The Housing Bubble

Down payments are saved up from wages, and wages are NOT inflating.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner!

If inflation really get’s going you can bet interest rates are going to go up and you can bet that will not have a positive effect on housing.

Wages are inflating in China & India.

Exactly.

And Osama was our Goldstein.

If they recognize their losses now they would be insolvent. That is the story, period. This is about keeping your job and base pay. The bankers know losses will be much larger in the future, as a more deteriorated asset increases loss severity, but they don’t care. Extend and pretend is about the entities very survival and the jobs associated with it. Management wants to clip coupon for as long as possible and hopes that a recovery eventually saves the day. That option is worth more alive than dead and they will extend as long as they are allowed. The FDIC and FASB gave them a very big leash in 2009.

If they recognize their losses now they would be insolvent. That is the story, period. This is about keeping your job and base pay. The bankers know losses will be much larger in the future, as a more deteriorated asset increases loss severity, but they don’t care.

William K. Black, author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, made a similar point in a recent Huffington Post article.

In essence, he’s saying that the banks are taking their sweet ole time on the foreclosures because that buys them time for more important things. Like continuing to loot the banks for their personal gain. That’s what control fraudsters do. And Black is quite the authority on control fraud.

You are correct, they are not expediting disposition of assets. And you will be very disappointed if you are expecting that situation to change any time soon.

Well if you have some secret inside information, maybe you’d do well by informing us.

Sorry, no secret inside info. It just seems logical that current management won’t prematurely pull the plug. What incentive does current management have to end the charade, and their paychecks, if government regulators and accounting standards board allow them to issue misleading/fraudulent financial statements in the hopes that they will pull out of the death spiral some day. Management knows they are toast now and it doesn’t matter if they are blacker toast in 5 years. And who knows, maybe the market recovers or they can earn enough from a steep yield curve and other business lines to afford to take more losses in the future.

Steamed Bean IS giving you the inside information.

Remember, the Level 3 assets were never really made to conform to mark-to-market. There was and still is a reason for that. Because they would be insolvent. Worse than bankrupt.

Let me chime in a minute. I sent a letter to BOA, explaining we are CASH, our housing criteria, and we are ready to buy, and got NO response. I’ve done this 5 times in the past 2 yrs.

Stay AWAY from BofA.

Put another way, if the banks are going to foreclose on thousands of homes then they are going to do so a few at a time. Your task is to somehow arrange it so that your home is among the last to be foreclosed on.

Thank you. May the fleas of 1000 camels occupy your tent! We are not too screwed; but like our present home (for…..free?) and moving later than sooner would suit us just fine.

Not sure what a better strategy would be, to stay current on the HOAs or to rack up that bill in order to let the bank pay more to clear the lien when it repos.

Appreciate the reply, better than GTFO! which I understand will happen; but you seem to get that we are doing the bank a favor by keeping the place up; they are doing us a bigger favor by extending the auction date multiple times from 11-15-10 to late Aug 11. And you got me thinking, which is never a good thing

“… but you seem to get that we are doing the bank a favor by keeping the place up …”

Well, you are, arent’ you? Is the bank better off if you stay and keep the place up rather than moving out and leaving it vacant?

Keeping the place up benifits whomever it is that owns the property. If you own the property then you benifit. If the banks owns the property then the bank benifits.

Hmmm. Been watching the continual postponement of F/C on a local pol’s McMansion. They just had another hearing last week, but I have no idea what transpired, except now there’s a new sale date.

I almost think we’ll see the end to the MID before we see higher interest rates. But yes, that’ll pack a punch - in a good way.

in a good way ??

I agree….

Yes, but most boats don’t sit directly on or over the ground from which much moisture doth cometh.

“Yes, but most boats don’t sit directly on or over the ground from which much moisture doth cometh.”

Silica gel!

“Run up my credit cards just before I kick the bucket …”

From what I understand this is exactly what a lot of old folks are doing.

No, your entire estate is subject to your debts so if you die “under water” your heirs get nothing, you can’t obligate your childen to pay anything beyond that unless they are co-signers.

Creditors try to get the kids to pay through guilt (wouldn’t your mother want all her debts paid) and by offering new “terms” that the heirs then sign, thereby taking on the debt legally.

Creditors love to push this line, but it is untrue. The heir of an estate are never personally liable for the debts of the deceased unless that person voluntarily took on the debt, such as by cosigning with the deceased.

The estate of a deceased is a separate legal entity from the person who just died. As such, the estate may have to pay the debts of the deceased, and in so doing the amount available for distribution to heirs could be reduced.

“Creditors try to get the kids to pay through guilt (wouldn’t your mother want all her debts paid) and by offering new “terms” that the heirs then sign, thereby taking on the debt legally.”

Thanks, polly, it sounds like that’s what happened to that guy, he probably took on his father’s debts, trying to do the right thing because “that’s what dad would have wanted.” Sheesh.

There is a reason jobs like that (calling people with no responsibility for a debt whohave just lost a loved one and trying to get them to pay) have a high turnover rate. There are people with absolutely no morals who must thrive in that environment, but not everyone can do it. I expect the get extensive training on exactly what they can and can’t say to avoid flat out lying to these people.

Then there are the heirs who are peeved that they have to pay the debts before they get their inheritance.

Polly are there any limitations to what they can do and who they can call? It’s my understanding that there are pretty strict rules about calling people up and asking them to reaffirm debts that were discharged through bankruptcy.

Yeah, I fairly sure there are strict limits on trying to get someone who isn’t responsible for the debts (like a kid) to take them on. That is why you have to be kind of a scum bag to do it. You are skirting the edge of lying at all times. You are taking advantage of emotionally vulnerable people. You are trying to get the grieving to do something most assuredly against their best interest. And since you have to be careful not to lie, it isn’t like your employer has lied to you and told you they are deadbeats - they couldn’t train you to do your job if they did. The callers can’t claim to not know the person they are calling really doesn’t have to pay a cent once the estate is finished. Nasty piece of business. I’d get fired in an hour. I hate that stuff.

For that matter, even if you agree to pay, there is no “consideration,” so I’m not sure that you could be legally compeled if you later changed your mind. I’m not aware that assuming somebody else’s debts are one of the categories of contracts* that can be upheld without a consideration.

*like reaffirming your own debts, or gifts to charity.

I did not pay any credit card debt of my father’s after he died. No fuss. The hospital gave me a hard time over the ambulance fee, but they didn’t take legal action against the estate. My mother naturally got title to the house and still was responsible for the (tiny) mortgage. NY.

I did not pay any credit card debt of my father’s after he died. No fuss. The hospital gave me a hard time over the ambulance fee, but they didn’t take legal action against the estate. My mother naturally got title to the house and still was responsible for the (tiny) mortgage. NY.

You got lucky. In probate, the ccs and the hospital could have demanded their loans from the estate (to inlcude the house) or attach a lien to the house.

