The Housing Bubble

Good point. Government-run companies are very efficient. See: USPS, Amtrak, GNMA, FRE, FNM, Acorn, Your local city govt, any city worker beside the road staring into a hole.

2005 CBO report compared many countries cost per capita and found lower cost.

Other countries free-ride off of our pharma research. Drugs are subject to patent protection here, but not overseas, so they cost more here.

Medicare costs much less than medicare advantage (private medicare)

Medicare cost-shifts to private insurers. The apparent cost savings is a result of forcing private plans to pay more, not greater efficiency of government compared to the private sector.

www dot managedcaremag dot com/archives/0612/0612.costshift.html

Lehigh,

Being from that area originally it was frustrating that every time a drug was formulated the patent would get violated by about… oh 95% of the planet based on humanitarian grounds.

I suspect that is going to end soon. Not much will happen for a long time.

OTOH, too many marginal drugs are slipping through.

Medicare cost-shifts to private insurers.

Thank you. And just where will they shift it if it is all-public, which is what the advocates really want anyway?

Other countries free-ride off of our pharma research. Drugs are subject to patent protection here, but not overseas, so they cost more here

USA drugs are subject to patent protection in WTO countries.

international regulation for WTO members has since c1994 been organised by TRIPs (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rights), which sets minimum standards for such laws. Patents are issued to new, inventive products with an industrial application for twenty years, whether domestic or imported. Most members should have complied by 2000, but the poorest have until 2005 as the system is costly to implement. TRIPs allows breaking of patents in certain circumstances by government use of alternative manufacturers, so long as the patent holder is compensated, a system termed ‘compulsory licensing’

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Liberalizing_international_drug_patent_laws

The ‘it’s cheaper everywhere else in the world because they all live off our pharmaceutical research’ argument is the last bastion of the healthcare status quo-ers. They’ve no evidence to back it up, but…

They’ve stolen our precious ‘restless leg syndrome’ drugs! No wonder they live longer, spend less on health care, and like their systems more. They steal it all from us. Just like welfare queens!

“spend less on health care”

People always drag this one out - people in a lot of countries may pay less out of pocket for HC than U.S. folks, but that fails to take into account what the non-U.S. people are paying in higher taxes which in turn enables the ‘low-cost’ HC. I would rather pay $50 for HC and $50 in taxes than $10 for HC and $100 in taxes.

People ‘always drag it out’ because it’s a pretty darn important point. Every other country spends less per capita on health-care than we do on, any way you want to measure it. And they mostly live longer and enjoy their systems more. Some of us think those are important points. Others seem to have the belief that it’s more ‘patriotic’ or ‘American’ to overpay monopolies for our health-care. And get worse results.

but that fails to take into account what the non-U.S. people are paying in higher taxes

No it does not fail to take that into account.

It takes into account the total amount a country spends on healthcare regardless of where the money comes from.

This is such a huge misconception on you part on such a huge point that after you objectively research it, it should change your whole opinion.

The single most important class of drugs for health is and remains antibiotics.

Originally discovered in Great Britain.

“OTOH, too many marginal drugs are slipping through.”

Bingo. I’m a medical student, and I’m surprised at how bad the drug pipeline seems to have become in recent years. The handful of true breakthroughs are now mixed in with many marginally effective drugs that seem somewhat pointless and tons and tons of “me too” garbage drugs that exist only because each drug company needs to “round out its portfolio” by adding yet another compound to an existing drug class that does nothing different than its predecessors.

Leigh says - Other countries free-ride off of our pharma research. Drugs are subject to patent protection here, but not overseas, so they cost more here.

Please - Patented drugs account do not account for the fact that they spend 50% less than we do. I challenge you to show me the math on that one Leigh. I’ll start by telling you that prescription drugs account for less than 20% of health care costs. OK go.

Leigh say s- Medicare costs much less than medicare advantage (private medicare) Medicare cost-shifts to private insurers. The apparent cost savings is a result of forcing private plans to pay more, not greater efficiency of government compared to the private sector.

Sorry Leigh - #1 Private insurance shifts far more onto the public sector. If you get sick and use up your benefits you go on medicaid, if you get sick and loose your job onto the cobra and then medicaid. When you get old and have higher costs you co on medicare. #2 the comparison of medicare to medicare advantage is apples to apples comparison.

www dot managedcaremag dot com/archives/0612/0612.costshift.html
Please this web site says
We serve dozens of HMOs, IPAs, and managed care clients across the U.S.. This is your source of info??????????????????????

Measton-

I’m with Leigh on the cost shifting…Hospitals don’t make money. The less one patient’s carrier pays, the more another needs to pay to make up for it for the same procedures. Medicare pays much less than insurance companies to hospitals for the same treatments. The less Medicare pays, the more others need to pay in order to keep hospitals solvent. That’s the cost shift.

I worked for a healthcare consulting firm for a brief period–the job was to look through the contracts of various insurance companies and confirm that various procedures were properly billed/paid by the insurance carriers. We worked for the hospitals trying to get them more money from insurance companies. Medicare reimbursements were embarrassingly low as compared to even the monster insurance companies (who got a better deal than smaller insurance companies). The difference was not a few percent….for some procedures, it was a multiple (meaning private insurance paid a multiple of what Medicare paid).

Noting how cost effective Medicare is ignores the very real fact that if you used Medicare reimbursements across the board, the entire medical industry would go bankrupt tomorrow.

My cholesterol number is usually 200, =/- 10, dropped to 170-180 when I went on a cholesterol med (due to doctor’s recommendation/family history).

Last time I heard about it, the ex’s was 280-290. But she’s the type that can eat cheesecake all week and not gain a pound, so she is considered “healthier” by the medical establishment.

Well, mild high blood pressure often is better treated by other means than drugs. Often it’s diet and exercise.

Cholesterol… have to look at HDL to LDL ratios, C reactive protiens, lipoprotien A and B, triglycerides… Just throwing out a number like 200 doesn’t tell you much.

You could have a 300 cholesterol and your HDL is 150 and you are in great shape.

Consequently you put up a 200 with an HDL of 40 and you’re f*cked.

Again, most of the tests I’ve mentioned are inexpensive. I think C reactive can be a bit pricey.

