Hee! Hee! Hee!

. :-)

I might even be a few steps ahead of Jim on that, but with a different spin: staying here.

Not really, though I sometimes say "semi-retired" socially just to simplify things. I've been working on manufacturing, IP, plastic injection molding, motion control, electro-discharge machining, controllers for all of these, and all sorts of other stuff I'll need for my projects. And I consult and advise, and even do projects for others on occasion.

I shan't be eligible for Social Security for decades, and then I'm not sure I'll take it, on principle. That I've been robbed gives me not the right to rob others.

So, if I'm retired it's a very modest retirement, made possible because I've saved a bit, need little, want less.

"Economy is the art of making the most of life." -- G.B. Shaw

-- Cheers, James Arthur

.

didn't

to the

life?

if you

places you

required

(Today

checks,

slightly

often

died),

the

than it

harder, with

the

and as

that they'd

More a smart aleck jerk deserving of a thrashing or three. The founding fathers went to great lengths to document what they were thinking and trying to achieve. It is all public domain and almost all of it is on the net for the bother of a search. And hardcopies are very inexpensive, especially used.

library

here

like I don't

Jim

they are

in

interpretation"

but the

gay

gay

state's

the

I have to agree based on that small amount i have read already (maybe

8%). There is quite a bit of very tedious reading where they are trying to unify it to existing programs and related legislation. (Checking those references is a real pain.)

No, Joel just needs to configure his outhouse express correctly.

trick.

1

It is worse than that, if the employer or the insurance company / HMO changes it an any way; BAM you are on the public option.

The way I'm reading it, it's saying that if your current (grandfathered) plan can't change in any way. Any new plan would need to meet the myriad of new regulations as specified in the bill, but there's nothing that outright prohibits the issurance of new, private insurance. (Granted, that new insurance is likely to be more expensive, so in the case of companies that have relatively "lightweight" coverage now, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them decide to move everyone to the public option.)

Do you disagree with that assessment?

While I don't claim any great familiarity with the legal system, I believe this is how grandfathering usually works -- as soon as anything is changed, you have to meet the new standards. I seem to recall that's how it works with, e.g., household improvements -- if you have, say, electrical wiring that's not to code, you're typically grandfathered in, but as soon as you want to add one new outlet, you'd be required to completely update all the wiring in the house.

---Joel

Outhouse UNexpressive is more the case.

Use a REAL friggin news reader.

system.http://www.google.com/search?q=3Ddefine%3Aefficiency

I am not used to missing irony. The FHA and VA loan programs used to be self funding. That the feuderal loan programs have become money destroyers is relatively recent.

trick.

p=3D91

I could've phrased that better. How 'bout--

"Sounds great, you think you're grandfathered in, right? Not so fast-- there's a poison pill in lines 23-26. If any detail of your policy is ever changed in even the most trivial way, you're out. Congratulations, and welcome to the Government Option."

-- Cheers, James Arthur

plan

new

t

lot

No, that's my reading too.

e

d,

ks

want

ing

True. My objection is that it's dishonest to say you can keep your current policy. They know small changes in terms and conditions are common, and they're counting on these to soon drive you into the Government's hands.

"You don't have to leap off the cliff--that's your choice. We're just stampeding these cattle, and they happen to want to jump."

I understand there are other provisions that pretty well ensure you can't keep any sort of private insurance past 5 years after enactment. I haven't found those yet.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

OK, I'd grant you that... for many people just hearing "you can keep your current policy" is misleading. How much of that is politicians (well, Obama and Pelosi...) purposely being misleading vs. not wanting to sound rather awkward saying something like, "you can keep your current policy -- but realize that minor changes are typically made to policies every year or so, and as soon as that happens our new regulations will forcibly cause what will likely be large changes as well" isn't clear to me, though.

.. :-)

Ah, wise words, and words which I doubt not. But, my foolish idea is of the fun and joy of hiring neighbors and countrymen, and all doing something together; to plant a seed and grow it "organically" (that is, in rich soil on its own merits), and not heaped with the fertilizing dung of venture capitalists.

