The Housing Bubble

Where is Hillary? And Bill? They have dropped off the face of the Earth. I guess their adriot political games skills are superfluous today, given Obama’s more diabolical, philosophically-driven dictatorial ambitions.

I heard recently that Obama has hired lawyers to see what can be done to rid himself of the 22nd Amendment (term limits). Don’t know if that’s true.

“we ’still’ have a functioning banking system ( i.e; no full on bank runs, yet )”

Is it really “functioning” when all that is happening is money is coming out of our pockets (Bailouts, taxes, and eventual runaway inflation) and being given to bankers? I guess you’re right in that the banks are still there and we can still access our money, but the longer term question is: when we need that money, is it going to be there? And will it still be worth anything?

And will it still be worth anything?

That’s the bigger question, I think. There’s a method for guaranteeing the money is there. But there’s no way of guaranteeing those pieces of paper have any real value.

oxide,

I don’t think most Americans have the good fortune to hang tough for another 3 1/2 years? They’ll need to see measurable improvements well before that.

And one can vote ‘for’ someone else without voting ‘against’ another candidate or incumbent? Sound suspiciously like “Either you’re with us or you’re against us!” no?

Mid-term elections are a little over a year away. That’s why he has to get the heath plan passed now.

I will neither vote for him or the Republican nomination. Two heads of the same snake.

I will dang well speak out against what I consider bad policy on both sides of the aisle though. Right now we have BAD POLICY. It will be interesting to see what Goldman Sachs tells Obama and Congress to do next.

Drink the Koolaide! Swallow hard! Our nation will be BROKE if this crap continues! I sure as hell am not going to buy a $700k house now with these nuts in charge of our government! BTW.. I’m not a huge Bush fan either! Thank Greenspan’s wonderful policies for a lot of this! I hope we survive until 2010! I might as well wait as BHO may end up giving me a house anyways as a part of the commune. Heck, he’s looking to “rent” houses back to people. He’s the great “god” of all!

“…I’m not a huge Bush fan either! Thank Greenspan’s wonderful policies for a lot of this!”

Cheney-Shrub Legacy “Shadow” Effect™:

“We want him to succeed as president, we really do.”

Cheney kept us safe and their policies are still keeping us safe until BHO does away with it! I want BHO’s policies (I refuse to call him President) to FAIL! It will and is ruining our country!

You are a blithering idiot

Same to you! I’m sure I have more education than you in the international relations field! I was working my PhD in this arena. Stop being a partisan hack who loves our “dear leader”. WAKE UP!

Cheney kept us safe and their policies are still keeping us safe

What Flavor of koolaid you drinkin?

East Bay Renter…..

You should really keep those comments private. The Obama administration inherited this complete mess. Dick Cheney single handedly turned this nation into something out of George Orwell’s 1984. It was his loud cheerleading that got this country into the Iraq war which had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Please, if you’re going to point blame please be open minded and keep the ignorance in check.

…. Oh, by the way what is Dick Cheney’s middle name? Or is it only relevant if that middle name is Middle Eastern in origin???

Dick Cheney single handedly turned this nation into something out of George Orwell’s 1984.

That’s a bold statement. I’m not on either side of this partisan mess, but there’s no single-handedly about it. Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act. Congress appropriated money for DHS. Congress gave the Commander in Chief the power to go to war.

The executive branch did all kinds of bad things, don’t get me wrong. But everyone in gov’t is the villian here, not just Cheney.

Oh yeah, and don’t forget the voting public who elected (and re-elect) these folks.

Pondering The Mess,

Yes, and call me if the patient’s condition changes.

I was just feeding the shredder in my office and it’s become obvious to ‘me’ that my wife hides a LOT of medical expenses from me.

I just shredded bill after bill from everyone from our local dentist to the podiatrist and multiple other “specialists”. If this is what it looks like for ‘us’ I’d hate to see what it looks like for people that -aren’t- “healthy” and have NO insurance!

Seriously, what a joke. All the HC Providers swear on a stack of bibles “Your out of pocket expense will be ___” and then stick it to you w/ billings ex-post-facto. I’m just sick of it.

I agree that govt (both Bush and Obama ) support in it’s various forms have avoided a depression thus far. However, I attribute this more to that support’s psychological effects .. to maintaining confidence in the system.. than to anything of substance.

Nobody.. not the public, not wall street, not government, and not all three together has the power to negate our mistakes. We, as a country, will pay our dues in the end. It’ll hurt some but it won’t kill us.

As for a return to the good old days when Americans slaved away in sweat shops and on assembly lines and produced things themselves, rather than delegating that task to hungry, poor nations, I don’t see this as either a viable or a worthy goal. This time machine has only one gear: Forward.

There’s no point in flailing around trying to find solutions. The economy will heal on it’s own. It’s just a matter of time. It doesn’t matter who runs the govt, the decisions they make or what actions they take.
imo, Govt’s ability to help or hinder a recovery are greatly exaggerated. We tend to attribute govt with far more power and ability than it deserves.

It’s a mistake to think that we can have an economy in which we import the goods we need without exporting an equivalent level of goods or services. That is the fundamental problem with our economy. We cannot trade debt for goods. It is unsustainable and it has finally caught up with us.

The trade deficit is fundamentally responsible for the debt bubble. They go hand in hand. Their would not have been a debt bubble without the Chinese, Japanese & Germans needing a place to park their excess dollars.

So whether we like it or not, some portion of the American public is going to have to be responsible for producing tangible items of value. Thinking we don’t have to is exactly the problem in this country.

There’s something you’re forgetting: We’re only exporting the task of manufacturing the goods.

You buy a Black and Decker drill or toaster oven, and it says “Made in China”.
Is B+D a Chinese or Chinese owned company? No. It’s a a corporation based in Maryland, USA.

Many of our manufacturers have essentially moved their manufacturing facilities off shore.. otherwise it’s business as usual. You buy the B+D product at WalMart, made in china, but your money flows to Maryland. Profits flow to me and other Americans if we own B+D stock.

America is wealthy for good reason. For a century or so we’ve innovated and produced and have grown beyond the need to get our hands dirty. Now, having reached this plateau of wealth, we won’t work for peanuts. We cannot work for peanuts. Life in the USA is too expensive.

Our laborers cannot compete against the world’s cheaper labor forces, who can work for peanuts and it’s an big improvement over what they’re accustomed to: basic poverty.

But the profits are razor thin because every other manufacturer is moving to China too. So the bulk of the cash ends up in China, not America.

And now knowing how to make those things, the Chinese can manufacture them themselves and market directly to us, cutting out the middle man.

At which point, we do not add any value to the process, so we start being less wealthy. Which is why incomes are declining.

The one thing the Chinese don’t have is the brand name.

Check out what they’ve copied now. Think they will be able to market and sell it to consumers?

autoworld.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/new-geely-ge-limo-is-rolls-royce-phantom-clone/

Profits from manufacturing your product overseas were never that great.. i read one case where the overall cost difference was about 2%. Transportation costs naturally, takes a big bite. And then you’ve gotta set things up with a foreign govt, which takes their cut..

But we’re still talking about a savings of 2% of total costs.. the 2% might represent pure profit and could amount to multi-millions.. Why not take the money?

Chinese could or will manufacture those things. Japan and a few other countries already went through the “manufacture for export to the USA” phase, became independent and competitive… The 1st world’s current “slave state” may be China.. Singapore.. Bangladesh.. whoever..
But they don’t remain a poor slave forever. Their economies grow and change. The whole world’s living standards are improving through international trade and competition. This is not a bad thing, imo.

—–
The USA is competitive, and even rules the economic world in a whole lot of ways.. We just can’t compete when it comes to cheap labor.
Nor should we desire to do so. We’re past that. We have technical expertise in certain things that are unmatched anywhere and we still attract the world’s best and brightest minds..
Current technology is already old. In 50 or 100 years the world won’t remember what an internal combustion engine is. They won’t need crude oil. Their meals may come from Star Trek Replicators for all anyone knows…

All that might be a crock.. but all i’m trying to say is that forced attempts to move ourselves backwards to what was then safe and comfortable and familiar is never the way forward. Try it and you’re likely to get run over.

Profits flow to me and other Americans if we own B+D stock.

Big IF, most don’t own that stock or any other. Most own mutual funds that aren’t managed so well these days. The only “profit” flowing these days is if you own hundreds of thousands of shares in any stock, and even then.
But that money isn’t flowing to the USA. It is offshored, the home corp office is in or on some island like the Caymans, Bermuda, and there you have it Taxes that Would have made the US stronger are only making the ceo/mgmnt and MAJOR “stock ” owners. Not our country.

#1,disallow corps to offshore for tax havens.

desertdweller..

If you want to share a business’s profits, there are only a couple ways to do it. One is to own the business. Another, if available, is to own part of it by owning some of it’s stock.
Profits do not belong to the community at large.