Blue
Interesting to compare notes and different states. Thanks. I did the death benefits, and my financially clueless sister did the debt settlements. She got some dough for her efforts, and it cost me to collect, without reimbursement. POS for a mother.

Blue
It took me 3 months and 7 benefits to deal with. It was quite time consuming, and not all the calls were 800 numbers, postage, notary costs, etc… Plus hours and hours of reading, following up, and calling. I got screwed. My sister’s kids flew to expensive summer camps compliment of my hard work. I hope my Mother’s funeral is nice. I’m staying home.

banana,

My dad was a crafty one. The estate was worth less than $10K, so no probate. No way they could have gone after the house. Mom owned the house complete upon his death without it being an inheritance. Had they both died, then it would have been a different ballgame.

Awaiting,

My dad arranged all his affairs so that all I had to do was open a binder and make the calls as directed. The man was my best friend and hero. I’d give all the postage stamps in the world for one more day with him.

I’m sorry your mileage was different.

“My dad arranged all his affairs so that all I had to do was open a binder and make the calls as directed.”

My parents have something similar and keep it updated every year. It is, perhaps, the kindest thing they have ever done for my brother and I, though we don’t expect to have to deal with it for over a decade. Mom got inspired after the second parental spouse (her aunt and then her uncle) left her with a mess to deal with on their passing. Mom calls it the death book. Dad has never referred to it at all. I call it the Book of the Dead.

Blue
I am happy you had good parents, and your Father was your mentor, so to speak. Parents that have things arranged are the good ones. I wasn’t so lucky. Lots of death denial in our family.

Before my Mother’s body is cold, trust me, my Sister will be at the bank and through her things.

Polly,
You’re another lucky one. I like what you named the “instruction book”. You and Blue come from good stock.

That book idea is so wonderful, one last gift to you really. There is great mystery surrounding our elders’ affairs. They allude to situations here and there but if there was in an auto accident we’d be completely lost. Unless their lawyer is holding instructions similar to said book. Or perhaps their lawyer is supposed to handle everything.

Too bad I don’t respect him as much as they do. Maybe we should sit them down and at least get a few phone numbers.

I haven ‘t been through the book in a number of years but you need at least this much:

social security numbers/cards
a copy of the will and the location of the real one
papers related to any trust
name and contact info for the lawyer who dealt with the will and anything else important
copies of all insurance policies
location of and how to access all safety deposit boxes, like where the key are kept
locations of any cash or valuables they have stashed in non-obvious places
Deed to the house, if any, or location of same and where the spare keys are kept
car title(s), if any, or locations of same and where the spare keys are kept
list of bills that generally have to be paid in any month and the account numbers related to them
list of all credit card accounts
list of all bank accounts
list of retirement accounts
list of debts other than credit cards
location of and information about any burial plots
instructions for burial or cremation
if it exists, where they pre-planned and paid for their funerals
information about how to get access to their computers if they get important financial documents by e-mail, but better to print out a recent version at least once a year for the book plus how to access on-line bank information
location of and how to access any guns, if applicable

Nice to have:
list of their doctors so they can be notified and future appointments can be cancelled
list of any items in the house that are worth a lot more than the kids might think (no, that ugly painting that you have always hated is worth quite a bit, it should go to an auction house, not a yard sale)
text for a death announcement if they want one, including for any alumni magazines
instructions for military honors for a funeral if applicable
information about how to access computers so stored photos or other family stuff can be accessed
Information about on-line accounts like facebook so they can be cancelled
list of charities they often donated to so they can be notified and list of charities they would like to get incidental stuff that wouldn’t be disposed of in a will and the kids probably don’t want like clothes

I’m sure I’ve missed a few, but that is enough to get anyone started.

A list of what you need and other stuff you might want will post shortly - it was a long post.

People were after me to check up on my father’s estate before he died, get all involved in his business and ask him a lot of questions before he died. But he was pretty sick and I sensed he wouldn’t like it. In the end the living trust he’d done after some seminar 30 yrs ago held up just fine and everything worked out okay.

Polly

Thank you. I have printed it out and I am going to compare it with what I already have.

Regards,

Patrick

You are welcome. You will certainly want to add things for your particular situation. Just make sure to be careful with where they/you keep the book. It is pretty much everything a thief could ever want. It really belongs in a fireproof safe, but then you have to make sure your heirs know how to get into the safe

“All previous SS monies collected have been spent. The money is GONE.”

Yawn. Standard lines of the anti-social security trolls. The money was spent in the same way all money used to buy Treasuries was spent- by its borrower, the US government.

Are you saying all Treasury notes are no good, since the money was spent? Or are we just defaulting on the notes owned by the little people, with the wealthy getting their Treasury notes paid in full?

Are you saying all Treasury notes are no good, since the money was spent?

See Greece, Ireland, Iceland, and Portugal for my answer

+1

Money is fungible. Why should social security payments be discontinued, instead of, say, defense contractor payments, or payments to the Chinese? We’re all under the same debt.

Oh please banana, say the “p” word.

“See Greece, Ireland, Iceland, and Portugal for my answer”

Hey, I’ll give you points for consistency. At least you recognize we’d have to default on _everybody_ if we refuse to honor the Treasuries held by the SS trust fund.

Some seem to think we can selectively default on just the SS treasuries.

“All SS money going out today is collected today from taxes on current workers (ie - redistribution of taxes).”

I would agree with that if SS was funded from the income tax. But its not. Its funded via a dedicated tax, whose sole purpose is to fund social security. Just like a health insurance premium has a sole purpose, to pay for health care. That SS is mandatory does not make it any less of an insurance program.

“Or are we just defaulting on the notes owned by the little people, with the wealthy getting their Treasury notes paid in full?”

Careful with what you say in public. You could end up on the “island” for knowing too much.

And my prediction remains. They will try to kill SS, while leaving the payroll tax in place to fund wars. The money is there, they just want to spend it something else (guns).

Hey, I’ll give you points for consistency. At least you recognize we’d have to default on _everybody_ if we refuse to honor the Treasuries held by the SS trust fund.

No - first they will just cut the Social Security entitlement or raise the age limit or make it make it income/wealth dependent or whatever.

You see, it is just another government program that the government can do with what they want. If it was an insurance program - you would have a contract that you could sue to enforce and the insurance company would have to have the assets they promised.

In the end, SS is backed ONLY with future wages of future workers (since NOTHING has been saved) or with the “full faith and backing” of US Treasuries.

Personally, I would rather have all the money I put into SS, in my name, in either gold, oil stock or farm land. But that is just me…

You see, it is just another government program that the government can do with what they want. If it was an insurance program - you would have a contract that you could sue to enforce and the insurance company would have to have the assets they promised.

To a point that is true. But insurance companies are pretty much also pay as you go, redistributionist programs. And many do invest their assets in US securities as well. And FWIW, gold and stocks are volatile.

But I agree with you that it would be better if SS had diversified the “trust fund”. But so far Uncle Sam isn’t defaulting. When he does, all bets are off and I think SS will be the least of our worries as our nation will probably be ripped apart. I hope to have a foreign passport when that happens, as US Passports will be persona non grata around the world (unless you have a LOT of money).

