Here is your open thread for the weekend beginning Friday May 29th, 2009. You may post random links and off-topic discussions here. Also, if you have an idea or a topic you’d like to see covered in an article, please make it known.
Be sure to also check out the forums, and get your word in the user-driven discussions there!
Kary L. Krismer » May 29, 2009 at 6:24 am
On the 12% of mortgages being delinquent, I wonder how much of that is due to people trying to position themselves to do a short sale. A lot of people claim that banks won’t consider a short sale unless you’re delinquent, and the banks typically won’t talk to you about a short sale until you have an offer, so it’s not inconceivable that the banks’ positions in this area are making matters worse for them.
David Losh » May 29, 2009 at 6:36 am
Let’s talk about taxation.
The Stimulus Package was about giving away money and in my opinion it was a deliberate inflationary action taken by the Republican Party to reduce debt. It would solve everything. Handing out money to major Global Corporations would ooze money into every corner of the world. Clinton would have played along, but we got Obama instead.
Scotsman made a comment that:
RE: Scotsman @ 29 – “Immediately eliminating all taxes, income and FICA, for those earning less than say $150,000 for the rest of the year would have cost less”
In my opinion we have concentrated way too much on the mega merger business model at the expense of small business. Investment in global corporations may make for faster, higher, and easier returns through the stock market, but once you take financing out that economic expansion there is very little left.
What about cutting taxes for small business? Why are small businesses carrying a higher tax burden? I used the term burden because at a certain point taxes simply become a cost of doing business. That business cost, because of the high dollar amounts, is actually buying political influence.
When governments say a business is to big to fail do they mean they can’t afford to lose those taxes?
Really, taxation is the only solution. A tax structure that actually reduces entitlement burdens while increasing the money supply to the government in my opinion would start with small business.
For that matter if we have made an investment in corporate business what will our return look like? What kind of taxes will they be paying or are we going to start hearing about tax breaks for the wealthy, again?
Kary L. Krismer » May 29, 2009 at 6:38 am
Following up on the comment about the banks’ policies making things worse, it’s the worst of the banks that are making most of the decisions, and setting most of the policy, because they made most the bad loans (or are servicing loans, which itself was also probably a bad decision).
Sniglet » May 29, 2009 at 11:01 am
http://surkanstance.blogspot.com/2009/05/loan-modifications-arent-helping-anyone.html
fwiw » May 29, 2009 at 11:05 am
U.S. FHA to apply $8,000 credit to home buying costs
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE54S3KE20090529
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Federal Housing Administration will allow the new $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit to be applied directly toward home purchase costs when using an FHA-insured mortgage, the Department of Housing and Urban Development said on Friday.
The plan to “monetize” the tax credit up-front is aimed at more quickly stabilizing the housing market, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan said in a statement.
But in detailed rules, the FHA will still require home buyers to provide a minimum 3.5 percent downpayment from other sources.
========================
Yikes! This is crying out to be gamed … welcome to DAP on steroids these will be the seeds of future forclosures for sure.
Hugh Dominic » May 29, 2009 at 11:15 am
Paul Krugman weighs in on the inflation scare.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29krugman.html
He agrees that deflation is the real danger, but thinks the stimulus is the right thing to do…
Kary L. Krismer » May 29, 2009 at 11:20 am
RE: fwiw @ 5 – I wonder if this is a step back. Before they were saying it could be the down payment.
Kary L. Krismer » May 29, 2009 at 11:29 am
That article is inconsistent with this one from Aubrey:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/406684_hug29.html
Note, however, that the IRS is still killing the state’s idea.
Brad » May 29, 2009 at 11:39 am
12% of all mortgages in arrears is just nuts, even if some fraction represents calculated choices to try to force modifications or short sales. Where is this number going to go when Option-ARMs start to recast, Fed rates go up from zero and all those job losses start to hit mortgages? Scary. The bottom is a long way off if these hit the market, or banks are going to need a LOT more bailout money to do major witedowns.
Kary L. Krismer » May 29, 2009 at 11:53 am
RE: Brad @ 9 – I’d agree it’s a high percentage, but it’s probably artificially high because of bank policies. That was my point.
To carry the point a bit further, the banks are increasing their number of non-performing loans. That though might not be a big problem if they’re looking at taking a hit on the loan as part of a short sale. That might actually be a more realistic representation.
Scotsman » May 29, 2009 at 1:20 pm
After reading One Eye’s comment on the mortgage thread about American can-do spirit, cheerleading, and the sterility of urine (during my lunch- thanks!) it occurred to me we need a new vocabulary to really capture the essence of the times. I’d like to start out by offering one of my all time favorites, the all inclucive…..
Craptastic!
