The Housing Bubble

And it goes to show that stocks for the long haul and especially precious metals are winners.

Said from the top of the bubble. No offense.

“No offense”

None taken. But my pocket book says we are in stagflation. Everything going up except wages.

My wages have been going down four years straight. And this next six months are the first in four years that they are staying flat.

We had stagflation in the late 70s. The difference this time is that we do not have high interest rates. This to me means that we have more years to go of rising precious metals prices. Precious metals prices go up when interest rates go up, contrary to the common belief. Don’t believe me? Check the historical charts. 1976 to 1980. Then in 1980 when the rates peaked, gold also peaked.

I was more thinking about stocks. No quarrels on gold.

That’s your opinion. I say his actions (or inactions) are deliberate. The hatred is carefully masked. As I’ve said before, all smiles and fists full of vaseline.

The only way to judge someone is by their actions and the results of those actions. Of course, anyone can make a mistake, so we’re talking about a consistent pattern here. I’d say he’s been fairly consistent.

Saint Ronnie, for example, made a huge mistake with his shamnasty. I don’t believe he was deliberately trying to destroy the US.

The Messiah, however, is another matter entirely.

While we disagree on intent, I applaud your descriptive imagery!

Saint Ronnie, for example, made a huge mistake with his shamnasty. I don’t believe he was deliberately trying to destroy the US.

He did make a mistake but his mistake was to believe that subsequent presidents would not try to destroy the country. BTW, I think that Hank Paulsen’s support of an AGW carbon tax is strong circumstantial evidence that the whole theory was to just create a funding mechanism for more globalization and a way to impose taxes on the middle class to avoid taxing the .01%.

The amnesty came with strong border tools and the ability to require employers to verify legal status. Subsequent presidents ignored the border and even started to prosecute employers using the EEOC to allege that their verification measures were discriminatory.

“Saint Ronnie…”

+1 Luv it.

In 2014 we have the technology to easily verify eligibility to work based on immigration status. Roll the tanks.

A-dan, you’re lying like a rug.

The border — or at least the budget for it — wasn’t enforced until Clinton. We had this conversation on June 11. Interested lurkers can go here:

http://thehousingbubbleblog.com/?p=8433

You define enforced as the number of agents on the border, I define enforced as people actually get deported or being deterred from even trying. We have more agents than ever on the border but Obama does not allow them to do their jobs. Under Reagan there was not a surge in the number of illegals and I provided you a link which show that the number of illegals in this country went down under Reagan. But you are thinking like a typical liberal and defining success as the amount of money spent on a problem not whether the problem is improving.

My response that day and my response now below, the employer checks made during the Reagan administration actually deterred immigrants meaning we did not have to play catch and release at the border. Eisenhower took care of illegals with far less resources than are being deployed now, it is how you use resources that is often more important than how much you use:
2014-06-11 10:47:31

But facts are stubborn things. Look at the graphs in this link, just like I guessed Reagan made clear progress during his years but then we started to back slide and Clinton and Bush II were complete disasters:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/202461.pdf

For those that do not have time to look at the graph, there was an estimated 3.2 illegal aliens in this country is 1986, and 1.9 million in 1988, the last full year of Reagan’s presidency but there were 8.5 million in 2000, the last year of Clinton’s presidency. Hey, but Clinton spent more money so he had tough enforcement (not).

3.2 million, it was not a pregnant illegal with her husband and child.

We get the point Jeff Saturday, and by the way I’m checked in for Region VIII, but fail to see the “conspiracy” in voluntary living in walkable neighborhoods (and yes they exist outside of Manhattan).

Palm Beach County sucks for pedestrians and cyclists, you people drive like @ssholes

Palm Beach County is a big place, while much of it does suck for ” for pedestrians and cyclists” Jupiter does not. That’s why I live here.

As far as …. ” you people drive like @ssholes”

The only problems I have had here in the last 30 years have come from hit and run illegal immigrants, although driving during the winter months is more challenging with having the snow birds from the Northeast and Canada on the roads.

“I’m checked in for Region VIII,”

That’s not where you check in.

You check in for the National media event drills.

Anyway, enjoy the carbon tax.

UN says the world needs cap-and-trade, carbon taxes

4/14/2014

A new United Nations report urges countries to tax carbon emissions to stem the rise of global temperatures.

