vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
You would think that not having health insurance would make people want to remain more healthy. However, studies show [the opposite to be true](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2011/07/does_health_coverage_make_people_healthier.html). In actuality, people stress more about their health, and avoid periodic checkups. Both of which lead to bad health results. Trying to blame the cost increases in health care on government ""meddling"", or say it is a problem brought on by the ACA is weird since there are [so many examples of government provided](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/#175cf39e576f) health care programs out there which are so much more efficient, less costly, and have resulted in much healthier populations. &gt; I dont have health insurance and an ER visit with xrays costs me less out of pocket than 90% of the country why is that? I am going to call BS. Number one, that is a huge claim to make without supporting evidence. Number two, you would have to demonstrate how much that same visit would cost to those *with* health insurance. &gt; Do you think it has to do with the fact that with the aca hospitals know they are getting paid with 0 questioning on pricing so charge whatever they want and with me they think ""shit this guy might not ever pay us lets just give him a decent price and get some money from him because all we can do is send his bill to collections"" Actually, no. The [exact *opposite* happens](http://www.alternet.org/story/16466/why_hospitals_overcharge_the_uninsured). They now, because you are uninsured, that you are unlikely to pay. So they *overcharge* you for the same services because they know that they will only be reimbursed a percentage of the costs if it goes to Medicare for non-payment.
Everyone complaining about fraud and jail time have no idea what they are talking about. Fraud in a financial sense is very difficult to prove. It is also very expensive to litigate. Furthermore, there is little evidence there was any actual fraud. Rather a number of things just went wrong. At the time, you had the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke and the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson both going on TV saying subprime wasn't an issue and even if it was it wouldn't affect the wider mortgage market. The regulators knew what was going on and did nothing at the time because none of the economic models anyone used showed we would go into recession.
So to sum up, a Keynesian would suggest that the way out of this economic malaise is to incur more public debt now to make up for the fact that the private sector is paying down its way-too-high debt.  And you suggest that the way out is to produce more cheap electronics in this country by cutting taxes and regulation? I bet ending unions would probably help, too.
"&gt; it’ll be a matter of time before we go public, and we’re borrowing money to pay our shareholders, and new people are investing. And there’s also created debt, and we have to pay back that debt,” said Linehan, the manager in Tilton.  Sounds like they are getting ready to use Starve the Beast tactics. ""Oh my! We have all of this debt. We're are going to have to make some cuts! People will lose jobs otherwise!"""
"I don't even know where to begin, you're truly all over the place. The number of upvotes on your post has absolutely zero relevance to the fact that you believe Trump has caused this minuscule reduction in the deficit. You literally said it yourself. You posted an article and stated ""let's discuss"" and then when it was discussed, your argument was completely refuted in a heartbeat. Why didn't you respond to /xmantipper 's post? He laid out a rational argument to refute your opinion, however you unfortunately didn't have the facts or understanding on the subject to back your opinion. So instead, you stayed away from that comment/argument because it didn't reflect your biased way of thinking. This is the basis of which the shrinking pro-Trump base now stand. They project their opinions, then cherry-pick the feedback that helps them feel good about their opinions while refusing to respond to any arguments that have factual information &amp; merit. I'm going to give you some advise. /Economy isn't a good place for you to learn about the basics of economics. And I know you do not know the bare basics, because anyone with any clue about how modern economics works knows that a President cannot enact true economic growth or can significantly reduce a national budget deficit in 8 months while not introducing &amp; passing one piece of meaningful legislature or enacting any piece of their economic agenda. (Which both sides of the aisle are fully aware &amp; accept that Trump hasn't been able to accomplish yet) Now this is going to put you in a tough spot. The S&amp;P under Obama was up 30% after his first 8 months in office. By your rational, Obama grew the overall wealth of the top 500 companies in the U.S. by 30% before he was able to enact any legislature. But no, Obama couldn't have done that, because he only introduced destructive economic legislature from the get-go. Therefore, the President must have no control over economic success or failure within their first year of the Presidency, before they can make use of their economic agenda. However, that would go against your entire argument you set forward in this post. Puts you in a bit of a pretzel.
True. That, and the fact that median household income hasn't increased in two decades, while housing has now passed its prior (unsustainable) highs and is now more expensive than ever before in US history.   That's a recipe for misery if there ever was one.