One Eyed Man » May 29, 2009 at 4:01 pm
RE: Scotsman @ 11 –
At first I thought Craptastic was a reference to the state of the economy. Then I thought, wait a minute, he’s talking about my post. Then I had an epiphany, why does it have to be one or the other?
If preferential government projects are pork, are the products of preferential government investment Pork Products? I think the first new car to be produced by GM should be called the Hotlink, and advertised as the spicy all Pork Hybrid from GM. If they power it with CNG and put in a big enough engine to tow my boat, I might buy one. How’s that for environmental hipocracy.
Sorry this doesn’t have anything to do directly with real estate but I think this is an important economic issue concerning the GM deal or GM bankruptcy that I’m not sure I fully understand. Will the deal fully issolate the legacy VEBA benefit costs outside of the new operating entity so that the price of the average GM car can be decreased by the $2500 per car that used to go for legacy benefits? Is enactment of the Obama healthcare plan a necessary component of the benefit equation to take the benefit monkey off GM’s back? Will the powers that be market the healthcare plan in part by saying we have to go forward with it to avoid destroying our good work (and public investment) in saving GM and the 1 million plus jobs that rely on the auto industry? I’m not necessarily saying that’s what’s happening or that I’m against it, but I’m curious if other people think that’s really what’s happening here.
David Losh » May 29, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Yes if we took health care out of the benefits packages it would free up billions of dollars. If employers could buy and workers could pay $7000 a year for Health Care the way members of Congress “pay” for Health Care many more would. Mine costs $1200 a month. If I cut back it’s $1000. $7000 a year would be great.
Republicans want to protect the insurance industry by saying a beuacrat would be in charge of your Health Care rather than you and your doctor. As it is now some secratary is in charge of your Health Care by deciding what claims to pay and which to decline.
We have to take the insurance industry out of Health Care. Profit for Health Care seems a conflict of interest.
Car insurance was supposed to be mandatory for every one and that was supposed to drive down the cost of auto insurance. What we got was higher deductables. We got plastic bumpers that now cost $1000 to replace.
Insurance is the biggest fear mongering scam in the United States today, next to medicine.
The auto industry was completely out of touch with the market. Since the 1970’s Jimmy Carter years we have had an oil crisis and the auto industry responded with SUVs. They sold SUVs on the safety features, more fear mongering.
What we needed was smaller more fuel effecient cars. We needed to keep people working. It’s laughable to blame the workers who built what they were told to build for the unprofitable nature of the product.
I think the designers, ads, marketing, lobbying, mid level management, upper management, stock holders, and the publics demand for flashy slogans had something to do with autos costing tens of thousands of dollars while there was no profit in them.
OK that addresses my concerns about Health Care, Insurance, and the Auto Industry.
cutienoua » May 29, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Gang,I need your advice,please.
I have the chance to move to Vegas.Should I take it?
Or wait for the prices in Seattle to follow Vegas???
Scotsman » May 29, 2009 at 10:16 pm
RE: One Eyed Man @ 12 –
Man, you’re on a winning streak today. First it was lunch and your urine discourse. Now, settling down to a late dinner I get nationalized health care, one of my all time favorite subjects. It may surprise you to know I’m against it. You’re not surprised? Well I’ll be!
You’ve pretty much nailed the situation as far as the government plan for mollifying significant democratic contributors and keeping the financials real as GM goes under. After all, auto workers are the largest effective union outside of government workers, and huge supporters of the democrat party. And corporations love the idea too- getting rid of the cost and hassle of administering health care benefits is seen as a huge plus. Now that the tax code is changing and benefits are likely to be fully taxed, why put up with the expense of administering such programs when you can pass the whole thing off to the government? When such benefits become taxable, (in an additional effort to make employer supplied benefits less desirable, and further squeeze out private suppliers), the original reason for having them tied to employment compensation disappears.
If anyone wants to bet though, I’ll give you 100:1 odds that there aren’t any cost reductions or improvements in efficiency should care become nationalized. Despite David Losh’s claims that “billions of dollars will be freed up” (comment #13) all we’ll really get initially is a cost shift or transfer and some new taxes. Then as typical governmental inefficiencies and political considerations come into play and start to drive costs even higher, we’ll get rationing. Seriously people, this is the same government that has cost over runs in every department, that gives us $300 hammers and $700 toilets. You think they can run a national health care system more efficiently? They couldn’t even weed out the dead people on the social security rolls after 40 years, and instead sent millions of stimulus dollars to the dead. They can’t update a computer file, but can run the business of every doctor and patient in the U.S.? Pull the other finger. Go on!
You know those HULU ads on TV where the aliens threaten to suck out our brains? It’s already happening. ‘Nuff said.
