Public Roads, Public Parks, and the Public Health Care Option - Page 8 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

tankdriver · #**106** 08-26-2009, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loepke72

Capitalism and the free market itself did not get us into this mess, rather it was the actions of certain people that did. Saying the free market did this is like saying guns kill people, or that technology X is evil. The free market, like guns or tech X, is an inanimate object not capable of doing anything on its own. It's what people do with the object that is right or wrong. Sure, these things may make it easier for some to perform the wrong actions, but it's not a reason to outlaw them.

Bernie Madoff and others like him are fraudsters, and they should get what they deserve. Yes, those protections were weakened, and wrongfully so. No, he did not singlehandedly cause the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing. It was a perfect storm of events, mostly precipitated by Wall Street hucksters. Their schemes should have received more attention from Uncle Sam than they did because, although they were working under free market conditions, were antithetical to free market ideals. There was too much fake money floating around chasing too few things of real value. This fake money came from both our government as well as supposed paper profits from various investments. This caused things like $4.00 gas and the real estate bubble. The consumer finally reeled from this double barreled threat at a time when it was no longer possible to borrow their way out.

You're still not getting it. There are no free market ideals. A free market allows anyone to create any market and trade anything, even an idea, if there is someone else who will buy it. If I can convince you to buy sunshine from me, a free market would be born. In fact, people do trade weather. Capitalism and the free market did get us into the mess because neither can exist without human beings to participate in it.
A derivative is a deal on a deal. In this case, the deal was the mortgage and the derivative was the insurance on it (actually them, as mortgages were bundled together).

MS Fowler · #**107** 08-26-2009, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

I don't know that it's possible to provide numbers until the system is chosen. If you look in that 5 myths about other countries thread, there are cost examples. Like 20% of costs on paperwork here contrasted with 4% in France. Can we acheive 4%? If we pick the French model it's possible. But no one can know what we can acheive if we go with a different model.

As they say, The devil is in the details"
The recent debacle of "cash for clunkers" is yet another illustration of how poorly government runs things. They set up the program w/o any input from car industry--so they information they require is not always what the industry has ( extra cost). The claims must be submiteed by a deadline, and the gov. computer system has crashed numerous times preventing the timely filing of those claims.
Not to bash the CfC program, but to think about gov run stuff.

Brian Carlton · #**108** 08-26-2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loepke72

Capitalism and the free market itself did not get us into this mess, rather it was the actions of certain people that did. Saying the free market did this is like saying guns kill people, or that technology X is evil. The free market, like guns or tech X, is an inanimate object not capable of doing anything on its own. It's what people do with the object that is right or wrong. Sure, these things may make it easier for some to perform the wrong actions, but it's not a reason to outlaw them.

When companies act in the short term interests of stockholders and the government assists in that endeavor for their own ends, you have actions that harm the free market.

I agree that the free market, in and of itself, is not the issue. The actions of irresponsible people with the facilitation of the government is exactly what brought us to the precipice. Therefore, the free market, obviously, needs some regulation unless you wish to repeat this behavior in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loepke72

Bernie Madoff and others like him are fraudsters, and they should get what they deserve. Yes, those protections were weakened, and wrongfully so. No, he did not singlehandedly cause the financial meltdown we are currently experiencing. It was a perfect storm of events, mostly precipitated by Wall Street hucksters. Their schemes should have received more attention from Uncle Sam than they did because, although they were working under free market conditions, were antithetical to free market ideals. There was too much fake money floating around chasing too few things of real value. This fake money came from both our government as well as supposed paper profits from various investments. This caused things like $4.00 gas and the real estate bubble. The consumer finally reeled from this double barreled threat at a time when it was no longer possible to borrow their way out.

You clearly believe that "wall street hucksters" caused the problem. This is an ignorant position which I'll call the Bernie Madoff approach to the problem. It's got not a shred of data to support it, so, again, I wish you good luck with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loepke72

Derivatives, as I understand them, are much like taking out a life insurance policy on someone you don't know, and therefore stand to financially benefit if they were to die. Therefore it is in your interest to make sure that person dies, or in the case of derivatives, that the company in question is run into the ditch. Whether or not this should be allowed is up for debate, but personally I think derivatives should be illegal for the reasons I stated above. That may sound like I am advocating against free market ideals, but there is not a truly free market when things like derivatives exist.

You want a "free market" but you don't want derivatives, which were born in a free market. OK..................

Quote:

Originally Posted by loepke72

With regard to home mortgages, for some reason our government did and continues to argue in favor of home ownership. Not sure why, it doesn't make sense for everyone in all cases. They do this chiefly by using the tax code, giving tax credits and rebates. Again, like Cash for Clunkers, we have government encouraging people to get into debt. Not always a good thing, unless you are a banker making money off interest payments.

