[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]It has push button start, so the user could have just toss the keys out of the window and after a short distance, the car will shut off.[/quote]

Doesn’t work that way unfortunately.

The key being in proximity to the ignition is only required to start the car. Once started, the car will continue to run regardless of whether the key is present or not.

[SDEngineer]

There was probably a remodel completed in the 1994 timeframe. However, the “bones” of the apartments are MUCH older – 1971 seems about right.

I remember apartment shopping in that area in the 1990 timeframe (first apartment fresh out of college) – I looked at those, but they were too dated and run down back then for me (easily the cheapest place in RB).

I’ve also heard that parking in that complex is a nightmare – IIRC, the condos (even the 3BR versions) only have 1 dedicated spot each, and there is very little “guest” parking, so typically, if you have more than one car, it’s nearly impossible to park the 2nd car anywhere near the apartment.

[SDEngineer]

There was probably a remodel completed in the 1994 timeframe. However, the “bones” of the apartments are MUCH older – 1971 seems about right.

I remember apartment shopping in that area in the 1990 timeframe (first apartment fresh out of college) – I looked at those, but they were too dated and run down back then for me (easily the cheapest place in RB).

I’ve also heard that parking in that complex is a nightmare – IIRC, the condos (even the 3BR versions) only have 1 dedicated spot each, and there is very little “guest” parking, so typically, if you have more than one car, it’s nearly impossible to park the 2nd car anywhere near the apartment.

[SDEngineer]

There was probably a remodel completed in the 1994 timeframe. However, the “bones” of the apartments are MUCH older – 1971 seems about right.

I remember apartment shopping in that area in the 1990 timeframe (first apartment fresh out of college) – I looked at those, but they were too dated and run down back then for me (easily the cheapest place in RB).

I’ve also heard that parking in that complex is a nightmare – IIRC, the condos (even the 3BR versions) only have 1 dedicated spot each, and there is very little “guest” parking, so typically, if you have more than one car, it’s nearly impossible to park the 2nd car anywhere near the apartment.

[SDEngineer]

There was probably a remodel completed in the 1994 timeframe. However, the “bones” of the apartments are MUCH older – 1971 seems about right.

I remember apartment shopping in that area in the 1990 timeframe (first apartment fresh out of college) – I looked at those, but they were too dated and run down back then for me (easily the cheapest place in RB).

I’ve also heard that parking in that complex is a nightmare – IIRC, the condos (even the 3BR versions) only have 1 dedicated spot each, and there is very little “guest” parking, so typically, if you have more than one car, it’s nearly impossible to park the 2nd car anywhere near the apartment.

[SDEngineer]

There was probably a remodel completed in the 1994 timeframe. However, the “bones” of the apartments are MUCH older – 1971 seems about right.

I remember apartment shopping in that area in the 1990 timeframe (first apartment fresh out of college) – I looked at those, but they were too dated and run down back then for me (easily the cheapest place in RB).

I’ve also heard that parking in that complex is a nightmare – IIRC, the condos (even the 3BR versions) only have 1 dedicated spot each, and there is very little “guest” parking, so typically, if you have more than one car, it’s nearly impossible to park the 2nd car anywhere near the apartment.

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
It’s a fine line. I hope they pull it off. They didn’t reference Germany or other European country in their example of universal health care, but they reference Canada A LOT. I just hope they don’t go to that extreme. One huge difference between us vs everyone else is malpractice insurance. Here in the US, we can sue for almost anything. A doctor career can be destroyed by 1-2 lawsuit. That in itself contribute to the huge cost. That’s also one of the many reasons why 90% of med students decide to go into specialized area instead of general practice.

Sorry, I never have to look for health insurance. My employers have always provided that to me. So, it’s not the question of who should I choose but more a long the line of, PPO vs HMO. My health care insurance is better today than it was 6 years ago because the employer decided to give a really good plan. My out of pocket either stayed the same or went down (don’t remember exactly).[/quote]

Are you sure it’s not just the naysayers who are referencing Canada?

