"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Oct 17, 10:34 pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 17, 10:39 am, RicodJour wrote:

One more question - when you're wandering around lost do you slow
down, maybe ask for directions, look for landmarks, and generally take
your time to decide on the best direction?

Or do you just keep wandering around lost and hope for the best?


One question for you...why were you wandering around in the first
place. Maybe it's the pilot training but even before I became a pilot
I always had a plan and charted my course in advance. Could it be
that the main problem is that too many have just set off without a
plan, with no set destination, and ended up going in circles.

And if your plan sucked, you got lost. What happens if it wasn't your
plan, and you were just along for the ride?

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans"

Lots of people attribute to skill and foresight what really turns out to be
luck. People who take great care of their bodies still get cancer while
many of those who didn't take such good care, don't. Most bankruptcies are
caused by unforeseen medical bills and they happen to people who have health
insurance. No one knows what their policy *really* covers until they are
too sick to fight a denial.

Do you feel the current economic plan is working? Social plan? How's
the war going (pick one)?

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times. Back then, a man could raise a family and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. Those days are long,
long gone. Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. Try getting a job in
your 50's. Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's no
other choice.

How many people around you are voicing their opinion that things are just
dandy? I'm guessing not one.

Lots of people have no contact with the young or the poor. They really
don't know how tough it's gotten for a lot of families.

Things have to change. That much is clear. So we can all start pulling
our oars any damn old way, or we can pick a plan and pull in unison.

Goldman Sachs posted its first loss since the Great Almost Depression II. I
think even the Tea Party will have to come around to the idea that the
bailout had to be done and that Wall St. and its love of exotic financial
vehicles was behind the Great Mess. I believe OWS will have staying power
as more and more people become homeless or unemployed.

The reality is that employment-wise, we're close to being as bad off now as
we were in 1929 - the figures are just jiggered to make today look better.
Without the FDIC, Social Security and Medicare we would be in deep trouble.
If you believe in omens, the huge dust storm in Texas was a reminder of what
happened in the 30's with the Dust Bowl. We're in a very bad position
because I don't think we're going to be able to deal with a serious shock to
the economy. The kind that Nature is known to deal out at random all over
the world.

Working in unison almost always starts with stopping calling people names
and listening.

We've got a long way to go. Most people are preaching to their own choirs
and foolishly trying to convince people to join their side through insults.
I'm beginning to think that all societies eventually polarize to the point
where they dissolve and reform. I can't actually believe that anyone old
enough to remember how rivers used to look and how much smog floated over LA
would seriously want to abolish the EPA. Yet many do, either because of
faulty memories or brainwashing at the hands of industry shills.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Kurt. Much more of the
wealthy's
income derives not from paychecks, but from investments so fair comparis
ons
are hard to make. But just like HeyBub claiming our corporate tax rate
is
among the highest in the world, the truth is that it's only on paper.
GE
pays NO taxes along with a boatload of companies, some of whom even get
money back from the government.

Nonsense this the amount of taxes paid.

Are you *sure* you were a journalist? (-: I really do have some serious
trouble figuring out what you're trying to say at times.
You said much more of the wealthy's incomes derive not from paychecks
and them went on to suggest this was a bad comparison (how much of
income taxes the top 1% pay. I merely stated that this was a nonsensical
argument since the figures were based on total income reported which has
very little do with paychecks. It takes into account the different rates
for cap gains as an example.

T
The top 1% get 16% of the income yet pay 34.3% of income taxes.

What's the problem? They have made the most of the system's many benefits.

The problem is they are already paying their share, and part of mine,
and a bit of yours. If they were really ripping off the poor, their
shares of taxes paid and income would be a lot closer. If the
hyperventilation crowd was correct, they would paying LESS than their
part of the income stream, not double.

While I can understand, in principle, that people should get to keep
everything they've earned, in reality, it doesn't bother me much that a
hedge fund boss earning $100M gets to part with a lot of it especially since
I'm pretty sure part of it came from MY pension fund.
Not yours since you don't own it.


When wealth gets
overconcentrated, the whole economy suffers and social unrest begins to
form, especially if they just sit on the cash and don't invest in productive
AMERICAN businesses. If that money helps build up China's manufacturing
prowess, I'm for having them pay 50% or more of their income in taxes. As
HomeGuy's post noted, the uber-rich make lots of money just by having money.
And they pay taxes on it.



This is income on their income taxes. The top 1% pay an effective rate
of 20.4% while the two lowest
quintiles have a negative rate because they get more back than they put in
(credits over and above whatever they get back in withholding). If you
do the total effective rate (including SS and excise taxes (the rate
runs around 31% and 4.5% respectively.

I can only assume from your familiarity with how the rich are taxed that
you're among them. More power to you. If that's true, it can't be from
working as a nurse for the VA. I assume it's family money. The question I
have is this: Which quintiles would you rather be in, even with the
egregious tax rates?
You'd assume wrong, on both counts. Just a LETTLE bit of prejudice
thrown in the conversation. I don't view the tax rates as egregious, I
view them as fair and saying otherwise as demogogary of the first
magnitude.



Too bad. I started buying and am WAY up since then, even with the
pullbacks. There has never been a 10-year period (including this one)
where the S&P has returned less than 8% on an annualized basis. Not my
fault (or the bankers for that matter) that most people pull their money
out at exactly the wrong time.

My pension's in CREF stock. I cashed out all my other stock. CREF's down a
Ferrari's worth but fortunately my cash out, even though it was a little
early, preserved my principle. Cashing out a little too early is still a
lot better than being a little late. The problem with that adage about
"never been a 10 year period" is that people who invest in the market can
get, as Hank Paulson so glibly said, "zeroed out." When you get to your
sixties, 10 year averages don't mean quite so much as when you're in your
thirties and can ride out the valleys.

Only voluntarily by pulling out at the wrong time, or not at all. This
isn't a ten year average, it is a ROLLING ten year period. No ten-year
period (say 1956-1966 or 1978-1988 or even 2001-2011) has shown less
than 8% return over the period. SS (according to the last report from
the Trustees will show a negative rate of return for most boomers. It
has been negative for years for minorities (mostly related to their
dying earlier.) If you invest (actually more importantly REINVEST since
the real money is made by compounding interest, dividends, etc) then
riding out the valleys is less important. I have had an IRA since they
were started and put money in every year. At the depth of the last bull
market it still a worth of more than 4x what I paid in. Stay invested
and use the dips to buy more.
But don't just buy and hold forever. Buy and hold until something
happens that makes you change your mind on the reasons you bought it in
the first place.

You don't get out of bear markets by high speed trading, or other
unfair methods.

Why are they so enormously popular and under the scrutiny of the SEC, then?
Because they cause some short-term flucuations. Nothing resembling
a bear market can come from them. Actually if you want to stabilize the
markets the single biggest change would be for the SEC to reinstitute
the uptick rule for shorting stocks. That the SEC could do tomorrow.

If you see trouble coming and you can execute trades faster than most other
people, you have an advantage and the recent closing and rolling back of a
stock whose name I can't remember shows how fast the bottom can fall out
with automated trading that reacts to falling prices. If my sell order
beats yours to the floor, I'm in much better shape. Brokerages are always
going to favor their richest customers. The stock market needs some serious
reform and I am hoping OWS triggers some of it.

And it righted itself in a few minutes under current rules, the
markets went back and zeroed out most of the trades and instituted some
things that will probably prevent it from happening again.


I've discovered a secret - bidding super low on empty, foreclosed properties
and then reporting all the code violations I can find on that property to
the county. I assume that sooner or later the bank is going to think "it's
costing us a LOT of money to hold this property so we might as well take the
lowball offer." I think we're coming close to acquiring a house for an
outrageously low price as a result. (-:
SOunds damn greedy to me (grin).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times. Back then, a man could raise a family and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. Those days are long,
long gone. Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. Try getting a job in
your 50's. Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce

On Oct 19, 11:22*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:

The top 1% get 16% of the income yet pay 34.3% of income taxes.

What's the problem? *They have made the most of the system's many benefits.

Now that's a classic, isn't it?
Robert;s the one constantly restarting the same class warfare crap.
Now he acts like he's OK with the present share of taxes the rich
pay. BTW, according to statistics, the top 1% actually pay about
40% of the tax burden. Yet, that isn't enough for him or the
fool hippies sleeping in the park in NYC.

Ive seen libs asked a simple question and have yet to see
one give an answer. A rich guy makes $100. How much
of that should govt take?





* *The problem is they are already paying their share, and part of mine,
and a bit of yours. If they were really ripping off the poor, their
shares of taxes paid and income would be a lot closer. If the
hyperventilation crowd was correct, they would paying LESS than their
part of the income stream, not double.

While I can understand, in principle, that people should get to keep
everything they've earned, in reality, it doesn't bother me much that a
hedge fund boss earning $100M gets to part with a lot of it especially since
I'm pretty sure part of it came from MY pension fund.

* *Not yours since you don't own it.

*When wealth gets overconcentrated, the whole economy suffers and social unrest begins to
form, especially if they just sit on the cash and don't invest in productive
AMERICAN businesses. *If that money helps build up China's manufacturing
prowess, I'm for having them pay 50% or more of their income in taxes. *As
HomeGuy's post noted, the uber-rich make lots of money just by having money.

The post based on alleged facts from an anonymous party? The post
that doesn't even tell us in the end what percent taxes the very upper
part of the highest 1% pays?
Great source.



* *And they pay taxes on it.



This is income on their income taxes. The top 1% pay an effective rate
of 20.4% while the two lowest
quintiles have a negative rate because they get more back than they put in
(credits over and above whatever they get back in withholding). If you
do the total effective rate (including SS and excise taxes (the rate
runs around 31% and 4.5% respectively.

I can only assume from your familiarity with how the rich are taxed that
you're among them. *More power to you.

Gee, I thought Robert would know how the rich are taxed.
He's the one always bitching about it. But, apparently he's
as clueless about that as everything else. Typical lib, all
emotion, no facts.

On Oct 19, 11:06*am, "Robert Green"
wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

....
On Oct 17, 10:34 pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:39 am, RicodJour wrote:

One more question - when you're wandering around lost do you slow
down, maybe ask for directions, look for landmarks, and generally take
your time to decide on the best direction?

Or do you just keep wandering around lost and hope for the best?

One question for you...why were you wandering around in the first
place. Maybe it's the pilot training but even before I became a pilot
I always had a plan and charted my course in advance. Could it be
that the main problem is that too many have just set off without a
plan, with no set destination, and ended up going in circles.

And if your plan sucked, you got lost. *What happens if it wasn't your
plan, and you were just along for the ride?

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans"

Lots of people attribute to skill and foresight what really turns out to be
luck. *People who take great care of their bodies still get cancer while
many of those who didn't take such good care, don't. *Most bankruptcies are
caused by unforeseen medical bills and they happen to people who have health
insurance. *No one knows what their policy *really* covers until they are
too sick to fight a denial.

Do you feel the current economic plan is working? *Social plan? *How's
the war going (pick one)?

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times.