Ardell DellaLoggia » May 29, 2009 at 10:28 pm
#14 I’d say do Vegas. You can get a brand new house with a pool :)
cutienoua » May 29, 2009 at 10:53 pm
RE: Ardell DellaLoggia @ 16 – Thanks!That’s the good part,how about the future there?Will it be riots as Glenn Beck is saying?
Scotsman » May 29, 2009 at 11:17 pm
RE: cutienoua @ 17 –
Try this- sun, low housing prices, and safety all in one:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/texas_constructs_u_s_border_wall
Ira Sacharoff » May 29, 2009 at 11:42 pm
By cutienoua @ 14:
I’m not sure I would take that gamble.
What are the odds you’d hate Las Vegas?
Cheap South » May 30, 2009 at 4:21 am
By cutienoua @ 17:
Ouch, you watch Glenn Beck; but even worse, you take him seriously.
Please, please move to Vegas.
David Losh » May 30, 2009 at 7:08 am
RE: Scotsman @ 15 –
Medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy. I was surprised by that, but then again, not so much.
I’ll take the 100 to 1 and point out that the VA has been providing Health Care at a reasonable cost. There it’s a self contained system. With all the facilities we have in the United States it would be impractical to nationalize all of them. There is an income stream that most rely on which is Medicaid, Medicare.
Those entitlement programs can be expanded. They can be a basis for paid insurance benefits.
I saw Newt trying to convince people that Nationalized Health Care has to be paid for with tax dollars. Honestly, after seeing the way government operates I would trust them with my health insurance payments more than a Blue Shield. Talk about your granite entry ways, and slick sales slogans.
That’s just Blue Shield. One little crummy profit generating group of paper pushers making billions of dollars out of declining claims. In the national scheme of things you have a bunch, whole bunch, of other crummy little groups of paper pushers. None of those people are inter connected, so you have the same groups hoarding their own clientèle. They refuse to cooperate, they in fight, and try to keep market share.
How much do you think it costs to have all these petty, little, paper pushers keeping market share? Do you really want your health determined by the profitability of that market share?
No, Health Care in this country is as big of a joke as selling a Hummer in an oil crisis. GM is a classic example of why we need for our government to look out for the greater good and get Health Care out of the hands of corporate greed.
In terms of cost benefits. Smaller companies can reduce costs and compete openly for good workers in the market place. It will be a sad day for big business when they no longer have Health Benefits as the biggest hammer in the tool chest. How many people do you know who get and keep crummy little corporate jobs for Health Benefits for the family?
Big corporations want you to fight for them to keep those benefits in their hands so they can dictate working conditions. Unions want to keep Health Benefits in their collective bargaining. This is an up hill fight because Unions and corporate business models find Health care as the number one way to keep workers under control.
I’m glad you brought up the Grace Commission’s findings about government expenditure. It shows how when those things come up there is government over sight. Now if you’re implying that the welfare to work programs of pork barrel politics will cheapen Health Care, I would point out that I would rather have Health Care extravagance than a B1 Bomber.
Kary L. Krismer » May 30, 2009 at 7:29 am
RE: David Losh @ 21 – Medical bills and unemployment are large causes of bankruptcy, but I think a big understated one is new car loans, at least in the past when the credit situation was what it was. On the medical bill issue, just think how many people don’t have medical insurance and disability insurance, or either. Just the stats for a 3 month plus disability are pretty sobering, so it’s somewhat amazing there aren’t more bankruptcies during good economic times.
Angie » May 30, 2009 at 7:46 am
Here’s a sentence I never thought I’d find myself typing: Dave, I agree with you 100%.
Scotsman wrote, Then as typical governmental inefficiencies and political considerations come into play and start to drive costs even higher, we’ll get rationing.
It sure is interesting how government inefficiencies and political considerations play our. Did I ever tell you about the time I wanted to move my mailbox?
My house is on a street with a lot of pedestrian traffic. When we moved here, the mailbox was at the bottom of the stairs. Shortly after we moved in, we were doing some repair work on the stairs and had to remove the mailbox from its perch. One day I was out front doing some gardening when the mail carrier came by. I made some pleasant conversation with him and told him that when the work on the stairs was done we were going to put the mailbox up at the top of the stairs next to the door.
“You can’t do that, ” he said.
“What do you mean I can’t do that?” I replied.
“You just can’t,” he said. “The mailbox was at the bottom of the stairs and it’s got to stay there, unless there’s some mitigating factor, like you’re disabled and can’t get down the stairs to get your mail.”
The conversation went on a while and, frankly, got a little testy. He was dead set against it. I made an argument for mail security (notice the pedestrian traffic issue) and said I’d take it to his boss. Well, I did, and was told in no uncertain terms that if I moved my mailbox, they’d simply stop delivering the mail. Period.
My mailbox is at the bottom of the stairs. It’s got a lock on it to keep passers-by from messing with the contents. They won. I suppose I could have taken the argument to a legislator, but I mean, really.
Anyhow, do you know what was at the bottom of their policy? Turns out that it was demands for efficiency. Carriers operate under strictly controlled timecourses for deliveries along all routes, based on the historical locations of mailboxes. Turns out that if you move a mailbox up stairs to where it’s never been before, it takes longer than it used to to deliver to a certain location. Let one person do that, and before you know it, everyone’s mailbox is way up there! Now it takes forever to deliver the mail! Too inefficient! Can’t have it!
Along the way I also learned that newly-built properties are required to have their mailboxes at the sidewalk or side of the road, to make it as efficient as possible to deliver the mail.
What’s the point of this whole story? I thought it was a fascinating example of how the demand–demand!!, I tell you!–for efficiency and ultimately cost savings drove the system into rigid policies that don’t permit you to do something as seemingly inconsequential as put your mailbox whereever you’d like on your own "golly" house.
I give this story to you as a gift, Scotsman, because I realize that it’s practically the Platonic Ideal of the arguments made by selfish, short-sighed conservatives. “Postage is too expensive! Post offfice too inefficient! Gotta cut costs! And then: look at the gall of the gummint telling me where I can or can’t put my mailbox! Isn’t this a free country?!?! “
Kary L. Krismer » May 30, 2009 at 8:24 am
RE: Angie @ 23 – I don’t get it. I think it fairly obvious that the PO would want their people climbing as few stairs as possible, especially outside stairs that could be hazardous in various weather conditions. In the past they didn’t think about that as much. Perhaps the change was due to the PO becoming a quasi-governmental entity?
Herman » May 30, 2009 at 9:47 am
I think it’s obvious that the .gov “controlling health care costs” = rationing it. Efficiencies at scale, even if such a thing could be delivered by the government, will not be appreciable.
That’s how it works in Canada. Get your sick father on the list. You wait, and wait. He starts to die. Call your senator and hope you have some favors you can call in with the ones in power. Threaten public embarrassment. Get your sick father moved up the list and he gets the surgery just in time to save his life.
Scotsman » May 30, 2009 at 10:40 am
RE: Angie @ 23 –
A classic example of missing the forest for the tress. Sure, the post office has some rules, etc. that promote efficiency. But looking at the greater picture, it’s a heavily subsidized operation that can’t stand on it’s own.
Kary L. Krismer » May 30, 2009 at 10:42 am
RE: Scotsman @ 26 – Is it subsidized? I know they don’t pay a lot of taxes that some other entities pay, but in what other ways is it subsidized?
Ira Sacharoff » May 30, 2009 at 10:51 am
For me, it’s kind of like getting to choose between the guillotine and the electric chair.
Health care should be a right, and health insurance companies find all kinds of ways not to support optimum health, from paying doctors less to denying claims, and to be dependent on an entity who’s major allegiance is to their shareholders is unfortunate. They’re really amongst the worst corporate scum out there.
But I also realize that the government is very well versed in screwing things up.
jon » May 30, 2009 at 10:55 am
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 27 – Being granted a monopoly is a pretty nice subsidy.
Here is another example of what is coming:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Update-on-Recovery-Act-Lobbying-Rules-New-Limits-on-Special-Interest-Influence/
“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.”
If you want to say something bad about Obama’s economic plans, say it now while you still can.
Monkey » May 30, 2009 at 11:20 am
Greetings,
I’m looking at buying a home currently underconstruction (not even built yet). There are changes I’d like to make to the floorplan. Any suggestions whether it is a good idea to meet with the Builder & Agent together, or is it better to meet with each separately. I don’t have an agent yet.
What are the pros & cons in each. Which would give me more price negotiation leverage?
Comments welcome, especially if you’ve gone through this before.
TIA!
Scotsman » May 30, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Regarding health care- here’s a thought. Just because you have insurance, or some equivalent government program doesn’t mean anyone is willing to provide the services you need for what the insurance or government is willing to pay. Lots of doctors wont take Medicare/Medicaid patients at all because the fees paid are to low. The number of doctors as a percentage of the population has been steadily dropping. How will the government fix that? By offering less pay and more hassle?
David Losh » May 30, 2009 at 12:12 pm
RE: Scotsman @ 26 –
It’s a for profit entity.
In six out of seven years of the present administration of the Post Office there has been a profit, according to Postmaster General BURLESON’S report.
Government works.
As for the dying father in Canada, that is exactly the type of fear mongering that goes on.
