Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=markmax33]SK in CV,
Did you predict the housing bubble as a professional economist? I predicted it in 2003 for my thesis for my MBA class before I ever found this blog. Ron Paul predicted it and there are several videos to prove it. I think all economists should be immediately fired if they can’t predict a bubble forming in the economy because they are really easy to pick out. Look and see where the FED and the GOV are intervening in ANY market and there will be your next bubble. Again did you predict the housing bubble? Did you write any papers on it? Please share.[/quote]Yes, i did predict it. I sold my house in 2006, which I’d owned since 1993. It was a little early, it went up in value by another 10% before it fell by about 40%. My buyers got foreclosed on. I sold for $850K, it recently sold for $525K. I’ve rented since then.
You were a bit early in 2003, but good work.
Participant[quote=markmax33]
SK in CV,
I’m sorry you haven’t read history. I guess you are correct, out of the 1000 fiat currencies in history there are the current 10 or so that haven’t defaulted yet. [/quote]I have read history, thank you for acknowledging that your assertion is false. (I quite sure there are more than 10 fiat currencies operating in the world today. Exaggeration works well in comedy, in serious discussion, not so much.)
[quote=markmax33]
You really have to study inflation and seem to have no concept of the pain of inflation. It is a slow drain on the economy and shifts power from the middle class. [/quote]I have studied inflation. Worked much of my career as an economist. In re-reading everything you’ve written here, I’m quite sure you haven’t made any assertions about inflation until this one. I would successfully argue that it shifts power from the lower economic class even more than from the middle class.
[quote=markmax33]
A great example is my grandparents and parents both could survive on a 1-income family with a single paying job and send all the children to school with no problems. There are almost no 1-income families that can do what my parents and grandparents did. I’m not arguing women shouldn’t work, I’m arguing they are forced to work now because of inflation. [/quote]No disagreement with your conclusion, although anectodal evidence is of little value.
[quote=markmax33]
Why do you disregard your founding fathers who expressly prohibited a central bank because they knew what inflation would do to the society? Why don’t you answer my questions? [/quote]I haven’t disregarded them, though I hardly consider them mine. And there you go with begging the question again.
I haven’t answered the question because you never asked this one before now. My answer is as above, I haven’t disregarded them.
[quote=markmax33]
Do you enjoy the 10% + inflation we have right now? Don’t tell me the GOV number is only 3% because that number excludes WAAAAY too many things. [/quote]Again with the begging the question. I don’t enjoy inflation. Though it might be more preferable than attempting to exchange ideas with an idealogue. There are numerous ways to measure inflation. Do you have a comprehensive method that has measured it at 10% or more?
[quote=markmax33]
To me when 990 out of 1000 failures have occurred and we see the Euro starting to go into default, it is time to address the problem. My 100% valid argument is that if the currency defaults there will be no money for environmental programs and people will be worried about trying to eat and not care about the bald eagles. [/quote]Really, you’re worried about the bald eagle?
[quote=markmax33]
He is therefore in favor of killing the bald eagles if he doesn’t vote for Ron Paul because he is the only one that will tackle the federal reserve and inflation. [/quote]Who is he? Not there, the other place.
[quote=markmax33]
I think I have proven my point quite well. He has proven no point that the bald eagles would be extinct without an EPA. That is an assumption at best and 99% a lie based on CAL/EPA and other local environmental groups that make the national EPA redundant.[/quote]Like I said, we need more roads.
Thank you for sharing.
Participant[quote=markmax33]Since it has been proven many times that the banks finance both sides of all wars and make money on every weapon made and bailed out companies in the military industrial complex it is clear they are linked..[/quote]
Proven? Citation please please on all 3 assertions.
[quote=markmax33] When the banks went to Congress in 2008 and said, “bail us out or the world will end”, they certanly proved who the boss was to the GOV by holding a gun to congress’s head.[/quote]
Logical fallacy-begging the question. Citation please for any bank going to Congress and saying “bail us out or the world will end”.
[quote=markmax33]Do you not see an issue with the federal reserve loaning out 20 TIMES what congress authorized for TARP? Are you crazy? [/quote]
Logical fallacy-straw man argument. No assertion was made that I see no problem with it.
[quote=markmax33]
You don’t seem to answer any of my legitimate questions which makes you a horrible debater. I answer every single one of yours with a VERY LOGICAL train of thought with proof, evidence and history.[/quote]You have offered no logic, no proof, no evidence, in fact, you’ve offered nothing more than inconclusive rhetoric.
What was your question again?