As well they and all other Americans should fear income
redistribution.
Why would they be OK with govt taking their hard earned money and
giving it to someone else? Like one of those hippie protesters that
say they won't take a min wage job?



*Back then, a man could raise a family and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days are long,
long gone. *

Not if you do the right things. Unemployment right now
for those with college degrees is 4.5%. If you stay in school,
don't get pregnant at 17 and have 3 kids, etc there is no
reason people today cannot have a family on one income.

What has happened is that because of the changing
WORLD economy, it is harder for say a high school dropout
to have a comfortable middle class life. Or someone that
doesn't go to college or acquire other specialized skills.
In the 60s you could be a dropout and get a good job
at GM or US Steel and do nicely. A lot of those jobs are
gone forever, lost to robots, and the rise of other economies.
As the world becomes more high tech, if you don't have
the right education or skills, you have a lesser chance
of doing well.
But who;s fault is that? The rich guy or investors that own the
factory with the robots? Or is it personal responsibility of the job
seeker?



Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try getting a job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's no
other choice.

How many people around you are voicing their opinion that things are just
dandy? *I'm guessing not one.

Lots of people have no contact with the young or the poor. *They really
don't know how tough it's gotten for a lot of families.

Things have to change. *That much is clear. *So we can all start pulling
our oars any damn old way, or we can pick a plan and pull in unison.

Goldman Sachs posted its first loss since the Great Almost Depression II. *I
think even the Tea Party will have to come around to the idea that the
bailout had to be done and that Wall St. and its love of exotic financial
vehicles was behind the Great Mess.

And there you go again. As I and countless others here have
told you, the list of those responsible for the recession is long
and goes from Wall Street, to Govt, to Mainstreet.
Yet, being the lib, you have a one track mind. Did wall street
force anyone to buy a house with no money down, using
the max of their one paycheck to support the loan? Wall
Street didn't even make the actual loan to begin with.
Yet, you blame WS exclusively and never the irresponsible
fool that bought the damn house.



*I believe OWS will have staying power
as more and more people become homeless or unemployed.

I believe they have smell power. Do you realize that in a poll
taken of them in NYC, over a third said Al-Qaeda and the
USA were morally about the same? How's that sit with
you? How about all the ones with signs calling for the
destruction of capitalism? Or that claim Monsanto is
changing our DNA?



The reality is that employment-wise, we're close to being as bad off now as
we were in 1929 - the figures are just jiggered to make today look better..

According to you.


Without the FDIC, Social Security and Medicare we would be in deep trouble.
If you believe in omens, the huge dust storm in Texas was a reminder of what
happened in the 30's with the Dust Bowl. * We're in a very bad position
because I don't think we're going to be able to deal with a serious shock to
the economy. *The kind that Nature is known to deal out at random all over
the world.

Working in unison almost always starts with stopping calling people names
and listening.

We've got a long way to go. *Most people are preaching to their own choirs
and foolishly trying to convince people to join their side through insults.

I'm not trying to convince you to join anything, because I know
you're a long winded, lost cause, that's all emotion, no facts.
Your main purpose in life seems to be starting off topic posts
and reviving other ones that died weeks ago.



I'm beginning to think that all societies eventually polarize to the point
where they dissolve and reform. *I can't actually believe that anyone old
enough to remember how rivers used to look and how much smog floated over LA
would seriously want to abolish the EPA. *Yet many do, either because of
faulty memories or brainwashing at the hands of industry shills.

--
Bobby G.

But who brainwashed you?

On Oct 19, 4:12*am, harry wrote:

Time to mount heads on poles in fact.

You need help. Seek it out.

R

On Oct 19, 11:02*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:
On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a family and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days are long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try getting a job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce

What we need in health care is open pricing, bigger suppy of
providers, and insurance used in a way it is meant to be used, that is
as protection from financial devistation. Do these three things and
the "cost side" of the equations will come under control. As long as
health services are always provided with "somebody elses money" via a
health insurance policy that covers things that people should be
paying out of pocket for (like flu shots, stitches,etc) costs will not
come down natually. Insurance should oonly pay if the cost os over
$5000 (or some formula that would cause financial devistation). The
govt should make policy that drives down costs. All they have done
recently is make policy that guarantees higher costs, by covering
every possible little ailment, reducing incentives for more people to
enter medicine, allowing hospitals to hide their pricing, etc. Unless
costs are encouraged to go down, the current trajectory and recent
legislation (obamacare) is unsustainable. Hell they just got rid of
the long-term care mandate last friday because they relize it does
absolutely nothing on the cost side and would bankrupt the whole plan.

Try calling 4 hospitals some time to get their "standard price" for a
colonoscopy because you want to pay out of pocket. You will get 4
wildly different, non-competing, capricious prices all of which are
artificially inflated, if you get any answer at all or they dont give
you a blank stare like "wow nobody ever asked us that before". That
my friend is an indicator of a "sick" market on the cost side. No
business model is sustainable where pricing is not widely known,
advertised and corrected by competition and advancements in
efficiency. Our system is doomd simply because pricing is a big
secret with many hands trying to get their piece of it under the
table, and the doctor is shafted further increasing the cost by
decreasing the doctors available.

On Oct 19, 1:12*pm, RickH wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:02*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:





On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a family and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days are long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try getting a job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce

What we need in health care is open pricing, bigger suppy of
providers, and insurance used in a way it is meant to be used, that is
as protection from financial devistation. *Do these three things and
the "cost side" of the equations will come under control. *As long as
health services are always provided with "somebody elses money" via a
health insurance policy that covers things that people should be
paying out of pocket for (like flu shots, stitches,etc) costs will not
come down natually. *Insurance should oonly pay if the cost os over
$5000 (or some formula that would cause financial devistation). *The
govt should make policy that drives down costs. *All they have done
recently is make policy that guarantees higher costs, by covering
every possible little ailment, reducing incentives for more people to
enter medicine, allowing hospitals to hide their pricing, etc. *Unless
costs are encouraged to go down, the current trajectory and recent
legislation (obamacare) is unsustainable. *Hell they just got rid of
the long-term care mandate last friday because they relize it does
absolutely nothing on the cost side and would bankrupt the whole plan.

Try calling 4 hospitals some time to get their "standard price" for a
colonoscopy because you want to pay out of pocket. *You will get 4
wildly different, non-competing, capricious prices all of which are
artificially inflated, if you get any answer at all or they dont give
you a blank stare like "wow nobody ever asked us that before". *That
my friend is an indicator of a "sick" market on the cost side. *No
business model is sustainable where pricing is not widely known,
advertised and corrected by competition and advancements in
efficiency. *Our system is doomd simply because pricing is a big
secret with many hands trying to get their piece of it under the
table, and the doctor is shafted further increasing the cost by
decreasing the doctors available.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said and excellent points. I've said for a long time that
what we need to do is get free market principles applied to
healthcare. We should be asking the question if free markets
can supply corn flakes, cars, and even life or auto insurance
at reasonable prices, what's wrong with healthcare? I'd
like to see a committee put together with some top business
CEOs, like Andy Grove, Jack Welch, etc to research it and
figure out what exactly is wrong and how we can fix it.

Instead, we just created another big govt progrm that is
going to do nothing to stop spiraling costs. Those costs
are ultimately still going to be paid by most of us, either
directly or through taxes.

On 10/19/11 01:01 pm, wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times. Back then, a man could raise a family and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. Those days are long,
long gone. Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. Try getting a job in
your 50's. Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's no
other choice.

This is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

The real problem is the whole idea of health insurance. It makes
medical care "free" and nothing is as expensive as something that
people think is free.

So people would drive more carefully if they didn't have motor-vehicle
insurance?

Back when we paid the doctor ourselves doctors lived down the street
and they were not conglomerates,, they were small businesses that
people could afford.

I don't disagree with that.

If you pile up a couple billion dollars in an insurance company,
everyone will come for it and the insurance companies are happy to pay
it out because they simply raise their premiums to cover expenses.

Having the government be the insurer does not fix that problem, it
only makes it worse because they collect their premiums (taxes) at the
point of a gun.

I'm not saying that all health insurance should be run by the
government. Many countries with universal health care have competition
between private insurance companies all playing by the same rules, and
in some cases a government-run plan as well. In some of those countries
the premiums do not depend on income, but they are subsidized for those
with low incomes. In Australia the health insurance premium is a
percentage (max. 2.5%) of taxable income.

Perce

" wrote in
:

On Oct 19, 1:12*pm, RickH wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:02*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:





On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived
financial security in a much hotter market with jobs that
provided significantl
y more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people
living
in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a
family
and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days
ar
e long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably
do
n't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try
getting
a job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older
empl
oyees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless
there
's no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance
coverage with premiums dependent on income rather than on
employment. Employers paying health insurance premiums was an
accident of US history that has no advantages and serious
disadvantages.

Perce

What we need in health care is open pricing, bigger suppy of
providers, and insurance used in a way it is meant to be used, that
is as protection from financial devistation. *Do these three things
and the "cost side" of the equations will come under control. *As
long as health services are always provided with "somebody elses
money" via a health insurance policy that covers things that people
should be paying out of pocket for (like flu shots, stitches,etc)
costs will not come down natually. *Insurance should oonly pay if the
cost os over $5000 (or some formula that would cause financial
devistation). *The govt should make policy that drives down costs.
*All they have done recently is make policy that guarantees higher
costs, by covering every possible little ailment, reducing incentives
for more people to enter medicine, allowing hospitals to hide their
pricing, etc. *Unless costs are encouraged to go down, the current
trajectory and recent legislation (obamacare) is unsustainable. *Hell
they just got rid of the long-term care mandate last friday because
they relize it does absolutely nothing on the cost side and would
bankrupt the whole plan.

Try calling 4 hospitals some time to get their "standard price" for a
colonoscopy because you want to pay out of pocket. *You will get 4
wildly different, non-competing, capricious prices all of which are
artificially inflated, if you get any answer at all or they dont give
you a blank stare like "wow nobody ever asked us that before". *That
my friend is an indicator of a "sick" market on the cost side. *No
business model is sustainable where pricing is not widely known,
advertised and corrected by competition and advancements in
efficiency. *Our system is doomd simply because pricing is a big
secret with many hands trying to get their piece of it under the
table, and the doctor is shafted further increasing the cost by
decreasing the doctors available.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said and excellent points. I've said for a long time that
what we need to do is get free market principles applied to
healthcare. We should be asking the question if free markets
can supply corn flakes, cars, and even life or auto insurance
at reasonable prices, what's wrong with healthcare? I'd
like to see a committee put together with some top business
CEOs, like Andy Grove, Jack Welch, etc to research it and
figure out what exactly is wrong and how we can fix it.

Instead, we just created another big govt progrm that is
going to do nothing to stop spiraling costs. Those costs
are ultimately still going to be paid by most of us, either
directly or through taxes.

Nonsense. How will you educate Joe Commoner so he can properly evaluate
the charges, caring and qualifications of any kind of professional?
Maybe I should go for a cold efficient doctor who'll just cut and heal my
(whatever). Or should I go for the warm and fuzzy one, who made more
mistakes?

Free markets can only work if just about everyone can fully evaluate the
services provided, and in the case of healthcare that's baloney.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Oct 19, 12:51*pm, wrote:
BTW it is far less than 99% of the people who are really in trouble.
In the US we seem to be defining "rich" as the people who pay income
taxes (53%) It does describe anyone who makes more than about $50,000
a year or so. To say that if you are not paying income tax, you are
poor, is silly. A couple making $100.000 a year, no kids, no mortgage
deduction, taking the standard deduction, will pay less than $12,000
in income tax. Yet we still have people saying their taxes are too
high.

Depends on where you live. Around here, $50K/year is definitely lower
middle class, if not below middle class. You certainly can't live
well on that and it takes serious parsimony to purchase one's own
home, or even to rent a place all by yourself.

nate

wrote in message
...
wrote:
wrote in message
stuff snipped

The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.
The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do.

I respectfully submit that may be backwards. I think it was the
government
that was doing what Wall St. told it to do. The system was set up so
that
Wall St. made money even when a house was sold to someone who probably
couldn't make the payments. They got fees, commissions and more fees.
Sadly, the states made loads of money in real estate transfer fees, real
estate taxes, etc.

They were trying to stimulate the economy and what is forgotten here
is the guy who sold the land made money, the builder made money, all
of the contractors made money, everyone in the building supply chain
made money, the real estate broker made money and the mortgage broker
made money. That is a lot of money moving around. It wasn't just Wall
Street. All Wall Street did was create the money in the first place.

Again, respectfully disagree. They were the ones that were rolling up good
mortgages with bad ones and then selling them off to investors, collecting
fat fees and passing the seriously underrated risk onto the purchasers of
those collateralized debt obligations who couldn't even tell what they had
bought and were unable to remove the bad debts from the ones likely to be
repaid. We've had real estate bubbles before but they never got anywhere
near as bad because in the past, there were no CDO's made up out of rolled
up mortgages in the picture. It's about the same as getting a bag of
potatoes that you can't open before you buy that contains a lot of round,
brown potato-like rocks in it.

Rating agencies gave AAA ratings to very toxic mortagages that turned sour
and brought the housing market to its knees. The appetite for more and
bigger mortgages (and more and bigger fees) was insatiable. Without the CDO
market driving the train, the bubble never would have grown to the titantic
proportions that it did. Everyone wanted in on these CDO's because American
homes were considered bedrock investments.

Wall Streeters - specifically investment banks - thought they were making
risk free money for two reasons: First, they thought defaults could be
foreclosed and sold for even more money in an (apparently) ever-rising
market. Second, they took their cut and passed the risk on. What they
didn't realize was that with enough foreclosures, the market for houses and
real estate (more than half the crash involved business properties) would
freeze up solid. AIG wrote "insurance" on such vehicles and when they went
sour, didn't have the proper reserves to cover the losses. They also were
locked into contracts that said the worse things got, the more they owed.
Those "snowball" clauses need to be closely re-examined because they didn't
really protect against risk the way they were designed to. They just
accelerated the decline. So we taxpayers were forced to.

The losers were the last person to own the house and the people who
held the loans when the music stopped.

I agree - the last man standing got the biggest shafting. Tthe middle class
took it on the chin and is still taking it, hard.

The derivative holders were
made whole by TARP and everyone involved in the house before the crash
took their money and ran.

I can't speak to how "whole" the derivative holders were made, but I will
agree that they probably made out a lot better as a class than the poor
shmoes who bought at the height of the market. My belief that they weren't
made completely whole stems from the multi-billion dollar lawsuits still in
progress against the sellers of the CDO's.

FWIW, the homeowner across the street that rented out to crack dealers spent
his entire inheritance buying a house for $450K at the market peak that's
now worth about $300K and became so desperate for renters that he took
Section 8 clients. They destroyed his house and it's vacant again and when
people come by and ask who lived there before they run. It's unfortunately
not unusual for previous drug sellers and buyers to come back looking for
the previous tenants, sometimes with a grudge to settle.

--
Bobby G.

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly
more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times. Back then, a man could raise a family and
send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. Those days are
long,
long gone. Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. Try getting a
job in
your 50's. Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's
no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Agree 100%. I think it would have been far more palatable to just lower the
age of Medicare eligibility for people who have worked all their lives and
have the appropriate number of "quarters" paid into the system. They helped
build this country and are now getting kicked to the curb just because they
got old.

Instead, Obama wanted to cover people who may not have contributed very much
(if anything) to the building of America and OF COURSE this raised the
hackles of every hard-working person in America. It was a stupid move and
it may cost him his second term. I've got to say, Perce, I'm a little
embarrassed that you know a lot more about how America works (or doesn't)
than a lot of native-born Americans. (-:

The health insurance mess is a "gift" from WWII, which is just another
reason to be circumspect about engaging in war after war. They almost
always entail "gifts" that keep on giving. The cost for caring for wounded
AfRaq vets is estimated to be nearly 1 trillion dollars over the next 30-40
years. Lots of people want to wage war, but they want someone else to pay
for them, especially when lots of the bills don't come due long after the
wars have ended. As Barney Frank said: "Everybody wants to get to heaven,
but nobody wants to die."

I have a 55 year old accountant friend who's entered a serious depressive
state because he's been sending out resumes, answering want ads and pounding
the pavement for six months since the company he worked for filed for
bankruptcy. He's worked hard all his life but now, nobody wants him because
he's got diabetes and they're afraid to hire him although they never come
out and say it. He's told me that interviewers promise to call back but
never do, he has to chase them to get the bad news. That's sad. It used to
be societies looked to their elders for experience and guidance. Now,
they're treated like a worn out pair of shoes.

--
Bobby G.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:02:51 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly
more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living
in
today's much tougher times. Back then, a man could raise a family and
send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. Those days are
long,
long gone. Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. Try getting a
job in
your 50's. Most companies won't admit it, but they know older
employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's
no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce


The real problem is the whole idea of health insurance. It makes
medical care "free" and nothing is as expensive as something that
people think is free.

Back when we paid the doctor ourselves doctors lived down the street
and they were not conglomerates,, they were small businesses that
people could afford.

If you pile up a couple billion dollars in an insurance company,
everyone will come for it and the insurance companies are happy to pay
it out because they simply raise their premiums to cover expenses.

Having the government be the insurer does not fix that problem, it
only makes it worse because they collect their premiums (taxes) at the
point of a gun.

Having the goverment operate as one of the insurers in a pool of many has
the potential to keep costs in line far better than anything short of going
back to having no insurance at all. It would provide a baseline for
comparison and I believe would keep costs better in line. I think that's
true primarily because of how the insurers squawked at the "public option."
On one hand, they say the Federal government is incompetent in everything it
does, then, on the other hand they claim they would be seriously undercut by
the government's massive negotiating power. Which is it, health insurers?

Perhaps insurance should be limited to true, bankrupting disasters and not
for routine office visits.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


You said much more of the wealthy's incomes derive not from paychecks
and them went on to suggest this was a bad comparison (how much of
income taxes the top 1% pay. I merely stated that this was a nonsensical
argument since the figures were based on total income reported which has
very little do with paychecks. It takes into account the different rates
for cap gains as an example.

Much better, although not totally correct. There's a physical limit to the
amount of money you can make by the sweat of your brow. Investment income
has no such limitation. That's an important distinction between the upper
and lower classes.
Not only is it NOT an important distinction, in this context it is
totally. You are looking at total income from all sources and the taxes
thereon when you look at effective rates. The discussion is how much
income and what part of that goes to taxes. The top 1% has a higher
effective rate of taxes than any other group.


The problem is they are already paying their share, and part of mine,
and a bit of yours. If they were really ripping off the poor, their
shares of taxes paid and income would be a lot closer. If the
hyperventilation crowd was correct, they would paying LESS than their
part of the income stream, not double.

But that's what progressive taxation all about. (-:
And according to the OECD figures I spouted numerous times, we not
only have the most progressive system among the developed world but take
a higher %age of total taxes from the top (in this case) 10% than any
other developed country except one.


And they pay taxes on it.

Not enough for my taste.
Now it comes out. You want taxes based on what offends your
sensibilities. Poor way to formulate tax policy.


The rich use government services that the middle
class never, ever need. Like military excursions to protect overseas
investments. Most Americans pay more payroll than income taxes, but that
reverses when incomes cross a certain threshold.
Yeah. the bottom two quintiles since tax credits like earned income
and others were put in place (and expanded under Bush) to address the
payroll tax concerns.
At the other end, SS taxes stop at the exact same place that
benefits stop. So, even if a person makes $60 kajillion a year, their SS
is based only on whatever the cut off is (something like $130,000 IIRC).


e
So there's something clearly amiss. Lots of the 480% rise comes from the
ever-increasing obscene salaries of CEO's. How on earth can it be good
business to pay ONE guy so much instead of plowing that money back into the
company?
Again, I point to the fact that this isn't salaries. They stay
mostly around $1-3 million. Look at the 10-K annual reports. Most of the
pay is in stock options which are related to the tax laws were
structured (by a Dem Congress on purpose years ago). This is paid for by
the shareholders and no one else by dilution of the stock and isn't
plowed back into the company.



I assumed that since you're saying the rich pay more than their fair share
that you consider the rates unfair. My mistake. Sorry. Also, it's
demagoguery or demagogy. (-:
I never said that. I have pointed out that they are already paying
more in taxes than they make (as %age of both income and taxes). I never
made any comments other than to say they are underpaying doesn't really
hold up.


The magic is knowing where the dips are. I've always wondered whether those
"ten year" numbers include the commissions paid, etc.
Probably not because that is VERY individualized. I probably sell 4
stocks a year whereas a guy I know does more than that daily. It does
include dividends. I have always gone mainly with dividend stocks.
Although I did not realize until later is was because it is impossible
to restate a dividend.

Which reminds me that
people living close to the edge just can't do what you've suggested. They
need every penny in the here and now. I remember being frustrated to the
point of exasperation trying to explain to my AA that she HAD to contribute
to her IRA because the company matched her contributions to a certain level.
My kids are the same and yet they find a way. One kid works a second
job over the holidays specifically to make the matching money. The other
buys a fewer things. If you want it bad enough, there are ways.


But don't just buy and hold forever. Buy and hold until something
happens that makes you change your mind on the reasons you bought it in
the first place.

I agree. But it's sadly clear from the recent insider trading case that the
middle class is flying blind compared to people who are deeply connected.

Again, big whoop. There are literally thousands of companies and
only a few inside traders. Even using your 20:1 standard, it is but a
pimple on the butt of the whole thing. A good diversified (which brings
up your portfolio..grin) portfolio is less concerned about this.

If the standard wisdom about crime is true, for every one they catch and
jail, twenty more got away clean. What do you think of Buffet's purchase of
BOA stock? Crazy? Or crazy like a fox? I've been thinking about investing
just because a) he did, b) they are about to embark on a big round of belt
tightening and c) they are still too big to fail so my feeling is that they
are still "government insured."
Warren got a sweetheart deal on preferred stock that isn't available
elsewhere. You can't get in on the deal of the current hero of the
common man. Another bit of hypocracy to my mind.




