In article <k4l0j9$mr...@dont-email.me>, dave.garl...@wizinfo.com
(Dave Garland) writes:
> On 10/4/2012 2:32 PM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> In Britain Social Security and dole are the main welfare payments.
> "The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a
> common language. "
> -G.B. Shaw
> We don't use the word "dole" much, either.
At least after he lost the election.
-- /~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
> Scott Lurndal wrote
>> jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote
>>>>>Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> Its only seen in areas with no piped gas.
>>>>> Which isn't common in the NE.
>>>> "A University of Massachusetts study estimated it could cost more
>>>> than $2,500 to heat the average home in the state with heating oil
>>> I had a 4 room house and the last bill I paid for a year's oil was >>> $4700.
>> So, your statement was that gas was not common in the
>> NE; the quote shows that over half of homes are heated
>> with natural gas. So, your statement was incorrect.
> I have never lived in a place which used natural gas in Mass.
The technical term for that is 'pathetically inadequate sample'
> Why don't you combine all the yellow pages in Mass and
> search for heating oil? Count the number of dealers.
Its hardly surprising that there are a lot more advertising
in the yellow pages for delivering oil than there are for
operations that supply natural gas via a pipe.
> Then multiply that by 500 and you'll get an
> idea that a whole lot of homes use oil, not gas.
We already know from the 7% figure that fuck all do.
> Manufacturing and office buildings may not use oil.
Clearly most homes don’t either or we
wouldn’t end up with that 7% figure.
> Patrick Scheible wrote
>> jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote
>>> greyma...@mail.com wrote:
>>>> Shmuel Metz <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Patrick Scheible <k...@zipcon.net> wrote
>>>>>> The farm bill is ripe for reform, but there's a difference between
>>>>>> reforming it and walking away without doing anything.
>>>>> Is it? I would welcome a farm bill that supported actual family
>>>>> farms; I see no justification for supporting corporate farms.
>>>> Some `family farms' are very large, whereas some `corporate'
>>>> (Ones which are owned by shares , which may or may not be owned
>>>> by family members) are smallish. A large part of US aid to farming
>>>> is paid through `disaster' funding. (This suits, as it differentiates
>>>> against EU general aid. The definition of `disaster' has been watered
>>>> down to general bad weather. ). The drought this year is a genuine
>>>> disaster. Agricultural output is keeping the US going.
>>> There was also a frost in Michigan after a big warmup in March. got
>>> most of the fruit trees. Very few apples are being harvested this fall.
>> While in Washington there's a bumper crop of apples, but not enough
>> pickers. I'm not sure why the people who would otherwise be picking
>> Michigan apples can't get on buses to Washington, but the radio is
>> saying lots of the Washington apples will rot on the trees.
> I heard on the radio
There you go again...
> that the skilled migrant workers were getting shipped back to Mexico.
> If there's nothing to pick, the migrant workers don't come here.
>> You get medicare, and then buy a supplement ("part B") policy and a drug
>> ("part D") - some supplements include both. Between them you get full
>> coverage, far more cheaply than any other option.
> Except they are not full coverage.
What do you mean by "full coverage"?
Is there any insurance plan anywhere in the US that is "full coverage" for everything, no matter what, with no exceptions, deductibles, or copays? AFAIK _all_ plans have some kind of limits, whether it's who you can see, how much it will cover, etc.
Medicare Part A + Part B + supplemental coverage with drug coverage can cover a lot, depending on which plan you choose (there is a web page that will compare coverage of various plans available to you at at
https://www.medicare.gov/find-a-plan/questions/home.aspx ).
>> My doctor tells me if at all possible, don't retire until you have to.
>> I'm not so sure how happy people are to work their whole lives and then
>> all of a sudden be put out to pasture.
> I'm working harder in retirement than when I was employed. I guess my > wife is a tougher boss. I'd be happy to go back to work if I would have > flex hours and a shorter commute.
> I saved up a stash of computer projects I really wanted to work on to > "fill the empty hours" - hah! I wish I had a few hours.
