Well you can choose to debelieve me if you want, but I have the bank statements as proof. If I had applied in Virginia (where I was actually working at the time) it would have been $450. The lady on the phone advised me to apply in my home state because then I'd get more, so I listened to her advice and applied at my home.
It turns out that I was in the second highest bracket. The highest payout from my state is $600. Plus an extra $10 thanks to the 2009 Simulus bill.
>>>I recently lived off of food stamps..... I was able to get some dental fillings done, get my eyes checked, not pay outrageous amounts
Yeah.
YOUR NEIGHBORS paid your bills. If you can think of a good reason why they should work their asses off to support your extravagant spending (when you could have easily paid out of your own pocket with cash), then you must be wiser than me because I can't think of one good reason.
It's akin to when the Serfs worked just to support a single master. It was wrong then, and it's just as wrong now. Your neighbors should be allowed to keep the product of their labor, without someone taking it away from them.
>>>create catastrophic care costs because they wait too long and then show up at their local emergency room
The idea that preventative care (spending $1000-2000 a year to visit the doctor and repair various ailments) is cheaper than catastrophic care is a myth. It makes about as much sense as me repainting my car every year to prevent rust. It makes much more sense to wait for the rust, and THEN repaint my car. The same is true with your body.
Of course I'm sure my mechanic would LOVE it if I threw-away my money repainting my car every year. Ditto my doctor. It's extra income for their pockets.
>>>high-speed Internet (although I am forced to pay $38/mo for 256kpbs cable Internet)
Woah dude. You're getting ripped off. I have dialup that's just as fast (uses image/flash compression), but only costs me $7 a month. ASIDE: I wouldn't be without a landline. When the electricity goes out, the landline is the only thing that still works.
>>>Why should there be companies whose function is to charge money and then give you less money back in the form of health care?
Nobody's forcing you to participate. You could pay for your healthcare the same way you pay for your home, or your car, your shiny-new $3000 gaming PC, or your ~$2000 a year bill for cable/internet.
With cash.
That system works well for me. The only "backup" I have is catastrophic insurance, which will pay for any expenses exceeding $20,000 (like organ transplant or longterm cancer care). The point is you don't "have" to participate in insurance if you think it's a scam. You can simply pay-as-you-go with cash.
>>>To truly turn health care into a free market, you would have to create a system that is much more callous
You're right - Nature IS callous - everybody dies. As for the free market, you have a free market in nonemergency situations where you have time to search for a doctor or hospital that you like best. For example I'll drive all the way to another state simply because I like my current doctor, and he has reasonable rates.
In emergency situations, well then you take whatever's closest. Of course even then you typically have a choice. I have 3 different hospitals in my area, and I chose the one that's 5 minutes further away but provides better care, as my default choice.
>>>When your kid is seriously injured or has a high fever, you don't expect to be turned away from an emergency room because you couldn't pass a credit check. >>>
Any ER that did that would quickly be shutdown by the government. It's against the law to refuse service, and has been that way for two decades now.
That sounds about right. Remember: If you have insurance or HMO through your employer, YOU are still paying for it. Even if the employer says "You pay half; we pay half," you're actually paying the full amount because the employer simply lowers your wages by $3000 per year.
I used to work for Lockheed, and if I refused benefits, they actually gave me a pay raise (extra money in my check). Since I was young and healthy I took the raise.
>>>they will defend it like they do Medicare and Social Security.
Yes and like the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme, they are doomed to collapse as the number of recipients exceed the number of new entrants to the pyramid. I certainly won't defend either of these programs.
I think they should be transitioned to a "needs based" system. If you are wealthy (more than 5 million lifetime income), you will not be able to collect, because you've earned enough money during your lifetime to care for yourself. IMHO that's the only way we will save these programs.
That is the ONE thing I like about the Pelosicare Bill - it's needs-based not universal, so hopefully it will be relatively inexpensive to operate (less than 100 billion per year). Also hopefully it will never transition into a monopoly like our school system, or Microsoft, or Comcast. I hate monopolies that control the funds, and take away choice.