Nothing wrong with home ownership. It fosters a sense of pride and community. Take a look at rental dwellings versus owner occupied dwellings if you have any doubts.

The problem occurs when the government backs loans to people who are unable to pay for the loan when the interest rate rises a couple of years down the road. The government is certainly wise enough to realize that these people will likely default, but chose to ignore that fact. If the government didn't back the loan, it's highly likely that the free market would not have loaned the money...........so, in this instance, the free market would have ruled the day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by loepke72

Lest anyone think I espouse these views because I am wealthy, let me assure you I am not. In fact, I would probably be better off under some form of government assistance. I choose not to, because I feel it is wrong to steal money from others (in the form of taxes) to support me and the stupid mistakes I have made in life. I am working, by myself, to learn from them and improve. That's why I come out so hard against debt. I have been through bankruptcy, due to mistakes on my part as well as situations beyond my control. I may not have all the latest glitz, but what I have is paid for (except for a student loan, the last debt I have).

There is nothing wrong with debt. Without it, you'll be a renter for the remainder of your life and have nothing but S/S. The issue is whether the debt is used for appreciating assets or depreciating assets.

Many people cannot run their financial lives. For them, there is always S/S down the road.

tankdriver · #**109** 08-26-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

As they say, The devil is in the details"
The recent debacle of "cash for clunkers" is yet another illustration of how poorly government runs things. They set up the program w/o any input from car industry--so they information they require is not always what the industry has ( extra cost). The claims must be submiteed by a deadline, and the gov. computer system has crashed numerous times preventing the timely filing of those claims.
Not to bash the CfC program, but to think about gov run stuff.

What about Windows Vista? The government didn't make that suck. Everything new is going to have its glitches. I wouldn't buy a first year model car for the same reason. Again government independent. The government does a lot of things poorly, but it does a lot of things well too.

My point was not that the devil's in the details, it's that some of those details are unknowable until after the fact.

loepke72 · #**110** 08-26-2009, 12:27 PM

Quote:

When companies act in the short term interests of stockholders and the government assists in that endeavor for their own ends, you have actions that harm the free market.

I agree that the free market, in and of itself, is not the issue. The actions of irresponsible people with the facilitation of the government is exactly what brought us to the precipice. Therefore, the free market, obviously, needs some regulation unless you wish to repeat this behavior in the future.

I'm not arguing for economic anarchy. I know some level of regulation is required. If I didn't make that clear earlier, my apologies. The question is what sort of regulations? Encouraging people to go into debt, IMO, is poor behavior on the part of the government, no matter what short term benefits may come to be.

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with debt. Without it, you'll be a renter for the remainder of your life and have nothing but S/S. The issue is whether the debt is used for appreciating assets or depreciating assets.

Many people cannot run their financial lives. For them, there is always S/S down the road.

I disagree. To my way of thinking, debt is slavery, and it can be addictive in the case of consumer credit. If something is priced so that it can only be bought on credit, it is overvalued. If that makes me a renter the rest of my life, then so be it. I don't own the house if I'm making payments on it anyway. And if you run afoul of your city by not paying taxes, you'll see just how much ownership you really have. Heck, in some places an HOA can foreclose on you. Even if I am a renter at present, if I live well within my means and save money, it might even be possible to skip the mortgage step altogether. No, I won't play the debt game anymore. I've learned how to get by without credit, and it isn't too bad from my end anyway.

Brian Carlton · #**111** 08-26-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loepke72

I don't own the house if I'm making payments on it anyway. And if you run afoul of your city by not paying taxes, you'll see just how much ownership you really have. Heck, in some places an HOA can foreclose on you.

These statements show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding ownership versus loan repayments and taxes.

If renting works for you............good luck with that...........but, for knowledgeable folks who understand appreciation and leverage, home ownership is the only way to go.

I've owned 11 houses via the use of loans and leverage. I'm now down to four, but the benefits of them (estimated return of 1000% on invested capital over 20 years) certainly won't be dismissed by folks who don't understand the principles.

loepke72 · #**112** 08-26-2009, 01:00 PM

Quote:

These statements show a fundamental lack of understanding regarding ownership versus loan repayments and taxes.

If renting works for you............good luck with that...........but, for knowledgeable folks who understand appreciation and leverage, home ownership is the only way to go.

I've owned 11 houses via the use of loans and leverage. I'm now down to four, but the benefits of them (estimated return of 1000% on invested capital over 20 years) certainly won't be dismissed by folks who don't understand the principles.

