About The Tim

Tim Ellis is the founder of Seattle Bubble. His background in engineering and computer / internet technology, a fondness of data-based analysis of problems, and an addiction to spreadsheets all influence his perspective on the Seattle-area real estate market.

70 comments:

  1. 1
    softwarengineer says:

    The Recent Stock Market Downturn, the Gulf Oil Crisis and Retail Sales

    IMO, all three of these recent events are tied together, CEOs [Boeing, Disney and Hewlett Packard] recently bunched together with Chamber of Commerces and Mayors to promote more uncontrolled population growth in America and cheaper labor, while 25 million severely under-employed/unemployed Americans plus an army of ghost unemployed are screaming, “What?”.

    Where’s Disney going to get theme park visitors in Florida oil soaked beaches [I assume toxic fumes too], butcher axing American wages with more environmental damages too?

    Where’s Boeing going to fill plane seats as wages plummet worse?

    Where’s Hewlett Packard going to sell computer equipment to with permanent private sector wage declines and job base?

    These idiot Mayors and CEOs are clearly throwing the consumer baby out with the American middle class wage rate bath water. They’ve totally lost their ability to plan future sales and local economy tax base.

  2. 2
    D. in Ballard says:

    It’s really been hard to take you seriously since you cited Jan Brewer on the weekend. All the more hard to take when you use the phrase “idiot Mayors.” Like you’d know.

  3. 3

    Totally off-topic, but does anyone have a link to a site that explains how they change direction on oil wells being drilled? Check out this story. I just don’t understand how they can direct the drilling to change direction.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37976487/ns/us_news-environment

  4. 4
    One Eyed Man says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 3

    I’ll ask by gastroenterologist. I’ve got an appointment in two weeks and I think its the same technology.

    Here’s a start on some of the actual answer. You can probably follow the links to broaden the explanation on the different technologies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_steerable_system

  5. 5

    RE: One Eyed Man @ 4 – Thanks. When you think of all the other stuff they have to do for drilling, the whole process is really amazing.

  6. 6
    pfft says:

    By softwarengineer @ 1:

    The Recent Stock Market Downturn, the Gulf Oil Crisis and Retail Sales

    IMO, all three of these recent events are tied together, CEOs [Boeing, Disney and Hewlett Packard] recently bunched together with Chamber of Commerces and Mayors to promote more uncontrolled population growth in America and cheaper labor, while 25 million severely under-employed/unemployed Americans plus an army of ghost unemployed are screaming, “What?”.

    Where’s Disney going to get theme park visitors in Florida oil soaked beaches [I assume toxic fumes too], butcher axing American wages with more environmental damages too?

    Where’s Boeing going to fill plane seats as wages plummet worse?

    Where’s Hewlett Packard going to sell computer equipment to with permanent private sector wage declines and job base?

    These idiot Mayors and CEOs are clearly throwing the consumer baby out with the American middle class wage rate bath water. They’ve totally lost their ability to plan future sales and local economy tax base.

    incomes were up this month.

  7. 7
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 37:

    RE: David Losh @ 36 – And you on the other hand have absolutely no concept at all of supply and demand, and what happens to a market when the demand side becomes totally skewed because no one cares what anything costs.

    can you prove this? if this is true why does most of the industrial world get better care but spend 1/2 as much?

    are you saying corporations aren’t holding the line on costs or people? since so many people don’t have health insurance shouldn’t that be containing costs?

    if you need medical treatment you don’t have much leeway.

  8. 8

    By pfft @ 7:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 37:

    RE: David Losh @ 36 – And you on the other hand have absolutely no concept at all of supply and demand, and what happens to a market when the demand side becomes totally skewed because no one cares what anything costs.

    can you prove this? if this is true why does most of the industrial world get better care but spend 1/2 as much?.

    Well I don’t know what country you’re talking about, but as to ours the fact that so many have insurance is why things cost 2x as much. That was the effect on the market I was referring to from a skewed demand curve.

    People without insurance don’t hold down the costs. The people with insurance drive them up. Rather than take a Sudafed, people with colds who have insurance go to the doctor to be told to take a Sudafed, or to beg for a worthless antibiotic, which they also might not pay the full price of. But for the insurance, they’d take a Sudafed.

