| Author |
|
Scott Richards
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2005
Posts: 1258
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 10:29am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Insurance is a scam! The American people would be better off without it. The insurance companies are the guiding force in the increase in cost.
All well and good, but how would you propose getting rid of it without making the stocks in those insurance companies worthless, which I explained previously, would make the current economic crisis look like a picnic.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jeff Alan Hays
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 January 2007
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 10:40am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
A few things come to mind when the idea of "inexpensive", government subsidized health care comes up- the money comes from somewhere.
Countries like Canada lag behind in more advanced medical technologies and treatment. In the early 90's, there were certain U.S. states that had more MRI scanners than the entire country of Canada. Canada is still woefully behind in this area.
True case- 30-something year old female living in Canada with headache, neurologic signs. A CT scan shows a possible mass effect. She has to wait a 4 weeks for a head MRI. This is a very scary and not uncommon scenario in such countries.
Some of these countries are adequate at simple health care needs but not more complex requirements. Chemotherapeutics, cardiac surgery, advanced imaging and testing, etc. are all more limited and rationed in countries with government controlled health care systems.
John Bodin's observations are accurate. As it exists now, increasing government intervention in the medical system has complicated patient care and costs considerably.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Jeff Alan Hays
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 January 2007
Posts: 133
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 10:55am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
A comment on the cost of routine supplies in hospitals, and one that is not a full defense because hospitals have been overtaken by bureaucrats who are often very short-sighted.
Hospitals are dealing with the same cost issues hitting the rest of the health care community- massive malpractice costs, decreased reimbursement from private and government insurers, increased documentation and administrative costs and more.
An example: 15 + years ago, if someone on the floor needed a sterile gauze or wooden tongue depressor, a nurse, MD etc., would walk in a supply room and grab one. This was true for many decades and seemed to work fine. Now, because of obtuse legal concerns and state/federal regulations, this can't be done. Also, insurers won't reimburse unless everything is accounted for in the context of individual patient needs. So, doors have to have electronic combination locks installed. All supplies must be further kept in expensive Pyxis machines which electronically monitor who gets a tongue depressor out and which patient it will be used for. This all adds significantly to hospital costs and those costs will be passed on somewhere.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 10:58am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
| "Today was a day that will go down in istory....SNIP....AIG is having a fire-sale of assets." |
|
|
I was a little more succinct on Monday morning:
"It's a correction, Joe. I've long ago stated my thoughts on a recession. In my post to Monte, I stated that all the numbers trend towards exactly that conclusion: a recession. 'Just my take, but wait til you see the drop today as the floor gets swept."
QUOTE:
| “I’m playing the hand that was dealt me,” Paulson said sounding more like a card shark than a Treasury Secretary. He should resign today. He's a disgrace. Now, Wall St. is on its knees praying the Fed will cut rates. Let's have some hyperinflation folks!! |
|
|
Having applauded the decision on Sunday, I had no problem with Monday's press conference. AIG, on the other hand? I will say--and you should appreciate it--this time around *I'd* pay a thousand bucks to see just the first twenty names on the counter party roster. I understand the rationale of the decision, don't get me wrong, but still...just one glimpse.
On inflation? America has always worried more about deflation, while Europe (with the depression and post WWII reconstruction a lot firmer in their collective, financial psyche) will always worry more about inflation. As it was, nobody was praying for a cut of 50 basis points, and when it didn't come, that was that (with the possible exception of the arbitrage guys hoping for one, as a rate cut always weakens the dollar). There is no credit out there anyway, and a 50 basis point cut wasn't going to change that.
Again, on the 79.9% bit for AIG? VERY mixed feelings. Like everyone else, I'm going to have to see the non-after-hours reaction today and over the next week to the notion of the American government being the newest, biggest LBO in history before I have any real sense of the move long term. In principal, it smacks of taking a step too far down the road of further Socializaton of the markets.
QUOTE:
| But we don't really know the situation do we? We don't know the name of the next corpse to arrive at the morgue will be do we? |
|
|
Michael, we were discussing your idea of notional value. Now, you want to wonder what the CDR spread is on Merril or Wachovia? You asked about the Bear-Stearns Deal, and I responded. Remember when counterparty risk was still called default risk? No, I buy the line regarding the AIG move stabilizing the market. It is the method which troubles me. Chapter 11 would have allowed for an orderly sell off, and let the money flow from the inept to the capable as the market was intended.
Oh, I mentioned domestic, but overseas? Well, while we're having fun, how about HBOS; or the rumour of Lloyds sniffing around HBOS?
QUOTE:
No, you don't need to go back and dig up my old quotes.
I believe the financial system has already collapsed with much more debris to float ashore. I believe the financial system is bankrupt and that rearranging of deck chairs on the Titanic (the bailouts) aren't going to help matters at all. I believe these bailouts will worsen the crisis.
You don't believe the financial crisis is of that severity or you might not even believe that there is a financial crisis. I don't recall whether or not you said you believed one existed or not. I do seem to recall you saying we had some "problems" but can't remember exactly what you thought they were. |
|
|
Michael, come on. I've offered not only recession, but depression. Our disagreement is that neither amounts to your new world order or comes anywhere close to the realization of what you're touting. I'm sorry to bear the news, but it isn't going to happen in your lifetime. It is exactly this sort of talk that had me calling you a reactionary nut. You don't even present a hint of a clear model. Once again, I point out a simple economic fact in the modern global economy, and everyone immediately responds that what I'm saying doesn't equate to perfection. Meanwhile you and everyone else scream "It's like the sinking of the Titanic!"
Thirty years? Why not just add a few years and draw the demarcation at your real gripe: the adoption of a fiat system. I mean, reading this latest post, that is really the basis of your entire thesis. You and everyone like you come out of the woodwork at every downturn. 1987 was no different than the late Seventies with a wave of distopian cries. '91 was no different than '97, and the fringe cried in unison about a fundamental breakdown of the very system itself...no matter that they were talking about socialism, mixed economies and everything to one degree or another in between...and the inescapable conclusion that it had all just gone too, too far. It may well happen eventually, this isn't even close to that day...and, again, it wouldn't matter if a depression struck and the downturn lasted for years.
QUOTE:
Maybe fifteen years ago I would have said regulate and tax them (as a way of drying them out so we would not have gotten to this point) but I think it is too late for that. At things stand now I think perhaps a general bankruptcy reorganization of the economy (and not just the USA's either) is in order.
The Italian government (among others) have been calling for this sort of action for years, recognizing the systemic threat.
It isn't just a US problem. It is international and will only be solved with international action and I don't mean wars.
Only the US, acting in concert with the other great powers of the world, could solve this. I am talking about Russia, China, Europe, etc. Maybe a new monetary conference akin to the Bretton Woods conference? Former Italian Finance Minister Giulio Tremonti called for such actions back in March of 2008. Some Russian government officials backed his call. I also believe the Chinese government had a positive response to this call for a new monetary conference.
I tend to believe that most European governments (including Russia, which is a European nation), China and India would welcome such a measure. I believe most of the world would rejoice at such a conference to bring under control an out of control worldwide financial crisis. |
|
|
No, Michael, the plain truth is that you don't have a realistic alternative to the derivatives market. This was my point when you've gone on in that vein. You don't like naked shorts? In a systemic sense who does? And? There's nothing, by their nature, tangible in a derivatives mark; but your thesis would toss out the baby with the bath water.
No, the most one might offer is a greater crackdown on the abuse and, perhaps, a return to calls for strict mark to market mandates. Transparency will only materialize along this line; and without all of the wrong moves being implemented at what is the downward swing of a cycle. Michael, derivatives are not going away. The new SEC rulings this morning are *a* step towards (there's no way to detect, much less punish all the chronic shorters) carving out some transparency. Their ultimate efficiency will have to be tested. In that regard, I wouldn't hold my breath given the very nature of what we're talking about...but, look, how long have people been bitching about this aspect of the derivatives market? Since day one, practically.
Bretton Woods? No. At the regulator level, the most you'll see domestically is a revamped RTC-like move. The idea is already floated--as it always is after ANY economic event. The possibility of a private equivalent, you've already mentioned yourself. The fact that the RTC finally saw materialization in the early Nineties, may or may not give guidance in the current climate. Internationally? No, I don't see it.
So, those are your likely options: RTC-like entity, an untested SEC crackdown that everyone is in favor of in theory, or some out-of-the-blue longshot that gains interest. On the longshot, it won't be anything like your World Council...but maybe something simple like the old Prussian covered bonds (the Economist had an intriguing article on the 11th).
BTW, you do remember your remarks about the Austrian School of Theory? Okay. You realize that your arguments tally to a large extent the general thesis of the Austrian School, right? A striking of the fiat money system; emphasis on fundamental domestic production; disregard for both modern financial instruments AND instrumentality; etc? Anyway...
