billvon 2,989
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
billvon 2,989
> If they can't go on credit anymore, that means they have to balance the budget,
>right? I'm ok with that.
Are you really? You'd be OK with no military?
>the government shutdown didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; I'm guessing this
>notional deadline passing will not result in the sky falling either.
Well, in 2001 we ignored the warnings about terrorists hijacking airplanes and blowing up buildings. It had never happened before, so it wasn't likely to happen again. In 2007 we ignored warnings about an impending recession. It hadn't happened for decades despite warnings; why would it happen now?
"It hasn't happened in a while, so it won't happen now" is a pretty risky angle to take.
>right? I'm ok with that.
Are you really? You'd be OK with no military?
>the government shutdown didn't cause the sky to fall as predicted; I'm guessing this
>notional deadline passing will not result in the sky falling either.
Well, in 2001 we ignored the warnings about terrorists hijacking airplanes and blowing up buildings. It had never happened before, so it wasn't likely to happen again. In 2007 we ignored warnings about an impending recession. It hadn't happened for decades despite warnings; why would it happen now?
"It hasn't happened in a while, so it won't happen now" is a pretty risky angle to take.
wmw999 2,439
However, I can see in such a scenario the development of new industries; just as advertising has made the legal profession so awesomeQuoteYes. I am. It will be a massive economic shock when millions of back office billing specialists and medicare/medicaid employees are laid off. Healthcare will become less expensive because that overhead will be mostly gone. And a greater emphasis on point-of-service payment will lower the transaction cost.
That means that the COST of healthcare goes down. Not just an arbitrary cap on price. And when cost goes down, access increases. Quality can remain the same.
, increased consumer advertising by doctors looking to get patients might have undesired effects.
Right now two significant pieces of the cost of medicine are advertising for drugs (particularly the most popular), and the cost of litigation prevention (defensive medicine). I don't see either of those getting better in a direct-to-consumer strictly capitalist medical setup.
Right now one of the reasons for regulations is to counter predatory behavior. When communities are small and not too mobile, that kind of behavior is held in check partly through social pressure and the desire to protect what one already has. Now, with increased mobility, increased anonymity due to the large number of people, and the increased chance that there will be someone who is both really smart and really deviously dishonest involved (more people=more chance), I think that any unregulated mass industry is going to become a real hotbed of exploitation.
I'm sorry to think so poorly of human nature. But when money or power are involved, one bad apple can really mess it up for everyone.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
billvon 2,989
>>Or are you figuring that by withdrawing government-sponsored medical care
>>(including things like county hospitals) the market will change so as to be
>>unrecognizable from what it is today?
>Yes. I am. It will be a massive economic shock when millions of back office billing
>specialists and medicare/medicaid employees are laid off. Healthcare will become less
>expensive because that overhead will be mostly gone. And a greater emphasis on point-
>of-service payment will lower the transaction cost.
>That means that the COST of healthcare goes down. Not just an arbitrary cap on
>price. And when cost goes down, access increases. Quality can remain the same.
Assuming that private insurers remain, costs actually go up. Insurance companies spend about 20% of each premium dollar on overhead; Medicare spends between 1 and 6% of total program dollars on overhead depending on which part of Medicare you look at.
>>(including things like county hospitals) the market will change so as to be
>>unrecognizable from what it is today?
>Yes. I am. It will be a massive economic shock when millions of back office billing
>specialists and medicare/medicaid employees are laid off. Healthcare will become less
>expensive because that overhead will be mostly gone. And a greater emphasis on point-
>of-service payment will lower the transaction cost.
>That means that the COST of healthcare goes down. Not just an arbitrary cap on
>price. And when cost goes down, access increases. Quality can remain the same.
Assuming that private insurers remain, costs actually go up. Insurance companies spend about 20% of each premium dollar on overhead; Medicare spends between 1 and 6% of total program dollars on overhead depending on which part of Medicare you look at.
jclalor 12
What a surprise, the GOP caved. Cruz kind of reminds of the black knight from Monty Python's "In search of the holy grail" who picks a fight, and then after getting his arms and legs severed, declares the fight a draw.
But the GOP is more than welcome to be worried about being primaried by the tea baggers, at the current pace, they will both find themselves a historical footnote in ten years.
