[danielwis]

[quote=briansd1][quote=mydogsarelazy]I read the article this morning and found it well done. One thing that is pointed out is that some observers are surprised that more underwater homeowners haven’t yet walked away.

In the coming years mortgage fatigue will wear down many more people. What this article describes is a trend that is really the beginning of a slow melt.

JS[/quote]

I agree. I said the same thing before when it was sacrilegious to even mention it.

Bankers thought that people would sacrifice everything just to keep the house. It turn out that it’s the opposite. People will pay for their cars, dinners out, movies, cable TV, clothing, etc.. before they pay the house.

It’s a new cultural phenomenon; and I’m sure that sociologists and economists will be studying the implications of mortgage walkaways for years.[/quote]

Yup, and here’s another thing, which someone else mentioned above: They see banks getting bailed out, and they see those same bankers collecting record bonuses. Many of these people, might normally try to stick it out, but see the bailouts and the good times rolling on for banks, and decide its time for them to get some relief. For many, that relief comes when they walk away.

[danielwis]

[quote=briansd1][quote=mydogsarelazy]I read the article this morning and found it well done. One thing that is pointed out is that some observers are surprised that more underwater homeowners haven’t yet walked away.

In the coming years mortgage fatigue will wear down many more people. What this article describes is a trend that is really the beginning of a slow melt.

JS[/quote]

I agree. I said the same thing before when it was sacrilegious to even mention it.

Bankers thought that people would sacrifice everything just to keep the house. It turn out that it’s the opposite. People will pay for their cars, dinners out, movies, cable TV, clothing, etc.. before they pay the house.

It’s a new cultural phenomenon; and I’m sure that sociologists and economists will be studying the implications of mortgage walkaways for years.[/quote]

Yup, and here’s another thing, which someone else mentioned above: They see banks getting bailed out, and they see those same bankers collecting record bonuses. Many of these people, might normally try to stick it out, but see the bailouts and the good times rolling on for banks, and decide its time for them to get some relief. For many, that relief comes when they walk away.

[danielwis]

[quote=briansd1][quote=mydogsarelazy]I read the article this morning and found it well done. One thing that is pointed out is that some observers are surprised that more underwater homeowners haven’t yet walked away.

In the coming years mortgage fatigue will wear down many more people. What this article describes is a trend that is really the beginning of a slow melt.

JS[/quote]

I agree. I said the same thing before when it was sacrilegious to even mention it.

Bankers thought that people would sacrifice everything just to keep the house. It turn out that it’s the opposite. People will pay for their cars, dinners out, movies, cable TV, clothing, etc.. before they pay the house.

It’s a new cultural phenomenon; and I’m sure that sociologists and economists will be studying the implications of mortgage walkaways for years.[/quote]

Yup, and here’s another thing, which someone else mentioned above: They see banks getting bailed out, and they see those same bankers collecting record bonuses. Many of these people, might normally try to stick it out, but see the bailouts and the good times rolling on for banks, and decide its time for them to get some relief. For many, that relief comes when they walk away.

[danielwis]

[quote=briansd1][quote=mydogsarelazy]I read the article this morning and found it well done. One thing that is pointed out is that some observers are surprised that more underwater homeowners haven’t yet walked away.

In the coming years mortgage fatigue will wear down many more people. What this article describes is a trend that is really the beginning of a slow melt.

JS[/quote]

I agree. I said the same thing before when it was sacrilegious to even mention it.

Bankers thought that people would sacrifice everything just to keep the house. It turn out that it’s the opposite. People will pay for their cars, dinners out, movies, cable TV, clothing, etc.. before they pay the house.

It’s a new cultural phenomenon; and I’m sure that sociologists and economists will be studying the implications of mortgage walkaways for years.[/quote]

Yup, and here’s another thing, which someone else mentioned above: They see banks getting bailed out, and they see those same bankers collecting record bonuses. Many of these people, might normally try to stick it out, but see the bailouts and the good times rolling on for banks, and decide its time for them to get some relief. For many, that relief comes when they walk away.

[danielwis]

[quote=briansd1][quote=mydogsarelazy]I read the article this morning and found it well done. One thing that is pointed out is that some observers are surprised that more underwater homeowners haven’t yet walked away.

In the coming years mortgage fatigue will wear down many more people. What this article describes is a trend that is really the beginning of a slow melt.

JS[/quote]

I agree. I said the same thing before when it was sacrilegious to even mention it.

Bankers thought that people would sacrifice everything just to keep the house. It turn out that it’s the opposite. People will pay for their cars, dinners out, movies, cable TV, clothing, etc.. before they pay the house.

