[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

I agree with you entirely on the first part. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That was a well intentioned mistake that unions made beginning 60 years ago. They made a 2nd mistake, beginning in the late 60’s, which I believe directly lead to current health care problems. That was demanding 1st dollar coverage. It inserted insurance companies into the medical decision making process, where they previously had not been involved. It dramatically changed the medical financing model, and as a result, it became irreparably broken.

But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

I agree with you entirely on the first part. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That was a well intentioned mistake that unions made beginning 60 years ago. They made a 2nd mistake, beginning in the late 60’s, which I believe directly lead to current health care problems. That was demanding 1st dollar coverage. It inserted insurance companies into the medical decision making process, where they previously had not been involved. It dramatically changed the medical financing model, and as a result, it became irreparably broken.

But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

I agree with you entirely on the first part. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That was a well intentioned mistake that unions made beginning 60 years ago. They made a 2nd mistake, beginning in the late 60’s, which I believe directly lead to current health care problems. That was demanding 1st dollar coverage. It inserted insurance companies into the medical decision making process, where they previously had not been involved. It dramatically changed the medical financing model, and as a result, it became irreparably broken.

But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.

[SK in CV]

[quote=afx114]Why is insurance tied to employment in the first place? Can anyone provide a legitimate reason why it should be? Why isn’t auto insurance tied to employment? Why isn’t my monthly cost of beer tied to employment? It’s a burden on businesses, that much is certain. And of course it becomes a burden on individuals when unemployment is as high as it is now.

But single payer is socialism, right? Wouldn’t single payer free business from the burden of high health insurance costs? Oh, but that would transfer the burden to the tax payers, right?

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.[/quote]

I agree with you entirely on the first part. Insurance shouldn’t be tied to employment. That was a well intentioned mistake that unions made beginning 60 years ago. They made a 2nd mistake, beginning in the late 60’s, which I believe directly lead to current health care problems. That was demanding 1st dollar coverage. It inserted insurance companies into the medical decision making process, where they previously had not been involved. It dramatically changed the medical financing model, and as a result, it became irreparably broken.

But on the 2nd part, you are simply wrong. Single payer is not socialism. Canada essentially has single payer but they do not have socialized medicine. Most retirees in this country are covered by a single system. Medicare is not socialized medicine. You may be opposed to a single-payer system, but fearing it because it’s socialism is fearing the boogie man.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.[/quote]

I agree, however….

I think we’re looking at something much broader than that. If there isn’t a significant shift in the scope of economic output in the US, we’re looking at a recession that lasts half a generation.

New home construction has, in the past, been the fuel for the rest of the economy. It has brought us out of recession, time and time again. Creating scores of jobs per unit, thousands of jobs per significant development. From the financiers, the architects and a 1/2 dozen different types of engineers, 20 or more construction sub-specialties, the casual labor, through the sales staff and back to the finance industry. Most all, very decent paying jobs. Poof. All gone.

In essence, growth has been our industry.

Nationally, it is not coming back any time soon. While there may be some small pockets of activity, there is likely to be more, and larger pockets of even longer inactivity. Pheonix, Las Vegas, and I suspect much of Florida may be dead for 10 years or more. Most other areas, without very specific other job creation, is likely to be dormant for 2 to 5 years. Despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe that new household formations will greatly exceed household disolutions over the next 10 years. Which means we don’t need a whole lot of new houses. (which is to say, my review of the evidence leads me to that conclusion, it is not a “belief” in the idealogical sense.)

If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.[/quote]

I agree, however….

I think we’re looking at something much broader than that. If there isn’t a significant shift in the scope of economic output in the US, we’re looking at a recession that lasts half a generation.

New home construction has, in the past, been the fuel for the rest of the economy. It has brought us out of recession, time and time again. Creating scores of jobs per unit, thousands of jobs per significant development. From the financiers, the architects and a 1/2 dozen different types of engineers, 20 or more construction sub-specialties, the casual labor, through the sales staff and back to the finance industry. Most all, very decent paying jobs. Poof. All gone.

In essence, growth has been our industry.

Nationally, it is not coming back any time soon. While there may be some small pockets of activity, there is likely to be more, and larger pockets of even longer inactivity. Pheonix, Las Vegas, and I suspect much of Florida may be dead for 10 years or more. Most other areas, without very specific other job creation, is likely to be dormant for 2 to 5 years. Despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe that new household formations will greatly exceed household disolutions over the next 10 years. Which means we don’t need a whole lot of new houses. (which is to say, my review of the evidence leads me to that conclusion, it is not a “belief” in the idealogical sense.)