In my state Uninsured Accidents are covered by the government, and the funds come from fines levied against drivers during traffic stops. If they don't have proof-of-insurance, they get a $1000 fine. I think that's an excellent solution to the problem.
>>>This bill tries to get the people who earn more help the people who earn less get a healthy life.
What is this? They year 1000? It sounds like the same moral dictatorship the Catholic Church imposed on everybody. "Help the poor voluntarily, or else we'll simply TAKE your money and do it for you."
While I think it's a good idea to help people, I don't think holding a gun to their heads (or vacuum to their wallets) is the way to do it. They are free citizens, not Serfs to be ordered around.
>>>If i understand the US-founders correctly they had a country in mind where everybody is equal and even the poorest have right to a respectable life in America.
"The best thing that can be done for a poor person is to make being "poor" painful, so they will seek to be industrious rather than slothful, as I did when I was a poor man." - Benjamin Franklin.
I would also add, no matter how poor you are, you don't have a right to your neighbors' money. THEY earned it, not you. They are not your slaves who work for your benefit. Do I think a safety net is a good idea? Yes, but safety nets are for a last resort: To prevent starvation or to help those who can't help themselves (mentally or physically handicapped). Safety nets are NOT for you to smoke/drink/eat yourself into illness, runup an expensive doctor bill for lung or heart surgery, and then expect your neighbors to pay for it.
YOU chose your destructive lifestyle; now it's your responsibility to pay the cost. Not mine. Not your neighbors.
"But we have to KEEP SPENDING because we're in a depression! Now is not the time to cut spending." - typical Democrat or Obama supporter. To me this is equivalent to my family carrying a $130,000 credit card debt and saying that I need to go buy a new roof for my house, when in reality I should be canceling my cable/cellphone/internet and other extraneous expenses to pay-off the debt & weather the current storm.
Never mind. I don't feel like typing a whole script. But let me share MY viewpoint of the situation: - The Senate Bill passed the Senate 60-to-whatever. In the Senate 60 votes have been required since time immemorial. Even Senator Obama said that during his time in the Senate, and he REFUSED to change the rule during his time there.
Next the Democrats questioned if they even need to vote. Pelosi said she could just "deem" it passed without a rollcall vote! Then she changed her mind but even the fact she Considered it makes me question her honesty or legality. ----- Now the bill has passed the House, which means the Senate has to vote a SECOND time on the revised bill, per the Constitution and 200-yr-old tradition. The Democrats say 51 is enough, but the Republicans naturally question if the bill could pass, PER THE RULES which require 60.
The Republicans are merely trying to follow the laws of the House and Senate, while the Democrats seem intent upon "deeming" the laws unnecessary (like they deem the Constitution as non-existent) and ignoring all parliamentary procedure, including not taking votes (Slaughter rule). It reminds me of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecn0BgX-hg&feature=related - Ignore the vote, ignore the law, just shove it through.
Anyway that's my view from the sidelines.
Bottom Line: I expect this Pelosicare government Welfare-style program to be as corrupt as the non-legal corrupt process that produced it.
>>>"the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway, whilst the Democrats didn't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get [Bluedog Democratic] support." .
Fixed. The Democrats didn't need Republican support (as was demonstrated by the vote). The problem was a lot of Democrats are actually conservatives, and they were against the "One Payer" goal set by Obama. They were also against funding the killing of human fetuses.
The bill was watered down to make those conservative Democrats happy.
When I was on unemployment I got $550 a week. That's equivalent to a $15/hour job, and I thought to myself: "This is a pretty sweet deal. I get paid the same amount as my brother, but while he's truck driving and delivering goods, I'm just sitting here watching TV and playing games."
I'm back to work again, because I'm honest and took the first job offered to me, but it got me to thinking:
According to various studies, the benefits paid for being jobless (free housing, free food, free healthcare, and a government check) are equivalent to $10-15 hour. I didn't used to believe those studies but now having experienced it myself, I can see how it would be true.
The insurance industry LOVES this bill, because it means they'll get 35 million more customers during 2011. (Either signed-up directly, or paid via the government mandate.) Insurance stocks have already gone up, and they'll likely skyrocket this week.