“SS is backed ONLY with future wages of future workers (since NOTHING has been saved) or with the “full faith and backing” of US Treasuries.”

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

An isn’t money held in the form of Treasuries ’saved’? Or do you have some unique definition of the word?

An isn’t money held in the form of Treasuries ’saved’? Or do you have some unique definition of the word?

See Greece, Ireland, Iceland, and Portugal for my answer

But insurance companies are pretty much also pay as you go, redistributionist programs.

I think you’re missing the point here (assuming I understand what 2banana is saying).

The term “insurance” is being used way too liberally when applied to SS. With proper insurance, you’d have a contract which details what events are insured against, and what compensation you will receive.

With SS there is no such thing. The terms are subject to change at the whim of one party. You could argue it’s a “forced savings” program, but it really doesn’t compare to what one usually considers “insurance” on a daily basis.

Hey slipperybanana, what was your ball-park $ dollar e$timation for the value of America?, you know,…everything!

(“TrueAnger™” disciple/advocates seem to always avoid that gue$$timation as well.)

The term “insurance” is being used way too liberally when applied to SS.

Perhaps, but to call it an entitlement is even more disingenous, with the implication that it wasn’t earned.

And this mentality is EVERYWHERE (congratulations, PTB, who have accomplished your mission).

There was even a Simpsons episode where Abe Simpson says that he did nothing to earn his monthly SS check. Did he forget about all the money that was withheld from his paycheck?

banana’s - You see, it is just another government program that the government can do with what they want. If it was an insurance program - you would have a contract that you could sue to enforce and the insurance company would have to have the assets they promised.

This is laughable

1. Insurance companies play all kinds of games to knock sick people out of their insurance program. They cancel contracts with small businesses that have a sick employee. They review records and find one high blood pressure and then claim you lied and negate your policy. They don’t pay claims promptly and try to fool the elderly into making payments that are owed by insurance companies. They put low caps on these plans and people that don’t understand the costs of medicine buy them only to find they aren’t covered. They get sick people on to medicaid adn medicare. That’s why the public satisfaction with medicare and social security is through the roof while opions polls on insurance companies suggest low satisfaction.

2. Insurance companies can go bankrupt. You really think they have enough money to back up claims. See my article yesterday about how they are using financial instruments similar to MBS to hide their risk and elevate profits. You can bet that if things hit the skids again they will require a bailout or default on payments.

The term “insurance” is being used way too liberally when applied to SS. With proper insurance, you’d have a contract which details what events are insured against,

Yea. You know. Like “proper” American private health insurance-the kind that doesn’t really insure you when you are dumb enough to get sick or something.

The money is NOT gone and Gen Y & X are larger than the boomer gen.

I thought the Amish opt out of Social Security?

An entitlement is something someone else pays for, like food stamps. I have paid hundreds of thousands into SS. Any benefits I receive are not entitlements.

Like I said, we are being brainwashed into believing this so that it will be easier to rip us off.

I have paid hundreds of thousands into SS. Any benefits I receive are not entitlements.

And that’s true for some % of the SS recipients. But not all. So is it an insurance program for some, but an entitlement for others?

I thought the Amish opt out of Social Security?

They do. Instead of SS, they take care of each other.

“Like I said, we are being brainwashed into believing this so that it will be easier to rip us off.”

Exactly. Like the oft-repeated myth that Social Security is bankrupt, when in fact:

The trust fund will run out in 2037, “at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.” Full Social Security solvency would require only about 0.7 percent of GDP, which you can get to by exposing income above $107,000 to the payroll tax.
Slate

“we are being brainwashed into believing this so that it will be easier to rip us off.”

Tell that to all the cavalier folk who like to say, “I know I’ll never see a penny of it - ” Good, then we don’t need to pay you do we.

And this is done for one reason, and one reason alone: to condition J6P to not complain when these programs are cancelled (while the payroll tax remains firmly in place to fund wars)

umm…no. “Entitlement” simply means that those who qualify are legally “entitled” to the payments. Which means that the money used does not need to appropriated in the way that the money for a new aircraft carrier, or bridge to nowhere does. Which is why if they hadn’t passed a budget earlier this year the administration COULDN’T simply cut Social Security payments to make ends meet.

“Tell that to all the cavalier folk who like to say, “I know I’ll never see a penny of it - ” Good, then we don’t need to pay you do we.”

That’s exactly what I mean. Once people are brainwashed into believing they won’t get anything, then it will be a piece of cake to redirect the payroll tax receipts to other “programs”.

“Entitlement” simply means that those who qualify are legally “entitled” to the payments. Which means that the money used does not need to appropriated in the way that the money for a new aircraft carrier, or bridge to nowhere does.”

I don’t disagree with you. But in the popular vernacular “entitlement” means “welfare”.

drummy - I have paid hundreds of thousands into SS. Any benefits I receive are not entitlements.And that’s true for some % of the SS recipients. But not all. So is it an insurance program for some, but an entitlement for others?

This is exactly how an insurance program works too. Some people get more back than they put in right.

SS is an insurance program that says you will not starve in the streets if you outlive your savings. Some people die before 65 and get nothing, others live to 100 and benefit greatly. It’s called insurance.

SS is an insurance program that says you will not starve in the streets if you outlive your savings.

Strongly disagree. You might view it that way, but with insurance I pay a premium and have covered events. Are you saying that I’m paying premiums each time they forcefully deduct from my paycheck? And the covered event is me turning 65?

Why then do I get statements as far as my “balance”, if it’s an insurance policy?

Oh, Jim. You and your “facts.” You make it so much harder to rant. Ranting is much more satisfying.

“. Are you saying that I’m paying premiums each time they forcefully deduct from my paycheck? And the covered event is me turning 65?”

Yes.

The real problem is the meaning of the word “entitlement.”

It used to have an honest connotation. e.g. I paid my $4.50, therefore I am “entitled” to that cup of coffee.

Now it carries some sarcasm and arrogance with it. e.g. I lost money on my house, therefore I am “entitled” to a refinance.

Those who refer to SS as an “entitlement” program are playing off of the sarcastic connotation.

So it’s not an entitlement, not really insurance… I guess the closest description of SS is a “government pension,” but then the Walkers of the world would try to take it away again. Or better yet, “retirement escrow.”

“I have paid hundreds of thousands into SS”

Please explain how this is possible… since in 2011 only the first $106,800 of wares are subject to FICA of 4.2% ($4485.60)
Even at the previous rate of 6.2% ($6621.60)

Those who refer to SS as an “entitlement” program are playing off of the sarcastic connotation.

Exactly. In the modern vernacular it means “handout”.

The GOP has done everything to make Medicare look bad. GW’s prescription drug plan heaped huge costs on medicare. They forbid medicare to bargain for cheaper drugs or use a formulary. Thus the VA pays 60% less for prescription drugs than does Medicare. It seems the PTB are intent on stripping the wealth from the workers in medicine and local hospitals and handing it to big pharma or insurance companies.

