So basically the only way a pre-existing condition will be denied is if you don't have insurance, get digosed with something, THEN go get insurance and have them eat the costs. That and the children that are born with conditions that the insurance companies will see as being a drain (as in, I'll forever be paying more in medical costs then I'll ever see them paying back in premiums).
Or, they go back through your original application, find a small error, and deny you coverage.
Moreover, you for some reason think that getting health insurance is a cheap and easy thing to do. If that is the case, why are so many not doing it? Also, if you pay the fine and don't buy insurance, then you don't have insurance. If you have a heart attack or get hit by a car, you will still be liable for the medical bills until you get your paperwork through. While still having paid the fine every year.
But, regardless of all that, what if the fine is more expensive than the health insurance premiums? Then, everyone will get health insurance. It won't happen during the phasing in period, but I am sure it will happen eventually. Mainly because the health care debate showed us how much influence the health insurance lobby has. I am sure they can buy the Republicans again to raise the fine without a problem.
My yearly insurance bill is about $2000 fyi. Also, what happens if you get in a car wreck or have a heart attack without insurance. Then, you have been paying 2K a year to not buy insurance and then still get stuck with the emergency medical expenses (probably 60k). After that you can get insurance, but you're still stuck with the cost of your stupidity (your medical bills).
The fine will get bigger through the phasing in period. And, if it is not working then it can always be increased until it is worthwhile. But, the main argument against you is that the insurance companies wanted this provision. Unless you say they are suicidal then I would guess that it is in their best interest.
And yes, you could do what you say and come out ahead. But, if you get in a car wreck or have a heart attack and have to undergo emergency surgery, not only will you have to pay the bill yourself, but you will have been paying the fine without getting any health insurance benefit.
So you have problems with the phasing in period. I can agree with you. It is not ideal. But, it is difficult when you make major changes to a system, even if they are badly needed. Your problems with the system will be solved as the phase in period ends. Everyone will be covered (so no "pre-existing conditions") and the fine will be increased to an appropriate level. I realize that you are probably an American and expect everything to happen immediately (Americans have almost no patience or attention span) but in time the problems you are concerned about will be corrected by the health care bill.
I totally agree with you. No one should have a choice in getting health insurance. That way they contribute to the system even when they are not sick. So there would be no "pre-existing conditions". That is why we should a single payer health care system. It also would fix the problem of forcing people to buy health insurance (you don't have to buy it, you already have it). So, you may ask, why do we have this cobbled together "forced purchase of insurance" system? Because the Republicans blocked the clean, constitutional single payer system. Blame them.
OK... I am going to spell it out for you. We already have universal health insurance. If you get in a car wreck, they will take you to the hospital regardless of whether they can prove you have health insurance or not. The ambulance is required to. And it is the rest of us who have health care (or through government subsidies to the hospital) that have to pay the cost of uninsured people getting treated. Until we start leaving people bleeding on the pavement who cannot prove they can pay, then I am in favor of a national health care system. At least then we can force people to contribute to the system instead of just leeching off of it.
Yes, the rich have seen their salaries increase. The middle class has decreased (they were hit MUCH harder by this recession than the rich). That is why this recession is "jobless". The rich are recovering just fine, but the middle class isn't. So, they cannot buy goods, hence no demand. So no reason to hire those middle class workers back. If we passed laws to try to get rid of the advantages the rich have (and maybe give some advantages to the middle class) so that our middle class can grow, then our economy could grow and we could get out of this slump.
We live in a democratic system. Laws get changed. Parties get changed. It is a fact of life. It has happened since this country's beginning, and we have done fine so far. These companies and investors either need to adapt or die. Hopefully they are replaced with good companies that are flexible and adaptable. Change is an opportunity and creates more competition. The reason that no-one is spending money now is that there is no demand, so there are not viable investment opportunities. Increase the size of the middle class and there will be more demand and jobs will be created. The rich are causing our problems, because they lobby for laws that decrease the size of the middle class (Republicans, I'm looking at you).