But the GOP is more than welcome to be worried about being primaried by the tea baggers, at the current pace, they will both find themselves a historical footnote in ten years.
jgoose71 0
billvonMedicare spends between 1 and 6% of total program dollars on overhead depending on which part of Medicare you look at.
I just about spit kool-aide all over my computer. Where the fuck did that number come from? What does the government consider an "overhead cost" and are the terms being applied equally? You realize that Medicare is ran by the biggest bureaucracy on earth? And does this number also take into consideration the fraud?
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
billvon 2,989
> Where the fuck did that number come from?
Two places. The Medicare Board of Trustees' annual report and the CMS National Health Expenditure Accounts report. (CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Support.) The CMS report includes administrative expenses incurred by private health insurers that participate in Medicare Advantage and Medicare's prescription drug program, which is why it's higher.
Two places. The Medicare Board of Trustees' annual report and the CMS National Health Expenditure Accounts report. (CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Support.) The CMS report includes administrative expenses incurred by private health insurers that participate in Medicare Advantage and Medicare's prescription drug program, which is why it's higher.
quade 4
jclalorWhat a surprise, the GOP caved. Cruz kind of reminds of the black knight from Monty Python's "In search of the holy grail" who picks a fight, and then after getting his arms and legs severed, declares the fight a draw.
But the GOP is more than welcome to be worried about being primaried by the tea baggers, at the current pace, they will both find themselves a historical footnote in ten years.
Wanna see the thing that bugs me right now? Take a look at the last week of trading and pay particular attention to the VIX and how it opened this morning.
There's more going on here than just the government shut down.
Somebody on the Hill is leaking information to investors in order to make a boatload of money.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
sammer 0
billvon> Where the fuck did that number come from?
Two places. The Medicare Board of Trustees' annual report and the CMS National Health Expenditure Accounts report. (CMS = Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Support.) The CMS report includes administrative expenses incurred by private health insurers that participate in Medicare Advantage and Medicare's prescription drug program, which is why it's higher.
Medicare doesn't have to pay for quite a bit of it's administrative cost. It also covers old people, and that greatly skews any comparison with the private industry.
jclalor 12
QuoteMedicare doesn't have to pay for quite a bit of it's administrative cost. It also covers old people, and that greatly skews any comparison with the private industry.
I would think that covering old people would really increase the amount of overhead, those old bastards are always sick.
Medicare also does not have a profit motive, the amount of care that is delivered will always beat the private insurance industry.
The United States spends far more of it's GDP on healthcare than any other industrialized country. The current amount, and the rate of growth of spending is unsustainable for this country. The ACA may be far from perfect, at least for now, but at least it's trying to address the problem
quade***What a surprise, the GOP caved. Cruz kind of reminds of the black knight from Monty Python's "In search of the holy grail" who picks a fight, and then after getting his arms and legs severed, declares the fight a draw.
But the GOP is more than welcome to be worried about being primaried by the tea baggers, at the current pace, they will both find themselves a historical footnote in ten years.
Wanna see the thing that bugs me right now? Take a look at the last week of trading and pay particular attention to the VIX and how it opened this morning.
There's more going on here than just the government shut down.
Somebody on the Hill is leaking information to investors in order to make a boatload of money.
The VIX gaped down and the S&P gaped up on news of a possible conclusion to the shut down. That seems quite normal to me. would you mind telling me why you feel its not?
for the record, there is no doubt in my mind that information leaks out from Hill. as it always does. happens from private companies too. those leaks benefit a very few people who go to great lengths to hide the trades. are implying that the entire market is reacting to some leak? i do not agree, i think people are trying to trade the news. a very normal event.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante
John Frusciante
Medicare and Medicaid have proposed spending of about $825 billion for the 2014 fiscal year. That makes overhead of about $50 billion per year - JUST FOR THE PAYOR SIDE.
Now, how about the backoffice staff required just for Medicare billing? Then Medicaid. Private insurers, as well (who base their practices and reimbursements on Medicare).
I have no problem with private insurance. I think it should be mainly for catastrophe/major procedures instead of for every sniffle.
