I've got no idea where it's getting those price estimates from. It does say below that the estimates are for a Silver plan. Bronze plans will be cheaper and will be minimum coverage.
You appear to have reasonable justification for you're concerns, but I hope it turns out better than that. Just remember that if you've been paying out-of-pocket for any healthcare at all those costs will be substantially reduced. Good luck!
Your switch won't matter at all. The plans are grandfathered in, not people. As long as the plan you are on was in existence on March 2013 and had people enrolled it's possible for it to be grandfathered. If a company chooses to keep a plan available you could even change to a grandfathered plan 10 years from now if you really want to.
It's still not perfect as much of it just says "signficant increase" or similar, where "significant" is not precisely defined, but you'll note that it has more to do with costs and coverage changes, more than specifying what must be covered.
One thing that might help you is to figure out in advance if you'll be eligible for the subsidy, but note that it can only be used on insurance purchased on the exchange. Here's the best calculator I can find at the moment: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
The main catch in those rules is that if the plan's had any significant changes since March 23, 2010 it may not qualify. Note that you don't have to have been enrolled since then, just the details of the plan can't have changed much. Your insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is grandfather-able.
Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Fixing the individual market is arguably the #1 effect of the ACA. Odds are extremely good that you'll be able to get equal or better coverage for nearly the same price, perhaps less when the subsidies are taken into effect. Hit the site up on Oct 1st when full pricing and details are available.
I'd say they should allowed to deliver anything but they also have to check my mailbox daily (at least visually check the flag thingy) to see if I have any outgoing mail to send, just like USPS does.
Well, they were offering free SURGICAL steel knives at Wal-Mart the other day. I'm guessing that was just a ploy to get me to buy a home-surgery for dummies book and sutures.
Actually the marketplace will be much larger by orders of magnitude and you should be in a prime position to benefit from it (and Obamacare generally). I would head over to https://www.healthcare.gov/families and check things out. Actual policy details and rates should be available on Oct 1st.
Taking care of this issue is the primary goal of the Healthcare Exchange/Marketplace that will be setup. Insurers cannot deny coverage OR CHARGE YOU MORE because of a pre-existing condition.
The last time I needed a flashlight I really only needed it for a few minutes to find candles and such. The time before that I was just looking for something in my trunk at night. 20 minutes is more than enough for either of those circumstances. The last time I needed a flashlight to last longer than 20 minutes was probably spelunking over a decade ago.
In most cases ambient temp was decently lower than my body temp just because it's usually evening/night time when it's needed. I used to have one of the shake-style flashlights, but it seems to have vanished. You pretty much had to shake it constantly for it to work, which made actually looking for things with it quite difficult. In any case, having a flashlight around that I know will work regardless of battery quality is a good thing.
An argument can be made that by saying it would have that capability and taking it away the original statement was a lie. You have a valid point in that they were pretty upfront with things when they took it away. So they were very honest about when they decided to make their original statement a lie.
If my facebook feed is any indication, conservatives seem to hate Monsato more than liberals. I see tons more posts about Organic this-and-that and "natural herbal remedies" from my conservative friends. I assume it's their distrust of liberal scientific stuff and general yearning for the good-old-days. It's possible my friends are statistical outliers though.
In all fairness, labeling it Genetically Modified would be scientifically accurate. The assumption that Genetic Modification is a horribly evil thing is certainly superstition, but I consider that a separate issue.
I'd actually like to know a whole lot more than that myself. What is the point of the Genetic Modifications? If it helps the crops to grow in more diverse soils or produce more food that's good. If it's to make it more tolerant to various (Monsato brand) poisonous insecticides then I'm a little bit more worried.
There have always been differences in the degree to which the importance of the militia clause in the 2nd amendment applies. The legal standard is currently that it is absolutely an individual right as established by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller. However, a dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Stevens (joined by Souder, Ginsberg and Breyer), that the right to bear arms is only in the case of a well-ordered militia (which has meant the national guard since the Militia Act of 1903).
If 4 Supreme Court Justices don't count as another interpretation of the 2nd amendment (one which has a long history I might add). I don't know what does.