Did you even look up the amendments? How many is "few"? Which ones were substantive? Saying "Sorry, no dice" is not an answer unless you present at least one fact to back it up.
How can a condition be "pre-existing" if everyone has to have healthcare. Pre-existing what? Or are you just trying to say you want the Health Insurers to be able to drop people when they get sick? Good idea. If the insurance companies never have to pay for any healthcare, then premiums will be very low and the companies will still make an enormous profit!!!
The main point of thrift stores is to sell low-cost goods for the needy.
Please provide a citation for this. I was always under the impression that the purpose of thrift stores was to provide fundraising for the charity that supports them (Salvation Army, Goodwill, ect). It is a way for those charities to monetize the goods that have been donated to them. The result is that they underprice the goods so that they can get a higher turnover. While this may help some poor people in the area buy cheap items, I have always understood that as just an incidental advantage. Arbitrage like mentioned in the article would let thrift stores increase their prices while maintaining turnover rates, which would get more money to the charity. I think that the advantage of providing more money to the charitable organization (with which they can run soup kitchens, shelters, ect) would more than offset the increased cost to the customers.
So, why do people buy used books online? Do they not love books as well? Should we not be able to buy used books online? Lets say a book is really popular in Chicago (so no one can find that book used), but no one cares about i in New York (so it is in library sales but no one buys it). Why should the people in Chicago have to buy new books while the stores in New York have it rot on their shelves?
You talk about scalpers but only mention one half of what they do (the negative half). You assume that they are always selling tickets for sold out events. Scalpers at events that aren't sold out, though, serve a useful purpose. They serve as a third party market on site where people with extra tickets can sell them and people who need tickets can buy them. The scalpers do make a profit (they are not running a charity), but they provide an important service. The only person who loses is the venue because they cannot oversell the venue as much (sell more tickets than there are people in seats). But, people who would not pay for a full price ticket can now afford to attend the event by buying a second-hand ticket.
The question is what purpose this guy is serving for the book market. He might make it harder for you to find a really good deal after spending 5 hours searching through a used book store. But, he makes the overall price of used books on the open market lower because he provides more supply. Also, less people have to buy new books because they can now find them used online thanks to arbitragers like this guy doing the footwork for them.
False. He is lowering the price of the used books on the open market by providing more supply. He is taking books off of shelves of used book stores (where they could spend months before they are sold) and putting them in the hands of buyers who want to read them now. He is helping the environment by providing higher turnover in the used book market. Less people will have to buy new books if they can find used books easier. He is just making the market more efficient, and getting paid for that service. I see nothing wrong with that.
What about the seller? With this guy going in and dong what he is doing, they are more likely to sell more books. Without a professional, you are relying on luck that a non-professional buyer will realize which books are a good deal and buy them. He is also reducing the prices on Amazon by providing more supply of used books. This makes the market more efficient, which in the end is better for both buyers and sellers. Sellers sell more books (make more money) and buyers have to pay less on the open market (Amazon).
Can't you say the same thing about the left? Angry, frightened people - angry and frightened about corporations and rich people?
I consider myself pretty left leaning, and I would not say that I am "afraid" of either rich people or corporations. Angry at them, sometimes, because I believe that they are manipulating our government to selfishly increase their own personal wealth. Maybe you could say that I am afraid that I am being slowly disenfranchised as laws change to make money and power more important in winning an election than popular support. But I am not in fear of my life or property (except for maybe long term environmental concerns). Unlike the Right who think that because their neighbor is a Muslim then they are going to blow up the neighborhood.
It is an open platform. You can install third-party apps with no problem on regular android (I don't know about special flavors that the phone manufacturers have put out). You just can't install them through the Android Market. I trust the apps in the Android Market because Google has signed off on them. But, if I install a third-party app that I got off the web, then I make sure I research it to make sure it isn't malware. Google does not have a responsibility to allow all apps to be on their market. It would make the Android Market kinda useless if they did. But just because Google's Android Market is not "open", does not mean the Android OS itself is not open.
