Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]More accomplishments of the Obama administration:
“1 in 3 Employers Will Drop Health Benefits After ObamaCare Kicks In, Survey Finds”
Zeitgeist, I DO believe this will come to pass. I know several people who are currently employed FT who have “employer-sponsored” health plans. Their co-pays are higher than mine, hospital deductibles are higher than mine, they have LESS “choice” than I do, their drug co-pay is higher than mine, etc. One of them has more taken out of their monthly paycheck for their share of their healthcare premium (themselves only) than the cost of my entire monthly premium! And I have a high deductible health plan (HDHP)! I don’t think some companies/non-profits are getting a good deal at all on health insurance for their employees. Since my policy was individually underwritten, my premium is partially set on the state of MY health (past and present). NOT SO with employer-sponsored health plans where the healthy are obviously subsidizing the sick (in the same group) :={
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]More accomplishments of the Obama administration:
“1 in 3 Employers Will Drop Health Benefits After ObamaCare Kicks In, Survey Finds”
Zeitgeist, I DO believe this will come to pass. I know several people who are currently employed FT who have “employer-sponsored” health plans. Their co-pays are higher than mine, hospital deductibles are higher than mine, they have LESS “choice” than I do, their drug co-pay is higher than mine, etc. One of them has more taken out of their monthly paycheck for their share of their healthcare premium (themselves only) than the cost of my entire monthly premium! And I have a high deductible health plan (HDHP)! I don’t think some companies/non-profits are getting a good deal at all on health insurance for their employees. Since my policy was individually underwritten, my premium is partially set on the state of MY health (past and present). NOT SO with employer-sponsored health plans where the healthy are obviously subsidizing the sick (in the same group) :={
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids?
Josh[/quote]Taking a stab at this. One woman’s thinking…
We chose to have 2. In part because we prefered our kids have the experience of having to compromise with siblings… not being the sole focus of our attention, etc. My husband is from a large Italian family – one of six. I was from a typical WASP family – one of 3.
We might have gone for #3 to get the elusive “girl baby”… but I was too damn old for that. 2 was the max.
Hubster did not have kids (nor was married) – and is 10 years older than me. And I am/was old. I was 39 when I had my oldest, 41 for my younger son. We didn’t meet till I was 37… and that courtship, marriage, getting knocked up thing took a year. LOL.
I know I had set my limit at 2. period. But my husband almost convinced me to go for #3… I pointed out that boys run in his family (he has 4 brothers). So… no dice.[/quote]
So UCGal, you’re saying here that ten years ago, your now husband was 50+?, had no children and had just married (or was engaged) to you?
I take it he isn’t from SD but this doesn’t matter. This just fuels my hypothesis that there are MANY 50+ men out there who are seeking to find a spouse ASAP and begin an “immediate” family!
Pls correct me if I missed something… ;=]
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids?
Josh[/quote]Taking a stab at this. One woman’s thinking…
We chose to have 2. In part because we prefered our kids have the experience of having to compromise with siblings… not being the sole focus of our attention, etc. My husband is from a large Italian family – one of six. I was from a typical WASP family – one of 3.
We might have gone for #3 to get the elusive “girl baby”… but I was too damn old for that. 2 was the max.
Hubster did not have kids (nor was married) – and is 10 years older than me. And I am/was old. I was 39 when I had my oldest, 41 for my younger son. We didn’t meet till I was 37… and that courtship, marriage, getting knocked up thing took a year. LOL.
I know I had set my limit at 2. period. But my husband almost convinced me to go for #3… I pointed out that boys run in his family (he has 4 brothers). So… no dice.[/quote]
So UCGal, you’re saying here that ten years ago, your now husband was 50+?, had no children and had just married (or was engaged) to you?
I take it he isn’t from SD but this doesn’t matter. This just fuels my hypothesis that there are MANY 50+ men out there who are seeking to find a spouse ASAP and begin an “immediate” family!
Pls correct me if I missed something… ;=]
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids?
