Household goods affordability

Page 6 of 10  
On 10/15/2013 7:46 PM, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote:

We need a new credit card?
. Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ugly, perhaps. Counterproductive, I'm not so sure. It's one of the many human foibles that keep people hustling. If we were all happy and satisfied with what we've got, the economy would tank. You need demand to drive commerce.
Are you saying that only lefties are envious? No, I didn't think you were.

That's just sensible, which I realize is a quality that many people lack.
Cindy Hamilton
--





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 14:49:58 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@adi.com (Cindy Hamilton) wrote:

Perhaps?

Of course it is. You don't believe saving for your own shiny new chariot, instead of lusting after your neighbor's, isn't a more productive use of your energy?

There is a difference between desire and envy.

Oh, good grief! Words mean things.

It is, in fact, the basis for leftism. That's all I was saying. Without envy leftists couldn't exist.

Because most, at least today, are leftists at heart.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can save up for my new chariot while simultaneously lusting after the neighbor's.
In real life, I am saving up for a used chariot. It'll be newer than my current chariot, and have an automatic transmission, to boot.
Cindy Hamilton
--





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:44:42 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@adi.com (Cindy Hamilton) wrote:

Is it required that you lust after others' possessions? You think that's healthy? Does it help you save faster? Does it help your neighbor pay for his? The gain is?

Goody for you. I'm really not interested in what is behind your horses. It doesn't affect me at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not required. Probably not healthy. In fact, I don't lust after my neighbor's chariot. It neither helps me save faster, nor helps him pay for his.
There's no gain. A lot of what people do produces no gain, yet it's human nature to do these things. We're not robots.
You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.
Cindy Hamilton
--





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 14:35:25 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@adi.com (Cindy Hamilton) wrote:

Yet you think it's a good thing for others?

...and that's a good thing?

It's wrong on all levels. It is a deadly sin for a reason.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What does it matter?
Suppose it's not good. What are we going to do about it?

Human nature comprises both good and bad. Always has, always will.

Ah, sin. I don't have much of a concept of sin. I suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way Terry Pratchett does: "Treating people as things".
Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.
Cindy Hamilton
--





Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:43:26 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@adi.com (Cindy Hamilton) wrote:

It matters a *lot*. When people covet what others have instead of what they will work for it wrecks society.

We? You think it's just peachy to want to take from others.

True but irrelevant. You think it's a good idea to cater to the least common denominator. I'd rather look somewhat above that.

I can tell. Your lack of morality is quite evident.

Define "it".

Bullshit. You *are* treating people as objects when you're envious of their possessions. If you treated them as equals you could never be envious.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
face="Calisto MT">&gt; wrote:<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Is it required = that you lust after others' possessions?&nbsp; You think<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;that's healthy?&nbsp; Does it help you save faster?&nbsp; Does it help your<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;neighbor pay for his?&nbsp; The gain is?<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Not required.&nbsp; Probably = not healthy.&nbsp; In fact, I don't lust after<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;my neighbor's chariot.&nbsp; It neither helps me save faster, nor<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;helps him pay for his.<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;Yet you think it's a good thing for others?&nbsp; <BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;What does it matter?<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; It matters a *lot*.&nbsp; When people covet what others have instead of<BR>&gt; what they will work for it wrecks society.&nbsp; <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;&gt;Suppose it's not good.&nbsp; What are we going to do about it?<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; We?&nbsp; You think it's just peachy to want to take from others.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;There's no gain.&nbsp; A lot of what people do = produces no gain,<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;yet it's human nature to do these things.&nbsp; = We're not robots.<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;...and that's a good thing?<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;Human nature comprises both good and = bad.&nbsp; Always has, always will.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; True but irrelevant.&nbsp; You think it's a good idea to cater to the least<BR>&gt; common denominator.&nbsp; I'd rather look somewhat above that.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;You seem to wish to restrict people's freedom to covet.<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;&gt;It's wrong on all levels.&nbsp; It is a deadly sin for a reason. <BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;Ah, sin.&nbsp; I don't have much of a concept of sin.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; I can tell.&nbsp; Your lack of morality is quite evident.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;&gt;I suppose if pushed to it, I'd define it the way<BR>&gt;&gt;Terry Pratchett does:&nbsp; "Treating people as things".<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Define "it".<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt;&gt;Covetousness doesn't seem to be a sin.<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Bullshit.&nbsp; You *are* treating people as objects when you're envious of<BR>&gt; their possessions.&nbsp; If you treated them as equals you = could never be<BR>&gt; envious.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Calisto MT"></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calisto MT'"><STRONG>I see that are few people commenting on these subject so let me put my two cent in!<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN></P> <P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calisto MT'"><STRONG>Example in 2004 I have retire just for me and my wife I was paying BC&amp;BS type J coverage $1900.00 per month, the very same coverage group insured was paying $800.00 or less, perhaps some of you reading this will tell me that is fair: I dont think so. What happens with people like me we want change even on the end perhaps become losers? <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp;</SPAN>That is why some people dont care who they are taking it from They want the Change!<o:p></o:p></STRONG></SPAN></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not sure what this has to do with the subject at hand, unless, of course, you want them to pay $1900/month, too, just because you have to. I'd say that's a morally bankrupt position to hold, though. Pretty dumb, too, but it would be yours.
If your complaint is that life isn't fair, well no, it isn't. If you think this particular issue should be fixed, you're right. Talk to your Congressman. He's the one who caused this idiocy and can fix it (along with a few others). If you think that forcing your neighbor to pay for your insurance is going to fix anything, you must be a lefty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/18/2013 7:32 PM, Tony944 wrote:

