User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.7658 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Anyway, abortions for some, tiny American flags for others.
it is me doesn't have ins. i know that if it is the twins and they have to go in hosp, we can most likely get the emergency medicaid or the childrens help fund. but there is nothing for plain ol poor non-pregnant adults
We settled that on page 3. Neither the abortions nor the tiny American flags will be subsidized under the bill.
I thought we had reached detente about 2 pages ago, when Snapper suggested what seemed to generally be a partially nationalized provider system for the bottom X%. However, then Szym and Nieporent arrived in force and are threatening a filibuster of the whole effort. JPFW and MCoA are valiantly trying to hold the moderate coalition together. There was some discussion on whether Bush = Hitler or Obama = Hitler, but I believe we've amended all mentions of Hitler from the bill.
Oh yeah.... there was pretty good Keefe back on page 2 or 3 -- but it's near certain to get dropped in committee.
The key is to send something- even a 20 dollar monthly check- to let the hospital know (through your conduct and not your words) that you want to pay the bill but you can't. This generally does 2 things (1) keeps the bill away from the collection agency, and (2) lets the hospital know you're not a deadbeat. Both are hugely important, if you get stuck with an agency it's a much more difficult situation to deal with. Likewise, if the hospital's people feel like you're blowing them off- they won't be very interested in helping you.
Next, get in touch with the hospital's "person" as Bernal suggested. Tell him/her that you want to pay, that you can't pay, and that you would do anything to work out a deal to help the hospital collect on their efforts. Be ready (if you're willing) to document your financial situation. More than likely they'll offer a plan that you still can't afford- beg and barter as best as you can and get that pay plan down as low as possible. Once you've got a plan- pay on it if you can. If you can't pay in full- make payments, even if their just the $20 token payments.
The key to being a debtor (especially when you don;t have the means to keep up) is to be as available and forthright as possible (I know it's hard when you're scared that you can't pay the bill- but you got to do it.) Imagine if someone owed you money, would you more willing to work with someone who stayed in touch with you, or someone who ignored you?
That's as much genius as I'll bore you with right now. If you want to ask me something more specific- feel free to send me an e-mail.
EDIT- 703 contains words to live by when dealing with hospitals
Ah - sorry sounded like a mistake in billing you were trying to deal with... which are far too common. In that case, however, Bernal's right... let him get you the best depts to talk to at the hospital. You might also ask about charity care options -- many hospitals will not tell you it's an option unless you explicitly ask, but about 2/3 of hospitals participate in various such programs. These are generally instances where the patient doesn't qualify for Medicaid because income is too high, but don't have private insurance. Hospitals that participate in such programs then report these cases to CMS to qualify for additional payments and factor into Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement rates. What this would mean to your bill will largely depend on the specific hospital and whatever Texas' Medicaid program says --- but generally, you can qualify up to 3 or 4 times the poverty line for some sort of bill relief.
If it was a community/'public' hospital, chances are near certain that they participate in a charity care initiative. If a private, fp hospital - chances are less, but still possible.
My brother, in Brooklyn, who doesn't have insurance, but doesn't qualify for Medicaid, was recently approved for such a case.... His bill was reduced by half.
It may be just my experiences, or a California thing, but I tend to think that most collection agencies use a lot of unskilled folks who are basically working with a script and a "guideline" settlement. These guys can't get much done for you and they tend to give the impression that the agency is inflexible- which heightens the fear and embarrassment of the whole process.
In any case, the key is that medical debt is much easier to deal with than virtually any other kind IME.
As for the collection agencies, yes, they hire a lot of script-reading drones, but that's just to make the initial calls and scare the debtors. The trick is not to worry about those, because, well, so what? (If they keep harassing you, then you have an FDCPA issue, and there are plenty of lawyers out there who specialize in those, and don't charge clients a cent.) You have to get past those people, and then you get to those with flexibility. The basic point is this: these firms only make money if they get you to pay something without any hassle on their part. Once they have to try to involuntarily collect (i.e., go to court), they're going to be losing money on the deal, particularly if you know enough to stall the court proceedings. (Don't let them get a default judgment.)
The only truly hard debts for debtors to deal with are the ones for continuing services, where the creditors have real leverage -- the ability to cut you off (i.e., phone companies, utilities, etc.) or evict you.
FWIW, neither makes sense in conjunction with the data I've seen. Particularly the time spent.