Look at how Medicare keeps pricees down. It doesn't keep down "costs."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Now, how about the backoffice staff required just for Medicare billing? Then Medicaid. Private insurers, as well (who base their practices and reimbursements on Medicare).
I have no problem with private insurance. I think it should be mainly for catastrophe/major procedures instead of for every sniffle.
Look at how Medicare keeps pricees down. It doesn't keep down "costs."
My wife is hotter than your wife.
[Quote]Medicare also does not have a profit motive, the amount of care that is delivered will always beat the private insurance industry.
And delivery of market level-services at below market prices leads does not cut cost. It does lead to overuse.
[Reply]The ACA may be far from perfect, at least for now, but at least it's trying to address the problem
And delivery of market level-services at below market prices leads does not cut cost. It does lead to overuse.
[Reply]The ACA may be far from perfect, at least for now, but at least it's trying to address the problem
Doing something just for the sake of doing something can be disastrous. Boredom can be a problem. Doing meth is an effort to address the problem.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
quade 4
weekenderThe VIX gaped down and the S&P gaped up on news of a possible conclusion to the shut down. That seems quite normal to me. would you mind telling me why you feel its not?
Because it happened well before any official announcements. Hours and hours and hours before.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
quade***The VIX gaped down and the S&P gaped up on news of a possible conclusion to the shut down. That seems quite normal to me. would you mind telling me why you feel its not?
Because it happened well before any official announcements. Hours and hours and hours before.
People trade in front of news based on what they believe is going to come out. its very normal. i do it almost daily. as a reminder, i am an equity trader for an investment bank.
you are talking about a giant index being moved by a leak. that does not seem realistic to me, based on my experience. I have seen, and it is well documented, that some individual names can move on leaks. during earnings season this can be quite evident. I would support your thesis on a given name but find it not realistic with such a broad index.
i do support your belief that leaks can make select individuals money. and short term can move individual names. its usually peanuts compared to what can be made legally though. your going to have to trust me, i get offers all the time. i just ignore them, not worth a few thousand bucks.
"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird."
John Frusciante
John Frusciante
quade 4
lawrocketMy thinking is that US "Default" is inevitable.
Proving once again how some people either intentionally abuse the language or simply don't understand it to begin with.
Please look up the word "inevitable" in the dictionary.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
turtlespeed 219
quade***My thinking is that US "Default" is inevitable.
Proving once again how some people either intentionally abuse the language or simply don't understand it to begin with.
Please look up the word "inevitable" in the dictionary.
It is still the most likely scenario. Maybe not to day, but if entitlements keep increasing - there you have it.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
quade***The VIX gaped down and the S&P gaped up on news of a possible conclusion to the shut down. That seems quite normal to me. would you mind telling me why you feel its not?
Because it happened well before any official announcements. Hours and hours and hours before.
you could see the end 2500 miles away - last night it was a safe bet that they would beat the deadline.
And as we know, occasionally these front runners bet on the wrong horse and pay dearly for it.
turtlespeed
So you drank the kool-aid too, huh?
Are we fucking kidding? What idiot thinks that never being able to sell 10 year bonds at or under 3% is a good plan?
If we have to do the consumer analogy again - you have a credit card with 15k in revolving debt on it, but at a very low 6.9% rate. This month you decide paying the minimum on time is for suckers and you buy lottery tickets instead. Your rate is increased to 23.9%. Guess how much more you're paying now replacing maturing bonds.
(just under 3 months before we get to have this lame debate again)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023869372
It’s a simple tweak that would reign in an out-of-control financial sector, stimulate jobs, generate billions of revenue, and possibly prevent another heart-wrenching crisis. Nobel Prize-winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman want it. Billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates want it. Polls show the majority of Americans want it. Even the Pope wants it.
We’re talking about a financial transaction tax (FTT) — a tiny tax of, say, less than half a percent: maybe 3 cents per $100 — on Wall Street trading. It’s simple, more than fair, widely supported by the public, and long overdue.
It’s a simple tweak that would reign in an out-of-control financial sector, stimulate jobs, generate billions of revenue, and possibly prevent another heart-wrenching crisis. Nobel Prize-winning economists like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman want it. Billionaires like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates want it. Polls show the majority of Americans want it. Even the Pope wants it.
