[Spanish Form] This is a written notice from a Landlord to a Tenant who has failed to comply with an obligation under the lease or term of the lease (i.e. failed to make rent payments made alterations without permission etc…). This type of notice is sometimes called a Notice to Quit . This notice can be used with either a commercial or residential tenant. Usually a notice to the tenant that rent is overdue (or that another obligation under the lease has not been met) is sent before the Notice To Quit is sent out. When the tenant fails to respond to the notice that rent is overdue it is customary to then provide a Notice To Quit. This form can be used in Minnesota. This package includes (1) Instructions and Checklist (English Spanish); (2) Information about Notice To Quit For Nonpayment of Rent or Other Breach (English Spanish); (3) Notice To Quit For Nonpayment of Rent or Other Breach form (English Spanish). [Spanish Translation] Este consiste en un aviso por escrito departe del Arrendador hacia el Inquilino que no ha cumplido con los requisitos y obligaciones establecidos bajo los términos del arrendamiento (por ejemplo: no realizo los pagos de renta a tiempo realizo alteraciones a la propiedad sin previa autorización etc. ) Este tipo de aviso a veces se denomina “Aviso de Desalojo”. Este documento puede ser utilizado por un Arrendador en propiedades rentadas residenciales o comerciales. Por lo general se avisa al Inquilino que los pagos de renta están vencidos ( o cualquier otra obligación bajo el contrato de arrendamiento no han sido acatada) antes de mandar este Aviso de Desalojo. Cuando el inquilino no responde al primer aviso de que sus pagos están retrazados se acostumbra proporcionar un Aviso de Desalojo. Este paquete incluye (1) Instrucciones y lista de control (2) Información sobre el Aviso de Desalojo por falta de pago de renta o cualquier otro incumplimiento y (3) El Aviso. from the Business Services range.
Best Price Anywhere at $ 7.

Similar posts: health care proxy

Watermelon : It may wins the heaviest fruit in all the fruits .But,may not be in the proteins,vitamins area 's.In India,We find watermelon mostly in the summer season .Its tastes excellent,when it is in cool state .Never forget to add salt on it, it tastes even more better .Has it contains more than 65 percentage of water content in it.Key nutrients of watermelon : As it contains sucrose, iron, calcium, sodium, potassium, vitamins B and E.

Now let us discuss benefits of the watermelon : Its a very important fruit for those who are heavy weight.As it helps in weight loss because, it is a diuretic .Treats kidney and glasn helps in tracting urinary problems .


Orange : Its not just orange but its an O'rang'.The yellowish circular in shape is always the best to take a glass per day to stay with energyly throughout the day.Make shore to take without the sugar,as we taking more natural gives more vitamins .Key nutrients in orange are the following .Vitamin C, sodium, citric acid, calcium, folate, manganese, potassium, iron, and many more .Its gives us tremendous benefits : Improves the digestion system, and immunity too .

Similar posts: health care proxy

The world is a very small place, if you’re going by the health care debate in this country.  You have the U.S., you have Canada, you have the U.K., and you have “All Others,” where they may or may not have medical care.  It’s preposterous, of course, and usually only done to make a specific point about “the evils of government involvement in health care.”  The plain truth is we’re never going to swap out our health care system for that of another country’s wholesale.  But if we really want to argue whether government intervention is necessary to reform our broken system, we need to look at the world around us.
Jonathan Cohn has a lengthy and highly-recommended article in today’s Boston Globe talking about, among other things, how poorly France and the Netherlands fit the stereotypes and talking points about what happens when government gets involved in health care.  The two countries are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  The Netherlands provides universal health care largely through private insurance companies;  France has universal basic medical care through a single-payer, with 98% of the population also opting to buy supplemental coverage through a private company.  (Yes, that means France has nearly covered its entire population twice over, and still spends less than we do as a percentage of GDP).  But both feature strong government involvement in terms of much heavier regulation of private insurers than anything we’re proposing today.  Yet they make terrible talking points for those who want to warn against the ills of government involvement.

Similar posts: health care proxy

With the recent deluge of popular headlines being monopolized by celebrity deaths, Governor indiscretions, and even the Presidents pitch for health care reform there is another massive elephant in the room and its time to give it some attention.
Here in South Florida, the business landscape has noticeably changed since the economy has gone south. With many long-time local businesses permanently shutting doors in the past few months amd recent news of Miamis unemployment rate hitting double digits at 10.2 percent, why should South Floridians take notice of the American Clean Energy and Security Act that just passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Friday..

