georgerussia

There were several examples quoted right in this forum. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You probably missed the word "exactly". So how exactly would you enforce this particular law? Have an IRS inspector assigned to each dropzone? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I wonder how exactly would you realistically fix THAT problem? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, I guess only few people can afford keeping 100K around to spend just in case they got into car accident, so even those who have extra 100K would likely to invest them, and buy insurance instead. As I said before, I'd be ok if the requirement was to either maintain health insurance, or post something like a 100K bond, but I don't think anyone would actually use this bond option. And you're right. Did you contact your Congressperson/Senator already? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is exactly how it works right now - he goes to ER, does not pay, and then files for bankruptcy leaving us with the bill - so such cases would not bring any NEW expenses. What would bring savings is that after this injury no insurance company would take him for pre-existing conditions, making him "permanently uninsured" - even though he may be willing to pay for insurance, not wanting to go through bankruptcy next time he gets injured. Also, in my opinion, your example is quite limited. Not everyone in America is working for cash, and even some packers have a job which pays wages - which will make him eligible to federal subsidy to buy health insurance. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Good! So since you're so rich that paying 100K for a surgery is pocket money for you, a small tax increase to help those who're not as fortunate as you should not be a problem either. Sure - if you have this amount of cash in hand. But it looks like vast majority of the people do not. Even those who can, prefer to invest it instead. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If only they were there. You think so high of yourself? Sorry, dude, you're not an authority, and your words are exactly that - just your opinion - unless you provide proof. So when you say A did B, it will only be considered a reference if you provided a link which confirms that A indeed did B; optionally you provide further explanation why your words should be considered (for example, you personally knew A or your close friend helped him with B). Otherwise you're not different from any religious nut with "I say God exist; prove me wrong". So what is your point? No system is 100% proof; even presidents got shot. This does not mean the restricting laws and police are useless. And Russia is full of teenagers obsessed with violent video games as well, which contributes to school violence but not shooting (and the major difference there, as I already pointed out, is the murder count). And yet again you're trying something irrelevant to discussion. You didn't even manage to explain what exactly you're trying to prove. I will learn from people who I consider worth learning from. Agree. Thank you for your time and your "references" (lol). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

She can easily say something like that - you cannot verify it anyway. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It looks more and more like you think you're the only person on this board who has an idea and knows what he is talking about. And this is no different from what my 12yo thinks. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Neither I claimed that I "provided references and facts" or "pointed out all your errors". When one claims to share his opinion, no links are needed at all, but when one claims to provide FACTS, the references are expected. In your dreams, maybe. Or your firewall stripped out every link from your posts. You might want to check it. Well, you can, but I gonna ignore such a suggestion - pretty much as I ignore suggestions of Bible trumpets that I need to spend ten years studying theology before I can say the Bible is full of shit (and it is). So no, I'm not going to become a gun expert just to say that guns indeed make ordinary people more dangerous, and looking on recent massacre statistics guns do more harm than good to society at a whole. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This question was answered - it is called "usury law", and if you typed it in Google, you'd find this web site which provides all the references you might need. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Your question sounds very similar to "what is the tax rate for married people in the USA?" - in terms that there are so many variables that it is quite obvious that the person asking this question has no idea even about U.S. tax basics (like that the tax rate depends on income, and state income tax rates differ as well). The best answer you can hope is that "everyone's situation is unique" and a reference to IRS publication with 2010 tax rates. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You need to do much more than just that. You need to check and install updates to the software you're running (system and browser are must), and track vulnerabilities in other programs (like recent one in Adobe Reader which wasn't fixed yet). JPEG vulnerabilities could infect your system just when you open a e-mail (not attachments), as the HTML renderer used in Outlook is the same as used in IE. Slapper was infecting Linux servers running vulnerable Apache/mod_ssl without any user action. And so on. Sorry, but you have no idea how modern AV works. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Never seen it with my experience with them in two anti-virus companies I have been working for since 2000 (mostly as developer, occasionally as virus researcher). They indeed have some samples which probably only one out of 100,000 will be able to run (like a ZOO archive), but it is indeed malware. And while not every their sample would work on Windows 7, we still have customers using Windows 98(!), so the threat is indeed there. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

AVG is better in detection until you try to get support from them. Then you're screwed. Avast is faster, but their detection is not as good on latest malware. I also suggest av-test.org. And this makes is bad antivirus for non-experts. Having svchost.exe removed as false positive typically means full system reinstall. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I'd like to have it too (together with a public option), let's see. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's my understanding too. AFAIK they do not need to consider Republicans, so it is simpler, but still some reporters claim those discussions can take the whole Jan and into Feb. Of course, if anyone has something to say, I'd suggest contacting your Congressmen/women or Senators right now, and not wait until the final version is about to be signed. At least I let them know that I want the following to be included into final version: - Public option (as in Congress version; I'm pretty happy with the way most gov. services are run); - National insurance exchange (as in Congress version; having it just on state level only is not enough, esp. for states like CA where you basically have a choice between BC, BS and Kaiser); - Larger non-compliance fines (as in Congress version; $95 fine is just ridiculous) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That was probably because I told them each company that I want guns to be banned! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Did I miss something? Was it already signed into law? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's in Senate version, House version provides national exchange. Again, let's see how the difference will settle. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And apparently it doesn't work for auto insurance - the market is large, and there are a bunch of companies who indeed compete, but the prices are not going down all the time. In my opinion this is because market supports their asking price, and people are ready to pay it, so there is no need to lower the price. Same would happen after tort reform as well - the market supported previously paid price, so there are no incentives for insurers to lower their premiums. As a result, such tort reform would only benefit the insurers. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That is also partially covered by the bill. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

How come? A perfectly run private industry should find ways to decrease costs itself, as it would increase competition! So raising fine would only happen if the industry doesn't work as supposed to. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If this is not the case, then a safe bet would be for Congress to increase the fine accordingly. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

If you have to a) spend $750 on insurance and get health insurance, or b) spend $750 on fine and get nothing, my guess is that everyone would go for a) option, as at least you're getting something for your money. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *