The Housing Bubble

In lands where ethics and morals are held in disregard, so are laws.

That our government has diminishing interest in follow the law - or is actively seeking to exempt itself from laws - is indicative to where we are ethically and morally.

Ethics and morals always trumps law. Ethics and morals form the basis of law, not the other way around.

Never forget it.

Ethics and morals always trumps law.

both of which should be based on natural law.

Ethics and morals form the basis of law, not the other way around.

standard morality should be the basis of law. but now many laws are not based on such.

You’re full of BS. Money forms the basis of laws, and the laws that money buys are anything but ethical and moral. Maybe if we got the money out of elections, we would get laws that were moral and ethical. If you agree, then there’s a Wall Street I think you should occupy.

Money forms the basis of laws

dollars buy off legislators. that’s a far cry from forming the basis of law.

Human nature and all…never ever forget this…

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.

—P. J. O’Rourke

Speaking of laws and the constitution…
Is there any doubt we need to have a new constitution and bill of rights? Our laws are stuck in the 17th. century while technology leaps forward at exponential seed? Autonomous Drones, Digital record privacy, Genetic reprogramming and someday soon we will have robots with A.I. that can could replace your wife/husband/boss. Isn’t it time we redefine what is or isn’t torture or if corporation can have human rights?
Example - What part of the constitution covers this:
“Researchers Advance Toward Engineering ‘Wildly New Genome’”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144628.htm

In one project, researchers created a novel genome — the first-ever entirely genomically recoded organism — by replacing all 321 instances of a specific “genetic three-letter word,” called a codon, throughout the organism’s entire genome with a word of supposedly identical meaning. The researchers then reintroduced a reprogramed version of the original word (with a new meaning, a new amino acid) into the bacteria, expanding the bacterium’s vocabulary and allowing it to produce proteins that do not normally occur in nature.

In the second project, the researchers removed every occurrence of 13 different codons across 42 separate E. coli genes, using a different organism for each gene, and replaced them with other codons of the same function. When they were done, 24 percent of the DNA across the 42 targeted genes had been changed, yet the proteins the genes produced remained identical to those produced by the original genes.

You’re full of BS. Money forms the basis of laws, and the laws that money buys are anything but ethical and moral.

Eventually you are probably right as a society decays. And money may have even influenced the writing of the constitution (slavery comes to mind). But there are many things about our constitution that are there to protect people from money…which is why the founding fathers are held in such high regard by at least some in our society.

Is there any doubt we need to have a new constitution and bill of rights? Our laws are stuck in the 17th. century while technology leaps forward at exponential seed?

The constitution can be modified if needed. If we scrapped it for a new one I’d be very concerned about throwing the baby out with the bath water. No reason an amendment couldn’t be added to address your concerns.

oops, seed=speed.

Just in case you hard core Tea Party guys think the US constitution and Bill of Rights should last forever just consider the real possibility that Obama/Cheney/Putin/Bernanke (fill in the guy you really hate) could someday be immortal. If you have the money and power why not?

The constitution can be modified if needed.

Because it’s living.

Barf

lol

Eventually you are probably right as a society decays. And money may have even influenced the writing of the constitution (slavery comes to mind).

If you think about slavery, as well as the fact that women now have the right to vote and also that the government is no longer try exterminate the Native Americans, society appears to have improved significantly compared to the when the constitution was written.

Biggest tactical error of the Obama regime. He could have graciously given in to the one year delay offered by the pubs during the whole shutdown brou-ha-ha, and spent more time tweaking things like the website or even letting Obamakare sort of fade off into the distance over time. Plus it would have given him some martyr sympathy.

Now, with the pubs eviscerated, the media, always in search of fresh meat, is concentrating on all the flaws in Obamacare, the dysfunctional website, the costs, etc. They’re beginning to turn on him and his “signature legislation”. Which will bleed over to the dem legislators who’d like to keep feeding at the trough, but may not get that chance. Already this morning CBS has a story about the problems with Obamakare. That didn’t take long.

I didn’t get the impression that the Pres. and Congress actually wrote this legislation or even knew what was in it when they rammed it through. I got the impression that it was written by their patrons in the Pharma industry. When our system is captured by business interests, there is no “good” outcome as far as we are concerned. Only “like” and “don’t like”. The problem isn’t that a website has a rough takeoff, the problem is that the government isn’t “by the people, for the people”.

He could have graciously given in to the one year delay offered by the pubs

That is one hilarious statement. “Graciously” and “offered“?

An instant classic.

I already have insurance to. But I don’t see my employer scrambling for an exemption…why do they need to?

Doh…to=too…

Two?

But I don’t see my employer scrambling for an exemption…why do they need to?

Maybe because your insurance meets the new minimum standards. FWIU, many waivers were to give a longer transitioning period.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/18/mick-mulvaney/rep-mulvaney-says-obama-gave-1100-special-waivers-/

Our research took us (as well as our fact checking colleagues at the Washington Post) to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The waivers in question have to do with private insurance plans that cost very little but cap the total amount they will pay at less than $1.25 million in a single year. The limits can be considerably less. There are plans that don’t pay more than $2,000 and even one that stops at $300.

But even putting the transition on a glide path created a potential dilemma, especially for large firms that hire many low-wage workers. Faced with having to improve their coverage quickly, there was a chance that many employers would instead drop the insurance altogether. To avoid leaving those workers with no insurance at all, HHS set up a way for companies and insurance plans to apply for waivers.

Maybe because your insurance meets the new minimum standards.

And Congress doesn’t?

Maybe because your insurance meets the new minimum standards.

And Congress doesn’t?

Here’s the skinny. It’s not at all what the right is trying to make of it. But it’s kind of complicated so it’s easy to trick people and lie about it.

The real story behind all those Obamacare waivers

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-obamacare-waivers-exemptions-hyperbole-20131002,0,6344095.story

…..with one notable exception, the exemptions aren’t what they’re cracked up to be…….Finally, some critics of the law have claimed that Congress hypocritically enjoys an exemption from the healthcare law it foisted on the rest of us. That would be egregious if it were true, but reality is somewhat different, as I explained in a post two months ago.

This approach mimics what a growing number of large employers are doing with private insurance exchanges. Still, it would have been better had Congress changed the Affordable Care Act to explicitly allow the government to cover part of those employees’ premiums, rather than having the administration do it by regulatory fiat.

Interesting. Thanks for posting that.

it’s going to be a lot worse than that.

Free double contrast barium enemas.

obamacare is about control by the government.

because of it there will less jobs for less pay. that will hurt the already poor the most. then they will feel the boot of government on their necks in other ways. as the government grows they will feel the increasing tyranny. as will everyone that lives in the USA.

as the government grows they will feel the increasing tyranny of occasional doctor visits.

as the government grows they will feel the increasing tyranny of occasional doctor visits.

The Tyranny is that the government determines the pricing of the “private market” healthcare coverage. The Tyranny is that the government determines who will be covered by the private company. The Tyranny is that if you don’t purchase this private market product, priced by the government, you will pay a tax. The Tyranny is that this is just another power grab by the government, disguised by socialists as “free-market competition”.

Call it what it is, more tyranny by the government against a free people.

Call it what it is, more tyranny by the government against their citizens getting diseases and stuff.

Oh yeah, and those cops that throw you in the slammer if you don’t pay…
yeah, prison rape and doctor visits.. how nice…

On October 7th, 23-year-old Brittany Ball, a USMC member out of Fort Jackson, was allegedly upset at the restaurant when approached by Richland County Deputy Paul Allen Derrick. She apparently turned down his advances and the two began to argue.

Derrick, a 17 year veteran, left the restaurant to go retrieve handcuffs and his gun from his vehicle, then returning to try and arrest Ball. He was recorded screaming at her and barking orders as he twisted her arms behind her back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkhrWZ6twjw

That incident is still getting tons of attention as it should. Typical heavy handed clown with a sidearm, badge and cruiser.

LE and prostitutors are out of control.

‘Dianne Feinstein (FOH - California), the chair of the US Senate committee charged with holding the intelligence establishment to account, declared on Monday that the National Security Agency’s mass collection of phone records is “not surveillance” and should be maintained as an essential tool to combat terrorism.’

‘Senior intelligence officials are lobbying hard on Capitol Hill to protect the program, and Feinstein has been one of their strongest supporters in Congress. In her op-ed, Feinstein repeated the testimony of NSA and other intelligence leaders, which many critics argue has been misleading.’

“The call-records program is not surveillance. It does not collect the content of any communication, nor do the records include names or locations,” Feinstein wrote. “The NSA only collects the type of information found on a telephone bill: phone numbers of calls placed and received, the time of the calls and duration.”

‘Justin Amash, the Republican who co-authored that measure, recently told the Guardian that opposition to the program has “solidified” in recent months.’

‘Amash attributed the hardening of opposition to members of Congress returning to their districts, where they heard complaints from constituents angry about their records were being stored, and to the succession of revelations, published in the Guardian, the Washington Post and the New York Times, that have “completely discredited those who said nothing improper was going on within the NSA”.

‘The call-records program is not surveillance. It does not collect the content of any communication, nor do the records include names or locations’

They are recording every - single - call, you lying dog.

More damn BS. The government DID get out of health insurance. And…

only half of older adults had health insurance, with coverage often unavailable or unaffordable to the other half, because older adults had half as much income as younger people and paid nearly three times as much for health insurance. (Wiki)

That’s your ethical and moral unregulated free market at work. As I said, companies want people to have NO healthcare.

More damn BS.

more hyperbole from you.

That’s your ethical and moral unregulated free market at work.

no, that’s the result of government regulation such as it being against the law to buy insurance across state lines.

As I said, companies want people to have NO healthcare.

can you give a logica reason why any company (other than insurance) would feel that way?

It’s a cost that they have to swallow, or try to pass thru.

Or relocate the job to a country where they don’t have to worry about it.

Everybody wants people to have healthcare. It’s just that those who profit from it want everybody else to pay every dime they have for it. And those who instead profit from other things want people to have money left over and then spend every dime they have on those other things. The one thing everyone can agree on is that they don’t want anyone else to be able to keep any dimes for themselves, because that’s wasted profit.

No, everybody wants people to have health insurance. They just don’t want people to get the actual care. That’s what costs money.

And seriously, tj, do you really think that, pre-Medicare, a senior could buy private health insurance from another state for cheaper, as if there was no competition within each state?

No, everybody wants people to have health insurance. They just don’t want people to get the actual care.

you don’t mean ‘everybody’ right? you said ‘companies’ previously, so i’ll assume that’s still what you mean. tell me a logical reason that companies wouldn’t want you to get health care. if you only mean ‘health insurance companies’, then i would agree with you. it’s in their interest not to pay out.

And seriously, tj, do you really think that, pre-Medicare, a senior could buy private health insurance from another state for cheaper, as if there was no competition within each state?

pre-medicare? insurance was cheap pre-medicare. why don’t you want to permit people to buy across state lines? what’s wrong with more competition?

Pre-medicare, health care was a lot more primitive than it is now. It really does not make sense to compare costs between then and now.

It is entirely possible that Medicare dollars have been a primary driver in the development of new treatments and technologies.

Insurance is not sold across state boundaries because the STATES have laws against it. They want to regulate the health insurance policies their residents can purchase and they do it by requiring the insurance companies to create a product that their own insurance commission can approve.

This message brought to you just in case anyone thinks this is a federal law. It isn’t.

Do you know why all those credit cards can charge 35% interest rates? Because they are all offered by companies that are resident in (I think it is mostly South Dakota) states that got rid of usury laws and they are allowed to offer those products in across state boarders. If you let health insurance companies offer policies across boarders, you are denying the states their ability to protect their citizens (and their hospital emergency rooms) from useless policies with good advertising campaigns.

If you let health insurance companies offer policies across boarders, you are denying the states their ability to protect their citizens

except that it’s not really protecting their ‘residents’ Polly. economic protectionism always costs more money than the free market would provide.

it should be up to the consumers to decide which policies are ‘useless’.

Wonderful! If you’re all about the free market, by all means, let someone develop a national “Medicare for young folks Gold/Silver/Bronze” plan and put that on ALL the state and federal exchanges. Let the consumers decide if they want socialized medicine or not.

No, everybody wants people to have health insurance. They just don’t want people to get the actual care. That’s what costs money.

Insurance companies aren’t crazy about paying out claims.

The kitchen at a local mom-n-pop burger joint caught fire. After a few weeks the owner put up a sign saying “Farmers won’t pay”. I don’t think it’s going to reopen.

economic protectionism always costs more money than the free market would provide.

Economic protectionism is like divorce. It costs a lot but many times it’s worth it.

Example: If Brazil would have opened its markets to China as fast as the USA did, this place would have totally fallen apart the past 20 years.

There is more to economies and societies than cheap crap and the lowest price.

Getting rid of insurers exemption to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act would go a long ways to getting more free enterprise in the system.

pre-medicare? insurance was cheap pre-medicare.

No. You can’t re-write history tj. Again:

Before Medicare’s creation, only half of older adults had health insurance, with coverage often unavailable or unaffordable to the other half, because older adults had half as much income as younger people and paid nearly three times as much for health insurance. (Wiki)

Economic protectionism is like divorce. It costs a lot but many times it’s worth it.

few think protectionism works all the time, most think it works some of the time. a very few think protectionism is always uneconomic, but it is. protectionism is wrong both economically and morally. no one should have the authority to step between to entities that wish to make a trade. what do think gives you the moral right to do that?

Example: If Brazil would have opened its markets to China as fast as the USA did, this place would have totally fallen apart the past 20 years.

not because of increased trade with china.

i met a business man in puerto rico. he has a resort on the ocean. i stopped to have a drink and relax with the ocean breeze. we got to talking and before long he was asking me why puerto rico’s economy was in shambles.

over the next few visits he told me some of the things that were happening. some of the rest i got from the internet.

puerto rico is suffering from ‘the jones act’ among other things. because of it, their imports are low and trade is difficult.

in addition section 936 was repealed or expired or something in the mid 90s. it was a tax break for businesses. without the tax break, companies left and right closed. they lost manufacturing in things like computers and sugar.

then, i suppose because the gov wasn’t getting much from tariffs because of the jones act, they scrapped tariffs and put in a sales tax of 6.5 or 7 percent about five or six years ago. their economy has been going downhill ever since. i told my friend that even though sales taxes are the least destructive, they are still destructive and shouldn’t have been implement with the jones act still in force.

he said he wanted to get the sugar manufacturing back because it employed so many people. i told him that that sounded like soviet union central planning. what if sugar is a dying industry? or what if they can make it cheaper elsewhere? i told him that he can’t predict such things and neither can anyone else. all that needs to be done is get the government out of the way. let entrepreneurs find the best things to make in puerto rico. let them keep what they earn and they will rise to the occasion.

none of the politicians understand economics. they constantly make the same mistakes. i believe that most of them want the best for puerto rico. they just don’t understand how they are hurting it.

protectionistic policies like the jones act are hurting puerto rico dearly.

There is more to economies and societies than cheap crap and the lowest price.

a declaration with little meaning. would you rather have expensive crap at the highest price?

No. You can’t re-write history tj. Again:

i’m not rewriting anything. you are looking at the wrong things again.

one one thing, many adults didn’t need health insurance back then because price were much lower.

i hate to use gdp for anything, but it was easily available. look at this

http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/19/a-brief-history-of-health-spending-since-1965/

Getting rid of insurers exemption to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act would go a long ways to getting more free enterprise in the system.

another example of the ‘rule of men’ where some are exempted, rather than the rule of law where it gets applied equally to everyone.

no one should have the authority to step between to entities that wish to make a trade. what do think gives you the moral right to do that?

Tragedy of the commons? Where every business wants to sell to the American people but nobody wants to employ them?

Tragedy of the commons?

i don’t think so.. tragedy of the commons is about public ownership.

Where every business wants to sell to the American people but nobody wants to employ them?

this is quite true. every business wants to sell to everyone it can, and employ as few as possible (maximize profits). if you’ve ever owned a business, you know it’s true. however, in a prospering economy, many businesses can only increase profits by hiring more people. employees are an asset that brings more profit at certain times. it’s up to the ambitious owner to determine when that time is. and when that happens the wealth pie grows for everyone.

i don’t think so.. tragedy of the commons is about public ownership.

The American people are the public. They own themselves, correct? If they choose to not allow people to sell to them that won’t hire them, it’s their right, correct?

The American people are the public.

yes, perhaps i should have said just ‘owned by a group of people’..

They own themselves, correct?

yes, so to speak.. individual sovereignty

If they choose to not allow people to sell to them that won’t hire them

you can’t do that without petitioning government to do your bidding. and that should be illegal under the constitution.

it’s their right, correct?

no, their right is to refuse to buy.

you can’t do that without petitioning government to do your bidding. and that should be illegal under the constitution.

??? I thought we WERE the government?

protectionism is wrong both economically and morally.

Morally? Protectionism is “wrong” morally when other countries wanting to sell to us are much less moral than the USA? It’s wrong “morally” to apply protectionism against countries practicing slave labor? Where are you coming from?? That is one the dumbest things I’ve read in awhile.

Do you think things out or just react with illogical dogmatic emotion?

would you rather have expensive crap at the highest price?

Dumb question as usual. I’d rather have a country with jobs.

Yeah tj.. you should just preface every one of your statements with “I think”… because what you are saying is pure opinion and nowhere near fact… So, we’re glad to hear what you think.

Now, I don’t often agree with Rio, but in this case he is correct. It is about the most foolish thing you can do to load up on costly worker and environmental protections at home, then completely ignore all those rules and regulations just because a product came from outside your borders. How the average voter in this country is letting this happen, I have no idea… The funny thing is, this is one of the only issues Dems and repubs are united on, and it is 100% against the working class citizen…

no one should have the authority to step between to entities that wish to make a trade.