  9. 9
    WestSideBilly says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 8:

    Well I don’t know what country you’re talking about, but as to ours the fact that so many have insurance is why things cost 2x as much. That was the effect on the market I was referring to from a skewed demand curve.

    People without insurance don’t hold down the costs. The people with insurance drive them up. Rather than take a Sudafed, people with colds who have insurance go to the doctor to be told to take a Sudafed, or to beg for a worthless antibiotic, which they also might not pay the full price of. But for the insurance, they’d take a Sudafed.

    Most of the comparison countries have universal health coverage. 100% of citizens are covered. So your entire point here is baseless. Canada, England, Germany, Norway, Japan, et al – 100% coverage and lower costs.

  10. 10

    By WestSideBilly @ 9:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 8:

    Well I don’t know what country you’re talking about, but as to ours the fact that so many have insurance is why things cost 2x as much. That was the effect on the market I was referring to from a skewed demand curve.

    People without insurance don’t hold down the costs. The people with insurance drive them up. Rather than take a Sudafed, people with colds who have insurance go to the doctor to be told to take a Sudafed, or to beg for a worthless antibiotic, which they also might not pay the full price of. But for the insurance, they’d take a Sudafed.

    Most of the comparison countries have universal health coverage. 100% of citizens are covered. So your entire point here is baseless. Canada, England, Germany, Norway, Japan, et al – 100% coverage and lower costs.

    And they undoubtedly ration treatment some other way besides price. And they undoubtedly don’t have a free enterprise system (e.g. doctors and hospitals) underlying their system.

  11. 11
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 8:

    By pfft @ 7:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 37:

    RE: David Losh @ 36 – And you on the other hand have absolutely no concept at all of supply and demand, and what happens to a market when the demand side becomes totally skewed because no one cares what anything costs.

    can you prove this? if this is true why does most of the industrial world get better care but spend 1/2 as much?.

    Well I don’t know what country you’re talking about, but as to ours the fact that so many have insurance is why things cost 2x as much. That was the effect on the market I was referring to from a skewed demand curve.

    People without insurance don’t hold down the costs. The people with insurance drive them up. Rather than take a Sudafed, people with colds who have insurance go to the doctor to be told to take a Sudafed, or to beg for a worthless antibiotic, which they also might not pay the full price of. But for the insurance, they’d take a Sudafed.

    everyone in canada and europe gets medical care. why are their costs 1/2 of ours per capita?

    “People without insurance don’t hold down the costs. The people with insurance drive them up.”

    yes they do, they are part of the people who don’t add to demand. less demand drives down prices. do you really want to drive down healthcare costs by people not getting needed medical care? it’s not like we’re handing out free BMWs.

  12. 12
    Mohit Datta says:

    Just wondering what the average home appreciation has been since 2001 (where can I get graphs for this?)
    If a new condo sold for $326,000 in 2001, what should it be now?
    Or am I oversimplifying things here?
    Thanks!

  13. 13

    RE: pfft @ 11 – So you would say that if the government provided 80% of the purchase price of houses to approximately half the population, that wouldn’t affect the price of housing? If so, I don’t know why anyone was worried about that tiny little $8,000 credit. ;-)

  14. 14
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 10:

    By WestSideBilly @ 9:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 8:

    Well I don’t know what country you’re talking about, but as to ours the fact that so many have insurance is why things cost 2x as much. That was the effect on the market I was referring to from a skewed demand curve.

    People without insurance don’t hold down the costs. The people with insurance drive them up. Rather than take a Sudafed, people with colds who have insurance go to the doctor to be told to take a Sudafed, or to beg for a worthless antibiotic, which they also might not pay the full price of. But for the insurance, they’d take a Sudafed.

    Most of the comparison countries have universal health coverage. 100% of citizens are covered. So your entire point here is baseless. Canada, England, Germany, Norway, Japan, et al – 100% coverage and lower costs.

    And they undoubtedly ration treatment some other way besides price. And they undoubtedly don’t have a free enterprise system (e.g. doctors and hospitals) underlying their system.

    no offense, but this is a very typical american attitude towards the rest of the world. the US system must be the best because we are the most awesomest free market nation in the world! the facts say otherwise.

    US Ranks Last in Health Care vs AUS, CAN, GER, NETH, NZ, UK
    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/06/us-ranks-last-in-healthcare/

    ““The U.S. health system is the most expensive in the world, but comparative analyses consistently show the United States underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance.”

    spend more and get less.