Alternatively, she could move out and move in with someone else and that should certainly get her share of the rent down to $800 - $1000/month or thereabouts, and most likely cut her utility bills, also. I've identified a number of places where she can save money. No doubt, the budget is tight, but I think she's spending on far more than just bare essentials. One thing that concerns me here is that she appears to have no emergency funds and very little for entertainment, other than cable t.v. If at all possible, she needs to cut her budget down so that she is not living paycheque to paycheque and has money to cover, for example, emergency car repairs. And I'd really like to see her have more than $50/month for expenses (which I'm guessing is entertainment). It may not be possible, of course, but I would most definitely say she should not be paying for your sister's college if this places her in such dire financial risk. Easier said than done, of course. Most certainly, I would not even consider cutting the health insurance, by the way. Another approach would be to look at how her expenses will go down when your sister is done school and perhaps cleared up other expenses. It may be worth borrowing from family and friends, knowing that in a year, her expenses will go down $500/month. That makes her budget manageable. Additionally, the debt repayment presumably will finish at some point. The point I'm trying to make is that, in a year, her budget will be just about manageable, and she may be able to get there with smaller trims in the immediate future.
You can't blame companies like 'Legal Claimant Services' for making a profit by providing this service. That is capitalism and it is the way of the world.  It is just like any other business you can do yourself - from making dinner to cutting your own grass. If you choose to do it yourself, you save money but you also do the work. When I got my letter telling me about a claim, I automatically went online to do some research. That's how I found this site and information that led me to validate the claim. I then chose to follow a few simple instructions and keep all of the claim instead of giving away 30%.
It's a disturbing development -- someone is floating the idea that the executive has the ability to issue debt without the consent of congress to measure the public's reaction. Why disturbing? Because people are using language like this: The president, moreover, can move quickly, but court cases take time. “At the point at which the economy is melting down, who cares what the Supreme Court is going to say?” Professor Balkin said. “It’s the president’s duty to save the Republic.” The implication to your personal finances is that we continue to live in interesting times, and you need to be aware of the downside risks that your investments are exposed to. If your portfolio is built around the idea that US government obligations are risk-free, you need to rethink that.
"now that's just crazy talk. Politicians on capitol hill wouldn't dream about talking about any sort of *tangible* aspects of economy. Focusing on raw goods/commodities production through a campaign? Shit... that's PR suicide in every urban area (which immediately matters based on population numbers). Much easier to either reference your local military benefactors as ""job creators"" and espouse them if you have them. If you don't, then speak to an idealistic sentiment which entertains any willingness to jump to total warfare at a moment's notice. Once you fall out of favor with the military elite in the rest of the country, you are seen to be managing your community ""dangerously irresponsibly"" and ""frighteningly ignorant of the dangers in the world."" And, obviously, the biggest money is in technology people simply *can't* talk about publicly. It's unwise to ignore those efforts/finances, however. The only flexible mainstay in the budget is Defense. Healthcare spending is, well, the term *gluttonous* comes to mind. Education? Lol. Right. Just put the kids in debt and go fuck yourself / have a nice day. Oh and don't forget your 306^^th monthly installation of your house payment. The other mainstay of the budget? Pensions. Good luck reforming that with the unions in any direction but toward the sky. Welfare? Welfare reforms generally play out really well in the media, don't they? Can you say, ""fuck you, poor people,"" any louder? Defense. Defense is the only malleable entity in the budget but we all know it's easier for the commercial politicians® to purchase media campaigns and drum up not only a sentiment of war, but conditions for their own interests to secure new business in other countries. Teaching Americans to fear things about the world can be done and it costs about $150m per year in a single direction if you know someone who will take your money (gurgling network executives shitting their pants with good, old-fashioned Incontinence).
That depends where you put the top bracket, but probably there is little way to jack income tax to anywhere near that without serious detrimental effect to the economy. The real issue is not that the wealthiest earn too much but that they have too much. There is a huge glut of massive savings at the top that is continually growing and taking money from the economy. This savings drives the creation of public debt more than any other factor. It is that which needs to be, at least in the near term, taxed aggressively.
In Chicago, for HD and dvr, typical price for phone/internet/tv bundle is about 100-120 a month.  My parents pay double that because they make no effort to look for the deals.  But that's for several hundred channels, not sure whether programming is comparable in France.
I'm not sure if you have listened to what people are talking about in california, but *everyone* has their sacred cow. They say that nothing can be cut. The fact is if you have no money then the best thing to do is cut something from every single program. You hurt the future generations more by given them unsustainable debt than cutting these programs.