The list? You’re talking about getting on the list for a procedure? Where have you been? Here in the United States you need to be on a list to get on a list for medical care. A secratary with six months of experience, maybe less, will fill out the paper work to get you on the list.
We, in the United States are so blinded by the success of corporations we champion them. We want corporations to run our lives, and death, because they are so profitable doing it.
It’s just sick.
David Losh » May 30, 2009 at 2:21 pm
RE: Scotsman @ 31 –
To become a doctor in this country you need to be rich, or better put your parents need to be rich. Education in this country, as another point that Obama brings up, is a joke. It’s not what you know it’s who you know that determines success.
Being a doctor is a natural ability. You either have it or you don’t. In this country being a doctor is supposed to be a good paying J.O.B. Parents send thier kids to be a doctor so they can make a good living.
Here’s a thought; how about allowing education 100% free to people who can perform as doctors? Better yet how about making the Health Care profession an international science rather than a gravy train? How about medicine and health Care being about the patient rather than profit?
I could go on with the platitudes but you brought up an interesting assertion about doctors leaving the Medical field. Where are they going? Why not trot out the medical liability insurance issue? How about the frivilous lawsuit issue? That’s what’s coming next isn’t it?
It’s just tired, old arguments about keeping Health Care in corporate hands because people will pay whatever it costs to belive they can live another six months.
Health Care has to change. The system we have costs all of us in lost production, coverage of the uninsured, under insured and, let me point out the number of uninsurable. Approximately 2.5 million people in the U.S. — about 1 percent of the population — suffer from pre-existing medical conditions.
Like i said Health Care is my favorite topic. We all pay for health care through taxes and get nothing for it. You’re talking about doctors who refuse to take Medicaid/Medicare because of the paper work and it pays soooo little.
Why should they do paper work? Why shouldn’t they be able to bill your insurance company for whatever the going rate is? Your insurance company just has to raise rates to cover the cost. They are the only game in town, you employer tells you so. The government actually has to answer to some body.
Scotsman » May 30, 2009 at 3:18 pm
RE: David Losh @ 33 –
You’re right, we should just have the government handle everything, and give it to the people for free. There’s no question the majority will sign up for that deal. And it will work just fine until the government runs out of other people’s money and wealth, and then it will all collapse. Because remember- the government doesn’t produce anything, it just takes wealth and money from one group and gives it to another. Well that’s not completely true- now the government owns a car company, and a couple of banks. We’ll see how well they run those.
Health care is a right. Retirement is a right- at 55 for me, please. Free college for everyone who qualifies is a right. Money for nothing…. and our chicks for free!!
David Losh » May 30, 2009 at 4:02 pm
RE: Scotsman @ 34 –
Lovely!
Health Care is a seperate issue from cars, banks, and economy. Even though it is one of the biggest growth industries in America due to an aging population the cost is being paid by tax payers anyway.
Put all the people together whose health care is paid by tax dollars already and we’ve got about 60% of the population covered.
That means that private employers are paying for only four out of ten people who are insured in this nation. Despite this, they are paying vastly increasing premiums, increasing far beyond the rate of inflation and they are paying these large sums mostly on the lowest risk population. Insurance companies are basing their premiums on the loss of their investments in the stock market, not on the cost of providing health care.
The old get Medicare, paid for by taxes. Those in the riskiest line of work, war, get the Veteran’s Administration, paid for by taxes. The poor get Medicaid, paid for by taxes. Then we have those who are employed by the Federal Government, the States, the County, the towns. Their health insurance too, is paid for by taxes, although the tax money mostly goes towards the profits of the private health insurance companies. So tax money directly pays for medical care of the highest risk categories.
The bottom line is health Insurers pay for the people of least risk while your tax dollars pay for the higher risk. You already pay and get nothing for it.
It’s my favorite topic.
fwiw » May 30, 2009 at 4:21 pm
David Losh @35 wrote:
The bottom line is health Insurers pay for the people of least risk while your tax dollars pay for the higher risk. You already pay and get nothing for it.
Yup it amazes me that more folks can’t see this point.
Kary L. Krismer » May 30, 2009 at 4:57 pm
RE: fwiw @ 36 – Actually medical insurance in this company is high risk too. Currently, if you get a job with a company that offers insurance, you’re covered for the same price no matter what your medical condition or history. Government largely takes over at more advanced years, and that would be the highest risk period.
David Losh » May 30, 2009 at 5:34 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 37 –
Companies are pretty hip to the costs of Health Care Benefits. When you get into your forties you really have to think before making a job change. One of my earlier comments had to do with the number of people who stay at jobs for Health Care Benefits, for the family.