Which reminds me. The Congress had been throwing-out the number "50 million uninsured" all during 2009. Now they are saying this bill will cover 35 million uninsured americans. So where does that leave the other 15 million? Are those the non-citizen intruders/foreigners who don't qualify under the bill?
NO IT ISN'T. Auto insurance is a voluntary deal, where you can choose not to drive. I know several people who don't pay a dime for auto insurance since they prefer to walk, or bike, or ride the bus.
Hospitalization insurance is not. You can't simply decide to not be alive.
Other flaws: - I will be fined $1000 a year because I don't belong to an HMO. What's next? A fine because I bought a normal car instead of a hybrid? - This fine is an unconstitutional grab for power that violates my 9th and 10th Amendment rights. (Right to Choice being the prime one.) - In addition taxes will increase $1500 per single person (according to CNN Sunday Morning). I didn't catch what it will be for married people, but probably $2000 or more each year. - Funding will be used to kill human fetuses. According to the U.S. Court, an executive order is inferior to Congressional Law, and the Law that was passed is clear: funding goes for abortions. - Personally this does not bother me, but I know alot of people who find the concept as objectionable as Abolitionists found slavery. - Also I find it dishonest on Obama's part to trick his own Democrats. He knows his XO is null and void per Supreme Court precedent.
There are other flaws with this bill too, but my main objections are (1) the cost and (2) the treatment of citizens as Serfs - "Do as we tell you, or else." This is not the government the Founders had in mind in 1786, else they might have stayed with the Articles of Confederation (a loose union of independent, sovereign states).
Similarly, I think the Europeans are discovering that the EU is quickly turning into a centralized behemoth with no apparent limits upon its power, and the ability to trump the Member States' governments.
Oh and yes. Bankruptcy. U.S. is on the verge of it, especially with talk of it being downgraded from AAA to AA status, as if it were a second world nation.
>>>There is a difference between execute, and run well.
Well in my experience Windows and Mac aps run a hell of a lot better than Linux aps. I've lost track of how many DAYS I've wasted on Ubuntu Linux trying to get crap to simply run. For excample: Opera 10. I still can't get it to install on my machine. In contrast Windows and Mac programs simply work.
Open source only seems to work if it's backed by a major contributor, like Firefox and seaMonkey by Google. Otherwise it tends to be buggy and non-user-friendly.
And I have yet to find an open-source OS that can run everything I want. (Of course the same is true with Mac OS - can't run a lot of Windows software on OSX.) Just yesterday I asked a guy how to copy a.img file to a floppy and this was his response: "sudo dd if=/path_to_image.img of=/dev/fd0" which I tried and of course did not work. So then I searched the web and found a nice easy-to-use WinNT program that worked flawlessly.
I wish the ReactOS would get off the ground, so we could have a Windows-compatible alternative without having to support Microsoft. Just as we had IBM PC clones, we need to have MS Windows clones.
>>>Shouldn't that have been evaluated before starting the project in the first place?
Yes. On my previous job they asked me to create a schematic, and of course I had to wait a week for the IT staff to show-up and install the necessary machine on my machine. While I was waiting I searched for OSS CAD alternatives, gave each one a quick spin, and determined they were all inadequate.
This Munich IT Chief should have done the same, rather than just suddenly decide "OSS is the answer".
I've found that OSS is typically good for common software like browsers, media players, word processors, and so on, but not for specialized tasks like CAD or ASIC development, or for operating systems. In the latter case it's better to stick with the "standard" Windows system and proprietary software. It causes fewer headaches.
Slashdot Mirror
Well you can choose to debelieve me if you want, but I have the bank statements as proof. If I had applied in Virginia (where I was actually working at the time) it would have been $450. The lady on the phone advised me to apply in my home state because then I'd get more, so I listened to her advice and applied at my home.
It turns out that I was in the second highest bracket. The highest payout from my state is $600. Plus an extra $10 thanks to the 2009 Simulus bill.
>>>I recently lived off of food stamps..... I was able to get some dental fillings done, get my eyes checked, not pay outrageous amounts
Yeah.