Also long term we need to change diet and physical activity patterns. Most of the drugs are unproven in how much they help. I’m always looking at it as a race between my heart and my liver taking a dive.

Thinking my heart is in the lead right now but the statins gave my liver a good scarring.

High blood pressure and diabetes are two very obvious diseases whose prevention and/or treatment are far less expensive than just ignoring them- as some seem to think our health-care system should do.

So maybe the government should pay people for not being overweight!

You also forgot to add some of the uninsurable is due to a lack of a job.

Jim,

I would argue that there are more than the two types uninsured people presented here.

What about those that reside here illegally?

What about those who choose not to work and game the system?

Surely there are many good people who could use a break. How will this all play out? Time will tell.

I do have a problem with government mandates by force though. The IRS will be the enforcer in this case. Very nice people from what I understand. And very efficiently run I’m also told.

Illegals are not allowed to participate in the exchanges. I’m not sure if that means that they are exempt from the whole system, or if it means that they have to pay the penalty (2% of income or something like that) if they don’t have some other form of health insurance.

Remember, that lots of illegals do pay their taxes - especially if they hope to get permanent residence under a possible future amnesty program.

Deport them directly from the emergency rooms then?

Oye. That is ugly.

As noted, I’m supportive of amnesty.

” So just like the old system, there’s something for everybody to hate in the new system.”

Except for the people that don’t pay anything into the system to begin with.

But since we’re NOT a nation of savers, how many would follow through on that?

Wow. Now that’s not love. Someday that will come back to haunt him, I think.

But what year Corvette?

kidding…

I think they said it was an ‘84.

Hey, we have our priorities straight in my family.

Sell the ‘Vette, hide the cash, problem solved.

By the way, a strategic divorce might also work in this case, but she might not be competent to sign the papers. Also, state Medicaid offices are getting better at catching these sort of thing.

So there was no house as asset, or was that exempt from consideration?

Sell the ‘Vette, hide the cash, problem solved.

Yep.

Or - don’t have a government that gives welfare handouts based on “needs” that are easily corrupted as such; problem solved.

(P.S. - this principle especially true w/regards to corporate welfare handouts.)

The nurse who helps me at the office told me about her uncle who just started dialysis last month. When he turned 65 he refused to pay for Medicare Part B on general principle. His wife argued with him, and signed up herself for Part B. He didn’t sign up. Now he has zero coverage for this very expensive procedure that he needs to live. His doctors told his wife that she shouldn’t tell him about the huge medical bills because it will stress him. She is exhausted from taking care of him and very stressed about the bills.

I think that she should not only tell him, but should leave him. Like Polly says, you can’t fix stupid.

“I think they said it was an ‘84.”

An ‘84 Vette is barely worth anything today anyway, so what’s the deal here? Is this an “extra” car? Or is it their primary means of transportation or something?

I work in classic cars, an 84 vette can sell as low as $5k, an average 2005/6 Accord is worth more cash. Why can’t they have a old car? If it was a ‘63 split window or something it’s an asset, but an 84 vette isn’t really the lap of luxury by any means.

I have a total disdain for insurance companies and even go one step further with vehicles. IMO, there should be no raise in premiums UNLESS there has been an accident and a claim submitted.

I don’t care how many speeding tickets, etc you have, if there was no damage and no claim, then the insurance company should not raise rates on you. And yes, this also applies to DUIs.

Housing Wizard, you are the only person who seems to care about how doctors and nurses fare in this system. It’s amazing to me that doctors have been left out of all discussion. The way I see it, they are the party that gets the least in this new legislation, i.e, they are the ones who have been screwed the most. Americans are going to remember this in the future, when they find themselves in a situation where a doctor does not accept their insurance because the reimbursements don’t cover costs, or when a doctor can only give them ten minutes of their time when 30 minutes are needed. Giving the insurance companies a monopoly on health institutions where they can force any decrease in profits down the food chain is not the way to go, but that’s what’s going to happen. This law has some good things in it, but the flaws will end up overwhelming the advantages.

Doctor here. Surgical subspecialist. We are higher paid per hour than primary care physicians, and the new plan hits us harder. My professional national organization constantly blasted me with emails to call my congresscritter in opposition to the bill. My specialty is far more concerned with high incomes than the fact that so many patients can’t get in to see us. We have also kept our numbers strategically small to keep up the demand for our services.

The AMA was in favor of the legislation (many more primary care doctors than surgeons.) They’ll have less onerous decreases in reimbursement, and I think that they care more about patients than surgical specialists do.

On balance, I’m strongly in favor of the bill. Particularly in this recession, so many have lost coverage and that is absolutely unacceptable.

Crickets

I think it was replacing SS with savings accounts, safely invested with DaBoyz, of course. Buck Fush.

“Forced purchases of financial instruments….”

and they called it “Social Security”

Didn’t Bushco propose this very thing a few years back? Forcing everyone to invest in 401Ks?

Don’t remember that one. Link?

“Forced purchases of financial instruments….”

and they called it “Social Security”

Yes. Started by FDR and expanded by Reagan.

Nevertheless - this is unique in that it forces people to buy from corporations - not from the government.

Which is why health insurers’ stock is up so much lately.

“this is unique in that it forces people to buy from corporations - not from the government.”

Exactly. There’s a difference. I think. Looks like the dems are turning out to be model fascists.

Just to be fair and more complete

Let’s not forget TARP, and FED purchase of MBS, and the GSE’s.

If the flaw is that people are forced to buy insurance from private companies, there are some simple solutions to that. You could go with Medicare buy-ins, state-sponsored non-profits to compete in the exchanges, and so on. There is plenty of time to come up with fixes before the unpopular parts kick in.

Looks like the dems are turning out to be model fascists.

Can’t be. Only Republicans are allowed to be fascists.

(Cue Hwy with his cute trademarked tags, though I won’t see them. He still does that, doesn’t he?)

PS I don’t like the forced to buy private insurance, and would have preferred a public option with private insurance for unproven or low benefit therapy. The other option of course is to regulate the profits as we do with utilities. It’s wasn’t a free market before and it’s even less so now.

Start with the basic question;

Is medical care a right or privilege ??

Medical care is a privilege. By no means is it a right.