In order to keep global temperatures from rising above two degrees Celsius by 2100, the world needs to lower its use of fossil fuels, like coal and oil, between 40 percent and 70 percent. This can be done by acting immediately and putting a global price on carbon dioxide emissions, either through a tax or cap-and-trade system, according to the UN.

The UN says that under such assumptions, the cost of mitigating global warming would only be 0.06 percent of annual global consumption growth. Without any immediate mitigation, the UN says that global consumption losses would be up to 37 percent higher between 2050 and 2100.

The report, by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stressed the need for a worldwide solution to global warming, saying that individual action to curb greenhouse gas emissions would not be enough to avert climate catastrophe.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/14/un-says-the-world-needs-cap-and-trade-carbon-taxes/#ixzz35fSVTu7q

“The report, by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stressed the need for a worldwide solution to global warming, saying that individual action to curb greenhouse gas emissions would not be enough to avert climate catastrophe.”

U.S. economy collapses in first quarter, but growing again.

16 minutes ago

By Lucia Mutikani

The Commerce Department said on Wednesday gross domestic product fell at a 2.9 percent annual rate, the sharpest decline in five years, instead of the 1.0 percent pace it had reported last month.

The economy was held back by an unusually cold winter,

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-economy-contracts-2-9-123534819.html?.tsrc=sun

Hank Paulsen want you to pay a carbon tax to avoid any new taxes or rates being imposed on wall street and to promote crony capitalists’ green projects just get with the program and pay up.

Because taxes are for the little people:

http://fortune.com/2014/06/17/clintons-seek-to-avoid-a-tax-they-once-supported/?xid=ob_rss

Why compare the price today to 1914? There weren’t many cars back then.

… which makes the real (inflation adjusted) price of gas even more impressive, not less impressive.

I didn’t cherry pick 1914. That chart I posted shows the price adjusted for inflation for all the years over the past century. You can compare 2014 prices to any other year you want… pre WWII, post WWII, late 70s/early 80s, pre/post 9-11, etc.

Basically your argument would say that the standard of living today should not be any higher than the standard of living back in 1914. Prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve goods dropped in price as we became more efficient, now we have a system that relies on inflation.

Liberace. You spam this blog with junk opinion. You’re an apologist and a liar.

Good morning liar.

Go get yer free $hit……. degenerates.

The U.S. president does not set prices but he certainly influences them, by his selections to the federal reserve by his energy prices and by his foreign policy decisions so lets see:

1. Federal Reserve appointments all favor easy money which causes oil to rise in price.

2. Energy policy restrict drilling on all federal lands and place a long moratorium on off-shore drilling, raises oil prices.

3. de-stabilize the middle east by promoting the Arab Spring and intervene in Libya and Syria. result loss of 1.5 million barrels of oil from Libya production, several hundred thousand barrels from Syria and half a million in Iraq due to the spill over.

This has totally negated the increased production from private U.S. lands which he had no role in promoting and in fact has impeded due to his failure to approve the XL pipeline.

Darn right he is responsible for raising gasoline prices.

Or was it something else?

The economy fell into a brutal recession in 2008. That low point in gas prices occurred right around the time that GDP was at its worst point, though unemployment reached its peak about a year later.

I’m sure that all those people who lost their jobs really enjoyed the low gas prices when they were driving all over town applying for hundreds of jobs.

Well, if it’s correlation we’re talking about, he seems to be failing if you do a line fit along that timeline, so add that to the list of failures.

(1) Agreed.
(2), (3) Prices have bounced w/in a $.50 range for 3.5 years. Not buying it.

Curious, what do you conclude for correlation when you look at the 2000-2008 timeline?

Your insinuation that you didn’t address is that policy dictated a drop in 2008. What was that policy? The reverse of your list above?

That low point in gas prices occurred right around the time that GDP was at its worst point, though unemployment reached its peak about a year later.

The low point in gasoline should have occurred at the low point in demand which would have been when unemployment hit its peak, it was the loose money and speculation (funded by the loose money) caused by the stimulus that caused it to rise early.

That low point in gas prices occurred right around the time that GDP was at its worst point

Well, yes. I was being cheeky. But Dan seems to be ignoring some history here.

I’m sure that all those people who lost their jobs really enjoyed the low gas prices

Is it wrong if I say I enjoyed them? #savers

Well, yes. I was being cheeky. But Dan seems to be ignoring some history here.

Maybe he knows the history. A lot of people appear to advocate policies (higher interest rates and a quick balancing of the budget) that would cause a big jump in unemployment because they think that they won’t lose their jobs. In Dan’s case, I think that he works for the government.

Is it wrong if I say I enjoyed them?

No, it’s not wrong to say that you enjoyed lower gasoline prices.

Dan, if employment drives gas prices, then how do you explain the ultra-cheap gas prices in 1999? At the time, the economy was booming like a subwhoofer.

Mike, from earlier posts, it appears that Dan used to be a government energy regulator and then used his gov experience to land a gig on the fossil industry side. Might even be double dipping.

Dan, if employment drives gas prices, then how do you explain the ultra-cheap gas prices in 1999?

Oxide, read the posts I am not the one making that argument I am the one refuting the argument that it was the rise in employment that was the primary cause for the rise in oil prices. It is sleepless that is trying to claim that the price rise is due primarily to economic improvement.

It is sleepless that is trying to claim that the price rise is due primarily to economic improvement.

No. That’s not at all what I am suggesting. I think it is all due to low-priced money.

Let’s back up. I simply asked a question to kill this meme: “But is about double from where it was Obama took office”

The insinuation is always: GWB halved gas prices; BO hates us and therefore doubled them.

Looking at the trend line, we were already on a trajectory toward $4 gas. If there was a policy change in 2008 to suggest otherwise (that was then reversed in 2009), please explain what that policy was.

No. That’s not at all what I am suggesting. I think it is all due to low-priced money.

Has there ever been an administration that has created more low-priced money? Under Obama the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet went from about 800 billion to over 4 trillion. So once again he is responsible for the higher gas prices and the Federal Reserve picks which do go hand and hand.

But supply and demand do have some role and if you put on the market the over 2 million barrels of oil taken off due to instability you would have substantially lower oil prices. If you add in all the production we could have by drilling off the coasts which Obama was originally planning to do, it would be even lower, add ANWR it would be even lower, reduce demand by promoting natural gas vehicles and you would be around $1.65 a gallon despite the open printing press except the economy would have been strong enough you would not have needed to print the money

But supply and demand do have some role

True, but I think it’s a muted one right now. I think the lack of true recovery affects demand negatively which counteracts any lack of supply. In fact, lack of demand might be why things have been effectively flat for 3.5 years.

But let’s not act like this thievery started in 2009.

Seattle, having re-read your posts and ignoring Mike’s and Oxides posts which do seem to be attempting to link the price to the economy, I think that we are largely in agreement that the primary reason for the rise is money creation.

However, you do ignore that within commodities supply and demand does matter, platinum and palladium have moved up much more over the last year than gold for example due to fundamentals with the same monetary backdrop. Oil was only elevated in 2008 for a brief period when the entire world was booming and production was struggling to keep up with demand. With the weak GDP of the world we should be enjoying weak oil prices but we are not due to supply constraints caused by Obama, both by his foreign policy and his domestic energy policies.

In fact, lack of demand might be why things have been effectively flat for 3.5 years.

I am totally in agreement with that statement. In fact, I think we are now in a box due to the lack of additional supply, any increase in demand will cause oil prices to surge and this will quickly choke off any recovery. There is no slack in the system. The Saudis are saying they have excess capacity but they are as big as liars as Obama. Their fields are old and past peak and they could not spike production if their lives depended on it.

Well, it *is* the “economy” but to be clear, I think the “economy” since the bust in early 2000s has all been money creation and lending fraud, not organic growth.

What I took original exception to is this idea that before 2009 (especially before 2007) policies were put in place to bring the price of gas down.

…and when I say I suspect demand is down, I mean *US* demand, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that prices come down just with decreased US demand, which is why I dispute your claims of the role of increased domestic production.

And I’ll say it one last time and be done, if those things woulda/coulda/shoulda been done, why weren’t they from 2001-2006?

Yes, it has been going on to soon after Islam began when it split but the fact remains after the surge the civil war between Shiites and Sunnis had if not ended entered into a truce. Bush handled Obama a stable situation. In fact Biden was bragging about how the Iraqi government had closed the divide just a few months ago. It is Obama’s actions and non-actions in Syria that created this latest blow-up and I predicted it.

