatment and procedures? Surely it's not the poor, who won't have access to the new hotness. But they don't now, so nothing changes there. The rich will obviously continue to use these high end services given their current consumption habits. So what part of the market changes? What part of Obamacare fundamentally changes the landscape that creates this future of reduced investment in medical advancement?

I don't get it.
 
[quote name='camoor']Sweet fucking Jesus that is one fucking stupid article.

Increases in mircoprocessor speed have outpaced every other industry by a wide margin. For example, if cars had kept pace with microprocessor technology we would all be driving cheap flying Ferraris.

That was a really stupid link egofed. Really fucking stupid.[/QUOTE]
It's stupid to even compare the rate of innovation in one industry to another. Some things simply take more time.
 
[quote name='Clak']It's stupid to even compare the rate of innovation in one industry to another. Some things simply take more time.[/QUOTE]

Now that's not wholly fair. Camoor has a point - computer technology advances extremely quickly, constantly hitting the limitations it was thought to have and then surpassing them. Compare your phone or computer to what you had ten years ago. Meanwhile, the car I'm driving is almost exactly the same as its new model offspring, with the differences largely being cosmetic, or a bunch of features that laterally enhance driving instead of offering actual progression (oh boy, heated seats, I'm sure glad we have top men on that).

There's this e-mail chain - I'm sure everyone's unfunny uncle knows it - about how Bill Gates got some flak from the car industry because "dohoho, Windows crashes." He responded that "If the car industry advanced as much as computers have, we'd have cars that got a million miles to the gallon." So then the car industry wrote up a bunch of zingers like "If you don't put your seatbelt on the right way, your car crashes! A haw haw haw!"

I think it's maybe half and half. There are obviously some industries that outpace others, but there are several that remain stagnant for X reasons, which largely are born out of the need for profits.
 
[quote name='Strell']I think it's maybe half and half. There are obviously some industries that outpace others, but there are several that remain stagnant for X reasons, which largely are born out of the need for profits.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for bringing some thread relevance to my post. :)

Being familiar with computers I just have a conniption when people compare another industry to the advances in microprocessor speeds. It's kind of like comparing any contemporary political group to nazis, once someone brings it up you can instantly stop reading and disregard anything they had to say.

Then again, reading Forbes for their political commentary is like reading Maxim for their movie and music reviews - you're doing it wrong.
 
[quote name='Strell']Now that's not wholly fair. Camoor has a point - computer technology advances extremely quickly, constantly hitting the limitations it was thought to have and then surpassing them. Compare your phone or computer to what you had ten years ago. Meanwhile, the car I'm driving is almost exactly the same as its new model offspring, with the differences largely being cosmetic, or a bunch of features that laterally enhance driving instead of offering actual progression (oh boy, heated seats, I'm sure glad we have top men on that).

There's this e-mail chain - I'm sure everyone's unfunny uncle knows it - about how Bill Gates got some flak from the car industry because "dohoho, Windows crashes." He responded that "If the car industry advanced as much as computers have, we'd have cars that got a million miles to the gallon." So then the car industry wrote up a bunch of zingers like "If you don't put your seatbelt on the right way, your car crashes! A haw haw haw!"

I think it's maybe half and half. There are obviously some industries that outpace others, but there are several that remain stagnant for X reasons, which largely are born out of the need for profits.[/QUOTE]
I was agreeing with camoor. Unless I misunderstood what he was saying. I simply meant it's unfair to compare some industries simply because they're in different businesses. Not all technology advances at the same pace.
 
If there's a reason that people come to the US for advanced treatments its generally not that medical research in the US is advancing things any faster than elsewhere in the world.

It's that the US has some of the top (and most famous) treatment centers in the world, with some of the top (and most famous) doctors in the world. The reason for that is that facilities in the US tend to pay much more than in other countries.

Any difference in medial research (or other research fields) is the same--US universities pay much more than most other countries for tenure-track faculty doing research. I make a good bit more as an assistant professor than some of my tenured colleagues who work in other countries.