And it righted itself in a few minutes under current rules, the
markets went back and zeroed out most of the trades and instituted some
things that will probably prevent it from happening again.

The reset button can have good effects and bad ones. Unwinding trades like
that is a good thing but everything I've read is that those seeking to game
the system are always at least three steps ahead of the SEC. But I'll admit
I am paranoid. Some of the first stocks I ever owned included Equity
Funding of America, creators of fake insurance policies and a computer
scheme to cover up the fraud. Then, in high school, both my sister and I
got part time jobs on Wall St. and really got to see "how sausage is made."
The crooks are almost always ahead of the good guys. Even under
Democratic administrations (grin).

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Oct 19, 1:21 pm, "
wrote:

Well said and excellent points. I've said for a long time that
what we need to do is get free market principles applied to
healthcare. We should be asking the question if free markets
can supply corn flakes, cars, and even life or auto insurance
at reasonable prices, what's wrong with healthcare?

I'd say that it's people's view of healthcare. That and lawyers.
Both the ones chasing ambulances and the ones chasing campaign
contributions.

I'd like to see a committee put together with some top business
CEOs, like Andy Grove, Jack Welch, etc to research it and
figure out what exactly is wrong and how we can fix it.

Instead, we just created another big govt progrm that is
going to do nothing to stop spiraling costs. Those costs
are ultimately still going to be paid by most of us, either
directly or through taxes.

If Grove and Welch's investigation turned up a report that said that
insurance is a basic need for all people, and as such a nationwide
program was required (broken up into smaller administration groups/
regions/whatever), and that a national/state per capita tax was
required to pay for it, would you be okay with that?

R

Employer pay was pretax dollars, self pay is after
deductions.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...

Thia is another reason why we need universal health
insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment.
Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US
history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce

That's my observation, also. Libs tend to be free floating
bundle of outrage, with few specifics and no clues.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

Ive seen libs asked a simple question and have yet to see
one give an answer. A rich guy makes $100. How much
of that should govt take?

Gee, I thought Robert would know how the rich are taxed.
He's the one always bitching about it. But, apparently he's
as clueless about that as everything else. Typical lib, all
emotion, no facts.

On Oct 19, 3:47*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.
The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do.

I respectfully submit that may be backwards. *I think it was the
government
that was doing what Wall St. told it to do. *The system was set up so
that
Wall St. made money even when a house was sold to someone who probably
couldn't make the payments. *They got fees, commissions and more fees.
Sadly, the states made loads of money in real estate transfer fees, real
estate taxes, etc.

They were trying to stimulate the economy and what is forgotten here
is the guy who sold the land made money, the builder made money, all
of the contractors made money, everyone in the building supply chain
made money, the real estate broker made money and the mortgage broker
made money. That is a lot of money moving around. It wasn't just Wall
Street. All Wall Street did was create the money in the first place.

Again, respectfully disagree. *They were the ones that were rolling up good
mortgages with bad ones and then selling them off to investors, collecting
fat fees and passing the seriously underrated risk onto the purchasers of
those collateralized debt obligations who couldn't even tell what they had
bought and were unable to remove the bad debts from the ones likely to be
repaid. *

Here he is again folks, the resident liberal Monday morning
quarterback.
Yeah, some of those mortgages are bad ones, years AFTER they were
issued, packaged and sold. If it's just Wall Street that's a bunch
of
crooks, what about:

The guy who sold the person the house in 2006 and pocketed $200,000?
The real estate agents who got $12,000
The appraiser who got $200
The local mortgage company
The employee of that mortgage company that helped them fill out the
form
Congress who encouraged people to buy homes through mortgage
deductibility, CRA, etc


And what about the good folks at Fannie and Freddie? If this
is strictly a Wall Street problem, why did they wind up with the
same crap mortgages? Why are they among the largest of
the institutions that needed to be bailed out? Why, unlike
almost all of Wall Street, have Fannie And Freddie not paid
ANY of that money back? Hmmm?

Or could it just be that like with most cycles of boom and bust,
no one really saw this whole problem coming?

Also, on that deal, clearly the seller got $200,000. Maybe he
bought the house for $120,000 eight years earlier. Why
aren't you ****ed at him for being a robber baron? Now
when that loan got packaged and sold, how much do
you think Wall Street got? Probably $100. Yet they
are the evil ones and the only ones responsible.
Go figure.





We've had real estate bubbles before but they never got anywhere
near as bad because in the past, there were no CDO's made up out of rolled
up mortgages in the picture. *It's about the same as getting a bag of
potatoes that you can't open before you buy that contains a lot of round,
brown potato-like rocks in it.

More ignorant nonsense. Mortgages have been packaged and
sold as securities for a very long time. In fact, CMOs were not
created for Wall Street, they were created at the request of
Fannie and Freddie decades ago. That's right, those quasi govt
companies
under the supervision of Congress. Remember Barney Frank
saying Fannie and Freddie were still OK a couple months
before they went bust?




Rating agencies gave AAA ratings to very toxic mortagages that turned sour
and brought the housing market to its knees. *The appetite for more and
bigger mortgages (and more and bigger fees) was insatiable. *Without the CDO
market driving the train, the bubble never would have grown to the titantic
proportions that it did. *Everyone wanted in on these CDO's because American
homes were considered bedrock investments.

Uh huh. So, why when it turned out that some of those homes were not
quite the bedrock they were thought to be, it's all Wall Street's
fault?
Monday morning quaterbacking again. Must be nice to smart like you
years later with 20-20 hindsight.




Wall Streeters - specifically investment banks - thought they were making
risk free money for two reasons: *First, they thought defaults could be
foreclosed and sold for even more money in an (apparently) ever-rising
market.

Yeah, they thought housing prices would just keep going up.
So did the people who bought the houses.
So did the people who bought the CMOs
So did Congress and the govt.
So apparently did the FED who kept interest rates low.
So did regulators who permitted and ENCOURAGED
mortgages to be made with little or nothing down.

So, tell us again why it is that Wall Street is the only one you
blame.


*Second, they took their cut and passed the risk on.

Of course they did. That's their business. It's like the
local hardware store owner. He buys a hammer,
sells the hammer, takes his
cut, and now the hammer is the risk of the buyer




*What they
didn't realize was that with enough foreclosures, the market for houses and
real estate (more than half the crash involved business properties) would
freeze up solid. *

Gee, you mean they aren't clairvoyant, like you?


AIG wrote "insurance" on such vehicles and when they went
sour, didn't have the proper reserves to cover the losses.

Uh huh. Which is compelling proof that they were just as in
the dark as to the risk of a debacle as the guy buying the
house, selling the house, etc, as per above. Unless you
think they deliberately committed financial suicide.

Were they stupid to not have done the proper due diligence?
Sure. Same as the others involved in that transaction,
starting with the BUYER. Does that mean that they are
corrupt and all Wall Street is evil? .


*They also were
locked into contracts that said the worse things got, the more they owed.
Those "snowball" clauses need to be closely re-examined because they didn't
really protect against risk the way they were designed to. *They just
accelerated the decline. *So we taxpayers were forced to.

Sure sounds like being incredibly stupid, not incredibly
corrupt. IF they were corrupt and smart they would not have been
holding those CMOs that went worthless and took down
their companies, would they?



The losers were the last person to own the house and the people who
held the loans when the music stopped.

I agree - the last man standing got the biggest shafting. *Tthe middle class
took it on the chin and is still taking it, hard.

I disagree. AIG didn't go to Chicago, point to a house and force
anyone to buy it.




The derivative holders were
made whole by TARP and everyone involved in the house before the crash
took their money and ran.

I can't speak to how "whole" the derivative holders were made, but I will
agree that they probably made out a lot better as a class than the poor
shmoes who bought at the height of the market.

I wouldn'd cry too much for them. Most of them put very little if
anything down. So they get to walk away. I do feel sorry for
the responsible homeowner down the street who has a
house that wasn't financed on the fringe, is making payments,
owns 30% of it, and now has a vacant, falling down foreclosure
next door. And the taxpayers who will wind up taking a big
loss with Freddie and Fannie.




*My belief that they weren't
made completely whole stems from the multi-billion dollar lawsuits still in
progress against the sellers of the CDO's.

FWIW, the homeowner across the street that rented out to crack dealers spent
his entire inheritance buying a house for $450K at the market peak that's
now worth about $300K and became so desperate for renters that he took
Section 8 clients. *They destroyed his house and it's vacant again and when
people come by and ask who lived there before they run. *It's unfortunately
not unusual for previous drug sellers and buyers to come back looking for
the previous tenants, sometimes with a grudge to settle.


And who;s fault is that? Did Wall Street force him to buy that
house? Or to put Section 8 folks in it? Geez, go figure.

On Oct 19, 3:06*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:15*am, BobR wrote:





On Oct 18, 12:58*pm, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Oct 18, 5:02*pm, BobR wrote:

But their future have been stolen. *That's their complaint.
Theeconomy has been looted with the connivance of politicians and the
"investment banks".

The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.

As it has many times before and due to ignorance and greed it will
again.

The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do. Create a
booming housing market among buyers who were too broke to actually
afford houses.. It was the government that operated Fannie, Freddie,
The Federal Reserve and who repealed virtually all of the New Deal
regulation. You could not have had the derivatives without the CFMA of
2000.

It's like saying that Bill Gates is worth n-billion dollars based on
the paper value of his stock. *Sounds good but if Gates decided to try
and cash in all of that stock his billions would evaporate pretty
quickly. *The same is true in the housing market and any other market
that you can name. *The value is totally dependent on what people are
willing to pay and if they suddenly decide they can't pay as much, the
market is going to go down. *It can almost be guaranteed that any
market that goes up to fast, or goes up continously for too long is
headed for a crash unless there is some true growth to drive that
market. *There was no real growth driving the housing market and like
it did in the 70's, the speculation reached a saturation point and
down it came. *The banks might have made it easier than it should have
been but they were obviously just as stupid as were the public that
was buying more than they knew they could afford in the belief it was
easy money.

It was when they could sell their worthless loans to someone else.
(Including the EU/UK banks.)
It was all part of a plan. They knew what they were about.
But what goes around comes around

Its rather difficult to sell something when there are no buyers.
Someone was buying because they thought they could make something from
it. Someone was investing because they thought they could make
something from it. The real problem came from the fact that too many
wanted to believe what they wanted to believe without analysis and
they paid the price. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who
lost their shirt while trying to screw someone else.

On Oct 19, 2:10*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On Oct 19, 1:12*pm, RickH wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:02*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived
financial security in a much hotter market with jobs that
provided significantl
y more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people
living
*in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a
family
and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days
ar
e long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably
do
n't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try
getting
*a job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older
empl
oyees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless
there
's no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance
coverage with premiums dependent on income rather than on
employment. Employers paying health insurance premiums was an
accident of US history that has no advantages and serious
disadvantages.