Sorry text was moved. so should say fact remains after the (McCain) surge the civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis had ended or at least they had entered into a truce.

This is how clueless the administration was and is, from a January WH Press release with Biden praising Maliki:
For Immediate Release January 08, 2014
Readout of Vice President Biden’s Call with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
This morning, Vice President Biden spoke with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The Vice President encouraged the Prime Minister to continue the Iraqi government’s outreach to local, tribal, and national leaders and welcomed the Council of Ministers’ decision to extend state benefits to tribal forces killed or injured in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). He also welcomed Prime Minister Maliki’s statement earlier today affirming that Iraqi elections will occur as scheduled, as well as the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensuring that humanitarian aid is reaching people in need. Prime Minister Maliki updated the Vice President on the situation in Anbar province, including a series of political initiatives that are underway at the local and national level. The Vice President underscored that America will support and assist Iraq in its fight against international terrorism

Bush handed Obama a stable situation.

Right there you just blew any credibility you might have had on Iraq.

As for Syria: No. No. No. Go read Juan Cole.

If it was not a stable situation why did Obama call it stable and remove the troops?

So I guess Biden and Obama were lying when they called it stable?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/13/flashbacks-obama-and-biden-laud-iraqs-stability/

Excerpt:

2011: Obama to troops at Fort Bragg, North Carolina: “We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.”

You liberals just make it too easy, I set you up with language and you bite every time.

Sorry Dan, a speech isn’t valid unless it is accompanied by a giant banner and stuffed codpiece.

I take that as a yes, to the question on whether Obama and Biden were lying. Then I guess they should not have pulled the troops.

2011: Obama to troops at Fort Bragg, North Carolina: “We’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.”

2011 is well after the handover, I think. This data doesn’t seem to show that Bush handed over a stable Iraq. Possibly it shows that it was made stable after a handover.

I don’t disagree (or agree) with you. What material do you have from when the actual handover happened?

It is when we pulled out but I can post how the surge did stabilize the situation if you really want to see it. But the main point is that Iraq was stable (which does not mean perfect) before Rice and Clinton de-stabilized the region promoting the Arab Spring in 2011 hence Obama is to blame for the present situation.

I picked a liberal think tank so people cannot challenge the comments but if you read the article you will see how much progress had been made to create a stable Iraq by November 2008, just prior to Obama taking over:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2008/11/04-iraq-ohanlon

Key word: Opinions.

The Bush admin may have made some progress by 2008 toward re-stabilizing a region that they royally F-ed up by invading and deposing its leader on a pretext they knew was false. They then proceeded to screw the Iraqis by bringing in crony contractors to run things. Obama continued on a timeline set by the Bush admin to get our soldiers out of Iraq. Of course none of that military presence would have even been necessary if Bush had not ruined Iraq in the first place.

The Middle East is roiling with agendas and hatreds that have nothing to do with the U.S. To place primary blame on Obama or any of his State Dept. people for its current explosion is just plain ignorant.

No that is just your ignorant opinion. I predicted exactly what happened and when it would happen because I understand the region and it turns out that within the government many gave the same advice but Obama went with Rice, Clinton etc. You predicted nothing since you know nothing about the area. I have posted the information and the links on this blog and you have chosen just to ignore them.

Of course Obama and Biden were lying when they called it stable. People were sick of all the blood and treasure being dumped into that hole, and they had an election coming up.

Mission Accomplished II

with=for

High gasoline prices mean a case a treason? It sounds unlikely.

By the way, everybody, don’t forget to check the pressure in your tires.

No but the purposeful destruction of the country with the intent to foster world government is treason.

By the way, everybody, don’t forget to check the pressure in your tires.

Yes, Obama’s brain dead response to a real energy crisis.

Now we have an energy crisis? When did that did that start?

When gasoline prices began rising to the point that they impacted the recovery. If we had $1.65 a gallon prices, and we could with the right policies, we would not still be in a recession. The economy was technically out of the recession in June 2009 before the stimulus even began but higher gasoline, fuel oil, electricity etc. prices have hit the consumer so hard that we have not had a real recovery. That is our energy crisis, no cheap energy. It is not just about absolute supply, the price of energy matter something Obama or you seem to understand.

I know, Mike. Conversing with Dan is like playing Calvinball, ain’t it?