Sincerely, I'm glad you were able to make things work using debt. For me, taking on debt is a promise to pay based on future earnings. I can't predict the future, so its a bit risky in my book, especially when I work in a job that does not have a steady income and is subject to the whims of the local economy.

This is a bit OT, so I'll read your response and leave it at that.

mgburg · #**113** 08-26-2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

What about Windows Vista? The government didn't make that suck. Everything new is going to have its glitches. I wouldn't buy a first year model car for the same reason. Again government independent. The government does a lot of things poorly, but it does a lot of things well too. ... My point was not that the devil's in the details, it's that some of those details are unknowable until after the fact.

The Boobermint sucks.

...........saves the bandwidth...........

DieselAddict · #**114** 08-26-2009, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I would like to see details from the pro-national HC people about how they would avoid the mistakes of other systems. Citing some vague "cost savings down the road" I'd like to see concrete projections based on something other than wishful thinking. The pattern seems to indicate that government-run health care whether on the sate or national level always costs much more than its proponents predicted.

I seriously doubt the 46 million uninsured figure--the actual number is something less than half that. Still a significant number.
The debate has become confused ( purposefully, in my mind) by the proponents) by having too many objectives. If we argue against one pont, they switch to another of their objectives. Might be a good debate technique, but it makes for lousy communication, and even worse policy.
Aree we debating health care, or the payment for health care?
Again, those WHO ratings are bogus--many of the questions reflect a political, rather than a health care position--We lose many more soldiers in war than high-rated countries. That lowers our rating, but that does't affect your health care. War deaths should not have any place in a rating of health care.

There has definitely been more distortion and disinformation coming from the opponents' camp. Just look at mgburg's post as an example. First of all, the govt is NOT trying to remake the health care system so that everyone is forced into an Indian-reservation-style system, or any other govt-owned hospital system for that matter. That's a fact. It's also a fact that the VA system with its govt-managed hospitals outperforms the private system in most categories. How could that be? Govt-owned anything is supposed to suck, especially if you use a big font to write about it.

As to the WHO ratings, did you actually look at the detailed spreadsheet that accompanies the ratings? Nowhere did I see anything about military deaths being taken into account. Can you point out where it is?

Medmech · #**115** 08-26-2009, 04:08 PM

Just a little FYI, in the VA system if you don't like your doctor..tough ****, if you would like the newest drugs that are very expensive tough ****, if you want to choose the clinic tough ****, if you need an MRI unless you are close to a major city tough ****.

Stop comparing systems that you know nothing about, in my own experience the VA system has been very good but I have been given many breaks and privileges that others do not.

DieselAddict · #**116** 08-26-2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medmech

Just a little FYI, in the VA system if you don't like your doctor..tough ****, if you would like the newest drugs that are very expensive tough ****, if you want to choose the clinic tough ****, if you need an MRI unless you are close to a major city tough ****.

Stop comparing systems that you know nothing about, in my own experience the VA system has been very good but I have been given many breaks and privileges that others do not.

Again, no one is proposing turning the entire US health care industry into the VA system. However what I said was true, based on the Time magazine article that we already discussed here that compared the two systems. The VA system may not have all the choices, but it sure is more efficient.

Medmech · #**117** 08-26-2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

Again, no one is proposing turning the entire US health care industry into the VA system. However what I said was true, based on the Time magazine article that we already discussed here that compared the two systems. The VA system may not have all the choices, but it sure is more efficient.

A one horse farm is always going to be more efficient than a two horse farm, its the law of diminishing returns.

cmbdiesel · #**118** 08-26-2009, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medmech

A one horse farm is always going to be more efficient than a two horse farm, its the law of diminishing returns.

Which will play a greater role, Law Of Diminishing Returns, or Economy Of Scale?

Medmech · #**119** 08-26-2009, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Which will play a greater role, Law Of Diminishing Returns, or Economy Of Scale?

I have no idea and freely admit that, nobody here has more than elementary knowledge on how a public healthcare system would work in the US, if we use the SS system as an example the economy of scale argument is null.

mgburg · #**120** 08-26-2009, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DieselAddict

There has definitely been more distortion and disinformation coming from the opponents' camp. Just look at mgburg's post as an example. First of all, the govt is NOT trying to remake the health care system so that everyone is forced into an Indian-reservation-style system, or any other govt-owned hospital system for that matter. That's a fact. It's also a fact that the VA system with its govt-managed hospitals outperforms the private system in most categories. How could that be? Govt-owned anything is supposed to suck, especially if you use a big font to write about it.

...

You're ignoring the obvious...

THE BOOBERMINT SUCKS.

PERIOD.

..............easier on the eyes of the reader............