I dropped a knife into the back of my leg once and it took probably two hours in the ER to get two stitches and something like $1500 billed to my company's workmen's comp insurance.
For some but then you have a former coworker of mine who got a bunch of credit cards and drew cash out of the accounts instead of buying things and then went and bought the items for a start up photography business and transferred anything of value of his to his girlfriend and then declared bankruptcy and left a bunch of people holding nothing much like Lenny F'in Dykstra. Thankfully the guy died without getting to retire.
I'm making no value judgment on the person who posted this or their reasoning, truly. I don't think I'm morally right and they're wrong or anything of the sort. I would just like to point out that this is why I consider myself a fairly extreme social liberal
The point isn't that I think anybody is lazy or doesn't want to work. The point is that if you remove the hardship that comes from being poor or you make it easier to live poorly then you basically have to do it for the rest of time and then you'll have to do it for more and more people. Human beings only function close to properly when there is an incentive to do something. If you remove the prod to do something they'll sit there and fling poop at each other.
(Unless you see lottery winnings as public assistance.)
What about them? They pursue a scholarly career because they don't actually have to work anymore. So they sit around and read books and speak french to one another. There is a movie made by some rich heir of the Johnson and Johnson company which looks at rich kids of rich families and what their lives are like. This kid upon his 21st birthday or something like that would gain access to his trust fund and the millions and millions that were in it. On the eve of that event he goes and asks his dad, who has never worked a day in his life, what he should do with his life. His dad, who again has never worked a day in his life, gives what I thought to be the funniest father-son talk I have ever heard. He says something to the affect that he could dabble in painting since he seemed to kind of like that. It goes on like this for most of the conversation. The father has absolutely no idea what his child should do because there is nothing serious for his son to do with his life.
But being rich and having nothing to do is an incentive to do something meaningful with one's life. Which is why you see some rich people get heavily into fundraising or into scholarly activity becuase doing so gives them meaning.
Also, there would always be undesired social stigma attached to being helped by any government program
Except the government and various other programs have tried very hard to remove that stigma. I remember reading a book about welfare or one of the other helping hand type programs and how initially people were reluctant to enroll in the program so the government went on a campaign to convince people it was okay to take the money/help. Enrollment skyrocketed. Secondly from own anecdotal evidence very few people have any problem with taking money from the government. While I lived in Philadelphia a ton of people I worked with were basically raised on the government dole or were currently being subsidized by the government. If they were ashamed about it they did a very good job of hiding it. When I was in school I lived with a guy who was basically letting the government pay for the raising of his two kids while he sat around and smoked pot and drank fine wine. Plus this ######### let his wife work as a bartender so they could have some cash while he "devoted" himself soley to school. Around tax time we got into a discussion about taxes and what you could and couldn't do and during this conversation he showed me his tax returns for the last 3 years. I was blown away. I had made more in 3 months of work than he did in three years of work and during those 3 years he got his wife pregnant twice and had two kids. Yet he never felt compelled to go out and make money to raise his kids. He had the government do that for him.
Now obviously he isn't the norm it is just anecdote I wanted to share. But I do think once you remove the incentive to get the hell out of your bad situation it creates problems that can be just as big or bigger than the original problem.
Now there's someone who needs a good tasing.
If you have children and won't support them the government should arrest your ass and put you on a chain gang cleaning streets and repairing roads. Preferable in the hottest/coldest ####### places we can find. If our tax dollars have to raise your kids, you should not be sitting home playing x-box and smoking pot. And you should certainly not be left in a position where you can have more kids.
I think the rate of extra-marital pregnancy would drop precipitously if the guys knew it was no ####### free ride.
MCoA seems to be working overtime in this thread to remove the stigma.
Incidentally, I'm glad you referenced r.s.b a ways back, Dan - it got me to google a few of my old posts. First one I saw was a long thread debating the virtues of Derek Jeter v. Rey Ordonez. [Surprise! I picked Jeter (as did Nieporent, among other posters).]
Anyone want to discuss how the stigma of illegitimacy is faring these days?
There's an inherent contradiction that permeates our culture (and nearly all cultures outside the Islamic world, for that matter): We bombard everyone 24/7 with advertisements and entertainment that promote every socially destructive character trait one can imagine, defend it to the death on constitutional and philosophical grounds, and then turn around and pass scathing judgment on people in real life who don't have the capacity (or the finances) to live this sort of a lifestyle and still be able to function on a self-sustaining financial level.