Obama and I don’t understand that the price of energy matters? Where do you get this nonsense? You’re living in a fantasy.

Dannyboy is delusional. And a hypocrite. And a racis.

Obama and I don’t understand that the price of energy matters? Where do you get this nonsense? You’re living in a fantasy.

All of his policies have ignored price hence the highest electric bills on record and if you take the average over a year the highest gasoline prices, 2008 had both a spike and a bottom so it does not average out as high.

Dannyboy is delusional. And a hypocrite. And a racis.

I must be doing something right to make the left so mad at me. Perhaps because their “man” is plummeting in the polls and I predicted exactly what would happen in the Middle East and with energy which is causing his collapse.

BTW, Goon I bet the drone following me is bigger than the drone following you and has more hellfire missiles.

I thought the ‘bad weather’ excuses had stopped, but heard “them” on the radio yesterday once again pimping the poor weather tagline to explain a sluggish 2014.

“Some economists take this GDP number with a grain of salt because it will be revised again next month…”

Revisions to the revisions. Don’t worry, be happy.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/25/news/economy/gdp-negative/index.html?iid=HP_LN

The 0.01% are disposable, Pol Pot had an effective solution for them

The .01% have houses in multiple countries and high place contacts in all the governments, they and their money will be gone long before any revolution. Only their real estate will be confiscated and that tends to be a very small portion of their wealth.

Dannyboy, here’s a 7 minute clip of the “trial” and execution of Nicolae Ceaucescu and his wife:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9P-JrjCRkhI

Don’t think it can’t happen here

Which I find pretty funny, since the 0.01% in China are choosing to buy safe houses in the financial and natural disaster that is California.

Which I find pretty funny, since the 0.01% in China are choosing to buy safe houses in the financial and natural disaster that is California.

We agree that California is a financial disaster.

The water situation alone is a natural disaster. And I wonder if your average Chinese millionaire ever heard the words “San Andreas.”

If you are .01 or even .1%, then a million dollar house is pretty much no big deal to you. If it goes from 1 mill to 300k you might lose 1% of your net worth. You wont be happy about it, but its probably not the reason you are buying the house in the first place.

Exactly and California does have low property taxes.

CA does have drought/water problems.

China however is far worse, explains one pillar of why those Chinese who can are making plans for elsewhere.

“China’s vice minister of water resources, Hu Siyi said that about two thirds of Chinese cities were “water-needy”, nearly 300 million rural residents lacked access to safe drinking water, and 40% of rivers were seriously polluted.”

http://www.worldbulletin.net/world/139501/china-facing-major-water-shortage-crisis

If it’s such a known problem, then why don’t the Chinese move to where there’s water problem at all? East coast, Great Lakes. Or coastal Washington/Oregon.

Oxide:

Ssshhhhh. They don’t know any places in the U.S. besides California and New York. Let’s keep it that way.

No. Bill thinks his pile of gold and his arsenal will give him protection that the broke and defenseless people like you will not have. The Government is going to be too busy with rioters when the snap payments do not go out, to try to figure out and seize everyone’s gold. Have fun with the rioters around D.C. without owning a gun.

“Bill thinks his pile of gold and his arsenal will give him protection that the broke and defenseless people like you will not have.”

Yeaup!

I’d stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Bill or any other decent person any day to help them defend what’s their’s. I still remember the LA riots where the cops were pulled back “for their protection” and the National Guardsmen were about as useless as garden gnomes. Or after Katrina, where the cops who didn’t bug out to be with their families were looting Wal-Mart and car dealerships, or going door-to-door disarming and roughing up law-abiding citizens.

Actually, I have figured out what the Republican response to the arrogant IRS should be. In the days of the Internet there is no reason why the bureaucracy should be headquartered in D.C. They should move all the employees of the IRS to Kansas. It is probably too soon to abolish the IRS but I think the rest of the federal bureaucrats would think twice before they forget they work for taxpayers and not the other way around if they see all the IRS employees in Kansas.

Why not move them to Cincinnati? Oh wait.

The people at the top need the move the most and they were ordering Cincinnati to break the law and then they try to throw them under the bus like the liberal cowards that they are.

UrbanBaby is great in this regard. Not sure why RAL thinks my trolling of that forum to be some sort of character flaw.