The debate to which I was referring was whether the 2nd amendment applies to individuals or only organized militias. I'm aware that the current interpretation is that it applies to individuals and that at the time it did indeed apply to all possible weaponry. The current definition of what are "arms" and therefore protected by the 2nd amendment makes no sense whatsoever.
I have great respect for the integrity of those who genuinely believe we should all be able to own any military weaponry. It is a logically sound view and I respect it even though I don't agree with it. I have less respect for those who feel assault rifles (or whatever name you wish to call them) are okay, but SAMs, grenades, flamethrowers, tanks and nuclear weapons are different. I've never seen a sound defense of such a position.
RFID keys are not uncommon on new cars now. Our new car has one (and it's not particularly high-end). What you suggest there is plausible, although the sensors may be sensitive enough to tell which door you are at. I'm not sure about that. I'll have to try it sometime.
We've been annoyed by it once when my wife wanted to leave her purse (with car keys) in the car. The car won't actually let you lock the doors in that situation because it realizes that the key is still present.
In case you're wondering the ignition is just a push button that checks for the key within the passenger compartment.
You're attempting to split hairs, but you're not doing a good job.
Definitions for tank:
merriam-webster.com: an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks
dictionary.reference.com: an armored, self-propelled combat vehicle, armed with cannon and machine guns and moving on a caterpillar tread.
thefreedictionary.com: An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks.
The weaponry is part of the definition in all cases, otherwise it's just an armored vehicle. But all that still dodges the question of why the machine gun and cannon (and nuclear weapons) are not "arms" per the 2nd amendment. This is especially thorny for those who believe the main purpose of the 2nd is for the people to be a credible threat to the government.
Basically: While "assault rifles" are usually functionally identical to hunting rifles they are symbols of something else, and symbols are very powerful things and have definite effects on us. Regulating something for "symbolic" reasons isn't necessarily a bad idea, although it might be legally suspect in some jurisdictions (like the entire US). It's a good read.
And what if he/she is European (or Asian, or South American, or pretty much anything but US Libertarian) and doesn't share your opinion as to the role of government?
That is one interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but by no means the only one. There is quite a spirited debate over what the intention of that was and whether it should apply to tanks, grenades, land mines and nuclear weapons just as much as it does to guns.
LOTRO sees a little bit of RP on the servers that encourage it. Much of it tends to revolve around the in-game music system, which is one of it's more unique features.
Because in most cases the "purchasing decider" is actually an over-worked network admin with a real job to do who desperately wishes they could spend 30-60 getting familiar with something.
I see at least one possible benefit to insects. Most food-borne illness (at least in US) comes from under-cooked meat or cross-contamination, which is basically just under-cooked meat that gets on your veggies. With the smaller mass of insects it should be much easier to make sure they are cooked completely.
That's kinda why the article focuses so much on methane hydrates. I don't like the environmental impact but as a petroleum reserve it's a massive game changer. Consider this from page 3:
"Estimates of the global supply of methane hydrate range from the equivalent of 100 times more than Americaâ(TM)s current annual energy consumption to 3 million times more."
There are a lot of different qualities one can look for in an energy storage device. Petroleum products have one of the highest energy densities that is very easy to extract (until we get Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future). In many cases losing the mass of the storage device when we can no longer get energy out of it is a good thing (any vehicle). Of course, converting that mass to pollution of some type is a bad thing.
Rechargability is also "good" in many cases, but not all. Different scenarios result in different priorities for what "good" is. Petroleum products do win some of those. I'd just like to see the environmental costs factored in better.
If you make any effort to include the externalities of petroleum production in your cost then renewables already win. From what I've seen including just the current annual healthcare costs incurred due to petroleum production tips the scales in favor of renewables.
Ignoring theses costs isn't going to make them go away either, despite many peoples valiant effort to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an awesome point. Where's mod points when I need them!
I've got no idea where it's getting those price estimates from. It does say below that the estimates are for a Silver plan. Bronze plans will be cheaper and will be minimum coverage.
You appear to have reasonable justification for you're concerns, but I hope it turns out better than that. Just remember that if you've been paying out-of-pocket for any healthcare at all those costs will be substantially reduced. Good luck!
