CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

Page 5 of 6  

Don Klipstein wrote:

Try ~$1,500 annual pre-tax contribution for medical and dental combined.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

Another difference is that between health "insurance" and health "care." The military provides "care" but not "insurance" (likewise for cancer patients on death row).
The absense of universal health "insurance" may or may not be a problem; the absence of "care" would be. So far, no one has been able to quantify the absence of "care."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What happens to a soldier who just enlisted or who just re-enlisted or just accepted a promotion in a military carreer, and then came down with pancreatic cancer or malignant melanoma or a heart problem?
Meanwhile, soldiers getting hit with bullets on the field or at their bases or at military quarters do not get hospital bills for bullet wounds that they survive. Those quartered at military facilities or deployed on the field or abord Navy ships get cared for if they get injured in vehicle crashes (with exception for off-base recreation) - without even needing to pay for car insurance or travel insurance.
And if Joe Sixpack or James or Joan 40-Ouncer gets maligant melanoma, pancreatic cancer or heart trouble or a brain tumor, while making suppose $10 per hour, who is supposed to pay for this? In all prosperous democracies other than USA, low-paid working folk do not have a special right to stick the taxpayers with the tab, and the gubmint does not spend higher percentage of GDP on healthcare than USA does (even excluding employer constributions to health insurance premiums of most gubmint employees).
(I use lots of sunblock, keep my body fairly lean, don't smoke, am hawkish to get my dermatologist to examine and if necessary remove suspicious skin lesions, and I have diet and exercise to such an extent that my LDL "Bad Cholesterol" is only 66% of my HDL "Good Cholesterol". What are my rewards? To live longer covered [not fully] by Medicare and hope that I am not bankrupted first?)
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I live in NY, which requires health insurance to cover nearly everything (HMO-type) including "wellcare" office visits with a small co-pay, etc. I never see a doctor for anything unless I'm broken or bleeding, so I only want catastrophic coverage (heart attack, cancer, etc.) but I can't legally buy that. The cheapest insurance I can find is 35% of my gross income (a lot more than my mortgage payment) and it has a $3k yearly deductible. Why on earth would I flush 35% of my income down a black hole? Also, since I have no chance of making the deductible, I'd be paying 50% more than I would out of pocket since my urgent care center comps 50% of the charges for the uninsured. If you have insurance you pay the full amount even if you haven't met the deductible.
And as for the idea that the uninsured don't have to pay for healthcare, where did you get that idea? If I have to get stitches I get a huge bill and I have to pay it. Maybe the taxpayers pick up the tab for the homeless and illegals with phony paperwork, but they sure don't pick up mine.
My "health insurance" is a 45 minute daily workout and eating properly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
h wrote:

So, then, you'd agree there's no lack of insurance, just the lack of "cheap" insurance?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/28/2009 5:25 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

So you're implicitly in favor of a single-payer system, since that's what Germany has, right?
(Well, not exactly: theirs is a multi-payer system, but it's a hell of a lot closer to the national systems in Canada and the UK than the non-system we have here in the US.)
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It very strongly appears to me that healthcare and related issues are much better in Germany and Canada and even better in the much-maligned UK than in USA. And I personally know many Canadians over a range of income levels, with 100% of them preferring what they have in Canada over what they would get if they moved to USA. If I did not have family ties in USA, I would be trying to move to Canada - who does not spend a higher percentage of GDP than USA does on healthcare while USA does not have gubmint covering private sector employees, a majority of govenment employees and much of the unemployed, nor most children of any of these.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