You also have people with Health Issues looking for any type of job that will allow them benefits.Employer based Health Care stifles productivity by being a barrier to job change or independent entrepreneurship.
In addition employers look at weeding out high health risk individuals. If you smoke you may be looking for a job for a very long time. If you are openly gay some employers will pass you over as a health benefits risk. It’s a myth that you can find a job with Health Care Benefits and keep it. Most employers are screening heavily for risk.
The discussion, I think was about government entitlements. The government has a duty to the greater good. Health Care is by far a benefit to every one.
Let’s go a step further and say Health Care has gotten to the point of being an International issue. Health Care should be an internationally based system. With AIDS, SARS, and today the Swine Flue, we should know that disease has no borders.
To say Medical Research for profit is a good system belies the fact of the conflict of interest. Let’s see what would net us the most profit; having a cure for cancer or treating cancer? Treatment costs more, so the profit is greater.
Comparing our health care to Canada is another waste of breath. Canada has a flawed system. Europe, has flaws, Every system has as many flaws as there are governments.
In my opinion Health Care should transcend politics as well as profits. If there is one thing I think the entire world can agree with is that children should have the right to Health Care.
You may want to give it a pass, go ahead, you can make that choice, but you never know which child will be the next hope for the future.
DrShort » May 30, 2009 at 5:46 pm
By David Losh @ 35:
I’m sorry, but you are just completely wrong. The setting of insurance rates, which is tightly regulated by each state, it a direct result of the medical costs paid out. Insurance isn’t expensive because of investment losses or some scam. It’s expensive because every insured person gets access to the newest, most expensive advanced technological treatments without even thinking about the cost.
Free markets completely break down when the person requesting the product (you+me) are completely removed from paying the bill (insurance company does that).
So we now have tons of biotechs and medical supply companies pumping out the latest and greatest medical advancements. All they have to do is show they sorta work and they have instance market demand because someone else is gonna pay the bill.
Kary L. Krismer » May 30, 2009 at 5:55 pm
RE: David Losh @ 38 – The problem is you do need some form of rationing, otherwise people use too much. That’s part of the reason health care is so expensive–a large percentage of consumers don’t care what anything costs.
Edit: And I agree with Dr. Short. Investment income isn’t a big factor in the pricing of health care insurance.
David Losh » May 30, 2009 at 7:29 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 40 – RE: DrShort @ 39 –
Bio tech, and pharmaceutical companies, along with the latest and greatest medical miracle, are all about stock prices.
You have both said the same thing; no one cares what anything costs because the insurance companies are also in it for the profit. The more it costs the more there is to administer.
The insurance companies make money from a per cent age of the over all volume. It’s another conflict of interest. If Real Estate agents could drive up the cost of a property into the millions for a higher commission……
David Losh » May 30, 2009 at 7:38 pm
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 40 – RE: DrShort @ 39 –
Sorry, I forgot to address the point that it’s the Insurance Companies that need to answer to the stock holders when setting premiums. The fee based income and outgo is where they make their money, but they do need to show consistent profits.
Mikal » May 30, 2009 at 8:20 pm
RE: fwiw @ 36 – Agreed. Best point here in weeks.
jon » May 30, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Food is a basic need like health care, but we don’t have a nationalized kitchen industry. That’s because people like different kinds of food. It also is a great incentive to get people to work by letting them eat better food if they work harder. By forcing everyone to have a single health plan, it is more nail in the coffin of our economy and further reduces how much control we have over our own lives.
Ira Sacharoff » May 30, 2009 at 9:06 pm
RE: Monkey @ 30 –
You’d probably want to convey what you want to the agent prior to meeting with the builder, so that the agent can help express what you want.
One possible route is to make an offer on the house, with the changes you’d like to see spelled out in the offer.
David Losh » May 30, 2009 at 11:23 pm
RE: jon @ 44 –
A National or international Health Plan would be a choice. Health for profit will always be available. You buy supplemental coverage anyway in the for profit system.
BTW Health Care or Medical Care is a luxury for most of the people in the world. Those same people still need food.
jon » May 30, 2009 at 11:44 pm
RE: David Losh @ 46 –
What you describe is what we have now. Emergency care provided for everyone and private plans available. We have trouble enough paying for it as it is. Providing more free care will cause fewer people to take jobs to get health coverage, and that will reduce the amount of money coming into the system at the same time that costs go higher.
HillaryCare on the other hand, had huge fines for doctors who tried to private care outside the system.
what goes up must come down » May 30, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Jon — have you ever went hungry? Probably not but there are people even in the good old USA that do.
what goes up must come down » May 30, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Jon how about this for a plan — as you mention jobs — if you get a job and work you automatically get health care — seems fair based on what you said in 47
Hugh Dominic » May 31, 2009 at 12:08 am
Hate to say it, but I agree with David Losh on this one.
