georgerussia

Each of them should buy Darius health insurance. This would be the only fair punishment! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Unfortunately I haven't yet seen a single history book which wouldn't be biased in some way. Even if you ask someone who is researching the event/period, they usually have opinion about the situation, and tend to refer you to the books which support their opinion. Also important documents often tend to be classified - even 2nd World War documents are not all available yet. So read a lot - and read what is written by all the sides of conflict, if you can. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And this is one of the ways of "trying to prove things" - even though this is the worst way to do so, as exactly the same way is being used by alien abduction "victims" and urinotherapists. This is pretty similar as if I came to your church in my "free drinks to anyone who can prove God exist" t-shirt, and talk about stupidness in the Bible, but started off stating that my statements are only for Atheists. You would probably be the first one to let me know that I chose a wrong place. Forum posts are assumed to be for everyone; if you only wanted to communicate to a few individuals, it would probably make sense to use other means. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This is one of things I emailed my Senator about. My understanding of the bill is that illegals ARE eligible for public option as well as for private insurance - however they will not get government credits (i.e. would be required to pay in full). Which, in my opinion, is a good thing, as otherwise they would just fill up the ERs as they do now. The "lose freedom" part is the one I cannot understand. Could you please explain how adding another _insurance_ plan (note this is government-provided plan, not government-sponsored plan for everyone) would decrease competition? How does USPS existence leads to "losing freedoms"? I'm in USA only since 2005, and the only thing I seen was the rates going up. Somehow they never went down, so apparently this "competition" doesn't really work. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's seems to be typical in Europe; it was kind of "rude compliment". Nothing to get away with. No idea how it would work in US though; I have zero knowledge about local dating. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Get some good HD porn. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

I've got similar email yesterday regarding $13M, so I suggest not to waste time with your silly 1.2M deal. Just send me $500 by Western Union, and I'll forward this email to you, and you'll make ten times more money! :) * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Looking through the hype and marketing campaign I found something I consider significant: This means that the company doesn't have even a working prototype to test! So there is really nothing to discuss about. Every week there is an article from yet another investor-money-greedy company which promises to save the world after you sign a $100M check, and vast majority of them goes nowhere. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The difference here is that those who believe in Santa do not try to change how those who do not believe in Santa should live their lives. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

This was probably caused by confusion between "sell the license" vs "sell the software", and my understanding is that by "selling the software" Bolas meant selling the exclusive rights for the software, and it would be very unusual to get exclusive rights, but didn't get the source. Of course, every situation has exception, and I know at least one of them - the whole X-Com game series were sold this way - apparently the source code was lost completely, so the buyer only got the binary, together with the title and appropriate rights. As a person who has first-hand experience in reverse engineering, I could tell you it's pretty impossible if the program was written in any high-level language and is not tiny. Even if someone does it - which takes A LOT of time - the difference between the source code and reverse-engineered source code will be so dramatic that one could actually claim he wrote the whole thing, and this claim is likely to stand the source code level analysis. I think he's making a point similar to "leasing software" (buying a piece of chicken in KFC) vs "buying software" (buying the whole franchise). Of course in the later case they still might not be obliged to give you the recipe - but it would be foolish not to add this requirement into the purchase contract. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

But the ultimate goal of HR3200 is not to collect extra 2.5%. It is to make sure everyone is covered, and the emergency rooms are paid for the service performed. This way auto-enrollment has a lot of sense. You could go even further - it's likely that you do not need hospitalization right now, so why would you pay for that? And the reason is that even if you do not need it right now, you still might need it in several years (even maternity, unless you only have sex with men or not at all). And try to look on it in a different way. You are already paying for it - when someone with a delivery or a sick baby stops by emergency room, they will be treated, and this treatment will be covered by you through premium raise. And there is little you can do, unless you claim that babies should suffer because their mother was a careless bitch and did not get health insurance (either private or state-provided) to cover the kids. So it's not like you gonna pay more than you're paying already. I don't really understand how it's related to the topic discussed. Could you please explain? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

(related to Tenenbaum's verdict): now that is really funny! * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The distances are the same. Throughput might be better though. Turn off all the authentication stuff. You'll turn it on back later when you rule out the possibility of broken WPA2 in your router or card software. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

The problem is that most of those who decided not to have insurance do not have money put aside to cover their treatment either. So when they got sick, what would be a free market way to deal with those individuals? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

That's what the bill is about. In short it provides those claimed 40M uninsured Americans with access to the medical system, while the number of specialists in the medical system is not going to increase proportionally. This must lead to accessibility issues. But the point was that you cannot have non-rationed healthcare. Note the word "average" there. This means that having no insurance and paying this tax would make no sense, because having minimal insurance would cost you less than average - and you would have some insurance, which is generally beneficial. Maternity and well baby care benefit the society in general. Having no kids you do not need public schools as well, but you're still paying for them. Remember that the goal is to avoid "emergency room - no pay" scenario. If it doesn't cover baby care, what should the mother do if she doesn't have cash? Early diagnosis makes the treatment cheaper and easier, decreasing the cost of care. From pure cost view, covering preventive care is the best investment return one could get. There is a huge difference in costs treating a previously vaccinated vs not vaccinated person who got diphtheria. I did. I assume you agree that a private plan which provides exactly the same coverage as the government plan but charges larger premium simply makes no sense, as nobody gonna take it. Therefore a private plan which charges more should cover more, and therefore will be better than a government one. So it will be attractive to the employers who would like to spend more money on their employees. It is like car - you could get a car for $9K or for $100K, and both of them are cars which could perform basic car functions, and there is market for both of them. His point is quite useless. It is obvious you cannot get the money from the poor to pay for healthcare for the poor (unless you gonna take away their cell phone and cable which would also be a good thing), so the bill is pretty logical here. As I said, I do not like it, but let's admit it, it would be naive to expect anything else here. Having a first-hand experience with socialized healthcare, I have to say skilled doctors are still there. Probably less that we would have if there was pure pay-for-service option, but it's not like they all are gone. From other side, the "negotiated" low rates and enormous bureaucracy requirements imposed by private insurance companies, and malpractice threats hanged over the practicing doctors are reality right now. It's not clear to me what is worse. No, the insurance company has a lot of power against you already. And it is using it. Just search the Internet for rejected claims. Once insurance company rejects your claim, you have to appeal, and you're likely to lose. If the insurance company changes the policy terms - again, usually happens pretty often and they could do it as many times as they wish - you have very few options here too. Right now the insurance company can snoop into anything it wants regarding everything the claims were submitted for - check your policy terms. And the government could get the records from the insurance company - again, happened before. But my point is that your records are NOT really private right now, so you're not really losing anything. Yes, because apparently the studies show that some people who are eligible to Medicare are too lazy to get their asses up and fill the forms to get it. I believe them because I happen to know a couple of such people myself. How else would you suggest to make sure that we won't end up again in a situation when someone was just too lazy to apply for a government plan (even if it was free for him), and only once he got sick he arrived in ER for treatment being unable to pay for it? Just wonder why do you consider the coverage inadequate? Is anyone here familiar with "administrative review", and could explain it in layman terms? * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Did you actually go through the list? Let's do it again. Medical care is always rationed. It could be rationed by accessibility, quality or price. You cannot have all three. Currently it is rationed by price; the real question is whether it is going to be rationed by accessibility or by quality. This wasn't explained. Out out of what? Government healthcare or having health insurance? As the one who actually went through the bill, I know that the referenced section is related to the people who can afford to pay for healthcare, but decided not to have any coverage - neither governmental, nor private. They will be punished, and this is a good thing. His first objection is that "The bill defines acceptable coverage and leaves no room for choice in this regard.". The bill defines _minumal_ acceptable coverage, and looking through the list I can't understand what exactly a sane individual would exclude. Hospitalization? Prescription drugs? Mental health? I do not see it requiring to cover boobjobs, or bullshit like urine drinking and herb sniffing. Second objection is that "By setting a minimum 70% actuarial value of benefits, the bill makes health plans in which individuals pay for routine services, but carry insurance only for catastrophic events, (such as Health Savings Accounts) illegal". The problem is, what to do with those who elected such plan to save money, but have no money to actually pay for a non-catastrophic events? One of the goals of the bill is to avoid "emergency room with no pay" scenario. It's bad that those of us who maintain their budget and could plan and save for unexpected will suffer - but, at the end, there are only few of us. So this requirement is understandable. Which is a good thing. Actually, not only small businesses. This is not true. The business which provides crappy insurance gets some savings. If it does not pass savings to employees, then the best employees will choose the business with better insurance, putting the former one into disadvantage. If the business passes those savings to employees, then there is no payroll disadvantage. At least in IT large employers usually have lower salary, but better benefits (including health), and it attracts people. They will not reduce themselves to crappy insurance. Those points are groundless, as stated above. Yes it does. This is where it might get stuck. It gets dangerously close to the point when using tax evasion schemes starts making sense to a lot of people. There is already a lot of good reasons NOT to have an IT company set up in USA (software patents, litigations), and adding more of them will only make things worse. Of course it does. What would a reasonable person expect? To have everything for free, from tatoo removal to boobjobs? It will just transfer power from insurance companies to the government. So it's not like we are losing something. Is it good? No. But we already lost it. This is perfect! Don't want it? Then get your lazy ass up, and do something! This will only affects employees which do not have coverage. This, in my opinion, is very clever troll attempt which assumes the people do not know the difference between administrative court review, and challenging the law by the courts. The plan denies the first one - which actually may be good thing, depending on how current reviews are implemented. This, however, is not "Parts of the plan are set above the review of the courts.". * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

