Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
davelj
Participant[quote=deadzone]The healthcare in TJ is already avaialble to us without opening the border any more. But yeah there is something to be said for going down there for routine health care and prescriptions. The system here is broke and getting worse by the day.[/quote]
Technically, most things in TJ are “already available to us without opening the border any more.” Oftentimes, the hassle is the border itself.
What I’d like to see with healthcare – and this will never ever happen – is to allow doctors/dentists/etc. to practice in San Diego in the same manner they practice in TJ (that is, fewer regulations, less fear of malpractice, etc.) so that you don’t actually have to cross the border to capture the value… but, again, that’s never gonna happen.
Opening the border on healthcare – so to speak – would be an enormous benefit to San Diegans. Because as you mentioned, “the system here is broke…”
Participant[quote=deadzone]The healthcare in TJ is already avaialble to us without opening the border any more. But yeah there is something to be said for going down there for routine health care and prescriptions. The system here is broke and getting worse by the day.[/quote]
Technically, most things in TJ are “already available to us without opening the border any more.” Oftentimes, the hassle is the border itself.
What I’d like to see with healthcare – and this will never ever happen – is to allow doctors/dentists/etc. to practice in San Diego in the same manner they practice in TJ (that is, fewer regulations, less fear of malpractice, etc.) so that you don’t actually have to cross the border to capture the value… but, again, that’s never gonna happen.
Opening the border on healthcare – so to speak – would be an enormous benefit to San Diegans. Because as you mentioned, “the system here is broke…”
Participant[quote=deadzone]The healthcare in TJ is already avaialble to us without opening the border any more. But yeah there is something to be said for going down there for routine health care and prescriptions. The system here is broke and getting worse by the day.[/quote]
Technically, most things in TJ are “already available to us without opening the border any more.” Oftentimes, the hassle is the border itself.
What I’d like to see with healthcare – and this will never ever happen – is to allow doctors/dentists/etc. to practice in San Diego in the same manner they practice in TJ (that is, fewer regulations, less fear of malpractice, etc.) so that you don’t actually have to cross the border to capture the value… but, again, that’s never gonna happen.
Opening the border on healthcare – so to speak – would be an enormous benefit to San Diegans. Because as you mentioned, “the system here is broke…”
Participant[quote=deadzone]What is the “free trade” you want to bring in from Tijuana? The prostitutes?[/quote]
How about the healthcare?
Participant[quote=deadzone]What is the “free trade” you want to bring in from Tijuana? The prostitutes?[/quote]
How about the healthcare?
Participant[quote=deadzone]What is the “free trade” you want to bring in from Tijuana? The prostitutes?[/quote]
How about the healthcare?
Participant[quote=deadzone]What is the “free trade” you want to bring in from Tijuana? The prostitutes?[/quote]
How about the healthcare?
Participant[quote=deadzone]What is the “free trade” you want to bring in from Tijuana? The prostitutes?[/quote]
How about the healthcare?
August 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM in reply to: Who knew there “were” so many banks, what about the credit unions? #719937ParticipantThere are about 8,000 credit unions (most of them really small – sub-$200 million in assets) and 7,000 banks and S&Ls in the country.
Generically, the credit unions didn’t get into as much trouble as small banks for one reason: they face severe restrictions on underwriting construction and development loans. The credit unions’ SFR portfolios are just as ugly as everyone else’s however. Virtually every small bank that fails this cycle will be as a result of one issue: too heavy a concentration in construction and development loans. It’s that simple. Had C&D loans been restricted to 15% of total loans the housing bubble would have been greatly muted. But, such is life…
August 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM in reply to: Who knew there “were” so many banks, what about the credit unions? #720029ParticipantThere are about 8,000 credit unions (most of them really small – sub-$200 million in assets) and 7,000 banks and S&Ls in the country.
Generically, the credit unions didn’t get into as much trouble as small banks for one reason: they face severe restrictions on underwriting construction and development loans. The credit unions’ SFR portfolios are just as ugly as everyone else’s however. Virtually every small bank that fails this cycle will be as a result of one issue: too heavy a concentration in construction and development loans. It’s that simple. Had C&D loans been restricted to 15% of total loans the housing bubble would have been greatly muted. But, such is life…
August 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM in reply to: Who knew there “were” so many banks, what about the credit unions? #720628ParticipantThere are about 8,000 credit unions (most of them really small – sub-$200 million in assets) and 7,000 banks and S&Ls in the country.
