.

Speak Out

The place to speak your mind on everything from politics to potholes.

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
Posts awaiting your approval 0
Natassia Grover April 15, 2014 at 08:15 AM
What are the statistics on sprinkler system leaking or going off when not needed and causingRead Moresignifi cant fire damage? I know people say it is rare, but is it as rare as a non-fatal house fire? The price of a sprinkler system for a new home construction is $1.35/sq. ft., right? So home prices will go up a bit, but who covers the cost of damaged caused by malfunctioning sprinklers? And if a fire is contained within the kitchen and put out by the homeowner's hand-held extinguisher, will the sprinkler still go off? Will the sprinkler only go off in the kitchen or will it go off throughout the house. In the end, the risk of dying in a house fire may be too small to justify spending thousands on a sprinkler system that may very well cost thousands in unnecessary water-clean-up bills.
Natassia Grover April 15, 2014 at 08:16 AM
*causing significant WATER damage
rbud March 28, 2014 at 08:31 PM
Individuals have a right to associate with whomever they like. That may include discriminationRead Morebased upon race, nationality, gender, or lifestyle issues. That doesn't make it ethical or good behavior, but is a person's right of free association. A person may elect to association only with Roman Catholics, or only with Baptists, or only with women, etc. Seems silly, perhaps, but it is their right. Businesses and institutions are an entirely different matter. Any company that enjoys the benefits of government supplied services, the benefits of government licensing, the protections of government issued incorporation, has no such right. Religion must not be a factor in any government action, or government sponsored or sanctioned behavior, or any other government related activity. Government must be government for all the people, not just the religious people, and particularly not a particular religious people. No incorporated or licensed business should be allowed to discriminately select on the basis of religious preferences who or who-not they will serve. To do so defeats the separation of government and religious preference. By a similar principle, government cannot constitutionally make any law about religious practice. Therefore, to structure a law so that it gives religious preference on any matter goes against the protections in our Constitution. If we abridge that freedom, and government makes one law about the practice of religion, then it can make many laws about the practice of religion, which is an intolerable thought.
April March 01, 2014 at 09:01 AM
You had me until your last paragraph. The patient consumer abuse you described has been going onRead Morefo r at least the last 60 years of my life. It is the free market model, not one anyone voted for. In case you don't know it, and it appears that you don't, this administration actually is the FIRST to acknowledge and take steps to address the lack of cost transparency. This page describes efforts to raise transparency, including Obama's. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303650204579375242842086688
Ross A March 01, 2014 at 09:48 AM
Great link April. Thanks for sharing. This sort of thing rarely reaches the mainstream news.
Natassia Grover March 03, 2014 at 08:43 PM
"You had me until your last paragraph. The patient consumer abuse you described has been going Read Moreon for at least the last 60 years of my life. It is the free market model, not one anyone voted for. In case you don't know it, and it appears that you don't, this administration actually is the FIRST to acknowledge and take steps to address the lack of cost transparency. This page describes efforts to raise transparency, including Obama's." We haven't had a free market in health care since the 1940s. The government has been actively meddling in the health care and insurance market for many decades, and sometimes the government has actually encouraged medical monopolies, price gouging, and extortion. The lack of cost transparency has been incentivized for years, and until this sort of price gouging is made ILLEGAL, consumers are still going to be forking out exorbitant amounts of money for over-priced medical care. It is just that now the taxpayers get to subsidize an even greater amount of it. According to the article you posted, people have to have "tools" provided by their insurance companies in order to figure out prices. That shouldn't be necessary. We shouldn't need to pay expensive premiums to some company for it to "negotiate" lower routine and urgent care medical prices, or for it to provide a price list. The medical provider should be providing prices, or at least estimates, AT THE TIME OF SERVICE unless it is a life-or-death emergency. And those prices should be the same for ALL customers, regardless of insurance coverage. Why should uninsured people be paying a higher price for the same service as someone with insurance coverage? Isn't that discrimination?
Lyle Lanley February 12, 2014 at 01:58 PM
Security cams = best solution. Even the fake onesRead Morework! http://www.amazon.com/Outdoor-Security-Came ra-Blinking-Silver/dp/B004D8NZ52/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1392231488&sr=8-5&keywords=security+camera+system
See more »