Is medical care a right or privilege ??

According to the new bill,

Medical care is a privilege that we’ll have the right to buy?

By no means is it a right ??

Then why can “anyone” walk into a county emergency room and get care ?

SCDave…that is part of the problem. Too many people going to E- room to get 10 stitches when they should be going to a clinic. Much cheaper.

Lane

I thought the walk-in clinics always tell the emergency trauma patients to go to ER?

Didn’t Bushco propose this very thing a few years back? Forcing everyone to invest in 401Ks?

Don’t remember that one. Link?

President George W. Bush discussed the “partial privatization” of Social Security since the beginning of his presidency in 2001. But only after winning re-election in 2004 did he begin to invest his “political capital” in pursuing changes in earnest … On February 2, 2005, Bush made Social Security a prominent theme of his State of the Union Address. In this speech, which sparked the debate, it was Plan II of CSSS’s report that Bush outlined as the starting point for changes in Social Security. He outlined, in general terms, a proposal based on partial privatization.

(If medical care is not a right)

Then why can “anyone” walk into a county emergency room and get care ?

Now that’s a good point. I think it should be made into a right as it has been in every other developed nation and a lot of banana republics as well.

And here’s another way to think about rights and country. Does a person have the right to live in their own country or must they die in a foreign land if ill? Let’s say a person moves to a foreign country, buys health-insurance or is covered by that nation’s plan and develops a chronic, serious illness that requires on-going, expensive treatment to stay alive.

Let’s say that person loves America but can’t return because they will not be able to get treatment there because of the pre-existing condition. Well, the person will then probably die in that foreign land, far from friends, family, culture and family. All because their own country that they love is too selfish, greedy, ideologically rigid and bought and sold by lobbyists.

This is not my situation, but it could be, and it makes me think about the subject differently than I had before.

And I believe everyone on this board who doesn’t think health-care is a right would change their Yankee Doodle/Free-Market Uber Alles tune if they were uninsured and fighting for their life.

that is part of the problem ??

Exactly my point to Bill in LA….It is a right in America because anybody can get it…You just need to be broke…The “privilege” goes to the rest that get to pay for this “right”…

IMO, assuming our national policy is not going to be letting people die in the streets is to have everyone pay for insurance…

Well yeah, everyone remembers that - but that’s taking payments that are already forced (SS) and changing them from public to private.

The only additional payments would have been voluntary.

* Plan I: Up to two percent of taxable wages could be diverted from FICA and voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment in stocks, bonds, and/or mutual funds.
* Plan II: Up to four percent of taxable wages, up to a maximum of $1000, could be diverted from FICA and voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment.
* Plan III: One percent of wages on top of FICA, and 2.5% diverted from FICA up to a maximum of $1000, could be voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment.[62]

We were talking about new additional forced payments.

(P.S. Bush’s proposal had no prayer of actually happening - and would even less so today, since it would kill the treasury market. I wish it would have happened, but oh well.)

We were talking about new additional forced payments.

There was scuttlebutt at the time that he was laying the groundwork for “forced, privatized payments, but perhaps that was rumor / fearmongering …

Some of the critics of Bush’s plan argued that its real purpose was not to save the current Social Security system, but to lay the groundwork for dismantling it. They note that, in 2000, when Bush was asked about a possible transition to a fully privatized system, he replied: “It’s going to take a while to transition to a system where personal savings accounts are the predominant part of the investment vehicle. … This is a step toward a completely different world, and an important step.”

So then if that’s the case - that transition would have been exactly the opposite of forced payments, no? It would have been taking existing forced payments (SS) and making them not-so-forced, would it not? At least, with respect to its management and target (managed by the government and targeted at treasuries vs. managed privately and targeted at the investors’ discretion).

Am I missing something?

It would have been taking existing forced payments (SS) and making them not-so-forced, would it not?

I see what you’re saying, yes. I thought you meant “forced” in the sense that a set-aside percentage was compulsory, not in the sense of “management and target” …

The United States has already signed on to an international treaty (sorry, no time to look up the title now) that declares health care to be a right. Maybe it is actually “best available” health care that is the right?

In any event, we just haven’t ratified it yet. That makes it unenforceable under law, but this treaty is pretty much standard in all other 1st world countries. And we have started the process of joining them. And it was a while ago, though I’m not sure which president went ahead with it.

“And here’s another way to think about rights and country. Does a person have the right to live in their own country or must they die in a foreign land if ill? Let’s say a person moves to a foreign country, buys health-insurance or is covered by that nation’s plan and develops a chronic, serious illness that requires on-going, expensive treatment to stay alive.

Let’s say that person loves America but can’t return because they will not be able to get treatment there because of the pre-existing condition. Well, the person will then probably die in that foreign land, far from friends, family, culture and family. All because their own country that they love is too selfish, greedy, ideologically rigid and bought and sold by lobbyists.”

Here in Medicare paradise (Canada) if you leave the country for more than 6 months, your coverage ends. You have a two month waiting period when you come back - assuming you satisfy the criteria to get Medicare (citizen, or legally entitled to live in Canada; and has a permanent and principal home in the province).

Here in Medicare paradise (Canada) if you leave the country for more than 6 months, your coverage ends. You have a two month waiting period when you come back

Can a Canadian obtain private insurance during the two month waiting period?

Are Canadian out of pocket health expenses expensive like the USA?

After 2 months will the national insurance cover pre-existing conditions?

The problem with that is that there are three or four million workerbees in the working for the insurance companies and the insurance companies are collectively making $5 billion a year after paying all of those workerbees and a vast array of other costs not associated with providing health care (marketing costs for example). If you go to a single payer type system, what are you going to do with all those workerbees, to say nothing of all of the executive bonuses that are fundimental to the continuance of our sociatial system?

Hire those displaced health care workers for the collection of
the government system for starter . You still need billing people to bill the government ,

A binding agreement from someone who has no assets is worthless. Thats’ why only those of us who have accumulated any wealth are worried about insurance of any kind (auto liability, homeowners liability, umbrella policies and health insurance). As the old song goes “if ya ain’t got nothing, ya got nothing to lose”.

I wonder what you will have to provide to the IRS to show you have insurance?Will you have to send a copy of your policy or are we going on the honor system?I wonder if it will be a computer database showing all the insured like car insurance in CA?

“That’s why only those of us who have accumulated any wealth are worried about insurance of any kind.”

I try to remind my “TrueBeliever’s™ / “TrueHypocrite™” / “TruePurity™” siblings that within apprx the next 100 years 6.3+ Billion humans will die, within that number, you’ll find quite a few “TrueClingons™”

bwahaha. That’s so cute and funny I fergot to laugh.

“”any objective viewer can tell that a Tea Party’s fringe is racially agitated.”"

Hmm you mean as opposed to the Black & Hispanic Caucuses? Or maybe LaRaza or the NAACP or any of the other hundreds of race based political and lobbying group?

I would like to think that I’d confront racism in any group I were a member of no matter my color.

I also understand the difference between people organizing for equal-rights and opportunity for their own ethnicity and people hating members of other races just because of their color.

Sometimes the difference is easy to see and sometimes it isn’t.

Well. Thank god you pointed out that any conservative action group is esentially a racist nazi faction.

Only enlightened progressive liberals can show us the way.

My general note is the democrats are in the business of buying up the poor vote and promoting poverty. Worked well for alomst two generations. Since LBJ.

But please continue down the socialist path. It is clearly the way of the “TrueBeliever(TM)”.

“I would like to think that I’d confront racism in any group I were a member of no matter my color.”

Good. Then we’ll be seeing you on the White House lawn in the near future.

It was in the hallway inside one of the Congressional office buildings.

In which case, they would have been accused of either “ducking their constituents” or wasting money by flying in when they could have driven/taken the subway/bus/etc.

My post ended up way down the thread.

Good post, Michael.

I support most of the Tea Party goals, however I do not see the HC bill as the apocalyptic event that many other conservatives do.

Because it’s a fleabite by comparison with the demographic entitlements crash that’s on the way. The first Boomers turn 65 in less than a year.

To see supposed fiscal conservatives gin up opposition to Obamacare by shouting “It cuts Medicare benefits” is ridiculous, and not just a little bit so.

Excellent post, eudemon.

Yes, it is ridiculous.

What will happen by 2020 re: Medicare will dwarf ObamaCare.

We’re in serious trouble and TPTB (Republicans and Democrats alike) are turning a blind eye. More entitlement program implementations is the last thing we need.

Very interesting.

My guess is that extreme party insiders are attacking the movement from one side and the other and teaming up.

The team party is outside the establishment and must scare the shit right out of them.

The LEFT is using the media to portray the Tea Party as racists or republican. The Republicans are trying to get inside and deviate the group on to the totally bogus health care debate.

eudemon, YOU DA MAN!

Tea Partiers are very pro individual rights.

Maybe but not all of them. These tea party people looked liked they would have stomped this guy who was excercising his individual right of free speech. Good thing the cops were there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Q7XH8lfGMc

“I’ve been to several Tea Party gatherings, and I’ll be heading to more.”

Enjoy the ride!

So the Tea Party supports a woman’s right to choose abortion? No wonder they oppose the health care reform bill.

They will be shunned…The angry white southern man no longer has any political clout in this country…That came to a final end in November 2008…

Will they be shunned? I doubt it.

Angry white southern men have quite a bit of clout in this country. Even if their numbers have dwindled over the years (in proportion to the general population), they still wield a fair amount of energy, anger, and populist zeal. It’s also important to note that southern men do not hold a monopoly on racism, homophobia, xenophobia, or any other misbegotten modes of thought. Far from it.

Ok I admit that I don’t know enough about the Tea Parties .
But still I don’t understand why they would think that a Health Care Insurance Monopoly was freedom if they are freedom seekers . Have they enjoyed the Health care monopoly that has taken that much profit out of the system ? I don’t get it .

I wish they would go after how bogus the Financial Reform
package is they are trying to put up . Do they like built -in bail-out for TBTF entities that they are proposing ?

+1

Only give cash and only give it anonymously.

I also donated to Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty in the past. I wish them luck. But I too, have been hounded, particularly by CFL for donations. Right now on my smartphone, I have about fifteen “missed” calls from CFL. It’s some woman in who knows what town who gets paid to solicit funds I presume. This is not to reflect on the goals of CFL, and I am in 95% agreement with CFL. I just think I donated enough and need to focus on donating to myself!

I did the exact same thing. I gave a few hundred to the Ron Paul campaign and I got put on at least 5 or 6 email lists. Won’t make that mistake again.

+ 1 eudemon…I agree…

Agree 100% with that third paragraph.

I strongly believe all such people are mentally ill. Literally.

The leaders, or the leaders and their followers?

If it’s the latter, that’s a helluva lot of mentally ill people by any standard. Does it follow, for example, that most of the German population circa 1939 was mentally ill? And is this mental state curable, in your opinion?

And fourth paragraph!

I don’t have any idea, ET-Chicago. I’m not a doctor nor a clinician.

I will pro-offer this though: When populations find themselves in dire straits fiscally, they can be easily manipulated. That’s why the Germans allowed a dictator like Hitler to surface. They were destitute enough to believe. Mass delusion? Definitely, as most of the 1930s population was destitute, or close to it, from 1918 to Hitler’s ultimate rise in 1933.

Much of the United States’ population is destitute, even if outside appearances would have anyone believe otherwise. Those folks are ripe for plucking.

What I want to see is a savings rate of at least 10% nationally. When people are solvent, they make better informed decisions and are more alert to threats.

eudemon, ET Chicago & ya’ll-
If you guys get a chance, do some research on “The Engineering Of Consent” the brainchild of Edward Bernays. Bernays was Sigmund Freud’s newphew and was an evil genius. The Nazi’s used his psychology, along with U.S. advertisers, politicians (to this day), etc… Pretty interesting stuff.

I will pro-offer this though: When populations find themselves in dire straits fiscally, they can be easily manipulated. That’s why the Germans allowed a dictator like Hitler to surface. They were destitute enough to believe. Mass delusion? Definitely …

I don’t disagree with that at all, nor would I argue with the idea that many despots have been mentally unstable. Where it becomes interesting is the point at which ordinary people are suffering from mass delusion / the cult of personality / a crisis of faith / whatever. I just wouldn’t call it mental illness.