Edited by Michael Myers on 17 September 2008 at 11:16am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 December 2004
Posts: 831
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 11:09am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Michael Retour wrote:
| I don't know if you read the international press. You might. If you do you know as well as I do this "banking" crisis, or "housing" crisis, or "economic" crisis isn't confined to the US. This needs to be repeated over and over. You've pointed it out when you mentioned the fictional values on real estate in other nations being worse than ours. |
|
|
Not just overvaluation, but also in my reference to the published national debt standings, GDP slowing, etc. I agree that this aspect can't be heralded enough. Again, for different reasons. In your preamble to this post, you mentioned the Fed and overseas injections but fail to give *full* weight to the WAVE of CBs who have practically had to fall over themselves to pump in their own liquidity. Why? Because America points out the direction. Good or bad, this is the case.
QUOTE:
Short of potent action, taken by governments in concert, matters will get worse and accelerate.
That's my answer to "derivatives" but the system is the problem and derivatives are just a feature of the system. Greenspan, as you know, fought tooth and nail to keep derivatives OBS during his tenure as Fed chair. He fought to keep them unregulated and now everyone is going to pay the price for his "hollow victory" in the matter.
The market is reacting favorably? The market today is more of a con-game than a real gauge of how American companies are doing. How many more accounting scandals do we need to see that? |
|
|
Again, your answer is nothing but a round of more questions. The conservatorship of the GSEs? Yes, in terms of stability, the market has thus far reacted favorably.
I wrote:
| No, it can't be termed a simple bailout for overseas institutions as the collateral is mostly domestic. Overseas institutions do benefit, just not in the direct method to which i gather you refer. The benefit is the same as to everyone else, and to a lesser degree than domestic concerns when ripple effects are considered. |
|
|
you wrote:
| You misunderstood me. I didn't mean to imply it was a "simple bailout for overseas institutions" but did mean to imply the ripple effects are worldwide. Just Lehman's bankruptcy, the fourth largest investment bank, rattled bourses around the world Mike and you know that (this was before the other "body count" numbers for the day came in). The folks dying from starvation worldwide are dying due to a systemic worldwide economic crisis not because they didn't get rain last year. |
|
|
I took your implication, in line with your former tout, that its hidden goal was the implicit relief of overseas institutions. As in your saying: "Isn't the Treasury really not so much stepping in to help Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac but it is using them to get through a huge taxpayer bailout to international banks holding Fannie and Freddie and other mortgage securities? That is what I believe."
I wrote:
| ]If it was, indeed, simply a case of the Fed 'starting the ball rolling', then ALL of the other countries in worse shape than we regarding market overvaluation, would not, in fact, be in a worse spot. Now, this isn't the case, is it? Or, at the very least, market overvaluation would have first evidenced itself in America. Also, not the case. |
|
|
you wrote:
| I never said the Fed "started" the housing bubble did I? |
|
|
Yeah, Michael, you did. You and Joe, and everyone else in an implicit sense, have stated just that idea. Nevermind that it was President Bush and a new Fed who supported a revamp of the GSEs, only to be balked by the Democrats in congress because their pet baby--Fannie and Freddie--might have to be weaned and because fighting such a weaning might mean greater votes from traditional Democrat constituencies. Such opposition from the Democrat side of the aisle to the decades long push by Repubvlicans to reform the GSEs *certainly* meant more in campaign donations, I grant you. And yes, a failure of resolution on that same Republican side when the Democrats started playing hardball.
QUOTE:
| I agree the housing values are worse in some places but there are no worse banks than the American ones when it comes to good old derivatives are there? Now, who lit the fuse on this Boris and Natasha bomb going off all over the world? The American financial system did in order to feed the bubble (others had their part but it was mainly to prop up this nation's illusion of prosperity and the delusion people have of the "mighty American economy"). Social Security liquidity flows were attempted to be diverted into the stock market in order to prop up the system. That failed. Housing came in next. Popular shows like "Flip This House" or whatever it is called came on (they might have named it "I've Flipped My Lid"). Does anyone actually believe you can base your economy on selling each other homes? On speculation? A nation of speculators? What about production of durable goods? Industry? Agriculture? Rebuilding of infrastructure? The last four items I mentioned would make a nation strong and justify a strong market, a strong dollar, etc. but I am not in charge of matters like that am I? |
|
|
Michael, what century are we living in? What is American market share in the global economy? What technology are you and I using to converse? You've got to spare me this junior high equivalent of world economics, brother. Michael, our global marketplace is one of goods *and* services. I don't support the extreme opposite end of your stance by any means, but neither do I simply ignore the facts of global economy.
I'll obviously agree on the symptoms evidenced by examples like the tv shows you mention. "Hey, buy this house with no money down and bad credit...then buy three more just like it with subprime, liar loans that you can't possibly cover if you fail! It's great!" But, at the end of the day, you, Michael, go straight to the other extreme and promote a nation of moribund economic growth, at best. We'll have that for the next year, *at least*.
