Amerika, zemlja velika

[Peter Fan]

Cini mi se da sam vec to pisao, ali health care je sad vec na preko 15% of GDP i sa daleko vecom stop rasta od ostatka ekonomije, sto znaci da to nije odrzivo, taman da je ne znam koliko napredan (a nije)  i da svima pruza usluge (a ne pruza). Parazit koji jednostavno ubija svog domacina.

 

A kad se vec gadjamo anegdotama, evo jedna i moja: u prosloj firm kad sam poceo (2007) imali smo na raspolaganju 4 razlicite opcije i ja sam imao Excel tabelu gdje sam uporedjivao razne opcije i radio analize scenarija, i prema tome birao. Kad sam odlazio, ostala je samo jedna opcija. Pogodite koja?

 

A u trenutnoj firmi imamo samo dvije opcije: losu i goru.

[trustno1]

Pa što radiš za sranje firmu.

[3opge]

2 minutes ago, trustno1 said:

Pa što radiš za sranje firmu.

 

nije ucio Python.

 

[Peter Fan]

jebiga, kad sam ja isao u skolu, bila po jedna knjiga za C/C++ i jedna za Prolog. 

[ObiW]

1 hour ago, borris_ said:

Koliko košta jedno takvo osiguranje? Ja sam shvatio da to osiguranje plaća firma (za radnike i njihovu obitelj). 

Osiguranje preko firme zavisi od toga da li je samo za tebe ili je za porodicu. Moze recimo da bude u rangu oko 100 dolara za pojedinca a duplo vise za porodicu. Uloga firme u svemu tome je da izadje pred osiguravajuce drustvo i kaze " mi imamo ovoliko hiljada ljude, dajte nam vase uslove osiguranja". Posto nas ima mnogo, dobijamo povoljnije uslove. I svi placamo isto, bez obzira na godine.

 

I to je problem kada se osiguravas privatno: nastupas kao pojedinac, i kao takav ne mozes da pregovaras sa korporacijom koja te osigurava nego je "to je za tebe ovoliko, ostavi ili uzmi, a svake godine si stariji pa ces da placas sve vise". Zato placas vise mesecno kada uzimas privatno osiguranje. Neke drzave (gde su Demokrate na vlasti) su ustanovile program koji je vezan za Obamacare ciji je cilj bio da pomognu ljudima koji privatno kupuju osiguranje, ali ja o tome ne znam mnogo. Mislim da je ovo jedan primer, ali nisam siguran:

 

https://connectforhealthco.com

 

 

[mustang]

dno dna

i vas ceka 

 

legalizovana pedofilija u prevodu. musko dete od 10godina moze da ima seks sa deckom od 20. na sudiji je da odluci da li je sporazumno

 

..a svaki drugi gej tinejdzer je na ovaj ili onaj nacin seksualno zlostavljen i da li je stariji sex offender. 

 

ovo zlo gura isti covek scott weiner koji je eliminisao felony za svakog ko namerno siri HIV

 

povraca mi se

 

 

 

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

 

SB 145, as amended, Wiener. Sex offenders: registration.

Existing law, the Sex Offender Registration Act, requires a person convicted of one of certain crimes, as specified, to register with law enforcement as a sex offender while residing in California or while attending school or working in California, as specified. A willful failure to register, as required by the act, is a misdemeanor or felony, depending on the underlying offense.

This bill would exempt from mandatory registration under the act a person convicted of certain offenses involving minors if the person is not more than 10 years older than the minor and if that offense is the only one requiring the person to register.

 

Edited September 2, 2020 by mustang

[ObiW]

55 minutes ago, borris_ said:

Nešto sam sigurno promašio. Obiw kaže da za njegovo osiguranje on plaća tih 20% sve do 1600$ godisnje a sve ostalo osiguranje (80% + sve kada on dodje do 1600$).

Tako je. 

[Pokojni Ruxin]

4 minutes ago, mustang said:

dno dna

i vas ceka 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nije lak poso davati kontekst mustangicinim histerijama, ali somebody has to do it...makar se nehisterični odgovor uvek da lako izguglati za 2 min

Spoiler

SACRAMENTO — If a 19-year-old man is convicted of having sex with his 17-year-old boyfriend in California, he must register as a sex offender. But that may not be the case for a 24-year-old man who gets a 15-year-old girl pregnant — he can avoid that penalty if a judge decides it’s unnecessary.

That disparate treatment lingers from a historic criminalization of gay sex that California struck from law decades ago. Critics warn that it leaves LGBT young people vulnerable to unfair punishment in more conservative parts of the state where local prosecutors might be more inclined to pursue such cases.

State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, hopes to eliminate the discrepancy with a bill giving judges discretion over sex-offender registration in all cases involving voluntary intercourse between teenagers and young adults.

 

“This is such horrific homophobia,” Wiener said. “It’s irrational, and it ruins people’s lives.”

When California created its sex-offender registry system in 1947, anal and oral sex were illegal, as was vaginal penetration with anything other than a penis. Even after the Legislature decriminalized those acts between consenting adults in 1975, adults who engaged in them with minors continued to be treated more harshly than those who had vaginal intercourse with a minor.