We are the only industrialized nation without some sort of national healthcare. And it shows. We pay twice as much pre-capita on health care ($6,714 in 2006) than the average of other industrialized countries but we rank equal with Slovakia (!?) on infant mortality and just above Bulgaria (!?!?).
You stand the same chance of making it to 80 in the US if you live in Cuba – a communist dictatorship! Come one guys, we can do better than this.
I have lived in a country with single payer health care for the better part of a decade and it was way better that HMO/corporate care here in America. Sure, there are constraints on what care you get – but there are with private insurance and there will have to be in any system.
The benefits are that you actually get covered – 100% of the time. Whereas here, the insurance companies make money by denying you care. Oh, and everyone gets care – while here in the good old US of A we have 40 million uninsured.
This points to some serious shortcomings that need addressing unless your motto is “I got mine, tough luck for you guys”.
And for those of you who are so worried about single payer, no one is talking about outlawing private insurance. Where I lived, you could get supplemental private healthcare if you want it. We could have the same here, we just wouldn’t be bankrupting our businesses and ruining our competitiveness with the most expensive healthcare system in the world.
As to the argument that “we don’t want socialized medicine because government will mess it up” I would say this: we have socialized police protection, socialized firefighting and socialized national defense – care to privatize any of those?
100 or even 50 years ago a private medicine regime made sense – now in our competitive global environment it doesn’t – the results speak for themselves. We pay more than anywhere else in the world and get worse outcomes.
I say this as a professional working in the technology industry who has great coverage. It makes no difference to my personal position if we get health care reform. But, it makes a huge difference to the future of our entire country.
And to tie it all back to real estate, I think we are in for more price declines in the next 12-24 months and years of flat after that. I am waiting on the sidelines, growing my cash pile and looking at nicer and nicer houses move into my price range.
But at some point I am going to buy, and when I do, I would like to be buying in a neighborhood, in a city, in COUNTRY that is going to grow and prosper – we cant do that with the broken, inefficient (and morally challenged) healthcare system we have now.
(PS, I cant believe I am on the same side of an issues as DL – normally I can’t even make out his point, but on this one, he is right).
Angie » May 31, 2009 at 7:05 am
Jon@44: Food is a basic need like health care, but we don’t have a nationalized kitchen industry.
I cannot believe you invoked this as an analogy–US farm subsidies are enormous and deeply entrenched and are the real “third rail” in politics.
Hey! But I really came here to bring a link from the Times about real estate. Look at this amazing headline:
North Beacon Hill, Rainier Valley buck home price drop trend
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2009281855_homevalues31.html
“While most of the Seattle-area real-estate market was zigging last year, the Rainier Valley and North Beacon Hill zagged.
House prices dropped almost everywhere in King County in 2008, a Seattle Times analysis of sales data from the county assessor’s office shows. The median price per square foot slid 5 percent countywide.
North Beacon Hill/Rainier Valley bucked that trend. Big time.
Here, the median price per square foot climbed 12 percent from 2007. No other neighborhood experienced greater appreciation. None even came close.”
To all the dorks out there in the reading audience who’ve made fun of my neighborhood in the past, I’d like to cordially invite you to kiss my butt! Ha!
David Losh » May 31, 2009 at 7:48 am
That spike in sq ft price has to do with the amount of speculative builder development along the Light Rail route.
David Losh » May 31, 2009 at 8:17 am
My original question was about how to pay for the things we need to change in the United States. Then the comment was made:
Is enactment of the Obama healthcare plan a necessary component of the benefit equation to take the benefit monkey off GM’s back?
My point would be to take Health Care off the backs of all business.
Here’s a quick and I think easy example:
The cost to society of illicit drug abuse alone is $181 billion annually.
Drug abuse is both inside and outside of our current health care system. Some drug addicts have jobs. Many are outside of any health care system. We pay for them with tax dollars.
We all pay more for health care, all of us, all tax payers, today, than it would cost to provide nationalized coverage.
That money is already there, the systems to administer the care are already there, through Medicaid, Medicare, VA and yet it’s a problem because it’s our government.
It makes no sense to prop up an insurance industry. We all pay so Health Care Insurance Providers can generate more profits.
patient » May 31, 2009 at 8:33 am
I visited Snohomish yesterday and passed by the JLS office. The place is decorated with “You could be eligable for an $8000 tax credit” signs. Every window and door. Seems like the main company drive to try to entice buyers. No wonder some JLS agents keeps re-iterating it’s importance.
jon » May 31, 2009 at 8:36 am
As costs of health care increase, the issue of people getting denied treatment is going to get worse whether we get socialized medicine or not. If the same gatekeeper process is not in place when the government takes over, then costs will skyrocket. Did anyone hear about what happened to the housing industry when loans were approved with no restrictions? Given that, I just see no way in which costs are going to go down under an socialized health plan. All it does is take away any motivation to keep costs down, because any shortfall will be made up with more federal debt or even money printing.