Pete, ISTM one problem is that the hours get *shorter* when you get older... or at least the hours *seem* to get shorter. So a day, or a week, or a month is *not* what it used to be when you were 20 or 30 years old. YMMV.
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 10/4/2012 9:30 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> writes:
>>>>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/1/2012 8:43 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>>> I cannot buy medical insurance because it's illegal for anyone
>>>>>>> to sell it to me because I'm on Medicare.
>>>>>> Huh? I've got a zillion (well, maybe 5) companies trying to sell me
>>>>>> insurance (Part D, Medicare Advantage). Part A (hospitalization) is
>>>>>> "free". Part B (basic medical) is $100/mo. That's nationwide, so I'm
>>>>>> sure you've got it if you're over 65. The other coverages are $30/mo
>>>>>> up, depending on what you choose. And it's hard to imagine they're
>>>>>> not available in MI (unless MI is even more screwed up than I've heard).
>>>>> You are talking about supplemental. I'm trying to talk about full
> coverage
>>>>> insurance, using it instead of Medicare.
>>>> Do you need someone else to explain to you again, that looking for full
>>>> coverage when you already have free Medicare Part A is nuts?
>>> Medicare is NOT full coverage.
>>>> No insurance company is going to go along with your desire to act in
>>>> illogical ways.
>>> What the hell is illogical about full coverage?
>> You get medicare, and then buy a supplement ("part B") policy and a drug
>> ("part D") - some supplements include both. Between them you get full
>> coverage, far more cheaply than any other option.
> Except they are not full coverage.
What do you consider full coverage then? I pay a copay of $20 per doctor visit, which I think is pretty standard. Most of my prescriptions I pay between $10 and maybe $25. I just want thru that accident thingy, no hospital stay but emergency room with a couple of x-rays and a cat scan plus so far two (or three) follow-ups with x-rays and I doubt it cost me $100 for the whole mess.
> Generally, gas is `hardwired', oil is 'open source' (You can buy it off
> different sources every fill.)
I doubt many do though. You usually get a better price signing a contract for the season, and then you never have to think about it. They keep track of what you use and just show up as needed. I had oil at a former house, and it worked well.
> Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> writes:
>> On 04/10/2012 16:03, Patrick Scheible wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>> On 04/10/2012 02:46, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 3, 2:07 am, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ditto for the corporate executives that apply for government handouts.
>>>>> Often the same people who criticize the "big government".
>>>>> An early president of Eastern Airlines was an arch conservative. He
>>>>> ran around making speeches warning against government socialism. But
>>>>> in the same speech, he urged towns to "get modern" and build or
>>>>> upgrade a municipal airport. (Meanwhile, railroads were paying higher
>>>>> taxes on their land serving the town to pay for the town's airport).
>>>>> Nobody demanded he airlines build their own airports, just as the
>>>>> railroad built Union Stations.
>>>> Local government did not have to pay for airports. <City> Airport
>>>> Inc. could have done. They charge landing fees.
>>> In theory they could, but the airport here gets significant subsidies
>>> from local taxpayers. Maybe the subsidy isn't for the runways, control
>>> tower, and piers, but for a nicer terminal building, parking garage,
>>> mitigation for the surrounding housing, light rail stops, etc. etc. But
>>> you can't really run an airport without those things.
>>> -- Patrick
>> All part of the service provided to passengers and cargo. That is
>> what landing fees are for. The airlines forward these fees to the
>> passengers.
>> In some countries airports also charge passengers 'airport taxes'.
> Not just passengers. Subsidy for the airport is part of our property
> tax bill just for owning property in King County.
In <icehle3rc6....@home.home>, on 10/04/2012
at 04:38 PM, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> said:
>Is this the same DOD spending that got cut by agreement to settle the
>budget crisis?
You expect politicians in an election year to remind voters that they
agreed to something instead of campaigning against it?
>The other DOD cut that's raising controversy is the one I pointed a
>link to recently. The DOD actually wants to close down our tank
>manufacturing plant. They say they have more than enough tanks and
>parts. The GOP has been raising holy hell. They even had the nerve
>to claim it would cost more to close the plant than to leave it
>open.