 

The California Supreme Court upheld the legal difference in 2015. Among its arguments was that vaginal intercourse can lead to pregnancy, and forcing a father to register as a sex offender would subject him to social stigmatization that could make it difficult to find a job and support his child.

Wiener said that decision is to the “eternal shame” of the court. His bill, SB145, would instead treat sex acts the same: Although minors cannot legally consent, if a teenager ages 14 to 17 voluntarily had sex with an adult who is less than 10 years older, the judge would decide whether the adult should register as a sex offender based on the facts of the case.

 

The measure has support from Equality California, the LGBT advocacy organization, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union of California and groups representing district attorneys, police chiefs and public defenders.

It is sponsored by the Los Angeles district attorney’s office. Deputy District Attorney Bradley McCartt told lawmakers at a Senate committee hearing in April that the bill is about public safety as much as fairness.

It takes the same amount of time to register and track these young adults who are at little risk of re-offending as it does serial rapists and child molesters, McCartt said.

“It’s important to look at the actual purpose of the registry,” McCartt said at the hearing. “Remember, it’s not the punishment for the crime. It’s a public safety issue that has to do with crime-solving and keeping track of predators.”

 

He told the story of a 17-year-old girl whose mother was upset to find out she was a lesbian. The mother pressed charges against her daughter’s 18-year-old girlfriend. Although McCartt was able to stop the prosecution, he said, the girlfriend still lost a scholarship to a University of California campus as a result.

“It seems like we went in a time machine and pulled out something that I can’t even believe still exists on the books of our penal codes,” McCartt said.

 

Two years ago, Wiener carried another bill to end automatic lifetime registration for California’s sex offender registry and allow offenders convicted of less-serious crimes to remove their names after 10 or 20 years. Law enforcement officers said that with about 100,000 registered offenders, the database had become too large to be useful.

According to data provided by Wiener’s office, at least 2,400 people on the sex-offender registry, and potentially hundreds more, have been convicted of non-vaginal sex with a minor age 14 or older.

 

There is no formal opposition to SB145, though some conservative news sites wrote stories after the bill was introduced accusing Wiener of trying to “protect pedophiles who rape children.”

The measure does not apply to forcible sex acts. Wiener noted that it does not change any crimes, merely whether they result in automatic sex offender registration.

“We need to stop criminalizing teenage sex,” he said. “At a minimum, we should not be forcing these kids onto the sex-offender registry and ruining their lives.”

 

[3opge]

5 minutes ago, ObiW said:

Tako je. 

 

onda, recimo ostanes bez posla pa ti je jedina opcija za zdravstveno osiguranje COBRA a cijena, prava sitnica, $750 po osobi (nema vise porodicno).

[borris_]

5 minutes ago, ObiW said:

Tako je. 

Ok ali onda nisam shvatio zašto ona plaća 6000$ za osiguranje.

Shvatam da je od do firme i što je firma veća to je bolje za zaposlene. Najgore prolaze ovi što rade za mala firme.

[trustno1]

Just now, borris_ said:

Ok ali onda nisam shvatio zašto ona plaća 6000$ za osiguranje.

Shvatam da je od do firme i što je firma veća to je bolje za zaposlene. Najgore prolaze ovi što rade za mala firme.

Napisala sam ti gore, opširan odgovor.

[trustno1]

12 minutes ago, Peter Fan said:

jebiga, kad sam ja isao u skolu, bila po jedna knjiga za C/C++ i jedna za Prolog. 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Python-Kids-Playful-Introduction-Programming/dp/1593274076/ref=asc_df_1593274076/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312125971120&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7043269812071862153&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9060351&hvtargid=pla-406163956273&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=61316180839&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312125971120&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7043269812071862153&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9060351&hvtargid=pla-406163956273

 

[borris_]

Da pročitao sam, hvala. 

Meni liči na sistem gdje se kladis na svoje zdravlje. 

[ObiW]

1 minute ago, borris_ said:

Ok ali onda nisam shvatio zašto ona plaća 6000$ za osiguranje.

Shvatam da je od do firme i što je firma veća to je bolje za zaposlene. Najgore prolaze ovi što rade za mala firme.

Sto je veca firma, to ti je bolje osiguranje.

 

Ima tu jos nesto o cemu nismo pricali sto postoji kada imas osiguranje preko firme (ne daju to sve firme, ali velike to imaju), a to je tzv Health Spending Account (HSA). Postoje dve varijante toga, ali u sustini mozes da uplacujes neoporezovan novac direktno na taj racun, i da odatle placas troskove lecenja. Ako ti je stopa oporezivanja 20-25%, racunaj da si toliko ustedeo koristeci HSA za medicinske troskove. Postoji godisnji limit za to, nesto ko 3 hiljade za pojedinca i duplo vise za porodicu. 

[3opge]

6 minutes ago, borris_ said:

Ok ali onda nisam shvatio zašto ona plaća 6000$ za osiguranje.

Shvatam da je od do firme i što je firma veća to je bolje za zaposlene. Najgore prolaze ovi što rade za mala firme.

 

najgore prolaze oni koji su nezaposleni a bolesni.