You can still find group coverage and even form your own group. Was your price fair? Actuarialy, yes. Groups spread the cost when you have members of different ages.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ands we don't know what the covered group was. If retirees were getting something from an employer, for instance, it is also possible tht the $1900 cost was the same, but the employer was picking up the difference.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/19/2013 9:04 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

True dat! My case appears somewhat identical to Tony's. As a retiree, I was able to keep my BC&BS Preferred provider coverage and did so. Took a huge hit when I turned 65 and went on Medicare and BC&BS became my "Supplemental" What happened was BC&BS under terms of the policy in effect for my group assumes that Part A & B are in effect. My wife, not yet of age for Medicare is still covered completely AND, I forgot, the subsidy paid by my employer ends when I hit 65. So even though the premium for my coverage dropped when I hit 65 and BC&BS became my supplemental, I was now paying full price across the board. However, I paid no more nor any less than the employer/employee were paying for like coverage.
And, yeah, premiums are steep. Spending about $1,600 month for my coverage plus the ~$100.mo for Medicare B
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 09:33:49 -0500, Unquestionably Confused

Is that $1600 for both of you? The supplement for Medicare should be in the $200 to $250 range for just you.
I have Medicare and a supplement and it is less than $700 for the two of us and it is virtually 100% coverage on anything but some prescription co-pays.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/19/2013 10:05 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Afraid so... She has the full-boat (as do I) including dental and prescription ($7.50 co pay on a 90 day supply). We are in the Chicago Metro area that doesn't help, I don't think, premium-wise.
Thru BC/BS my "supplemental coverage is a lot lower than her full coverage but still high when you compare it with other supplemental policies.
She goes on Medicare 2nd quarter of 2014 and I will be dropping Bc/BS and picking up supplemental for both of us. I managed my late father's affairs for several years before he passed. He had Medicare A &B and a premium supplemental plan through AARP written by United Healthcare. He paid very little out of pocket all things considered and he had significant medical issues those last several years. Think his premium was around $300/mo for United Healthcare. Last I checked (a year or two back) premium had not increased by very much at all.
So, all in all, barring a total screwing by Obummercare's implementation, I'm hoping to cut my premium by about half next year. Fingers are crossed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:21:59 -0500, Unquestionably Confused

My AARP supplement for Plan F is $205. Medicare is $104. Prescriptions $37. I'm in CT, also a high medical cost state.
My wife recently had surgery and 2 week hospital stay, , month in a physical rehab, another 3 days hospital stay and a daily nurse visit every day for 5 months. My total out of pocket cost is $0. Actual cost is probably in the range of 32 years of premiums.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, October 18, 2013 7:32:28 PM UTC-4, Tony944 wrote:


of you

ns with

hat is why some people don’t care who

I see, so you don't care if it works or not, if it's fair or not, if it's going to make things worse overall or better. etc. You just want Change. Do I need to explain how that has been a path to very bad things happening in the past?
As for your problem of having to pay 2x+ for coverage compared to what it cost when you were part of a group, I sympathize. It's not an unusual situation. But there are a lot of issues involved there, a lot of ways it could have been fixed with free market solutions, a lot of problems that still exist because nothing has really been done to lower actual healthcare costs, which are what ultimately drive the cost of treatment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What do you mean "covered group"?
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I think he is talking about the group where he worked. That is how most plans work, you insure from 5 to even 5000+ employees all at the same price per month. The average age of those covered my be 35 or 45 and require little medical care. As a 60+ year old individual you are more likely to need lots of care, thus a higher premium.
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.