We do not tolerate errors from our banks in cashing checks, for instance, why should we tolerate errors from our insurance companies that can cost us just as much, if not more? Oh...because insurance companies have some of the largest, most powerful lobbies and it's election season...

But our priorities aren't on healthcare. Perhaps that'll change with the next election.

The US system has started with high prices and also nickle and dimes you. Doesn't quite do the same thing.

I'm also with the people who say that the ticket price should just include everything, including taxes. So should cell phone plans for that matter...(and everything else). How awesome would it be to walk around any store and know exactly how much something is going to cost you? I guess you could in a state without sales tax...(I live in NY, so no such luck).

Many people think that you won't make nearly as much money on bonds which in many markets is true. However, they are typically a much stabler investment and for those investors who have trouble dealing with risk, adjusting your bond exposure upwards may help you feel more at ease.

It's all about diversity, and this stucture recommended by the article is excellent advice. One can argue about what % should be where as everyone has different levels of risk, ideas of what markets are going up/down. However, the idea of splitting your portfolio into various different pots is the way to go.

Furthermore, it is against FAA regulations to be in any seat without a seatbelt when the fasten seatbelt sign is on, so that would also mean JetBlue violated FAA policy.

Also, if a flight attendant came up to you on a plane and told you to go sit in the bathroom for 2 hours, how many of you would go? Do you think your fellow passengers wouldn't say anything? I find this all very hard to believe.

For more info: [forums.mint.com]

According to who? You cannot break the law and fail to sell Plan B to someone if they are above 18 years of age, regardless of whether you agree with its purpose or not. That is federal law.

As for the mammograms,actual recommendations are for women aged 40-49 to have one every 1-2 years, and yearly after 50. If you have any risk factors, you may want to push that up, and if you have cases of breast CA in your family, you'd want to get your first mammogram 10 years prior to the age at which your relative got breast cancer themselves.

It sounds to me like you need a new gynecologist who actually follows ACOG recommendations.

We called the manager the next day and he was very, very helpful and offered to have the employee call us with an apology (not what we were looking for). However, he said they would retrain all the employees on the actual location of the products. Call the managers of the stores in question!!

Seemed pretty effective. I'd highly recommend it.

Also, you have to consider that over the past few years fuel has become ridiculously expensive for airlines and any added weight adds to the cost of that particular flight. They're just trying to skim of some fuel that they likely won't need to try to get costs down. It sounds like they're cutting the margin for error down a bit for sure, but they're not exactly cheating other airlines if you ask me.

As for the inflation comment earlier:

I plugged in a 25000 dollar investment (in 1962) into a historical inflation calculator and if found that money would be $171,508 in 2007 terms. However, the same 25000 invested at 8.2% annualized would be $988,635.26. That's quite a bit of a lead over inflation if you ask me.

The bottom line is that no investment is fool-proof or a sure-thing. Over time, however, our economy has grown and will likely continue to grow. If you somehow broadly invest (index mutual funds are a wise-bet) in that growth, you will get a piece of the pie.

Why do people insist that your investments have "beat the market" consistently to get rich? Since 1962, stocks have grown an average of 8.6% (I think it is) annualized. If you just let that money grow and don't draw off of it at the end, you have quite a bit of cash at the end of your investment. It's also very easy to invest in a broad stock market index fund these days with very low fees (Vanguard has some great funds, for instance).

However, I highly doubt that US Airways is going to announce a $25 price-cut on tickets to coincide with the extra $25 for the second bag (thereby offering a discount to those who aren't bringing a second bag on board).

This is just another way that airlines are fleecing their customers instead of cutting costs.

However, for the majority of the traveling public, on jetblue, you simply cancel your ticket and pay $40. Now I have a credit for whatever my ticket was worth. When I know when I want to fly, I simply buy my ticket (it can be at any time up to one year) using that credit. Using this logic, I don't pay multiple $40 change fees.

As for your second point about the change in fare: Assume that I need to cancel my flight, and instead, I want to fly in a month. On Jetblue, chances are you are probably paying the same (and you certainly aren't paying 100's more...the one-way fare on many flights is capped, I believe at $299 depending on the length of the flight). One month ahead of time, however, you are likely not paying $299 (that's more walk-up fare). So I've payed the $40 change fee from earlier, and now, let's assume, a $50 change of fare.

Now the refundable ticket wants to do the same exact thing. He doesn't pay the $40 change fee, but we assume he paid let's say $150 for a refundable ticket. He gets his full ticket price back, but when he goes to buy the ticket for the following month, he TOO pays the new price that the non-refundable ticket paid...the flight has gone up in price $50. Just because he got his money back doesn't make him immune to that change. So now total he's paid $200 (150 extra and $50 for the increased fare). The non-refund. ticket person paid $40 (change fee) and $50 (increased fare).

The non-refundable ticket in essence saved $110 in this example (and that's assuming the refundable ticket is only 150 extra...). To make up that difference, the non-refund. would have to make 3 more flight changes at $40 a piece to justify the refundable ticket.

A) Association does not imply causality, which is a mantra of statisticians, esp. in medicine. (There is a link, for instance, between high homocystine levels in the blood and increased cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke. However, reducing homocysteine levels with folic acid has not been shown to reduce these events!)

B) And again, I haven't read the study...but, this type of study is really a terrible way to analyze a question. They group together a whole bunch of people who now have CKD and asked them how much soda they have had in the past. This type of study can be very, very biased based on "recall" and what patients are able to (or want to) tell you.

C) Again, study design: Patients who drink 2 or more sodas a day, may also be more likely to develop obesity. With the increased sugar and obesity, they may also be at an increased risk for Diabetes, which is a MUCH larger risk factor for developing CKD than soda would be. In such a small study of 800 total patients, it would be very difficult to control for things such as Diabetes, obesity, etc, though they may have tried...Just something to look at.

Personally, and I've said this before: as a medical professional, I don't really appreciate Consumerist's sensationalistic attitude towards medical stories when the editors often don't understand the true issues being discussed. Either get a medical professional to help with the stories, or stop publishing such articles.

The ability to do in-store exchanges just trumps anything Netflix could offer me, even if their shipping were faster which I don't think it is (in NYC).

I can understand preferring Netflix if you don't live close to a blockbuster store, but if you do, how can it possibly go wrong???

In other words, if you are up to date with all your bloodwork and various tests that your doctor recommends, then you may not need to see them for the Preventive health visit "just because".

In addition, there are plenty of reasons to see your doctor for preventive health services that are well defined by the United States Preventive Services Task Force. Cholesterol screening every 2-3 years, Diabetes screening, Colonoscopy every 10 years at 50, Mammography for Breast Cancer, etc...

How this effects, consumers, again is a bit beyond me. I really think this website should steer clear of medical issues that the editors don't always fully understand and try to paraphrase just to make a catchy headline. It's a bit irresponsible.