If you guys get a chance, do some research on “The Engineering Of Consent” the brainchild of Edward Bernays.

Thanks for the tip! Sounds like an interesting guy …

I also thank you for the tip, awaiting….

I assume that you’ve seen Triumph Of The Will (1936) before. One of Hitler’s pre-eminent propaganda pieces produced by (what’s her name?)

Didn’t say I was cool with it. And I have no clue Ron Paul’s view on it. Though our views agree on most things - his views do not determine my views.

To be honest it’s something I haven’t looked that deeply into, for a few reasons:
- It’s grossly subject to hidden truths. I believe we don’t really know for sure all that went on there, nor that does go on.
- It’s an extremely subjective subject. As such, there’s really not much I can add to any conversation. You view it as torture. That’s your opinion. In my opinion torture by definition includes extreme physical pain and/or bodily damage, neither of which is (from what I have read) the case with waterboarding.
- It’s my view that some extraordinary measures are necessary in order to extract intelligence information in times of war. I believe the acts of 9/11 constituted an act of war. Such extraordinary measures may extend right up to (but not over) the line of torture. However it’s a gray line - like I say it’s extremely subjective. Like you I don’t believe it should be crossed - but the actual position of the line is what’s subjective.

Back to the actual subject - I believe that the effect of the health care bill on our society is far, far greater - by many magnitudes, than the effect of the waterboarding of the 9/11 terrorists and their associates; especially given the more subject nature of the “torture”, and I further believe that this relationship of scale should be obvious to anyone who is sensible.

We somehow managed to win WW1, WW2, and the Cold War without torturing, so perhaps it just requires a little more brainpower than we had in charge at the time of 9/11.

Unlike what you’re taught on ‘24′, torture is notorious for producing incorrect information. Those tortured tend to tell you everything they think you want to know, generally by making it up. The information you get is unreliable- and tends to confirm your suspicions, since that’s how it works. (It also helps explain some of the Bush admin’s stupid actions in the early days of the Iraqi occupation- when they were after a few ‘deadenders’- and that was gonna solve everything. You get the kind of info you torture for.)

How do you feel about waterboarding domestic suspects?
(WWFFW- Who Would the Founding Fathers Waterboard?)
—
I guess we each have our hobbyhorses, but I find my government torturing people to be far more frightening than my government helping people get and keep affordable health-care.

torturing

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Nevertheless - if you think we won those wars without using similar techniques (call it torture if you want) - you are extremely naive. I’ll let you do the googling this time.

(Torture BTW is taking my 2-year-old boy out to dinner. I’d much rather be waterboarded.)

E.g. you can start with “London Cage” and “Operation Overlord”, for instance.

Then imagine how many more U.S., British, etc. soldiers probably would have died if those techniques had not been used.

Now remind yourself that we haven’t had any significant terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 - and ponder why. I venture it was at least in part due to your alleged “torture”.

Then perhaps you can confirm (or deny - your choice) my point about scale.

Nevertheless - if you think we won those wars without using similar techniques (call it torture if you want) - you are extremely naive. I’ll let you do the googling this time.

While I kind of agree with you — war is messy business, and the winners don’t generally go on trial for war crimes, whether it’s torture or firebombing civilians by the thousands — there were plenty of convictions in the past century of friend and foe alike for the misuse of “similar techniques.” Hell, a US captain and his commanding general were court-martialed more than a century ago for using the “water-cure” (as it was then called) during the Spanish-American War.

OK. I googled them. Operation Overlord (D Day) has nothing to do with torture. The London Cage has never been proven to involve torture. It was where some high-value prisoners were held. A *few* allege harsh treatment, but nothing like waterboarding.

BTW, you keep joking about how minor waterboarding is. Maybe you should google that. (And once again I’m amazed at a libertarian’s acceptance of gov torture- quite revealing. ‘By golly, they’d better not try to direct the economy, but waterboarding suspects, that’s alright.’)

I also question why insider knowledge is discounted on this board over yahoo finance articles

Because now, unfortunately but rightfully, most of the public dis-trusts Wall Street insiders and Wall Street’s top business school grads after their failing their institutions, capitalism and country.

Most thinking and ethical Americans are appalled at the defective, ammoral, unethical, and partially immoral product of our “top” MBA programs. Fraud, incompetence, greed, and market destruction takes a toll on reputation.

It will take much more than Wall Street spin PR campaigns to bring back the faith that has been betrayed.

I agree with your point that one shouldn’t be always too afraid to buy anything.

I don’t disagree with you. Part of my frustration the other day was that the only point I was trying to make was that because so many dangerous leverage games are in fact legal (i.e., the abusive use of CDS, and repos (as in repurchase agreements and not reposesssion) to varying extent), they have to be addressed through statute or regulation, not that they should be allowed to go on without rules, and that self regulation will not work in a field driven by profit maximation (not implying I was a cheerleader of ammoral or immoral conduct as some have suggested, but merely expressing my belief that self regulation on Wall Street should be expected to gravitate towards such conduct).

Insider trading is the trading of a corporation’s stock or other securities (e.g. bonds or stock options) by individuals with potential access to non-public information about the company.

- Wikipedia

Now would you say this does or does not give an unfair advantage to the person or persons with this knowledge and can it or can it not create a situation where the market can be manipulated?

Those are all rhetorical question because the very essence of any con game is… deliberately hiding and misrepresenting information and a situation that relies on good faith.

Wall St will NEVER regulate itself. There is far too much money and power at stake.

History shows time and time again that much power must be regulated and control by external forces.

We are on the same page. I never said actions that constitute illegal activity should not be prosecuted. In fact, I am going much further and saying that that many actions currently legal pose so much risk they must be curtailed because, as you said, Wall Street will not, and should not be expected to, regulate itself.

Then I apologize for my misunderstanding.

No worries.

Natalie , what you say was legal I don’t think was legal ,especially when you view it in the entire context of many
acts by those Money Changers . Wall Street can’t regulated itself or obey laws already on the books ,and they are masters at trying to not be transparent .So regarding a lot of their acts ,do you think the lawmakers should just write up ones that are currently on the books that they already violated to remind them that these were the laws ,or maybe change a few words to make it look like new laws ?

