virgil

From my own experience, pavers are usually not set in thinset or any other mortar. They're usually laid over a layer of gravel or road base and then a layer of sand. They can be laid over concrete, but you'd still use the layer of sand.

Just ckecked back in. Sits in Trees answered it for me. thanks.

It sounds like your former employer made a cost cutting decision. How is that the government's fault and not the company's?

You believe that the government will take care of you and has nothing but your best interest at heart and will give you the best care no matter what isn't that so? And I don't blieve that for a second, I choose to look at their track record and have no choice but to believe that countless American people will be denied health care while costs skyrocket. Under Obama care we will all lose excepting maybe a few poor soles or lazy individuals who might see a moderate increase in health care so long as they don't have a major illness. No, i never said that. What you're forgetting is that 'obamacare' does not imply that there will be only one option for coverage. it just assures that everyone will have coverage. private health insurance is not being eliminated. if you currently have coverage, noone is going to take it away.

You misunderstood. After you're discharged from the hospital, you receive a survey in the mail that asks you to answer questions and rate your care. The scores are compared with other hospitals(hospitals that perform best receive full reimbursement, hospitals that underperform are paid less)- it's intended to measure the patient's perception of the care he/she received. Think of it as a customer satisfaction survey. As far as who determines medical protocols- the AMA and various medical specialty boards will continue to do that.

the policy holder makes the payment. what is your point?

either from insurance premiums or the medicare/medicaid program.

Why don't you actually learn about it before you trash it and accuse anyone of being gullible. I didn't accuse you of being ignorant- so don't accuse me of being gullible. I'm actually quite familiar with it. 'Waste' is defined according to medical protocols for specific diagnoses. Actually, patient surveys play a huge role in determining 'quality' under the new system. And as far as the 'kick 'em out of the hospital to save money' statement- i know this is a popular one from people who are unhappy with the healthcare industry- but, premature discharges from hospitals leads to re-admissions; and re-admissions have a drastic negative impact on hospital reimbursement. It's a popular rant, but not really accurate.

You guys do make a good point- there is a lot of waste. I work in healthcare and I'd be the first to admit it. The other side of the 'waste' issue is that our country is so litigious that doctors overprescribe tests and meds just to minimize their exposure to lawsuits- they're in a no-win situation. But, if you look into 'obamacare', you'll see that the industry is going to be re-focused on what they're calling 'pay for performance', which requires hospitals and clinicians to decrease waste and improve performance in order to be fully reimbursed for services. The idea is that costs will be lowered due to a combination of reducing reimbursement and improving efficiency and quality. It puts a lot of pressure on hospitals.

I think you said at the beginning of this thread that the ledger board was going to be set on the concrete. If it's not actually attached to the house, you may not need a permit. If I misunderstood, my apologies.

the word 'free' should have been in quotes. that's all. other than that, i stand by the statement. your inability to distinguish the difference between 'government funded' and 'government run' is not my problem.

What is a "third party payor"? Is that a code word for the "working slob that pays taxes so people like Virgil can sit around and benefit from it?" Examples of a third party payor are private insurance companies, HMO's, Medicare/Medicaid, etc. My guess is that your description of yourelf as a slob is accurate. But, what makes you think that I personally would 'sit around and benefit from it'? Or, is that just another stupid insult or accusation?

Don't worry about 'the Obamacare side of the audience'- I have a feeling that they don't need things explained to them the way you seem to. Doctors and hospitals get paid directly by the third party payor- the patient receives an EOB(explanation of benefits) in the mail, not a bill.

Woofer, you're intentionally playing dumb (maybe, maybe not). I did use the word 'free'- as in, there'd be no payment required. You knew what I meant and you're just trying to twist it into something else.

Again, stupid assumptions and accusations.

You make a lot of assumptions and stupid accusations. You've hijacked and ruined another thread on this site. Congratulations.

The biggest problem now is simply the number of people working for the government. They are a voting block that can start to sway elections. Right, you guys would never support the idea of voting blocks who can influence elections according to their own interests- unless, of course you were a proud member of that organization.

What part of the constitution are you referring to?

Taxes have always been used to fund government programs for the common good. It is your opinion that this program is unconstitutional. It's your oppinion that it's for the common good. Yes. I do believe that we will be a better country if everyone has health insurance.

Taxes have always been used to fund government programs for the common good. It is your opinion that this program is unconstitutional.

Dave, I sight references from objective sources in some of my posts to show that there is fact behind the statement, not just my personal opinion. It's common practice in any journalistic or professional context. Ask anyone who went to college.

Nice job Dave. When you are once again found to be spouting off without any fact or logic behind your statements, you can always respond with childish insults and accusations. Stick with your stengths.

The point is that, even though you haven't read it, you still don't hesitate to post something that is inaccurate and misleading. Would you have still made that post if you knew that in fact this 'tax' was only on capital gains of over $500k and only applied to individuals who earn over $200k or married couples who earn over $250k? I just think that you should actually know what you're talking about before posting something. People are easily mislead, obviously.

John, that sounds expensive. i just finished a 16 by 16 trex deck and the total cost for the decking materials, not including the structure, was about $2,500.

Did you know that under Obama care there is a tax you have to pay when you sell your house to fund Obama care. I think it's 3.8%. My question is what the hell does selling my house have to do with health care? And why should I be taxes to pay for it. Here are the facts from the Tax Foundation. There has been a story and an e-mail floating around for some time claiming that the recent health care reform bill (PPACA/supplemental bill) would impose a 3.8 percent “sales” tax on the sale of every home. The e-mail has been rightfully debunked by the usuals (Factcheck.org and Snopes), but here is what the bill would actually do regarding taxation of the sales of homes. First, there is no “sales” tax on home sales in the health care bill. The bill would impose essentially a capital gains taxes on some home sales made by a limited number of taxpayers. (The health care law contains a new 3.8 percent tax on “unearned income” for high-income taxpayers. Unearned income includes capital gains.) To be hit by the 3.8 percent capital gains tax, you first have to be a married couple making more than $250,000 in adjusted gross income or $200,000 if you are single. The capital gain on the home sale must also exceed $500,000 if this is a primary home and you are a married couple ($250,000 for singles). So for example, even if you and your spouse make $300,000 in wages and you bought a home that you lived in for a while for $600,000 that you now sell it for $1 million, your capital gains tax on that home sale would be zero. Even if the home sold for $1.2 million, thereby resulting in a capital gain of $600,000, only $100,000 of that capital gain would subject to the new tax (because of the $500,000 exclusion). For those who earn above those income thresholds ($250,000/$200,000) and who have a capital gain on a home that is a second home or one that does not qualify for principal residence (i.e., lived in for too short of a time period), the full capital gain would be subject to the new 3.8 percent tax. Dave, sorry, I know you hate to let facts get in the way of good rhetoric.