Medicare is of course hurt by runaway medical costs in the US and is in much more dire straits than SS. Of

On the other side though, Medicare pays hospitals and other healthcare providers far less than traditional insurance companies (shockingly less in many cases).

On the other side though, Medicare pays hospitals and other healthcare providers far less than traditional insurance companies (shockingly less in many cases).

ISTR more than one doctor-member of this blog saying how much more they preferred dealing with Medicare than the private insurance companies. I think that RE Hobbyist’s sentiments were along the lines of true love.

BTW, how’s the Hobbyist doing these days? She was in cancer treatment — was it successful? (Please say yes. Please.)

Medicare’s problems are solved by universal health care.

The government currently runs a health insurance company that covers only the elderly, the chronically ill, and those too poor to pay. The private health insurance companies cover the healthy and the wealthy. We need those people paying in to the public insurance plan in order for it to work.

Currently, we’re like an auto insurance company that only covers the blind, the drunk, and those who can’t pay- it’s not an efficient way to run an insurance program.

Medicare’s problems are solved by universal health care.

Yes. And when Medicare’s problems are solved by universal health care so are much of America’s money problems solved, and solved on a personal, corporate, state and federal level.

Medicare doesn’t pay that much less that private insurance for most healthcare. Hospitals routinely make a profit on their Medicare patients. Medicaid on the other hand does pay less - way less.

(General statements. There will be some variations.)

I worked for a healthcare consulting firm for a summer as an intern (years ago). What we did was this:

1. Review all contracts between hospitals and insurance providers;
2. Review all bills/procedures and matched them against the applicable contracts; and
3. Rebill insurance companies for underpayments

So, if someone gets a Kidney transplant and the hospital was reimbursed at the wrong rate ($5k instead of $30k), we collected the additional money ($25k) from the insurance company. The consulting firm never went after individuals who weren’t paying. The work was fine. I didn’t feel bad about going after insurance companies to get them to pay what they owed, but there was not much to learn after a few months on the job.

The data was organized by DRG Codes, so you would have all patients with the same work done together, and scan through the bills/payments. It was common to see a string of reimbursements for certain procedures where a lot of the numbers were common and clustered (a group of payments that were either $5k or $7.5k, or $8), which represented the private insurers. There were then a group of payments that were all the same, but appeared to be outliers on the low side ($2k, for instance). Then there were other outliers ($500, or $1,250, etc.). The other outliers is what we were looking for.

The common low payments ($2k in my example) were the Medicare reimbursements.

Medicare paid WAY less than the private insurers. Perhaps that has changed over the years, but I doubt it. A friend of mine currently works for a surgeon who does things like hip replacements. According to that person, the reimbursement rate by Medicare for a hip replacement is shockingly low as compared to private insurers.

Polly, I don’t know what you know that is different from my experience, but based on what I saw firsthand, I’m not sure how hospitals make any money on Medicare patients, if any. Unless of course, how the reimbursements are calculated have changed, which is quite possible.

Why our POS medical industry is a POS:

http://www.theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/expensive-stitches-ii/

http://www.theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/expensive-stitches/

I have been in a room with the people who represent the hospital industry and they told me that Medicare is less but not dramatically so and that Medicaid is much, much less.

In addition, it simply logical. Hospitals are not all going broke. A very large number of hosptial patients are insured under Medicare. If Medicare didn’t cover hospital direct costs plus enough extra to cover indirect costs, they would all be going bankrupt all the time. They don’t get enough in donations to make up any significant difference and the donations they do get rarely are used to cover operating expenses. Small hospitals that can’t possibly be efficient enough to make money on Medicare (they have to have certain basic machines, but don’t have enough patients to keep them busy most of the time), get a special exemption from the Medicare reimbursement schedule as “critical access hospitals” and get reimbursed on a cost plus a small percentage extra basis.

Medicare is not the issue. Medicaid and the un/under insured are.

But when its time to occupy the defeated and do “nation building” the boots and Humvees will still be required ??

Just wait until the bills must be paid then we will see….Can’t borrow for ever…

Just wait until the bills must be paid then we will see….Can’t borrow for ever…

That is what will bring the change. And why I believe they want to kill SS, so they can use the payroll tax to pay for the wars.

NO. They want to take SS and invest it Wall St.

Yes, you can confirm that on Google with direct quotes from Congress and the Bush Whitehouse.

It depends what you throw into the pot. SS and Medicare are funded via the payroll tax. If you keep their budgets separate (as it should be as they should not be funded via income taxes) then yes, the military eats the lion’s share of the budget.

No, 42% is the portion of ALL so-called discretionary ??

The 42% came from Pbears post on the percentage of federal spending in Dan Diego that was military related…

I always thought lower arrests ment better bribes?

“Nothing less than open borders will please them.”

Agreed. FWIW, they still consider the SW as “stolen territory” and the common wisdom down there that they will take it back, that its only a question of time.

I consider myself as far to the left as possible on the environment, and as far to the right as possible on immigration. (and I don’t mean the McCain amnesty right)

I also don’t consider those concepts mutually exclusive. More people is not necessarily a good thing, and especially not if they’re not citizens.

Well, sleepless, it has been said that the easiest way to reduce global warming is to put on a condom, something that most if not all of the illegals from south of the border are not on board with.

I have a mortal terror of this country ending up like some overpopulated third world hell hole. It seems to be heading in that direction.

I consider myself as far to the left as possible on the environment, and as far to the right as possible on immigration. (and I don’t mean the McCain amnesty right)

And here I thought I was the only one! Seems that I have an insomniac ally from the Seattle area.

I agree, Palm.

Slim, that’s the rub I have with politics. I think most Americans lean one way or other on individual ISSUES, not in aggregate as they have been led to believe they should.

If we could harness all the energy wasted in partisan political BS and douche-baggery, gas prices would be $1.29 tomorrow.

(and I’m actually in Portland; maybe it’s time for a name change)

sleepless_near_Beaverton?

I’d be sleeping_with_one_eye_open_near_Beaverton if that were the case….

Ah, the numbers game. No doubt being done to appease the Aztlanistas.

HAMP was the voluntary program it always said it was. The banks were allowed to choose to implement a program that considered giving people loan modifications that conformed with the guidelines of the program and receive a small payment to subsidize their paperwork costs. I don’t think there was even a metric for how successful they had to be at approving the modifications in order to receive the money.

That is what it always was and that is what it has turned out to be.

Now, the fact that someone over at Treasury probably thought the benefits of the program would outweigh the ire of the public when the overwhelming majority of them got no help, is what worries me. Who was that and have they quietly left yet, because it was obvious from the start that the number of people who could benefit was miniscule but the number of people who thought it would help them was huge. Even if the banks hadn’t spent all their time losing the paperwork or pursuing foreclosures simultaneously with processing modifications, the new loans were supposed to be set at 31% of gross income. I believe I demonstrated several times that that level of payment could easily be way over half of take home pay and too much for most families to handle.