Josh[/quote]Taking a stab at this. One woman’s thinking…
We chose to have 2. In part because we prefered our kids have the experience of having to compromise with siblings… not being the sole focus of our attention, etc. My husband is from a large Italian family – one of six. I was from a typical WASP family – one of 3.
We might have gone for #3 to get the elusive “girl baby”… but I was too damn old for that. 2 was the max.
Hubster did not have kids (nor was married) – and is 10 years older than me. And I am/was old. I was 39 when I had my oldest, 41 for my younger son. We didn’t meet till I was 37… and that courtship, marriage, getting knocked up thing took a year. LOL.
I know I had set my limit at 2. period. But my husband almost convinced me to go for #3… I pointed out that boys run in his family (he has 4 brothers). So… no dice.[/quote]
So UCGal, you’re saying here that ten years ago, your now husband was 50+?, had no children and had just married (or was engaged) to you?
I take it he isn’t from SD but this doesn’t matter. This just fuels my hypothesis that there are MANY 50+ men out there who are seeking to find a spouse ASAP and begin an “immediate” family!
Pls correct me if I missed something… ;=]
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids?
Josh[/quote]Taking a stab at this. One woman’s thinking…
We chose to have 2. In part because we prefered our kids have the experience of having to compromise with siblings… not being the sole focus of our attention, etc. My husband is from a large Italian family – one of six. I was from a typical WASP family – one of 3.
We might have gone for #3 to get the elusive “girl baby”… but I was too damn old for that. 2 was the max.
Hubster did not have kids (nor was married) – and is 10 years older than me. And I am/was old. I was 39 when I had my oldest, 41 for my younger son. We didn’t meet till I was 37… and that courtship, marriage, getting knocked up thing took a year. LOL.
I know I had set my limit at 2. period. But my husband almost convinced me to go for #3… I pointed out that boys run in his family (he has 4 brothers). So… no dice.[/quote]
So UCGal, you’re saying here that ten years ago, your now husband was 50+?, had no children and had just married (or was engaged) to you?
I take it he isn’t from SD but this doesn’t matter. This just fuels my hypothesis that there are MANY 50+ men out there who are seeking to find a spouse ASAP and begin an “immediate” family!
Pls correct me if I missed something… ;=]
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=barnaby33]I’d be curious to know why woemen chose to have x or y kids?
Josh[/quote]Taking a stab at this. One woman’s thinking…
We chose to have 2. In part because we prefered our kids have the experience of having to compromise with siblings… not being the sole focus of our attention, etc. My husband is from a large Italian family – one of six. I was from a typical WASP family – one of 3.
We might have gone for #3 to get the elusive “girl baby”… but I was too damn old for that. 2 was the max.
Hubster did not have kids (nor was married) – and is 10 years older than me. And I am/was old. I was 39 when I had my oldest, 41 for my younger son. We didn’t meet till I was 37… and that courtship, marriage, getting knocked up thing took a year. LOL.
I know I had set my limit at 2. period. But my husband almost convinced me to go for #3… I pointed out that boys run in his family (he has 4 brothers). So… no dice.[/quote]
So UCGal, you’re saying here that ten years ago, your now husband was 50+?, had no children and had just married (or was engaged) to you?
I take it he isn’t from SD but this doesn’t matter. This just fuels my hypothesis that there are MANY 50+ men out there who are seeking to find a spouse ASAP and begin an “immediate” family!