You shouldn’t expect to hold out your hand and have business to drop money into it. Nothing entitles anyone except a business’s owners to it’s profits. And what they do with their money is their affair and no one else’s.
Business more than adequately supports it’s community by it’s existence alone.

While the number of grunts working assembly lines might be lacking in some people’s eyes, near as I can tell, B+D employs about 25,000 people… Americans.. from sales to clerical to janitors to engineers. These people get paid for their work. They may even share in the company’s profits. Whatever the case, they spend their money in the community.
Without B+D the locals would suffer to some degree. Without businesses there is no community… no jobs.. no families, schools or churches. Nothing.

NYCityBoy,

…took me a minute, but, LOL!

To be truthful, I think there’s so much pressure in today’s world to be.., almost “omniscient” it gets hard to turn off.

Many here have noted that BB’s are often met w/ scorn and I’m sure a lot of that IS… our message. But the other aspect that turns the rank and file off is that they weren’t willing to put in the leg work. We were!

I’m not necessarily ‘defending’ the VP, but I think all of us here have a fear that it’s “that (1) thing we *didn’t know” ( that will unravel all the things we DO know! )

Make sense?

Although I’m of the age for AARP, I refuse to join them. Why? Because they’re a business masquerading as an advocacy group.

Because they’re a business masquerading as an advocacy group.

What greatly aggravates me is that one commercial showing image after image of fresh-faced darlin’ little moppets in various colors who express concerns about their future, with the implication being that AARP is the solution.
Wha…? Man, those moppets gonna be pi*ssed when they go try to get a job in a few years and get to become joyous wage-slaves laboring under ever increasing taxes so gran can keep having her Bo*tox shots and gramp can keep getting his Via*gra.

Ladies,

Correct on both counts. I suggest next time, rather than call their travel agent for a -quote- on Carnival Cruise Lines ( they check in on a -job- application )

Funny how they morphed from being “rebels” into all ‘tute & tuddly seniors? How can you say ‘no’ to a tute lil’ punam like that?

Man, those moppets gonna be pi*ssed when they go try to get a job in a few years

Or when they try to find a job and find out that they can’t get one because Gram and Gramps couldn’t afford to retire.

Most of the “greatest generation” of seniors is now gone. What we’re left with is the “greediest generation.”

Not if you live around these parts. I SEE (dead) OLD people all the time. I see and know well, many folks who are in their 80s and 90s around here. I think it is the heat. They don’t mold or shrivel out so fast, unless you are an apple slice.
Seriously, more old people you can shake a cane at!
I don’t see the “greatest ” generation going far, fast.

What is your baseline? Once you understand that most ppl just support what they feel is in their best interest and falls within their own sense of morality, there really is no hypocrisy.

The selective application of common sense = hypocrisy.

I don’t think it’s hypocrisy, it’s an application of Realpolitik (which is perhaps inherently a cynical way to look at things) — namely, the assumption that Wall Street’s worldview is all-important and that current notions of free market “success” cannot be disrupted without becoming politically non-viable.

“My beef is that common sense is being used to sell health care reform ( and rightly so),”

It is? I guess my common sense thinking is 180 degrees opposite than those who think losing their freedom to choose is a good idea.

I guess my common sense thinking is 180 degrees opposite than those who think losing their freedom to choose is a good idea.

I’m with you. I watched the director of Health and Human services (or whatever her title is) on the Daily Show last night (from the day before - via Hulu). While she was incredibly well-spoken, and clearly cares, the logic just doesn’t make sense. She was making an argument along similar lines to Biden’s comments.

So…they want a public “option” and are touting it as introducing competition into the marketplace. Yet somehow they don’t see how the government might be an unfair competitor? Or see that costs for those of us who are currently enrolled in a “private” plan will go up, as we’ll be paying taxes to insure those currently w/o coverage as well?

Stewart kind of hinted at these issues. I wish he had directly confronted her on them.

Why would you lose your freedom to choose? Private insurance will never go away. Believe me, if you can afford it, your health insurance will do just fine.

“Why would you lose your freedom to choose? Private insurance will never go away. Believe me, if you can afford it, your health insurance will do just fine.”

NOT TRUE. It clearly states in the bill that once Obamacare goes into effect, you can either keep your existing private plan or opt for government care.

The problem is that if you opt to go private you can NEVER opt for a different private plan, even if you get a different job, get married, if a spouse dies, etc.

If your existing private plan isn’t offered at your new employer, you MUST become part of the government plan. If you don’t, you will have broken the law.

Potential buyer, I hope supporters of this “wonderful” government plan begin understanding what is really going on.

CONSIDER THIS TOO: Under a government plan where everyone has to wait in line, precisely what do you think will happen to a woman’s right to choose? I’m not entirely sure that I’d want to learn I’m pregnant in April and not be able to abort a child until September or October.

“private insurance will never go away”

I never say never but I agree it’s exraordinarily hard to imagine the outlawing of private healthcare in the US anytime soon. People have a fear of being “trapped” in a public healthcare system in which they need say a transplant and a faceless bureaucrat denies them, thus dooming them to die. In reality, you’ll always be able to go outside the system and buy your own supplemental insurance or pay for your own operation etc. To outlaw this would be unimaginable.

Just because we have public libraries doesn’t mean we’ve outlawed bookstores.

extraordinarily

People have a fear of being “trapped” in a public healthcare system in which they need say a transplant and a faceless bureaucrat denies them, thus dooming them to die.

Such scenarios already occur in our chronically inefficient (for the consumer) private system.

“Yet somehow they don’t see how the government might be an unfair competitor?”
“Or see that costs for those of us who are currently enrolled in a “private” plan will go up”

The first thing you have to recognize is that private insurers have a monopoly on the system and that the amount of money private insurers charge is NOT directly related to the amount of money that care costs - it’s related to the amount of profit/bonuses, etc that the company enjoys.

So if an entity with no interest in profit and bonuses comes in, such as the government, the private insurers can either choose to get competitive and lower the profit/bonuses or maintain their status quo, which will certainly see them lose customers.

Whether this represents “unfair” competition depends whether or not you think that the market should be dominated by monopolistic companies or not. If you’re one of those companies, you sure as hell are going to spend a lot of money on lobbyists and advertising to portray it as such, as they are now.

I doubt that Planned Parenthood or similar clinics would go away?

A point of clarification regarding the ability to change private plans. First, it’s important to remember that HIPAA guarantees the ability to get healthcare w/o being penalized for pre-existing conditions as long as you have had continual coverage for a certain period of time, so, if you change employers - you are guaranteed the ability to obtain coverage through the carrier provided by your new employer - this will not go away. So, it’s incorrect to claim that you have to stay with your private choice permanently.

I am typically one of the first to complain about schemes to re-distribute wealth, but this is an area where I see a true need. We currently have 50 million Americans in this country who have no, or little healthcare coverage. I’m willing to pay a little more for the benefits that I get to provide this basic need to such a significant portion of our population.

Also, I believe there will be an unintended benefit to this shift in the dynamic of how healthcare will be provided to Americans. Today many Americans that have families, or health issues are effectively “trapped” in corporate America because starting a small business would require switching to an unaffordable individual plan that would likely provide nothing near the coverage offered in employer sponsored group plans.

I do see the guarantee of health care as a significant driver of America’s ability to usher in a new era of productivity as more and more people are presented with the ability to start new small businesses, w/o the fear of illness forcing them into bankruptcy. Many, many bright minds stay in the corporate structure for this single reason.

Just my 2 cents.

“I do see the guarantee of health care as a significant driver of America’s ability to usher in a new era of productivity as more and more people are presented with the ability to start new small businesses, w/o the fear of illness forcing them into bankruptcy. Many, many bright minds stay in the corporate structure for this single reason.”

Preach it, sdnewbie!

Seems like we have another good mind on the board…Nice summery sdnewbie

I’m willing to pay a little more for the benefits that I get to provide this basic need to such a significant portion of our population.

So what’s stopping you? That’s my issue with “Democrats” vs “Liberals”. One can be liberal-minded, but IMO you don’t have the right to have others fund your pet project. You’re willing to pay more? Great, I respect that. However it’s unfair to force everyone else to do so as well w/o their consent.

But I’m a libertarian, so of course that follows…

Thanks Slim, SC.

Drumm - I realize a central pillar of Libertarian philosophy is a deeply held belief that minimalist government is critical to the overall, long-term health of society. I agree with this philosophy in many ways. I have seen how some of the conveniences / safety nets of modern life have served to weaken individuals in society.

That said, I also believe that Libertarian philosophy sees a valid role for government in ensuring that all members of society have a level playing field from which to determine their own destiny. I agree with this, and I believe that provisioning health care is part of ensuring a level playing field. Where would our society be if the only people able to get health care were those able to earn it. Our world may have missed the benefits of great minds the likes of Stephen Hawking.