Yes, it seemed obvious to us here that HAMP would only ever be able to help a small fraction of FBs. I don’t know whether I’m more worried by the idea that it was some sort of big con, or the idea that these guys thought that a little jawin’ and a bit of HAMP would be enough to arrest the decline in the RE market. If the choice is between crooks and idiots, I’m not at all sure which one I want. After all, crooks can be more predictable than idiots.

I think there are more and more banks that are beginning to realize that modifications that include principal reduction are in their best interest. There are costs to banks to foreclose in terms of paperwork, asset deterioration, and market perception of value. Most homeowners/debtors are willing to pay something to avoid the cost of moving, changing homes, etc. in terms of accepting less home price appreciation in the future (some structured modification), or slightly higher loan balance than they would have if they simply re-purchased the same home on the open market.

In other words, there are economic reasons for banks and borrowers to make deals that include principal reduction, where both will be better off as compared to a foreclosure process.

The number of modifications that include principal reduction are increasing (especially as banks are able to take more hits to balance sheets over time).

I’m frankly surprised it has taken this long for banks to understand that.

I’m frankly surprised it has taken this long for banks to understand that.

Yeah, you’d think that a two-by-four across their bank-y heads would have gotten the point across. But no-o-o-o! They needed a whole forest of two-by-fours.

I wonder how the regulators come into play…most bankers I know work hardest to keeping their jobs by appeasing the regulators. If the regulators were pushing them to modify by writing down principal, I’m sure that’s what they would do. However, the regulators were probably pushing them hardest to NOT write down loan balances until certain milestones were met, so they could continue to have the illusion of solvency…

link?

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/older-workers-without-jobs-face-longest-time-out-of-work/

As you can see, the older you are, the less likely you are to be unemployed. The unemployment rate for people over age 65 is about 6.5 percent, taken on a 12-month moving average. The unemployment rate for teenagers is nearly four times that.

…
The average jobless person over age 65 has been looking for work for 43.9 weeks. For someone between the ages of 55 and 64, the typical duration is 44.6 weeks, just a few weeks shy of a year. The average unemployment spells for both of these groups are at record highs.

The average teenager, on the other hand, has been looking for less than half that time, at 19.9 weeks.

That hasn’t lead to an increase in hiring of people over 65 on Medicare.

There are other important factors going on here besides an older worker being covered by Medicare.

In general for an employer, a 70 year old with Medicare is still not the same as hiring a 30 year old to whom you have to provide medical insurance.

Yet.

“The average teenager, on the other hand, has been looking for less than half that time, at 19.9 weeks.”

But teenagers, like those on Medicare, don’t have to be put onto the employers health care plan, no? I’m not sure if this article proves anything.

What would the unemployment rate amongst the over-65 be if they had to be added to their employer’s health care plan?

Uh, most people are RETIRED after 65.

(ergo hoc, propter hoc)

That’s a beautiful thought. Thanks for sharing it, brother.

No need to imagine. Pretty soon you’ll be working for free, but everything will cost more.

Agreed.

Raising chickens in your backyard is going to become fashionable.

It already is here in Tucson. Matter of fact, I’m a member of two local orgs that offer regular workshops on this topic.

“It’s just math.”

Yes, it is just math. And the math shows that countries with universal health care spend less, TOTAL, on health care (ie it’s not shifted somewhere else- as many dissimulators imply).

Spending LESS, gives you more money to spend on other things, right? That’s how math works, right?

Simple. Basic. Math.

Maybe you are right about the cost, maybe not. Maybe it isn’t clear why the costs might be less. I still think that less benefits = more jobs. I’d rather have the benefits than the job though.

“Maybe you are right about the cost, maybe not. Maybe it isn’t clear why the costs might be less. ”

Do you REALLY want me to drag out the immense amount of statistics that show almost every country in the world pays less in total health care than us, with many having much higher life expectancies, and much higher rates of satisfaction with their current systems? AGAIN?

And are you really unclear on why our system is so expensive- with the for-profit companies cherry-picking the healthiest for coverage, leaving the elderly and infirm for the government to take care of? Is that really a difficult concept to grasp?

More taxation does not result in more jobs in industry, not equal ones. It’s just math.

Math:
“Taxes”, corporate “expense” to provide health insurance, personal “expense” for health insurance, who cares what the name for the expense is? If taxes can provide better service for less money than the current personal or business expense then let’s face the facts, become objective, rational and apolitical and go with the taxes.

Let’s compare costs and results of other countries health-care taxes with America’s health-care expenses.

USA spends $7,540 per capita on health care and 1/3 of our population is uninsured or has joke insurance. Countries with socialized medicine spend about half per person but they cover everyone and have similar results.

Not only do countries with socialized medicine spend less than half of what we do and cover everyone BUT the companies in those countries do not have to worry about providing health-insurance, therefore do not face that barrier to expand or even start out.

“Socialized” medicine nurtures capitalism better than our broken and corrupt system however even as many of our fellow citizens die because of our system, a few do get a lot richer from it.

The three most important health-care graphs in the world

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the_three_most_important_health_care_graphs_in_the_world/2011/04/13/AFtU1E6E_blog.html

+1 Rio…

Don’t confus ethem with facts Rio. They are content to rearrange the chairs while the Titanic sinks.

I expect there are some reasons that our healthcare in the US is more expensive and, for the population as a whole, less effective. Reasons other than the lack of it being government run.

Blue skye you really need to back up your posts a bit better.

Reason’s other than lack of being gov run. Wrong Rio just pointed out that socialized and highly regulated systems are cheaper adn have comparable results. You go out and show a system that is completely free market that has better outcomes and costs less and get back to us.

Seriously you guys buy into this myth that corporations always do things more efficiently than gov. The problem is that corporations arent’ trying to be efficient at providing health care they are trying to be efficient by making a profit. They could care less about health care outcomes as long as the public is kept in the dark. The examples are endless.

1. Medicare costs tax payers 15-20% less than medicare advantage plans which are private plans designed to replace medicare. The VA is more efficient than either of these.
2. Socialized medicine in Canada, Europe, Japan costs 50% less than US and provides similar outcomes. Why because hospitals and doctors aren’t paid for doing unneeded proceedures, because they bargain with drug companies for lower costs and do cost benefit analysis, because they don’t spend 24 cents for every health care dollar on management and advertising.

It has everything to do with a non profit system or a highly regulated system.

More taxation does not result in more jobs in industry, not equal ones. It’s just math

Well it’s incomplete Math Blue Skye - As they say garbage in garbage out.

The bottom line is total costs per patient. It’s the combination of taxes and insurance and out of pocket costs not just taxes. The bottom line is these socialized medical delivery systems are MUCH cheaper and provide comparable outcomes.

So far your math and suspicions haven’t refuted that point.

“Blue skye you really need to back up your posts a bit better.”

I don’t see why, when most of the others in the conversation use insult as an argument. Some things merit rethinking from time to time. Some have never tried this exercise.

