georgerussia

Well, you ARE paying for it right now through increased premiums. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

original Edmunds article What I see is basically they speculated that the car sales would be only slightly less. However the data they publish does not support it. Predicting 2009 numbers using 2008 base in recession does not look reliable to me. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Because I live in real world, and I'm not naive to expect everyone to make the right choice. And leaving people to die just because they made dumb mistakes is not something I would be happy to do. Been there, seen that. It's not pretty. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, what I'm trying to say that almost everyone can get out of poverty. This way out is indeed hard, and depends on commitment, hard work and making smart decisions. And of course the only way to learn to make smart decisions is to make decisions, and learn from your mistakes. If you are walking, you might end up further from your target. But if you are just staying and not moving, you're surely never be there. My whole post was a (probably knee-jerk) reaction on your "you can no longer just work hard and have a house and a life" comment. This is not true. You can still get all the way to the top by working hard, and Obama seems to be pretty good example to prove it; I wouldn't vote for him, but I indeed respect him. You can also compare him with another recent example of a President, which proves that you can be born in a rich family, go through top universities, and still screw up everything you touch, and called an idiot. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Better chance to get out of poverty, comparing to doing nothing. Yes, this is what I mean by saying the majority does not want to get out of poverty - they want you to come, and save them from poverty. It might also be called "living on the generosity of others", this is fine too. Of course, once you start providing some basics to everyone, the definition of poverty goes up too - if fifty years ago poverty meant not being able to buy apples and diapers, now it means not being able to buy a cell phone and organic apples. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

They do not need excuse if they try and learn from their mistakes. This is normal education process, nobody succeed in everything they were trying. And yes, some things will fail no matter what you do simply because humans make mistakes. As for me, I respect those who are trying, even if they fail, and I help them. I do not respect those who can, but who are NOT trying, and I do not help them. The difference here is giving a man some fish vs teaching him fishing. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

No, sir. You said it clear that I'm "exception which proved the rule". I'm saying there are no rules, and there are no exceptions. And I'm not an exception either. My point is that if you do nothing to get yourself out of poverty - you WILL remain poor. If you do something, it will not guarantee to get you out of poverty - but you WILL be better than those who do nothing. And the majority apparently does not want to get out of poverty - they want you to come, and get them out of poverty, and they might react rather aggressively when you suggest them to do anything. Just challenge someone who is paying for his jumps but says he cannot afford health insurance, and you'll see it yourself. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, the article seems biased to me. First, food. Things are not that cheaper in Trader Joe comparing to corner store, and things in Costco are only cheaper when you buy in huge quantities (and you cannot buy a single gallon of milk in our Costco - you have to buy two). This is, however, something you can bargain in corner store - I managed once to bargain a price even in Safeway (with a store manager) when I ordered a lot of stuff, so should be simpler in a corner store. Another way to save is to cooperate with other buyers - we're getting a very good deals on Russian food when we bring five people and buy the food for $500 or more total; you'd unlikely need five large jars of caviar for $100 even though it's a bargain, but one jar for $20 is fine. Another question is that if you're poor, have no car and have no time to do a huge food shopping once a week - you must be really busy. Organic stuff - well, I am not buying organic stuff because I consider it too expensive, and I somehow do not expect poor to buy it either. It's the same as they complained they cannot shop in Whole Foods. "The poor pay more in hassle: the calls from the bill collectors" - what about canceling your phone? I lived for a year without home phone, and if I didn't need a line for DSL, I'd get rid of it right away. For emergency a TracFone cell phone costs $20 and includes 60 minutes for 90 days, which is cheaper than one month cost of a phone line. Well, this is the same typical rant I have - you can have a phone, cell phone, cable TV, and a computer with Internet access, and you're still considered poor. And buying fried chicken wings for $9??? It was different. Banks. "Lack of education" from banks is kinda ugly statement; if you just keep your eyes open, you'd learn about free checking accounts almost everywhere. Paying $3 to pay electric bill (where the offices accept cash) sounds more like convenience issue to me, and convenience costs money. A person who is 67 pays 10% to pay a phone bill to have it paid on time??? I don't get it. Basically the whole article sounds very strange to me. "Poor" used to be when you lived under a bridge and your children were often hungry (and you were hungry permanently). Now it seems to mean not being able to buy $9 chicken wings and being unable to shop in Costco. So much for being poor. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