YOUR NEIGHBORS paid your bills. If you can think of a good reason why they should work their asses off to support your extravagant spending (when you could have easily paid out of your own pocket with cash), then you must be wiser than me because I can't think of one good reason.
It's akin to when the Serfs worked just to support a single master. It was wrong then, and it's just as wrong now. Your neighbors should be allowed to keep the product of their labor, without someone taking it away from them.
>>>create catastrophic care costs because they wait too long and then show up at their local emergency room
The idea that preventative care (spending $1000-2000 a year to visit the doctor and repair various ailments) is cheaper than catastrophic care is a myth. It makes about as much sense as me repainting my car every year to prevent rust. It makes much more sense to wait for the rust, and THEN repaint my car. The same is true with your body.
Of course I'm sure my mechanic would LOVE it if I threw-away my money repainting my car every year. Ditto my doctor. It's extra income for their pockets.
>>>high-speed Internet (although I am forced to pay $38/mo for 256kpbs cable Internet)
Woah dude. You're getting ripped off. I have dialup that's just as fast (uses image/flash compression), but only costs me $7 a month. ASIDE: I wouldn't be without a landline. When the electricity goes out, the landline is the only thing that still works.
>>>Why should there be companies whose function is to charge money and then give you less money back in the form of health care?
Nobody's forcing you to participate. You could pay for your healthcare the same way you pay for your home, or your car, your shiny-new $3000 gaming PC, or your ~$2000 a year bill for cable/internet.
With cash.
That system works well for me. The only "backup" I have is catastrophic insurance, which will pay for any expenses exceeding $20,000 (like organ transplant or longterm cancer care). The point is you don't "have" to participate in insurance if you think it's a scam. You can simply pay-as-you-go with cash.
>>>To truly turn health care into a free market, you would have to create a system that is much more callous
You're right - Nature IS callous - everybody dies. As for the free market, you have a free market in nonemergency situations where you have time to search for a doctor or hospital that you like best. For example I'll drive all the way to another state simply because I like my current doctor, and he has reasonable rates.
In emergency situations, well then you take whatever's closest. Of course even then you typically have a choice. I have 3 different hospitals in my area, and I chose the one that's 5 minutes further away but provides better care, as my default choice.
>>>When your kid is seriously injured or has a high fever, you don't expect to be turned away from an emergency room because you couldn't pass a credit check.
>>>
Any ER that did that would quickly be shutdown by the government. It's against the law to refuse service, and has been that way for two decades now.
My doctor gives me a 10% discount when I pay cash. I wonder if that will go to 20%, just so he can avoid dealing with gov't bureaucracy
That sounds about right. Remember: If you have insurance or HMO through your employer, YOU are still paying for it. Even if the employer says "You pay half; we pay half," you're actually paying the full amount because the employer simply lowers your wages by $3000 per year.
I used to work for Lockheed, and if I refused benefits, they actually gave me a pay raise (extra money in my check). Since I was young and healthy I took the raise.
>>>they will defend it like they do Medicare and Social Security.
Yes and like the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme, they are doomed to collapse as the number of recipients exceed the number of new entrants to the pyramid. I certainly won't defend either of these programs.
I think they should be transitioned to a "needs based" system. If you are wealthy (more than 5 million lifetime income), you will not be able to collect, because you've earned enough money during your lifetime to care for yourself. IMHO that's the only way we will save these programs.
That is the ONE thing I like about the Pelosicare Bill - it's needs-based not universal, so hopefully it will be relatively inexpensive to operate (less than 100 billion per year). Also hopefully it will never transition into a monopoly like our school system, or Microsoft, or Comcast. I hate monopolies that control the funds, and take away choice.
In my state Uninsured Accidents are covered by the government, and the funds come from fines levied against drivers during traffic stops. If they don't have proof-of-insurance, they get a $1000 fine. I think that's an excellent solution to the problem.
>>>This bill tries to get the people who earn more help the people who earn less get a healthy life.