If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.[/quote]

I agree, however….

I think we’re looking at something much broader than that. If there isn’t a significant shift in the scope of economic output in the US, we’re looking at a recession that lasts half a generation.

New home construction has, in the past, been the fuel for the rest of the economy. It has brought us out of recession, time and time again. Creating scores of jobs per unit, thousands of jobs per significant development. From the financiers, the architects and a 1/2 dozen different types of engineers, 20 or more construction sub-specialties, the casual labor, through the sales staff and back to the finance industry. Most all, very decent paying jobs. Poof. All gone.

In essence, growth has been our industry.

Nationally, it is not coming back any time soon. While there may be some small pockets of activity, there is likely to be more, and larger pockets of even longer inactivity. Pheonix, Las Vegas, and I suspect much of Florida may be dead for 10 years or more. Most other areas, without very specific other job creation, is likely to be dormant for 2 to 5 years. Despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe that new household formations will greatly exceed household disolutions over the next 10 years. Which means we don’t need a whole lot of new houses. (which is to say, my review of the evidence leads me to that conclusion, it is not a “belief” in the idealogical sense.)

If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.[/quote]

I agree, however….

I think we’re looking at something much broader than that. If there isn’t a significant shift in the scope of economic output in the US, we’re looking at a recession that lasts half a generation.

New home construction has, in the past, been the fuel for the rest of the economy. It has brought us out of recession, time and time again. Creating scores of jobs per unit, thousands of jobs per significant development. From the financiers, the architects and a 1/2 dozen different types of engineers, 20 or more construction sub-specialties, the casual labor, through the sales staff and back to the finance industry. Most all, very decent paying jobs. Poof. All gone.

In essence, growth has been our industry.

Nationally, it is not coming back any time soon. While there may be some small pockets of activity, there is likely to be more, and larger pockets of even longer inactivity. Pheonix, Las Vegas, and I suspect much of Florida may be dead for 10 years or more. Most other areas, without very specific other job creation, is likely to be dormant for 2 to 5 years. Despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe that new household formations will greatly exceed household disolutions over the next 10 years. Which means we don’t need a whole lot of new houses. (which is to say, my review of the evidence leads me to that conclusion, it is not a “belief” in the idealogical sense.)

If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
Government has good motivations to spread out the cost of the recession over many years. More stable real estate prices:
1/ protect local property tax revenues of local government.
2/ protect the portfolios of banks
3/ reduce the need to bailout 1 & 2.[/quote]

I agree, however….

I think we’re looking at something much broader than that. If there isn’t a significant shift in the scope of economic output in the US, we’re looking at a recession that lasts half a generation.

New home construction has, in the past, been the fuel for the rest of the economy. It has brought us out of recession, time and time again. Creating scores of jobs per unit, thousands of jobs per significant development. From the financiers, the architects and a 1/2 dozen different types of engineers, 20 or more construction sub-specialties, the casual labor, through the sales staff and back to the finance industry. Most all, very decent paying jobs. Poof. All gone.

In essence, growth has been our industry.

Nationally, it is not coming back any time soon. While there may be some small pockets of activity, there is likely to be more, and larger pockets of even longer inactivity. Pheonix, Las Vegas, and I suspect much of Florida may be dead for 10 years or more. Most other areas, without very specific other job creation, is likely to be dormant for 2 to 5 years. Despite some claims to the contrary, I do not believe that new household formations will greatly exceed household disolutions over the next 10 years. Which means we don’t need a whole lot of new houses. (which is to say, my review of the evidence leads me to that conclusion, it is not a “belief” in the idealogical sense.)

If we don’t find something else to manufacture that we, or the rest of the world wants, we’re in deep trouble. (Alternative energy and related technologies???)

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
It’s PR to make the homeowners happy. And to make people believe they can buy safely because the government is there to help.[/quote]

I think you’re probably right. Politicians doing what politicians do. Shock! There’s politics in politics.

I think most bright observers never gave the program little chance of succeeding in the original stated goals. My presumption was that the intent was to slow down price declines and provide some limited stability to the market, by slowing down the sheer quantity of distressed inventory hitting the market. Much like what the lenders have done with their REO. I suspect that is still the motivation. Temporary mods that slow the foreclosure process, but ultimately do not succeed. They do, however, slow price declines. The merits of that plan, purely from a macro-economic viewpoint, are arguable. Not sure I’d agree, but at least there is some basis for it. And of course, it does have political value.