Basically, my argument is that, w/o equal access to health care, a person with a birth defect, or other genetic illness, or accident victim will be unable to contribute to their full potential - and this is a greater loss to society than the incremental change in the cost of my employer sponsored health care insurance.

Yes, I realize Stephen’s illness was a progressive illness - and yes - his father would have likely had the financial means to get him some level of care - but you get my point.

Good post, sdnewbie. Thanks.

Re: HIPPA….that’s not what I understand to be true. Do you have a link to a government document that says HIPPA will remain permanently in effect? The emphasis on permanent?

I very much like your comment re: small business, but the results remain to be seen. I hope you’re correct. Conversely and unfortunately, Cap & Trade may very well put many small businesses out of existence and prevent many start-ups.

Watch the 50 million figure - it bounces all over from 20 million to 60 million depending on the source. I doubt anyone has any clear idea what the number actually is.

Basically, my argument is that, w/o equal access to health care, a person with a birth defect, or other genetic illness, or accident victim will be unable to contribute to their full potential - and this is a greater loss to society than the incremental change in the cost of my employer sponsored health care insurance.

Good post, sdnewbie. While your argument for the “greater good” may be compelling, it comes down to balancing individual rights vs that of society. I know a few here will agree that taxation ultimately undermines one’s right to their own body (labor/fruits of), but many will not.

I suppose my point of view is that if it really is in the best interest of society, you won’t need to compel people to do it. I think many people take spending tax dollars too casually, and don’t realize they’re taking forcefully from their friends, neighbors, relatives, and people they’ve never met, and don’t question the morality of that. That’s why I think we should stop saying the “government’ pays for it, but rather point out that taxpayers = me, you, your mom, etc (heh, your mom will have less money to spend on their own families, care, enjoyment, etc.

One big thing missing from that list:

“There are many of us that believe those who have worked hard all of their life, saved money for retirement and future health care costs, and lose they job and healthcare benefits, should still be able to get treatment for cancer and such without having to go bankrupt.”

packman,

Good point. Should those of us w/ HSA’s ( Health Savings Accounts ) and paid in premiums for catastrophic care polices recieve a full reimbursement under the new plan?

Actually, I need a definition of “work hard” too. It appears as a talking point on the radio an awful lot.

Does your average Wall Street trader work as hard as, say, somebody on the GM factory floor? An accountant at Enron (who had nothing to do with higher-up decisions?)? An engineer? A musician? A translator? A scientist who endured years of minimum-wage grad school only to pull half the salary of a marketer who drank his way to a psychology degree? A teacher? A radar operator in the Navy? Flipping burgers or hauling packages at UPS all day is rough on the feet and the back, but that’s not hard work because it doesn’t pay much, so I guess they don’t deserve health insurance. Whereas wheeling and dealing on the golf course, being a slimy paid lobbyist on the Hill counts, or running a Texas oil company into the groud as REALLY hard work because there are millions of $$ involved.

All these careers are at vastly different educations and pay scales, but who’s to say who is working “harder” than anyone else? We need to dissociate “hard work” with “being lucky,” “having connected parents,” and “kissing up.”

So even if you have money to pay for treatment, you shouldn’t have to use it? Trying to get clarity here.

We’ve seen elderly go through this drill for decades now. How to get Medicaid benefits without giving up property? Not so much because grandpa cares that much anymore, but the heirs do.

Every situation is different, but yes, I do believe that if you are willing to pay reasonable premiums and deductibles, you shouldnt have to be out of pocket for massive healthcare bills. As for defining working hard all of your life, I know many ppl, including myself, that have worked 7 days a week, 60 plus hours on avg, that could or have lost their jobs. Some might think that access to treatment for serious illness such as cancer should depend on things such as current job situation or who you marry, but I respectfully disagree. I also think that if you worked hard all your life, saved for a decent retirement, and retired early, you should not have to lose it all before you get assistance. Serious illness is one risk that should be socialized in my opinion.

Unless you’re a multimillionaire, you can’t possibly save enough money to pay for a major health problem. This is silly talk.

Look - I don’t want to get into a big discussion on health care philosophies here - there’s so much to it. I’ll just state my general position on things and leave it at that:

- As setup it’s worth noting that we in the U.S. spend *far* more for health care than any other country in the world. Part of this - bluntly - is due to us just being fat and having related heart and diabetes problems, and part is due to us just wanting extraordinary care vs. what exists in other countries.

- This wasn’t always true. Years ago we generally didn’t for instance spend over $100k or so trying to treat an instance of cancer - e.g. years of chemo and radiation etc; we took a few cheaper stabs at it via surgery, and if it didn’t work then it didn’t work. Mostly we didn’t have the options that we have now today.

- So this begs the question - now that there are many more options for treatment available, with many of these options being hugely expensive - how much of this should be paid for by insurance and/or the government?

- In general - my feeling is that it should be free-market based. Specifically to me what that means is:

- I don’t like the government paying for hardly anything. Perhaps things like emergency care, but that’s it.

- Yes there is extreme randomness in the level of health care required for different people. One person A may be generally healthy their whole life, and die suddenly of a heart attack, while person B may have a chronic illness and then struggle for years with cancer. Person B may end up having health care costs that are 20 times what person A’s costs are - even if person B has the same healthy lifestyle (eating well and exercise) that person A had. This is what insurance is for. *The* single purpose of insurance should be to prevent the above-mentioned scenario - someone going bankrupt due to medical costs. Unfortunately insurance has somehow morphed into a massive scheme of bilking money from people and corporations, by attempting to hide the costs from the end users, and as a resulting giving the impression that health care is cheaper than it really is, and removing competitiveness in the process.

- I do not think it is the government’s job to provide health insurance. This is yet one more layer of inefficiency and bureaucracy, adding to total health care costs, and further hiding true costs from the health care customers.

- I do not like government *requiring* health insurance. It should be a personal choice.

- By “personal choice” I’m including the choice of whether or not to work for a company that provides insurance or not. If a company wishes to not provide insurance - fine. It’ll just be that much harder for them to obtain workers, just the same as if they instead had chosen to give lower salaries. If I as a person want my employer to provide health insurance, then I need to choose my employer accordingly.

- The level of insurance should also be a personal choice. If I want top-notch insurance that pays for everything under the sun until I die, and I’m willing and able to pay for it - so be it. If I want this, and I’m not able to pay for it - then it shouldn’t be given to me at someone else’s expense.

- Maybe I can only afford the “cheapie” plan that has a high deductible (preventing me from going bankrupt) and doesn’t cover extraordinary treatment; that’s fine - this treatment wasn’t available until recently anyhow. Years from now I’m sure there will be all kinds of newer treatments that aren’t available today.

I don’t see health care as a “right” any more than I see home ownership as a right, or car ownership, or anything that betters our lives. It’s something that has to be worked for.

Instead of having a goofy debate on whether one should die of cancer because of what line of work one took up or whom one got hitched to, how about we look at other “civilized” nations and check out what they do? Worried about taxes going up? Please … think of the 500 ways we get hit up (forget for a second whether we get any value for it) and ask yourself whether the average American sees more of his money evaporate than the average European. All Obama is doing is attempting to bring us to a more typical modern standard. Stop crying, millionaires. You won’t miss any meals.

Unless you’re a multimillionaire, you can’t possibly save enough money to pay for a major health problem. This is silly talk.

A. How often does a major health problem come along that costs over $1M?

B. I’m not talking about saving for a major health problem, I’m talking about saving for insurance - something that virtually everybody can do, if they’re prudent and they’re willing to do so.

All Obama is doing is attempting to bring us to a more typical modern standard.

LOL - yeah those Europeans and their “modern standards“.

Amazing how often people buy into the delusion that everything’s so much better in Europe.

Yes, one could and must pay for insurance. But even the rates for that are going insane and must be brought under some sort of control. At a large, probably typical, employer, my share for family coverage is $540 a month. With further cuts in benefits and ever-increasing costs, this is on the way to becoming brutal. Think about the military budget, think about corporate welfare … you know there is money out there — taxpayers’ money — that could be better spent.

Packman,

I know you didn’t really want to get into a big debate on health care, but two of your points I just have to address.

1) Personal choice: for too many folks they have only 1 choice, and that is going without. In the single payer system here in Canada, you can chose which health providers you wish to use.

2) Inefficiency: the private sector health insurance companies in the US spend a lot of money trying not to provide care. That is very inefficient. It also defeats the purpose of having a health care system, when valid treatments are denied because companies are trying to maximize the bottom line. There is also the usual issues of excessive compensation for those at the top.

“…Unfortunately insurance has somehow morphed into a massive scheme of bilking money from people and corporations, by attempting to hide the costs from the end users, and as a resulting giving the impression that health care is cheaper than it really is, and removing competitiveness in the process.”

(packy, make sure your curtains are drawn…)

(Hwy wonders if the Q-tips “they” charge $3.27 each are J&J or some other China slave made brand?)