I do remember a time when medicine was not so much a for profit activity, and it worked fairly well compared to today. I have several ideas as to why, and none of them have to do with government running healthcare. This is not a forum for discussion, rather shouting down.

“I have several ideas as to why, and none of them have to do with government running healthcare. This is not a forum for discussion, rather shouting down.”

So you’re posting to tell us it’s pointless to post here? And that you could give us some answers, but you won’t bother? LOL

Ok, a few questions for you government-health-care weenies:

Does government have a magical ability to lower costs and improve quality in every industry, or only in health care?

If having the government in charge of health care is such a great idea, why not put it in charge of every other sector of the economy? Is this just one step towards imposing communism without calling it that?

If government can lower costs and improve service in health care, isn’t that a case of creating something for nothing?

If “simple basic math” shows that government produces better and cheaper health care than the free market, how is it that I majored in mathematics but cannot recall any professor saying that command and control economies create something for nothing? Actually they DO create something for nothing– for government bureaucrats at the expense of everyone else.

Is 78.3 years vs. 78.1 years a “much higher life expectancy”?

If government is so great at creating cheap, high quality goods and services, why aren’t FedEx and UPS bankrupt, while the USPS is generating large surplusses and helping to pay down the deficit?

If we spent more on housing in 2005 than other “developed” countries, does this mean we should have expanded Fannie and Freddie to increase government control over housing?

If a European country has higher gas prices than the US, should it then scrap its energy system and adopt ours instead?

Is there any such thing as a bubble in pricing of goods and services, and could such a phenomenon possibly account for differences in expenditures among countries?

Define “better”, “cheaper”, and “developed” in the context of your health-care mantra. Is Russia a “developed” country? Would you go there for health care? Or are these words like global warming/climate change, that mutate to fit the facts?

Are you admitting that government health care does not work well in “undeveloped” countries?

For that matter, define “health care”. Does it include acupuncture, massages, physical trainers, marriage counselling? Is the government going to give us better and cheaper versions of these things too?

I would bother, but it seems the minds of my friends here are made up on this one.

Ok, a fewcombative, straw-man laden, hyperbolic, ideology driven, insulting and borderline moronic questions for you government-health-care weenies:proponents.

Fixed it as much as something like that could be.

But here lies some answers to rational questions on the debate:

The Health of Nations
How Europe, Canada, and our own VA do health care better.

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_health_of_nations

Medicine may be hard, but health insurance is simple. The rest of the world’s industrialized nations have already figured it out, and done so without leaving 45 million of their countrymen uninsured and 16 million or so underinsured, and without letting costs spiral into the stratosphere and severely threaten their national economies.

Even better, these successes are not secret, and the mechanisms not unknown. Ask health researchers what should be done, and they will sigh and suggest something akin to what France or Germany does. Ask them what they think can be done, and their desperation to evade the opposition of the insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry and conservatives and manufacturers and all the rest will leave them stammering out buzzwords and workarounds, regional purchasing alliances and health savings accounts. The subject’s famed complexity is a function of the forces protecting the status quo, not the issue itself.

LOL, I do wonder why those who can get it carry private health insurance so that they do not have to rely on rationed care, in Canada. Especially those dreaded public union folks. Insults and Experts abound, but familiarity, not so much.

“If having the government in charge of health care is such a great idea, why not put it in charge of every other sector of the economy? ”

Maybe health care, like the military, shouldn’t be a business.

LOL, I do wonder why those who can get it carry private health insurance so that they do not have to rely on rationed care, in Canada.

What the heck would you be laughing at? Basic Universal “socialist” coverage with the option to buy private supplemental coverage would be fantastic. France does it and is voted #1 in Healthcare by the World Health Organization.

Read the article I posted above; The Health of Nations

And the Canadian “rationing” talking point is B.S. The USA “rations” more than Canada.

From the article:
Sadly for those invested in this odd knock against the Canadian system, the wait times are largely hype. A 2003 study found that the median wait time for elective surgeries in Canada was a little more than four weeks, while diagnostic tests took about three (with no wait times to speak of for emergency surgeries). By contrast, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data from 2001 found that 32 percent of American patients waited more than a month for elective surgery, and 5 percent waited more than four months. That, of course, doesn’t count the millions of Americans who never seek surgery, or even the basic care necessary for a diagnosis, because they lack health coverage. If you can’t see a doctor in the first place, you never have to wait for treatment.

Next?

Does government have a magical ability to lower costs and improve quality in every industry, or only in health care?
——————–
magical no. Gov’t will also not improve quality of care across the board, but rather will level or even out the quality of care received between the poor and the wealthy. The wealthy might get worse care than they currently do, if they choose against having additional private coverage.

If having the government in charge of health care is such a great idea, why not put it in charge of every other sector of the economy?
————–
Depends on your opinion about health care. Is having access to health care a right or a privledge? In my opinion, gov’t should subsidize or provide rights and regulate privledges. How about a sports car?

If government can lower costs and improve service in health care, isn’t that a case of creating something for nothing?
———-
Not necessarily. They could redistribute it in a more efficient way (no 10X bill just for visiting the emergency room for example)

Is 78.3 years vs. 78.1 years a “much higher life expectancy”? No.

If we spent more on housing in 2005 than other “developed” countries, does this mean we should have expanded Fannie and Freddie to increase government control over housing?
==========
. Should owning a home be considered a right or a privledge? Gov’t should subsidize rights so that they are generally applied equally across the population, and regulate privledges.

If a European country has higher gas prices than the US, should it then scrap its energy system and adopt ours instead?
———————————–
Depends on your goals again. The price of oil is set in a global market, so any difference is price is due to gov’t regulation (and transport and refining costs to a minor degree). The EU considers driving a privledge and not a right, so they should charge whatever taxes they feel appropriate.

This is not a forum for discussion, rather shouting down.

+1, Blue Skye. It’s quantity not quality- the same mindless propagandizing by the same bunch over and over. A year or so ago I offered to go over some specific case studies of medical treatment with Rio. He wasn’t interested. And I haven’t seen any of my questions above answered in the follow-ups.

Comment by LehighValleyGuy
Ok, a few questions for you government-health-care weenies:

Does government have a magical ability to lower costs and improve quality in every industry, or only in health care?

Not health care. Health INSURANCE. Quality of insurance is based on pools sizes and risk, not on quality of the actual care. Because larger pools spread risk, and a whole country is the largest pool there is, then YES, government does have a magical avility to improve ability to pay.

And to relate health insurance to health care: better health insurance leads to better health care simply because doctors spend a lot less time and aggravation on getting their damn bills repaid. And more people can go for care, which is preventitive. Less stress overall is healthy in itself.

If having the government in charge of health care is such a great idea, why not put it in charge of every other sector of the economy? Is this just one step towards imposing communism without calling it that?

It’s what I said above. This is insurance. The virtue of government health insurance is in its pool size. In industries which produce products rather than insurance, then some form of competition produces the best products. This helps to answer questions below.