Right tj. You know less about America than you do about Mars. Your knowledge about your country is frighteningly lacking. You above statement in a historical sense of the USA is beyond the pale.

America was founded as a protectionist nation

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/13/america-was-founded-as-a-protectionist-nation/#ixzz2iOuOdCf7

Contemporary American politics is conducted in the shadow of historical myths that inform our present-day choices. Unfortunately, these myths sometimes lead us terribly astray. Case in point is the popular idea that America’s economic tradition has been economic liberty, laissez faire, and wide-open cowboy capitalism. This notion sounds obvious, and it fits the image of this country held by both the Right, which celebrates this tradition, and the Left, which bemoans it. And it seems to imply, among other things, that free trade is the American Way. Don’t Tread On Me or my right to import.

This pattern even predates American independence. During the colonial period, the British government tried to force its American colonies to become suppliers of raw materials to the nascent British industrial machine while denying them any manufacturing industry of their own. The colonies were, in fact, the single biggest victim of British trade policy, being under Britain’s direct political control, unlike its other trading partners. The British knew exactly what they were doing: they were happy to see America thrive, but only as a cog in their own industrial machine. As former Prime Minster William Pitt, otherwise a famous conciliator of American grievances and the namesake of Pittsburgh, once said in Parliament,

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/13/america-was-founded-as-a-protectionist-nation/#ixzz2iOuOdCf7

Protectionism is “wrong” morally when other countries wanting to sell to us are much less moral than the USA?

don’t buy from them then. but you don’t have the moral right to stop others from buying.

It’s wrong “morally” to apply protectionism against countries practicing slave labor?

you obviously don’t know what slavery is. slavery has been outlawed in just about every country. it doesn’t exist anymore, which means you’re just spouting more hyperbole.

Where are you coming from?? That is one the dumbest things I’ve read in awhile.

i was wondering how long it would take you to get back to gratuitous insults. not long..

Dumb question as usual. I’d rather have a country with jobs.

dumb answer as usual. your economy killing protectionism destroys jobs and lowers wages. doesn’t matter what you’d ‘rather have’ when you implement dumb economic policies.

@ rio;

more clap trap from the article pasting communist fool that can’t make a point without pasting articles.

it’s you that doesn’t have any idea of the spirit on which the USA was founded. it’s you socialist/communists that are destroying the country. yes, i know, you aren’t a socialist/communist. what a pathetic joke you are.

article pasting

That’s all he does. He finds propaganda piece and copies and paste relentlessly.

again tj, I am one of the biggest Rio dissenters on here for most things, but you are wrong on this one. Free trade.. what bullshit spin right in the title… yeah, free from having any responsibility toward the american citizen at all…. If you think environmental law and worker protection law in china is anything at all like it is in the USA… you’re plain brain dead.

There is a cost of being located in the United states as a manufacturer. Along with that cost comes the benefit of the US constitution protecting interstate commerce and giving access to the richest consumer in the world… Why should any foreign distributor be given free access to this market with none of the associated costs? “Free trade” should be subject to any country we do business with either complying 100% with our environmental and worker protections, or else tariffs should be imposed to offset..

slavery has been outlawed in just about every country. it doesn’t exist anymore,

Wow. “slavery has been outlawed”

Again: “slavery has been outlawed”

This coming from tj? The “small government” mouthpiece?

Who exactly “outlawed” it?

The same governments that you say is morally bankrupt to come between any buyer and seller for any transaction?

Do you proof read the things you write with an IQ above of 100?

This coming from tj? The “small government” mouthpiece?

another red herring. yes, a very, very small government can outlaw slavery. you think it has to be big? what a moron.

The same governments that you say is morally bankrupt to come between any buyer and seller for any transaction?

yer an intellectual lightweight. i guess you don’t understand that there can be good gov and bad gov. good laws and bad laws. your type makes bad laws that don’t apply to the elite, that don’t apply to everyone. your type has caused more pain and suffering in this world than both world wars combined. hundreds of millions killed by the likes of you.

you’re a little tin horn wannabe dictator. you spread myths and lies like mayo. when most people find out what really you are, it will be too late. they’ll already be in chains or gulags. like bill ayers said “we’ll open some minds or open some heads”. he’s another pathetic joke of a human being. he would be proud of you. you fit right in with his ilk.

what you don’t know is that someday it’s going to come back and bite you. i hope i get to see it when it does.