This is so silly Natalie ,what they did was unforgivable ,they are just beating the rap ,just like the liar loan borrower that committed loan fraud for greed .

I’ve sent the following to numerous elected officials, including President Obama:

I’m a freelance graphic designer and photographer, and have been for many years. If I treated my clients the way health insurers treat theirs, I’d be out of business. Abusing the people who’ve granted me the privilege of being in business just wouldn’t be smart.

Note that I used the word “privilege.” That’s what being in business is. I earn the right to stay here by doing right by my clients.

As for employer-based health insurance, the sooner that system disappears, the better. Why? Because in order to get that coverage, you have to disclose the most personal aspects of your life to your employer. And, in most cases, those things are none of your employer’s business.

As for me, I’m self-employed. Which means I have to try to find affordable insurance in the individual market. For several years, I’ve been covered, if you want to call it that, by a Health Markets (formerly called Mega Life) policy sold via an organization called the National Association for the Self Employed (NASE).

After I purchased the policy, I learned that this insurance company has been sued by several state attorneys general. There have also been class action suits. Do a Google search on “NASE class action” and you’ll find plenty of information.

I’ve tried to get on the Arizona state plan for small business people, the Healthcare Group, but guess what? Our legislature recently passed a law that excludes sole proprietors from this plan. Thanks a lot, legislature.

So, I continue with NASE/Health Markets. Let me tell you, if and when that nationwide public plan goes into effect, I will cheerfully kick that NASE/Health Markets policy to the curb.

All I can say is, I hope I live long enough to do so. I’m 52 years old and already avoid/delay regular checkups and tests because I fear that, if something is found, the cost of treatment will bankrupt me to the point where I will lose my house.

So, that’s where things stand for me. Too bad that such things are allowed to happen in the richest country on earth.

without a public option or some regulation of insurance profits ??

That will come later…

Not until they’ve extracted vast amounts of $$$.

Well said Slim.

FRICKEN SPOT ON Arizona Slim !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slim, I hope that your checkup is good. Get a colonoscopy, mammogram, and check your cholesterol and BP. I’ll bet that you will be fine - all that bike-riding is good for the latter too.

Cheers and Go Blue!

8% is high, though it depends on what’s included.

link

Click on “DATA”

2009 Medicare: $499B
2009 Medicaid: $251B
Total $750B = 5.3% of GDP actually.

(though this doesn’t include some other things - e.g. Child Nutrition, CHIP, etc.)

Thanks for that link.

In addition, do you know of a link that lists the portion of various countries’ GNPs that are earmarked for social programs?

More thanks in advance.

P.S. the above link/stat is only for Federal - doesn’t include state and local. That, plus see C.J.’s quote below from Wikipedia - 8% government spending on health care sounds about right.

In addition, do you know of a link that lists the portion of various countries’ GNPs that are earmarked for social programs?

No - though I haven’t looked. If you find one, let me know. I’m a data squirrel; just haven’t gotten around to that one.

Rosie:

I have to be in Hamilton and this is good hotel, will see how it goes

Thanks

I’m just curious if you have any opinions on why you didn’t see it that way before the purchase? (as we sit here and pick apart any potential residence we’ve looked at only to find they always look better in the rearview mirror)

Hi CarrieAnn,
Honestly, I think the circular winding staircase, built in fridge, the 6 room view, and all the other amenities sucked me in, and of course to keep the peace, my husband (in protest) went along with it. The interior was a knockout, just not the cute, lots of character charmer we had in mind. It truly felt like we owned a Beverly Hills level home. Add to that, we had sold and were getting sick of renting. I let the war between my heart and head win in the wrong direction.

Now we don’t even view a home unless it’s a potential one-story cottage charmer, with no two-stories on either side or behind it. We’re after a sensible “Leave It To Beaver” one-story cottage. I’ve learned not to be derailed this time.

Housing has become increasingly “cookie-cutter” as a result of the large builders taking advantage of economies of scale. Builders threw up thousands of the cookie cutter developments during the boom. And those mcmansions probably looked a whole lot nicer when there were fewer of them.

‘Housing has become increasingly “cookie-cutter” as a result of the large builders taking advantage of economies of scale stupid.’

How else do you explain so many greater fools overpaying for crap shack cookie cutter stucco boxes?

Even our “Leave It To Beaver” one-story charmer we’re looking for is mass produced Levitttown offspring home. It has just been aged to perfection with changes through the years, and the trees are now a canopy over the street.

I think the two-story jungle (fish bowl) HOA PUD was a turning point. At least we know where the people we don’t really like live. They all deserve that kind of lifestyle.

But the true ‘Infestors’ woudl buy 10 houses with 10% down - think of the leverage.

Just guessing that folks puting down 100% cash, are in for the longer term - nothing wrong with that

“I don’t think that anyone is sayin that cash is worthless now.”

Oh no? I can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one (in the virtual world anyway, in the real world - not so much)

Like I said: “now”. No one will argue that greenbacks won’t buy goodies right now. But it is fiat currency and an irresponsible central bank can easily destroy its value.

The PTB must be fond of idiots then.

How does encouraging greater fools to catch themselves falling knives exhibit fondness?

It’s only a temporary fondness. It ends the moment the ink dries and transformation from savvy housebuyer to sucker is completed.

– Why would you buy now at all unless you thought prices had bottomed out?

– And if you thought they had bottomed out, why wouldn’t you use leverage to increase your returns?

What I want to know is, where did the Rubes get all that cash?

Cash 4 Gold?

I can give you my own personal example. From the sale of my house a few years ago I had a substantial amount of cash. I thought the market was too high so I kept it in CDs as I looked for bargains and saw none. Then the stock market crashed and I transfered a significant portion to stocks tired of not making any decent returns and made 100% on my money. I think the quick gains are gone and we may double dip so I am worried about leaving oy in the market at current levels. Buying a home for cash might serve as a decent hedge against inflation. I still am on the fence as I hate all the intervention and low interest rates, but consider it daily. I have always been too nervous to pull the trigger though.

“Buying a home for cash might serve as a decent hedge against inflation.”