What else? Your recommendations would mean, for instance, that banking institutions would be going back to, for all intents and purpose, living off of interest? In a nation of more than 300 million, what does that mean for the populace and productivity in a global economy? Oh, and internationally? Well, just try to get Norway and the Sovereign Fund to agree with any such proposal...and that's just one example.
Keep in mind, that Europe, unlike the US, is facing their third consecutive month of slowed growth, and yet, what do they do? Contract their CBs injections of liquidity? Nope.
QUOTE:
| Mike wars are won by logistics and the Iraq fiasco points out just how low we've sunk as a nation once able to provide the in depth capabilities for emergencies like a war. Katrina pointed it out too. The collapse of the bridge in Minnesota did. The Northrigde earthquake did. The rolling brownouts every summer did. The state of water management did. The state of public and private education did. Just because we can talk about comics and how great we think Byrne is doesn't mean we're all rolling in millions of dollars (I'd take some other currency considering the dollar's standing now and where it can drop to very quickly) and prosperous. |
|
|
Michael, have you seen the dollar's trending over the last two weeks as the wave of a very likely two-year downturn comes crashing in and the world reckons on the US? Michael, the entire world is betting against you and your forecast of a return to the financial Stone Age.
Infrastructure? Shall we dual on the amounts that have been spent in the US in your last thirty years? Inefficiency abounds , you say? When is that not the case when the government does something in a nation of 300 million? Michael, we have a far slung population of more than 300 million citizens; and we spend more on infrastructure than China would find conceivable. What your gripe comes down to, as it always does, is America not being perfect. And when I, on the other hand, point out the inescapable fact that America is the strongest and most prosperous economy in the world, it can only mean that I'm somehow saying that America is perfect.
Iraq? Iraq isn't a failure of logistics, it is an exemplar of the failure of resolution. Period. We can argue that such a failure is or is not tied to the circumstance, but, either way, it is the will to conduct an occupation with ONLY the end result in mind that comes up short.
QUOTE:
| What is the plan to keep the dollar's value anyway? Is there one? If there is I haven't seen it. You know how Europe reacted to this. You know how Asia did. I believe you're seriously underestimating the magnitude of the crisis. |
|
|
I mention recession and possible depression, but I'm underestimating the magnitude of the current crisis? No, Michael, where you and I part company is at your 'let's just dump it and start over' craziness. Or, the 'hey, let's get all these competing economies together and set up a world wide, whole NEW economy...you know, one that would inevitably look a lot like this one, thatr is if we could even approach the subject with a straight face. Oh, and let's Russia, with its laughable GDP and nil value in cross-market influence sit in too, cause they get antsy when their feelings get hurt.
Michael, I'm not underestimating the magnitude of anything. I'm challenging your notion of economic armageddon.
I wrote:
| Either way, both your previous critique and Joe's current critique, as it relates to any current financial crisis in the sub-prime markets either originating or being engineered in America, loses out. |
|
|
you wrote:
| I say we're in a global financial collapse with the subprime collapse merely a feature of it. I say we've been in this crisis for roughly thirty years and the strength of our economy (in the US) has been eroding over those thirty years as measured by physical output and infrastructure. |
|
|
Michael, what other nation has our infrastructure, ever growing over those same thirty years yopu speak of, *to even maintain*? What exactly is it which nations like China hope to aspire to? Now, you want to crackdown on the unions and eco-nuts to revitalize manufacturing in America? You want to oppose a tax increase taimed at those reporting $250,000, because it hits exactly at small to medium business growth and everyone they employ and all that they might ccoomplish? I'm completely behind you. But again, exactly what are you suggesting? I don't need a labored, peer-reviewed economic model to dissect, I'm simply asking what it is that you think you are saying in real terms and with ALL the various aspects and questions considered?
QUOTE:
There are ways out of this but, like the alcoholic or addict, people have to admit the problem exists and then take the proper action.
Delusions won't get us anyplace. The current batch of politicians seem to be operating under a series of dangerous delusions that have cost the nation much. It's time for them to step aside. Let someone in who knows what to do.
FDR would have been able to handle this. Hamilton would have. Lincoln too.
I look forward to the naming of the "strong sectors" of the US economy. Or your take on a solution to the mess we are most clearly in. |
|
|
Let someone in who knows what to do? Now, I know we have both heard this line before. A viable return to the Economic Stone Age or a collective world economic body? Hey, delusions won't get us anyplace.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bruce Buchanan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 14 June 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4797
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 11:37am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Hospitals are dealing with the same cost issues hitting the rest of the health care community- massive malpractice costs, decreased reimbursement from private and government insurers, increased documentation and administrative costs and more.