Packman - Good summary. One thing I think would help clarify discussions like this is to stop using the word “government” when referring to who pays. It’s not the government who pays. It’s the TAXPAYERS. I know you get that, but I think it makes it easy for people to gloss over where the money comes from.

The “government” does not have its own source of funds (well, I’m ignoring the printing press right now..). To provide funds for any cause, it must first take it from the citizens at gunpoint.

my share for family coverage is $540 a month.

Presumably you feel like you’re coming out ahead though, otherwise you’d forego it, right?

Just because costs go up doesn’t mean something’s wrong. And you’re not entitled to cheap insurance for your whole family that will protect you from million-dollar health care issues.

Packman’s point stands. There are many more procedures these days, some of them very expensive. If you want those procedures to be covered by your insurance, then it’s fair to expect your insurance premium to go up, as their expected payout goes up.

Inefficiency: the private sector health insurance companies in the US spend a lot of money trying not to provide care. That is very inefficient.

Will this not be true of the gov’t as well? The reality is that insurance companies can lose business. So at some point, someone will care if bad service is provided (ie if enough employees of a company complain, the company goes shopping for a new provider).

Ever been to the DMV or another gov’t agency? The people working there couldn’t care less about you or your experience. Imagine how it will be if the same types of people are in control of granting approval for health procedures, or making payouts? You have no recourse in that situation. There’s no one you can pressure to care.

You’re right that there are negatives with private insurers. But I see the same negatives possible with gov’t as well. Just because you can point out a shortcoming in another person doesn’t mean you don’t have the shortcoming yourself.

What happens when the gov’t needs to make budget cuts..will they not cut back on coverage?

The government can have a very valid role in healthcare provisioning, just not the one it wants. And the reason is that taxpayers are happy to use an infinite amount of other people’s money for their own (or family’s) healthcare. In a country where taxpayers do not require the government to balance its budget, healthcare costs will ratchet up as quickly as the government can print money.

What I don’t understand about this government takeover:

Rather than provide the care, why doesn’t Obama just mandate that the government send pay for each hospital bill directly? It’d be very simple and cost very little.

Why should the government be able to decide who gets care and who does not?

For several decades, Democrats and their crazier liberal kin have railed against government interference in their personal lives. Yet they are fully in favor of it now. Why? Cost? Just because the government (i.e. taxpayers) pick up the tab for medical treatment, does that mean they should enter your bedroom (or the equivalent) as well?

I guess it does.

Goodbye civil rights. Hello government healthcare.

One thing I think would help clarify discussions like this is to stop using the word “government” when referring to who pays. It’s not the government who pays. It’s the TAXPAYERS. I know you get that, but I think it makes it easy for people to gloss over where the money comes from.

Taking that a step further - actually the funds aren’t coming from just “taxpayers” they are coming from “taxpayers plus people who buy stuff” in the form of inflation as the Fed creates money to buy debt that taxes can’t.

It will come only from taxpayers when the Federal government pays off it’s debt in full. That’ll happen … never.

oxide,

And “I” could use a definition of “work hard” my damn self?

Don’t get me wrong, I get where you’re coming from, but I think you install a lot of stereotypes in there. Things are never that simple, no matter how much we’d sometimes like them to be.

Case in point, my in-laws. He’s forever going on about “how hard he’s worked to get where he’s got” but seldom points to the fact that ( before getting the grandfather’s inheritance ) they hadn’t gotten all that far?

Insistances to the contrary, every time I’m shown a photo album, he looks about as care-free as one can be and ( usually ) stoned! So now that they’ve inherited a bunch ( a few hundred k actually ) you’d think you were talking to someone that had money all their life? Oh and w/ all the appropriate RW AM talking points to go w/ it!

My core political opinion is that any government involvement in health care is wrong.

People got cancer in the 1800s. People got cancer in the 1920s. People got cancer before Medicare.

People should deal with it. We are all going to die eventually. Why should one’s next door neighbor be held responsible for keeping a person alive 5 months longer, particularly if he had decades of preventable bad habits such as obesity, smoking, or heavy drinking?

There is no more natural right for a group of thugs to control health care than for them to control what brand or cost of shoes I wear on my feet.

$hit happens should be changed to Socialism happens. It’s the same thing.

Bill:

This is why the Kevorkian debate was so important , to allow US to choose how we want to end our lives.

Why can’t i say enough-is-enough and put me to sleep forever without anyone getting sued or arrested?

drumminj,

I think you’re underestimating the competition in a single payer system. I can go to any hospital or clinic (they are private not-for-profit organizations) covered under that system. If a hospital doesn’t provide good service, I go to a different one and they don’t get as much money from the government. Similarily, if a procedure is covered by the government insurance they have no reason to deny that service like a private insurer would. If they deny the service, they don’t get paid. Less revenue means less ability to buy fancy new machines or renovate wards.

I’m not saying that single pay doesn’t have flaws, but denying service like the private insurers do isn’t one of them. One of the challenges is deciding what is covered and what isn’t, and it is very hard to go back once a service is offered.

Wow for a guy not wanting to have a big discussion you had a lot to say

- - As setup it’s worth noting that we in the U.S. spend *far* more for health care than any other country, because of obesity?
Sure part of it is obesity, but a much higher cost is our
1. administrative costs - 25cents on each dollar spent on health care vs 5 cents for socialized care.
2. CYA Cover your A##
3. Pay for performance with little review of need. Just like Wallstreet many MD’s do things to maximize their paycheck.
4. Drug/device companies that that can set prices often when there is no competition. Other countries are much harder in setting prices.
5. Treatment at the end of life, people are treated when there is little chance of long term benefit.
6.Technology- As we keep people alive longer they will run up more bills, cure cancer and they may get heart disease or vice versa.

- How much of this should be paid for by insurance and/or the government?

My view a single party payer should pay for prevention and treatments that meet a certain cost benefit analysis. If you want more expensive treatments that have less efficacy then you need to buy a supplemental insurance policy.

- In general - my feeling is that it should be free-market based.
How can you have a free market when most don’t understand the product (ie medical degree) and insurance company law and the rules change minute to minute. You can’t do effective comparisons on doctors. If doctor A has a higher mortality rate for a given surgery it may be because people think he’s the best and send him all the hard cases. There is no free market now. Do you compare the efficacy and cost of every antibiotic your given. How many people are equiped to do this for different surgeries surgeons, imaging tests ect ect ect. Answer very few.

- Unfortunately insurance has somehow morphed into a massive scheme of bilking money by attempting to hide the costs from the end users.

This is a big problem people think hey its free so even if there’s a 1% chance I’ll live an extra month I want it. Again with a single party payer that uses cost benefit analysis and reviews medical records to determine if pt were treated correctly this would be less of a problem. The person with a supplemental could get the treatment.

- GOV is yet one more layer of inefficiency and bureaucracy, adding to total health care costs, and further hiding true costs from the health care customers.

Wrong Medicare is much more efficient than private health insurance. By a factor of 8 I believe. No high paid CEO, no marketing,ect. Then factor in that hospitals and doctors have to higher an army of billing specialists to fill out all the different forms for all the different insurance companies. Much Much less efficient

- I do not like government *requiring* health insurance. It should be a personal choice.

Yep and who pays when uninsured show up in the ER?? Are you going to close the door to a man who shows up at an ER with chest pain because he couldn’t produce proof of insurance.

- By “personal choice” I’m including the choice of whether or not to work for a company that provides insurance.

Small companies may not want you if you are sick, more and more companies aren’t offering health insurance, and with a crappy economy beggars can’t be choosers.

- Maybe I can only afford the “cheapie” plan that has a high deductible (preventing me from going bankrupt) and doesn’t cover extraordinary treatment; that’s fine - this treatment wasn’t available until recently anyhow. Years from now I’m sure there will be all kinds of newer treatments that aren’t available today.

So when you get cancer and the doctor tells you that you have a 20% chance of being cured if you go with the old treatment but a 40% chance with the new you’ll be OK with the old treatment? You’ll have to read up on all the possible disease and treatments and then discuss each with your insurer who may change the rules next week. So you’ll have to repeat the process on a regular basis.

- I don’t see health care as a “right” any more than I see home ownership as a right, or car ownership, or anything that betters our lives. It’s something that has to be worked for.

Tell it to an uninsured dieing child, or a guy who can’t find a job, or a guy whose business collapsed becuase of Wall Street Greed. If you don’t own a car you can walk, if you don’t get treatment for diabetes you die, big dif.