That’s all he does. He finds propaganda piece and copies and paste relentlessly.

yep, and then he expects people to parse through his drivel and waste time arguing against it. he seldom makes the effort to make the argument himself.

Actually, FWIW, regardless of “laws” - the NYT did a piece of investigative journalism on contemporary global slavery. It included a nice interactive graphic of slavery distribution, and everything. Quite a few of those slavery bubbles on the graphic were in the United States.

Just goes to show, an’ all. Slavery may be outlawed in the United States. It being “illegal” does not mean that people who espouse their birth countries’ morals are going to follow it.

Sort of like outlawing guns. Gives the fascist lawmakers a sugar high. They know da*n well that people who don’t give a rat’s ass about civil discourse won’t follow it. But, there’s an adrenaline high associated with passing laws from which you are exempt, assuming you get some air time so that the folks back home can admire your posturing and platitudes.

By the way - when are the home folks in mellow California going to rise up in arms against Feinstein, who continues to defend the NSA program of surveillance against citizens?

I know dozens of people with pre-existing conditions who are defacto slaves to their employers, because they can’t/won’t take the risk of being without healthcare, or run the risk of being denied coverage at a new employer.

Yup…and if even one of those people would have done something really innovative, we all lose.

A lot of grocery store employees are working 2nd jobs to get the benefits for their families. Would grocery stores have to pay more if their employees did not have to worry about health insurance?

single-payer (call it Socialist) health insurance has all kinds of benefits,

What are they? More importantly how does it make it cheaper and better for the most people?

Will it make doctors and hospitals charge less for their “services”? IMO this is the biggest reasons health costs are skyrocketting. Will doctors and nurses be able to graduate from colleges without spending arms and legs?

Will it make people eat more healthy, get more exercise, and be less fatty?

Will it lower the number of people who take anti depressants?

Will it lower the number of people who take pain pills with alcohol?

Will it make lawyers less likely to sue? More importantly costs associated with (I am not talking about malpractice awards) just having more lawyers per capita? Will it reduce endless and usless forms, processes, tests and procedures?

I am having difficulty to understand how the outcome will be cheaper and better when the ingredients are nothing but expensive and cumbersome to put it mildly.

single-payer (call it Socialist) health insurance has all kinds of benefits,

What are they? More importantly how does it make it cheaper and better for the most people?

This site answers a lot of your questions.

What is Single Payer?

Physicians for a National Health Program

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

………Administrative Savings

Harvard researchers estimate that administrative costs consume 31 cents of every health care dollar in the U.S. Slashing that to Canadian levels would save $400 billion annually, enough to cover all the uninsured and to improve coverage for everyone else. A study by the General Accounting Office estimated that single payer would save 10 percent on total health care costs by slashing administrative waste, enough to cover all the uninsured.
Cost Containment

Single payer is the only plan which features effective cost control measures like global budgeting, negotiated fees, bulk purchasing, and capital investment planning. As a result single payer can reduce the growth of health spending. Whereas health spending is projected to increase to 20 percent of GDP by 2020, if single payer were adopted in 2012 it could contain costs to 17 percent of GDP (Friedman, Dollars and Sense, 4/2012). A study by the Congressional Budget Office also projected that single payer could reduce health inflation.
Different Perspectives on the Benefits of Single-Payer
Patients

Each person, regardless of ability to pay would receive high-quality, comprehensive medical care, and the free choice of doctors and hospitals. Individuals would receive no bills, and copayment and deductibles would be eliminated. Most people would pay less overall for health care than they pay now.
Doctors

Doctors’ incomes would change little, though the disparity in income between specialties would shrink. The need for a “wallet biopsy” before treatment would be eliminated; time currently wasted on administrative duties could be channeled into providing care; and clinical decisions would no longer be dictated by insurance company policy.

Medical endorsements include PNHP (18,000), the American Public Health Association (30,000), American Association of Community Psychiatrists, Massachusetts Academy of Family Practice, American Medical Women’s Association (13,500), Alameda-Contra Costa Medical Society, American Medical Student’s Association, D.C. Medical Society, National Medical Association (6,500), American College of Physicians (Illinois Chapter), Long Island Dermatological Society, Islamic Medical Association, National Nurses United (160,000), American Nurses Association, the D.C. chapter of the American Medical Association, and the Hawaii Medical Association.
Hospitals

The massive numbers of administrative personnel needed to handle itemized billing to thousands of private insurance plans would no longer be needed. A negotiated “global budget” would cover operating expenses. Budgets for capital would be allocated separately based on health care priorities. Hospitals would no longer close because of unpaid bills………

Of course it’s worth it if they are garnishable of have assets.