*****************
There is something to this. Now, there certainly are hospital administrators out there who are squeezing patients for every penny. But medical malpractice costs have been a huge reason for the rising price tag of Americna health care.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Monte Gruhlke
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 May 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3299
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 11:52am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
On a side note... the new 35W Bridge in Minnesota opens tomorrow morning at 5am! Woot!
I never was behind this "frivolous malpractice" angle, although I am sure it plays a part as Bruce suggests. I think what we need to do is review both hospital and insurance practices and start reining them in. Currently the country is gripped in a mind-set that healthcare/insurance costs will only spiral upwards, and that we must 'find new ways of paying for the new costs.' That alone ensures that bankruptcies will increase.
Perhaps regulation and consumer-protection-related reforms is the better (and more cost efficient) way to go.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Jodi Moisan
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 February 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 6808
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 12:33pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
But medical malpractice costs have been a huge reason for the rising price tag of Americna health care.
To me the problem was bad doctors that were protected by other doctors and hospitals. They needed to police themselves, they didn't and now they are paying for it. Reward good doctors with lower cost malpractice insurance, like they do good drivers.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Knut Robert Knutsen
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 22 September 2006
Posts: 7374
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 12:51pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I find it interesting, this idea that turning healthcare fully over to the government and eliminating the need for private insurers would so adversely affect the US economy.
So what that means is that so much of the money spent on healthcare is not actually used to pay for healthcare but rather to line the pockets of those who invest in insurance companies that removing it can strongly affect an economy the size of the US? Wow. That's a lot of money not used on healthcare.
And quite frankly, if government can provide basic healthcare financing cheaper and better than private insurance companies, then it's just bad capitalism to go with the most expensive and inferior alternative. It is when government programs are the most costly and least effective that arguments exist in favor of privately financed solutions.
If private insurance companies cannot provide the services that the nation needs them to in terms of health care finance, the capitalist thing to do would be to cut them loose. Isn't it?
We all know that in terms of cutting edge medicine, the US is at the top. But basic and affordable healthcare for low income brackets? Nope. The uninsured cannot be ignored in a comparison with other healthcare systems.
Uninsured US residents under the current system? About 15 percent. Uninsured residents in Western European countries with a government run health care system? 0 percent.
That's a 15 percent gap. Even with access to emergency rooms and medicare (?) support for the very lowest income demographic, there will still be people who will not be covered and may have to choose between refusing treatment or bankruptcy.
There's no point in bragging about how swell healthcare is at the top, if you can't provide basic services to the guys at the bottom.
We have a sort of cynical perspective on "bad bureaucracy" over here. When conservatives who don't like big government get into office, they like to "starve" government agencies they don't like. They overload them with tasks and cut their funding so they don't get anything done. Without qualified personnell, without proper equipment etc the government agencies get truly bad. And then they parade these starved, overburdened and underperforming agencies about to "prove" that they were a bad idea to begin with.
The best way to prove "Big Government" to be bad is to put somebody in charge of it who doesn't approve of big government. If it wasn't bad before that guy was put in charge, it will be by the time he gets done with it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Donald Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3601
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 12:51pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
How about rewarding the healthy citizen's with cheaper health care insurance...
Seriously though...
Don
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brian Talley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5123
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 1:02pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I will gripe about the medical system and insurance, but I tell you, after the accident, my three week stay in rehab, which was a place to heal, meals, physical, occupational, and emotional therapy and ran $15,000. My insurance covered every dime of it. Worst thing was what the doctors charges were....the doctor who's only contact with me was to come in in the morning and ask how I felt, and then raise the covers and look at my surgical areas and then leave, not to be seen for the rest of the day. If the guy had been paid by the minute, he would not have made enough for a happy meal.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Donald Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 03 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3601
|
| Posted: 17 September 2008 at 1:02pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Scott asked:
How would you propose getting rid of it without making the stocks in those insurance companies worthless
Well, right now there are no alternatives so the insurance companies kind of have us by the short and curlies.
The middle class make do with their insurance from work. The rich have no problems with it. The working poor make do with being sick and Doc in the Box. And the outright poor use the county hospital system as their personal doctor.
With no competition, the Insurance companies have a monopoly on our healthcare. It will take innovative Doctors that are tired of not being able to treat their patients to change the system.
I would like to see the insurance plans that our Washington mouthpieces have working for them...If it's anything like the unlimited hot checks thing it must be a dream.
Don
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