What about vaccines and things that keep us all safe?

drumminj …..Your post is so right . If people only knew how much money is spent by the private insurance companies to avoid care ,they would be frightened . I never realized until I was thrown into a 15 week battle in the medical care system . We were a insured couple that paid extra premiums for upgraded coverage that cost me about 8k a year . My observation was that the government welfare group that was getting medical
care for free got better care because the system knew the gov. would pay . The private insurance people had to have doctors
that were willing to fight the private insurance system ,or put up with the deliberate slowness of the private sector in approving procedures . If you had a condition that could be costly to correct ,you really started to be hung out to dry by
some of the insurance companies . Ask any Doctor to tell you the truth of what they put up with .
They have the insurance company shills hanging out at the hospitals ,posing as health care helpers ,trying to convince you to give up on the patient ,even to the point of lying about the state of affairs . My spouse ended up dying of a hospital infection that she got at the hospital because they were dicking around trying to figure out how to save costs .
You could say that I’m bitter and you could say that I could sue the evil people ,but they micky their files to reflect good care . When I threatened the insurance Company they stepped into high gear trying to save the patient ,but it was to late ,the two weeks they spent dicking around trying to
save costs at first were fatal to the patient .

A scientist who endured years of minimum-wage grad school only to pull half the salary of a marketer who drank his way to a psychology degree?

This is the crux of the problem IMHO.

My spouse ended up dying of a hospital infection that she got at the hospital because they were dicking around trying to figure out how to save costs .

Jesus man, I’m sorry. Your story is that type that should be told on TV.

Oh yeah they pull all sorts of tricks against doctors hospitals and patients. I saw a documentary the other day about howan insurance company in california was paying employees bonus’s for finding loopholes to get out of paying for health care. Say a patient came in with a heart attack, an agent might go back 10 years earlier and find that the patient saw an MD during marital troubles and was reported to have high blood pressure (ie the guy was stressed out). Then the agent would find that when the patient purchased the insurance he did not admit to hypertension thus the policy was canceld and the patient was held liable for all the costs of the heart attack.

My father in law had a liver and kidney transplant 8 weeks ago. He is in the ICU b/c of a hospital infection and is likely going to die b/c Medicare wants to kick him out. He and my mother in law do not have the funds to continue paying for his care our of their own pockets as they are on a fixed income and their 401K is worth very little.

He served his country in Korea and contracted hepatitis while over there. After being released from the military, he worked his entire adult life - paid his bills, paid his health insurance for his family.

Now because he’s retired and 69 he has Medicare. He contracted MRSA while in the ICU after the transplant and he’s in a coma. Medicare has decided his 8 weeks of hospital time for the year are up. His medical bills are over $1 million - and he and my mother in law do not have the money to keep him in the ICU. The doctors (who have invested a LOT of time in my father in law - through plane trips to get the organs, a 24 hours surgery to transplant him, and thousands of hours of care he has received).

It should not be just a ridiculous government “rule” dictating care - his doctors do not want him released. But Medicare has “decided”. So that’s that. My husband had to go on a business trip last night. He had to go - but first he stopped at the hospital and kissed his father good-bye. We are likely taking him to hospice if the doctors can’t come up with something.

So it may not be a “right” to get medical care - but this is a guy who contracted an illness fighting for our country (he likely contracted Hep. in a blood transfusion in Korea when he was injured), paid his bills, worked hard. Has lived in the same house for 35 years and has kept his head down and nose clean. He will die b/c our government decided he will. It’s crap.

measton …I had the insurance to provide for anything that came up ,so it was a matter of the insurance company trying to squeeze out of paying for what was necessary at the time ,in a timely fashion. I challenge any doctor or nurse to deny that insurance companies are not honoring their contracts to provide the full extend of life saving measures in favor of cost savings ,regardless of how good your policy is . Many doctors cave in to the pressure of insurance companies . There is a huge difference between a patient being terminal shortly ,and a patient still having 5 to 7 years of meaningful life left . You can argue all you want over the fact that comfort measures should only be applied to patient that have 3 to 5 months left ,but when they start doing it to people who had 5 to 7 years left ,than the insurance companies are simply making their own policy . i think you people in the medical profession know what I’m talking about .

.

South Florida … Sorry to hear what is taking place regarding your father in law . I know how you are feeling and it sucks that a hospital germ compromised the outcome of this surgery .

SouthFL,

If he can prove he contacted an illness while active in the military, the Veterans Administration (taxpayers) will take care of all the bill, even if the current illness is unrelated.

Contact the Veterans Administration. Be proactive.

“Example: Just seven years ago everyone was so freaked out over terrorists that they gave that administration a blank check for war.”

And when the check came back…it was canceled by a Dubai bank located in Saudi Arabia!

“…cue Neil Young’s “Living with War” sound track…roll the Shrub video clip: “…He tried to kill my daddy!” …close up of the “Mission Accomplished” banner…

The only folks with power or profits on the line are the for-profit corporate insurers and the bizarrely run for-profit hospital and health “industry.” One can hardly do worse than the status quo. In England, for instance, you can opt out of the gov’t plan. How much does that cost? Something like $20 a month. Or do you like COBRA better?

Actually, my dozens of Canadian cousins state nearly to a person that they LOVE their health plan and that ” You Yanks are crazy for not having done what Canada’s done. You can lose your job, ya know.” Direct quotes from last family reunion, Summer 2008, Lumsten descendants, Smiths Falls, Ontario, 550 participants. So, I don’t really believe that their plan is “horrible” and that the Canadians hate it.

I had cousins who were very proud members of the British Conservative Party. And, oh, yes, they were *conservative.* But they loved the National Health Service and couldn’t understand why America didn’t offer such a thing.

“….they only care about themselves and maintaining power!”

BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! (fpss™)

I nearly forgot about that power vacuum in America between 2000-2008

Geez, the Palin-McSame™ GOP repubican vote casters are rather itchy between the legs today!

Ask any European which health system they prefer and even given all their problems — they will take theirs over ours any day.

As and American who was in Canada last week, I’d like to share an observation.

I was visiting a friend who is on chemotherapy. While there, I took her to a small local hospital, in rural Nova Scotia for her scheduled treatment. I was very impressed with the facility. It was busy, but not crowded. It was very clean and very pleasant. Her treatment was administered on time, efficiently, by a very professional,pleasant, and compassionate staff.

When finished we just walked out. I asked if she would be getting a bill. No, she said no bill.

Next we drove in to Halifax to see some sort of specialist who wrote her prescriptions. Again, in and out in about 10min. Next stop, the pharmacy in the grocery store on the way home. Oh no the horrors! She had to pay for meds! Got a small grocery bag full of meds for all of $40.

I hear Americans complain about Canada’s health care system. But from my limited experience with it, I think all of those complaints are unfounded.

Clarification - I pay COBRA $158 a month (medical and dental) instead of the $444 pre Obama.

Funny…when I was not working in 2007, I got healthcare coverage (medical and dental) for $105 month. Same coverage/deduction levels as when I was working in 2005.

COBRA is hardly your only option when you’re out on your own. Perhaps you didn’t know that, or didn’t investigate other opportunities.

This heath care debate was really interesting. Thanks to all who participated. Watch “Sick Around The World” on PBS Frontline online. You’ll get an education on universal health care, besides Canada and the usual. Taiwan is # 1 in health care in the world. They really studied other countries mistakes, and designed a system that was fair. Japan has an interesting system too. Truly, we need reform, not a lobbyist centered org*sm.

We’re laying out $1,400 a month for a premium and eye drops not in Kaiser’s formulary. We can’t afford this forever.

To whom ever lined this the other day, thanks.A former health care co CEO tells a cautionary tale….

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

Agree with Eudemon. When I was “between jobs” after I saw what COBRA wanted, I went to ODS here in Oregon and they had very similar offerings to my former employer’s offerings for a not unreasonable price. Since I’m relatively healthy I went high deductable ($5000 i believe) and it was about $75-$100 per month, IIRC.

SDGreg,

Right, furry eyebrows alone might not have been enough? LOL. Yeah, to me, this is like going up to Sully Sullenberger and punching him out after landing the plane in the Hudson River?

What? You got your socks wet?

I don’t understand where this idea of financial meltdown came from. If the government would not have intervened, what would the results have been? Goldman Sachs gone broke, Aig..broke, so what! The average every day american, would not be any better or worse for the so called meltdown. So, they throw a couple of trillion at these gangsters and what did the average american get? The bill.
That crisis was created by the bankers, to keep themselves alive, using taxpayers money.
Also, I find it hard to believe, that anyone still thinks were in a recession, not a deopression. If you add up all the possible unemployed people out there we are over 20%.
I just came back from Copper Harbor…the towns dying, half the stores downtown are closed. Tell the yoopers, that were not in a depression…..tell the restaurant and bar workers in Cocoa Beach were not in a depression…..
The government of lies is nothing more than a stack of horse dung, with Obama piling it on!

I never bought into Hanky Panky Paulson’s fear speech, either. Like you, Terry, I feel that the best thing that could have happened would have been to let all of them fail, wipe out the investors, and go on from there. Pain? You bet. But, the smaller, more responsible institutions would have been there to pick at the carcasses, and the pigmen would have been left to answer for their sins.