Oh, how we love to mock them. And heaven forbid if they should ever get a penny of our precious tax dollars.
If this sort of society only existed on a remote island in the South Seas, our anthropologists would have a field day trying to figure out its internal logic. And yet it all seems so perfectly "normal" to those of us who live in the middle of it, especially to the networks that spend 80% of their time cashing in on the same sort of behavior that they spend the other 20% of their time decrying.
As the old cliche goes, it's so corrupt it's positively thrilling. But brother, can we ever put on a show....
Yes, but every now and then people like that do get caught...
There's an inherent contradiction that permeates our culture (and nearly all cultures outside the Islamic world, for that matter): We bombard everyone 24/7 with advertisements and entertainment that promote every socially destructive character trait one can imagine, defend it to the death on constitutional and philosophical grounds, and then turn around and pass scathing judgment on people in real life who don't have the capacity (or the finances) to live this sort of a lifestyle and still be able to function on a self-sustaining financial level.
If this sort of society only existed on a remote island in the South Seas, our anthropologists would have a field day trying to figure out its internal logic. And yet it all seems so perfectly "normal" to those of us who live in the middle of it, especially to the networks that spend 80% of their time cashing in on the same sort of behavior that they spend the other 20% of their time decrying.
As the old cliche goes, it's so corrupt it's positively thrilling. But brother, can we ever put on a show....
It's not "normal" to me; I still adhere to traditional morality (of the Catholic kind). But that only serves to get me pilloried around here.
I think our society is well into its "Roman Empire" decadence phase. I just hope some crisis will wrench us out of it before we pass the point of no return.
Oh their wealth was real, it just didn't reside in Spain. The Spanish Habsburgs controlled Flanders (modern Belgium) and Northern Italy which were the two principal manufacturing centers, and richest areas, of the era. The American silver was also a very real source of wealth (though they had a major problem converting it into gold, as most expenses, especially military, had to be paid in gold). The Genoese played a major role in this, sending the silver all the way to China (who used silver as currency) to find enough gold.
A major mistake was Phillip II moving his capital from Flanders (where Charles V resided) to Madrid. It put him way too far "from the action".
As the old cliche goes, it's so corrupt it's positively thrilling. But brother, can we ever put on a show....
It's not "normal" to me; I still adhere to traditional morality (of the Catholic kind). But that only serves to get me pilloried around here.
Of course some of us still adhere to traditional morality, though usually on an ad hoc basis, and of course anyone who does that will "get pilloried around here."
I hope that what I wrote wasn't taken to say that there aren't pockets of resistance to all forms of socially destructive character traits, because clearly there are. You can see evidence of that right here in this thread.
But the point is that the way our culture operates these days, those with traditional values---be it a belief in the nuclear family or a belief that society has a moral obligation to provide a social safety net---are at an inherent rhetorical disadvantage. It's so much easier to shout "Get a job" than it is to explain why that's not exactly the answer to all of our problems. And as you seem to have learned, it's also very easy to snark at people who actually take things like marital vows seriously and have the nerve to argue that two parent families might actually not be a bad idea for society to encourage.
What it boils down to is a de facto modus vivendi between "The two wings of FOX", as we might call it for simplicity's sake. The commercial side of it promotes the crass and the dumb, and is defended (if not approved) by doctrinaire first amendment champions, primarily on the Left. And the chastising side of it (which of course is also a highly commercial enterprise) lets them (and their Republican friends) pretend that the first side doesn't really exist.
And then for those of us who see through all that bullshit, they buy us off with The Simpsons and endless re-runs of Seinfeld. It's almost enough to get us to forgive them for McCarver, who can shill and chastise in the same sentence along with the best of them.
(Hey, I never said I wasn't part of the problem.)
I wouldn't count on it. Remember that Dan Snyder is only 43.
It was real (wealth as in $), but it was unearned in the sense it didn't arise from superior ag, or volume of industry, or military might. Philip II felt the need to empire build w/o setting up the social pillars to sustain it. Plus, the leisure class swelled, blah blah blah.
Note: I haven't read / thought seriously about this stuff in over a decade - which is why I opted to delete the original post - I don't trust my memory.
Note: I haven't read / thought seriously about this stuff in over a decade - which is why I opted to delete the original post - I don't trust my memory.
You should do the reading, as it is a very, very interesting era. Our history in the US is heavily biased by a Britain centric/Protestant centric view of things. In reality, Britain was a backwater until the 18th century, and all the action took place in France, the Low Countries and Germany.
In fact, much of the Habsburgs' (to say Spain is a misnomer, it was a true multinational empire) wealth/power was real. Flanders and Italy were exceptionally productive and wealthy. Their issue was imperial overstretch. They fought France (the great superpower of the day) the Dutch, the English, the Turks, for centuries. It eventually wore them down.
It did arise from superior military might though....
Anyway, much of the wealth of OPEC nations is unearned and illusory in the same sense- they just happen to sit on stuff other people find valuable- most of those nations have done squat with that money insofar as investing in and creating an economy that's based on something besides pulling stuff out of the ground.
Spain's problem was that the wealth did derive from superior military might, it was predicated on Spain's ability to move in and take over- once they were no longer able to do that...
England got far far far more out of its colonies than Spain did out of theirs- Spain was seemingly mostly interested in plundering the lands it conquered, England set theirs to work.
I'm pretty sure I saw this doc, and it was a bounty of unwitting self-parodies. IIRC, during that conversation the dad suggested that the son consider collecting historical maps for a "living."
And if an alien visited the Earth prior to the 15th century it would view all of Europe as backwater- the real action would be in China, India and the Middle East.
Of course appearances can be deceiving- we have the benefit of hindsight, until the 18th Century Britain very well may have been a second rate power at the time, less advanced, smaller economy, less Universities etc... But what was going on in England was in the long run, more important than what was going in the Low Countries etc.
The imperial overstretch was part of what I was getting at, though I don't tend to lump the various wings of the Habsburgs together.
Well, that's the easy part isn't it?
The law in all its noble majesty, etc....
The problem is that in the United States the people who believe in the former do not trust the government to provide the latter. For instance in this thread, as far as I know, I am the only one in this thread who supports both of those things.
Ah, the stuff that dreams are made of.
I'm doing a lot of catch-up reading on this thread. I read some good and mostly serious posts like Andy talking about the multifaceted Fox entertainment empire, then Snapper's historical points on Europe.
Then Jeff K. posts this, and it's absolutely perfect. Could not stop laughing. Moments like this are why I love this site.
Believe it or not some of these are those that are insured, but 'can't afford' the deductible.
Or they agree to a payment plan prior to the surgery, and then after the surgery say, 'I can't afford this.'
Yeah, that was about as perfect as it gets.
Those people need to get better jobs.
I'm doing a lot of catch-up reading on this thread. I read some good and mostly serious posts like Andy talking about the multifaceted Fox entertainment empire, then Snapper's historical points on Europe.
Then Jeff K. posts this, and it's absolutely perfect. Could not stop laughing. Moments like this are why I love this site.
Yeah, that was about as perfect as it gets.
And not only LOL perfect, but a perfect two word summary of the point I was trying to make. You could almost say that "Stupid Flanders" is our National Motto.
The problem is that in the United States the people who believe in the former do not trust the government to provide the latter. For instance in this thread, as far as I know, I am the only one in this thread who supports both of those things.
I see what you're getting at, but that depends on how you frame the word "supports." I'll argue the superiority of the traditional man/woman/child(ren) nuclear family with anyone, and I think that anyone who doesn't see illegitimacy as a serious problem is deluding themselves, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to want to outlaw cohabitation or gay marriage.
And even though I think American Idol is the embodiment of every false delusion you can imagine, and that reality TV in general is a plague of nearly Biblical proportions, it doesn't mean that I'd want to censor it out of existence. It does mean, however, that I"d support vastly increased funding for Public television, insipid as it may be at times, as a counterweight, and as an alternative to all the dreck that commercial TV brings us.
Not if you do it for everybody, it's not.
But it's not being done for everybody.
Well given my Catholic sensibilities, I can't support an expanded goverment safety net b/c I know it's going to subsidize all sorts of things I find immoral. The Great Society was a huge subsidy for illegitimacy. The goals of the single payer health plan advocates certainly include public funding of abortion, contraceptives, sterilization, in vitro ferilization, etc. that I find to be immoral. Not to mention the move towards "assisted suicide" by medical professionals.
I'd like to help the poor but the best way to do that is an industrial policy that stops shipping all our manufacturing jobs to China, and a reform of our public schools, so that those without higher education don't end up poor. I think it is far cheaper to subsidize blue collar jobs through tariffs, etc., than to end up with a European system where 20% of the population is permanently unemployed and on the dole.
this is why my wife denies these requests for forgiveness. Pay a little at a time or find another means. Beacuse my wife can afford to eat it isn't a good reason for covering somebody's health care bill.