Perce

What we need in health care is open pricing, bigger suppy of
providers, and insurance used in a way it is meant to be used, that
is as protection from financial devistation. *Do these three things
and the "cost side" of the equations will come under control. *As
long as health services are always provided with "somebody elses
money" via a health insurance policy that covers things that people
should be paying out of pocket for (like flu shots, stitches,etc)
costs will not come down natually. *Insurance should oonly pay if the
cost os over $5000 (or some formula that would cause financial
devistation). *The govt should make policy that drives down costs.
*All they have done recently is make policy that guarantees higher
costs, by covering every possible little ailment, reducing incentives
for more people to enter medicine, allowing hospitals to hide their
pricing, etc. *Unless costs are encouraged to go down, the current
trajectory and recent legislation (obamacare) is unsustainable. *Hell
they just got rid of the long-term care mandate last friday because
they relize it does absolutely nothing on the cost side and would
bankrupt the whole plan.

Try calling 4 hospitals some time to get their "standard price" for a
colonoscopy because you want to pay out of pocket. *You will get 4
wildly different, non-competing, capricious prices all of which are
artificially inflated, if you get any answer at all or they dont give
you a blank stare like "wow nobody ever asked us that before". *That
my friend is an indicator of a "sick" market on the cost side. *No
business model is sustainable where pricing is not widely known,
advertised and corrected by competition and advancements in
efficiency. *Our system is doomd simply because pricing is a big
secret with many hands trying to get their piece of it under the
table, and the doctor is shafted further increasing the cost by
decreasing the doctors available.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said and excellent points. *I've said for a long time that
what we need to do is get free market principles applied to
healthcare. *We should be asking the question if free markets
can supply corn flakes, cars, and even life or auto insurance
at reasonable prices, what's wrong with healthcare? *I'd
like to see a committee put together with some top business
CEOs, like Andy Grove, Jack Welch, etc to research it and
figure out what exactly is wrong and how we can fix it.

Instead, we just created another big govt progrm that is
going to do nothing to stop spiraling costs. *Those costs
are ultimately still going to be paid by most of us, either
directly or through taxes.

Nonsense. *How will you educate Joe Commoner so he can properly evaluate
the charges, caring and qualifications of any kind of professional? *

That's where you libs and I differ. You think the typical American
is too stupid to think for himself and needs guys like you and the
govt to do it for them. They can figure out the charges
and qualifications of any kind of professional the same way they
do it now. What do you do when u need a Dr or hospital now? I don't
know about you, but there is no govt office I call to figure it out.


Maybe I should go for a cold efficient doctor who'll just cut and heal my
(whatever). *Or should I go for the warm and fuzzy one, who made more
mistakes?

Actually, we already have that as a free market solution. CVS
offers their Minute Clinics, staffed by nurse practioners or
physician assistants. Have a cold? Need a vaccination?
Just walk in and get treated at a low cost. It works, been
there done that. What we need is MORE of it.



Free markets can only work if just about everyone can fully evaluate the
services provided, and in the case of healthcare that's baloney.

How the hell has it worked then for hundreds of years, including right
now? I pick and choose my own Dr. Rick's point, to which you
obviously object, is that we need to make more information available
so that people can make their own choices. For example, I say
hospitals should have to have the costs for all their services, all
their drugs, etc posted on the web. You have a problem with that?

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:



The health insurance mess is a "gift" from WWII, which is just another
reason to be circumspect about engaging in war after war. They almost
always entail "gifts" that keep on giving.

This has nothing to do with the war. This "gift" is 100% related to
government expediency. The natives were getting restless about the wage
freeze. So the government decided that paying for health insurance
wasn't REALLY a wage increase. The rest is history. It is definitely a
reason to be circumspect about governmental expediency.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Oct 18, 10:01*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:23:21 -0400, "Robert Green"





wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
stuff snipped

The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.
The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do.

I respectfully submit that may be backwards. *I think it was the government
that was doing what Wall St. told it to do. *The system was set up so that
Wall St. made money even when a house was sold to someone who probably
couldn't make the payments. *They got fees, commissions and more fees.
Sadly, the states made loads of money in real estate transfer fees, real
estate taxes, etc.

They were trying to stimulate the economy and what is forgotten here
is the guy who sold the land made money, the builder made money, all
of the contractors made money, everyone in the building supply chain
made money, the real estate broker made money and the mortgage broker
made money. That is a lot of money moving around. It wasn't just Wall
Street. All Wall Street did was create the money in the first place.

Wall Street didn't create any money, they simply provided a vehicle
for exchange.

The losers were the last person to own the house and the people who
held the loans when the music stopped. The derivative holders were
made whole by TARP and everyone involved in the house before the crash
took their money and ran.

For the most part there were no innocent bystanders. Many many years
ago I learned a very valuable lesson about gambling. Got into a
blackjack game on base while in the Air Force. It was a weekend game
with a set time to start and end. When it ended, you settled up and
took your winnings or your loss and went home. I knew what the rules
were when I started playing but like so many others I believed I could
beat the odds and so I started writing IOU's. The game was scheduled
to end at 6AM on Sunday morning. At 4am Sunday morning I was down
several hundred dollars that I didn't have and based on my pay l would
never be able to get. My gut felt like it was being ripped out but I
continued to play knowing that if I tried to leave I would have to
settle before I could leave. The stars were out for me that morning
or my prayers were answered because by 6am I had recovered my debts
and walked away with about $5.

I learned more from that experience than to not play blackjack. I
learned that everything is a calculated gamble and that if you put up
more than you can afford to lose the odds are going to be against you
in the long run. People bought houses that were well beyond their
needs and their means. The lure was that if anything went wrong, they
could simply sell the house in an ever expanding market, take the
money and continue on. I didn't buy into that line back in the 70's
and I sure didn't buy into it in the 00's. This bust was driven by
every segment of our population from the young couple trying to fill a
house they didn't need with funiture bought on the credit card to the
CEO's of the largest companies who shuffled money like it was never
going to end.

I don't place the total blame on the Government, Wall Street,
Corporations, or Joe the Plumber but all of them in total. The
problem for all of them was the same as it was for me in that poker
game, I essentially printed money I didn't have in the form of IOU's
which had they come due would have ended up breaking me (arm, leg,
etc.) Who knew that a lesson learned over 40 years ago would still be
protecting me today?

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


Having the goverment operate as one of the insurers in a pool of many has
the potential to keep costs in line far better than anything short of going
back to having no insurance at all. It would provide a baseline for
comparison and I believe would keep costs better in line. I think that's
true primarily because of how the insurers squawked at the "public option."
On one hand, they say the Federal government is incompetent in everything it
does, then, on the other hand they claim they would be seriously undercut by
the government's massive negotiating power. Which is it, health insurers?

That isn't how it worked here. Indeed, with MCare paying about 60
cents for every dollar the Mean Old Insurance companies pay for similar
diagnosis (and MCaid less 50 cents) I would submit that government is
actually ADDING to costs by cost shifting.


Perhaps insurance should be limited to true, bankrupting disasters and not
for routine office visits.


I would submit (I've doing that a lot lately) that is exactly why
what we have now can't be called insurance. Insurance is generally
defined as taking a rare but costly risk and spreading it out among a
bunch of people. Health insurance as currently structured takes a minor
risk (going to a doctor, etc). Can you imagine the cost of your
homeowners if it included routine maintenance as payout?

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Oct 19, 3:02*am, harry wrote:
On Oct 19, 12:03*am, BobR wrote:





On Oct 18, 12:00*pm, harry wrote:

On Oct 18, 5:02*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:13*pm, RicodJour wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:34*pm, BobR wrote:

On Oct 17, 10:39*am, RicodJour wrote:

One more question - when you're wandering around lost do you slow
down, maybe ask for directions, look for landmarks, and generally take
your time to decide on the best direction?

Or do you just keep wandering around lost and hope for the best?

One question for you...why were you wandering around in the first
place. *Maybe it's the pilot training but even before I became a pilot
I always had a plan and charted my course in advance. * Could it be
that the main problem is that too many have just set off without a
plan, with no set destination, and ended up going in circles.

And if your plan sucked, you got lost. *What happens if it wasn't your
plan, and you were just along for the ride?

If you make a plan with a definate goal and stay the course then you
have little to complain about. *If it wasn't your plan then get your
own, just being along for the ride is your choice.

Do you feel the current economic plan is working? *Social plan? *How's
the war going (pick one)?

My current economic plan is working and so is my social plan. *The
plan and the goal were set a long time ago and while there have been
some detours along the way, the plan and goal are still on track.

How many people around you are voicing their opinion that things are
just dandy? *I'm guessing not one.

You would be guessing wrong which is the real issue when people start
claiming they represent the 99%. *They DON"T.

Things have to change. *That much is clear. *So we can all start
pulling our oars any damn old way, or we can pick a plan and pull in
unison.

Working in unison almost always starts with stopping calling people
names and listening.

I can agree with that but must also include taking responsibility for
yourself first before attempting to direct others. *The one thing that
has been obvious from all the news coverage and interviews is that
everyone is demanding that they get this and they get that but not one
seems to be willing to give anything in return.

R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But their future have been stolen. *That's their complaint.
Theeconomy has been looted with the connivance of politicians and the
"investment banks.

What they are really complaining about is that they have suddenly
discovered that it ain't as easy as they want and that ****es them
off. *Their future hasn't been stolen at all but it might just mean
that they actually have to work for it instead of having it handed to
them on a silver and glod platter. *The damn economy is now and has
always been an up and down moving target. *Everybody thinks it will
always go up with out end and without the occasional correction. *They
get greedy and start betting on making a killing in the market or land
or some other wild bet. *You gamble, you may win or you may loose.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is not how normal people live.
We now have a rich elite and thay gamble and if they win they keep. If
they lose they coming running to the taxpayer.-

Sorry, but that is a bunch of crap. It was far from just the rich
elite that went running to the big daddy government for handouts. It
was all up and down the ladder and everyone with something to lose was
in line, just some got more than others and some got nothing at all.
Take the unions at GM, they got a huge share in the company while all
the stockholders who may have depended on the income from their stock
for a living got NOTHING. All the 401k and retirement funds who had
stakes in GM got nothing. The pain was not evenly distributed and
neither was the payoff.

On Oct 19, 3:16*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:02:51 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly
more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living
in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a family and
send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days are
long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try getting a
job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older
employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's
no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce

The real problem is the whole idea of health insurance. It makes
medical care "free" and nothing is as expensive as something that
people think is free.

Back when we paid the doctor ourselves doctors lived down the street
and they were not conglomerates,, they were small businesses that
people could afford.

If you pile up a couple billion dollars in an insurance company,
everyone will come for it and the insurance companies are happy to pay
it out because they simply raise their premiums to cover expenses.

Having the government be the insurer does not fix that problem, it
only makes it worse because they collect their premiums (taxes) at the
point of a gun.