I haven’t followed where the high cost of health care with poor results in this country come from, but I suspect it is a multiplicity of causes including large amounts of immigration, illegal drug use, and an overall lack of regard for people keeping themselves fit. Socialized medicine will solve none of those.
Kary L. Krismer » May 31, 2009 at 8:58 am
RE: Angie @ 51 – I’ll reply here the same way I did on the Times’ site. Without disclosing what the median price did too, a rising price per square doesn’t really mean much. It might just mean a bunch of smaller less expensive places were sold. Unfortunately, while their data does disclose the median, it doesn’t disclose the change.
Racket » May 31, 2009 at 9:00 am
“Here, the median price per square foot climbed 12 percent from 2007. No other neighborhood experienced greater appreciation. None even came close.”
To all the dorks out there in the reading audience who’ve made fun of my neighborhood in the past, I’d like to cordially invite you to kiss my butt! Ha! ”
What did you think would happen, when you claim imminent domain on chocolate boxes, and put up built green townhouses everywhere?
Enjoy the train to nowhere.
Ira Sacharoff » May 31, 2009 at 9:41 am
I like Columbia City, and I like North Beacon Hill. But what Kary and David said is true. The mix of housing in those neighborhoods has changed, partly due to the light rail route. Smaller places almost always sell for more per square foot.The same houses for sale in those neighborhoods that were for sale a couple of years ago are lower in price. Maybe slightly less lower than the King County average, as neighborhoods closer to downtown have held up a little better, but it does kind of show what kind of idiot the reporter is, to claim that the neighborhood experienced “appreciation”.
Well, people who live there appreciate those neighborhoods. I appreciate them too. But I don’t think that’s what they meant by “appreciation”.
Kary L. Krismer » May 31, 2009 at 9:57 am
One other factor is I think they’re working off medians for the entire year for 2007 and 2008. The latter wouldn’t really reflect the downturn that occurred at the end of 2008, or anything about 2009.
Angie » May 31, 2009 at 10:17 am
I certainly agree that 2009 may be an entirely other story–no disagreement there. I see houses for sale now that are short sales of properties that were on the market just a few years ago, no doubt.
And I will also agree that townhouses and condo conversions came online during 2008. Rainier Vista surely had the biggest impact–but then, what did it replace? A housing project. Any market-rate housing would have been higher sales value for that (large) area. There may be another big concentration down by the Othello station–but New Holly has been there for a while, I can’t believe too much of that came on line in 2008. In general though the townhouse/condo kinds of things have been spread pretty thin up and down the valley. There is NOTHING on Beacon or down the valley like the townhouse canyons in Ballard and Greenwood, where parcel after parcel in formerly SFH blocks were converted to high-density housing.
But boy howdy, have a lot of ignorant blowhard enjoyed dumping on SE Seattle in this venue. I personally am tickled for there to be some “data driven” defense. Hee hee hee!
wreckingbull » May 31, 2009 at 10:19 am
RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 59
This is my thought too. Another example of why the newspaper industry is dying. With all the data available these days, we get this ham-fisted comparison of 2007 medians to 2008 medians? 2009 is whole different ballgame, and we are almost 1/2 of the way through it.
Kary L. Krismer » May 31, 2009 at 10:22 am
Maybe the Times headline should have read: “Housing Market Had Surprising Bright Spot.”
DrShort » May 31, 2009 at 8:30 pm
By wreckingbull @ 61:
Real Estate brokerages spend a LOT of money on ads. This was an article written specifically for them.
Any why would the Time try to do their own data analysis? While Zillow isn’t terribly accurate for specific houses, I think their data at a neighborhood level is pretty decent. Zillow at least has PhDs in Mathematics working day and night trying to make it as accurately as possible. The Times probably used an intern to develop the data.
David Losh » May 31, 2009 at 9:51 pm
RE: jon @ 55 –
We already pay for health care with tax dollars. We subsidize the system insurance companies have in place. It is a very small leap to insure every one with basic Health Care, very small. The savings alone would off set the cost.
We have expensive Health Care for a wider variety of reasons. What interests me is the dogged arguments for our tax dollars subsidizing private corporations yet we fear our government cutting out that middle person.
Thanks for letting me express my views about Health Care in the United States. There was a rally and march about health care this week end and I hope that we will be able to improve the system we have.