Instead, it’s business as usual, and nothing was learned. Nothing, except that a crooked government will backstop a crooked Wall St. with unlimited amounts of taxpayer money and blood.

Everything I have read regarding the October meltdown suggests we were within hours of a financial Armageddon

IMO if we were truly within hours of a financial Armageddon, then the system is vastly broken, and very much in need of a financial Armageddon to at least provide the chance for it to correct itself.

As it is - the broken system continues virtually unchanged.

I don’t necessarily disagree packman….Just not sure I want to my children to experience “Financial Armageddon”…

“…headed for Texas and left the clean up for someone else…”

Game announcer:
“And now entering the baseball game to bat, a questionable fella by the name of Jackie Robinson, well let’s see what the xxxxx can do… …It’s the bottom of the ninth, 2 outs no one on base and his team is down 26 to 3…”

Color commentator: “…word is he’s from Hawaii, but the league is still looking into his edibility…”

but the league is still looking into his edibility…”

The Cannibal League.

Sounds like the name of a band.

scdave,

And that’s all I’ve ever asked people to think about? I guess if I was single ( didn’t really like people and had a general contempt for everyone else anyway ) and lived in apt. w/ dead end job, then yes, I’d be pulling for “major change”, no -matter- the consequences!

But I’m *not there. And I don’t think most people are either. I’m not willing to watch the world burn just so I can get a “steal” on a condo on the Vegas Strip. ( Won’t ‘that’ be something to share at the HS re-union! )

In 2001, my father co-founded a manufacturing company. It’s now located in rural Ohio. Last I heard, the company was doing quite well.

“Light” manufacturing continues to do well in Ohio - smaller, niche companies. And while the auto industry is large in northern Ohio and in Dayton, you have to remember Honda is HQ outside Columbus and has 3 plants west of the city. Even Toyota is HQ in the southern suburbs of Cincinnati, with their big plant a few miles down I-75 in Georgtown, north of Lexington KY.

Aren’t there Amish in O-hi-O? How are they doing?

The Amish in Ohio are benefitting quite well from the boom in local/organic food. Their eggs are in all the Whole Paychecks.

Pirates wore cummerbunds? (other than in weddings?)

I think you’re having penguin flashbacks.

Pirates wore cummerbunds? (other than in weddings?)

Well, of COURSE. Sheesh, what iggerance!
*shakes head sadly *

Pirates, at least the better sort of pirates, LOVE cummerbunds, just as vampires love cummerbunds. To keep daggers and golden coins and parrot food in. Like a fanny-pack, except cool and dastardly.

I think you’re having penguin flashbacks.

Maybe, but pirates STILL love cummerbunds!

Does a sash count as a cummerbund? Because they did wear sashes….hmmm.

Curses! The dictionary describes a cummerbund as a “men’s sash”

Alright, you win this round OG. But I’ll be back, darn it! And I may or may not be speaking Australian.

IMO you greatly underestimate the corruption.

As sentence for your misdeed - you must read “The Creature from Jekyll Island” or other such similar book. It will help undo your Keystone Cops view of the government.

IMO you greatly underestimate the corruption.

Are you referring to corporate corruption, governmental corruption, societal corruption .. all of the above?

I’ve never been a fan of feeding copious amounts of booze to teenagers, then handing them keys to the Ferrari parked in the garage.

packman,

That… would probably be more accurate. I think their intent though is to protect the Property Tax Base going forward.

It doesn’t serve any purpose to have legions of folks abandon entire subdivisions just to have them fall into the hands of vandals and drug dealers. At least this way, when they can afford to resume payments, they’ll be some revenue for the states ( which are the real problem here? )

those Bakersfried folks living in tents at Weedpatch

Those damn Bakersfield people; always putting on airs.

Actually, I used to drive through Weedpatch when I would go up to the Kern river from Los Angeles. That was over 20 years ago - it looked like Juarezpatch last time I went through recently.

I went through a couple of iterations and I’m still not sure I got the wording quite right.

It’s definitely hard times for a growing and not insignificant number of people. What would be even more disturbing is if some of these people ended up without a place to live because of government and lender efforts to keep large numbers of vacant properties off the market.

Even if one ignores the effect of people “doubling up” during an economic downturn, there would still be quite an oversupply of housing. If the market were allowed to work, presumably rents and sales prices would fall in line with incomes if not a little lower. Until that happens, many people will have little choice but to continue to overpay for shelter.

“keep large numbers of properties off the market”

“If the market were allowed to work”

..? WHAT “market”!? AFAIK, there IS… no market?

DinOR,

There IS a market. If a house is priced at cashflow positive rates, it will sell.

Without a job, NO place is affordable.

I beg to differ. Anyone who saved money when they *had* a job (as they should have done) can still afford to pay rent for the periods when they don’t have a job.

I lost my job for a few months last year, and had no problem paying my mortgage.

I’m with you packman.

I was without a job for THREE YEARS by choice, during which I paid for all my expenses out of my savings. This period of three years was sandwiched in the middle of a five-year period in which I lived a single 2/2 apartment.

Good for both of you and very commendable. But millions (and that is no exaggeration) don’t make enough money to save.

If you’ve never experienced this, let’s just say you may have a hard time believing it. You would have a hard time believing it sometimes has nothing to do with personal choices.

“You would ALSO have a hard time believing it sometimes has nothing to do with personal choices.”

*sheesh*

I agree with you eco, talk to a single Walmart employee with kids about savings. I should note that not everyone has the same opportunities. Every case is different, but there are some hard working ppl out there just are not that bright and have limited potential for career growth.

I beg to differ. Anyone who saved money when they *had* a job (as they should have done) can still afford to pay rent for the periods when they don’t have a job.

Agreed. I was without a job for 9 months, yet still was able to afford a pretty decent place (probably nicer than I should’ve been paying for at the time). That whole “savings” things can do wonders at times

Good for both of you and very commendable. But millions (and that is no exaggeration) don’t make enough money to save.

That’s their choice. I don’t like being punished for other people’s bad choices.

“I agree with you eco, talk to a single Walmart employee with kids about savings. I should note that not everyone has the same opportunities. Every case is different, but there are some hard working ppl out there just are not that bright and have limited potential for career growth.”

Then I guess it would surprise you, Tim, that during just two years of my 26-year working career has my income has been higher than the median household income.

Right now, median household income is in the neighborhood of $50K. Mine is $10K less than that.

Yet I can still do things like quit jobs without having another lined up, and go without ANY income for three years to pay to pursue a Master’s degree and pay for it with CASH. (I’ve also vacationed in 48 states and 11 countries, but that’s beside the point, isn’t it?)

How does one do such a thing? It’s easy.

1. Don’t have kids out of wedlock.
2. Save money to purchase something, don’t put it on credit.
3. Buy what you can afford.
4. When you buy something, understand its true cost: cost on a pre-tax basis, maintenance cost, insurance cost.
5. Cut your own grass. Iron your own shirts. (God forbid!)
6. Live clean. Don’t be a drug/alcohol addict. Drugs are expensive.
7. Don’t be a whore. STDs are expensive.
8. Use it up, wear it out.
9. View people who keep up with the Jones as the morons they are.
10. Determine the cost of maintaining your career versus the advantages of a lesser income and more time.

I’ve been one of those people who wasn’t making enough money to save, and, trust me, this wasn’t by choice. I’d been looking for a job for almost half a year, and wasn’t able to find anything except a part-time dishwashing job. Was I making a bad choice to take this job?

talk to a single Walmart employee with kids about savings

But right there in your statement is a choice they made instead of saving - they chose to have kids. I can afford to save because I choose not to have kids (and have even lost relationships as a result).

I’m not saying eco’s statement doesn’t have merit, but the example you gave, Tim, doesn’t exactly scream “victim”

Amen. I tire of having this same discussion with conservative/libertarian folks. There are plenty of people who are hard working, but maybe not cut out for college or, even more tragically, are smart enough but never had the money/family backing to make college a possibility. Everyone does NOT have the same opportunities in this country. And now in many areas you’ve got people who are well educated competing for the same Wal-Mart jobs.

Oops! Forgot an important one.

#11. Be ethical and moral. Lawyers are expensive.

ecofeco: “…millions [...] don’t make enough money to save. [...] You would have a hard time believing it sometimes has nothing to do with personal choices.”

Tim: “I agree with you eco, talk to a single Walmart employee with kids about savings”

Um, let me get this straight: choosing to have kids while not having any prospect of earning enough to support them was not a “personal choice”?

Ok, got it.

I’ve always believed you could save at any income-level, as long as you spent less than you made.

H*ll, I saved when I was making 3-4K a year in school (and yes, I was totally self-supporting after age 16); I saved when I was making 12K/yr as a “poor grad student”; I was still saving after I graduated and bought my first house (because I did over-extend).