I have no doubt it can be created synthetically. But, we are never going to use that to fuel our cars because you would have to get the energy to create those molecules from another energy source. At that point it would probably be cheaper and more efficient to just drive electric cars.
We use oil as an energy source. If we could use it as a storage medium (create fuel to drive our vehicles synthetically from renewable resources) then I would have no problem with it (except for any health concerns from burning it).
When you harvest hydrogen from the sun, then you can say it is renewable. The sun is a renewable source of energy as far as humans are concerned. That means solar and wind are renewable. Geothermal is debatable, but much better than fossil fuels.
That seems to be a pretty good argument in favor of what they are doing in TFA. If they increase the rate of recycling, then it should get cheaper as the economies of scale become evident. Also, if it is an immature technology, then it should get more efficient over time as it matures.
No. You are being lazy by trying to think that everything is black and white. I was saying there were other advantages to recycling besides cost. Because of those advantages, if the cost were exactly the same, then you should definitely recycle. The question is how do you quantify the worth of the advantages. What is the value of not having another landfill in your area just from increased property taxes (landfills are very NIMBY. If you live next to a landfill, your property values are going to go down). How much more expensive would recycling have to be to make it a break-even proposition? And all of the reputable studies I have seen indicate that recycling is cheaper (Penn Teller does not count as a reputable source).
The trash company would probably be fine with you doing that. Each ton of garbage they pick up costs them money. So, anything that you do not put in the trashcan saves them money. And it is naturally profitable to recycle. But, you, as a consumer, do not have any incentive to because you get charged a flat rate for waste disposal regardless of the amount you throw away. If people got charged by the pound for what it costs to dispose of their trash, then there would be a lot more people recycling.
Slashdot Mirror
First...
So basically the only way a pre-existing condition will be denied is if you don't have insurance, get digosed with something, THEN go get insurance and have them eat the costs. That and the children that are born with conditions that the insurance companies will see as being a drain (as in, I'll forever be paying more in medical costs then I'll ever see them paying back in premiums).
Or, they go back through your original application, find a small error, and deny you coverage.
Moreover, you for some reason think that getting health insurance is a cheap and easy thing to do. If that is the case, why are so many not doing it? Also, if you pay the fine and don't buy insurance, then you don't have insurance. If you have a heart attack or get hit by a car, you will still be liable for the medical bills until you get your paperwork through. While still having paid the fine every year.
But, regardless of all that, what if the fine is more expensive than the health insurance premiums? Then, everyone will get health insurance. It won't happen during the phasing in period, but I am sure it will happen eventually. Mainly because the health care debate showed us how much influence the health insurance lobby has. I am sure they can buy the Republicans again to raise the fine without a problem.
My yearly insurance bill is about $2000 fyi. Also, what happens if you get in a car wreck or have a heart attack without insurance. Then, you have been paying 2K a year to not buy insurance and then still get stuck with the emergency medical expenses (probably 60k). After that you can get insurance, but you're still stuck with the cost of your stupidity (your medical bills).
The fine will get bigger through the phasing in period. And, if it is not working then it can always be increased until it is worthwhile. But, the main argument against you is that the insurance companies wanted this provision. Unless you say they are suicidal then I would guess that it is in their best interest.
And yes, you could do what you say and come out ahead. But, if you get in a car wreck or have a heart attack and have to undergo emergency surgery, not only will you have to pay the bill yourself, but you will have been paying the fine without getting any health insurance benefit.
Or we could just put in an STV system and have actual proportional representation.
So you have problems with the phasing in period. I can agree with you. It is not ideal. But, it is difficult when you make major changes to a system, even if they are badly needed. Your problems with the system will be solved as the phase in period ends. Everyone will be covered (so no "pre-existing conditions") and the fine will be increased to an appropriate level. I realize that you are probably an American and expect everything to happen immediately (Americans have almost no patience or attention span) but in time the problems you are concerned about will be corrected by the health care bill.