Similar posts: health care proxy

On the supply side, if the price of something goes up, people will produce more to earn more. If the price drops, people will either produce less so they can devote their time to other things (whether relaxation or producing something more profitable) or they will produce more to try to maintain the income they had under the old price.
Lets look at the supply side. I wrote about imaging recently, so lets start there. 
MedPAC found that patient episodes with a self-referring physicians (defined as those who perform at least 50 percent of the imaging they order) were more likely to receive at least one imaging service compared to patient episodes with no self-referring physician. The findings were statistically significant for 21 of the 22 disease episodes studied. 
Imaging services are well reimbursed by Medicare. Doctors who can both order and perform them seem to do so quite a bit. MedPAC considers, but does not recommend, two solutions. The first is to encourage greater adherence by physicians to appropriateness criteria developed by specialty societies. The second is to increase the size of the unit of payment in the physician fee schedule to include bundles of services that physicians often furnish together or during the same episode of care.m in favor of appropriateness criteria for everything in life. Yes, there should be exceptions allowed for shades of gray. But if numerous studies have proven that something is not clinically effective, it shouldnt be covered. If something is expensive and only as effective as an older option, we should consider cost sharing for the expensive option. In promoting adherence to evidence-based guidelines, reform-minded physicians sometimes hear their colleagues say, s not the way we do it here. Thats not a good enough answer.
The second solution suggested by MedPAC would better address the price incentives for physicians. We should give physicians the benefit of the doubt: Medicare does not pay well for EM (evaluation and management) services, ie. regular office visits or time consuming conversations about treatment alternatives and prognosis. Additionally, it can be easier for a doctor to do something than to send the patient elsewhere. The doctor can expect nearly 100 percent patient compliance and theres no need to go tracking down results for tests or imaging performed somewhere else. 
But what MedPAC is proposing is quite similar to what we do for inpatient hospital stays, so it shouldnt be viewed as radical. Medicare pays based on diagnoses, not (with some special cases) length of stay. It doesnt matter whether the stay was five days or eight days. If we simply reduce the payment for imaging, we run the risk of encouraging more tests as those who self-refer attempt to maintain their income. We need to change the incentives.
So lets think about how to blend the solutions. How about moving physicians to a bundled episode payment that incorporates appropriate image usage, in line with the criteria developed by specialty societies. That will right the incentives for the docs, and result in more quality health care, instead of more services. It could also reduce patients exposure to radiation. Its the incentives, smarter.

Similar posts: health care proxy

I watched Wednesday night's ABC News special hosted by Diane Sawyer and Charlie Gibson, broadcast from the East Room of the White House and featuring an audience-driven Q A session with President Obama. To their credit, ABC allowed audience members to ask a number of relevant and tough questions. The President handled the questions well, although in most cases he did not provide much in the way of specifics in his answers.
Here are a few observations of mine, in no particular order:
1) The selling point for ObamaCare seems to be "the worst thing we can do is to do nothing," which is the exact same hard sell line Obama used to push his stimulus plan. Congress bought into the stimulus, and yet, $787 billion dollars later, unemployment is worse that President Obama's worst-case "do nothing" scare prediction. It appears that the Obama Administration is not trustworthy when it comes to economic predictions.
The President says that without government intervention, health care costs will continue to rise 6% - 8% per year, or will double every ten years, and more and more people will be left uninsured. He believes that government intervention is the best way to stop this trend. He recognizes that certain private organizations like the Mayo Clinic have successfully kept quality of care high, while significantly lowering costs. But he does not believe that, industry-wide, the free market can provide enough incentives to make voluntary cost cutting an attractive option.
He never satisfactorily explained why health costs are rising at such a fast rate. I believe that understanding why costs are rising (and being able to offer a straight-forward explanation, which is best proof that you really understand a problem) is crucial before you propose solutions.
2) President Obama is optimistic that reallocation of existing health spending, combined with efficiency programs and effective cost reduction plans, will offset most of the cost of ObamaCare. Considering how badly his economic and financial advisers have bungled their economic forecasts, I don't share the President's optimism.
3) President Obama is serious about outlawing coverage limits for preexisting conditions. He said that insurers would make less money per insured, but overall the industry should still be profitable. Another prediction that the President is "sure" of. The problem here is that a public, government funded and managed insurance system doesn't have to worry about showing a profit. It can absorb whatever regulations Congress imposes simply by asking Congress for more money. But a private insurance company can't do that. If government regulations ruin the profitability of private insurance companies, you can be sure that the next "solution" will be a series of government bailouts and take-overs of private insurers that will eventually produce a single nationalized health care system.
4) President Obama is serious about encouraging more people to enter the medical field as primary caregivers, such as primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses. He believes that affordable and readily available primary medical care is the key to having a healthier nation. To this end, he seems to want to create some kind of financial parity between what specialists earn and what primary care physicians earn. He is concerned about the debt load that medical students accumulate during their schooling, and is troubled by the fact that (apparently) many medical students choose specialty medicine in order to earn more money to pay off their debts. (At least that is the impression I got from the direction of the discussion.) The President did not offer any specific solutions for these problems.
He also stressed that under his plan, doctors would not be "working for the government," they would still be self employed. But if your sole source of income is government-regulated payouts from a Central Bureau of Medical Efficiency (or whatever it would be called), what is the difference?
5) Finally, President Obama's efforts to explain how government management would both save money and result in a higher standard of medical care failed to establish even a basic level of confidence for me. There was a lot of discussion about efficiency standards, eliminating unnecessary tests, compensating doctors based on successful treatments rather than on the number of procedures they perform, and relying on science to determine the most effective treatment options. But all of these measures essentially boil down to statistics and bean counting -- neither of which embodies the proper ethos to serve as a governance tool for medicine.
I won't disagree with the fact that even now, and even with private health care, there are limits to what can be done and what insurers can afford to pay. But as long as there is hope, and as long as private money is available for whatever treatments doctors or patients wish, the government should not be allowed to force limits on those treatments.
...
Supporters of government-managed health care argue that the government can provide higher quality medical care because the government can do a better job of eliminating waste, which largely consists of overly expensive and unnecessary medical procedures. Yet such a program necessarily requires the government to put a dollar value on human life.