If government can lower costs and improve service in health care, isn’t that a case of creating something for nothing?

Yes. You are creating the improved insurance — and therefore improved care — simply by using the large risk pool WHICH ALREADY EXISTS. Yes, you are creating something from nothing. More accurately, you are creating something by removing a negative. (that negative being a patchwork of smaller pools.)

If “simple basic math” shows that government produces better and cheaper health care than the free market, how is it that I majored in mathematics but cannot recall any professor saying that command and control economies create something for nothing? Actually they DO create something for nothing– for government bureaucrats at the expense of everyone else.

Because all that fancy educatin’ didn’t teach you critical thinking.

Is 78.3 years vs. 78.1 years a “much higher life expectancy”?

What are you, a death panel?

If government is so great at creating cheap, high quality goods and services, why aren’t FedEx and UPS bankrupt, while the USPS is generating large surplusses and helping to pay down the deficit?

Again, because government provides INSURANCE, not widgets or standardized services.

If we spent more on housing in 2005 than other “developed” countries, does this mean we should have expanded Fannie and Freddie to increase government control over housing?

You conveniently leave out that during your time frame, Fannie/Freddie were a private entity that failed. You also leave out too-big-to-fail and other financial shenanigans that do not happen in health insurance.

Also note that government health insurance will NOT be an expansion. You’re just sewing a bunch of already existing patchwork pieces onto one quilt so that the pieces are easier to keep track of. The size of the whole will not change. If anything, it will shrink a little.

If a European country has higher gas prices than the US, should it then scrap its energy system and adopt ours instead?

I’m surprised they haven’t.

Is there any such thing as a bubble in pricing of goods and services, and could such a phenomenon possibly account for differences in expenditures among countries?

The housing bubble was created because people sold loans up the food chain. As far as I know, nobody was selling healthy people up a food chain. And if Europe managed to avoid a health-care cost bubble, then we should take tips from them, instead of pretending that “we have the best health care system in the world.”

Also keep in mind that the US historically has the most infrastructure as a modern society, which allowed us to spend the most on cutting edge research. If your country still can’t get toilets to everyone, you tend not to invent double bypasses. Cutting edge is not expensive because of a price bubble. Cutting edge is expensive because there is a low success rate for proof of concepts, and concepts which were proven haven’t been automated or optimized. It’s easy to for other countries to look efficient when they buy a finished optimized procedure off the shelf instead of inventing it.

Define “better”, “cheaper”, and “developed” in the context of your health-care mantra. Is Russia a “developed” country? Would you go there for health care? Or are these words like global warming/climate change, that mutate to fit the facts?

In government’s view of For the People, “better” is reaching more people with basic care, not reaching the rich with more expensive care. “Cheaper” comes from less profit for the CEO’s. Hell, knocking out the lobbyists alone will probably save hundreds of lives.

Are you admitting that government health care does not work well in “undeveloped” countries?

You are confusing government health CARE with government health INSURANCE. The US still has a good health care structure. They just need a better payment system. Also, consider that “undeveloped” countries tend to have undeveloped and uncaring oligarchies who don’t much care about the health of the poor. If they don’t want the people to be healthy, the people won’t be healthy, even if the dictator’s manse is made out of enough gold to pay for it. Bad health care for the masses is part of the definition of “undeveloped.”

For that matter, define “health care”. Does it include acupuncture, massages, physical trainers, marriage counselling? Is the government going to give us better and cheaper versions of these things too?

See my insurance comments above.

A year or so ago I offered to go over some specific case studies of medical treatment with Rio. He wasn’t interested. And I haven’t seen any of my questions above answered in the follow-ups. LehighValleyGuy

Get over yourself LehighValleyGuy. I’ve provided links to countless independent studies, articles, facts, figures, comparisons and analysis supporting universal healthcare, proving my points, answering your questions and addressing the issue. You have not. You have never shown studies, facts and figures supporting the argument that USA’s health-care system is superior overall. Never. Why? Because you can’t. Do you understand my statements? Do you understand the meanings? Does the truth in my statements mean I am “shouting you down” or calling you names?

I even posted two links today supporting my position and answering your “questions”. You have not.

Most of your combative, straw-man laden, hyperbolic, ideology driven, name calling and insulting questions were answered in the two links I presented today. I suggest you read them and look at the numbers objectively.

This is not a forum for discussion, rather shouting down. Blue Skye

I did no shouting at you Blue Skye. If you call being proven wrong by facts, figures and studies being “shouted down”, that’s your and LehighValleyGuy’s deal not mine.

oxide

Excellent answers to LehighValleyGuy’s marginal questions oxide. You have patience.

But I doubt ideology driven people will consider them objectively when they don’t even objectively consider the math on the subject.

I hate to ‘high-five’ one of the ‘usual suspects’, but- Great answers, Oxide!

Thanks for emphasizing the important difference between health care and health insurance- an important point.

I’m going to try to address the few substantive responses that I see here. You guys have proven two things: 1) you get very angry when your religion is challenged, 2) you have a lot more time on your hands than I do.

Not health care. Health INSURANCE. Quality of insurance is based on pools sizes and risk

Then by that logic the government should also have a monopoly on life insurance and property and casualty insurance. Aren’t those basic needs too? If someone dies w/o life insurance, or loses a house in a fire w/o homeowner’s insurance, don’t people then become a burden on others?

The housing bubble was created because people sold loans up the food chain.

Put another way, government policy allowed and encouraged people to buy stuff without paying out their own money. This is also what has happened in health care, with the constant policy emphasis on “third-party payors.”. From the HMO Act of 1973 onward, government incentives have been given for insurers, reducing or eliminating individuals’ need to budget for expenses. Government insurance of course makes this problem even worse, because government is even less responsive to market conditions than are corporations.

You guys have proven two things: 1) you get very angry when your religion is challenged,

1. It’s not our religion. Religion cannot be proved or disproved by studies, logic or math. However universal health care being cheaper, more comprehensive and superior for the majority of populations can be proven, as we have, by studies, logic and math.

2) you have a lot more time on your hands than I do.

That is inconsequential to the argument. More time would not help you prove your position because in the face of studies, logic and math, your position is untenable.

To Rio, the best rebuttal & dialog “statesman” on the HBB blog!

x3 cheers!

Then by that logic the government should also have a monopoly on life insurance and property and casualty insurance. Aren’t those basic needs too? If someone dies w/o life insurance, or loses a house in a fire w/o homeowner’s insurance, don’t people then become a burden on others?

Government DOES provide life insurance, in the form of Social Security. Kids whose parents die are given SS until they are 18. Widows collect their spouse’s SS. Casualty insurance is covered by Medicaid or SS disability if necessary. Other forms of casualty are generally low-risk, not “needed” or not so expensive. Car insurance isn’t that expensive because the replacement cost for a car is limited.