I totally agree with you. No one should have a choice in getting health insurance. That way they contribute to the system even when they are not sick. So there would be no "pre-existing conditions". That is why we should a single payer health care system. It also would fix the problem of forcing people to buy health insurance (you don't have to buy it, you already have it). So, you may ask, why do we have this cobbled together "forced purchase of insurance" system? Because the Republicans blocked the clean, constitutional single payer system. Blame them.
OK... I am going to spell it out for you. We already have universal health insurance. If you get in a car wreck, they will take you to the hospital regardless of whether they can prove you have health insurance or not. The ambulance is required to. And it is the rest of us who have health care (or through government subsidies to the hospital) that have to pay the cost of uninsured people getting treated. Until we start leaving people bleeding on the pavement who cannot prove they can pay, then I am in favor of a national health care system. At least then we can force people to contribute to the system instead of just leeching off of it.
Yes, the rich have seen their salaries increase. The middle class has decreased (they were hit MUCH harder by this recession than the rich). That is why this recession is "jobless". The rich are recovering just fine, but the middle class isn't. So, they cannot buy goods, hence no demand. So no reason to hire those middle class workers back. If we passed laws to try to get rid of the advantages the rich have (and maybe give some advantages to the middle class) so that our middle class can grow, then our economy could grow and we could get out of this slump.
We live in a democratic system. Laws get changed. Parties get changed. It is a fact of life. It has happened since this country's beginning, and we have done fine so far. These companies and investors either need to adapt or die. Hopefully they are replaced with good companies that are flexible and adaptable. Change is an opportunity and creates more competition. The reason that no-one is spending money now is that there is no demand, so there are not viable investment opportunities. Increase the size of the middle class and there will be more demand and jobs will be created. The rich are causing our problems, because they lobby for laws that decrease the size of the middle class (Republicans, I'm looking at you).
Did you even look up the amendments? How many is "few"? Which ones were substantive? Saying "Sorry, no dice" is not an answer unless you present at least one fact to back it up.
How can a condition be "pre-existing" if everyone has to have healthcare. Pre-existing what? Or are you just trying to say you want the Health Insurers to be able to drop people when they get sick? Good idea. If the insurance companies never have to pay for any healthcare, then premiums will be very low and the companies will still make an enormous profit!!!
Everyone wins, right?
The main point of thrift stores is to sell low-cost goods for the needy.
Please provide a citation for this. I was always under the impression that the purpose of thrift stores was to provide fundraising for the charity that supports them (Salvation Army, Goodwill, ect). It is a way for those charities to monetize the goods that have been donated to them. The result is that they underprice the goods so that they can get a higher turnover. While this may help some poor people in the area buy cheap items, I have always understood that as just an incidental advantage. Arbitrage like mentioned in the article would let thrift stores increase their prices while maintaining turnover rates, which would get more money to the charity. I think that the advantage of providing more money to the charitable organization (with which they can run soup kitchens, shelters, ect) would more than offset the increased cost to the customers.
So, why do people buy used books online? Do they not love books as well? Should we not be able to buy used books online? Lets say a book is really popular in Chicago (so no one can find that book used), but no one cares about i in New York (so it is in library sales but no one buys it). Why should the people in Chicago have to buy new books while the stores in New York have it rot on their shelves?
You talk about scalpers but only mention one half of what they do (the negative half). You assume that they are always selling tickets for sold out events. Scalpers at events that aren't sold out, though, serve a useful purpose. They serve as a third party market on site where people with extra tickets can sell them and people who need tickets can buy them. The scalpers do make a profit (they are not running a charity), but they provide an important service. The only person who loses is the venue because they cannot oversell the venue as much (sell more tickets than there are people in seats). But, people who would not pay for a full price ticket can now afford to attend the event by buying a second-hand ticket.