Similar posts: health care proxy

One of the more controversial elements of health care reform in Massachusetts is the so-called “merged market.” In most states, individual health insurance is bought and soldunder one set of rules, and small group insurance (for firms with either 1-50 employees or 2-50 employees) is sold under another set of rules.
It used to be that way in Massachusetts, too, before health care reform.
Individual insurance was guaranteed at the point of sale and the point of renewal, but the products were limited by state law, the price was based on thetotal medical expenses of the individual enrollees who bought individual coverage, and individual purchasers either couldn’t purchase coverage for pre-existing conditions or had to wait six months once they purchased insurance to access coverage.
The final rule was designed to make sure that people who had open access to health coverage wouldn’t simply buy it when they knew they were going to need it, and then drop it after their procedure was completed and paid for. Insurance is, after all, insurance. It’s all about shared risk.When it works, thesubsidize the sick. If there’s no incentive to buyhealth insurancewhen one is healthy, that reduces the size of the population that’s willing topay premiums without requiring services, and increases the total cost of the coverage.

Similar posts: health care proxy

This is a brilliant commercial from Bacardi. The man cuts across the club in search of a drink. And as he does, he cuts through time as well, going through the 60s, the 50s, 30, 20s, etc. until he ends up with a bartender who looks like he is from the 19th century.
What struck me was three couples: at the beginning, the main character leaves what appears to be a mixed race couple who are almost easy to overlook (they are only in the shot for 3 seconds). They are together in a very casual way. Midway through the ad, there is a black man dancing with a white woman in around the 1950s: they are very close. (Though interestingly, she wears gloves.) This is in contrast to the black and whilte couple towards the end of the commercial: a black piano player with a white flapper from the 1920s, where there is a greater separation of the pair.
Its a highly impressionistic commercial, and it is an advertisement, not a history lesson. But it does flash moments of history in the spot, and I was struck by these three couples. It could be happenstance, but the strong historical sense in the ad got me thinking otherwise.
Anyway, watch the ad and see what you think.

Similar posts: health care proxy

A living will, also called will to live, is one type of advanced health care system, or advanced health care principle. It often goes along with a specific type of power of attorney. These are legal tools that are usually witnessed or notarized.
A living will usually covers specific directions as to the course of treatment that is to be taken by caregivers, or, in particular, in some cases denying treatment and sometimes also food and water, should the patient be unable to give conscious consent (individual health care instruction) due to illness.
A power of attorney for health care, appoints an individual (a proxy) to give health care decisions should the patient be unable to do so.
Refusal of treatment forms, the name suggests, the term will to live, as opposed to the other terms, tends to point out the wish to live as long as possible rather than refusing treatment in the case of serious conditions.
In the Netherlands, patients and likely patients can identify the circumstances under which they would want euthanasia for themselves. They do this by providing a written order. This helps to ascertain the preexisting expressed wish of the patient even if the patient is no longer able to exchange a few words. However, it is only one of the factors that is taken into account.
In Switzerland, there are several associations which take care of registering patient declarations, forms which are signed by the patients declaring that in case of unending loss of judgment (e.g., inability to communicate or severe brain damage) all means of prolonged life shall be stopped. Family members and groups, also keep alternatives which entitle its holder to enforce such patient decrees. Establishing such decrees is pretty straightforward.
In the United States, most states recognize living wills or the label of a health care surrogate. However, a report card issued by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 2002 concluded that only seven states deserved an for meeting the standards of the model Uniform Rights of the Terminally Ill Act. Surveys show that one-third of Americans say theyve had to make decisions about end-of-life care for a loved one.
I am going to refer you to a FANTASTIC website thats available that will teach you in great detail about the power and the importance of having a living will and SUPERB description of the necessary procedures. The site is called Living Will: You Have Choices. Even if youve never thought of the provisions of living wills and trusts before, youll feel like a pro after joining this site. Trust me Its That GOOD! If you havent read it READ IT.

Similar posts: health care proxy

By DAVID C. KIBBE and
IAN KLEPPER
The Obama health team at HHS and ONC are gradually establishing the rules that will determine how approximately $34 billion in ARRA/HITECH funds are spent on health IT over the next several years. But there is a missing link in these deliberations that, so far, has not been addressed by Congress or the Administration: how the patients voice can be meaningfully used in health IT.

After all, we, the taxpayers, will pay for all this hardware, software, and associated training. There are many more consumers of health care than doctors or health care professionals. Shouldnt we have a say in what matters - in what is meaningful - to us?

It may have been an oversight, but patients and consumers have been left very much on HITECHs sidelines. The attention and the money is squarely aimed at the health care providers - doctors, clinics, and hospitals. The Acts intention is to create electronic health records that, in the future, will be more accessible to them: doctors, clinics, and hospitals.

This is a policy that is tied unnecessarily to an outdated vision. It is provider-centered, paternalistic and top-down. But it could be re-imagined to take advantage of the new ways millions of consumers, patients, and care giving families are using information and communications technologies to solve problems, form online communities, and share information and knowledge.