Your switch won't matter at all. The plans are grandfathered in, not people. As long as the plan you are on was in existence on March 2013 and had people enrolled it's possible for it to be grandfathered. If a company chooses to keep a plan available you could even change to a grandfathered plan 10 years from now if you really want to.
Here's something I found with some more details on what would make a plan ineligible: https://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/questions-answers/grandfathering.html#4
It's still not perfect as much of it just says "signficant increase" or similar, where "significant" is not precisely defined, but you'll note that it has more to do with costs and coverage changes, more than specifying what must be covered.
One thing that might help you is to figure out in advance if you'll be eligible for the subsidy, but note that it can only be used on insurance purchased on the exchange. Here's the best calculator I can find at the moment: http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
There's a very good chance it will fall under the grandfathering rules which means that for the most part it doesn't have to meet those standards.
Here's the FAQ on that: https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-grandfathered-health-plan
The main catch in those rules is that if the plan's had any significant changes since March 23, 2010 it may not qualify. Note that you don't have to have been enrolled since then, just the details of the plan can't have changed much. Your insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is grandfather-able.
Honestly, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Fixing the individual market is arguably the #1 effect of the ACA. Odds are extremely good that you'll be able to get equal or better coverage for nearly the same price, perhaps less when the subsidies are taken into effect. Hit the site up on Oct 1st when full pricing and details are available.
Another site that may be useful is this: https://coverageforall.org/
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'd say they should allowed to deliver anything but they also have to check my mailbox daily (at least visually check the flag thingy) to see if I have any outgoing mail to send, just like USPS does.
Well, they were offering free SURGICAL steel knives at Wal-Mart the other day. I'm guessing that was just a ploy to get me to buy a home-surgery for dummies book and sutures.
Actually the marketplace will be much larger by orders of magnitude and you should be in a prime position to benefit from it (and Obamacare generally). I would head over to https://www.healthcare.gov/families and check things out. Actual policy details and rates should be available on Oct 1st.
Taking care of this issue is the primary goal of the Healthcare Exchange/Marketplace that will be setup. Insurers cannot deny coverage OR CHARGE YOU MORE because of a pre-existing condition.
Check out more information here: https://www.healthcare.gov/health-insurance-marketplace
If I were you I'd be checking things out first thing on October 1st which is when it goes live. There will probably be a few glitches at first though
The last time I needed a flashlight I really only needed it for a few minutes to find candles and such. The time before that I was just looking for something in my trunk at night. 20 minutes is more than enough for either of those circumstances. The last time I needed a flashlight to last longer than 20 minutes was probably spelunking over a decade ago.
In most cases ambient temp was decently lower than my body temp just because it's usually evening/night time when it's needed. I used to have one of the shake-style flashlights, but it seems to have vanished. You pretty much had to shake it constantly for it to work, which made actually looking for things with it quite difficult. In any case, having a flashlight around that I know will work regardless of battery quality is a good thing.
In short: I would absolutely buy one of these.
An argument can be made that by saying it would have that capability and taking it away the original statement was a lie. You have a valid point in that they were pretty upfront with things when they took it away. So they were very honest about when they decided to make their original statement a lie.
If my facebook feed is any indication, conservatives seem to hate Monsato more than liberals. I see tons more posts about Organic this-and-that and "natural herbal remedies" from my conservative friends. I assume it's their distrust of liberal scientific stuff and general yearning for the good-old-days. It's possible my friends are statistical outliers though.
In all fairness, labeling it Genetically Modified would be scientifically accurate. The assumption that Genetic Modification is a horribly evil thing is certainly superstition, but I consider that a separate issue.
I'd actually like to know a whole lot more than that myself. What is the point of the Genetic Modifications? If it helps the crops to grow in more diverse soils or produce more food that's good. If it's to make it more tolerant to various (Monsato brand) poisonous insecticides then I'm a little bit more worried.
You might want to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Scholarly_commentary
There have always been differences in the degree to which the importance of the militia clause in the 2nd amendment applies. The legal standard is currently that it is absolutely an individual right as established by the Supreme Court in the District of Columbia v. Heller. However, a dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Stevens (joined by Souder, Ginsberg and Breyer), that the right to bear arms is only in the case of a well-ordered militia (which has meant the national guard since the Militia Act of 1903).