The question is what purpose this guy is serving for the book market. He might make it harder for you to find a really good deal after spending 5 hours searching through a used book store. But, he makes the overall price of used books on the open market lower because he provides more supply. Also, less people have to buy new books because they can now find them used online thanks to arbitragers like this guy doing the footwork for them.
False. He is lowering the price of the used books on the open market by providing more supply. He is taking books off of shelves of used book stores (where they could spend months before they are sold) and putting them in the hands of buyers who want to read them now. He is helping the environment by providing higher turnover in the used book market. Less people will have to buy new books if they can find used books easier. He is just making the market more efficient, and getting paid for that service. I see nothing wrong with that.
What about the seller? With this guy going in and dong what he is doing, they are more likely to sell more books. Without a professional, you are relying on luck that a non-professional buyer will realize which books are a good deal and buy them. He is also reducing the prices on Amazon by providing more supply of used books. This makes the market more efficient, which in the end is better for both buyers and sellers. Sellers sell more books (make more money) and buyers have to pay less on the open market (Amazon).
Can't you say the same thing about the left? Angry, frightened people - angry and frightened about corporations and rich people?
I consider myself pretty left leaning, and I would not say that I am "afraid" of either rich people or corporations. Angry at them, sometimes, because I believe that they are manipulating our government to selfishly increase their own personal wealth. Maybe you could say that I am afraid that I am being slowly disenfranchised as laws change to make money and power more important in winning an election than popular support. But I am not in fear of my life or property (except for maybe long term environmental concerns). Unlike the Right who think that because their neighbor is a Muslim then they are going to blow up the neighborhood.
It is an open platform. You can install third-party apps with no problem on regular android (I don't know about special flavors that the phone manufacturers have put out). You just can't install them through the Android Market. I trust the apps in the Android Market because Google has signed off on them. But, if I install a third-party app that I got off the web, then I make sure I research it to make sure it isn't malware. Google does not have a responsibility to allow all apps to be on their market. It would make the Android Market kinda useless if they did. But just because Google's Android Market is not "open", does not mean the Android OS itself is not open.
I have no doubt it can be created synthetically. But, we are never going to use that to fuel our cars because you would have to get the energy to create those molecules from another energy source. At that point it would probably be cheaper and more efficient to just drive electric cars.
We use oil as an energy source. If we could use it as a storage medium (create fuel to drive our vehicles synthetically from renewable resources) then I would have no problem with it (except for any health concerns from burning it).
When you harvest hydrogen from the sun, then you can say it is renewable. The sun is a renewable source of energy as far as humans are concerned. That means solar and wind are renewable. Geothermal is debatable, but much better than fossil fuels.
Most hybrids and electric cars already have the "beep" for reverse.
That seems to be a pretty good argument in favor of what they are doing in TFA. If they increase the rate of recycling, then it should get cheaper as the economies of scale become evident. Also, if it is an immature technology, then it should get more efficient over time as it matures.
No. You are being lazy by trying to think that everything is black and white. I was saying there were other advantages to recycling besides cost. Because of those advantages, if the cost were exactly the same, then you should definitely recycle. The question is how do you quantify the worth of the advantages. What is the value of not having another landfill in your area just from increased property taxes (landfills are very NIMBY. If you live next to a landfill, your property values are going to go down). How much more expensive would recycling have to be to make it a break-even proposition? And all of the reputable studies I have seen indicate that recycling is cheaper (Penn Teller does not count as a reputable source).
The trash company would probably be fine with you doing that. Each ton of garbage they pick up costs them money. So, anything that you do not put in the trashcan saves them money. And it is naturally profitable to recycle. But, you, as a consumer, do not have any incentive to because you get charged a flat rate for waste disposal regardless of the amount you throw away. If people got charged by the pound for what it costs to dispose of their trash, then there would be a lot more people recycling.