From my personal experience I would say that the role of luck is often overestimated by some lazy people, and often used by them as the potential reason for wealth redistribution. After all, if we say that someone worked hard and become rich, it doesn't sound too good if you suggest to distribute their wealth. However if you say that they became rich by pure luck, then it sounds differently, like a casino winner. And sometime luck is just another word for initiative. You might think your chance to get into the law school are low, but if you never try, there is no way you'd get in. The fortune favors those who are trying, and trying hard - because the majority is not trying, they just wait for favors coming to them. However it does not work - you will never find a $100 bill on a street if you spend your days at home watching Fox "news" or praying Jesus. There are things which are unpredictable, or hard to counter, and there are things which are not. If your fate is to be shot, this is hard to counter; even the world leaders got shot despite all the security. This, however, is not an excuse to skip on health insurance, or maintaining positive balance on your account. There are priorities and decisions, and often the only difference between a poor and a rich person is in the way they make their decision and range their priorities. But there are consequences - and if you decided to drop health insurance to spend money on skydiving, and then got hit by a large medical bill, this is not bad luck - this is consequence. Yes, we are, with a few exceptions (I cannot become the President, for example, no matter how hard I work), but those exceptions are pretty limited. Our starting positions are not the same, but this is only initial advantage, which can be compensated. I wonder what would Obama's parents say if someone told them their son is going to become the President of the United States. I bet they'd laugh their asses off, and call it crazy. Of course now you would say he was just lucky, just woke up some day and - oops - he's a President, right? You have pretty much the same options. They might not be immediately available, but they are still there. For example, if you want to go to a law school but do not have money, you need to secure the funds first. Someone else, who has money, can skip this step, so you can say he has more options. However then he can say that he saved money by earing Raven for three years, which you spend skydiving and traveling around the country for boogies - and this again comes down to decisions both of you made at some moment earlier. I got a larger increase just the last year. And I wonder whether I would get it if I didn't switch jobs - in my opinion it would be very unlikely. But for you it doesn't matter, you still would consider it luck. After all, only you are working hard, and everyone is just sitting at home and watching TV, while CTOs and CEOs from every business around stop by and begging them to join their company, right? Basically what I'm saying is "If I can do it, you can do it too. If you didn't - blame yourself, not circumstances. Your situation is better than 80% of the rest of the world". And what you're saying is that "If I cannot do it, than you cannot do it too - and if you did it was just pure luck, not your efforts". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Nope. There is nothing exceptional in me or my wife. Nor there were any exceptional circumstances. Yes, they do not - mostly because they do not want to emigrate. You obviously understand that emigration is not an acceptable solution for everyone - you need to learn foreign language and different culture, you need to start building a social circle again. This is considering that USA is one of the easiest countries to immigrate into (together with Canada). However according to the source, approximately 500K people immigrated from Russia during last ten years, so the numbers aren't that small either. WTF? The way you're presenting it looks like I went to bed at some time in past, and next morning I woke up in the USA. "The moment you set foot in America" is the _result_, it's not just a decision. The way you're saying it is similar to if you said to Lawrocket something like "the moment you finished your law school, you had already set yourself apart from the vast majority of poor Americans". This is kind of decision everyone can make. Most people just do not want to - emigrating in another country is not an easy "way out". And I know a lot of people who went this way. So far none of them had rich parents or was born speaking English. Everyone got where they got to by working hard, and making tough choices. This is what matters. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Or maybe Jesus can give me a blowjob. So what was your point? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Generally the people should be able to make the choice as long as they do not place any extra burden on others because of the choices they made. If someone decides not to have health insurance, and then gets sick and goes to ER, right now they would get the treatment and may not pay for it. This places unfair burden on other people, and therefore such a choice must be restricted in such a way so it does not place burden on others. I write my Congresswoman/Senator about it. In fact I'm communicating with their office pretty often. I'm asking questions, and a few times even getting personal answers from the staff. What I do not do is watching Fox News. It depends on a lot of factors. How much "eat too much" contributes to overall healthcare costs? I've seen different opinions about it - and some even argue that overall costs are less, because fat people live shorter lives, and tend to die from less expensive things like cardiac arrest instead of bone cancer. However realistically thinking I guess it's unlikely such thing would ever be discussed on the government level, as it is something "politically incorrect". Pretty much as AIDS infection rates depending on race (and AIDS treatment is very expensive). If you pay for my car or my gas, then sure you can choose what car I drive. If you pay my rent, you definitely choose what I can or cannot rent. Happens all the time - for example when I go for a business trip, we have very strict guidelines about it. The key again is the same - are YOU paying for your choice, or you expect someone else to pay for it? I lived two years in pretty much anarchy state. Trust me, you do not want it. You might go to Somali to get a taste though. Grab your guns. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

For insured it's pretty simple - ER copay is significantly larger than Dr. office or the Urgent Care clinic (in my case it's something like $100 vs $10). This is pretty much a deterrent, together with the fact that you will get help much faster in an urgent care clinic. For uninsured - provide them insurance, and they will have the incentive to go to a doctor office instead of ER. No realistic solution. The only way to avoid it would be requiring everyone paying full cash for treatment, but this is not realistic solution. A running nose itself, however, does not require a lot of Dr's time. I would be interested to hear if you have any realistic solutions. Like skydiving? Some people would also call it "abusing themselves". But it should be the same - basically everyone should have insurance, and the ER should treat them. Yes, of course. For example, my son has high fever and cough. Should I go to doctor, or not? It may be pneumonia (and then the faster I go, the better are his chances to recover), or it may be flu (and then he'd be fine himself in a few days). You can even go further and say most of the population "abuses" the system by going to the doctors with something which will heal in a few days without any treatment. But again, what realistically would you do? How come? Didn't you just said that you are opposed to the government regulation, and the health insurance companies should just regulate themselves? The problem is that as soon as you try to fix something, you'll have a chain of things to fix. A simple example: 1. To cover people with pre-existing conditions you must require the people to maintain coverage (otherwise there is no reason to pay for the coverage until you need treatment - just apply on your way to ER). 2. To require everyone to have coverage you must provide penalties for those who does not want to (obviously), and you must provide credits for those who cannot afford it (so they can have it too, and won't be burden on ERs) 3. To provide credits for those who cannot afford the coverage, you need everyone applying for the assistance to submit financial details (otherwise a lot of people would just claim they cannot afford healthcare - after spending all the money on iPhones - and apply for it) 4. To make sure provided coverage meets minimal standards (i.e. covers hospitalization), and does not waste money on non-necessities (for example, it should not cover massages or chiropractor visits), you need to set up minimum standards. Since the credits are provided on federal level, the standards also need to be set on federal level (if you leave it to states, then some states will add non-necessities there; states can approve higher standards, but will have to cover the difference themselves). 5. To make sure provided coverage costs the same price in every state (i.e. people in one state do not unfairly subsidize others), the government has to set up some kind of "acceptable price". To prove that the price is acceptable, there should be providers willing to accept this price. Of course the government wants this price as low as possible, resulting in interstate exchange and public plans. and so on. If you read the bill more than once, you basically see the whole chain there - how one item triggers a bunch of others. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Could you please use proper quoting? It becomes more difficult to understand who said what. I'm still looking for the proof. You said that tort reform would lower healthcare costs because "reduced malpractice awards will cut insurance premiums". I asked a question: why would a business lower the insurance premium instead of keep it as before and just package more profit? You now seem to agree that they would indeed package the profit because it is low. So why would YOU want tort reform then, if it does not result in cut costs for consumers? And I still wanna hear the arguments. You know, some people here in US already murdering doctors, just because they think the doctor did something immoral to someone else. Same people would likely to murder a doctor if they think the doctor did something wrong to their family member. So now you're refuting your own point again? The private insurers would not be put out of business, but that's the public plan which would be? Man, you need some consistency. But who? I'm looking for your answer. Hopefully you do not expect the insurance company to regulate yourself? The problem with this approach is that there is no a single reason why a health insurance company would still want you covered once you get chronic disease. So a "free market" way to lower costs for them would be to kick you out as soon as you develop something which might need expensive treatment. They have collected your money once you were healthy, and now you're a liability for them. And of course no other insurance company would accept you either. Without regulations how exactly this would work? Who is going to pay for treatment of those people? No, this is not extreme. Even now the businesses love to embed those "legal bombs" in the contracts in hope the customer won't read it with a lawyer, and then the company might escape the liability in the court. If there is no regulation, basically everyone can call themselves "health insurance company" and can sell plans. You still did not answer my question. Let me rephrase it. There are following problems withing current healthcare system, which happen today, and are considered to have the biggest impact on the healthcare costs: - People with pre-existing conditions. They cannot get health insurance, and your "alternative" does not include any provision for them. If you think they should have no coverage and just die, have balls and say it. - People who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy it. Again, your "alternative" does not include any provision for them. In both cases people just go to ER and do not pay; we pay for them, and our insurance premiums go up. What exactly do you suggest to prevent our insurance rates going up? Obama's plan addresses those issues. What about you? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The alternative is not viable because it does not look like it will work. One of the reasons may be that you didn't make any effort to explain how exactly would it work - i.e. how it would help to achieve the goal. For example, if the goal is to reduce the number of non-paying patients in ER, then providing poor with government-sponsored healthcare is a viable alternative. Asking the poor to pray Jesus so they wouldn't get sick - is an alternative, but it is not viable alternative, because even people who pray Jesus still get sick and die from diseases. Relax, mental services are covered by Obama's healthcare plan :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Show you what? This is you who made the statement that tort reform will cut insurance premiums. Now prove it. I do not care how much you think they should make. My question was different - why would insurance company cut its premiums instead of just increasing their profits? "Different country" is not an argument. Please address real arguments. Somehow USPS didn't put UPS or FedEx out of business. So far you're only speculating. Prove what you said. Now who should? If you are in favor of interstate compatibility between insurance companies (which are now licensed on state level), someone have to ensure the coverage is the same. You're opposing setting them on federal level, and you're opposing setting them on state level (by disapproving state-mandated coverage). So who should set up those rules? So you're saying state mandates are not ok. Federal mandates are apparently not ok either. Maybe we just let insurers decide what to cover? Then we'd have thousands of "insurance companies", none of which will cover hospitalization (too expensive), but they all would put it in contract in legaleze, so you wouldn't be able to understand what is covered, and what is not. I'll repeat my question. I'd be more interested to understand how are you going to prevent the following problems your solution does not address: - People with pre-existing conditions (who now get free care in ERs even if they could pay for the insurance - because they're not accepted); - People who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy it (and then go to ER and get care and do not pay for it); You did NOT address any of those. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is no more alternative than JohnRich's suggestion "just go to ER and do not pay". I asked for alternative _solution_ for the problem, not just some different opinion. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The Republican version of the bill does not fix the most important issues (i.e. uninsured who cannot get insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and uninsured who can, but does not want to pay for insurance). There are also pieces which simply wouldn't work, like allowing everyone to shop for insurance on Internet, but without setting the federally maintained minimum (which means those companies will not be licensed in your state, and the situation will be exactly like it is now). * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Good. The first question is, how much? As far as I know, several states (like CA) have reduced malpractice awards, and the healthcare costs there do not seem to be significantly smaller. Second question is, why would insurance company cut its premiums instead of just increasing their profits? People have been paying those premiums before, sure they can afford it, why decrease them? Third, depending on reform, it might put doctors in danger. I pointed out a recent case in Russia, where a father shot a doctor who was not able to save his daughter. I'd speculate that if the father had an option to sue, he'd rather sue - and the doctor would likely prefer to pay huge insurance premium than just being shot (which is the only actual remedy there). This is what the bill is also about, together with forcing those who can pay for insurance, to maintain it. I do suggest you read it. There are federal minimums in the bill, which look reasonable to me. With interstate exchange the states are unlikely be able to mandate specific coverages. And if you look on real individual insurance companies, you'd be down to 3 (BC, BS and Kaiser). The rest are either virtually not accepted anywhere, or do not sell individual plans. I'd be more interested to understand how are you going to prevent the following problems your solution does not address: - People with pre-existing conditions (who now get free care in ERs even if they could pay for the insurance - because they're not accepted); - People who can afford insurance, but decide not to buy it (and then go to ER and get care and do not pay for it); You only address part of problem. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Because there is a lot of people around who are incapable of making a right choice - for example, they think paying for a cell phone or skydiving should have greater priority than paying their health insurance premiums. And once they are being hit by their bad choices, it's the rest of us who are paying for that. It is actually very similar to auto liability insurance - if the law was not there requiring everyone to have it (and providing stiff penalties for those who do not), you can bet a lot of people would find a premium cable TV or new iPhone is more important than liability insurance. That's why the law is needed. Of course it would be much better if everyone was responsible, but this is not the case anywhere around the world. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I asked you for link several times. Is it that hard to provide a link to your post, where a constructive approach was offered? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You do not even _know_ what is proposed, since you did not read the bill. Therefore everything you say on this matter is pure speculation driven by your party agenda. You mean, other people are being brave and speak their mind. Not you. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There is always an excuse. You might say that since you weren't born in Bill Gates family, your chances to become rich are low. I would say that if you were born in USA, your chances to become rich are better than for approximately five billion people living around the world. You might find a lot of examples when a poor family had several kids - in my experience, usually only one of them is very successful. I could name a few examples right now, and I personally know their family circumstances. Myself I'm such an example too. For us there is no difference where we born, and who to. Yes, this is right. For example, look on two brothers, both getting $100. One would spend it on books and education, one would spend it on booze and weed. Who has a better chance to success? The key is the choice. On weekend you can go skydiving, or you can take a part-time project. You can spend your money on health insurance, or you can spend them on iPhone, and get hit by $1,000 bill once you got sick. You can go to community college on evenings, or you can have kids at age 22 and have no time for anything but visiting welfare offices. The difference between successful and non-successful people is not where they born. It is the choice they make. This is just plain lie. We came to States four years ago - and we got a house. To give you an idea, last year we paid more than 100K in taxes. And we both came from and poor countries and poor families. Ten years ago I was earning $200 a month, and considered it good salary. College degree? I only got it this year. Yes, 2009. And we both always have been making money by general employment. Now about having a life? It depends; first year I started jumping I did 250 jumps and visited eleven boogies. This year? Less than fifty jumps, and two boogies. Is it considered "having a life"? For some people it's not, but I'm fine. Again, it's the choice which matters. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I am still looking for any constructive opposition to the bill. However, so far it more and more looks like "the bill sucks, but we're not offering anything either". And their arguments often are flawed - no surprise, a lot of those who oppose the bill right here admit that they did not read it. How could you consider them serious? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I found it amusing when some people agree to raise their health insurance premiums, and to experience even more overcrowded ERs and more closed hospitals - all just to see Dems initiative fail. And this is especially hilarious to hear it from the people who chicken out even to voice their opinion on a controversial issue, not to mention stand up behind it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *