Well no, it has not *always* been hard for an individual to get health insurance. The last time I was an independent contractor (which was about 9 years ago), all I had to do was visit the blue cross website and sign up for a plan. They had a few options, I picked the $150/month option that gave me a PPO with a relatively low deductable ($1500?). And some routine visits didn't even require meeting the deductable -- just a $15 copay.
Actually, I just checked Kaiser's site today and I see that for a 40 year old guy, there is a plan for under $200/month that has a $40 copay for routine visits, $3000 deductable for other expenses, $6000 annual out of pocket max, and some prescription drug coverage. They don't offer family coverage with this plan, but they have regular deductable plans starting around $350 for a family of 3. Copay plans (no deductable) start at $575 for a family of 3.
Sounds like fairly reasonable pricing, but I don't know what their pre-existing condition exclusion policy is. I have no experience with Kaiser's individual plans, but I've been using them with an employer sponsored plan for about 2 years and have no complaints.
I second this -- it is super annoying that the more "open" platform won't let me browse the app store unless I am using an Android phone.
Even though I'm willing to use the app on my tiny device, I'd still like the ability to sit down at my full-size computer and search or browser the app store.
And I would look for an Energy Star label (or other measure of power efficiency) on those appliances too if i had the need to purchase them, but the water heater and furnace are owned by my apartment building and I don't pay directly for those, they are bundled into my rent. I have no air conditioning so that's not a factor.
Buying energy efficient appliances (including TV's) doesn't cost me anything -- in fact, the cheaper no-frills TV's tend to use the least power, so I save money on the purchase price, *and* I save money in electricity (though my electrical savings are likely less than $20/year).
Well, that's not strictly true, I could have paid a huge price premium for an LED lit model (or someday an even more huge price premium for an OLED model), but I'm willing to sacrifice some power efficiency to save $1000. Eventually those more efficient technologies will come down in price -- perhaps driven in part by EPA and state power efficiency regulations.
I wonder how much of the difference is due to the environment they are used (and transported) in.
My laptop spends most of it's time on my desk, and it travels in a laptop bag. But my netbook gets tossed in my backpack and I take it with me more often. Likewise, my gf takes hers to work in her (big) purse.
Oh! How silly of me! It's the size of the largest wall in my apartment that determines the size of TV I reasonably enjoy. In that case, sign me up for a 120" screen!
It's not the size of the wall that's limiting me, it's the width of the room -- I'd want at least 10 feet of viewing distance between the TV and my primary viewing area. My livingroom is a rectangle with the short "walls" being a breakfast bar leading to the kitchen at one end and large floor to ceiling windows at the other so that limits me to placing the TV along one of the long walls.
The Livingroom is 12' wide, and since I'm not going to drill holes in the apartment wall to mount it TV on the wall, the screen would sit around 2 feet away from the wall on the tv stand, and I'm about 2' from the opposite wall when I'm on the couch, so I get around 8' of viewing distance. So my living room is not going to give a viewing experience that makes it worth buying a 50" TV - at least not to me.
And of course, I wouldn't want a big freakin' 50" tv in my smallish living room anyway, but that's a personal preference.
Can anyone explain what the manufacturers are up in arms about? THe PC World article says that the new CEC requirements aren't much different than the Energy Star regulations that most manufacturers seem to be embracing. Is it that EnergyStar is voluntary and CEC is required? With the price of electricity in California, I know I look for the Energy Star label, so perhaps non of this uproar applies to me. Of course, I don't have nearly enough room for a 50" plus sized screen either.
From the article:
Today, the Energy Star 3.0 spec limits active power consumption for a 32-inch HDTV to 120 watts; the impending Energy Star 4.0 spec, which goes into effect in May 2010, drops that to 78W; and the spec for Energy Star 5.0 (due in May 2012) is 55W. For a 50-inch set, the current Energy Star 3.0 spec limits power consumption to 353W; for Energy Star 4, that drops to 153W; and for Energy Star 5.0, that drops to 108W.
The mandatory Tier 1 CEC spec for 2011 says a 32-inch HDTV's maximum power consumption must be no more than 116W for a 32-inch model; the Tier 2 spec for 2013 drops that to 75W--higher than the Energy Star 5.0 spec, which will be introduced six months earlier. For a 50-inch HDTV, the Tier 1 CEC spec will require the maximum power consumption to be at 245W; the Tier 2 CEC spec drops that to 153W.
Why does everything have to have a technological fix like an electronic device to track and send in odometer readings? What's the real problem with requiring customers to send in odometer readings at policy renewal time? The California smog check results are already sent electronically to the DMV, so the odometer info can be furnished to the insurance companies to help fight fraud. For areas that don't require a smog check, the insurance company can randomly require some small subset of their drivers to have them odometer reading verified.
I can't believe many people will violate federal law to commit fraud by unhooking their odometers. This is already illegal, and somehow the leasing companies are willing to trust the odometer readings, and there is a substantial financial penalty for exceeding lease mileage limits thus creating a large incentive for fraud. And if someone does lie about their odometer reading and has an accident, the insurance adjuster can report the milage to the company so they can verify the mileage.
Besides, I always figured that modern cars wouldn't operate well without a working speed sensor. If the odometer is so easy to bypass, then maybe this issue can be addressed through the car companies. It's already illegal to bypass the odometer, so the car may as well enforce that.
Slashdot Mirror
Well no, it has not *always* been hard for an individual to get health insurance. The last time I was an independent contractor (which was about 9 years ago), all I had to do was visit the blue cross website and sign up for a plan. They had a few options, I picked the $150/month option that gave me a PPO with a relatively low deductable ($1500?). And some routine visits didn't even require meeting the deductable -- just a $15 copay.
Actually, I just checked Kaiser's site today and I see that for a 40 year old guy, there is a plan for under $200/month that has a $40 copay for routine visits, $3000 deductable for other expenses, $6000 annual out of pocket max, and some prescription drug coverage. They don't offer family coverage with this plan, but they have regular deductable plans starting around $350 for a family of 3. Copay plans (no deductable) start at $575 for a family of 3.
Here's their website
Sounds like fairly reasonable pricing, but I don't know what their pre-existing condition exclusion policy is. I have no experience with Kaiser's individual plans, but I've been using them with an employer sponsored plan for about 2 years and have no complaints.
I second this -- it is super annoying that the more "open" platform won't let me browse the app store unless I am using an Android phone. Even though I'm willing to use the app on my tiny device, I'd still like the ability to sit down at my full-size computer and search or browser the app store.
And I would look for an Energy Star label (or other measure of power efficiency) on those appliances too if i had the need to purchase them, but the water heater and furnace are owned by my apartment building and I don't pay directly for those, they are bundled into my rent. I have no air conditioning so that's not a factor.
Buying energy efficient appliances (including TV's) doesn't cost me anything -- in fact, the cheaper no-frills TV's tend to use the least power, so I save money on the purchase price, *and* I save money in electricity (though my electrical savings are likely less than $20/year).
Well, that's not strictly true, I could have paid a huge price premium for an LED lit model (or someday an even more huge price premium for an OLED model), but I'm willing to sacrifice some power efficiency to save $1000. Eventually those more efficient technologies will come down in price -- perhaps driven in part by EPA and state power efficiency regulations.
I wonder how much of the difference is due to the environment they are used (and transported) in.
My laptop spends most of it's time on my desk, and it travels in a laptop bag. But my netbook gets tossed in my backpack and I take it with me more often. Likewise, my gf takes hers to work in her (big) purse.
Oh! How silly of me! It's the size of the largest wall in my apartment that determines the size of TV I reasonably enjoy. In that case, sign me up for a 120" screen!
It's not the size of the wall that's limiting me, it's the width of the room -- I'd want at least 10 feet of viewing distance between the TV and my primary viewing area. My livingroom is a rectangle with the short "walls" being a breakfast bar leading to the kitchen at one end and large floor to ceiling windows at the other so that limits me to placing the TV along one of the long walls.
The Livingroom is 12' wide, and since I'm not going to drill holes in the apartment wall to mount it TV on the wall, the screen would sit around 2 feet away from the wall on the tv stand, and I'm about 2' from the opposite wall when I'm on the couch, so I get around 8' of viewing distance. So my living room is not going to give a viewing experience that makes it worth buying a 50" TV - at least not to me.
And of course, I wouldn't want a big freakin' 50" tv in my smallish living room anyway, but that's a personal preference.
Today, the Energy Star 3.0 spec limits active power consumption for a 32-inch HDTV to 120 watts; the impending Energy Star 4.0 spec, which goes into effect in May 2010, drops that to 78W; and the spec for Energy Star 5.0 (due in May 2012) is 55W. For a 50-inch set, the current Energy Star 3.0 spec limits power consumption to 353W; for Energy Star 4, that drops to 153W; and for Energy Star 5.0, that drops to 108W.
The mandatory Tier 1 CEC spec for 2011 says a 32-inch HDTV's maximum power consumption must be no more than 116W for a 32-inch model; the Tier 2 spec for 2013 drops that to 75W--higher than the Energy Star 5.0 spec, which will be introduced six months earlier. For a 50-inch HDTV, the Tier 1 CEC spec will require the maximum power consumption to be at 245W; the Tier 2 CEC spec drops that to 153W.
I can't believe many people will violate federal law to commit fraud by unhooking their odometers. This is already illegal, and somehow the leasing companies are willing to trust the odometer readings, and there is a substantial financial penalty for exceeding lease mileage limits thus creating a large incentive for fraud. And if someone does lie about their odometer reading and has an accident, the insurance adjuster can report the milage to the company so they can verify the mileage.
Besides, I always figured that modern cars wouldn't operate well without a working speed sensor. If the odometer is so easy to bypass, then maybe this issue can be addressed through the car companies. It's already illegal to bypass the odometer, so the car may as well enforce that.