Participant[quote=markmax33][quote=pri_dk][quote=markmax33]EVERY SINGLE FIAT CURRENCY HAS FAILED IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD[/quote]
EXCEPT FOR THE ONES THAT HAVEN’T.
SUCH AS EVERY CURRENCY IN THE WORLD TODAY.
Ron Paul even wants to kill the Bald Eagles on dollar bills.
The man is ruthless.[/quote]
pri_dk,
Why don’t you try to give a counter arguement that makes sense instead of calling the most intersting man in the world – Ron Paul – names? Here are some recent currency failures including the 2nd largest economy in 1998 – Russia:In 1932, Argentina had the eighth largest economy in the world before its currency collapsed. In 1992, Finland, Italy, and Norway had currency shocks that spread through Europe.
In 1994, Mexico went through the infamous “Tequila Hangover,” which sent the peso tumbling and spread economic hardships throughout Latin America.
In 1997, the Thai baht fell through the floor and the effects spread to Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Hong Kong, and South Korea.
The Russian ruble was not the currency you wanted your investments denominated in in 1998, after its devaluation brought on economic recession. In the early 21st century, we have seen the Turkish lira experience strokes of hyperinflation similar to that of the mark of Weimar Germany.
In present times, we have Zimbabwe, which was once considered the breadbasket of Africa and was one of the wealthiest countries on the continent. Now Mugabe’s attempts at price controls, combined with hyperinflation, have the nation unable to supply the most basic essentials such as bread and clean water.
WE ARE 14.8 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT and bring in 2.5 Trillion dollars per year in taxes and spend 3.8 trillion per year. THIS IS A PONZI SCHEME FOLKS. Prove me wrong. Pri_dk – you are for destruction of our dollar and our government and you don’t realize it but you hate bald eagles more than anyone.
Ron Paul 2012![/quote]
His argument made perfect sense, your defense of your argument did not. Your claim that every single fiat currency in the history of the world is both patently and demonstrably false. (It has not failed in the US, ergo, all have not failed.)
Additionally….
[quote=markmax33]
The federal reserve printed and handed out 15 Trillion dollars in loans last year which is about 7 times the amount of money the US government collects in taxes in one year. To me this means the federal reserve has atleast 7 times the power of the US federal government and nobody even realizes it. [/quote]is a logical fallacy. Unless you can prove a logical and directly proportional nexus as to the relationship between Fed loans and annual Federal government tax collections as it relates to “power” your claim is worthless. To me this means that anyone making such a rediculous argument is as loony as Ron Paul.
We need more roads!
ParticipantShort answer: find a reputable roofing contractor and fix your roof. Unless you need an entire new roof, it’s the quickest and least stressful way to go.
Slightly longer version: You can make demands to the builder to make the repairs. The roof shouldn’t leak. In order to do it effectively, you should probably hire an attorney. You don’t have to file a lawsuit, in fact, you may be prohibited by law from doing so, until you have given the builder the opportunity to cure the defect. Chances are, the builder won’t fix it. Then you will sue. You will endure a 18 month to 3 year process and collect $8K to $10K when its over with. Take your pick which is easier.
Participant[quote=Zeitgeist]”Premiums for employer-provided health insurance jumped 8-9 percent in 2011, passing $15,000 for family coverage — which is more than the cost of a Ford Fiesta. That’s a big jump from the 3 percent increase in 2010. But it’s in line with historical increases that have averaged just over 10 percent per year since 2001, according to the annual Kaiser Family Foundation’s Employer Health Benefits survey.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64525.html#ixzz1ZHADljip%5B/quote%5D
Thanks for this Zeitgeist, I hadn’t seen it. Pretty much validates that the law did exactly as it was supposed to do. It slowed the rate of increases dramatically in the eighteen months since the law was passed.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]pri-
Excellent points. I think the middle class is really getting squeezed and the poor are also getting the shaft if they are being given substandard medical through medicaid. What concerns me is will physicians continue to practice if they are forced to accept patients who are not going to reimburse them as well as those with “good insurance”. I have some friends who lived in England and they said there were two levels of insurance. You used the government for some things and your own if you needed treatment that would not wait. These folks were millionaires and could afford to pay for their own and are now here and not worried about Obamacare because they know they can go anywhere to get what they need. Unfortunately, we all do not have that option.
I hope things get worked out before more people drop or are dropped from their insurance because they cannot pay for it and more people start going to the ER. Last time I had to go there, there was a really long wait and yes, it did look like the cafe scene in Star Wars. I think we all want high quality and affordable medical care, but I am not sure that this bill provided that. And yes, Heritage is biased, but it is hard to find any media that do not have either a left or right leaning bias to quote.[/quote]
I think the fallacy that you’ve kind of alluded to (based on this and prior comments) is that somehow the reform law is responsible for the middle class getting squeezed, or the poor getting the shaft in the quality of care. More people, including more of the middle class and poor will be covered, and more will be covered by higher quality insurance than prior to the new law. (At least once it fully takes effect in 2014.) It is possible that some may lose coverage (or more likely, have to pay for 100% of the cost of their insurance) as a result of the ACA, though many fewer than opponents of the bill claim. And tens of millions fewer than those newly insured solely as a result of the bill.
The law, as enacted will be a huge windfall for the insurance industry. The mandate will more than make up for additional burdens placed on insurance companies. (Without the mandate, probably not so much.) And if the mandate remains, it should not increase the cost of medical insurance. (Please don’t read this as my support for the mandate. I think it was bad law, policywise. But in the context of the full law, it was a necessity. As a whole, the law does not work without it.)
But there is nothing that will require physicians to accept medicaid patients nor medicare patients. Medicaid is a problem. Particularly for hospitals. Medicare, currently not so much. Over 85% of primary care physicians accept medicare reimbursements. Pending changes will make that more problematic (particularly in cities like San Diego, which is reimbursed at rural rates, rather than the higher rates in Los Angeles). Those problems may, in part, be mitigated by shared savings programs designed into the law, but the results of those programs are mostly untested and unknown.
Overall, I think most of your arguments are ill timed. Doing nothing would not have cured any of those problems. They should have been made when the bill was being negotiated. Many in both houses of congress, and the white house wanted a stronger bill. Instead, they negotiated with an opposition that would not support any bill presented, regardless of the content. A humungously flawed tactic which resulted in a humungously flawed bill. Substantially better than nothing. But still flawed.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
If you’ve read and studied the entire bill, SK, then perhaps you can explain to us here how these carriers are going to recoup the $$ when they can’t charge “Susie the recent cancer survivor” (age 59) or “Joe 6P the walking heart attack” (age 57) $1100 to $1600 a month for a premium anymore and may not deny either of them coverage.The money to take care of these folks has to come from somewhere.[/quote]
I haven’t studied the bill, but I have read it. There is nothing that will keep them from charging $1100 to $1600 a month. (Depending on Susie and Joe’s age, they may already be charging those premiums.) There will still be risk-based pricing. Pricing will be significantly more complicated post-2013, in part depending on whether policies are inside or outside of the exchanges. And that complexity will vary from state to state, as some states already have guarantee issue and community rating in place, and high risk Susie and Joe may already be covered. In the majority of states, where those plans are not yet in place, that risk premium is expected to be transitional in nature and will in part be covered by reinsurance which will mitigate, in part, that risk premium.
Peripherally related, I recently sat in on a round table discussion (meaning me, and 4 guys sitting at a round table at a bar.) with 3 (of the 5) major carrier sales executives in my current state, along with a big group agent. They all expect 2012 to be the most competitive year in the last 10 with regards to pricing. Primarily as a result of 85% MLR floor (for group policies) set in place by the ACA, effective the first of this year. One way the insurance companies are attempting to circumvent the floor (or at least shift costs, effectivly circumventing it) is to include broker commissions as part of medical costs. They don’t expect that will happen, and as a result, fully expect commissions to be cut, maybe dramatically from the current standard of 5% for group policies.
Participant[quote=pri_dk]Aecetia, your explanations are pretty weak: some vague quotes from partisan sources and a few statistics that show insurance companies have raised rates – just like they’ve been doing for years.
Most of the HCRA hasn’t even gone into effect yet. There is nothing required by law right now that would cause these rate hikes.
Did it ever occur to you that insurance companies are raising rates now, before they are constrained by the legislation, so that they can alter public perception?
Here’s an example of how things work in real-life:
– Insurance company spokesperson: “We have to raise rates, Obama is making us do it!”
– The “objective” WSJ reports these “facts” – blaming Obamacare for the rate hikes.
– People who read these “newspapers” (read:industry propaganda) believe it and start repeating it around the office on the internet (it never even occurs to them that the billion-dollar insurance industry is playing them…)
Know any of these people?[/quote]
This kind of shit happens all the time by people bound by political ideologies. When the first version of the bill was passed by the house (and still being debated by the house), someone posted, on this board, a list of 50 claims about the law, purported to have been written by a constitutional lawyer. With citations of page and line number for every one. So I read the bill. Beginning to end. As i did with the final bill. 49 out of the 50 were outright falsities (including “death panels”). I documented exactly why each was false. The one true statement was that minority medical school students would get grants.
But people who are ideologically opposed to either the sponsor of the bill, the party proposing the bill, or for any of dozens of other reasons, ignore facts, and stick with beliefs, latch on to those falsities to support their religious like beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary. It has dumbed us down as a country. It is, and will continue to be an impediment to progress.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]Just one of the top ten failures of Obamacare:
“Some Americans have already had a spike in the cost of their insurance premiums of an astounding 20% to 60%. Insurance companies have raised premiums in double-digit increases. For example, Blue Shield of California recently increased some of its individual plans by 59%, saying that 4% of the increase is a direct result of the new health care law.”
“Now, the CBO projects that the average American family will pay $2,100 more on health care premiums when the law is fully implemented (an increase of 10% to 13%).”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42461%5B/quote%5D
Wow. 4% out of 59% is because of the new law. That’s about 1.5% more than their closely related associate, Anthem Blue Cross has as their internal numbers. But you might as well blame the entire increase on the law. What the hell.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]SK, my understanding of the HCRA is that the carriers currently have to accept everyone who applies for an individual policy but can charge premiums according to risk until 2014. My fear is that when 2014 comes they will have to lower the premiums of these high users of health care and charge the rest of us in the same age group accordingly to make up the difference. That will really hurt the healthy boomer set that cannot yet qualify for Medicare![/quote]
Your understanding is not correct.
Participant[quote=Aecetia]
The whole thing is a joke and all it did was drive up costs for those of us who pay for insurance and drive up profits for big insurance companies. Change. Not really seems like the same crap as the last group and with more hypocrisy thrown in.[/quote]Be precise here, how exactly has it driven up prices? What is the mechanism in the law that caused that?
Here’s one good thing (one of the best things) that the new law will do. If those Anthem increases fall to the bottom line, Most all of it will be returned to the policy holders. Without the law, that would not have happened.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Aecetia, I have an Aetna Advantage PPO individual plan. My rates have increased 3x since the passage of the HCRA. Overall, they have gone up 8.5% in these three rate hikes. During this time, I have only filed minimal claims for routine care.Due to age and the fact that I am “grandfathered in” on a certain plan configuration which was no longer offered in their individual lineup after the passage of HCRA, I am reluctant to disturb it. I can only hope for the best until I reach the age of 65 (assuming Medicare is still around), and then convert it to a Medicare supplement and “Part D” policy.[/quote]
I assure you that nothing in the ACA caused those increases. I know this because I’ve actually read the bill, and know that there hasn’t been any substantial burden on insurance companies that have gone into effect yet. (covering kids up to age 26? A money maker for insurance companies. Thats a demographic that rarely consumes health care dollars. Aetna and Anthem Blue Cross internal numbers put the increased burden as a result of the ACA at 2.4 and 2.6% respectively for calendar year 2012. Zero for 2010 and 2011.) Insurance companies raise rates when they can. It’s highly likely that 2012 will be an extraordinarily competitive year for group coverage in most of the country, and rates may even fall.
I presume you’re aware that an 8.5% increase over the last 2 1/2 years is substantially less than average increases over the previous 10 years? That would be things getting better, not worse.
What exactly makes your plan grandfathered?
Are you saying you have a multi-year contract that can’t be changed or withdrawn? I wasn’t aware those contracts existed.Participant[quote=Aecetia]I will take at a stab at it, but agree the title is not explained by the information provided. I believe he is referring to the burdensome tax code included in the health care legislation that will cause more of the insatiable entitlement increases. The fact that large companies are being granted waivers to get out of the health care system requirements should certainly set off alarms for anyone who thinks this legislation is going to deliver what it purports to provide. In my opinion, health care is out of control in terms of increased costs to people and this legislation (Obamacare) gave the companies carte blanche to gouge us even more. Eventually someone is left holding the stick and they have to pay. And gandalf, we all know it is the family dog that is doing the farting![/quote]
You have no idea what you’re talking about. The private company waivers maintain coverage until the full force of the ACA takes effect in 2014 when those waivers end. The state waivers require at least the equivilent benefits as would be required under the ACA, just meet those requirements in a different way. Neither type of waiver allows anyone to “get out of the health care system requirements”. Additionally, based on the last published data, more than 1/3 of the waivers are for supplemental employer HRA plans, which require underlying plans to meet all ACA requirements. So those waivers are for providing coverage over and above what would otherwise be required.
So the alarm being set off in your head is one of ideology, not of actual facts.
-
AuthorPosts