Providing a floor is for everybody, you just don't think it applies to you because you can't conceive of ever needing it.
edit: or, in the immortal words of Craig T. Nelson in explaining why he shouldn't have to pay taxes to help all the lazy people: "I've been on welfare and food stamps...did anyone help me?"
Sure it is. Anybody who meets the guidelines will be eligible. Even libertarians who make poor life choices and come down in the world.
The same is true for societal help as well. Right now we have a floor but for some it is too low so they want to raise it because they see some people suffering. If you raise it it doesn't really solve a whole lot because you are still going to have people just above the cutoff who are suffering. So at what point is the suffering okay? How much money do you have to make to be allowed to suffer on your own? 80K? 50K? What number? People want to be compassionate and chide those who would put a dollar sign on suffering but we are all doing it. At some point the floor will reach a level where even the compassionate guy is going to say hold on this hurting me or this isn't fair.
But we already have a floor. So Obama's work appears to be done. I'm not advocating taking that floor away.
(That doesn't mean that these lawyers won't take on pro bono cases for truly needy people; it's just that they want to decide which cases will be pro bono, rather than having it forced upon them by deadbeat clients.)
And anybody who doesn't meet the "guidelines" won't be eligible. So you have B getting his health care paid for while A doesn't get his health care paid for. Instead, A does the paying.
This goes back to the Vaux discussion earlier. If B chose to follow his "passion" instead of putting himself in a position to get a job that actually provides financial stability, while A puts in long hours at the office (and at home) every week, why in the world should A have to subsidize B? I'm sure A would love to leave the office at 5 every day and then be free on the nights and weekends too. And if A got his health care paid for also, perhaps he'd be able to do just that.
So, no, it's not being done for everybody.
A version of the Sorites Paradox, I love it. Some remark a few days ago about whether it would matter a damn if Dale Murphy had 400 HR instead of 398 got me thinking about that.
This "floor" problem is probably why universal programs are preferable to means-tested ones. (Free public schools are preferable to means-tested vouchers or financial-aid at certain thresholds.)
And yes, this does mean that I think everyone except the Black Sox, Pete Rose, and Steve Garvey should be in the HOF.
Priceless. Though the exact quote was
That goes alongside the teabaggers' "Keep the Government out of my Medicare" signs.
It wasn't just the teabagger who had this stupid position. I remmber when Obama was swinging through the north midwest CNN was polling those areas to see how they felt about government health care. I believe the majority didn't want the government to run healthcare. They thought it was a bad idea but they did by an overwhelming majority want what they currently had and by an overwhelming majority thought what they currently had was well run and what they had was government healthcare or at least heavily subsidized healthcare.
You assume (incorrectly) that A will always be too rich to be eligible. If he ever suffers a catastrophic financial loss (bad investment, business failure, a medical problem that wipes out his savings and gets him dropped by his provider, etc.), he'll still get the benefit of the program even though he never used to need it.
McCoy: The final solution to your babysitting problems.
No. I assume (correctly) that there will always be A's.
You will always be counting only a subset of the population as "eligible." That is a fact. One group of people will always have their income redistributed to another group of people. The fact that the precise makeup of the groups changes is immaterial. The bottom line is that "everyone" is most certainly not included. If a person is paying more than he receives, he is not getting the benefit.
Balderdash and ########.
The problem is that the system forces people off the floor onto it. Medicaid eligible numbers keep growing not because many states have raised the upper-end income limits (many states, in fact, are cutting both benefits and eligibility) - but because more people are being pushed down into eligibility.
A system that makes falling onto the safety net the better - and in many cases, the ONLY option - is a broken system.
One hell of a lot more people in the range above the floor get pushed onto it (at the same - more people at the next step - in a employer-sponsored plan, for example, fall into the gap just above the floor) than take the step up to the next level.
Musicians of all kinds, and academics of all kinds, work as many hours as anyone, I can assure you; where do you think all that research comes from, under a cabbage leaf?
(And for the umpteenth time, in case some reader thinks otherwise, I'm not whining about being impoverished and not having a Lexus, I'm upset that if I had a catastrophic illness I would have no recourse but to incur gigantic debts and eventually declare bankruptcy.)