Pls correct me if I missed something… ;=]
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…I dealt with the judges down in East County and, let me tell you, they don’t screw around at all. I had my guy in tears at one point, begging the judge to stop an asset seizure (the wife’s Honda) and the judge was totally unmoved, saying, “I bet you didn’t show this sort of passion went it came to paying your creditors back”. I was in hog heaven at that point. End of the day, I collected just under $100K, including interest, on my $50K investment from about four years earlier. I had spent another $5K +/- on expenses and purchasing the other judgments, so $55K all in.[/quote]
WOW, Allan, I only just now saw your 2009 post! Good for YOU!! I agree that those judges in East County don’t screw around … and furthermore, they’re still there and somehow are able to evade the “transfer list” (not going anywhere). Guess that Division isn’t too popular of a “hot spot” (pun intended) for the “SD judge rotation group.” :=]
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…I dealt with the judges down in East County and, let me tell you, they don’t screw around at all. I had my guy in tears at one point, begging the judge to stop an asset seizure (the wife’s Honda) and the judge was totally unmoved, saying, “I bet you didn’t show this sort of passion went it came to paying your creditors back”. I was in hog heaven at that point. End of the day, I collected just under $100K, including interest, on my $50K investment from about four years earlier. I had spent another $5K +/- on expenses and purchasing the other judgments, so $55K all in.[/quote]
WOW, Allan, I only just now saw your 2009 post! Good for YOU!! I agree that those judges in East County don’t screw around … and furthermore, they’re still there and somehow are able to evade the “transfer list” (not going anywhere). Guess that Division isn’t too popular of a “hot spot” (pun intended) for the “SD judge rotation group.” :=]
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…I dealt with the judges down in East County and, let me tell you, they don’t screw around at all. I had my guy in tears at one point, begging the judge to stop an asset seizure (the wife’s Honda) and the judge was totally unmoved, saying, “I bet you didn’t show this sort of passion went it came to paying your creditors back”. I was in hog heaven at that point. End of the day, I collected just under $100K, including interest, on my $50K investment from about four years earlier. I had spent another $5K +/- on expenses and purchasing the other judgments, so $55K all in.[/quote]
WOW, Allan, I only just now saw your 2009 post! Good for YOU!! I agree that those judges in East County don’t screw around … and furthermore, they’re still there and somehow are able to evade the “transfer list” (not going anywhere). Guess that Division isn’t too popular of a “hot spot” (pun intended) for the “SD judge rotation group.” :=]
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…I dealt with the judges down in East County and, let me tell you, they don’t screw around at all. I had my guy in tears at one point, begging the judge to stop an asset seizure (the wife’s Honda) and the judge was totally unmoved, saying, “I bet you didn’t show this sort of passion went it came to paying your creditors back”. I was in hog heaven at that point. End of the day, I collected just under $100K, including interest, on my $50K investment from about four years earlier. I had spent another $5K +/- on expenses and purchasing the other judgments, so $55K all in.[/quote]
WOW, Allan, I only just now saw your 2009 post! Good for YOU!! I agree that those judges in East County don’t screw around … and furthermore, they’re still there and somehow are able to evade the “transfer list” (not going anywhere). Guess that Division isn’t too popular of a “hot spot” (pun intended) for the “SD judge rotation group.” :=]
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]…I dealt with the judges down in East County and, let me tell you, they don’t screw around at all. I had my guy in tears at one point, begging the judge to stop an asset seizure (the wife’s Honda) and the judge was totally unmoved, saying, “I bet you didn’t show this sort of passion went it came to paying your creditors back”. I was in hog heaven at that point. End of the day, I collected just under $100K, including interest, on my $50K investment from about four years earlier. I had spent another $5K +/- on expenses and purchasing the other judgments, so $55K all in.[/quote]
WOW, Allan, I only just now saw your 2009 post! Good for YOU!! I agree that those judges in East County don’t screw around … and furthermore, they’re still there and somehow are able to evade the “transfer list” (not going anywhere). Guess that Division isn’t too popular of a “hot spot” (pun intended) for the “SD judge rotation group.” :=]
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html
So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.[/quote]
That was a very interesting article, njtosd. Based on my past experience, I wouldn’t have thought that, at all. About 8 yrs ago, I signed up for “online dating” with a major “personals” site. I never really “joined” and my profile was “active” for just over 2 weeks before I took it down. My basic parameters were for a 50-60 yo male, within about 10 miles from me (Chula Vista). I rec’d at least 15 hits, the majority “seemingly” attractive and well-spoken. Besides fielding and eliminating obviously “attached” men on the prowl, I corresponded back and forth with about 6 men, all aged 50-55. As I recall, ONE claimed to be divorced (1 grown child), ONE claimed to be widowed (no children) and FOUR claimed to be single, that is, claimed to have NEVER been married. None of these 4 had children (or so they said). ALL of these men stated in their profiles that they would consider (having) children. Whether that meant consider being a stepfather or wanted their own children was for me to find out.