  15. 15
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 12:

    RE: pfft @ 11 – So you would say that if the government provided 80% of the purchase price of houses to approximately half the population, that wouldn’t affect the price of housing? If so, I don’t know why anyone was worried about that tiny little $8,000 credit. ;-)

    most of the developed world covers everyone and has 1/2 the per capita spending.

  16. 16

    RE: pfft @ 13 – I’m not saying the US system is the best. I’m saying it’s screwed up.

  17. 17

    RE: pfft @ 14 – But again, they don’t cover everyone through insurance. That’s just insane.

    I’ve mention this before, but if you buy Prilosec OTC it will cost you about $20 for a two week supply. If you buy the same strength in prescription, it will cost you about $300. The difference is the people with insurance drive up the cost. They don’t care that it costs $300 because they pay $10. The people without insurance are not holding down the cost.

    But answer the question. Do you think it would affect the price of housing if the government covered 80% of the cost for 50% of the people? That’s our current medical system with employer coverage plus those that buy their own insurance.

  18. 18
    Sniglet says:

    I agree that the rising debt of the USA is a very bad thing. However, what I think most people fail to recognize is that many other countries are MUCH worse! I certainly don’t want to give the impression that America has no problems, but anyone who thinks that the global debt problems, and growing depression, are an American only problem are sorely mistaken.

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_nSTO-vZpSgc/TCj33hUvvmI/AAAAAAAAIwQ/z49g_RRGOLw/s1600/Owe+Dear.png

  19. 19
    Ross Jordan says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 17:

    RE: pfft @ 14 – But again, they don’t cover everyone through insurance. That’s just insane.

    I’ve mention this before, but if you buy Prilosec OTC it will cost you about $20 for a two week supply. If you buy the same strength in prescription, it will cost you about $300. The difference is the people with insurance drive up the cost. They don’t care that it costs $300 because they pay $10. The people without insurance are not holding down the cost.

    But answer the question. Do you think it would affect the price of housing if the government covered 80% of the cost for 50% of the people? That’s our current medical system with employer coverage plus those that buy their own insurance.

    Virtually every treatment or drug is more expensive in the US than it is in Canada, UK or anywhere else in the world (whether public or private system). The US government, for example, spends more per capita on health care than the canadian government does per capita — but gets far less.

    There’s a cost problem in the US, but it’s not (primarily) due to the insurance system.

  20. 20
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 17:

    RE: pfft @ 14 – But again, they don’t cover everyone through insurance. That’s just insane.

    I’ve mention this before, but if you buy Prilosec OTC it will cost you about $20 for a two week supply. If you buy the same strength in prescription, it will cost you about $300. The difference is the people with insurance drive up the cost. They don’t care that it costs $300 because they pay $10. The people without insurance are not holding down the cost.

    But answer the question. Do you think it would affect the price of housing if the government covered 80% of the cost for 50% of the people? That’s our current medical system with employer coverage plus those that buy their own insurance.

    why does europe cover everyone and spend 1/2 less per capita than we do if you are correct?

  21. 21
    patient says:

    RE: Sniglet @ 18

    Sniglet, that chart is a bit outdated – 2008.
    Here is the development since:

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html

    Year Debt -fed pct GDP
    2008 69.15
    2009 83.29
    2010 94.27 b

    b – budgeted estimate in US fy11 budget

    I.e we are looking at an increase from 69% to 94% gov. debt of GDP since 2008….

  22. 22
    pfft says:

    the good news.

    Personal Income up 0.4%, Spending Increases 0.2% in May
    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/06/personal-income-up-04-spending.html

    the bad news.

    Chicago Fed: Economic Activity increased in May
    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/06/chicago-fed-economic-activity-increased.html

    “Moving above +0.20, the index’s three-month moving average in May also reached a level historically associated with a mature economic recovery following a recession.”

    that doesn’t sound good.

  23. 23
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 20

    “why does Europe cover everyone and spend 1/2 less per capita than we do if you are correct?”