It’s a new cultural phenomenon; and I’m sure that sociologists and economists will be studying the implications of mortgage walkaways for years.[/quote]

Yup, and here’s another thing, which someone else mentioned above: They see banks getting bailed out, and they see those same bankers collecting record bonuses. Many of these people, might normally try to stick it out, but see the bailouts and the good times rolling on for banks, and decide its time for them to get some relief. For many, that relief comes when they walk away.

[danielwis]

[quote=qwerty007][quote=meadandale]

There are plenty of conservatives that have ideas for health care reform. However, you aren’t going to hear a whole lot about it unless you go somewhere besides HuffPo.

Everyone agrees that there is a crisis and we need to do something about it. We just don’t agree on what. However “our way or the highway”, which is the position of most of the Democrats in congress, is not going to elicit alot of bipartisan support for the crap they are pushing.

Frankly, I don’t want a government bureaucracy, like the ones that run the DMV, the USPS and FEMA running healthcare in this country.
[/quote]

These are the classic recycled arguments that are perpetuated by conservative group think, most of which fall flat at the first hurdle. Conservatism by it’s nature fears change, and the challenge is changing the mindset, not healthcare. Why not take the debate to the state level, and see if an experiment in state run health care works first? A lot less would be at stake, and it would surely be a lot easier to administer.[/quote]

True.

And to the first comment, are you aware that there is no public option, no government plan what so ever? Its why liberals are luke warm on the bill. The bill provides subsides to lower wage earners, to purchase…………….. drum roll please………………. private health insurance. There is a reason Aetna/BCBS are in love with the bill. There is no government run plan. It simply broadens the risk pool, provides premium assistance to some, outlaws recision and denial for preexisting conditions.

Liberals wish it was a government take over. It is not. This plan is the Republican response to the Clinton plan of 1994. There is nothing radical about it.

[danielwis]

[quote=qwerty007][quote=meadandale]

There are plenty of conservatives that have ideas for health care reform. However, you aren’t going to hear a whole lot about it unless you go somewhere besides HuffPo.

Everyone agrees that there is a crisis and we need to do something about it. We just don’t agree on what. However “our way or the highway”, which is the position of most of the Democrats in congress, is not going to elicit alot of bipartisan support for the crap they are pushing.

Frankly, I don’t want a government bureaucracy, like the ones that run the DMV, the USPS and FEMA running healthcare in this country.
[/quote]

These are the classic recycled arguments that are perpetuated by conservative group think, most of which fall flat at the first hurdle. Conservatism by it’s nature fears change, and the challenge is changing the mindset, not healthcare. Why not take the debate to the state level, and see if an experiment in state run health care works first? A lot less would be at stake, and it would surely be a lot easier to administer.[/quote]

True.

And to the first comment, are you aware that there is no public option, no government plan what so ever? Its why liberals are luke warm on the bill. The bill provides subsides to lower wage earners, to purchase…………….. drum roll please………………. private health insurance. There is a reason Aetna/BCBS are in love with the bill. There is no government run plan. It simply broadens the risk pool, provides premium assistance to some, outlaws recision and denial for preexisting conditions.

Liberals wish it was a government take over. It is not. This plan is the Republican response to the Clinton plan of 1994. There is nothing radical about it.

[danielwis]

[quote=qwerty007][quote=meadandale]

There are plenty of conservatives that have ideas for health care reform. However, you aren’t going to hear a whole lot about it unless you go somewhere besides HuffPo.

Everyone agrees that there is a crisis and we need to do something about it. We just don’t agree on what. However “our way or the highway”, which is the position of most of the Democrats in congress, is not going to elicit alot of bipartisan support for the crap they are pushing.

Frankly, I don’t want a government bureaucracy, like the ones that run the DMV, the USPS and FEMA running healthcare in this country.
[/quote]

These are the classic recycled arguments that are perpetuated by conservative group think, most of which fall flat at the first hurdle. Conservatism by it’s nature fears change, and the challenge is changing the mindset, not healthcare. Why not take the debate to the state level, and see if an experiment in state run health care works first? A lot less would be at stake, and it would surely be a lot easier to administer.[/quote]

True.

And to the first comment, are you aware that there is no public option, no government plan what so ever? Its why liberals are luke warm on the bill. The bill provides subsides to lower wage earners, to purchase…………….. drum roll please………………. private health insurance. There is a reason Aetna/BCBS are in love with the bill. There is no government run plan. It simply broadens the risk pool, provides premium assistance to some, outlaws recision and denial for preexisting conditions.

Liberals wish it was a government take over. It is not. This plan is the Republican response to the Clinton plan of 1994. There is nothing radical about it.