Delving deeper, it turned out that ALL SIX, when push came to shove, wanted their OWN children ASAP! One actually stated to me he would much prefer an Asian woman (I’m not and neither was he – and not sure why he responded to my profile). I ended up asking them all why they are responding to women’s profiles in their own age groups when what they REALLY WANT is to now finally “settle down” and have their own families. As much as I would have liked to meet a couple of them, I had to direct them ALL to the 30-40 yo age group as they were wasting time corresponding with me.
This left me with the typical “baby-boomer set”: the “sorta married, sorta separated, their spouse/families lived outside of SD County (frauds), divorced but still living with ex, had longtime female `platonic (lol) roommates,’ and other assorted `posers'” whom I wanted nothing to do with. Hence, I took my profile down and called it a day, lol.
I still believe that in SD County, there are MANY over-50 men who only just recently “decided” they wanted to “start a family.” You have to ask yourself (and them) what they have been doing the last 30 yrs :={
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=walterwhite]
Men intuitively figure I can have another batch later. [/quote]If that is true then they also must “intuitively figure” that that next “batch” might be a little challenging. There is mounting evidence that older men are more likely to father children with problems – autism and schizophrenia are the most notable, but the list also includes dwarfism, Marfans, etc. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/health/28iht-snfert.4748536.html
So if we’re talking evolutionary biology here, instincts compelling men to have kids at a younger age would be selected for, rather than selected against. In other words, logically speaking, one would not expect a man to choose to have a child at a later date if there is an opportunity to have one earlier. Plus, competition being what it has been for the last million years, men are less likely to have the opportunity at a later date, Strom Thurmond notwithstanding. So, if you are suggesting a biological basis for what you’re saying, I don’t think it works.[/quote]
That was a very interesting article, njtosd. Based on my past experience, I wouldn’t have thought that, at all. About 8 yrs ago, I signed up for “online dating” with a major “personals” site. I never really “joined” and my profile was “active” for just over 2 weeks before I took it down. My basic parameters were for a 50-60 yo male, within about 10 miles from me (Chula Vista). I rec’d at least 15 hits, the majority “seemingly” attractive and well-spoken. Besides fielding and eliminating obviously “attached” men on the prowl, I corresponded back and forth with about 6 men, all aged 50-55. As I recall, ONE claimed to be divorced (1 grown child), ONE claimed to be widowed (no children) and FOUR claimed to be single, that is, claimed to have NEVER been married. None of these 4 had children (or so they said). ALL of these men stated in their profiles that they would consider (having) children. Whether that meant consider being a stepfather or wanted their own children was for me to find out.
Delving deeper, it turned out that ALL SIX, when push came to shove, wanted their OWN children ASAP! One actually stated to me he would much prefer an Asian woman (I’m not and neither was he – and not sure why he responded to my profile). I ended up asking them all why they are responding to women’s profiles in their own age groups when what they REALLY WANT is to now finally “settle down” and have their own families. As much as I would have liked to meet a couple of them, I had to direct them ALL to the 30-40 yo age group as they were wasting time corresponding with me.
This left me with the typical “baby-boomer set”: the “sorta married, sorta separated, their spouse/families lived outside of SD County (frauds), divorced but still living with ex, had longtime female `platonic (lol) roommates,’ and other assorted `posers'” whom I wanted nothing to do with. Hence, I took my profile down and called it a day, lol.
I still believe that in SD County, there are MANY over-50 men who only just recently “decided” they wanted to “start a family.” You have to ask yourself (and them) what they have been doing the last 30 yrs :={
-
AuthorPosts