Remember, those who were killed by the Canadian system can't tell you their side of the story.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most of the many Canadians that I know who commented at all in this area are of ages from upper-30's to about-60, with exception for a few 16-25-or-so-year-old "rug rats". As in at least 50% "old farts" of age mid-40's to about-60.
Absolutely 100% of the "Canuck Old Farts" that I know, sense negative effect of moving "south of the border". This includes owner of a business having dozens of employees, a hired CEO thereof, all adult and adolescent family members of these, everyone I met at this business, and a recently-retired detective of the Toronto Police Force and his wife and his college-age children. Along with spouses and adult/adolescent children of everyone else I met in this area - 100%.
This is very high rate of Canadians sensing that they are better off with their "healthcare system" than with what they would have if they "moved south of the border".
I suspect that the "Canucks" that I know are knowing well enough what is "The Truth" - since their gubmint *Does Not* spend higher percentage of GDP on healthcare coverage than USA does, where the USA version of % of GDP spent by gubmint on healthcare *excludes* "private sector", supplemental Medicare plans, and furthermore even employer contributions to healthcare coverage premiums of government employees outside healthcare agencies - such as public school teachers, court employees, and most police officers.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

But the rate of people in the US sensing they are better off than Canadians is roughly the same. I think these show more of a familiarity and comfort with the known than anything interesting. I would also like to point out that polls of this sort generally are overwhelmingly made up of people who don't use either system more than sporadically. I have often wondered how the 20% who use around 80% of the resources of either system would poll out differently.
--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ullman wrote:

Except that is not my experience. Unlike all of the Canadians that I know, many of my fellow Americans that I know would rather have their healthcare system substantially different and like that of a country other than their own.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

Well if they are your friends and neighbors then it must be REAL truth and the rest of the polls are all wrong. That ends the discussion. Nothing here to see. Just move along.
--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

If you Google "health+care+poll" the top entries support socialized medicine. These top entries were polls taken by the New York Times, ABC, and NBC. Then you get to the honest pollsters:
Rasmussen: "...just 42% of U.S. voters now favor the plan. That's down five points from two weeks ago and down eight points from six weeks ago." http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/support_for_congressional_health_care_reform_falls_to_new_low
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Is the drop in support due to weakening of the "Public Option"?
Why should something that is optional be lobbied against? My answer is that the "Public Option" cause "toes to be stepped on" by competition by a competitor - please remember that the "Public Option" is an "option" and not mandatory.
With USA's Congresscritters weakening support for the "Public Option" in response to efforts by lobbyists, I am not surprised by Congress getting low approval ratings.
I merely wish that my fellow Americans would not state in the voting booth that their Congresscritter is worthy of re-election while "most others are not".
I also wish for more Americans to vote in "primary elections" - to vote to replace their "congresscritter" (or more-local politician) with someone else of same-"party", as opposed to being unwilling/lazy until chance comes later in the year to vote for replacement with the low-vote-count-towards replacement being likely of dfifferent party
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

I'd settle for a public option that is merely a competitor. The Public Option would be, under the rules of the proposals, expressly forbidden from negotiating with Hospitals and Healthcare providers. Rather, they will use the MCare pay scales which are mandated by MCare on a take it or leave it basis (and more and more are leaving it by refusing to take more than a certain number of government patients). That alone will make it impossible for the privates to compete. Then there is another provision that states the Feds will have the ability to decide what is an acceptable loss ratio (and thus a big part of the profits) and demand refunds should they go over it one year. However, there is no mechanism for the private insurers to recoup those years that they are under the loss ratio. These are just two very anticompetitive advantages that the public option would have. If I was cynical, I would suggest that these (and a couple other things in the proposed law) were put in to hobble private insurance and get to single payor through the back door. But since I am not, I won't.
--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

whatever they do they should test it out on ALL govt employees first before unleashing it on the public. that includes congressmen, senators and the POTUS. if it survives the govt employee test run then unleash it on the public. our employees should not get better health care than we get.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

    Are CFLs public option or are they LEDs
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

Yes.
--
Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought
of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

I'm reminded of the CBS correspondent who said at a cocktail party: "I can't belive Nixon won! I don't know anybody who voted for him."
You need to enlarge your circle of acquaintances.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.