I was assigned to this one pro bonus case for a woman’s shelter who sublets apartments from a large corporate landlord. Some of the units were in bad shape and can’t be used, causing the women’s shelter to rent motel rooms while forcing the landlord to make repairs. I have to review all these emails between the non profit managers and the board members. The board members are all largely useless, they clearly just like to mention their affiliation for professional purposes. They are so out of touch/disinterested in the actual struggles of the women at the shelter. Their emails back and forth with the managers about staffing issues border on patronizing. I’ve reviewed a couple thousand emails and attachments so far and have yet to see anyone on the board who seems like a good, normal person. They’re all strung as tightly as the E string on one of PBear’s violins.

pro bonus

Don’t you hate autocorrect?

You got assigned to a pro bono case? Isn’t that what the summer associates are for?

Adversity is great, up to a point and when encountered within a framework that already includes love. Otherwise it just breeds sociopaths and ants with broken legs.

Maybe if you directed to angst at those who don’t succeed instead of someone who does.

Same sociopath, according to you, is created. But one has means and ways due to moms sacrifice. The other is a latch-key kid of a forty hour ‘it’s all I can do’ mediocre turd.

Fang:

A single parent who spends forty hours at work is actually spending way more than forty hours working.

These poorly parented children will have every opportunity in life.

Not the opportunity for a parent’s love and attention. Which is priceless.

You and your as in “you all”.
No fingers pointed except your own…

Turning yourself into a soulless drone is not the way to success. These people are all broken glass on the inside.

And as I correctly predicted, will be replaced by the Free Sh*t Party and the More Free Sh*t Party.

“unpossible”, as every third world dictatorship finds out someone has to pay the bills. You cannot have a Democratic country that does not have one party that is for the taxpayers, if one does not exist the country fails and a dictatorship takes over and if that dictatorship does not protect the producers, the country becomes more and more a toilet. See Zimbabwe despite its abundance of natural resources.

Our 401ks and Roths will be confiscated long before they go for gold. And it will be too late to go for the precious and our guns because our guns will be used on them when they steal our electronic assets.

Yes, that’s the standard definition of efficiency. The facts that you state may be part of the reason that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance companies. On the other hand, what they have in Canada is similar to what we would have in this country if we extended Medicare to cover every American. And Canada as a whole spends a much smaller portion of it health dollars on paperwork and bureaucracy than the US as a whole.

I read about this many years in a series of articles written by two Harvard professors in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The money going into Medicare per person is much lower than the amount of money going out of Medicare per person (what you note)…that math won’t work as the Baby Boom starts to reach Medicare age in greater and greater numbers

There’s going to be a need to increase taxes. There will be weeping and wailing from the right wingers, though they don’t mind very high increases in private health insurance premiums all that much.

Of course the program is popular…it’s a giant free lunch, but we are running out of baloney.

That’s an interesting statement. I might a dopey, right wing, racist, retired guy last year and had a similar conversation He said that Medicare was popular because people were forced to pay for it.

Could we extend this giant free lunch concept top other government programs. Are the armed forces held in high regard by the American people because they’re free?

MikeyMite, I used to think that universal health care could work in this country but don’t anymore.

Unless a can of Coke is taxed to cost $5 and a pack of cigarettes is $20 (which it now is in Australia, BTW), universal health care will never work here. That takes away people’s “freedom” to poison themselves so it will never happen in America.

The big elephant in the room (to which I refer) is EOL care.

I heard a healthcare expert speak a few years ago, and essentially what she said is if EOL care in the US was dealt with in the same way it is treated in countries with universal coverage, the difference in healthcare costs shrinks considerably. Is that a difference between Canada and the US?

A large percentage of the difference in costs was not universal coverage vs. private insurance, but was EOL care practices (like 60-65% or something like that).

Other differences (which probably also contribute) are things like doctor’s pay (one beef I’ve heard in the UK system–doctors are paid a lot less)–and yes, private systems have profit.

In any event, until people are comfortable with the government having a lot more say in EOL treatment, we will pay more for medical care in this country.

I disagree with the argument that Medicare is popular because people are forced to pay for it.

I think it is popular because the cost is spread out over a very long time and is a relatively pain free way to pay for Medicare (withdrawn from paychecks, partially paid for by employers, which is even more invisible), and you see the benefit in a relatively compressed period of time with relatively little marginal cost.

Let’s extend the same analysis to a hypothetical new program…I’m calling it “food for seniors”, a program where people get free food once they hit 65 years old.