What is this? They year 1000? It sounds like the same moral dictatorship the Catholic Church imposed on everybody. "Help the poor voluntarily, or else we'll simply TAKE your money and do it for you."
While I think it's a good idea to help people, I don't think holding a gun to their heads (or vacuum to their wallets) is the way to do it. They are free citizens, not Serfs to be ordered around.
>>>If i understand the US-founders correctly they had a country in mind where everybody is equal and even the poorest have right to a respectable life in America.
"The best thing that can be done for a poor person is to make being "poor" painful, so they will seek to be industrious rather than slothful, as I did when I was a poor man." - Benjamin Franklin.
I would also add, no matter how poor you are, you don't have a right to your neighbors' money. THEY earned it, not you. They are not your slaves who work for your benefit. Do I think a safety net is a good idea? Yes, but safety nets are for a last resort: To prevent starvation or to help those who can't help themselves (mentally or physically handicapped). Safety nets are NOT for you to smoke/drink/eat yourself into illness, runup an expensive doctor bill for lung or heart surgery, and then expect your neighbors to pay for it.
YOU chose your destructive lifestyle; now it's your responsibility to pay the cost. Not mine. Not your neighbors.
>>> Dimihsing Productivity Graph - http://market-ticker.org/uploads/2010/Mar/Diminishing-Prod.jpg
.
"But we have to KEEP SPENDING because we're in a depression! Now is not the time to cut spending." - typical Democrat or Obama supporter. To me this is equivalent to my family carrying a $130,000 credit card debt and saying that I need to go buy a new roof for my house, when in reality I should be canceling my cable/cellphone/internet and other extraneous expenses to pay-off the debt & weather the current storm.
Like this guy wisely said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
(sigh). FIXED AGAIN:
Never mind. I don't feel like typing a whole script. But let me share MY viewpoint of the situation: - The Senate Bill passed the Senate 60-to-whatever. In the Senate 60 votes have been required since time immemorial. Even Senator Obama said that during his time in the Senate, and he REFUSED to change the rule during his time there.
Next the Democrats questioned if they even need to vote. Pelosi said she could just "deem" it passed without a rollcall vote! Then she changed her mind but even the fact she Considered it makes me question her honesty or legality. ----- Now the bill has passed the House, which means the Senate has to vote a SECOND time on the revised bill, per the Constitution and 200-yr-old tradition. The Democrats say 51 is enough, but the Republicans naturally question if the bill could pass, PER THE RULES which require 60.
The Republicans are merely trying to follow the laws of the House and Senate, while the Democrats seem intent upon "deeming" the laws unnecessary (like they deem the Constitution as non-existent) and ignoring all parliamentary procedure, including not taking votes (Slaughter rule). It reminds me of this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ecn0BgX-hg&feature=related - Ignore the vote, ignore the law, just shove it through.
Anyway that's my view from the sidelines.
Bottom Line: I expect this Pelosicare government Welfare-style program to be as corrupt as the non-legal corrupt process that produced it.
>>>"the Republicans get egg on their face because the other side got their bill through anyway, whilst the Democrats didn't really get the thing they wanted because they watered down their original bill to try and get [Bluedog Democratic] support."
.
Fixed. The Democrats didn't need Republican support (as was demonstrated by the vote). The problem was a lot of Democrats are actually conservatives, and they were against the "One Payer" goal set by Obama. They were also against funding the killing of human fetuses.
The bill was watered down to make those conservative Democrats happy.
When I was on unemployment I got $550 a week. That's equivalent to a $15/hour job, and I thought to myself: "This is a pretty sweet deal. I get paid the same amount as my brother, but while he's truck driving and delivering goods, I'm just sitting here watching TV and playing games."
I'm back to work again, because I'm honest and took the first job offered to me, but it got me to thinking:
According to various studies, the benefits paid for being jobless (free housing, free food, free healthcare, and a government check) are equivalent to $10-15 hour. I didn't used to believe those studies but now having experienced it myself, I can see how it would be true.
You kidding?
The insurance industry LOVES this bill, because it means they'll get 35 million more customers during 2011. (Either signed-up directly, or paid via the government mandate.) Insurance stocks have already gone up, and they'll likely skyrocket this week.
Which reminds me. The Congress had been throwing-out the number "50 million uninsured" all during 2009. Now they are saying this bill will cover 35 million uninsured americans. So where does that leave the other 15 million? Are those the non-citizen intruders/foreigners who don't qualify under the bill?
NO IT ISN'T. Auto insurance is a voluntary deal, where you can choose not to drive. I know several people who don't pay a dime for auto insurance since they prefer to walk, or bike, or ride the bus.
Hospitalization insurance is not. You can't simply decide to not be alive.
Other flaws:
- I will be fined $1000 a year because I don't belong to an HMO. What's next? A fine because I bought a normal car instead of a hybrid?
- This fine is an unconstitutional grab for power that violates my 9th and 10th Amendment rights. (Right to Choice being the prime one.)
- In addition taxes will increase $1500 per single person (according to CNN Sunday Morning). I didn't catch what it will be for married people, but probably $2000 or more each year.
- Funding will be used to kill human fetuses. According to the U.S. Court, an executive order is inferior to Congressional Law, and the Law that was passed is clear: funding goes for abortions. - Personally this does not bother me, but I know alot of people who find the concept as objectionable as Abolitionists found slavery. - Also I find it dishonest on Obama's part to trick his own Democrats. He knows his XO is null and void per Supreme Court precedent.
There are other flaws with this bill too, but my main objections are (1) the cost and (2) the treatment of citizens as Serfs - "Do as we tell you, or else." This is not the government the Founders had in mind in 1786, else they might have stayed with the Articles of Confederation (a loose union of independent, sovereign states).
Similarly, I think the Europeans are discovering that the EU is quickly turning into a centralized behemoth with no apparent limits upon its power, and the ability to trump the Member States' governments.
Oh and yes. Bankruptcy. U.S. is on the verge of it, especially with talk of it being downgraded from AAA to AA status, as if it were a second world nation.
>>>There is a difference between execute, and run well.
Well in my experience Windows and Mac aps run a hell of a lot better than Linux aps. I've lost track of how many DAYS I've wasted on Ubuntu Linux trying to get crap to simply run. For excample: Opera 10. I still can't get it to install on my machine. In contrast Windows and Mac programs simply work.
The problem with all your suggestions is that it involves spending money on an old 386 machine.
My solution (install off floppies) means no money wasted. And once the DSL or Kolibros is on the hard drive, I never need to use the floppies again.
Open source only seems to work if it's backed by a major contributor, like Firefox and seaMonkey by Google. Otherwise it tends to be buggy and non-user-friendly.
And I have yet to find an open-source OS that can run everything I want. (Of course the same is true with Mac OS - can't run a lot of Windows software on OSX.) Just yesterday I asked a guy how to copy a .img file to a floppy and this was his response: "sudo dd if=/path_to_image.img of=/dev/fd0" which I tried and of course did not work. So then I searched the web and found a nice easy-to-use WinNT program that worked flawlessly.
I wish the ReactOS would get off the ground, so we could have a Windows-compatible alternative without having to support Microsoft. Just as we had IBM PC clones, we need to have MS Windows clones.
>>>You know, I have yet to find a closed-source OS that can run everything I want.
What could you possibly desire to run that Windows OS will not execute? I cannot think of anything.
>>>Also, floppies?!? Really?
If you know how else to install Damn Small Linux or Kolibros onto a 386 machine, which only has a floppy for external input, please share.
>>>Shouldn't that have been evaluated before starting the project in the first place?
Yes. On my previous job they asked me to create a schematic, and of course I had to wait a week for the IT staff to show-up and install the necessary machine on my machine. While I was waiting I searched for OSS CAD alternatives, gave each one a quick spin, and determined they were all inadequate.
This Munich IT Chief should have done the same, rather than just suddenly decide "OSS is the answer".
I've found that OSS is typically good for common software like browsers, media players, word processors, and so on, but not for specialized tasks like CAD or ASIC development, or for operating systems. In the latter case it's better to stick with the "standard" Windows system and proprietary software. It causes fewer headaches.