What you are doing is unethical and illegal but is very hard to catch and prosecute. The key thing for an unethical person to think about here is insurance. For most government incentive programs you have to have the intention to live there. It is extremely hard to prove intent - unless you ask this question under your name on a public forum that is archived by many search engines and maintains a log of all changes. For other folks, it is common for them to claim that they intended to take residence but were surprised that their finances didn't work the way they anticipated. Still, as long as the bank is paid, it is unlikely that they will investigate. However, what happens if there is a major repair needed? You have insurance - because your bank has asked for proof of insurance before they will give a mortgage. That insurance is for an owner occupied building, which you do not have. Your insurance will inspect your claim. If the circumstances do not match what you are insured for because you have lied to the insurance company, they will not pay your claim - which they are entitled to do. You are operating uninsured with tenants. This is a hidden risk you may not be considering. Tenants do not treat property with the same care as an owner - this is why they are insured differently. You are now paying for insurance that you will have a difficult time ever filing a claim on. In addition, if something were to happen that makes it time to claim the insurance value so that you can pay off the mortgage, the insurance company will investigate. They may very easily refuse to pay your fraudulent claim. They may refer you to the police for insurance fraud. The bank will want their money. If they discover that you were not occupying the property, they may just foreclose. They may also notify the government that you were not occupying the property, at which point some one might search and find that you were showing intent to defraud the program out of money that is free for you but gotten through deception. Consider a less risky unethical path like telling people you've been locked out of your car and just need a little money to pay the locksmith to open it. You promise to pay them right back once you get in your car where your wallet is.
The terms of IL state pensions are among the most generous in the entire country and the state is swimming in debt due to them.  The unions own the democratic pols in IL and it's been an incestuous relationship between the two.  Politicians get union money for elections, elected politicians give unions generous pension payouts that basically burden the taxpayer to obscene levels.  Why is IL the largest net migration in the 50 states?  Why isn't Indiana or Wisconsin facing the same problems?  Oh that's right, they got rid of their public sector unions and that's why citizens of IL have about $40,000 more in debt than their neighbors.
"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/6/23/15855342/immigrants-wages-trump-economics-mariel-boatlift-hispanic-cuban) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** &gt; So we should look separately at what happened to wages for each of those groups of low-skill workers who might compete with the immigrants more directly: men only, non-Cuban Hispanics only, prime-age workers only.  &gt; There is not sufficient evidence to show that Cuban immigrants reduced any low-skill workers&amp;#039; wages in Miami, even small minorities of them, and there isn&amp;#039;t much more that can be learned about the Mariel boatlift with the data we have.  &gt; David Card&amp;#039;s canonical conclusion stands In sum, the evidence from the Mariel boatlift continues to support the conclusion of David Card&amp;#039;s seminal research: There is no clear evidence that wages fell among the least-skilled workers in Miami, even after a sudden refugee wave sharply raised the size of that workforce.   ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6j48za/theres_no_evidence_that_immigrants_hurt_any/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ ""Version 1.65, ~151149 tl;drs so far."") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr ""PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome."") | *Top* *keywords*: **wage**^#1 **work**^#2 **Miami**^#3 **low-skill**^#4 **boatlift**^#5"
The problem is a mixture of private and public.  Either go full public or full private, or the disparate mechanisms of each will clog the other up and it fails.  Blaming it on bad faith or incompetence on the part of elected officials is a different problem.  An incompetent elected government is a product of an incompetent electorate, so in effect you're blaming yourself for hiring morons.  The solution is to elect competent people, and throwing up your hands at the problem is tantamount to saying the human race is damned and there's nothing to be done about it.
We (the people) don't need the Fed. The Primary Dealer banks need the Fed. And the deficit financed Federal government needs the Fed.   What the Fed accomplishes for the people is permanent inflation. That inflation happens as waves over the economy. The wave starts in asset and commodity prices and as it loses momentum eventually arrives at wages. It means that the standard of living of the average guy continues to decline unless he finances it with ever-increasing debt.
&gt;There’s no simple way to estimate the cost of UBI. But let’s assume the program is intended to alleviate poverty. The U.S.-defined poverty line for individuals with no children is $12,500. If the government were to give that annual sum to the 250 million adults in America, the cost would come to $3.125 trillion a year. It’s a massive figure, but not as crazy when you consider the cost of existing entitlement programs.  &gt;According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Social Security payments came to $888 billion in fiscal 2015. Medicare, Medicaid and other health-related subsidies were $938 billion, while food stamps and other safety net programs totaled $362 billion. All in, that’s $2.19 trillion.  So cut social security and medicare for the elderly who have paid into it all their lives, AND increase spending by a trillion.  See, here's the part that doesnt make sense about UBI. The people who need the money the most get less and the program costs more. Then somehow it's labeled as a more efficient distribution of welfare. It's really quite baffling how retarded the concept is.
While i do not own my own company or have anything to do with R&amp;D i can for a fact disprove your theory that &gt;Anyone comes to this game with the presupposition that government can't get anything done as well as commercial quickly learns that is not true. As i have and do work on many government contracted sites. Im in construction. And i can tell you from first hand experience the amount of wasted time and money on these sites is absolutely astounding. For instance i worked on a government building a year and a half ago in the western half of the country, this building was meant to service Veterans. Not only was this building over budget by 100% it was also 2 years behind schedule, many people would say that this is the contractors fault but thats only partly true because in a private sector site these contractors wouldnt have lasted more than a month before being replaced. We have both seen the opposite side of the same coin. We both acknowledge the private sector does everything better (for the most part) the only difference is you like the funding to be public (of course you do you make a fucking killing on these government contracts) whereas i want the funding to be private. The private sector will always have a need to innovate and that need will always be filled with or without the government the only difference is the private sector wont keep throwing money at an unsustainable rate like the government does because if they dont see results its not worth funding. Id also like to add you are near the same age as my father who also served in the military and i thank you for your service.
Bank assets are debt. Thus bank equity is a claim on debt.   Note also that QE etal dropped interest rates, compressing interest rate spreads and making it harder for banks to make money.  Banks do well when interest rates increase
"Ben is 100% correct.  The question is how the police and even army are managed.  In Chicago, the police is useless and crime is rampant.  Police, Defense (Army) and health care not ""rights"", but a service provided by your government.  It's all about how it's implemented.  Obamacare is a disaster, unaffordeable, and soon not available because of all the insurance companies who quite supporting it or want to quit.  Trump is not against national health care system. He just want to / have to / no choice but to fix the mess created by Obama.  Let's wait and see what his fixes are all about."
&gt;Im suggesting if they break the law they go to jail, just like every one else  Actually above you were complaining about the monetary penalties, and said nothing about criminal penalties. Which is it? Hundreds of millions of dollars is hardly light fines.  As to going to jail, it depends on the law. Speeding breaks the law, yet it is not often a jailable offense. If *individuals* broke laws that result in jail time, they will likely be prosecuted and sent to jail. [The Justice Department and New York County Attorney General’s Office, which together have handled the high-profile cases that Mazur criticized, said they will always bring criminal charges where evidence permits.](http://blogs.reuters.com/financial-regulatory-forum/2012/06/20/record-setting-bank-forfeiture-at-ing-ignites-debate-over-lack-of-banker-prosecutions/)
If you are a spender partner with a saver. There are three rules to live by regarding the budget: A) no one spends any money unless it is in the budget B) the budget only includes those things to which both the saver and the spender agree C) the budget can, and will, be modified as the pay period unfolds. A budget is a plan not a means to beat the other person up. Plans change as new information arises. A budget must be flexible. The urgent use savings will help to make the budget flexible. Edit due to comments: @enderland Perhaps you do not have children living with you. I am a saver, my wife is a spender. When it came time to do the budget I would forget things like the birthdays of my children, school fees due next pay period, shopping for Christmas gifts, needed new clothes and shoes for the children, broken small appliances that needed to be fixed or replaced, special (non reoccurring) house maintenence (like steam cleaning the carpet), gifts to relatives and friends, exceptional assistance to relatives, etc. As my wife was the spender she would remind me of these things. Perhaps you do not have these events in your life. I am glad to have these events in my life as that means that I have people in my life that I care about. What good is a fat savings account if I have no loved ones that benefit from it?
OP seems pretty objective throughout this whole thing. He's provided evidence on why this could be a false claim but had also called out individuals who makes claims with no backing evidence.  It's possible to not choose a side and have your own agenda.
Oh, yeah, the government's response to heroin users is *definitely* to get them treatment.   Anyway, that's not the point: The point is that many things people enjoy in the short term, harm them in the long term.   The thing about stock exchanges is, they are not people, and there's no inherent reason that any of them should exist. If they get addicted to something that harms them, the simplest and cheapest solution is to let them kill themselves, so that a new market that operates more responsibly can take it's place. There's no point in government intervention here because we're not saving a life, we're supporting a terrible investment. It's a completely different thing.   *Your* mindset is the same mindset that leads to bailouts and subsidies that distort and cripple the markets by forcing otherwise-dead companies and methods to continue to exist by fiat, instead of letting that which is dead, die away, so that newer participants have the chance to evolve and improve the market.