Having the goverment operate as one of the insurers in a pool of many has
the potential to keep costs in line far better than anything short of going
back to having no insurance at all. *It would provide a baseline for
comparison and I believe would keep costs better in line. *I think that's
true primarily because of how the insurers squawked at the "public option.."
On one hand, they say the Federal government is incompetent in everything it
does, then, on the other hand they claim they would be seriously undercut by
the government's massive negotiating power. *Which is it, health insurers?

Perhaps insurance should be limited to true, bankrupting disasters and not
for routine office visits.

--
Bobby G.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The government has been doing just that for many years now and should
be proof enough for anyone that it isn't working.

On Oct 19, 4:25*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:21 pm, "
wrote:



Well said and excellent points. *I've said for a long time that
what we need to do is get free market principles applied to
healthcare. *We should be asking the question if free markets
can supply corn flakes, cars, and even life or auto insurance
at reasonable prices, what's wrong with healthcare?

I'd say that it's people's view of healthcare. *That and lawyers.
Both the ones chasing ambulances and the ones chasing campaign
contributions.

I'd like to see a committee put together with some top business
CEOs, like Andy Grove, Jack Welch, etc to research it and
figure out what exactly is wrong and how we can fix it.

Instead, we just created another big govt progrm that is
going to do nothing to stop spiraling costs. *Those costs
are ultimately still going to be paid by most of us, either
directly or through taxes.

If Grove and Welch's investigation turned up a report that said that
insurance is a basic need for all people, and as such a nationwide
program was required (broken up into smaller administration groups/
regions/whatever), and that a national/state per capita tax was
required to pay for it, would you be okay with that?

R

Unlike many conservatives, I don't have a problem with the
govt requiring mandatory healthcare coverage for everyone.
I do have a problem with the way it's being done under
Obamacare.

My reasoning goes like this. The only free market solution to
not having universal healthcare coverage and the burden
not being placed unfairly on taxpayers is to refuse to
treat people who can't pay. Unless you do that, then
plenty of people are gonna show up at the emergency
room for treatment and we all get stuck with the bill.
And we all know that we can't do that.

The logical alternative is for everyone to be required to
have insurance. But I'd like to see it done in the private
sector. The govt could spec out a min coverage package.
Everyone would have to buy at least one of those.
And for those with low incomes, the govt would give
them a voucher, the amount depending on income,
that would be used to buy insurance in the private
market.

Then you need to figure out how to increase
competition and why free market principles are not
working well in healthcare, etc.

On Oct 19, 12:12*pm, RickH wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:02*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:





On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a family and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days are long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try getting a job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce

What we need in health care is open pricing, bigger suppy of
providers, and insurance used in a way it is meant to be used, that is
as protection from financial devistation. *Do these three things and
the "cost side" of the equations will come under control. *As long as
health services are always provided with "somebody elses money" via a
health insurance policy that covers things that people should be
paying out of pocket for (like flu shots, stitches,etc) costs will not
come down natually. *Insurance should oonly pay if the cost os over
$5000 (or some formula that would cause financial devistation). *The
govt should make policy that drives down costs. *All they have done
recently is make policy that guarantees higher costs, by covering
every possible little ailment, reducing incentives for more people to
enter medicine, allowing hospitals to hide their pricing, etc. *Unless
costs are encouraged to go down, the current trajectory and recent
legislation (obamacare) is unsustainable. *Hell they just got rid of
the long-term care mandate last friday because they relize it does
absolutely nothing on the cost side and would bankrupt the whole plan.

Try calling 4 hospitals some time to get their "standard price" for a
colonoscopy because you want to pay out of pocket. *You will get 4
wildly different, non-competing, capricious prices all of which are
artificially inflated, if you get any answer at all or they dont give
you a blank stare like "wow nobody ever asked us that before". *That
my friend is an indicator of a "sick" market on the cost side. *No
business model is sustainable where pricing is not widely known,
advertised and corrected by competition and advancements in
efficiency. *Our system is doomd simply because pricing is a big
secret with many hands trying to get their piece of it under the
table, and the doctor is shafted further increasing the cost by
decreasing the doctors available.-

HINT: If you can find one that doesn't accept Medicare or Medicaid
you will find the lowest price by an order of magnatude.

On Oct 19, 6:23*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 18, 10:01*pm, wrote:





On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:23:21 -0400, "Robert Green"

wrote:
wrote in message
.. .
stuff snipped

The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.
The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do.

I respectfully submit that may be backwards. *I think it was the government
that was doing what Wall St. told it to do. *The system was set up so that
Wall St. made money even when a house was sold to someone who probably
couldn't make the payments. *They got fees, commissions and more fees.
Sadly, the states made loads of money in real estate transfer fees, real
estate taxes, etc.

They were trying to stimulate the economy and what is forgotten here
is the guy who sold the land made money, the builder made money, all
of the contractors made money, everyone in the building supply chain
made money, the real estate broker made money and the mortgage broker
made money. That is a lot of money moving around. It wasn't just Wall
Street. All Wall Street did was create the money in the first place.

Wall Street didn't create any money, they simply provided a vehicle
for exchange.

The losers were the last person to own the house and the people who
held the loans when the music stopped. The derivative holders were
made whole by TARP and everyone involved in the house before the crash
took their money and ran.

For the most part there were no innocent bystanders. *Many many years
ago I learned a very valuable lesson about gambling. *Got into a
blackjack game on base while in the Air Force. *It was a weekend game
with a set time to start and end. *When it ended, you settled up and
took your winnings or your loss and went home. *I knew what the rules
were when I started playing but like so many others I believed I could
beat the odds and so I started writing IOU's. *The game was scheduled
to end at 6AM on Sunday morning. *At 4am Sunday morning I was down
several hundred dollars that I didn't have and based on my pay l would
never be able to get. *My gut felt like it was being ripped out but I
continued to play knowing that if I tried to leave I would have to
settle before I could leave. *The stars were out for me that morning
or my prayers were answered because by 6am I had recovered my debts
and walked away with about $5.

I learned more from that experience than to not play blackjack. *I
learned that everything is a calculated gamble and that if you put up
more than you can afford to lose the odds are going to be against you
in the long run. *People bought houses that were well beyond their
needs and their means. *The lure was that if anything went wrong, they
could simply sell the house in an ever expanding market, take the
money and continue on. *I didn't buy into that line back in the 70's
and I sure didn't buy into it in the 00's. *This bust was driven by
every segment of our population from the young couple trying to fill a
house they didn't need with funiture bought on the credit card to the
CEO's of the largest companies who shuffled money like it was never
going to end.

I don't place the total blame on the Government, Wall Street,
Corporations, or Joe the Plumber but all of them in total. *The
problem for all of them was the same as it was for me in that poker
game, I essentially printed money I didn't have in the form of IOU's
which had they come due would have ended up breaking me (arm, leg,
etc.) *Who knew that a lesson learned over 40 years ago would still be
protecting me today?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said. Another fair assessment of the whole situation.
It's amazing how with at least one lib loon here the whole
thing just begins and ends on Wall Street. And then that one
part of Wall Street that dealt with mortgages makes the
whole place evil and everything they do evil.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:01:21 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 12:02:51 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:


Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce


The real problem is the whole idea of health insurance. It makes
medical care "free" and nothing is as expensive as something that
people think is free.


I hear this - or a version of it - all the time.
Most people know very well what they are paying in insurance premiums.
Even those on Medicare know what's coming out of their SS and what
they are paying for supplementals.
So do you know anybody who thinks medical care is "free?"
It's only "free" for those who have nothing with which to pay.

Personally, I don't know anybody who visits a doctor unless they are
sick, or have a medical issue, like a 2" boil on their nose.
I despise seeing a doctor unless I have a real medical issue.
Don't most people have much the same view?

Like most here, I've been paying med insurance premiums for decades.
Tens and tens of thousands of dollars.
Until this year, and excepting 5 babies, I hardly used it.
Exams once a year.
Where did my premiums go?
To the insurance/medical industry, and to provide medical service to
others. That's how insurance works.

Here's what happened to me this year, and reveals a big part of the
problem with insurance/medical costs.
Had to rest a lot because during snow shoveling season because my left
leg was hurting.
After snow shoveling season was over, I didn't walk much at all for
about a month. Basically taking the garbage and dogs out.
Took the train downtown with my wife for her citizenship.
Couldn't walk - leg started going numb - had to cab it to the office.
Went to the doc. Sent me to a surgeon for possible hernia.
Surgeon said hernia wasn't cause, and prescribed 4 MRI/MRA's.
Hospital could only schedule one that day, the other 3 a week later.
I did the one that Thursday.

Sunday my GP calls, and wants me to see a vascular surgeon on Tuesday.
Said I had a blockage.
Went to the vascular surgeon and she showed me the MRI.
Clearly showed the left iliac artery completely blocked.
Blah, blah. So I have PAD (peripheral artery disease.)
No big deal. There's lot worse than that.
Very good care and communication by my medical group.
I was impressed how they communicated rapidly.
Here's the point. I knew the MRI cost $4000.
My insurance only pays 80% until max out-of-pocket, which is $5k.
The insurance takes a big chunk of my wife's paycheck.
$5k a year, plus what her employer takes from her wage to pay the
other part.
Now I'm in for another $800 MRI bite. Okay.
MRI is a good tool.
So I ask the vascular surgeon if I need the other 3 MRI/MRA's.
She said to go ahead and get them.
I wish now I had been more forceful and inquisitive, but I wasn't.
I'm not hurting for money, and I was a bit stunned to find I had this
condition. I used to walk many miles every day
So I got the other 3 and added $12k to bring the tab to $16k, and my
share to $3200.

I repeat, the MRI is a good tool.
In Japan they do them for less than $200.
Mine were $4k a pop.
Something very wrong there.
Besides the cost, I'm skeptical there was any reason for the last 3
of them.
I'm going to pin the vascular surgeon down on this when I see her in
about 6 months.
She might have seen it as just part of good medical care.
She might have seen it as not bucking the surgeon who prescribed the
MRI's.
She might have seen it as a "preventative" tort issue deal.
She might have stock in the medical group, and some MRI profits go to
her.
Lot's of possibilities.

Anyway, I think most people are aware medical care is far from free.
Especially when the bills arrive.
I got a kick (growl) when I got multiple bills from a radiologist
for "reading" the MRI/MRA's.
My wife was joking after the 3rd bill,
"That's probably the office janitor's cut."
I coughed up the dough.

--Vic

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 06:48:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 18, 10:48Â*pm, RickH wrote:
On Oct 18, 8:56Â*am, "
wrote:



Fannie DC
AIG NY
Freddie VA
GM MI
Bank of America NC
Citigroup NY
JP Morgan NY
Wells Fargo CA

Most of the money from other than Fannie and Freddie
has been REPAID.


Do you know where they got the money to "repay" the bailout?
From the Fed.
Fed printed money, "loaned" it to the banks a zero or almost zero
interest.
Banks bought U.S. securities paying an average spread of about 3%.

So the taxpayer loaned the banks bailout money.
Then the taxpayer paid in inflation to print and loan low interest
money to the banks.
Then the taxpayer paid higher interest to them on gov securities so
the banks could "pay back" the taxpayer.
What a circle jerk.
And you wonder why people are ****ed at big banks?
Kudos to Ron Paul and others who pushed to get revealed the heretofore
secret Fed machinations.