It’s a gambler’s hedge: There is no diversification in owning a single home…

P.S. Natalie — did you somehow miss my posts immediately preceding yours?

If I read them correctly, your question included the query as to why someone would buy now for all cash if they don’t think prices have bottomed. Some people, including myself, are so confused by all this intervention and meddling by the government (not confused in that they dont understand their application or impact but confused in that the unknowns of what may be done in the future can destroy carefully thought out plans and expecations at someone else’s whim) that although they know intellectually that the bottom should be much lower, without getting any returns on guaranteed investments, and even more fear of unknowns in the stock market, and a desire to own a home, they may decide if they pay cash for a home because at least they know not everything they have managed to save will not evaporate into the void and if the want to retire soon they have a guaranteed but undiversified inflation hedge. As the gap narrows between where prices are and where prices should be, sometimes those that have waited for years give up. Assuming a free informed market, I can model for you all day what home prices should be in any given area. Without such assumptions, my modeling programs are far less accurate. Those nearing retirement need to fix their daily expenses.

“Some people, including myself, are so confused by all this intervention and meddling by the government…”

Let me try to clear up your confusion:

1) In the long run, housing prices reflect fundamentals, not government intervention.

2) Government intervention currently is propping up home prices above their fundamental value.

3) Higher prices now portend lower future appreciation.

I believe that housing is still between 10-20% over valued in most areas, with particular areas being much more over valued. I agree we will eventually reach equilibrium as all things do, but the question is the path of the journey. For example, it is theoretically possible that prices could remain flat and reach equilibrium in 5 years due to inflation such that you could get the same house for the same price at such point in time, but would have spent 5 years worth of rent payments (and depending how much you put down have to factor in increased borrowing costs). I am not saying that this will happen, but isnt it the government’s intent to have inflation make up the difference and keep payments flowing in the meantime so that we dont have more bank failures? I am not saying I am ready to buy, just that I am getting closer as prices drop. Also note I am just referring to the home I want to retire in. I have no expectation of flipping for profit or buying for investment purposes. Believe me, I am in no rush to pay a price that substantially deviates from historic pricing ratios.

I believe that housing is still between 10-20% over valued in most areas

Tell me about it. I saw a flyer for an 1100 sq foot townhouse in Ft. Collins. Price: $189,000! Given the decrepit state of the local economy in Larimer county I am surprised at how sticky prices here have been. The local job market is abysmal to say the least. The usual places that hire: HP, CSU, etc. are all shedding workers. Ft. Collins muni gov’t is scrambling to cut spending as tax revenues aren’t holding up.

It doesn’t matter how many “best places to live” lists a town gets on, no jobs == no money. The number of people who commute to Denver every day is staggering, to the point where the I 25 can get slow noth of Longmont (2 lanes each way).

Unfortunatly that is the rub their Nat. You go in on housing and the anti-Fed faction wins in the elections. A tight money policy could cause a strong deflation and prices drop far further than you think.

Additionally the lesson from Japan was that deflation can be stubborn and continue for a long time. The massive losses are still sitting on the Feds books. Could be every time the economy shows a glimmer of hope they force the banks to eat some of those losses.

There is also the wage problem. Wages have been deflating in manufacturing for years. The primary driver from the last recession was housing. What will be the driver this time? I’m hearing that master degree level technologists from China are working for 700$ per month. That is less than US minimum wage.

More and more companies are setting up high tech facilities there.

Automotive? Don’t know where the demand will go. I assume up but that can stay in the doledrums for a long time. That spending was also bubble driven.

Health care just got the whammy and the govt will turn that into an increasing fiasco.

It’s only a matter of time for us to try the “bridge to nowhere” plan that Japan used while driving up national debt.

Also you have demographics driving things. The bommer retirement wave is upon us. That has the potential for massive deflation as population drops and need for housing decreases even further. And it can become self perpetuating as the young people feel trapped.

So… we have the potential for that 10-20% to be peanuts compared to what might happen.

Not to mention the specter of bad loans floating in the system with the modifications. All that defered principle crap. Long term renting going on there.

While I’m seeing clear signs of economic recovery in increasing exports; populist anger and the potential for some strong protectionist measure could be very disruptive in the short term. Again could cause some additional deflation.

Are we going to go Weimar? Maybe. At this point I still see spending collapsing.

TY for the food for thought James. Very scary times.

Additionally the lesson from Japan was that deflation can be stubborn and continue for a long time.

Or not.

I’ll give you the “long time” part, but not the deflation part. It’s a myth - prices have been flat since 1993, with only a couple of minor bumps. Not inflation, but not deflation.

That thought crossed my mind, too, but that gets back to my main point, which (restated) is:

1) If home prices have not already bottomed out, then now is not the time to buy.

2) If home price have bottomed out, and your friendly neighborhood lender agrees, why wouldn’t she be happy to offer leverage to an investor with a twenty-percent down payment? Unless the home dropped by over twenty percent in value, the worst that could happen to the lender would be to have to deal with the hassle of selling a home “long” (i.e. for more than the principle owed on the loan).

Perhaps its an “armageddon” move. If they fear a complete currency meltdown, maybe they think real estate will better preserve their wealth. Or maybe they want to make sure the gov/banks can’t take their property in event of said meltdown. (Remembering Faster Pussycats warning of no mortgages!) There was a local realtor about 6 mos ago blogging that she was seeing those sentiments in her lakeside area.

CarrieAnn,
Can you elaborate on the “no mortgages” theme? Thx.

Casey Serin is a memorable and tragic casualty because he went ‘all in’ just as the market topped. Just imagine all of the Caseys who caught knives from that day since. Do you want to be the next Casey? Do you feel lucky?

What was “tragic” about Casey Serin? He was a toolbox who speculated with the bank’s money and lost big-time. Watching him circle the drain was comic relief.

Paying cash is all relative of course, to how much cash you’ll have left, how much you make and how likely you are to keep your job, how much prices may fall in the market you’re in vs. elsewhere where they still have a long way to go, etc.

“Paying cash is all relative of course, to how much cash you’ll have left,…”

Right. Like, for instance, if Mit Romney pays cash for another home in La Jolla, so what if its value subsequently drops by, say, 50 percent? It is small potatoes compared to his net worth.