Similar posts: health care proxy

However, the plan by President Bush to screen all Americans for mental health problems is being opposed by a coalition of advocacy groups, who say the plan was cooked up by the pharmaceutical industry. A coalition of over 100 advocacy organizations, united under the banner of MindFreedom International in representing the psychiatric survivors movement, has been galvanized by their strong opposition to the New Freedom Commission. Using celebrity to advance their opposition, the MindFreedom coalition has again enlisted the support of long time member and Gesundheit Institute founder Patch Adams, an alternative medicine practitioner made famous by the movie that bears his name. Since 1992, Adams has supported MindFreedom campaigns, and in August, 2004, he kicked off the campaign against the New Freedom Commission by volunteering to screen President Bush himself. He needs a lot of help. Ill see him for free, said Adams.Through the guise of TMAP, critics contend, the drug industry has methodically influenced the decision making of elected and appointed public officials to gain access to citizens in prisons and State mental health hospitals. The person primarily responsible for bringing these issues to the publics attention is Allen Jones, a former investigator in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General (OIG), Bureau of Special Investigations.Jones wrote a lengthy report in which he stated that, behind the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission, was the political/pharmaceutical alliance. It was this alliance, according to Jones, which developed the Texas project, specifically to promote the use of newer, more expensive antipsychotics and antidepressants. He further claimed this alliance was poised to consolidate the TMAP effort into a comprehensive national policy to treat mental illness with expensive, patented medications of questionable benefit and deadly side effects, and to force private insurers to pick up more of the tab.A bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2005, or HR 181, has been introduced in the US House of Representatives by Dr. Ron Paul, MD, a Republican from Texas. The proposal forbids federal funds from being used for any mental health screening of students without the express, written, voluntary, informed consent of parents.Opponents of the plan suggest it fosters the use of progressively more stringent and coercive use of chemical interventions, championed by Sally Satel and other pharmaceutical industry backers, rather than basic preventative strategies and alternative medicine modalities. Opponents are gravely concerned about what they see as the skyrocketing use of primitive chemical mind control techniques upon citizens, little different from chemical straitjacketing, which are solely based upon an unproven chemical imbalance theory. Uninformed consent and the incremental evisceration of civil rights, exemplified by legislation allowing outpatient commitment in 42 States now, have contributed to the heightening of their ill will toward the New Freedom Commission.

Similar posts: health care proxy

CALI, Colombia - Transtel Intermedia S.A. (the ) today announced that it has extended the expiration of its (i) private offer to exchange, for each US$100,000 of principal amount (excluding accrued but unpaid interest) of its outstanding 12% Senior Notes due 2016 (the Existing Notes), one of its units (the New Units), each New Unit consisting of either US$100,000 principal amount of its unissued Senior Secured Amortizing Step-up Dollar Notes due 2016 (the New Dollar Notes) or the Peso-equivalent of US$100,000 of principal amount of its unissued Senior Secured Amortizing Step-up Peso-Denominated Notes (payable in U.S. dollars) (the New Peso Notes and, together with the New Dollar Notes, the New Notes) and 100 warrants to purchase shares of its common stock (the New Warrants, and such private offer to exchange being the Exchange Offer), and (ii) solicitation of consents to (a) delist the Existing Notes from the Euro MTF, the alternative market of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange, (b) make certain amendments to documentation relating to (A) the indenture governing the Existing Notes, (B) the indenture governing the 12-1/2% Senior Secured Convertible Notes due 2008 (the 12-1/2% Secured Notes), (C) the warrant agreement governing the warrants offered by the Company pursuant to the offer to exchange completed May 17, 2006, (D) the security documents relating to the Existing Notes and (E) certain other documentation relating to the Existing Notes (the Consent Solicitation), and (c) waive certain events of default relating to the Companys 12-1/2% Secured Notes and the Existing Notes. The terms of the Exchange Offer and Consent Solicitation are set forth in the offering memorandum and consent solicitation statement dated December 22, 2008, as amended and restated in its entirety by the supplement, dated April 29, 2009 and as amended by the second supplement, dated May 11, 2009.

Similar posts: health care proxy

McCain comes riding and farting into Washington on his blind donkey, pressuring congress to rush things that are already being rushed too much so the debate will proceed. He politicizes negotiations, because if the house doesnt show that things were NOT settled, then McCain looks even more like an impulsive fool who wasted a lot of time and amp; bluster rushing to DC.

Similar posts: health care proxy

The Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services (CMS) has proposed adjustments to fiscal year (FY) 2010 payment rates to better reflect the cost of caring for Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes.

The rule calls for payments to Medicare skilled nursing facilities to be reduced by $390 million, or 1.2 percent lower than payments for FY 2009. This adjustment to nursing facility payments is an effort to rebalance an earlier adjustment to the case-mix indexes (CMIs).

The proposed FY 2010 recalibration of the CMIs would result in a reduction in payments to nursing homes of $1.050 billion, or 3.3 percent. However, this decrease would be largely offset by this fiscal year's proposed update to Medicare payments to skilled nursing facilities. The updatea proposed increase of 2.1 percent or $660 million for FY 2010is based on the change in prices of a "market basket" of goods and services included in covered skilled nursing facility stays. The percentage increase in the market basket is used to compute the update factor annually. The combination of the market basket increase and the recalibration of the CMIs yields the 1.2 percent reduction.