--Vic

On Oct 19, 6:41 pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 19, 4:25 pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 19, " wrote:

Well said and excellent points. I've said for a long time that
what we need to do is get free market principles applied to
healthcare. We should be asking the question if free markets
can supply corn flakes, cars, and even life or auto insurance
at reasonable prices, what's wrong with healthcare?

I'd say that it's people's view of healthcare. That and lawyers.
Both the ones chasing ambulances and the ones chasing campaign
contributions.

I'd like to see a committee put together with some top business
CEOs, like Andy Grove, Jack Welch, etc to research it and
figure out what exactly is wrong and how we can fix it.

Instead, we just created another big govt progrm that is
going to do nothing to stop spiraling costs. Those costs
are ultimately still going to be paid by most of us, either
directly or through taxes.

If Grove and Welch's investigation turned up a report that said that
insurance is a basic need for all people, and as such a nationwide
program was required (broken up into smaller administration groups/
regions/whatever), and that a national/state per capita tax was
required to pay for it, would you be okay with that?


Unlike many conservatives, I don't have a problem with the
govt requiring mandatory healthcare coverage for everyone.
I do have a problem with the way it's being done under
Obamacare.

Fair enough. How do you think the Supreme Court will divide on the
issue?

My reasoning goes like this. The only free market solution to
not having universal healthcare coverage and the burden
not being placed unfairly on taxpayers is to refuse to
treat people who can't pay.

That smacks of NIMBY and I've-Got-Mine-Tough-On-You. To make it fair
all the way around, I'd extend that to include refusing healthcare
coverage to people that can pay, but who are so old and/or ill that it
is simply a useless extension of life. Check out the statistics on
end of life surgery and procedures. The amount spent is absurd.
Nobody is supposed to live forever.

Unless you do that, then
plenty of people are gonna show up at the emergency
room for treatment and we all get stuck with the bill.
And we all know that we can't do that.

If it's an emergency, it's an emergency. I don't want to see medical
care devolve to that level. Obviously "preventative maintenance" is
beneficial whether it's in home repair or health. That should be the
focus. It's far cheaper in both cases.

The logical alternative is for everyone to be required to
have insurance. But I'd like to see it done in the private
sector. The govt could spec out a min coverage package.
Everyone would have to buy at least one of those.
And for those with low incomes, the govt would give
them a voucher, the amount depending on income,
that would be used to buy insurance in the private
market.

Certainly an alternative. I don't have a particular form in mind. I
just don't want to see an inferior product with overlap and waste.

Then you need to figure out how to increase
competition and why free market principles are not
working well in healthcare, etc.

Free market principles. How about baseball? That's an example of a
messed up 'free market'. The American sport, right? Been to a
baseball came lately? A family of four can't go to a game and get out
for less than $100 or $150. And why? Because the owners are busy
building new stadiums, putting corporate logos on them, building a lot
of boxes and corporations are paying any amount and writing it off.
It's a bunch of crap and the little guy - that includes your little
guys, assuming you have children or grandchildren - are the ones that
are getting the short end of the stick. I object to that. I object
to municipalities placing huge bond burdens on everyone's backs to do
it.

In a lot of the back and forth on a newsgroup there are often labels
being applied and people putting other people in categories. I'm
neither a liberal or a conservative, though I have sympathies with and
objections to both. I have no problem with executives getting
millions of dollars if they earn it. I do have an objection with
essentially unlimited 'business' write offs for corporations, and
particularly when those write offs are not taxed. That's simply a
crime in my opinion, regardless of whether it's currently allowed by
the tax code. I'm surprised that all shareholders don't object to
it. It's their money being spent.

But back to my question - if after their careful review Welch & Co
recommend a nationwide plan and a tax to cover it as the best option,
balancing costs and coverage, would you be in favor of it?

R

On Oct 19, 5:26*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:

Having the goverment operate as one of the insurers in a pool of many has
the potential to keep costs in line far better than anything short of going
back to having no insurance at all. *It would provide a baseline for
comparison and I believe would keep costs better in line. *I think that's
true primarily because of how the insurers squawked at the "public option."
On one hand, they say the Federal government is incompetent in everything it
does, then, on the other hand they claim they would be seriously undercut by
the government's massive negotiating power. *Which is it, health insurers?

* That isn't how it worked here. Indeed, with MCare paying about 60
cents for every dollar the Mean Old Insurance companies pay for similar
diagnosis (and MCaid less 50 cents) I would submit that government is
actually ADDING to costs by cost shifting.



Perhaps insurance should be limited to true, bankrupting disasters and not
for routine office visits.

* *I would submit (I've doing that a lot lately) that is exactly why
what we have now can't be called insurance. Insurance is generally
defined as taking a rare but costly risk and spreading it out among a
bunch of people. Health insurance as currently structured takes a minor
risk (going to a doctor, etc). Can you imagine the cost of your
homeowners if it included routine maintenance as payout?

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz


Or grocery insurance. We should have insurance policies that will
allow us to get our groceries for free, that would be cool. And to
make it even better grocery stores should not have to put prices on
groceries, dont need public pricing because the insurance just pays
for it.

Insurance is a financial instrument to protect yourself from
devistating events. Health insurance should not be used for a flu
shot or stitches and other minor things. It sould protect you from a
cost that you would not normally have that is over the amount you
chose to protect yourself at, as paid for on your policy. If its
gonna be the payment vehicle for everything from a sneeze to someone
who wants to talk to a counselor because her husband bowls too much,
then it is not insurance anymore, its an expensive middle-man that
obfuscates the true cost of everything and manipulates the market to
determine who gets what. It can do this primarily because it has full
control over secret pricing. It does not matter if this so-called
insurance is govt or privately managed.

On Oct 19, 6:12*pm, RickH wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:02*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:





On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a family and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days are long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try getting a job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce

What we need in health care is open pricing, bigger suppy of
providers, and insurance used in a way it is meant to be used, that is
as protection from financial devistation. *Do these three things and
the "cost side" of the equations will come under control. *As long as
health services are always provided with "somebody elses money" via a
health insurance policy that covers things that people should be
paying out of pocket for (like flu shots, stitches,etc) costs will not
come down natually. *Insurance should oonly pay if the cost os over
$5000 (or some formula that would cause financial devistation). *The
govt should make policy that drives down costs. *All they have done
recently is make policy that guarantees higher costs, by covering
every possible little ailment, reducing incentives for more people to
enter medicine, allowing hospitals to hide their pricing, etc. *Unless
costs are encouraged to go down, the current trajectory and recent
legislation (obamacare) is unsustainable. *Hell they just got rid of
the long-term care mandate last friday because they relize it does
absolutely nothing on the cost side and would bankrupt the whole plan.

Try calling 4 hospitals some time to get their "standard price" for a
colonoscopy because you want to pay out of pocket. *You will get 4
wildly different, non-competing, capricious prices all of which are
artificially inflated, if you get any answer at all or they dont give
you a blank stare like "wow nobody ever asked us that before". *That
my friend is an indicator of a "sick" market on the cost side. *No
business model is sustainable where pricing is not widely known,
advertised and corrected by competition and advancements in
efficiency. *Our system is doomd simply because pricing is a big
secret with many hands trying to get their piece of it under the
table, and the doctor is shafted further increasing the cost by
decreasing the doctors available.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are missing the main point. There is no profit motive in the NHS
(UK).
No shareholders/owners to pay. The NHS has massive purchasing power.
It will still be available to me if I lose my job. There is no
incentive to give me treatment I don't need either.

On Oct 19, 6:21*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 19, 1:12*pm, RickH wrote:





On Oct 19, 11:02*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a family and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days are long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try getting a job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Perce

What we need in health care is open pricing, bigger suppy of
providers, and insurance used in a way it is meant to be used, that is
as protection from financial devistation. *Do these three things and
the "cost side" of the equations will come under control. *As long as
health services are always provided with "somebody elses money" via a
health insurance policy that covers things that people should be
paying out of pocket for (like flu shots, stitches,etc) costs will not
come down natually. *Insurance should oonly pay if the cost os over
$5000 (or some formula that would cause financial devistation). *The
govt should make policy that drives down costs. *All they have done
recently is make policy that guarantees higher costs, by covering
every possible little ailment, reducing incentives for more people to
enter medicine, allowing hospitals to hide their pricing, etc. *Unless
costs are encouraged to go down, the current trajectory and recent
legislation (obamacare) is unsustainable. *Hell they just got rid of
the long-term care mandate last friday because they relize it does
absolutely nothing on the cost side and would bankrupt the whole plan.

Try calling 4 hospitals some time to get their "standard price" for a
colonoscopy because you want to pay out of pocket. *You will get 4
wildly different, non-competing, capricious prices all of which are
artificially inflated, if you get any answer at all or they dont give
you a blank stare like "wow nobody ever asked us that before". *That
my friend is an indicator of a "sick" market on the cost side. *No
business model is sustainable where pricing is not widely known,
advertised and corrected by competition and advancements in
efficiency. *Our system is doomd simply because pricing is a big
secret with many hands trying to get their piece of it under the
table, and the doctor is shafted further increasing the cost by
decreasing the doctors available.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said and excellent points. *I've said for a long time that
what we need to do is get free market principles applied to
healthcare. *We should be asking the question if free markets
can supply corn flakes, cars, and even life or auto insurance
at reasonable prices, what's wrong with healthcare? *I'd
like to see a committee put together with some top business
CEOs, like Andy Grove, Jack Welch, etc to research it and
figure out what exactly is wrong and how we can fix it.

Instead, we just created another big govt progrm that is
going to do nothing to stop spiraling costs. *Those costs
are ultimately still going to be paid by most of us, either
directly or through taxes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Freemarket has failed. Haven't you noticed?

On Oct 19, 7:10*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote :





On Oct 19, 1:12*pm, RickH wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:02*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived
financial security in a much hotter market with jobs that
provided significantl
y more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people
living
*in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a
family
and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days
ar
e long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably
do
n't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try
getting
*a job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older
empl
oyees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless
there
's no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance
coverage with premiums dependent on income rather than on
employment. Employers paying health insurance premiums was an
accident of US history that has no advantages and serious
disadvantages.

Perce

What we need in health care is open pricing, bigger suppy of
providers, and insurance used in a way it is meant to be used, that
is as protection from financial devistation. *Do these three things
and the "cost side" of the equations will come under control. *As
long as health services are always provided with "somebody elses
money" via a health insurance policy that covers things that people
should be paying out of pocket for (like flu shots, stitches,etc)
costs will not come down natually. *Insurance should oonly pay if the
cost os over $5000 (or some formula that would cause financial
devistation). *The govt should make policy that drives down costs.
*All they have done recently is make policy that guarantees higher
costs, by covering every possible little ailment, reducing incentives
for more people to enter medicine, allowing hospitals to hide their
pricing, etc. *Unless costs are encouraged to go down, the current
trajectory and recent legislation (obamacare) is unsustainable. *Hell
they just got rid of the long-term care mandate last friday because
they relize it does absolutely nothing on the cost side and would
bankrupt the whole plan.

Try calling 4 hospitals some time to get their "standard price" for a
colonoscopy because you want to pay out of pocket. *You will get 4
wildly different, non-competing, capricious prices all of which are
artificially inflated, if you get any answer at all or they dont give
you a blank stare like "wow nobody ever asked us that before". *That
my friend is an indicator of a "sick" market on the cost side. *No
business model is sustainable where pricing is not widely known,
advertised and corrected by competition and advancements in
efficiency. *Our system is doomd simply because pricing is a big
secret with many hands trying to get their piece of it under the
table, and the doctor is shafted further increasing the cost by
decreasing the doctors available.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said and excellent points. *I've said for a long time that
what we need to do is get free market principles applied to
healthcare. *We should be asking the question if free markets
can supply corn flakes, cars, and even life or auto insurance
at reasonable prices, what's wrong with healthcare? *I'd
like to see a committee put together with some top business
CEOs, like Andy Grove, Jack Welch, etc to research it and
figure out what exactly is wrong and how we can fix it.

Instead, we just created another big govt progrm that is
going to do nothing to stop spiraling costs. *Those costs
are ultimately still going to be paid by most of us, either
directly or through taxes.

Nonsense. *How will you educate Joe Commoner so he can properly evaluate
the charges, caring and qualifications of any kind of professional? *
Maybe I should go for a cold efficient doctor who'll just cut and heal my
(whatever). *Or should I go for the warm and fuzzy one, who made more
mistakes?

Free markets can only work if just about everyone can fully evaluate the
services provided, and in the case of healthcare that's baloney.


Exactly so.

On Oct 19, 10:18*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
That's my observation, also. Libs tend to be free floating
bundle of outrage, with few specifics and no clues.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

wrote in message

...

Ive seen libs asked a simple question and have yet to see
one give an answer. *A rich guy makes $100. *How much
of that should govt take?

Gee, I thought Robert would know how the rich are taxed.
He's the one always bitching about it. *But, apparently he's
as clueless about that as everything else. *Typical lib, all
emotion, no facts.

So the Palin cow is an intellectual?

On Oct 19, 9:12*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in ...





On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived financial
security in a much hotter market with jobs that provided significantly
more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people living in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a family and
send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days are
long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably don't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try getting a
job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older employees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless there's
no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance coverage
with premiums dependent on income rather than on employment. Employers
paying health insurance premiums was an accident of US history that has
no advantages and serious disadvantages.

Agree 100%. *I think it would have been far more palatable to just lower the
age of Medicare eligibility for people who have worked all their lives and
have the appropriate number of "quarters" paid into the system. *They helped
build this country and are now getting kicked to the curb just because they
got old.

Instead, Obama wanted to cover people who may not have contributed very much
(if anything) to the building of America and OF COURSE this raised the
hackles of every hard-working person in America. *It was a stupid move and
it may cost him his second term. *I've got to say, Perce, I'm a little
embarrassed that you know a lot more about how America works (or doesn't)
than a lot of native-born Americans. (-:

The health insurance mess is a "gift" from WWII, which is just another
reason to be circumspect about engaging in war after war. *They almost
always entail "gifts" that keep on giving. *The cost for caring for wounded
AfRaq vets is estimated to be nearly 1 trillion dollars over the next 30-40
years. *Lots of people want to wage war, but they want someone else to pay
for them, especially when lots of the bills don't come due long after the
wars have ended. *As Barney Frank said: "Everybody wants to get to heaven,
but nobody wants to die."

I have a 55 year old accountant friend who's entered a serious depressive
state because he's been sending out resumes, answering want ads and pounding
the pavement for six months since the company he worked for filed for
bankruptcy. *He's worked hard all his life but now, nobody wants him because
he's got diabetes and they're afraid to hire him although they never come
out and say it. *He's told me that interviewers promise to call back but
never do, he has to chase them to get the bad news. *That's sad. *It used to
be societies looked to their elders for experience and guidance. *Now,
they're treated like a worn out pair of shoes.

--
Bobby G.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you had an NHS, this would not be an issue. Your accountant friend
would get a job no problem. Your health system is evil.

On Oct 19, 11:03*pm, BobR wrote:
On Oct 19, 3:06*am, harry wrote:





On Oct 19, 12:15*am, BobR wrote:

On Oct 18, 12:58*pm, wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:00:10 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

On Oct 18, 5:02*pm, BobR wrote:

But their future have been stolen. *That's their complaint.
Theeconomy has been looted with the connivance of politicians and the
"investment banks".

The economy was not as much "looted" as it was artificially inflated
with easy money and subsequently that bubble popped.

As it has many times before and due to ignorance and greed it will
again.

The "trillions" that disappeared from the economy never really existed
in the first place. There were 20 years of bad political decisions
that led up to that. There is plenty of blame to spread around. Wall
Street was just doing what the government told them to do. Create a
booming housing market among buyers who were too broke to actually
afford houses.. It was the government that operated Fannie, Freddie,
The Federal Reserve and who repealed virtually all of the New Deal
regulation. You could not have had the derivatives without the CFMA of
2000.

It's like saying that Bill Gates is worth n-billion dollars based on
the paper value of his stock. *Sounds good but if Gates decided to try
and cash in all of that stock his billions would evaporate pretty
quickly. *The same is true in the housing market and any other market
that you can name. *The value is totally dependent on what people are
willing to pay and if they suddenly decide they can't pay as much, the
market is going to go down. *It can almost be guaranteed that any
market that goes up to fast, or goes up continously for too long is
headed for a crash unless there is some true growth to drive that
market. *There was no real growth driving the housing market and like
it did in the 70's, the speculation reached a saturation point and
down it came. *The banks might have made it easier than it should have
been but they were obviously just as stupid as were the public that
was buying more than they knew they could afford in the belief it was
easy money.

It was when they could sell their worthless loans to someone else.
(Including the EU/UK banks.)
It was all part of a plan. They knew what they were about.
But what goes around comes around

Its rather difficult to sell something when there are no buyers.
Someone was buying because they thought they could make something from
it. *Someone was investing because they thought they could make
something from it. *The real problem came from the fact that too many
wanted to believe what they wanted to believe without analysis and
they paid the price. *I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who
lost their shirt while trying to screw someone else.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All the **** was/is being unloaded onto the taxpayer. (eg "bad loan
banks")
The credit/rating agencies were all part of the crooked deal. They
were incentivised to give good ratings what turned out to be crap. It
was all planned and organised by crooks in the financial system.
These are the heads that need to be on poles.

On Oct 19, 11:05*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 19, 2:10*pm, Han wrote:





" wrote :

On Oct 19, 1:12*pm, RickH wrote:
On Oct 19, 11:02*am, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 10/19/11 11:06 am, Robert Green wrote:

I think many of the Tea Partiers realize that they acheived
financial security in a much hotter market with jobs that
provided significantl
y more
benefits and they fear redistribution of that wealth to people
living
*in
today's much tougher times. *Back then, a man could raise a
family
and send
his kids to college without his wife having to work. *Those days
ar
e long,
long gone. *Retirees starting to draw from their 401K's probably
do
n't
realize that unless they have kids who are struggling. *Try
getting
*a job in
your 50's. *Most companies won't admit it, but they know older
empl
oyees
will cause their health costs to soar so they avoid them unless
there
's no
other choice.

Thia is another reason why we need universal health insurance
coverage with premiums dependent on income rather than on
employment. Employers paying health insurance premiums was an
accident of US history that has no advantages and serious
disadvantages.

Perce

What we need in health care is open pricing, bigger suppy of
providers, and insurance used in a way it is meant to be used, that
is as protection from financial devistation. *Do these three things
and the "cost side" of the equations will come under control. *As
long as health services are always provided with "somebody elses
money" via a health insurance policy that covers things that people
should be paying out of pocket for (like flu shots, stitches,etc)
costs will not come down natually. *Insurance should oonly pay if the
cost os over $5000 (or some formula that would cause financial
devistation). *The govt should make policy that drives down costs.
*All they have done recently is make policy that guarantees higher
costs, by covering every possible little ailment, reducing incentives
for more people to enter medicine, allowing hospitals to hide their
pricing, etc. *Unless costs are encouraged to go down, the current
trajectory and recent legislation (obamacare) is unsustainable. *Hell
they just got rid of the long-term care mandate last friday because
they relize it does absolutely nothing on the cost side and would
bankrupt the whole plan.

Try calling 4 hospitals some time to get their "standard price" for a
colonoscopy because you want to pay out of pocket. *You will get 4
wildly different, non-competing, capricious prices all of which are
artificially inflated, if you get any answer at all or they dont give
you a blank stare like "wow nobody ever asked us that before". *That
my friend is an indicator of a "sick" market on the cost side. *No
business model is sustainable where pricing is not widely known,
advertised and corrected by competition and advancements in
efficiency. *Our system is doomd simply because pricing is a big
secret with many hands trying to get their piece of it under the
table, and the doctor is shafted further increasing the cost by
decreasing the doctors available.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well said and excellent points. *I've said for a long time that
what we need to do is get free market principles applied to
healthcare. *We should be asking the question if free markets
can supply corn flakes, cars, and even life or auto insurance
at reasonable prices, what's wrong with healthcare? *I'd
like to see a committee put together with some top business
CEOs, like Andy Grove, Jack Welch, etc to research it and
figure out what exactly is wrong and how we can fix it.

Instead, we just created another big govt progrm that is
going to do nothing to stop spiraling costs. *Those costs
are ultimately still going to be paid by most of us, either
directly or through taxes.

Nonsense. *How will you educate Joe Commoner so he can properly evaluate
the charges, caring and qualifications of any kind of professional? *

That's where you libs and I differ. *You think the typical American
is too stupid to think for himself and needs guys like you and the
govt to do it for them. *They can figure out the charges
and qualifications of any kind of professional the same way they
do it now. *What do you do when u need a Dr or hospital now? *I don't
know about you, but there is no govt office I call to figure it out.

Maybe I should go for a cold efficient doctor who'll just cut and heal my
(whatever). *Or should I go for the warm and fuzzy one, who made more
mistakes?

Actually, we already have that as a free market solution. *CVS
offers their Minute Clinics, staffed by nurse practioners or
physician assistants. *Have a cold? *Need a vaccination?
Just walk in and get treated at a low cost. *It works, been
there done that. *What we need is MORE of it.



Free markets can only work if just about everyone can fully evaluate the
services provided, and in the case of healthcare that's baloney.

How the hell has it worked then for hundreds of years, including right
now? * I pick and choose my own Dr. *Rick's point, to which you
obviously object, is that we need to make more information available
so that people can make their own choices. *For example, I say
hospitals should have to have the costs for all their services, all
their drugs, etc posted on the web. *You have a problem with that?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Simple. Because things have got complicated. Thats why we have
experts and division of labour.
But throw in liars and we are all in trouble.