BTW, on the malpractice thing – my father is a MD (still practicing). Malpractice is an occupational hazard – it does not ruin an MD’s career unless it’s very extreme. All MD’s carry hefty malpractice insurance (btw, specialists, not GP’s are the most frequently sued). Most MD’s are sued several times during their career for malpractice. Yes, some of the extreme abuses need to be curtailed (and in many states, like CA, they already are), but it’s largely overblown. The average MD spends less than 5% of their salary on malpractice insurance. Curtailing malpractice clearly would not even come close to closing the cost gap between our healthcare system and other developed nations healthcare systems.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-04-malpractice-cover_x.htm

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
It’s a fine line. I hope they pull it off. They didn’t reference Germany or other European country in their example of universal health care, but they reference Canada A LOT. I just hope they don’t go to that extreme. One huge difference between us vs everyone else is malpractice insurance. Here in the US, we can sue for almost anything. A doctor career can be destroyed by 1-2 lawsuit. That in itself contribute to the huge cost. That’s also one of the many reasons why 90% of med students decide to go into specialized area instead of general practice.

Sorry, I never have to look for health insurance. My employers have always provided that to me. So, it’s not the question of who should I choose but more a long the line of, PPO vs HMO. My health care insurance is better today than it was 6 years ago because the employer decided to give a really good plan. My out of pocket either stayed the same or went down (don’t remember exactly).[/quote]

Are you sure it’s not just the naysayers who are referencing Canada?

BTW, on the malpractice thing – my father is a MD (still practicing). Malpractice is an occupational hazard – it does not ruin an MD’s career unless it’s very extreme. All MD’s carry hefty malpractice insurance (btw, specialists, not GP’s are the most frequently sued). Most MD’s are sued several times during their career for malpractice. Yes, some of the extreme abuses need to be curtailed (and in many states, like CA, they already are), but it’s largely overblown. The average MD spends less than 5% of their salary on malpractice insurance. Curtailing malpractice clearly would not even come close to closing the cost gap between our healthcare system and other developed nations healthcare systems.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-04-malpractice-cover_x.htm

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
It’s a fine line. I hope they pull it off. They didn’t reference Germany or other European country in their example of universal health care, but they reference Canada A LOT. I just hope they don’t go to that extreme. One huge difference between us vs everyone else is malpractice insurance. Here in the US, we can sue for almost anything. A doctor career can be destroyed by 1-2 lawsuit. That in itself contribute to the huge cost. That’s also one of the many reasons why 90% of med students decide to go into specialized area instead of general practice.

Sorry, I never have to look for health insurance. My employers have always provided that to me. So, it’s not the question of who should I choose but more a long the line of, PPO vs HMO. My health care insurance is better today than it was 6 years ago because the employer decided to give a really good plan. My out of pocket either stayed the same or went down (don’t remember exactly).[/quote]

Are you sure it’s not just the naysayers who are referencing Canada?

BTW, on the malpractice thing – my father is a MD (still practicing). Malpractice is an occupational hazard – it does not ruin an MD’s career unless it’s very extreme. All MD’s carry hefty malpractice insurance (btw, specialists, not GP’s are the most frequently sued). Most MD’s are sued several times during their career for malpractice. Yes, some of the extreme abuses need to be curtailed (and in many states, like CA, they already are), but it’s largely overblown. The average MD spends less than 5% of their salary on malpractice insurance. Curtailing malpractice clearly would not even come close to closing the cost gap between our healthcare system and other developed nations healthcare systems.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-04-malpractice-cover_x.htm

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
It’s a fine line. I hope they pull it off. They didn’t reference Germany or other European country in their example of universal health care, but they reference Canada A LOT. I just hope they don’t go to that extreme. One huge difference between us vs everyone else is malpractice insurance. Here in the US, we can sue for almost anything. A doctor career can be destroyed by 1-2 lawsuit. That in itself contribute to the huge cost. That’s also one of the many reasons why 90% of med students decide to go into specialized area instead of general practice.