Sorry, I don’t buy that saving is not a function of personal choices. It always is. It is true that it is impossible to save when the sum total of fixed costs you have chosen to take on exceed your income. But those fixed costs were choices.

Your post seems to come from a very dark place. If you bothered to ask questions before you preached, you would have known that I make over 200k per year and live on less than 40k (only real expense is a 1k a month apartment - my car is 12 years old and I paid all my student loans off early - I dont keep a credit card balance). Statements such as don’t have kids out of wedlock miss important variables such as those that married and later had kids and then got divorced due to legitimate reasons such as infidelity and severe spousal abuse. Other statements such as don’t be a whore are just outlandish. Yes there are many ppl that could have saved, but believing that anyone could have saved except those that made bad choices is just dead wrong. Also, to assume that everyone has the same opportunities is dead wrong.

If you want to put together persuasive argument you have to the learn the difference between a statement such as many ppl could have avoided the hardships they are in now if they would have been more careful with their money, and a statement such as “anyone who saved money . . .” One is accurate, the other is foolish and warrants criticism.

Too many whiners on here. I make it on $10,000/year. It’s easy.

1. The only meat I eat is what I scrounge up by the side of the road. Those lazy liberals just want to pay for it, pre-packaged with their handout food stamps!

2. Stop using electricity! Cooking a good ‘coon over a campfire is easy (accept when its raining) and tastier too.

3. You don’t need doctors! When my foot got infected from the snake bite, I just cut it off. Now that’s a whole part of my body I don’t need to wash anymore!

4. Redefine fun. Disney world isn’t fun. Skinny dipping for snapper turtles is fun!

5. Don’t sleep. Sleep is for wussies and Liberals. I can work the night shift handing out carts at Wal-Mart, which gives me plenty of time during the day to look for water and road kill.

Life is meant for work and saving. Only.

I’m not saying eco’s statement doesn’t have merit, but the example you gave, Tim, doesn’t exactly scream “victim”

Who said I was trying to scream victim? Some may be addicts that had 20 kids with no expectation of stability. Others may have had kids when they were married or had a stable situation, and things changed, such as an abusive ex-spouse that was kicked out and refuses to pay child support. I was merely pointing out that there are those can’t save. There are thousands of stories of how they got there. Picking one or two stories to bolster points on one side or the other isn’t meaningful so I intentionally chose not to bother.

Then by the same token, there are those who deserve to stay in their foreclosed properties, too.

Because they can’t save, don’t you know.

I Agree with drumminj and Eudemon.

Those who chose to have kids should “kwitcherbitchin” because they chose. You get the extra tax deductions and we don’t since we do not have kids.

The choice is more mouths to feed or a faster growth in savings and net worth.

Deal with it.

The underlying desire is for people with kids to tax single childless people to pay for their living. I do my best to avoid taxes because I’m at war against welfare of any type.

There’s so much “stealth welfare” out there b.i.l., that minimizing one’s exposure is a full time job.

Doesn’t mean we should stop trying.

#12 Be lucky.

1. The only meat I eat is what I scrounge up by the side of the road. Those lazy liberals just want to pay for it, pre-packaged with their handout food stamps!

Hahahaah! Comical. Thanks, Jon.

Who said I was trying to scream victim?

Tim, your point is taken and I wasn’t trying to attack you personally. My point simply was that your example of someone who “can’t” save was someone who made a choice that put them in that situation. IMO, that disqualifies one for “can’t save”. They could have, they just made a decision to pursue something that made it harder/impossible to save.

Certainly I speak from a privileged point of view - I make good money and certainly started out on second base in life. But that doesn’t mean I’ve not made decisions along the way to keep myself in the driver’s seat. I’ve delayed gratification, missed out on fun trips, entertainment, I drive a 10 year old car and don’t have a flat-panel TV (still have 32″ CRT that weighs as much as I do).

My point ultimately is that most everyone makes decisions, and many of those that are held out as “unable to save” simply made bad choices. As I stated, I don’t disagree with eco’s statement that there are people who are in that situation due to no bad decisions on their part. I’d just rather talk about those examples, than hold up the “average Walmart employee” as an example, because they’re just not a good one.

“Deal with it.
The underlying desire is for people with kids to tax single childless people to pay for their living.”

Hey bill in Los Angeles,
Wow, you had me at: “kwitcherbitchin” …between you & wmbz you two ought to get a sizable book advance from McGraw-Hill:

Coming Soon!:

“We have ALL the answers!” …a tale of solving everything!

I refuse to take pity on anyone with financial woes as long as they are still able to pay for cable tv. When they stop paying for tv, we’ll talk.

“…Life is meant for work and saving. Only.”

Hey Jon,
Geez, giving away Taoist trade secrets is major nix, nix, nix…(Hwy, slips back into the local Amish community unseen…)

“If you bothered to ask questions before you preached, you would have known that I make over 200k per year and live on less than 40k”.

Tim, since you make more than $200K a year (yet commendably live on $40K), then why don’t you give away, say, $120K a year out of the goodness of your heart? Go to your local hospital and pay the tab for someone else’s one big surgery or hundreds of smaller surgeries. And do so anonymously.

Then you can place a deserved feather in your cap. And justifiably feel good about yourself rather than guilty.

Presently, you are traveling down the route of telling others what they should do with their resources (via the government, no less!) while hoarding your own. That, Tim, is in direct opposition with what is moral and ethical. In fact, it’s amoral. And you know it.

Is it possible that, secretly, you rather enjoy that fact?

Disagree?

Then give your money away. It really is that simple. Not going to do that? Then you do enjoy it sticking it to those who make less. You’d rather they give up their pittance savings than you give up your substantial savings (because you are better than they, perhaps?) The secret’s out.

It’s the most typical socio-economic behavior of immoral people who “Make North of $100K” — to believe that they know best how other people’s resources should be directed. There are at least a 2-3 dozen people frequenting this board who “Make North of $100K” who fit this stereotype.

Amazing what such people do to bury their greed-driven guilt.

Well guess what?

Fobbing any sense of greed-driven guilt onto the lap of the government isn’t going to relieve you of your guilt. In fact, it will make it considerably worse. As time passes, you’ll recognize that (a) you’re still the selfish s.o.b. you always were, and, (b) you’ve stripped others, including your children, of their ability to be free.

Eudemon - your points are totally nonsensical. All I stated is that everyone is not in a position to save. You were the one making moral and ethical judgments, and telling others what to do. Please don’t use me as a mirror to argue with yourself, although I welcome debate as to what I actually say.

“I refuse to take pity on anyone with financial woes as long as they are still able to pay for cable tv. When they stop paying for tv, we’ll talk.”

Hey cassandra,
Jerry Springer & Maury are low cost psychiatric therapy, what’s Dish satellite… $9.99 a month? For an extra $4.99 they’ll throw in Dr. Phil & Dr. Oz…and where the heck is Geraldo?

“…although I welcome debate as to what I actually say.”

You go Tim, I’ve got your back…damn revisionists…next thing you know there was never a Holocaust, and Yosemite Sam filled in the Grand Canyon…”

No worries drumminj I don’t take much too seriously. We all have different backgrounds. My mom was married to
fairly wealthy man. She didn’t need to work, and he didn’t want her to. Unfortunately, he became an abusive drunk. She split and he refused to pay child support. We lived in an unfinished payment, and got by on welfare and the low paying jobs my mom could find while working her way through college. Lot’s of ppl abuse the system, but some don’t. I find it irritating when ppl think that everyone is the same and has the same opportunities. Some ppl are less intelligent, less attractive, less healthy mentally and/or physically, in less stable environments, etc. I am not saying that necessarily gives them excuses or entitlements, but to ignore such differences when making arguments where such differences are relevant is not very persuasive.

unfinished payment = unfinished basement

You rock HWY. It’s interesting sometimes to see the assumptions ppl make about you if you make even the slightest liberal comment. Many are programmed to the point where the actual facts are irrelevant and not something they feel they need to concern themselves with.

Exactly Tim. No matter how diligent you are, life will throw you a curve ball every now and then and it WILL be the one that smacks you in the head.

I’ve seen many wealthy and successful people literally become permanently “unhinged” because they were not prepared for the devastation of their life and the shock that they had been wrong all their lives and unfairly condemned others. And the even bigger shock when they realized they would never be able to convince anyone else who hadn’t personally experienced the same devastation. Which meant most of their former “friends” and strangers.

I’ve also seen plenty of people destroy or throw away more opportunities than I have or will EVER see in my life and then preach to me about “life choices.” Ultimately, their luck ran out, either from drugs or just sheer meanness and stupidity.

And then there are those who cope and soldier on. Maybe never regaining what they lost. But coping anyway.

Most people are somewhere in-between. Just trying to muddle through life like everyone else.

Not that there aren’t way too many stupid people out there.