You can also often recover legal costs. I don’t know the laws in your state (not barred there either obv) and I don’t know the facts in your case. The facts and certain elements often dictate whether you can recover costs and interest. Interest on judgments is usually higher than inflation so even if it takes 20 yrs to get paid via garnishments, you will get paid.

Keep in mind, certain payments like SSDI aren’t garnishable. So it depends if these people are lowlives.

Also, employers like the current health insurance system because it keeps people chained to jobs.

No it doesn’t. Why do people just stay for 5.4 years on a job if they are chained to jobs for health insurance? Does it also include the laid off employees?
Not a defense of employer provided insurance, but facts are something else.

The median length of time on the job for American workers in 2012 is just 5.4 years, according to new research from the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute.

That’s up only slightly from 5 years in 1983, suggesting the idea of a full-career job with one employer and retirement with a gold watch is — and has been — a myth for most people

Why do people just stay for 5.4 years on a job if they are chained to jobs for health insurance? Does it also include the laid off employees?

I bet that a significant part of that number is the layoffs and firings. And then there are the people in the upper layers of the system who can job hop and be quite confident that they will have insurance for their whole family at the new job if needed.

Uh, 5.4 years is for ALL employees, not those with employer-paid health insurance.

The # is also very certainly skewed by government employees and union employees.

So I’m not sure how applicable your “facts” are, since your view of “facts” is so liberal.

In reality, employer-based health ins. results in people end up shopping around for jobs more than they otherwise would. If you’re going from good insurance to mediocre or dicey insurance, the added salary or better job title doesn’t help, even if you’re going from a job you don’t like to one where you’d be more productive. Insurance is definitely a part of the equation. And it’s also a big tax advantage for some employers.

Ben already objected to threads on the topic of Obamacare, but the objections of other humans generally have no effect whatever on Teapartiers.

Propaganda tactic Numero Uno: Accuse others of engaging in your own tactics.

you really are blind to what you do.

propaganda tactic numero dos: always get in the last word.

always get in the last word

Yup…you just proved it.

No…you tried, but failed, to get in the last word.

Many old, out of touch and corrupt leaders in GOP will primaried by Tea Party. Fun’s only starting…..

Meanwhile, we focus on personalities and refuse to discuss very simple and very large problems.

“…refuse to discuss very simple and very large problems.”

Why do you think these paid hacks got up by 6am today to hijack the blog discussion?

Cruz got back home to an 8 minute standing ovation…Tea Partier’s own districts love them. I don’t see how the House is lost to Dems in 2014, especially since people will by then realize that the ACA is more expensive for them individually than they originally thought.

Dallas is not very fond of Cruz.

The Tea Party types around here (about 75% of the population) are feeling backstabbed by the Repub Elite.

They always have been…it just wasn’t so obvious before.

(IMO, they vastly underestimate the downside, and overestimate the upside, but what do I know?)

I believe you are correct. Lots of unintended consequences to that one. But yes, in general people who live near where the food and energy are actually produced worry a lot less about flipping over the Monopoly table and starting the game over, even though they probably should. They optimistically figure they’ll survive even as the “Godless Socialists” get purged and everyone they care about will be better off in the end.

How many of these Tea Party types are getting a government cheesecheck, fixr? Because based on what I’ve seen, many of them wouldn’t last too long in a minimalist government environment.

“based on what I’ve seen…”

People who can do things for themselves tend to live away from the center of political power.

I thought it was done only ironically now.

Not always.

As it stands, my little part-time deal could use a fixed base of operation. But it won’t work, at today’s residential and business property prices.

So the -fixr has resigned himself to doing the best he can around the limitations imposed by renting instead of buying.

Also, for fun, since your article is old, we can test your statement that “they’ll continue rising for as long as transactions occur at massively inflated prices.”

The recent LPS Mortgage Monitor shows the national delinquency rate is now 6.2%, down from when the article was written.

Unless down is the new up, you’re wrong.

You are untrustworthy and an established liar.

The data for your article (7/25/13)

Delinquency Rate 6.68%

http://www.lpsvcs.com/LPSCorporateInformation/NewsRoom/Pages/20130725.aspx

The more recent data (9/26/13)

Delinquency Rate 6.20%

http://www.lpsvcs.com/LPSCorporateInformation/NewsRoom/Pages/20130926.aspx

On Todays Date: 10/21/2013, you blew smoke up everyones a$$, just like every other date on the calendar.

What I thought interesting was not that he recommended selling them to the Chinese, but the admission that there are 100 million units of vacant/for sale housing in the USA.