If 4 Supreme Court Justices don't count as another interpretation of the 2nd amendment (one which has a long history I might add). I don't know what does.
The debate to which I was referring was whether the 2nd amendment applies to individuals or only organized militias. I'm aware that the current interpretation is that it applies to individuals and that
at the time it did indeed apply to all possible weaponry. The current definition of what are "arms" and therefore protected by the 2nd amendment makes no sense whatsoever.
I have great respect for the integrity of those who genuinely believe we should all be able to own any military weaponry. It is a logically sound view and I respect it even though I don't agree with it. I have less respect for those who feel assault rifles (or whatever name you wish to call them) are okay, but SAMs, grenades, flamethrowers, tanks and nuclear weapons are different. I've never seen a sound defense of such a position.
RFID keys are not uncommon on new cars now. Our new car has one (and it's not particularly high-end). What you suggest there is plausible, although the sensors may be sensitive enough to tell which door you are at. I'm not sure about that. I'll have to try it sometime.
We've been annoyed by it once when my wife wanted to leave her purse (with car keys) in the car. The car won't actually let you lock the doors in that situation because it realizes that the key is still present.
In case you're wondering the ignition is just a push button that checks for the key within the passenger compartment.
You're attempting to split hairs, but you're not doing a good job.
Definitions for tank:
merriam-webster.com: an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks
dictionary.reference.com: an armored, self-propelled combat vehicle, armed with cannon and machine guns and moving on a caterpillar tread.
thefreedictionary.com: An enclosed, heavily armored combat vehicle that is armed with cannon and machine guns and moves on continuous tracks.
The weaponry is part of the definition in all cases, otherwise it's just an armored vehicle. But all that still dodges the question of why the machine gun and cannon (and nuclear weapons) are not "arms" per the 2nd amendment. This is especially thorny for those who believe the main purpose of the 2nd is for the people to be a credible threat to the government.
I originally thought this way, but I read the following and it made me think there might be a point to it afterall: http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com/2013/02/assault-weapons-as-symbols.html
Basically: While "assault rifles" are usually functionally identical to hunting rifles they are symbols of something else, and symbols are very powerful things and have definite effects on us. Regulating something for "symbolic" reasons isn't necessarily a bad idea, although it might be legally suspect in some jurisdictions (like the entire US). It's a good read.
And what if he/she is European (or Asian, or South American, or pretty much anything but US Libertarian) and doesn't share your opinion as to the role of government?
That is one interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but by no means the only one. There is quite a spirited debate over what the intention of that was and whether it should apply to tanks, grenades, land mines and nuclear weapons just as much as it does to guns.
LOTRO sees a little bit of RP on the servers that encourage it. Much of it tends to revolve around the in-game music system, which is one of it's more unique features.
Because in most cases the "purchasing decider" is actually an over-worked network admin with a real job to do who desperately wishes they could spend 30-60 getting familiar with something.
I see at least one possible benefit to insects. Most food-borne illness (at least in US) comes from under-cooked meat or cross-contamination, which is basically just under-cooked meat that gets on your veggies. With the smaller mass of insects it should be much easier to make sure they are cooked completely.
That's kinda why the article focuses so much on methane hydrates. I don't like the environmental impact but as a petroleum reserve it's a massive game changer. Consider this from page 3:
"Estimates of the global supply of methane hydrate range from the equivalent of 100 times more than Americaâ(TM)s current annual energy consumption to 3 million times more."
There are a lot of different qualities one can look for in an energy storage device. Petroleum products have one of the highest energy densities that is very easy to extract (until we get Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future). In many cases losing the mass of the storage device when we can no longer get energy out of it is a good thing (any vehicle). Of course, converting that mass to pollution of some type is a bad thing.
Rechargability is also "good" in many cases, but not all. Different scenarios result in different priorities for what "good" is. Petroleum products do win some of those. I'd just like to see the environmental costs factored in better.
If you make any effort to include the externalities of petroleum production in your cost then renewables already win. From what I've seen including just the current annual healthcare costs incurred due to petroleum production tips the scales in favor of renewables.
Ignoring theses costs isn't going to make them go away either, despite many peoples valiant effort to do so.