We’re talking about a financial transaction tax (FTT) — a tiny tax of, say, less than half a percent: maybe 3 cents per $100 — on Wall Street trading. It’s simple, more than fair, widely supported by the public, and long overdue.
davjohns 1
If I get a chance, I'll research this idea. Not sure I would take financial advice from the majority of Americans or the Pope. Bill Gates is smart, but didn't make his money investing in Wall Street. Warren Buffet is certainly credible. Given recent Nobel awards, I consider a Nobel a dark mark on an economist's credibility.
I'm not saying the idea is good or bad. I'm just cynical about the list of experts you presented.
I'm not saying the idea is good or bad. I'm just cynical about the list of experts you presented.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
davjohns 1
kelpdiver***
So you drank the kool-aid too, huh?
Are we fucking kidding? What idiot thinks that never being able to sell 10 year bonds at or under 3% is a good plan?
If we have to do the consumer analogy again - you have a credit card with 15k in revolving debt on it, but at a very low 6.9% rate. This month you decide paying the minimum on time is for suckers and you buy lottery tickets instead. Your rate is increased to 23.9%. Guess how much more you're paying now replacing maturing bonds.
(just under 3 months before we get to have this lame debate again)
Nobody said anything about the US having 'no' credit (except you). I'm not even sure that is possible. And if you are buying your bonds back (after the balanced budget), then you have a severely reduced need to sell them, don't you? So, you compared that to 'never' being able to sell bonds sub 3%. You seem to have a penchant for extremes.
I recommended the very responsible act of living within our means. You compared that with the very irresponsible act of not paying your bills in favor of the lottery. Not sure how that worked out in your head.
I'm not trying to be insulting in any manner. I'm just pointing out that you are using superlatives and analogies that don't work. Maybe we're just talking past each other. Not sure.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
SkyDekker 1,465
davjohns******
So you drank the kool-aid too, huh?
Are we fucking kidding? What idiot thinks that never being able to sell 10 year bonds at or under 3% is a good plan?
If we have to do the consumer analogy again - you have a credit card with 15k in revolving debt on it, but at a very low 6.9% rate. This month you decide paying the minimum on time is for suckers and you buy lottery tickets instead. Your rate is increased to 23.9%. Guess how much more you're paying now replacing maturing bonds.
(just under 3 months before we get to have this lame debate again)
Nobody said anything about the US having 'no' credit (except you). I'm not even sure that is possible. And if you are buying your bonds back (after the balanced budget), then you have a severely reduced need to sell them, don't you? So, you compared that to 'never' being able to sell bonds sub 3%. You seem to have a penchant for extremes.
I recommended the very responsible act of living within our means. You compared that with the very irresponsible act of not paying your bills in favor of the lottery. Not sure how that worked out in your head.
I'm not trying to be insulting in any manner. I'm just pointing out that you are using superlatives and analogies that don't work. Maybe we're just talking past each other. Not sure.
If you go back and read your own post, it is pretty clear you do, at least very strongly imply, that the US would need no credit.
I was the one who mentioned that as the flaw in your logic. Kelp is just responding to turtle's trollish post after I gave up having anything resembling a reasonable discussion with turtle.
davjohns 1
When you live within your means, you don't need great credit or much credit at all. Moreover, if you live within your means and pay your bills on time, your credit tends to take care of itself. I am told I have a great credit rating. I don't check it. I have no need for it.
What I said was, "You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating."
So...quit using credit and your credit rating is not as important. Get your house in order and pay your creditors; your credit rating will do better. And you take issue with this?
I'm starting to see why we have a problem in the US. People think living in a budget deficit year after year is good.
I don't think even John Maynard Keynes would have agreed his theories were perpetually applicable.
What I said was, "You don't need a great credit rating if you stop using credit. If you balance the budget and start paying back your debts, I'm pretty sure that will go well for your credit rating."
So...quit using credit and your credit rating is not as important. Get your house in order and pay your creditors; your credit rating will do better. And you take issue with this?
I'm starting to see why we have a problem in the US. People think living in a budget deficit year after year is good.
I don't think even John Maynard Keynes would have agreed his theories were perpetually applicable.
I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.
If that were true the crisis would now be over and he would be taking all the credit.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites