If you figure that you're going to need that CDIC back-up, better put your money into a small bank, for several banks have failed and I think that quite a few feel that if a fair-sized bank goes broke, the CDIC till will be bare. Being a gov't. agency, there'd likely be back-up, but that would cause substantial delay, quite likely ... and incur more debt for the U.S. gov't., which has taken on far too much, now. As most of that debt is held abroad, they'll have to start paying higher rates in order to entice lenders to buy their debt instruments ... and have been printing money, with the likelihood that they'll be printing a whole lot more, soon. These mortgage-initiating rascals in recent years sure make a bank robber carrying his loot in a pillowcase look like pretty small potatoes. I remember as a kid, when I learned to ride a bicycle down our country road, wishing that the gravel on the road would become gold ... but it didn't take me long to realize that if it were gold for me, it would be for everyone else, as well ... and that soon it would take more than a pocketful of gold to buy a loaf of bread. How long has it been since the U.S. Dollar was backed by gold? Or silver? Our Dollar - same game. And - when your economy gets a cold ... ours gets pneumonia. What's the expected time-frame when you'll need to use those assets? Almost 10 years ago, when I was 70, I called a financial planner on a phone-in radio show to say that I felt that I should plan to fund my life to age 100, which was six blocks of five years each. Fortunately, I was able to live on somewhat less than my three pensions, and expected to be able to do so for some time - now, 10 years later, same story. But it seemed to me that were I to need some of the assets to live on, I should not eat up all of the first block in the first five years, for it would no longer be there to earn some income for my future needs. In fact, I thought that I should try to avoid using any more than that first block of the six in the first 10 years ... especially considerig that inflation would cause me to need more dollars to live the same lifestyle, a few years down the road. You know - that "inflation" that has shrunk the value of each one of our dollars-in-hand in every year since the late 1930s. And money in the bank is like money-in-hand: each dollar of the principal doesn't grow (but it sure does shrink). Which means that I would not plan to use up 83% of my asset during that first 10 year period, and that a number of financial advisors feel that purchasing stocks for more than a 10-year time horizon makes sense. He said that my plan made a lot of sense, in his view. Short-term, if we fear losing capital, we need to invest in guaranteed dollars ... but long-term, those guaranteed dollar investments, after paying tax, and adding some to principal in order to maintain purchasing power, leave little for the investor. If anything. Now, at 80, I carry about 80% of my assets in equity-based investments. That would make many people have a hairy ... but I feel comfortable with it. Yes, I have some losses, but I have some gains, as well ... and the tax structure here encourages holding equities. A single taxpayer with no income but dividends on Canadian stocks can earn over $46,000. before being required to pay ONE CENT of income tax (and having a low-income spouse with transferrable credits, or gifts to charity or a political campaign, or eligible medical/dental bills over 4.5% [in that case - 3% ordinarily] of net income will push that $46,000.+ tax-free income level even higher). Some time ago, I wrote a thread either here or on "Money Saving Tips", I think, asking which ordinary person gained from inflation, and who loses. When you put your money in the bank, say $10,000., 15 years ago, they guaranteed to pay you back every dollar, in addition to the rent on the money. There's another guarantee, that they never mention - they won't pay you one dollar more, either. And the value of each of those dollars has shrunk, in every one of those 15 years ... as it has every year since the 1930s. That $10,000. would have bought a nice car, 15 years ago ... not now. I figured a while ago, when I could borrow at 6.25%, that most of the time I could come close to breaking even on such a loan, using it to purchase quality stocks. So ... now, when I can borrow for 4.75%, breaking even should be an even greater probability, no? If I'd borrowed your $10,000. from the bank, 15 years ago and paid only the interest in the years since (which I would never recommend, on a consumer loan) .................................................................................................................................................... ................................... when I go into the bank to pay off the loan, now, how much will I need to pay? Yes - $10,000. Which they will give to you, to pay off your CD, if you ask. I gained from inflation, because I paid off the loan in depreciated dollars - you lost, since each of those dollars would buy less than when you loaned it out to the bank, 15 years ago. The only value that your money would ever produce, relative to each of those years, was made right then ... and it was taxed - then ... and, in Canada, it's taxed at top marginal rate. When I used those borrowed dollars to buy quality (retirement type) stocks, and since I came close to breaking even each year on the loan that I made, on average, over the last fifteen years, my investment in stocks grew quite a lot, so now, when I sell them, after paying off the loan, I have quite a lot of money left in my pocket. Which asset was built with your money, not mine. Granted - if the stocks went down in value - I had to find the money somewhere else to pay back to the bank. But, as you know ... they didn't. And, over a time horizon of 10 years or so, they haven't. And a bonus for me - as the value of those quality stocks went up ... so did the annual rate of dividends that they paid. When I bought shares in a Canadian bank 41 years ago for $4.20 or so (also referred to below), they produced annual dividends of about a dime or 12 cents per year: now they pay $3.48. As the number of dollars in a CD doesn't change over the years ... the amount of interest that they produce doesn't change much, either. But - my investment in shares of a Canadian bank have gone from $106. in May, 2007 to just over $62.00 now ... why? They put substantial amounts into those sub-prime U.S. mortgages ... and that "asset-backed commercial paper" ("acid-backed commercial paper"??) that some of the U.S. financial scoundrels were peddling. That now the U.S. government, which can't afford to, is going to partially bail them out of. As some say - socialism for the rich ... private enterprise for the low-level guys who get stuck with the bill ......................... when the rich guys pull a big-time goof (but the rich guys get to keep their previously ill-gotten loot). Remember the savings and loan fiasco of, what, 20 years or so ago? Have you given thought to how much it has cost for the Mccain-Obama campaign over the past couple of years? Where do you figure that money came from? Apart from the costs associated with running for Congress or the Senate, etc. Good wishes for increasing skill in managing your income ... and your assets. ole joyful

At that price, I'd probably do geo. The big advantage is that you system will last longer. It is not that easy to compare HE with geo which is why you don't find an online comparison. My personal guess is that you are within 10% of each other in the summer and 20% less with geo in the winter. So if your house is tight, this might just be $200 a year so the payback for geo is 30 years. But - and this is a big but - the geo unit will last twice as long so as soon as you have to replace a unit (15? years), then geo comes out ahead. People may disagree but I live in NC - a bit warmer than you - have 16 seer HPs (with NG backup) and spend roughly $700 a year to heat 5000 sqft. If I had propane, it would be $850. So that is where 20% really isn't a lot of money ($170 to be exact). I spend about $700 to a/c so another $70 for summer. You see why the payback is so long..... Now the desuperheater may tip the balance. I have no idea what that saves but it could be $300 a year. That would shorten payback significantly (obviously). Or you could go solar for $3k (at least with my tax credits) and save yourself $400 a year.....

No Sylvia, I am not the OP .... I'm just one of many who offered my own opinion and heartfelt experience - FWIW. I trust OP and other readers will be grappling with the input and various perspectives here.... as well as their own emotions and past experiences around death.... and in the end it'll be what it is, some combination of grief, relief, regret,and love.... My own experience/knowledge is that "good" deaths are indeed possible - one of my dear kitties died of feline leukemia and got progressively weaker/more frail but purred / recognized and wanted me present til the very end....her last few minutes she became a bit agitated and then she passed... it was simply like a wave going through her and her spirit left.... More recently though.... my old calico faced a death that would have been highly traumatic for both her and me and according to my vet could have quite likely involved many minutes, evem hours of her struggling to breathe.... so that led to a different outcome and a rather agonizing decision to euthanize.... Those two experiences informed my view that I dont think one size fits all and that a good talk with a vet who knows you and your animal well is the best tool for making a decision. Honestly, Syvlia - if I was to choose between one of those two ways of death for myself I would choose the first one - to pass naturally and peacefully - I would so HATE to put anyone through the agony of having to decide what to do .... But alas.... peaceful deaths are not always possible... maybe even a rarity, I dunno..... I do recognize that! I apologize if my words came across as insulting - that was not my intention.

Hopefully I'll talk him into doing it right before the inspector even comes. He just wants to know why it is a problem which I didn't know how to explain besides the receptacle is designed for 120/240 and not 3 phase, plus it exceeds the amperage rating. He then said, "I bet these pins could carry 200 amps if they had to" Kind of has that bad attitude of "Well it's not code but it is still safe right?" He thought bootleging a ground on a receptacle was a safe solution which I explained the dangers and now he realizes the dangers of his actions and says he won't do it again. Maybe this is why our 2 states got rid of the experior exam and brought back the apprenticeship. Some people don't get that the code is there as a bare minimum for safety and not just a suggestion of what works best. I really think he has no intentions to do things dangerously, wants to be a great company. However skipping codes is infact dangerous. But think the electrical education is not completely there and it is silly that I the 19 year old college student am the one telling them what to do often. They should be the ones kicking my butt telling me what to do :) They call me "book wiz" cause of all the code citations I enforce on the job lol. This is also the 1st commercial job he has had besides service calls. We got 4 men putting in a 800 amp service, outdoor light poles, and an entire fast food restaurant's worth of wiring. I've been working 8 am to 9 pm very often :)