On the other hand, maybe they are that stupid and thought these programs would work. I hope not. But given the incompetence of most of the finance guys in charge over the last 25 years, I’m not sure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
It’s PR to make the homeowners happy. And to make people believe they can buy safely because the government is there to help.[/quote]

I think you’re probably right. Politicians doing what politicians do. Shock! There’s politics in politics.

I think most bright observers never gave the program little chance of succeeding in the original stated goals. My presumption was that the intent was to slow down price declines and provide some limited stability to the market, by slowing down the sheer quantity of distressed inventory hitting the market. Much like what the lenders have done with their REO. I suspect that is still the motivation. Temporary mods that slow the foreclosure process, but ultimately do not succeed. They do, however, slow price declines. The merits of that plan, purely from a macro-economic viewpoint, are arguable. Not sure I’d agree, but at least there is some basis for it. And of course, it does have political value.

On the other hand, maybe they are that stupid and thought these programs would work. I hope not. But given the incompetence of most of the finance guys in charge over the last 25 years, I’m not sure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
It’s PR to make the homeowners happy. And to make people believe they can buy safely because the government is there to help.[/quote]

I think you’re probably right. Politicians doing what politicians do. Shock! There’s politics in politics.

I think most bright observers never gave the program little chance of succeeding in the original stated goals. My presumption was that the intent was to slow down price declines and provide some limited stability to the market, by slowing down the sheer quantity of distressed inventory hitting the market. Much like what the lenders have done with their REO. I suspect that is still the motivation. Temporary mods that slow the foreclosure process, but ultimately do not succeed. They do, however, slow price declines. The merits of that plan, purely from a macro-economic viewpoint, are arguable. Not sure I’d agree, but at least there is some basis for it. And of course, it does have political value.

On the other hand, maybe they are that stupid and thought these programs would work. I hope not. But given the incompetence of most of the finance guys in charge over the last 25 years, I’m not sure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
It’s PR to make the homeowners happy. And to make people believe they can buy safely because the government is there to help.[/quote]

I think you’re probably right. Politicians doing what politicians do. Shock! There’s politics in politics.

I think most bright observers never gave the program little chance of succeeding in the original stated goals. My presumption was that the intent was to slow down price declines and provide some limited stability to the market, by slowing down the sheer quantity of distressed inventory hitting the market. Much like what the lenders have done with their REO. I suspect that is still the motivation. Temporary mods that slow the foreclosure process, but ultimately do not succeed. They do, however, slow price declines. The merits of that plan, purely from a macro-economic viewpoint, are arguable. Not sure I’d agree, but at least there is some basis for it. And of course, it does have political value.

On the other hand, maybe they are that stupid and thought these programs would work. I hope not. But given the incompetence of most of the finance guys in charge over the last 25 years, I’m not sure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=briansd1]
It’s PR to make the homeowners happy. And to make people believe they can buy safely because the government is there to help.[/quote]

I think you’re probably right. Politicians doing what politicians do. Shock! There’s politics in politics.

I think most bright observers never gave the program little chance of succeeding in the original stated goals. My presumption was that the intent was to slow down price declines and provide some limited stability to the market, by slowing down the sheer quantity of distressed inventory hitting the market. Much like what the lenders have done with their REO. I suspect that is still the motivation. Temporary mods that slow the foreclosure process, but ultimately do not succeed. They do, however, slow price declines. The merits of that plan, purely from a macro-economic viewpoint, are arguable. Not sure I’d agree, but at least there is some basis for it. And of course, it does have political value.

On the other hand, maybe they are that stupid and thought these programs would work. I hope not. But given the incompetence of most of the finance guys in charge over the last 25 years, I’m not sure.

[SK in CV]

[quote=AN]If this one won’t work, they come up with another. If that one won’t work, they’ll come up with another. They’ll keep on doing it until America is bankrupt or until it work. Nothing really surprising to me.[/quote]

Not quite. The same arguments can be made against military funding. Build a hungry war machine, and then find wars to fight, and it’s never sated. Every year, more than enough to fund all of the health care reform, and unlike health care reform, will never decrease the deficit. More than every other country in the world combined.

But for this revised program, they haven’t allocated any more money. The funding for this, and previous HAMP programs all came from original TARP money.

[Author]

Posts