To pay for this program, you have a 0.25% tax pulled out of your paycheck for your entire career (your employer also pays 0.25%), but then pay nothing for food from age 65 onward.

That program may also not make any economic sense (paying less in than you take out), but it would also be very popular, not because you are forced to pay 0.25%, and not because you are getting more out than you paid in, but because when you get the benefit, it seems “free”.

And the positive feelings from “free” is a lot greater than the negative feelings from 0.25% spread out over a long period of time.

And by the way, I think the armed forces are held in high regard NOT because we are forced to pay for them, but because they sacrifice a lot with respect to stable family life, and put their lives on the line for us…at least that’s why I hold them in high regard.

Discussion of end-of-life health care takes us back to Sarah Palin and her death panels.

I’ve been reading about international heath care comparisons for many years now and I haven’t seen much about end of life care. It may be a factor, but I don’t think that it represents a large portion of the difference. Doctor pay is an issue, along with the salaries paid to executives at hospitals, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc.

If you’re interested in reading about this, the New York Times has been running a series comparing the costs of various kinds of health care in the US to other countries. One of the articles described how pregnancy and childbirth is much more expensive here than in Switzerland, France, the Netherlands etc. I guess one could call that beginning of life health care.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/health/paying-till-it-hurts.html

Goon, haven’t you mentioned that there are a lot of fat people and smokers where you work? Besides that, your health care and theirs is mostly paid by all of us good, respectable patriots who work in the private sector. And the amount that your employer takes out of your paycheck for health insurance is exactly the same as they take out from those land whales who are one cheeseburger away from a heart attack. In other words, as Rental Watch wrote above “the sick pay too little for their actuarial risk, the healthy pay too much.”

Besides that, the portion of your health insurance represents a pretty significant percentage of your total compensation which you don’t pay any tax on. Pleanty of people have jobs without health insurance, so they have to pay tax on all of their compensation.

How long can this go on? Maybe it’s all a big Ponzi scheme itself.

Your idea about “food for seniors” is not apt. People have no way of knowing how much they are going to need for health care. That’s why health insurance exists in the private sector but food insurance does not.

Over a large sample size, the costs of the senior population’s healthcare IS relatively known. But you are right, for any individual, there is wide variability.

This is where Dr Kevorkian comes in….do you really want to pay someone $8 hr to wipe your butt for years to come?

Unless you are Stephen Hawking the answer is I wouldn’t ….so let me go peacefully with my family around…..OK?

The big elephant in the room (to which I refer) is EOL care.

Why are you asking Ben a question under my post?

He’s just taking a page from your book, Dannyboy.

You’re the expert threadjacker of the HBB bits bucket.

Thanks Goon. May your next girlfriend have only three kids and take her birth control pills at least half the time.

Dear mom:

If Ben (or any of us) must see the doctor without insurance, then we will receive a bill. If we can’t pay the bill, then we may file bankruptcy. A medical bill is identical to any other type of bill, with one exception - The medical bill is too damned high.

Without an insured and subsidized populace, you see, doctors would never get away with charging so much. Just like anything else in the free market, your supply would meet your demand, and bankruptcy would wash out the speed bumps.

So health insurance represents interference in the free market? What’s the solution? Should insurance be banned?

I’m with you on all that. The good choices are few and far between.

Voting doesn’t provide answers much any more, but those who are awake have to continue to speak up for what it’s worth. When I do that, and when I find agreement these days, it’s in places that in times past would have seemed rather unlikely.

I see. I didn’t realize Univision came across HDTV antenna. A quick search indicates that in many cities it does.

Colorado Housing Demand Craters 10% YoY

http://www.zillow.com/local-info/CO-home-value/r_10/#metric=mt%3D30%26dt%3D1%26tp%3D6%26rt%3D14%26r%3D10%26el%3D0

You’re sounding rather statist today.

How so? In case you did not read, I was making a post against the statists (Congress).

There was a celebration of the accomplishments of Martin Luther King and the letters FSA pop into your head.

I was not being against Martin Luther King. I was being against Congress for praying to him. Martin Luther King would probably be an anarchist if he was still alive.

Just like Cesar Chavez was opposed to illegal aliens and to amnesty.

You have to realize that the establishment is statist. Hoover spied on King because the state was threatened.