They might even be telling the truth; the real issue is that they
claim that they are interested in cutting the deficit, and then fight
tooth and nail against any measures that might actually do so, even
measures that they had previously agreed to. The elephants in the room
are
1. Congress passes laws, not the president.
2. The real argument was never about the size of the government,
but about which programs to fund.
3. Solving the budget problem requires a long term solution that
no major party can back out of. I won't hold my breathe.
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamt...@library.lspace.org
> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>> Is this the same DOD spending that got cut >> by agreement to settle the budget crisis?
> You expect politicians in an election year to remind voters that > they agreed to something instead of campaigning against it?
>> The other DOD cut that's raising controversy is the one I pointed a
>> link to recently. The DOD actually wants to close down our tank
>> manufacturing plant. They say they have more than enough tanks and
>> parts. The GOP has been raising holy hell. They even had the nerve
>> to claim it would cost more to close the plant than to leave it open.
> They might even be telling the truth; the real issue is that they
> claim that they are interested in cutting the deficit, and then fight
> tooth and nail against any measures that might actually do so, even
> measures that they had previously agreed to. The elephants in the room
> are
> 1. Congress passes laws, not the president.
> 2. The real argument was never about the size of the > government, but about which programs to fund.
> 3. Solving the budget problem requires a long term > solution that no major party can back out of.
Nope, other countrys have fixed their deficit without doing that.
> Patrick Scheible wrote
>> Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote
>>> Patrick Scheible wrote
>>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swal...@btinternet.com> wrote
>>>>> hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote
>>>>>> Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Ditto for the corporate executives that apply for government >>>>>>> handouts.
>>>>>> Often the same people who criticize the "big government".
>>>>>> An early president of Eastern Airlines was an arch conservative. He
>>>>>> ran around making speeches warning against government socialism. But >>>>>> in the same speech, he urged towns to "get modern" and build or
>>>>>> upgrade a municipal airport. (Meanwhile, railroads were paying >>>>>> higher
>>>>>> taxes on their land serving the town to pay for the town's airport).
>>>>>> Nobody demanded he airlines build their own airports, just as the >>>>>> railroad built Union Stations.
>>>>> Local government did not have to pay for airports. <City> Airport >>>>> Inc. could have done. They charge landing fees.
>>>> In theory they could, but the airport here gets significant subsidies
>>>> from local taxpayers. Maybe the subsidy isn't for the runways, control
>>>> tower, and piers, but for a nicer terminal building, parking garage,
>>>> mitigation for the surrounding housing, light rail stops, etc. etc. >>>> But
>>>> you can't really run an airport without those things.
>>> All part of the service provided to passengers and cargo. That is
>>> what landing fees are for. The airlines forward these fees to the
>>> passengers.
>>> In some countries airports also charge passengers 'airport taxes'.
>> Not just passengers. Subsidy for the airport is part of our property
>> tax bill just for owning property in King County.
> Britain's main airports make a profit.
> <http://www.baa.com/static/BAA_Airports/Downloads/PDF/BAA_SP_Limited_Q...>
Like hell they do when you consider the fact that they don't
pay normal property taxes on the real estate they occupy.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> writes:
> Shmuel (Seymour J.)Metz <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote >> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>>> Is this the same DOD spending that got cut by agreement to settle
>>> the budget crisis?
>> You expect politicians in an election year to remind voters that
>> they agreed to something instead of campaigning against it?
>>> The other DOD cut that's raising controversy is the one I pointed a
>>> link to recently. The DOD actually wants to close down our tank
>>> manufacturing plant. They say they have more than enough tanks and
>>> parts. The GOP has been raising holy hell. They even had the nerve
>>> to claim it would cost more to close the plant than to leave it open.
>> They might even be telling the truth; the real issue is that they
>> claim that they are interested in cutting the deficit, and then fight
>> tooth and nail against any measures that might actually do so, even
>> measures that they had previously agreed to. The elephants in the room
>> are
>> 1. Congress passes laws, not the president.
>> 2. The real argument was never about the size of the government,
>> but about which programs to fund.
>> 3. Solving the budget problem requires a long term solution that
>> no major party can back out of.
> Nope, other countrys have fixed their deficit without doing that.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Shmuel (Seymour J.)Metz <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote
>>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>>>> Is this the same DOD spending that got cut
>>>> by agreement to settle the budget crisis?
>>> You expect politicians in an election year to remind voters that
>>> they agreed to something instead of campaigning against it?
>>>> The other DOD cut that's raising controversy is the one I pointed
>>>> a link to recently. The DOD actually wants to close down our tank
>>>> manufacturing plant. They say they have more than enough tanks and
>>>> parts. The GOP has been raising holy hell. They even had the nerve
>>>> to claim it would cost more to close the plant than to leave it open.
>>> They might even be telling the truth; the real issue is that they claim
>>> that they are interested in cutting the deficit, and then fight tooth
>>> and nail against any measures that might actually do so, even measures
>>> that they had previously agreed to. The elephants in the room are
>>> 1. Congress passes laws, not the president.
>>> 2. The real argument was never about the size of the
>>> government, but about which programs to fund.
>>> 3. Solving the budget problem requires a long term
>>> solution that no major party can back out of.
>> Nope, other countrys have fixed their deficit without doing that.
> Hmm, did they discover oil?
> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.)Metz <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote
>>>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>>>>> Is this the same DOD spending that got cut
>>>>> by agreement to settle the budget crisis?
>>>> You expect politicians in an election year to remind voters that
>>>> they agreed to something instead of campaigning against it?
>>>>> The other DOD cut that's raising controversy is the one I pointed
>>>>> a link to recently. The DOD actually wants to close down our tank
>>>>> manufacturing plant. They say they have more than enough tanks and
>>>>> parts. The GOP has been raising holy hell. They even had the nerve
>>>>> to claim it would cost more to close the plant than to leave it open.
>>>> They might even be telling the truth; the real issue is that they claim
>>>> that they are interested in cutting the deficit, and then fight tooth
>>>> and nail against any measures that might actually do so, even measures
>>>> that they had previously agreed to. The elephants in the room are
>>>> 1. Congress passes laws, not the president.
>>>> 2. The real argument was never about the size of the
>>>> government, but about which programs to fund.
>>>> 3. Solving the budget problem requires a long term
>>>> solution that no major party can back out of.
>>> Nope, other countrys have fixed their deficit without doing that.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.)Metz <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote
>>>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>>>>> Is this the same DOD spending that got cut
>>>>> by agreement to settle the budget crisis?
>>>> You expect politicians in an election year to remind voters that
>>>> they agreed to something instead of campaigning against it?
>>>>> The other DOD cut that's raising controversy is the one I pointed
>>>>> a link to recently. The DOD actually wants to close down our tank
>>>>> manufacturing plant. They say they have more than enough tanks and
>>>>> parts. The GOP has been raising holy hell. They even had the nerve
>>>>> to claim it would cost more to close the plant than to leave it open.
>>>> They might even be telling the truth; the real issue is that they claim
>>>> that they are interested in cutting the deficit, and then fight tooth
>>>> and nail against any measures that might actually do so, even measures
>>>> that they had previously agreed to. The elephants in the room are
>>>> 1. Congress passes laws, not the president.
>>>> 2. The real argument was never about the size of the
>>>> government, but about which programs to fund.
>>>> 3. Solving the budget problem requires a long term
>>>> solution that no major party can back out of.
>>> Nope, other countrys have fixed their deficit without doing that.
>> Hmm, did they discover oil?
> Nope.
>> Which other countries?
> Australia.
Interesting. Looks like they typically tax close to expenditures and
most of their tax is in income tax. The top tax rate looks like 45%.
Also a 10% vat.
For a country settled by convicts, sounds like a good place to live.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Shmuel (Seymour J.)Metz <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote
>>>>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>>>>>> Is this the same DOD spending that got cut
>>>>>> by agreement to settle the budget crisis?
>>>>> You expect politicians in an election year to remind voters that
>>>>> they agreed to something instead of campaigning against it?
>>>>>> The other DOD cut that's raising controversy is the one I pointed
>>>>>> a link to recently. The DOD actually wants to close down our tank
>>>>>> manufacturing plant. They say they have more than enough tanks and
>>>>>> parts. The GOP has been raising holy hell. They even had the nerve
>>>>>> to claim it would cost more to close the plant than to leave it open.
>>>>> They might even be telling the truth; the real issue is that they >>>>> claim
>>>>> that they are interested in cutting the deficit, and then fight tooth
>>>>> and nail against any measures that might actually do so, even measures
>>>>> that they had previously agreed to. The elephants in the room are
>>>>> 1. Congress passes laws, not the president.
>>>>> 2. The real argument was never about the size of the
>>>>> government, but about which programs to fund.
>>>>> 3. Solving the budget problem requires a long term
>>>>> solution that no major party can back out of.
>>>> Nope, other countrys have fixed their deficit without doing that.
>>> Hmm, did they discover oil?
>> Nope.
>>> Which other countries?
>> Australia.
And Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore etc.
> Interesting. Looks like they typically tax close to expenditures
Yes, that's all it takes.
> and most of their tax is in income tax.
Nope, that's not correct. Lots of money is raised by what
we call council rates, similar to your property taxes with
the exception of the money raised to pay for education,
cops, roads etc which arent paid for by the rates, and the
GST which is just another name for the VAT.
> The top tax rate looks like 45%.
Yes, but the company tax rate is lower than that at 30%
> Also a 10% vat.
That one is entirely passed to the states, just raised
by the federal govt and passed entirely to the states.
> Add Panama, Chile and Botswana; and the non-oil countries with
> at least 3/4ths funded future entitlements and a balanced budget
> is complete.
Panama has a money-making ditch, and a lot of American ex-pats, Chile had to throw out a left-wing government to do it.
> Australia isn't quite at 3/4ths, closer to half.
> Estonia, Luxembourg and New Zealand are moving to get there.
> Switzerland has had to abandon the project because it made their
> currency too valuable.
> Even among oil economies this is not a common state of affairs,
> I cannot get beoyond what can be counted on one hand.
I don't know, but aren't oil economies the worst? Lots gets skimmed off, and the rest isn't usually invested in any productive enterprise.
>> Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote
>>>> Nope, other countrys have fixed their deficit without doing that.
>>> Hmm, did they discover oil?
>> Nope.
>>> Which other countries?
>> Australia.
> Interesting. Looks like they typically tax close to expenditures and
> most of their tax is in income tax. The top tax rate looks like 45%.
> Also a 10% vat.
> For a country settled by convicts, sounds like a good place to live.
I saw an article recently about an Australian Sheep Ranch in the 1950's.
Everything above bare living expenses was taxed extremely high. Australia,
at that time anyway, (After the war, which got very close to them), had
a great sense of social cohestion.
<Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 10/4/2012 3:46 PM, JimP. wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 12:36:36 -0400, Peter Flass
>> <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2012 9:30 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Dan Espen wrote:
>>>>> jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> writes:
>>>>>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/1/2012 8:43 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>>>>>> I cannot buy medical insurance because it's illegal for anyone
>>>>>>>> to sell it to me because I'm on Medicare.
>>>>>>> Huh? I've got a zillion (well, maybe 5) companies trying to sell me
>>>>>>> insurance (Part D, Medicare Advantage). Part A (hospitalization) is
>>>>>>> "free". Part B (basic medical) is $100/mo. That's nationwide, so I'm
>>>>>>> sure you've got it if you're over 65. The other coverages are $30/mo
>>>>>>> up, depending on what you choose. And it's hard to imagine they're
>>>>>>> not available in MI (unless MI is even more screwed up than I've heard).
>>>>>> You are talking about supplemental. I'm trying to talk about full coverage
>>>>>> insurance, using it instead of Medicare.
>>>>> Do you need someone else to explain to you again, that looking for full
>>>>> coverage when you already have free Medicare Part A is nuts?
>>>> Medicare is NOT full coverage.
>>>>> No insurance company is going to go along with your desire to act in
>>>>> illogical ways.
>>>> What the hell is illogical about full coverage?
>>> You get medicare, and then buy a supplement ("part B") policy and a drug
>>> ("part D") - some supplements include both. Between them you get full
>>> coverage, far more cheaply than any other option.
>> The $100 per month I have been told part b is going to cost me, is
>> higher than I currently pay via my employer for full coverage.
>> So when I retire, my medical insurance costs will jump.
>That's because your employer is currently paying a large chunk of the >costs. Won't they continue to do that once you retire? I now have to >pay dental and dropped my eye care insurance, so I pay a bit more, but >not overwhelmingly more.
>>>>> "A University of Massachusetts study estimated it could cost more than
>>>>$2,500 to heat the average
>>>>> home in the state with heating oil
>>>>I had a 4 room house and the last bill I paid for a year's oil was $4700.
>>> So, your statement was that gas was not common in the NE; the quote shows
>>> that over half of homes are heated with natural gas. So, your statement
>>> was incorrect.
>> I have never lived in a place which used natural gas in Mass. Why don't
>> you combine all the yellow pages in Mass and search for heating oil?
>> Count the number of dealers. Then multiply that by 500 and you'll get an
>> idea that a whole lot of homes use oil, not gas. Manufacturing and office
>> buildings may not use oil.
> Generally, gas is `hardwired', oil is 'open source' (You can buy it off
> different sources every fill.)
It's usually more expensive if you shop around for a cheaper price. The
oil futures usually llock in a price for the whole winter for all
oil delivery businesses. Getting oil shipped into NE is not a simple
matter either.
> There was a story while ago of a comparison website for heating oil,
> in the UK, I think, turned out it was owned by an oil company and
> the comparisons were bogus.
There are Mass laws covering things like that. Oil futures usually
determine how cheap you get oil.
Dave Garland wrote:
> On 10/5/2012 8:16 AM, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> You get medicare, and then buy a supplement ("part B") policy and a drug
>>> ("part D") - some supplements include both. Between them you get full
>>> coverage, far more cheaply than any other option.
>> Except they are not full coverage.
> What do you mean by "full coverage"?
> Is there any insurance plan anywhere in the US that is "full coverage"
> for everything, no matter what, with no exceptions, deductibles, or
> copays? AFAIK _all_ plans have some kind of limits, whether it's who
> you can see, how much it will cover, etc.
> Medicare Part A + Part B + supplemental coverage with drug coverage
> can cover a lot, depending on which plan you choose (there is a web
> page that will compare coverage of various plans available to you at at
> https://www.medicare.gov/find-a-plan/questions/home.aspx ).
There is dental and eye care. I had much better coverage with DEC's
insurance policy than I do now. Getting the equivalent here (without
eye and dental) costs a lot but I can't buy it. What I really want
is catastrophic coverage; I'd pay for the mundane stuff myself.
>>>>> "A University of Massachusetts study estimated it could cost more than
>>>>$2,500 to heat the average
>>>>> home in the state with heating oil
>>>>I had a 4 room house and the last bill I paid for a year's oil was $4700.
>>> So, your statement was that gas was not common in the NE; the quote shows
>>> that over half of homes are heated with natural gas. So, your statement
>>> was incorrect.
>>I have never lived in a place which used natural gas in Mass. Why don't
>>you combine all the yellow pages in Mass and search for heating oil?
>>Count the number of dealers. Then multiply that by 500 and you'll get an
>>idea that a whole lot of homes use oil, not gas. Manufacturing and office
>>buildings may not use oil.
> I don't need to do any of this, since the article I quoted gave the exact
> figures for the state of Mass. 50% gas, 36% fuel oil.
Are you talking about number of gallons instead of households? Does that
gas figure include propane?