Medicare pays skilled nursing facilities on a prospective payment system known as the Skilled Nursing Facility Prospective Payment System (SNF PPS). The SNF PPS uses a resource classification system known as Resource Utilization Groups, version 3 (RUG-III) to assign a RUG payment group that is used to determine a daily payment rate. The RUG-III group reflects a patient's severity of illness and the kind of services that a person requiressomething known as "case-mix."

For FY 2006, CMS made RUG refinements to better account for the resources used in the care of medically complex patients. The refinement package adjusted the CMIs that were calculated based on forecasted utilization under the refined case-mix system. Skilled nursing facilities have been paid based on these refinements since Jan. 1, 2006.

Although the CMI adjustment that accompanied the expansion of the RUG model was intended to ensure that there would be no change in overall spending levels, it instead resulted in a significant increase in Medicare expenditures, because actual utilization under the refined case-mix system differed significantly from the projections on which the adjustment was based. CMS found that patients were being classified into one of the newly created higher paying RUG groups more than 30 percent of the time (as compared to 19 percent projected by CMS), thus triggering Medicare payments far in excess of the original projections.

CMS is now proposing to recalibrate the case-mix weights in order to restore overall payments to their intended levels on a prospective basis. In this manner, payments beginning in 2010 would reflect the intent of the refinements, and payments to providers would more accurately reflect the service needs of Medicare beneficiaries.

Similar posts: health care proxy

by Paul Keegan

John and Gina Rodrigues have always been good with numbers. John is a software engineer who manages a team at Microsoft, and Gina spent years processing mortgages at Wells Fargo and Countrywide Home Loans. But the numbers they are especially good at are the kind with dollar signs in front of them.

At age 27, John and Gina already earn a combined $174,000 a year, save half of what they make and have built a formidable portfolio of $380,000 in stocks, mutual funds and cash. Their goal: to become millionaires and retire by the time they turn 40, just 13 years from now.

To make that dream a reality, they have become black-belt practitioners of an art rarely practiced in America these days: While others with their earning power might indulge in fancy dinners, luxury vacations and designer wardrobes, the Rodrigueses live like young couples did before the era of easy credit. They rent the house where John grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area for a mere $650 a month; rarely travel; split an entrée on the rare occasions they eat out; and spend almost nothing on clothes (John wears free Microsoft T-shirts, while Gina gets hand-me-downs from her sister).

They are driven by a fierce determination to control their own fate. John yearns to quit his job to indulge his passion for the outdoors, and Gina plans to cut back her hours at the boutique they own to work with animals and, possibly, raise a family.

Can the couple do it? The outcome depends on the answers to three key questions: Will they be able to keep up their spartan lifestyle? (Anxious for a home of their own, they are now shopping for a house in one of the priciest areas of the country.) Will they invest wisely? (Among their goofs so far: They snatched up three properties near the height of the real estate bubble.) And even if they do, is 13 years really enough time to amass the huge sums required to retire at 40 - enough money to last them for the ensuing 50 to 60 years?

A Great Start

John learned the importance of saving early. When his father quit his job as a retail store manager to follow his dream of becoming a high school special-ed teacher, the family's income took a big hit. They squeaked by thanks to their rainy-day funds, but there wasn't much left for extras. When John, then 12, wanted the latest video-game system, his parents told him to earn it. So he raked leaves and mowed lawns for nine months until he'd scraped together the $150 he needed.

Later, when John saw his high school classmates tooling around in expensive cars, he worked long hours at a computer store so he could buy a used Honda Prelude. "I don't need my mom or dad to buy me a $60,000 Mercedes," he recalls thinking. "I can do it on my own."

John and Gina met at that computer store, where she was a cashier. They began dating and spent money like typical teenagers, going out to dinner and the movies, shopping at the mall. But starting in his sophomore year as an information systems major at the University of California at Santa Cruz, John had to pay his own tuition (his grandfather had paid for the first year). He saw a stark choice: take out loans like his friends or get a job and live frugally. He chose the latter, working 30 hours a week while packing his schedule with extra classes. "People said it was too hard; I wanted to prove them wrong," says John, who graduated with highest honors in just three years, free of debt.

Gina was slower to embrace John's money-saving ethic. Midway through college, as their relationship got serious, she revealed that she had $5,000 in credit-card debt. "I loved shopping," she remembers. "If I had a tough day, I'd go to the mall to make myself feel better." John was not pleased, but Gina devised a plan to dig out. Shortly after graduating, she got her real estate license and paid off the debt with the $9,000 commission she made selling her first home.

About a year after they began their careers - John at Microsoft, Gina at Wells Fargo - John proposed. But first he drove to Oregon (12 hours each way) to buy Gina's engagement ring, thereby avoiding $1,500 in California sales tax. They married in 2004 and moved into a two-bedroom condo in Dublin, Calif. that they bought for $377,000, putting down 5% of the price and financing the rest.

Within a year the condo had appreciated to $535,000. Tempted by their success, John and Gina decided to buy an investment property, settling on a $141,000 three-bedroom house in Phoenix, where friends had invested. They put down 10% and hired a property manager. Within 18 months the home's value had shot up to $240,000. They refinanced, taking out a $190,000 mortgage to free up cash for more properties. In late 2005 they bought two $150,000 homes near San Antonio with a 20% down payment.