And it won't prove anything. You know, there are individuals who cannot get infected with HIV (defined by various sources from 0.25% to 1% of population). If you studied one of those people, you would make a "valid" conclusion that AIDS in fact does not exist, because this person is immune to it. This conclusion would be valid for any of those persons, but obviously not applicable to others. It is quite useless to estimate the effectiveness of a drug or practice on a single person. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So far chiropractic has no scientific evidence for anything except back pain treatment (which is obvious). Testimonials like yours are useless to evaluate the effectiveness of medicine or practice. Any urine therapy follower would gladly share with you his own story how he cured himself or his brother from brain cancer, AIDS or herpes by drinking his urine. That's why there are double blind tests. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Well, not really different from insurance plans covering crap like chiropractors and homeopathy, because the State of California decided that alternative medicine should also be covered. So you and me already paying more in their premiums for someone to wasting the medical system twice - first by trying to cure cancer by drinking urine, and second spending months in hospital trying to fight it once it's too late. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Depending on what they gonna get instead, some of those who "lose" their current coverage might be quite happy. Young and healthy will be among the most screwed. And "the rich", of course. Everyone else should benefit. No one will guarantee your carrier, or even your insurance plan will be available tomorrow, or that it's cost won't go up 100%. Happened already. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

You are able to transfer your existing employer provided policy to ANOTHER individual policy, which is very likely to have quite different terms and premium. I would definitely consider everything your carrier says on that matter with a grain of salt, because they are likely to be biased. Check the facts yourself. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

It was pretty cold for July here in NorCal as well. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

There is nothing could be done to prevent medical mistakes completely. They happen in every country around the world. Let's face it, medical mistakes are killing people, and it WILL happen. Yes, and it could happen. Same as the pilot on your next flight could make a mistake, and everyone in the plane will die. Despite all the training and certifications for pilots, and all the engineering efforts towards making aviation safe, it is not completely safe. What we could try to control is the amount of those mistakes happening. I believe once we got further into DNA research, it will help tremendously to detect potential drug interaction issues with this specific individual. Some could be avoided when technology improves - but not all of them. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

So far the only health insurance I've seen which didn't cover preexisting conditions was travel insurance or short-term insurance (both have a specific duration they cannot be renewed over). The consequence is that basically nobody would be legally denied when applying for individual health insurance. Which will likely to raise the premium, and have people dropped it, switching to the government plan. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

Why do you care? You seem to have no problem committing numerous copyright infringements yourself by copy-pasting copyrighted material while the license clearly does not allow you to do it. * Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *