It costs money to get people health insurance. That doesn't mean that the government's going to be providing that insurance.

Where do you get a trillion dollars from? The CBO has this to say:

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation—H.R. 3590 and the
reconciliation proposal— would produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $138
billion over the 2010–2019 period as result of changes in direct spending and revenue
(see the top panel of Table 1 and subtitle A of title II on Table 5).

OK, so the person who writes the RFC on SMTP, saying what SMTP servers can and can't do, is then running all of the world's SMTP servers? You don't think you might be approaching this from a somewhat.. hardline perspective?

Did you, or are you going by what Glenn Beck is saying?

I don't see anything about an expansion of Medicare there - it proposes closing the donut hole and other tightening. You're right that it expands Medicaid - but more in the nature of a tweak than anything significant.

You may prefer to look at the current text of the bill.

Page 116:

        TITLE II—EDUCATION AND
        2 HEALTH
        3 Subtitle A—Education
        4 SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES.
        5 (a) SHORT TITLE.—This subtitle may be cited as the
        6 ‘‘SAFRA Act’’.

Perhaps you ought to read through a newer version of the bill.

Do you have a source for that?

There's an individual mandate, but nobody has said that it has to be via your employer.

And that will be a different debate. When that debate's being had, your point will be germane (although still not helpful). That's not the debate that we're having today.

"After controlling for enabling and need characteristics in logistic regression models, Veterans Administration (VA)-only users were 2 to 8 times more satisfied with their outpatient care than were VA nonusers on 5 out of 10 satisfaction measures.". Oh, and I have a source. You appear to have a mysterious "Someone in Congress".

Also, the proposed health care bill doesn't set up anything even slightly like the VA. VA -> single provider of health care, like the NHS in Britain. The proposed public option would have been a step toward having a single payer, but still with multiple independent providers. The proposed bill doesn't introduce either.

Is there anything about the proposed act that is government-run? If there is, I'd missed it. It mandates a bunch of things that private insurance companies are required to do, but it doesn't set up a public option (aka government-run health care).

I'm guessing you're in the Netherlands, if TNT are delivering to the post office? In that case, we're basically dealing with very similar situations - DHL are owned by Deutsche Post, TNT are basically the Dutch postal service. I haven't tried TNT, but I'm thinking that it could well be that TNT sucks as much for me as DHL does for you.

...unless you're in Germany, or at least my bit of Germany.

Here, DHL reliably deliver packages from the other end of Germany, overnight. The regular delivery guy knows where I work and knows that he can deliver packages addressed to home to my office. They deliver on Saturdays. (In the run up to Christmas, also on Sundays.)

If they fail to deliver for some reason, I can pick up the package from the post office, 5 minutes away, or call them to arrange another delivery attempt.

If I were in a larger town (I'm in a small village), there'd also be the option of getting things delivered to a DHL Packstation - this is a series of package-sized lockers. Upon delivery failure, they leave a card with a barcode. You then turn up at the Packstation with the card, it scans the barcode and opens the door of the appropriate locker, allowing you to retrieve your package, 24/7. If you have a (free) Packstation account, you can get all your packages sent there and can also use it to send packages.

The alternatives:

GLS: uses one-man franchisees. Longer delivery times, only one delivery attempt, collection point is at the franchisee's house in the back of beyond. Item liable to have been thrown in the back of the franchisee's 10-year-old car.

Hermes: See GLS, although with more emphasis on the long delivery times. I think they might attempt delivery more than once.

UPS: Quick, multiple attempts, but not easily available on the sender side to private customers. Pickup points in the case of failed delivery not as widely distributed.

DPD: Franchisees, but better fitted out than Hermes or GLS. Not quite as good as DHL on delivery times.

FedEx: Basically non-existent.

Of the delivery services available here, DHL are easily the best.

(I have no interest of any kind in DHL, this is purely a report of my experiences with them and other package services at a variety of locations in Nord-Rhein-Westfalen.)

A probably won't be able to keep working 60 hour weeks, since there's now significantly more housework that A needs to do...

I'm not saying that A needs to support B totally or in perpetuity, but there's surely some sort of compensation needed from A to B to deal with the decision that they made together which negatively affected B's job prospects and positively developed A's.

B definitely now needs to go to work. My argument is that if A doesn't supplement B's wage, then B has very much got the short end of this deal.

There's no laziness involved here. I know a couple (still together) who fit the roles of A and B. In my opinion, B in that case works just as hard as A.

Also note that I don't care which gender A and B are (can be the same gender for all I care). The fact that B is often female is neither here nor there.

And the example has nothing to say about who gets custody of the child. That's a separate matter.

Think about this case: A and B are both working. Then they have a child. At that point, they decide that B will stay at home to look after that child. A goes to work, but is now working 60-hour weeks to bring in enough money to cover B not working. This turns out to work quite well and after a while, A is bringing in money - but still working long hours. The child is old enough for Kindergarten now and B doesn't really need to stay home any more. But doing so keeps the home running, the laundry washed, the place clean, the grocery shopping done and means there's someone there for the child when kindergarten is done. A works hard to bring money, but doesn't need to do anything at all around the house. B works hard to keep the domestic side going, but doesn't do any money-bringing work.

After ten years of doing this, A and B divorce. B's chances in the job market are now much reduced from what they were. A is still raking in money.

Is it really equitable that A has no responsibiliity to support B? At least for a time?

You're missing the point of the comment about his daughter leaving. Her PC use and TV time is mainly in the evening, meaning that the power used for that is mainly coming from the grid and not from solar. So the net effect of his daughter going to college, power-wise, is that the proportion of power supplied by his solar panels will be increased from where it otherwise would have been - even though the total amount involved may drop.

If you want to question his logic, a more fruitful point might be to consider that while his ROI is whatever%, this is after tying himself in to a (say) 15-year investment. A T-Note taken at the same time last year would get him 10 years of interest at 4.168% - and if he needed to get out of it due to a change in circumstances, he could sell the note on (potentially absorbing a minor loss). His only realistic choice with the panels is to sell the house they're attached to.