Sorry, I never have to look for health insurance. My employers have always provided that to me. So, it’s not the question of who should I choose but more a long the line of, PPO vs HMO. My health care insurance is better today than it was 6 years ago because the employer decided to give a really good plan. My out of pocket either stayed the same or went down (don’t remember exactly).[/quote]

Are you sure it’s not just the naysayers who are referencing Canada?

BTW, on the malpractice thing – my father is a MD (still practicing). Malpractice is an occupational hazard – it does not ruin an MD’s career unless it’s very extreme. All MD’s carry hefty malpractice insurance (btw, specialists, not GP’s are the most frequently sued). Most MD’s are sued several times during their career for malpractice. Yes, some of the extreme abuses need to be curtailed (and in many states, like CA, they already are), but it’s largely overblown. The average MD spends less than 5% of their salary on malpractice insurance. Curtailing malpractice clearly would not even come close to closing the cost gap between our healthcare system and other developed nations healthcare systems.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-04-malpractice-cover_x.htm

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
It’s a fine line. I hope they pull it off. They didn’t reference Germany or other European country in their example of universal health care, but they reference Canada A LOT. I just hope they don’t go to that extreme. One huge difference between us vs everyone else is malpractice insurance. Here in the US, we can sue for almost anything. A doctor career can be destroyed by 1-2 lawsuit. That in itself contribute to the huge cost. That’s also one of the many reasons why 90% of med students decide to go into specialized area instead of general practice.

Sorry, I never have to look for health insurance. My employers have always provided that to me. So, it’s not the question of who should I choose but more a long the line of, PPO vs HMO. My health care insurance is better today than it was 6 years ago because the employer decided to give a really good plan. My out of pocket either stayed the same or went down (don’t remember exactly).[/quote]

Are you sure it’s not just the naysayers who are referencing Canada?

BTW, on the malpractice thing – my father is a MD (still practicing). Malpractice is an occupational hazard – it does not ruin an MD’s career unless it’s very extreme. All MD’s carry hefty malpractice insurance (btw, specialists, not GP’s are the most frequently sued). Most MD’s are sued several times during their career for malpractice. Yes, some of the extreme abuses need to be curtailed (and in many states, like CA, they already are), but it’s largely overblown. The average MD spends less than 5% of their salary on malpractice insurance. Curtailing malpractice clearly would not even come close to closing the cost gap between our healthcare system and other developed nations healthcare systems.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-04-malpractice-cover_x.htm

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]

And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]

And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]

And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
Like I’ve said in earlier post, I think the truth is somewhere between the two extreme. It’s not Utopia like some would like us to believe and it won’t kill health care like others like us to believe. I’m fine with private/public system that compete with each other to provide us a service. Kind of like the shipping system we have today. Although we have USPS, we still have FedEx and UPS. They all have their place and they all are competing for our shipping business. Mailing letter is defaulted to USPS, but all other shipping needs, we have choices. One thing I hope they won’t do is taxing me (the employee) if my employer decide to offer me a killer health benefit plan.[/quote]

And this is exactly what is being proposed – a public plan which will compete as a not for profit alternative to the private insurors.

The advantages should be clear – the private insurors will now have an incentive to reduce costs and expand coverages, which is the exact opposite of their incentives today. Insurance companies have no incentives to control costs today, since they can pass any expenses directly on to their consumers (which, of course they have been doing), and still take their 15% on every transaction, while making every attempt (frequently successful) to decline coverage on any medical expenses that would lead to significant losses on their part. Health plans today are far more restrictive on benefits than they were even 10 years ago – because we’re essentially a captive market to a relatively small group of insurors who all have the same profit motive, and that group is relatively immune to competition, because of the extremely high barrier of entry to competitors (it’s not like you or I could decide to found a healthcare insurance agency to compete with them).

[Author]

Posts