While that brings top talent, it isn't always a good thing. For instance, (and I've told this story before), when I go to my doctor or the ER in the US I just get rushed through everything (after a long wait) and seldom get a sense the doctors really care about anything other than doing an exam as quick as possible, writing some prescriptions and getting on to the next customer as quickly a possible so they can see as many as possible each day and make as much money as possible.

The one time I've gotten sick and seen a doctor in another country was in Taiwan last summer--which has universal health care. Got a bad sinus infection and chest cold, had to go to the ER. I was seen quickly, all the personnel where very attentive. There was no quick exam and rushing me out. I got an exam, a chest x-ray, a breathing treatment and then examined again before being sent out the door with meds from the hospital pharmacy.

And it all cost me $110 as a foreigner with no health coverage in that country. Something like that would pretty much never happen in the US where 9/10 people in the medical field are concerned about money and treat people as customers rather than patients.
 
[quote name='Strell']Now that's not wholly fair. Camoor has a point - computer technology advances extremely quickly, constantly hitting the limitations it was thought to have and then surpassing them. Compare your phone or computer to what you had ten years ago. Meanwhile, the car I'm driving is almost exactly the same as its new model offspring, with the differences largely being cosmetic, or a bunch of features that laterally enhance driving instead of offering actual progression (oh boy, heated seats, I'm sure glad we have top men on that).

There's this e-mail chain - I'm sure everyone's unfunny uncle knows it - about how Bill Gates got some flak from the car industry because "dohoho, Windows crashes." He responded that "If the car industry advanced as much as computers have, we'd have cars that got a million miles to the gallon." So then the car industry wrote up a bunch of zingers like "If you don't put your seatbelt on the right way, your car crashes! A haw haw haw!"

I think it's maybe half and half. There are obviously some industries that outpace others, but there are several that remain stagnant for X reasons, which largely are born out of the need for profits.[/QUOTE]

Not to go off topic (Sort of) But you're hitting on something thats largely ignored: The hardware manufacturers are also the software manufacturers. nd the only thing that ever stands in the way of software are the limits of the hardware.

Anything stagnant in the Auto industry (especially when it comes to fuel economy) Stems from the symbiotic relationship between the oil companies. They made one another , if one advances too far they might leave the other behind. Their relationship is what stands in the way of innovation
Thats the reason why your car is exactly the same as it was 80 years ago and your home computer is able to take innovative leaps.
Now put that into the Insurance companies /Big Pharma/ healthcare providers symbiotic relationship equation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm
 
[quote name='EdRyder']Not to go off topic (Sort of) But you're hitting on something thats largely ignored: The hardware manufacturers are also the software manufacturers. nd the only thing that ever stands in the way of software are the limits of the hardware.

Anything stagnant in the Auto industry (especially when it comes to fuel economy) Stems from the symbiotic relationship between the oil companies. They made one another , if one advances too far they might leave the other behind. Their relationship is what stands in the way of innovation
Thats the reason why your car is exactly the same as it was 80 years ago and your home computer is able to take innovative leaps.
Now put that into the Insurance companies /Big Pharma/ healthcare providers symbiotic relationship equation.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm[/QUOTE]

IMHO comparing microprocessors to cars is good for a little surface exploration and that cute throwaway line attributed to Bill Gates, but it holds little substantive value.

The fact that the Forbes article devotes a paragraph comparing microprocessors to healthcare - I don't see how that one can be defended. The author is clearly an idiot.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']If there's a reason that people come to the US for advanced treatments its generally not that medical research in the US is advancing things any faster than elsewhere in the world.

It's that the US has some of the top (and most famous) treatment centers in the world, with some of the top (and most famous) doctors in the world. The reason for that is that facilities in the US tend to pay much more than in other countries.

Any difference in medial research (or other research fields) is the same--US universities pay much more than most other countries for tenure-track faculty doing research. I make a good bit more as an assistant professor than some of my tenured colleagues who work in other countries.

While that brings top talent, it isn't always a good thing. For instance, (and I've told this story before), when I go to my doctor or the ER in the US I just get rushed through everything (after a long wait) and seldom get a sense the doctors really care about anything other than doing an exam as quick as possible, writing some prescriptions and getting on to the next customer as quickly a possible so they can see as many as possible each day and make as much money as possible.