Not that the Rodrigueses were relying on real estate alone to build their fortune. They were also saving furiously, putting 15% to 20% of their income in a mix of stock and cash investments. By the time they turned 24, when many of their peers were struggling with student loans and crushing credit-card bills, Gina and John already had nearly $70,000 set aside for retirement, plus their real estate equity.

Buckling Down

Then came a stumble, followed by an epiphany. John decided he could use tips from a financial adviser. After picking one he deemed astute and trustworthy, he bought a pair of variable life insurance policies at the planner's suggestion, only afterward looking at the fine print to find that the policies were loaded with fees and cancellation penalties. John stormed into the adviser's office demanding an explanation, then realized it was his own fault for not being more careful. "I was so angry that I didn't catch it," he says.

It wasn't just the $5,000 it cost to cancel the policies that had John steaming. His very identity - the financial whiz kid with a chip on his shoulder who could shut up those who doubted him in high school and college - was shaken. So he gave himself a crash course in finance, spending weekends with Gina poring over investment magazines and books. One day, he says, they hit upon a stunning realization about the power of compounding: "If we just push as hard as we can for another 10 years or so, there could be an explosion of financial growth at the end for us."

The Rodrigueses vowed to yank their belts even tighter. Like Tiger Woods restructuring his swing after winning the Masters a decade ago, they took their already phenomenal savings game to a new level. They sold their condo in late 2006, netting $110,000, and moved to John's childhood home, which they rented from his parents (his mom and dad had moved to a house nearby). They cut back on eating out to once a month, going to cheap chain restaurants and sharing a meal. They vowed to drive their cars until they died. Their clothes budget dropped to $300 a year.

Their new minimalist approach caused a few problems socially. Gina recalls awkward moments going out to eat with her family or friends when she would order only an appetizer and tap water and didn't think it was fair to split the check equally. John had to "respectfully decline" when buddies invited him to fly to Las Vegas for the weekend. "We're kind of boring," says Gina.

Their restricted lifestyle sometimes chafes, both admit. Living in John's boyhood home, furnished with his parents' stuff, is tough. "It's hard to see other couples living in their own houses the way they want," says Gina. And yes, she sometimes resents John's constant admonitions to save, save, save: "I'd say, 'We could die in a car crash tomorrow, so let's enjoy ourselves now!' " John, though, revels in his thriftiness: "I'm okay with people calling me cheap."

Over time they've learned to compromise. They eat out two or three times a month now and recently splurged on tickets to the show Jersey Boys (it was their anniversary). Gina convinced John to buy something he'd been craving for years - a $30,000 Subaru WRX STI to indulge his hobby of rallycross racing. And John has promised Gina they'll buy a home of their own as soon as they find a suitable one (they're looking in the $350,000-to-$450,000 range).

The Rodrigueses still manage to save more than half of their income, which is spread among different investments. John aggressively buys discounted Microsoft shares through an employee stock-purchase plan and contributes nearly the max to his 401(k). Additional savings go into a diversified mix of stock funds and cash accounts.

Bumps in the Road

But they have a long way to go before they're millionaires. And the Rodrigueses have run into a few snags that underscore how hard the path to wealth can be even for the most dedicated savers.

For one thing, owning real estate so far away has turned into a headache. Make that a migraine: One house stood empty for nine months because of a dispute with a former tenant, and their Phoenix property has dropped so sharply in value that they now owe nearly as much as the house is worth. Carrying costs for the properties exceed the rental income they generate by $9,000 a year. Given the downturn in real estate prices, if they sold all three homes today, they'd barely break even.

The Rodrigueses have also seen how a blip in their careers can undermine their saving efforts, even temporarily. Last year Gina quit the mortgage underwriting business - the hours were too long, she says, and the work wasn't creative enough. During the year she was out of work, the amount the couple were saving dropped by 20%. Then, earlier this year, Gina found a boutique called La Lavande, which sells imported soaps and handbags, for sale in nearby Walnut Creek. The Rodrigueses took out a $75,000 loan to buy the store - and Gina had found her calling.

Eventually, though, the Rodrigueses both hope to stop working altogether. Their plan is to move away from the Bay Area to a less expensive locale like Arizona by age 40. They want to buy a ranch where outdoorsman John can go hiking and camping while Gina starts a small farm, raising sheep and chickens and maybe a family. "I'd like a really simple life where John and I can just spend more time together," says Gina.

The Advice

Money asked California financial planners Eric Toya of Redondo Beach and Mike Chamberlain of Santa Cruz to assess the Rodrigueses' chances of retiring by 40 and recommend steps to help them reach that goal. Their suggestions:

Rethink that exit date. If John and Gina maintain their current rate of saving, they'll build an impressive nest egg over the next 13 years. Assuming they get raises of 4% annually and their portfolio averages gains of 6% a year, Toya estimates they'll have $2.9 million at age 40. Combined with the income they might earn from any ventures they pursue in retirement (John's thinking about buying more investment properties or starting a small business), that might be enough to last them the following 50 to 60 years.

Toya, however, stresses that making projections for such a long period is inherently risky because the unknowns are so great: What path will their careers take? Will either one develop a health problem? Might the financial markets go through a protracted downturn? To compensate for those risks, Toya says, "the younger you retire, the more conservative your withdrawal rate should be." But even if the Rodrigueses draw down their portfolio at a 3% rate vs. the 4% typically recommended for retirees, they'll run out of money before age 80.

What to do? Delaying retirement by just five years will greatly increase the chances that their money will last their lifetime, Toya says. When they're 45, their portfolio will be worth $4.75 million, according to his calculations. They could tap their savings at an even lower 2.5% annual rate - giving them an extra cushion for bad market years and big expenses like raising kids and paying for college - and they'll still likely have enough to live comfortably to age 100.

Dump the company stock. The Rodrigueses have 37% of their portfolio in Microsoft. That's far too much in a single stock, especially since they're also dependent on the company for most of their income. Chamberlain advises selling the shares in increments every two weeks or so to get the stock down to 5% of their portfolio.

John strongly disagrees. "Frankly, I think it's dumb to sell low," he says. "I think it's a safe investment to hold until the market comes up." Replies Chamberlain: "I don't care what the stock is: To diminish risk, you need more diversification in your portfolio."

Add a few bonds. Gina and John scored off the charts for risk tolerance in a questionnaire Chamberlain gave them. But even for fearless investors, having 99% of a 401(k) in stocks and just 1% in fixed-income assets is too aggressive, warns Chamberlain, who suggests a 90/10 split. Best bet: intermediate-term bonds, which historically have returned about 5% a year.

Consider a real estate sale. The Rodrigueses are losing about $750 a month on their three investment properties. If they sell one or two of the homes now, they can stop the bleeding and probably break even on their purchase. If they're forced to sell later on and the market is still in a free fall, they stand to lose a lot more money.

But John is adamantly against a sale, an odd position for a man who splits entrées at a restaurant to save a few bucks. Chamberlain believes John has developed an emotional attachment to the properties - or he may simply be unwilling to admit that they made a mistake. John counters: "I think those properties are going to come back eventually. Even if they don't, our retirement plan is not based on any return from those properties anyway."

After meeting with Chamberlain, John and Gina are relieved to know they're on the right track. They do understand that life is uncertain - that John could lose his job and that investment returns could keep shrinking. If that happens, they say, they're prepared to work past 40 and retire later.

But John remains optimistic about their chances of reaching their goal. "I get tired of the naysayers around me," he says. "Sure, it gets lonely sometimes, but look, I have a beautiful wife, I'm happy, I've got good friends...." He pauses, as though hearing a cash register ringing. "Well, I don't need a hundred friends. That usually means a hundred gifts a year.

Similar posts: health care proxy

We hope this web site feature is a valuable tool as you learn more about the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association, our science news, programs and cause initiatives. Here you will find contact information, news releases, multimedia, and a number of other resources.

We appreciate your interest in our organization and we look forward to being an excellent resource for you.

If you are a member of the news media and have questions or need more information, please reference the News Media Key Contacts area of our newsroom to find someone who can help you. If you are not a member of the news media please call our National Service Center at 1-800-AHA-USA1.

Similar posts: health care proxy

Not all health insurance plans are created equal, nor are they created to last forever. If you are dissatisfied with your current coverage, or if you want to add dependents to your health plan, you have the option to make changes to your health insurance during the open enrollment for health insurance. The open enrollment for health insurance is a period when eligible employees can change their current health plan. You can add or remove dependents, increase or decrease coverage, switch to other health insurance providers after reviewing other health insurance options, or opt out of coverage entirely. Of course, you have the option to stay with your current provider, in which case, you don't have to do anything. During open enrollment for health insurance, you are not usually required to provide evidence of insurability, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions, when you switch to a different health insurance provider. You and your dependents' cannot be denied enrollment for pre-existing conditions during this period.

Similar posts: health care proxy

Philip Markoff, the 22-year-old accused Craigslist killer of model Julissa Brisman, may seem like the least likely of killers.  But when all the facts are known, Markoff’s story (if he is convicted) will start to make sense.  Granted, he’s a reasonably affable medical student without a criminal record ― but Scott Peterson was a friendly fellow and seemingly good neighbor before murdering his wife Laci and their unborn son, Conner.  Dr. Richard Sharpe,  the Harvard dermatologist (and cross-dresser, it turns out) was a respected physician prior to shooting his wife to death in front of their children.  Dr. Jonathan Kappler, a California anesthesiologist who murdered my friend and colleague Paul Mendelson back in 1990, had worked for decades as an anesthesiologist prior to accelerating to 60 mph in his car and intentionally mowing Paul down as he jogged. 
 
Psychiatric instability is often invisible until we look for it, in retrospect, after a terrible event triggers the inquiry.  But the evidence of that instability and the causes of it are never absent once we start digging. 
 
In the case of Philip Markoff, we could start excavating the roots of his violence by looking at his gambling habit.  If it is true that he owed gambling debts that motivated him to rob women-for-hire in hotel rooms, then he may have been someone deeply moved by the wheels of fate — by risk or ruin being determined by the alchemy of skill and the luck of the draw at a poker table.  In my experience treating gamblers, their connection to fate often comes from having little or no control over their lives as much younger people.  Sometimes, that adds up to having had parents who could have cared less about their feelings or desires. Sometimes, it adds up to not knowing when the next beating was going to come. And sometimes, it adds up to too many sudden losses. 
 
