Ditto MJBubba. 1-51

Married.

1.  29

2.  First Marriage

3.  21 years

2 kids.

I've been a fan of the MHP problem for almost 20 years, since our staff statistician wouldn't make the right choice.  But your problem has me stumped.  It *seems* analogous to the following: I have $1000 in the bank (never mind from where).  I have an equal choice to either lose $500 or gain $1000.  Of course, I'll run the risk to gain $1000.  Yet I agree that this problem is not like MHP.  I don't see what I'm missing.

I am a very affectionate husband, father, son, brother, friend, dog-owner, elder, homeschool co-op teacher, baby-sitter.  This trend has troubled me for years.  What if someone sees me on a hike (as part of a larger group) looking at a found treasure one of my young friends delights to show me?  What will people think?  Yet having grown up with a wonderful affectionate he-man of a father, I know how necessary it is for "normal" human relations to not lock my caring away and keep kids only at arm's length.  Of course, I know the parents of children I hang out with very well.

 The smallest of prices to pay for this privilege of inter-generational camaraderie is that I try to keep everyone informed of what we're doing, where we're going, etc.  And to work at keeping any physical affection visible and in a group.  Fred's quite right - no secrets.

I've only been in the Deep South for 2/3 of my life (moved up from Florida), so I'm not purebred.  Therefore I had to modify the standard pecan pie recipe.  Mine is more pecan-y.

(Makes 2 pies)

• 3 eggs, well beaten
• 1 & 1/2 cups dark corn syrup
• 1/2 cup white sugar
• 1 T vanilla
• dash salt

Mix that, then add

• 6 T melted butter (don't cook the egg mixture)

Put thawed pie crusts into two pie plates.  Divide 4 cups of pecans into the two pie crusts.  For those who like chocolate pecan pie, add 3/4 cup of chocolate chips to one of the pies.

Pour the "goo" equally over the two pies.  Pop them in a preheated 350 degree oven for 47-50 minutes.  Tops of pies should darken but not get too dark.

Once cooled, the pies require a little muscle to slice up.  But they're crunchy and nutty instead of gooey.

One thing I object to about this is how it skews the price signals.  It costs the company the same to provide health insurance for a low wage worker as for a high wage worker.  Why not mark it the same, as they always have?

As others have mentioned, of course the company has the right to decide to pay via salary or via health care subsidies in any combination (to the law's limit). It's the do-gooderism and the weird signals it sends that I object to.  Yes, the real answer is to decouple insurance from employment in the first place.

In fact, at the margin, the company is encouraging low-wage folks to stay with the corporate plan, and discouraging high-wage folks from staying with it.  Is there really a reason to do that that helps the company?  If they want to encourage *everybody* to have company-provided health insurance, lower the employee share to $0 and lower everybody's salary across the board in the same amount.

I received the PDF from the company's health ins. plan, and stand corrected.  For the PPO family plan, you pay $288/mon. if you make < $50K vs. $442/mon. if you make > $125K.
Not progressive the way I thought,  but certainly not paying the same fee for the same service.

Clavius, is your company a "traditional" company, or more "progressive"?

Tom, I can understand something like this at a university in a deeply blue state.  But a private, publicly traded company?

J.D., I quite agree.  Don't know what they're thinking.  I am honestly baffled.

I can't contradict anything you've said.  I feel them myself today.
So I tell myself, "Self, this is harder than you thought it was.  It's more deeply rooted than you thought it was (I believe there is a sinful nature buried beneath mounds of entitlements demanded from others).  Is it time to work more at rebuilding the foundations, rather than the superstructure?" 
I'm wondering if we need a foundational shift in how our (and our neighbor's) children are educated, that deeply inculcates these truths that you and I recognize.  It's definitely the long game, and there's a large price to it.

1. Romney Electoral Votes = 272
2. Obama Electoral Votes = 266
3. Rep. House Seats = 237
4. Dem. House Seats = 198
5. Indep. House Seats = 0
6. Rep. Senate Seats = 49
7. Dem. Senate Seats = 50
8. Indep. Senate Seats = 1

We've been thinking of Harrison Bergeron a lot lately, in the current climate.  Thanks for tying it to the upcoming debates.

I had no idea she had such credentials. Thanks for that, E!

Seriously, what if Obama *does* throw out a bunch of plans for the future?  It's obvious to a child he can't run on the past, unless you're a fan of O-care. But what's to stop him from making unverifiable (since they're about the future) promises?  What could he promise that would make the creased-pants-leg crowd tingly again?  "A chicken in every pot" has been tried.  "More jobs for college grads"?  I know it would seem silly to *us*, but we're not his audience.
Perhaps you have ideas of things he could promise his base you could suggest here.  Remember, it only has to convince those leaning towards his side, not reality. 

Thanks, all! Full disclosure: Mom is a Ph.D. in English, who chose to teach our kids in the early years before we started team-teaching with friends. So Julia comes by her smarts naturally.  And the letter didn't mention that she's planning to become an ob/gyn.  Maybe she'll wind up delivering the child of someone in the staff member's family ;-)

God's gracious blessings to Dave, Ricochet friends, and all who will receive them. He is risen!

Hopefully Mitt won't need any "Peptol-bismo" (haven't heard that one in a long time) due to his time down South.