The one time I've gotten sick and seen a doctor in another country was in Taiwan last summer--which has universal health care. Got a bad sinus infection and chest cold, had to go to the ER. I was seen quickly, all the personnel where very attentive. There was no quick exam and rushing me out. I got an exam, a chest x-ray, a breathing treatment and then examined again before being sent out the door with meds from the hospital pharmacy.

And it all cost me $110 as a foreigner with no health coverage in that country. Something like that would pretty much never happen in the US where 9/10 people in the medical field are concerned about money and treat people as customers rather than patients.[/QUOTE]
I remember watching something, may have been done by Michael Moore. Anyway, they go into a pharmacy (forget the country, was in Europe) and ask about where the usual crap is you see in American pharmacies. They were basically told "This is a pharmacy, not a convenience store".

So yeah, the sense that you're just a dollar figure extends even beyond the physician's office/hospital. Thankfully in this town there is still one pharmacy that is an actual pharmacy, not the medical equivalent of a gas station.
 
And then that happened. Boehner tried to force Obama's hand by making him and the Senate Dems kill his fiscal cliff bill. Only a funny thing happened on the way. It didn't pass the Republican majority House.

He has no power and can promise absolutely nothing. He can't even get his own bills passed his own people. You don't schedule a vote unless you've got votes. This was the night Boehner went down in flames. The only thing that might keep him in his job is who honestly wants to try to tame that fucking disaster called the House GOP?
"This was our attempt to lead," said Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., who supported Boehner's plan. "Clearly, we were not able to do that. So now we're going to have to respond to whatever the Senate is able to do."
Click to expand...
This issue is *the* GOP issue. The one they've been hammering on Obama about. OH NOES THE DEFICIT YOU CANT RAISE TAXES YOU HAVE TO DO IT THIS OTHER WAY. Except their way can't even pass their people. wtff.

Doesn't matter Obama's fault.

I'm starting to think it might not actually have anything to do with Obama. Maybe the Republicans are here to shut down the government and that's that. They'll pull the temple down on their own heads and then blame everyone else when the situation goes to shit.
"We're not taking up any of the things they are working on over there," Reid said. "It's time for Republicans to get serious."
Click to expand...
This is the new reality Harry. Wake up and smell the bullshit. They're anti-everything, even against cutting taxes if even 1% of people's taxes don't go down along with the rest. If it isn't a giant space cannon or a tax cut for the wealthy, they're not interested.
 
Yeah u know what, I.... I... herp..... derp... herp.....

Oh sorry, SwiftKey switched to the conservative dictionary. I was trying to say that it seems like Boehner is sunk.
 
Republicans are too devious for me to totally buy into any indicator that they're in complete chaos. It's plausible, of course - as you separate people who can see reality versus those who are just ideologues and insane.

i.e., the disparity of reactions to the election:
"We lost and had our asses handed to us despite our best efforts, therefore:"
a) perhaps we should express some willingness to compromise
b) we clearly need to be more conservative in order to get the votes necessary to win next time

Boehner is an (a), but he has to appease the (b) mindset or else lose power within the party. Given that, the chaotic premise is plausible. So, for Boehner, start with a (b) approach (no pun intended) - and when that fails, move to (a) so as to get what you truly want and also appease the fucking idiots (e.g., "primary voters") who think (b) is the way the world should work.

But I don't doubt their ability to remain organized and consistent, however, particularly if it creates a nefarious opportunity.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Sounds just like how Obama couldn't lead his party into passing Single Payer...[/QUOTE]

Implying he tried hard.
 
[quote name='Clak']Yeah u know what, I.... I... herp..... derp... herp.....[/QUOTE]

Wow. I think this is probably the most accurate and honest post Clak has ever made. Congrats.

[quote name='IRHari']Implying he tried hard.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. Everyone knows he didn't. The issue is the folks who try to change history - when various things are pointed out about the Health Insurance Reform bill and how poor of a piece of legislation it is, the folks come out of the woodwork, tripping over each other to explain how, in spite of the fact that Democrats had majority power in the House, the Senate and controlled the Presidency, it was all the Republicans fault that they couldn't get anything passed because the Republicans (used to) work together and the Democrats were unable to - thus the Democrats were forced to pass a ****ty bill.