Side comment: I do think everyone should be free on the nights and weekends. There are more than enough people around to get all the work done if the workload was distributed properly (and a lot of the work is nonsense that doesn't need to be done anyway).
And then the Government uses your tax dollars to arrest you, and uses our tax dollars to feed you that fancy fried baloney, while we have to make do with baloney COLD OUT OF THE PACKAGE!!!
It just ain't right. Nope, it just ain't right.
There have been multiple occurrences of the stupidity...
One GOP congressman that actually has caught my eye (in a good way) over the last few months -- SC Republican Bob Inglis -- tried at length to explain this to a constituent at a town hall.
Even Inglis has a pretty conservative voting record, I have little doubt that the Club for Growth will be primarying him.
Too bad.. the GOP should be looking for more Inglis', not shunting the few that remain away in favor of Bachman-esque crazy-towners.
You will always be counting only a subset of the population as "eligible." That is a fact. One group of people will always have their income redistributed to another group of people. The fact that the precise makeup of the groups changes is immaterial. The bottom line is that "everyone" is most certainly not included. If a person is paying more than he receives, he is not getting the benefit.
The benefit is not participation in the health plan right now. The benefit is eligibility for the health plan if their circumstances worsen, i.e. the knowledge that if they DO lose everything, they won't have to let cancer eat them alive because they can't afford to see a doctor.
And everyone receives that benefit.
They should be doing that, but I kind of enjoy having at least a couple complete lunatics like Bachmann around. The level of stupidity she spouts is some of the best free entertainment available.
And then went on the government dole.
While keeping the government out of the health care business.
There were no such "signs." Some random people have claimed to have heard these comments from friends of a friend, always without attribution as to date or place; in short, they're urban legends.
EDIT: And of course the claim that someone was actually saying "keep government out of Medicare" sounds like a ludicrous interpretation of what someone might have said, anyway; it would be more likely that they were saying, "Keep government from screwing with the Medicare we have now."
Just like if Craig T. Nelson wasn't in front of camera when he said what he said almost all of us would find it hard to believe that he actually said it.
I totally agree with this which is why I keep saying single payer system that covers everyone. It isn't charity and it doesn't require a transfer of wealth from people like McCoy to people worse off than McCoy. The problem with Obama's plan is that he's trying to work with the system. The system needs to be burned to the ground. If it isn't the result will be worse than the status quo.
Past performance is not indicative of future results. Perhaps you should've diversified, or perhaps you should not have exposed cash to equity markets if you are/were in need of said cash in the short-term. Or, perhaps you used an advisor, maybe you could sue them for violating their fiduciary responsibility? Did you use a broker? Was the investment suitable for you? Those are your safety nets. Otherwise caveat emptor.
And people are saying basically the same thing about health care insurance and the other side is saying that they lack compassion or think that poor people are lazy and stupid. Hell, we got people on this site saying that $200 a month for health insurance is too much for health insurance.
Perhaps you should've diversified
I should have, I would actually be up right now if I had. On paper I selected about 15 stocks that I liked with the money I was investing but in reality I didn't buy those 15 stocks. If I had I would be up 28% as of right now a year later but instead I went for the quick pop which I got. But then I got greedy and really the quick pop happened too quickly for me. I invested my money and within a week I had gained 20% in value so I stayed in. I made a stupid decision and got burned. But is my situation any different than some person who decides to go without health insurance so he can have a big screen TV or live by himself?
More
More Again
Or - David, do you trust GOP(R) Congressman Bob Inglis himself?
But yeah... I'm sure it's just another of those 'urban legends' -- like the one about Caribou Barbie being fit to be President :-)
I do not disagree with you. Let's take another situation. Suppose I own a home, that I can afford, the mortgage app. was above board, and I have 20% equity, current on mortgage payments, etc. etc., but I'm close to month to month on my cash flow, and my water heater goes out. Not as life threatening as say a medical condition, but you pretty much cannot function a home normally w/o it. The plumber is going to kick me in the nuts if I ask him to forget about the bill, because I can't afford to pay him. Is the plumber a cold hearted S.O.B?
I've learned that life is one crushing defeat after another until you just wish Flanders was dead.
It's not easy to juggle a pregnant wife and a troubled child, but somehow I managed to squeeze in 8 hours [on the internet] a day.
Even Dumb Blondes Know a Dumb Blonde When They See One
Which one do you think people are going to take?
Or a compendium!
Or another!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main