“Room Full of Mirrors” was always one of my fav’s by both Hendrix and the Pretenders. Does that make sense?

“Your post seems to come from a very dark place. If you bothered to ask questions before you preached, you would have known that I make over 200k per year and live on less than 40k …”

TIM! Many thanks for not being judgemental. You are a Man among Men. My apologies for not knowing in advance that you make $200K a year. I guess I won’t be getting an “I agree with your analysis” comment from you.

A shame, ‘cuz I covet receiving approval such as that from liberal elitists. Now for the rest of it:
_________________________________________________

Sometimes the truth sucks, Tim.

Perhaps instead of getting all upset at me calling you out, you should sit back and analyze what I said for the tiniest morsels of Truth.

Be a lawyer….get to the facts, man! Possibly grab your 2008 tax forms for starters - what percentage of your income did you give to charity? By this, I mean AFTER tax write-off to said charity/ies, not pre-tax write-off.

Perhaps your Firm gave to the charity in your name. Fair enough. If that’s the case, look at the company’s return instead.

Hey - I’m just asking how generous you were with YOUR money last year. That’s all. What’s the big deal? Geez.

YOU are interested in how generous OTHER people should be with THEIR money - toward that end, why shouldn’t I be interested in how generous YOU are?

Upon deep social-scientific analysis, I find it to be a very logical question.

I don’t care if you like it or not.

Tim, your point is well made.

I don’t mean to diminish the hardship that you and your mother endured, or take anything away from her efforts to pull herself up by her bootstraps by working hard at low-paying jobs while working her way through college.

She is to be commended for that. And I’m definitely in favor of having a safety net in place for people who find themselves in challenging situations while they regroup and try to climb out.

But I would still say that her choices contributed to where things ended up. She chose to get married and to have kids without finishing school; finish school first instead would have given her a better “insurance policy” to fall back on if things ever went south.

A brain-tumor out of the blue? Now _that’s_ something where choice probably had very little to do with it. Most life circumstances are not in the class, IMHO.

Hwy50: My point exactly. Ok, I admit, I don’t even own a TV anymore, I mean, what’s the point? Every time I watch TV, like at a hotel, airport, friend’s house, it reinforces my decision.

If it were really only $9.95 per month, I’d look the other way. But in my experience, “poor” people generally have the most expensive TV packages, somewhere north of $100/month.

I had a friend that worked for the cable company. He’d go around banging on doors to collect over due cable bills. Pay up or he cuts you off today. Damned if they didn’t pay up. Crappy apartment, kids in rags, empty pizza boxes stacked on the coffee table. But they’d pony up the couple hundred cash they were behind on the cable bill.

That’s my standard and I’m sticking to it. If you can pay for TV you are by definition not poor, and entitled to no assistance.

Cassandra-
No TV in our home either, going on 15 years. I am learning piano, read a lot, watch documentaries online, and have a more objective view of the world.

To my untrained eye, Obama’s shown some pretty good kung fu in this area thus far. But the presidency is a marathon, not a sprint.

As long as they get enough paying customers (and I’m sure plenty of FBs will do so), they should be able to hide the make believe renters in the mix. There’s been plenty of lost paperwork and difficulty communicating with homedebtors which they could blame. I normally wouldn’t believe that this could happen, but given:
1) Mark to myth
2) Recording negative amortization as profit
3) Recording a revenue when the market value of debt owed drops

this wouldn’t surprise me at all.

Jas Jain

Another regular who has disappeared into the ether…

Nix, nix, nix…thou doth live still, or someone someone like aladinsane… sending me email’s from him.

I wonder if they watch: “Earth, without people”

“Without people, what would be the price of gold?”

Is that related to:

“If a Sequoia tree falls and no one is there to hear it, does it make sound?”

less philosophy, more wine, makes Diogenes a very happy fella.

Marinfindels!

If ‘low’ land costs means as low as they’ll get in this cycle, i agree they’re not… But then you might well say the same for labor, materials and whatever building services are required. All are likely to cost less further down the road, imo.

Perhaps i should’a said ‘”low enough to fit into more people’s budgets than previously”.

*sigh*

I meant to say: But we forget - the houses are NOT being built for us, or for anyone, to live in - just to churn and generate loans and fees!

I spoke with someone I know at a public homebuilder who is working on the acquisition side. They are buying finished lots, but doing so in small chunks at less than replacement cost (apparently “wall street/their board” won’t let them buy big chunks of lots yet). With construction costs as low as they are, he said they can compete with foreclosures. At the end of the day, if you are looking to buy a home, they are wagering that you would rather have a brand new home, with full warranty, than a used home, without warranty.

I have a hard time arguing with that. Not to mention the fact that the strongest/best subcontractors are available to do the work today at lower prices–I’m guessing quality will be pretty good for homes built today.

Additionally, I am hearing that just in the past couple of months the activity of builders buying finished lots has really picked up. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the finished lot inventory to dry up.

If the bank took a hit on the lots, people can buy them for very little, making the math truly work. I just heard of a deal that got done buying lots for about 30% of the debt amount (that’s less than 30% of cost, if you assume there was some equity), and another deal in the works at about 20% of hard costs on some finished lots. At those prices I can understand how a builder can make a profit even today.

See my note above for what I am seeing in terms of finished lot values. Based on the values that finished lots are selling for, it very well may be that the builders can get more for the land by building a home on it then selling the home/land than by simply selling the land without a home.

Do you see any builders finishing lots where you are (putting in utilities, etc.)? That would shock me. I’m not seeing that at all yet.

Just curious BB, where are you seeing this? In some places in Northern California, where the perception is massive inventory and falling prices, the reality is somewhat different from everything that I’m seeing.

This is primarily in places where prices have already crashed (and crashed early), increasing volume considerably starting over a year ago.

“…They’re STILL building in communities where foreclosures are rampant”

Sounds like an addiction…then again…sounds like competition!

“$278,000…your choice….you want a bank REO rental or something new?”

“Just curious BB, where are you seeing this? In some places in Northern California, where the perception is massive inventory and falling prices, the reality is somewhat different from everything that I’m seeing.”

I saw this at ground zero, Reno, NV, when I drove around with my mother a month or so ago. There’s a particular Del Webb development in Somersett which is getting throttled, and vacant properties abound, yet they continue to build more and more each and every day. Fine with me, as I’d love to see my mom get a 2 bedroom home there on the cheap, but it seems absurdly stupid to continue to add to the inventory glut. The shadow inventory of bank owned homes is astounding.

Thanks for that synopsis Wiz…O.K., HBB students who can understand that post in one reading, get to skip the final exam on Chapter 13: “What went wrong… the short version”

Sorry ,sometimes I re-state the story for new readers ,at least how I see the story .

What, admitting you can’t pay your debts and having them partially written-off affects your credit rating? But why? It’s not fair! Waaah!

When Windows 7 prices were announced.. last month (?), someone noted that they were cheaper than Vista’s initial prices.
While hardware prices fall for a variety of reasons, i can’t attribute anything except deflation to the OS price reduction.

Not only have they gotten ridiculously cheap, but they’re also getting ridiculously fast. Last month I got a new Lenovo to replace an older one (2.5yrs old), and even though the hardware specs aren’t all that different, it’s subjectively _way_ faster! Nice…

Vista was such a great product that they are giving you a $50 coupon toward your new ‘ 7′ system. hehahahahaha

Actually I changed the order this afternoon for $126 more for a Studio with Vista Premium so that it can be upgraded to a 7 operating system. I heard bad things about Vista. The Studio has 4 gigs RAM and 500 gb hd.

Silly me. I read “Wal-mart,” not Walgreens.

I’m sure Wasilla already has 5 Wal-marts.

Hey Olygal, you celebrate Halloween in your ‘hood? I wanna pull up at you place in an F-350 work truck, dressed as Donald “Pucker Lips” sTrump and say: Trick or Treat!

Oh, yeah, that’d be wayyyyyyy comical…
Only you better keep your foot on the gas, hwy, because I’m kind of high-strung even at the best of times, and have great aim even the worst of times.

…Why! You’re right!!

*bounds enthusiastically up from chair *

Yeah!
*Hiccup *

I haven’t had Hamm’s for decades - but you reminded me of the commercials. Thanks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eiu8BmnIzFE

I’m sorry you keep hitting brick walls, drumminj.

Sorry, i didn’t mean to imply that I was still out of work. I start my new gig on 7/27, once I pee in the cup (yep, sucking it up on that one).

What I meant to say was “Like me, he’s not been able to find work since we were laid off September”. I suppose that’s misleading as well. Sigh…

Anyhow, I’ve been working my butt off this past month on some contract work, and have another 6 months+ lined up on another gig. I’ll be all right And if not, I still have a few years of living expenses in the bank.

I was just trying to add to the discussion that my anecdotal evidence supports the notion that the job market is tight, even for talented (my opinion) executives.