But it always adds up. When someone shoots a woman, then calmly walks to his car sending off text messages, he is unmoved by the cruelest roulette life can serve up.  Somewhere deep inside him, he is used to destruction because he has been destroyed.  He is without feelings because he has tried desperately to wall off his own — whether fear or grief or rage.
 
If I were with Markoff right now, I’d want to know why gambling spoke to him.  Why was Foxwoods the kind of place he felt at home?  Why was it the place he reportedly planned to marry his fiancé? 
 
Markoff also allegedly preyed upon women.  He didn’t pistol whip drug dealers and make off with their cash.  Maybe, if he’s guilty, he’s had it in for women.  Maybe he harbors deep feelings that his life was “stolen” from him with the dissolution of his parents’ marriage and its aftermath.  Maybe he thinks they’re all prostitutes when it really comes down to it.  Maybe he thinks they’re dangerous enough to him emotionally ― or even physically ― that they need to be tied up.  We don’t know — yet.  We never know, until we ask the relevant psychological questions.
 
I’ve been a forensic psychiatrist now for many years.  And I’ve learned one thing for sure:  No killer comes out of the blue.  No child is born into this world evil.  Every act of destructiveness can be explained.  And no one, not even a medical student whose fiancé loves him very much, is ultimately much of a mystery once you decide to burrow beneath the surface.
Dr. Keith Ablow is a psychiatry correspondent for FOX News Channel and a New York Times bestselling author. His newest book, “Living the Truth: Transform Your Life through the Power of Insight and Honesty” has launched a new self-help movement. Check out Dr. Ablow’s website at livingthetruth.com or e-mail him at info@keithablow.com.

Similar posts: health care proxy

McCain comes riding and farting into Washington on his blind donkey, pressuring congress to rush things that are already being rushed too much so the debate will proceed. He politicizes negotiations, because if the house doesnt show that things were NOT settled, then McCain looks even more like an impulsive fool who wasted a lot of time and amp; bluster rushing to DC.

Similar posts: health care proxy

http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/while-you-were-at-cpac
In case you've been living in a cave or something, the left has lately gotten good at campaigns to delegitimize and destroy up-and-coming Republicans long before they have a chance at running for President.
For Sarah Palin, the nutroots-ginned-up stories ranged from the fabulist notion that she wasn't the mother of her own child or blowing up stories like questioning her role in the Bridge to Nowhere -- stories that to date generated little controversy even among her local enemies -- into national firestorms.
More often than not, the process goes something like this: a Daily Kos diarist posts something, which is then on Olbermann the next night. Pseudo-journalistic outfits like TPM start making phone calls, which gives the guys at Politico just enough cover to start get in on the action, making it an MSM story, embroling the targeted Republican and forcing them to respond. In Palin's case, sick Daily Kos rumors were given enough credence to precipitate the disclosure of her daughter's pregnancy, which itself became a pretty big national story.
The left's latest search-and-destroy mission is against Bobby Jindal, centering on the segment in Jindal's speech where he talked about commisserating with the late Sheriff Harry Lee about bureaucratic bungling in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
It started with a Daily Kos diary shortly after Jindal wrapped up his speech on Tuesday night, the 24th.
This prompted Keith Olbermann to declare Jindal's story of talking to Sheriff Harry Lee "apparently not true" on the Wednesday night's broadcast.
By Thursday, a Zachary Roth piece in TPM Muckraker poured gasoline on the fire, keying off the original Daily Kos diary and adding in some Nexis searches. Roth calls the Governor's office to ask for comment.
On Thursday night, Erick Erickson is the first to push back in Jindal's defense, noting accounts from Sheriff Lee's deputies. There is also a YouTube video of Lee, at the time in question, recounting visits from Jindal.
By Friday morning, the story is all consumming. Politico's Ben Smith, going on Roth's TPM piece, is on the phone for multiple rounds with Jindal's office. That day, Roth files two more dispatches, again based on first-hand reporting.
This is not to tar every conservative journalist with the same brush since I know many who do great work -- but in the aggregate, we don't seem to measure up in a few areas. First, many of the people we call journalists are actually commentators whose primary goal is to appear on Fox. Second, many of those who do publish original stories do so in a lean-back manner, waiting for sources to call them and tell them interesting things. Leftist journalists like Roth lean forward, taking a tidbit of blogger gossip and actively harrass Republican press staffers with it.
I could easily couch this post as a warning, except it's more of a description of the fallout of a 50-megaton warhead that's been dropped on conservative Washington except most people don't seem to know it yet.
On one side, we have the left picking off rising Republican stars one at a time. And on the other, we had an utter failure to do the same to the most conspicuous rising star on the left, Barack Obama. The MSM was not going to do it for us -- we had to do it ourselves and we didn't. For starters, we still know very little about Obama's law practice before and during his tenure as a State Senator. Had Obama been a Republican, Rev. Wright's radicalism, a fact known to tens of thousands of people but which somehow escaped the notice of the national press, would have been an issue shortly after his 2004 convention speech -- just as the left has been furiously picking apart Jindal's response speech.
The right needs a serious investigative capacity to channel raw information in politically important directions.
Op-eds and Fox hits don't add value. Raw information about Democratic hypocrisy does.

Similar posts: health care proxy