The number of Americans for whom the above story holds is vanishingly small compared to the number of all-cash home purchases currently underway…

Yeah, we’ll see how dedicated some people are to their “preserve human life at all costs” world-view.

Especially a FBer that’s $300K underwater, holding the plug to their comatose granny’s pacemaker.

While I’m throwing them out there…….how about a $100,000 bonus to girls who can avoid pregnancy before age 25 (or thereabouts)? Pay for it by charging a “promiscuity tax” (tax on adult magazines,videos, Madonna/gangsta-ho videos, 22 inch wheels, hotel rooms in college towns).

One of our problems is that government is subsidizing bad behavior. How about a few incentives for good behavior?

How ’bout if the government sticks to those functions and responsibilities assigned to it by the Constitution, and keeps its snout out of everything else?

Too bad that bus left about 150 years ago.

Too many people wanting to “regulate” other people’s behavior.
Too many people willing to fook over their fellow man, unless kept in check by the fear of going to jail.

Government exists to bring order to the chaos. And it is especially important in the USA, since we all come from a bunch of different cultures/religions/beliefs.

I work in a heavily regulated business. Why is it heavily regulated? Because it has been repeatedly proven that people will cut corners on safety, when it is in their personal or financial interest to do so. I’ve got a 1000-page “Aeronautical Information Manual” on my desk, spelling out what you can/cannot do while operating an aircraft (and that’s just for the pilots). Every rule in there has a smoking hole in the ground that led to it’s implementation. And some draconian penalties if you are caught violating the rules. Due process? Not when “public safety” is involved. The Feds basically suspend your certificate, and you get to spend a year out of the business, while you are playing the guilty until proven innocent game.

Because of “regulation” (and it’s associated enforcement), I can order a part from 1000 miles away, and be reasonably sure that as long as it has an 8130 tag with it, that someone built/repaired/overhauled it correctly, and that their quality control system verified that the work was done correctly.

Same thing with the people involved, at least those working in aviation professionally. If you have an ATP and a “type-rating” for (say) a Falcon or Gulfstream, you can be pretty sure that the guy can operate the airplane.

If you want to live in a totally deregulated world, where everything is a free for all, and you can’t trust anyone, have at it. I can operate in that world, but it’s not a very efficient way of doing things. The more time I waste trying to figure out if someone is worth trusting, is less time I spend thinking about operating/maintaining airplanes safely and efficiently.

My personal experience is that the guys that bitch the most about regulation, are the guys that want to cut corners, cheat the system, and generally profit, at society’s expense. Your experience may vary.

Now, can we can have a discussion about whether government is not doing a very good job with all the resources it currently has. And that regulation with no/lax enforcement is worse than no regulation at all.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Many people think they should be able to do what they want, when they want without consequence. The are wrong and thus the government must “meddle.”

Also, no organization that holds power is, or ever will be, pure of heart and purpose.

“Many people think they should be able to do what they want, when they want without consequence. The are wrong and thus the government must “meddle.”

Yeah, and the KKK is even more angry for federal interference today, that and their 800 thread count sheets have to be made in Chuck Fina.

Except, in order to issue a search warrant, they would have to know who you are!

Founded in 1945, Kaiser Permanente is the largest nonprofit health plan in the United States.

It must be nice to have a non-profit umbrella. What a racket.

$ Cost to incarcerate in CA per year / per inmate: $45,000

Some unusual scenarios have arisen, particularly in California — the state punishes shoplifting and similar crimes involving under $400 in property as felony petty theft if the person who committed the crime has a prior conviction for any form of theft, including robbery or burglary. As a result, some defendants have been given sentences of 25 years to life in prison for such crimes as shoplifting golf clubs (Gary Ewing, previous strikes for burglary and robbery with a knife), nine videotapes (Leandro Andrade, received double sentence of 25 year-to-life for 2 counts of shoplifting), or, along with a violent assault, a slice of pepperoni pizza from a group of children

Keep paying your taxes ecofeco, and sport a shiny “I support Prosecutors” sticker on your bumper.

Ah - gotcha.

Agree with your sentiments about punishing China in some fashion until they abide by what would truly be free trade principles. All-out ban of imports would probably be taking it a bit far, but we should be pursuing them aggressively in various other ways - e.g. banning imports from specific companies that exercise piracy, being more aggressive in forcing them to play on a level playing ground in international environmental agreements. Industrial subsides - meh - that’s more their own undoing than ours. It benefits us if we’re able to buy stuff cheaper from them as a result. Yes it harms the jobs in that industry with which we directly compete - but that’s offset by the money we save, which is then channeled to other industries.

I totally agree with you. It’s been a bag of goods for the last 30 or so years.

I’d have a lot more faith in what our so-caller “leadership” was telling us about “free trade”, “globalization” and “deregulation” (or selective non-enforcement of current regulations), if that stuff didn’t keep blowing up in out face all the time.

Exactly.

BOHICA all the way.

King Paulson… the man who literally demanded dictator powers in his proposed Bailout Bill… he wanted his actions to be completely above the law and immune to any investigation, prosecution, and so on.

Why is he still walking around free? I know the answer, but really… Argh!

wmbz… I also think they will avoid opening their books somehow .

Funny I was thinking all along that the Feds were crazy taking that junk paper at par value to back those short term loans
they were giving out right before TARP .In other words the Banks gave the Feds their junk paper in return for billions and billions of dollars of short term loans that are turning out to be long term loans on junk paper . I use to bitch about this all the time when it was happening .

That why this whole Fire call and TARP bail out wasn’t even the beginning of the bail outs ,it started with the Feds giving these loans based on junk months before TARP . The amounts handed out by the Feds would astound you .

Cause a pressure drop, oh pressure
Oh yeah pressure drop a drop on you
I say a pressure drop, oh pressure
Oh yeah pressure drop a drop on you

I say when it drops, oh you gonna feel it
Know that you were doing wrong.

Do you know that ours is a democratic republic, and not a democracy in absolutist terms? Our Founding Fathers were extremely wary of majority (i.e., “mob”) rule as a sole guiding force.

The difference is significant.

We’ve already got a citizenship-for-votes scheme. It’s called amnesty. See your local Republicrat “representative” for details.