Thus tacitly confirming the assertions of our very own Housing Analyst.

I don’t think that’s true, fixr. I think he was referring the the US debt that China holds.

China holds 1.44 trillion of the total US debt. (http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/who-holds-the-note-look-in-the-mirror-infographic)

If a US house is average $100K, then China “paid for” 14.4 million houses. If you put 7 people into a Chinese holdhold (not atypical), then theoretically we could pay off the Chinese debt with houses. It doesn’t mean that there are actually 14.4 million houses for sale. There certainly aren’t 100 million houses for sale. In fact I don’t think there are 100 million properties in the whole country.

There are about 117 million households in the US, so there are more than 100 million properties in the US.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

Says there are 132m as of 2011.

And 25 million of them are excess, empty and defaulted.

Which brings up the question……WHY are governments all over the world, no matter if they are (theoretically) Capitalist, or Communist, or something in between, promoting construction, specifically residential construction?

It has occurred to me that it is, in fact, a under-the-table WPA, to keep the wretched refuse occupied, rather than rioting. Ditto all of the asphalt laying projects that have suddenly popped up here in the past 3-4 months.

It has occurred to me that it is, in fact, a under-the-table WPA

But that would imply we’re already in GD2.

<iWhich brings up the question……WHY are governments all over the world, no matter if they are (theoretically) Capitalist, or Communist, or something in between, promoting construction, specifically residential construction?

For property taxes? Governments are just expanding revenue base.

How on earth are all those empty units in China holding up? They’ve got the same weather problems we have.

WHY are governments all over the world,……promoting construction, specifically residential construction?

Some countries actually do have a housing shortage. (Really) If you build hardly any houses for a generation of military dictatorship, then a generation of currency collapses and a history of no mortgages until the past 6 years while at the same time the population is growing latin-style, well it can easily be seen how a country needs many more houses.

Land of opportunity

An overview of Brazil’s key sectors shows the progress that has been made, but its infrastructure still needs work

http://www.theguardian.com/inside-brazil/land-of-opportunity

……Property
The Brazilian government launched the Minha Casa, Minha Vida (my house, my life) campaign almost a year ago, promising to build 1m low-cost homes in its effort to reduce the acute housing shortage.

Brazil’s housing deficit is estimated at between 6m and 8m homes and the initiative, which will cost 34bn reais (£12bn), is also aimed at boosting the economy with the creation of up to 1.5m new jobs.

Carl, we’ve been in GD 2 for a while. If it weren’t for food stamps, unemployment benefits, and credit cards, we would indeed have bread lines, old sick people, and rafts of starving families in jalopies driving Route 29 to North Dakota to fight for jobs which pay very little.

‘we’ve been in GD 2 for a while’

Wait a minute. Our federal government assures us we’ve been in recovery since 2009. Are you sayin’ Obama is a liar?

‘ If it weren’t for food stamps…we would indeed have bread lines’

When you are at the grocery store, you are in a bread line. It’s just that you are paying for what others get for free.

Was it really poaching? Or did he have “an understanding” with the King or somebody else?

All the big ones?

Lol. Yeah, what would happen if states had to manage their own environment? I mean, we have to have a Federal department for this, right?

How much is the Democratic party paying you MightyMike? How does it feel to be a socialist, one step removed from the communists?

Gee, I wasn’t addressing the issue of federal vs. state environmental protection, just the tort thing.

However, there’s an obvious answer to your question if you think about it. Pollution doesn’t respect state lines. If someone pollutes a river or an ocean or the air, that pollution can travel to other states. The example that I gave from 1966 was in the New York City are, which is a metropolitan area made up of three states.

Of course, we know why the business interests prefer to have these done at the state level. It’s generally a lot cheaper to make campaign contributions to influence a governor and a state legislature than it is to influence Congress and a president.

Also, when are people going to drop the whole socialist thing? The word has been nearly devoid of meaning ever since it became so popular in the summer of 2008.

a governor and a state legislature than it is to influence Congress and a president.

You must not live in these united states of americas.

Instead of bribing thousands of legislatures, you have to bribe only 535. Instead of 50 governors, you got only 1 president.

We’re talking about the environment here. If a corporation has facilities in one or two states, there’s no need to lobby in all 50 states.

Obviously a tough guy like you wouldn’t have need a gun to set those hoodlums right.

You sound like such a racist loser.

LOL. Do you have a coexist sticker on your Prius?

No, I don’t, but I did see one on a car a few weeks ago. Have you ever seen one?