Generically, the credit unions didn’t get into as much trouble as small banks for one reason: they face severe restrictions on underwriting construction and development loans. The credit unions’ SFR portfolios are just as ugly as everyone else’s however. Virtually every small bank that fails this cycle will be as a result of one issue: too heavy a concentration in construction and development loans. It’s that simple. Had C&D loans been restricted to 15% of total loans the housing bubble would have been greatly muted. But, such is life…
August 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM in reply to: Who knew there “were” so many banks, what about the credit unions? #720783ParticipantThere are about 8,000 credit unions (most of them really small – sub-$200 million in assets) and 7,000 banks and S&Ls in the country.
Generically, the credit unions didn’t get into as much trouble as small banks for one reason: they face severe restrictions on underwriting construction and development loans. The credit unions’ SFR portfolios are just as ugly as everyone else’s however. Virtually every small bank that fails this cycle will be as a result of one issue: too heavy a concentration in construction and development loans. It’s that simple. Had C&D loans been restricted to 15% of total loans the housing bubble would have been greatly muted. But, such is life…
August 16, 2011 at 10:25 AM in reply to: Who knew there “were” so many banks, what about the credit unions? #721147ParticipantThere are about 8,000 credit unions (most of them really small – sub-$200 million in assets) and 7,000 banks and S&Ls in the country.
Generically, the credit unions didn’t get into as much trouble as small banks for one reason: they face severe restrictions on underwriting construction and development loans. The credit unions’ SFR portfolios are just as ugly as everyone else’s however. Virtually every small bank that fails this cycle will be as a result of one issue: too heavy a concentration in construction and development loans. It’s that simple. Had C&D loans been restricted to 15% of total loans the housing bubble would have been greatly muted. But, such is life…
Participant[quote=briansd1]I believe that sdreator brought up some good points.
If people were happy to live in simply ulitarian 1500sf houses, they would have more money to spend on other things. Housing be be cheaper also.
But people want to live ornate houses, with community amenities and HOA. But the want to replace their cars and durables more frequently.
Since clothing, electronics, food now represent a smaller portion of income than in the past, then more could go to savings. But in general, we go out to eat more and we get fat and stressed out. People get stressed out keeping up with their peers.
As dave pointed out, the paradox of thrift would result lower economic growth.[/quote]
I basically agree with this. If folks want to live today as they did in the 60s/70s… they can do so VERY inexpensively.
Much smaller house, well-preserved 10-year old car, furniture from craigslist/thrift store/consignment store, box TVs (I think you can find a well-preserved “old” TV these days for $50), no cable TV, no smart phone (basic cell phones cost very little today), clothing from Target or thrift stores, eat out once a month… you get the idea.
The three areas that have really zoomed out of control are health care, college and fuel. There are many ways to reduce college costs for folks that want to do so (which are covered herein). Fuel costs are up, but so is fuel efficiency (although on a net basis in real terms we’re probably behind compared to the 60s). And where health care is concerned… we’re paying for all of those advances of the last 40 years. But I read somewhere that 80% of Americans would be considerably better off with a (relatively inexpensive) catastrophic health care policy, as opposed to the group/managed care policies that they have. (That is, most Americans over-insure themselves where health care is concerned.)
So, the bottom line is that folks who want to live as we did during the Halcyon Days can do so for fairly little money… but they have to be willing to give up some mod cons… which most folks are simply unwilling to do.
To sdr’s earlier point about eating out, my recollection is the same as his. My family probably ate out at a sit-down restaurant once a month (and there were precious few choices). And then we probably had a bucket of chicken or hamburgers plopped down on the table once or twice a month on top of that. Otherwise, dinner was cooked at home. Today this is almost unimaginable. Folks simply eat out (or get carry-out) considerably more than they used to. Some can afford to do so, but clearly most cannot.
-
AuthorPosts