[danielwis]

[quote=qwerty007][quote=meadandale]

There are plenty of conservatives that have ideas for health care reform. However, you aren’t going to hear a whole lot about it unless you go somewhere besides HuffPo.

Everyone agrees that there is a crisis and we need to do something about it. We just don’t agree on what. However “our way or the highway”, which is the position of most of the Democrats in congress, is not going to elicit alot of bipartisan support for the crap they are pushing.

Frankly, I don’t want a government bureaucracy, like the ones that run the DMV, the USPS and FEMA running healthcare in this country.
[/quote]

These are the classic recycled arguments that are perpetuated by conservative group think, most of which fall flat at the first hurdle. Conservatism by it’s nature fears change, and the challenge is changing the mindset, not healthcare. Why not take the debate to the state level, and see if an experiment in state run health care works first? A lot less would be at stake, and it would surely be a lot easier to administer.[/quote]

True.

And to the first comment, are you aware that there is no public option, no government plan what so ever? Its why liberals are luke warm on the bill. The bill provides subsides to lower wage earners, to purchase…………….. drum roll please………………. private health insurance. There is a reason Aetna/BCBS are in love with the bill. There is no government run plan. It simply broadens the risk pool, provides premium assistance to some, outlaws recision and denial for preexisting conditions.

Liberals wish it was a government take over. It is not. This plan is the Republican response to the Clinton plan of 1994. There is nothing radical about it.

[danielwis]

[quote=qwerty007][quote=meadandale]

There are plenty of conservatives that have ideas for health care reform. However, you aren’t going to hear a whole lot about it unless you go somewhere besides HuffPo.

Everyone agrees that there is a crisis and we need to do something about it. We just don’t agree on what. However “our way or the highway”, which is the position of most of the Democrats in congress, is not going to elicit alot of bipartisan support for the crap they are pushing.

Frankly, I don’t want a government bureaucracy, like the ones that run the DMV, the USPS and FEMA running healthcare in this country.
[/quote]

These are the classic recycled arguments that are perpetuated by conservative group think, most of which fall flat at the first hurdle. Conservatism by it’s nature fears change, and the challenge is changing the mindset, not healthcare. Why not take the debate to the state level, and see if an experiment in state run health care works first? A lot less would be at stake, and it would surely be a lot easier to administer.[/quote]

True.

And to the first comment, are you aware that there is no public option, no government plan what so ever? Its why liberals are luke warm on the bill. The bill provides subsides to lower wage earners, to purchase…………….. drum roll please………………. private health insurance. There is a reason Aetna/BCBS are in love with the bill. There is no government run plan. It simply broadens the risk pool, provides premium assistance to some, outlaws recision and denial for preexisting conditions.

Liberals wish it was a government take over. It is not. This plan is the Republican response to the Clinton plan of 1994. There is nothing radical about it.

[danielwis]

[quote=briansd1]Concho, I find it interesting that Republicans are defending Medicare benefits against rationing when they fought against Medicare to begin with. I don’t believe they mean it. It’s only a scare tactic.

I understand that doctors like the Medicare system. They may not like the reimbursement rates, but they find it much easier to deal with a single payer system.

To me, the public option would be to open up Medicare to younger premium-paying enrollees (of course they would pay higher premiums than retirees).[/quote]

Also, the part of medicare that is being reduced is the wasted 1/3 that goes to private insurance, for doing nothing.

Think about it. Public money is being transfered to private insurers, who take a big cut, and then distribute it back to the health care system. How does that make any sense?

Here is one example of the waste in the current system. My parents selected Humana as their medicare “administrator”. One of Humana’s selling points is “free YMCA membership”. My parents probably use the Y maybe 10 times a year max, if that. But medicare dollars are being used to pay for it, as a sales gimmick to entice medicare recipients. Now I am tickled pink that my parents get a free Y membership, but how necessary is that, especially when millions have no health care at all, much less a free club membership?

It would seem to me that it would make sense to cut out for profit companies when it comes to tax payer medicare dollars. Its an unnecessary give away to insurers, when in the case of medicare, the tax payer is the insurer.

[danielwis]

[quote=briansd1]Concho, I find it interesting that Republicans are defending Medicare benefits against rationing when they fought against Medicare to begin with. I don’t believe they mean it. It’s only a scare tactic.

I understand that doctors like the Medicare system. They may not like the reimbursement rates, but they find it much easier to deal with a single payer system.

To me, the public option would be to open up Medicare to younger premium-paying enrollees (of course they would pay higher premiums than retirees).[/quote]

Also, the part of medicare that is being reduced is the wasted 1/3 that goes to private insurance, for doing nothing.

Think about it. Public money is being transfered to private insurers, who take a big cut, and then distribute it back to the health care system. How does that make any sense?

Here is one example of the waste in the current system. My parents selected Humana as their medicare “administrator”. One of Humana’s selling points is “free YMCA membership”. My parents probably use the Y maybe 10 times a year max, if that. But medicare dollars are being used to pay for it, as a sales gimmick to entice medicare recipients. Now I am tickled pink that my parents get a free Y membership, but how necessary is that, especially when millions have no health care at all, much less a free club membership?

It would seem to me that it would make sense to cut out for profit companies when it comes to tax payer medicare dollars. Its an unnecessary give away to insurers, when in the case of medicare, the tax payer is the insurer.

[danielwis]

[quote=briansd1]Concho, I find it interesting that Republicans are defending Medicare benefits against rationing when they fought against Medicare to begin with. I don’t believe they mean it. It’s only a scare tactic.

I understand that doctors like the Medicare system. They may not like the reimbursement rates, but they find it much easier to deal with a single payer system.

To me, the public option would be to open up Medicare to younger premium-paying enrollees (of course they would pay higher premiums than retirees).[/quote]

Also, the part of medicare that is being reduced is the wasted 1/3 that goes to private insurance, for doing nothing.

Think about it. Public money is being transfered to private insurers, who take a big cut, and then distribute it back to the health care system. How does that make any sense?

Here is one example of the waste in the current system. My parents selected Humana as their medicare “administrator”. One of Humana’s selling points is “free YMCA membership”. My parents probably use the Y maybe 10 times a year max, if that. But medicare dollars are being used to pay for it, as a sales gimmick to entice medicare recipients. Now I am tickled pink that my parents get a free Y membership, but how necessary is that, especially when millions have no health care at all, much less a free club membership?

It would seem to me that it would make sense to cut out for profit companies when it comes to tax payer medicare dollars. Its an unnecessary give away to insurers, when in the case of medicare, the tax payer is the insurer.

[danielwis]

[quote=briansd1]Concho, I find it interesting that Republicans are defending Medicare benefits against rationing when they fought against Medicare to begin with. I don’t believe they mean it. It’s only a scare tactic.

I understand that doctors like the Medicare system. They may not like the reimbursement rates, but they find it much easier to deal with a single payer system.

To me, the public option would be to open up Medicare to younger premium-paying enrollees (of course they would pay higher premiums than retirees).[/quote]

Also, the part of medicare that is being reduced is the wasted 1/3 that goes to private insurance, for doing nothing.

Think about it. Public money is being transfered to private insurers, who take a big cut, and then distribute it back to the health care system. How does that make any sense?

Here is one example of the waste in the current system. My parents selected Humana as their medicare “administrator”. One of Humana’s selling points is “free YMCA membership”. My parents probably use the Y maybe 10 times a year max, if that. But medicare dollars are being used to pay for it, as a sales gimmick to entice medicare recipients. Now I am tickled pink that my parents get a free Y membership, but how necessary is that, especially when millions have no health care at all, much less a free club membership?

It would seem to me that it would make sense to cut out for profit companies when it comes to tax payer medicare dollars. Its an unnecessary give away to insurers, when in the case of medicare, the tax payer is the insurer.

[danielwis]

[quote=briansd1]Concho, I find it interesting that Republicans are defending Medicare benefits against rationing when they fought against Medicare to begin with. I don’t believe they mean it. It’s only a scare tactic.

I understand that doctors like the Medicare system. They may not like the reimbursement rates, but they find it much easier to deal with a single payer system.

To me, the public option would be to open up Medicare to younger premium-paying enrollees (of course they would pay higher premiums than retirees).[/quote]

Also, the part of medicare that is being reduced is the wasted 1/3 that goes to private insurance, for doing nothing.

Think about it. Public money is being transfered to private insurers, who take a big cut, and then distribute it back to the health care system. How does that make any sense?

Here is one example of the waste in the current system. My parents selected Humana as their medicare “administrator”. One of Humana’s selling points is “free YMCA membership”. My parents probably use the Y maybe 10 times a year max, if that. But medicare dollars are being used to pay for it, as a sales gimmick to entice medicare recipients. Now I am tickled pink that my parents get a free Y membership, but how necessary is that, especially when millions have no health care at all, much less a free club membership?

It would seem to me that it would make sense to cut out for profit companies when it comes to tax payer medicare dollars. Its an unnecessary give away to insurers, when in the case of medicare, the tax payer is the insurer.

[Author]

Posts