(I've done it that way, and the investor-placating overhead's obnoxious.)

Should I bail on that aim of mine though, yours is certainly the wisdom I'd seek.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

"Joel Koltner" wrote in news:8kBMm.226135$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-08.dc.easynews.com:

the dishonest part is that they expect us to believe that employers will continue to offer insurance when the gov't will if they don't,particularly when they're going to tax the businesses even if they do provide coverage. (to help pay for the red tape they will inflict on the businesses...)

Also,since gov't will be setting the fees they pay to medical providers,they will be transferring costs to the private plans,who will get charged more to compensate. The whole idea(of Obama) is for the gov't to drive private healthcare plans out of business.That is what they call "single payer".Obama has SAID that is the eventual goal.

and of course,with gov't lowering the amount medical providers get paid,more and more medical providers will LEAVE the business (for other work),and fewer facilities will be available for patients,just as has happened in other countries.Fewer people will want to become doctors or nurses if there's no money in it.Even in Florida,doctors are leaving the state due to high insurance costs.

US healthcare will suffer.

I also note that neither Obama nor the DemocRATs have any -actual- plan for cutting costs,just a lot of promises;"Oh,it will become more efficient".

With gov't running it,that is definitely NOT the case,there's been no evidence that anything gov't runs is efficient or has been efficient.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-08.dc.easynews.com:

It's dishonest to assure concerned people they can keep their plans, whilst laying minefields, snares, and tripwires to be sure they can't.

Pelsoi could've easily said "You can keep your current plan, as long as you never change it."

That wouldn't have been so hard, would it?

If a business made her claims, that'd be unfair and deceptive business practices--fraud.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

or

Sure they have a plan. They'll just decree that henceforth transistors will cost 1.2 cents, capacitors 3.0263 cents, and so forth. (*)

(*) All prices depending on your modified adjusted gross income, geographic location, race, family size, and the results of your latest colonoscopy. See Borg for details. YMMV

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Say James,

Here's an article discussing the constitutionality of the health care bill:

It does all seem to come down to one's interpretation of the constitution... which I'm thinking the Supreme Court is going to get to do in the not-so-distant future.

---Joel

Nope. Circuits can be added and they have to pass current code but existing circuits only have to pass the code when installed. ...at least in residential structures in places where union thugs don't run the local government. There are still buildings with knob and tube along side romex.

"Joel Koltner" wrote in news:k6GMm.213966$ snipped-for-privacy@en-nntp-04.dc.easynews.com:

under the "kitchen sink",there's some whoppers. These folks don't seem to understand how politics works.

Healthcare for seniors WILL be rationed,as there's only so much money to go around,and the gov't insurance panel will decide that certain illnesses that elderly have will not be covered. Instead,they'll receive "counselling" for end-of-life.

illegals -will- get healthcare paid for by gov't,because hospitals WILL treat them,and through "creative bookkeeping",pay for it with gov't funds. they'll find -some-category that will pay for it.Sooner or later,some liberal judge will rule that their care MUST be paid by the gov't. Eventually,the law will be amended to permit illegals paid healthcare,if only to meet a court's order.

for abortion services,those who don't pay any premiums,the poor,will have their abortions paid for by the gov't.,most likely thru the "creative bookkeeping" mentioned earlier. Sooner or later,some liberal judge will rule that such abortions MUST be paid by the gov't.,under the heading of "reproductive services".I expect breast implants/sex reassignment surgeries will be covered,too,for transexuals,being ruled "necessary for the patient's mental health".

See,once the basic law is enacted giving gov't control over healthcare,then it's a simple matter to make changes.It's like any taxes;once enacted,they are impossible to get rid of,and they never drop,they always increase.

DemocRATs are expert at sneaking amendments into other "must-sign" bills,or voting them in during the wee hours of the night.

I would not trust factcheck.org.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

krw wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

There was one such house featured on "This Old House" Sunday.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com