Fire insurance is a much lower risk because so few houses burn down, so it is not necessary to have such a large risk pool. If we knew all that everybody’s house would eventually burn down the way we know we’re all going to get sick, then yes, you probably need at least state-wide fire insurance. By the way, for other natural disasters, government DOES provide insurance. There is a public option for hurricane insurance in Florida. And for every Administration who is headed by someone with a name that is not George W. Bush, FEMA is a sort of insurance too.

The housing bubble was created because people sold loans up the food chain.

Put another way, government policy allowed and encouraged people to buy stuff without paying out their own money. This is also what has happened in health care, with the constant policy emphasis on “third-party payors.”. From the HMO Act of 1973 onward, government incentives have been given for insurers, reducing or eliminating individuals’ need to budget for expenses. Government insurance of course makes this problem even worse, because government is even less responsive to market conditions than are corporations.

All this evil “government” activity that you are shouting about was perpetrated by REPUBLICANS and their lobbyist corporate paymasters; I would hardly call it good governance. You’re letting Republicans give the “government” umbrella a bad name and then throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Down goes Frazier!

Sheesh- I haven’t such an arse-whoopin’ since ‘heavyweight’ meant something.

Sorry, Lehigh- You floated like a bee, and stung like a butterfly.

And I remember when Kaiser was considered the “dirt cheap” insurance.

“We’re in a health insurance crisis with 78M Baby Boomers aging”

Once they run out of money (sell the house, empty the 401K, etc.) they can just go into a corner, curl up and die. They’re only serfs after all.

We get critiqued here in Canada about our health care maybe taking a couple of months before a major operation can be scheduled.

Funny thing - we doooo get the operation and good quality of care to go along with it.

If I lived in the states and had insurance would it cover me? Without insurance could I afford it?

How long is the waiting list for a person with no insurance? It is until you can afford to pay or until you die.

Canada rations its health care but allocates based on threat to life. If you happen to have a life threatening condition, you don’t wait. If you have a need for an elective treatment, you wait until there is a slot available. Not perfect, but pretty good at keeping the population healthy enough to pay taxes.

I checked some past listings:
152 via vaquero sur, san juan bautista
6/24/2004 sold $804,500
1/20/2010 sold $588,800
2/24/2011 sold $515,00
Fees $242 month
5 bed/4bath/3611 sq.ft.
Property tax $7006/year

IIRC some were in the $400’s before data pulled.

Second listing:187 el circulo del real, SJB
sold 2/17/2006 $1,450,000
sold 3/20/2011 $1,115,856 (public record)
listed active 4/26/2011 @ $612K
6bed/5bath/4746sq.ft.($129/sq.ft)/1/2acre lot

sold 3/20/2011 $1,115,856 (public record)
listed active 4/26/2011 @ $612K

———-
By what mechanism would someone buy a home in March and re-list it in April at half price? Something with the way the gov’t records short sales?

By what mechanism would someone buy a home in March and re-list it in April at half price? Something with the way the gov’t records short sales?

I think this happens with REO’s. Anyone?

Second listing:187 el circulo del real, SJB
listed active 4/26/2011 @ $612K
6bed/5bath/4746sq.ft.($129/sq.ft)/1/2acre lot

——–
Also just for fun computing the CA/near-a-beach adjustment: Where I live, this house would be $450k with $11k in taxes per year.

If it was foreclosed upon, the credit bid by the bank may have been for the debt amount of $1,115,856. So it may show up as a sale at that price, regardless of market value.

I don’t find that to be unexpected in the least. (Now you’re throwing the red-herrings)

Nor is it the point. The Rs ran on a campaign of tort reform. Personally, I think it was brilliant strategy. Get millions of people to think lawyers are our biggest problem. (”And these two lawyers want to run our COUNTRY! The horror!”)

But it was still a red-herring. What legislation was enacted to combat supposedly the biggest threat to the country?

Yes it will be a grand world when companies build exploding pinto’s and don’t have to worry about regulation or law suits. When corporations can lie to their share holders and not worry about the law or lawyers. When toxic waste can be dumped right into a towns water supply without the worry that you’ll have to pay for it. When doctors can go play golf while you are dieing in the hospital or show up drunk to the OR w/o fear.

That’s the utopia 2banana dreams of.

I’m all for cappying the lawyers and plaintiffs take to damages plus x % but doing away with lawsuits is a mistake.

I’m all for cappying the lawyers and plaintiffs take to damages plus x % but doing away with lawsuits is a mistake.

No one is talking banning lawsuits. Reform the system to something sane like the universal health care europeans have.

Like loser pays. Cap on punitive damages. Cap on lawyer fees.

And trial lawyers have fought these reforms tooth and nail and none have passed on the federal level.

Reform the system to something sane like the universal health care europeans have.

Like loser pays. Cap on punitive damages. Cap on lawyer fees.

I would agree to all of those in exchange for European style universal health-care.

I raise the deal for allowing European speedos on men at all pools/beaches…

The loser pays system will come into law in Texas in some cases next year.

I raise the deal for allowing European speedos on men at all pools/beaches…

I never knew there was a law against that.

“Tort reform” was another rallying cry during the health care debate. When the Republicans took the House, I thought, great. They can pass a standalone bill to reform tort, and another standalone bill to “sell health insurance over state lines.” They can add that to Obamacare and see if the numbers pencil out any better.

Well we know how THAT turnedout. Rather than put their money where their mouths were, all we got was repeal repeal repeal and replace with… privatized Medicare!

I raise the deal for allowing European speedos on men at all pools/beaches…

No. That’s a deal-breaker.

from $200,000/year public union lifeguards with 90% pensions

Now, now slipperybanana, you forgot to mention these are NEWPORT BEACH, CA lifeguards, and where do they get the money for their $alarie$? The poor, poor, $uffering wealthie$. Oh, then “The Unreal Housewives of “The O.C.!” Yell!/Scream/Holler!… Help I’m drowning, save me, my husband just paid $35,000 ca$h for these (pick-a-size: DD-E-F-FF-G-GG-H-HH-J-JJ-K-KK-L) matching pairs! Help city-peon person!, Help!

“Somehow you go from $200,000/year public union lifeguards”

I thought it was established already that Newport Lifeguards are paid $20/hr, and that it was the head honcho with a desk at city hall who got the big payout (not saying he deserves it, but lifeguards in Newport Beach are not paid 200K).

“to living in a cardboard box and subsisting on a bowl of rice a day”

Are you saying that people aren’t living like that?

Yes, people have been throwing some hyperbole at your expense, but you have brought it upon yourself everytime you champion the cause for lower wages (or as you like to call it “right to work”).

Somehow, bananarama you go from one single lifeguard who is actually the director, to many.

You are a liar. WAIT! You must be a realtor! THAT’S IT! DOH!

Sorry, but the red velvet cupcake at Susie Cakes is pretty good. Got one for myself and two mochas for my wife on her b-day. She only had one! And I’m rocking 12 miles per day on the bike. 22 today — Bike to Work Day was excellent.

Funny though how many single occupancy vehicles passed me going into the city. When will they ever learn? Ugh, the Kingston Trio song just ear-wormed me…

Where have all the flowers gone??