Now, we're in a situation where the Republicans are having a terrible time at sticking together and the same nay-sayers are coming out of the woodwork to say that the Republican party is in chaos and is going down because they can't work together.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Not at all. Everyone knows he didn't. The issue is the folks who try to change history - when various things are pointed out about the Health Insurance Reform bill and how poor of a piece of legislation it is, the folks come out of the woodwork, tripping over each other to explain how, in spite of the fact that Democrats had majority power in the House, the Senate and controlled the Presidency, it was all the Republicans fault that they couldn't get anything passed because the Republicans (used to) work together and the Democrats were unable to - thus the Democrats were forced to pass a ****ty bill.

Now, we're in a situation where the Republicans are having a terrible time at sticking together and the same nay-sayers are coming out of the woodwork to say that the Republican party is in chaos and is going down because they can't work together.[/QUOTE]
Single payer went down because Obama realized he wasn't going to get it through without massive arm twisting and even then he might not get it. So he came back with a different proposal that moved to the center.

"Plan B" went down because Boehner realized he wasn't going to get it through without massive arm twisting and even then he might not get it. So he turned off the lights and told the House to go home for Christmas.

Everybody knew Obama had the votes for SOMETHING, they just needed to find it and they did and we ended up with Obamacare.

Do you have confidence that Boehner has the votes for anything on this? Any plan at all? Single payer was too far to the left for some of the lefties to swallow so he came back towards the center to find votes. Was Boehner's Plan B too far to the right? Is coming to the center going to fix this? In a word, no.

Yesterday morning, Plan B had the official blessing of FreedomWords and Norquist's Club for Growth. By yesterday evening and with absolutely nothing changed, both those groups were against it. wtf happened? The nay sayers are not coming out of the woodwork to attack the party. The nay sayers ARE THE PARTY. Anyone heard from Preibus lately? Is he on a milk carton yet? If Preibus ain't in charge, and Boehner ain't in charge, and the two monster pressure groups aren't in charge and/or don't even know what they want, wtf do you do?

Bob, imagine for a second that you're Obama. You've been negotiating with Boehner. You secretly question Boehner's ability to deliver on his ability to negotiate. To apply some good old fashioned screws to you, Boehner takes his personally crafted blessed-by-his-hardcore-lobbyists bill to his caucus to pass so he can say he's trying but you aren't! Good old fashioned politics.

And then he goes down in flames.

You're Obama. What's your next move?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
American Express Publishing and The Harrison Group found that 67 percent of the top one percent of American earners support higher income taxes. Their support has grown since the election. This summer, 62 percent of them supported higher taxes.
Click to expand...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/majority-rich-want-themselves-taxed-193437266.html

So basically, everything the GOP tells you about the "job creators" who need all that money to make new jobs is made up? Wow, imagine that...
 
[quote name='nasum']duh?[/QUOTE]

It's easy to forget that media narratives are limited to a very small set of voices operating under a large number of names (both orgs and people).

It's especially easy to forget who those people truly are if you buy into even the slightest bit of the "media is liberal" tripe.

EDIT: Think of it this way - FOX News Channel is able to communicate the following messages to its viewers:
- the mainstream media is liberally biased in a major way
- we (FOX) are the biggest ratings behemoth in televised news

...without triggering even the slightest bit of confusion in its audience. So, yeah, we're easily duped (or, alternately, devoid of a lot of skepticism).
 
I still don't get that use of "mainstream" from fox. So let me get this straight, you're the news channel with the highest ratings in the country, but you aren't mainstream?

So just when exactly does the outsider become the mainstream?
 
I do feel it's basically the same crap all over again, except incrementally worse. And hey, they screwed the Hurricane Sandy victims, denying them relief that could not only help them but could get the economy kicking some more.
 
It is a good compromise - $250k was just too low without taking into any cost of living adjustments but even in the super-expensive areas around here you are killing it if you are making $400k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top