    Because they ration care. Try getting a hip replacement in the U.K. if you’re 80. Insurance pays for it here. It’s not that hard to figure out. Health insurance company’s profits aren’t any higher than other similar corporations- the US insurance market is pretty competitive. But they cover a lot of stuff that other countries don’t- that’s where the majority of the higher costs come in. Plus the vast majority of research is done in the U.S., and that adds to costs. there is no magic where a U.K. dollar buys significantly more, or even the same care as a U.S. dollar. But we do spend a larger percentage of out income on health care.

  24. 24

    By Ross Jordan @ 19:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 17:

    RE: pfft @ 14 – But again, they don’t cover everyone through insurance. That’s just insane.

    I’ve mention this before, but if you buy Prilosec OTC it will cost you about $20 for a two week supply. If you buy the same strength in prescription, it will cost you about $300. The difference is the people with insurance drive up the cost. They don’t care that it costs $300 because they pay $10. The people without insurance are not holding down the cost.

    But answer the question. Do you think it would affect the price of housing if the government covered 80% of the cost for 50% of the people? That’s our current medical system with employer coverage plus those that buy their own insurance.

    Virtually every treatment or drug is more expensive in the US than it is in Canada, UK or anywhere else in the world (whether public or private system). The US government, for example, spends more per capita on health care than the canadian government does per capita — but gets far less.

    There’s a cost problem in the US, but it’s not (primarily) due to the insurance system.

    Well it’s also partially due to our incomes. I doubt you could determine precisely whether that has more of an impact than insurance. They both contribute.

  25. 25
    Scotsman says:

    RE: patient @ 21

    And we should hit 100% in August/\September 2010.

  26. 26

    By pfft @ 20:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 17:

    RE: pfft @ 14 – But again, they don’t cover everyone through insurance. That’s just insane.

    I’ve mention this before, but if you buy Prilosec OTC it will cost you about $20 for a two week supply. If you buy the same strength in prescription, it will cost you about $300. The difference is the people with insurance drive up the cost. They don’t care that it costs $300 because they pay $10. The people without insurance are not holding down the cost.

    But answer the question. Do you think it would affect the price of housing if the government covered 80% of the cost for 50% of the people? That’s our current medical system with employer coverage plus those that buy their own insurance.

    why does europe cover everyone and spend 1/2 less per capita than we do if you are correct?

    Again because I doubt they have an insurance system layered upon a capitalistic system. If you want to control costs and provide everyone with services, you need to have government control the entire system.

    Oh, and they have death panels! ;-)

  27. 27
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 23:

    RE: pfft @ 20

    “why does Europe cover everyone and spend 1/2 less per capita than we do if you are correct?”

    Because they ration care. Try getting a hip replacement in the U.K. if you’re 80. Insurance pays for it here. It’s not that hard to figure out. Health insurance company’s profits aren’t any higher than other similar corporations- the US insurance market is pretty competitive. But they cover a lot of stuff that other countries don’t- that’s where the majority of the higher costs come in. Plus the vast majority of research is done in the U.S., and that adds to costs. there is no magic where a U.K. dollar buys significantly more, or even the same care as a U.S. dollar. But we do spend a larger percentage of out income on health care.

    prove they ration care. if they do, why does the UK have better health outcomes than the US.

    “But they cover a lot of stuff that other countries don’t- that’s where the majority of the higher costs come in.”

    prove it.

    “Plus the vast majority of research is done in the U.S., and that adds to costs.”

    prove it.

    do you realize that an 80 year old person in the US gets most of their hip replacement paid for by medicare? anyone can cherry-pick one procedure and one country to make their case.

    US Ranks Last in Health Care vs AUS, CAN, GER, NETH, NZ, UK
    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/06/us-ranks-last-in-healthcare/

    ““The U.S. health system is the most expensive in the world, but comparative analyses consistently show the United States underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance.”

    those magic foreign currencies do buy better healthcare.

  28. 28
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 25:

    RE: patient @ 21

    And we should hit 100% in August/September 2010.

    the bond market doesn’t care. it is saying the US will have no problem paying it’s bills.

    The Invisible Bond Vigilantes Continue Their Invisible Attack
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

  29. 29
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 26:

    By pfft @ 20:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 17:

    RE: pfft @ 14 – But again, they don’t cover everyone through insurance. That’s just insane.

    I’ve mention this before, but if you buy Prilosec OTC it will cost you about $20 for a two week supply. If you buy the same strength in prescription, it will cost you about $300. The difference is the people with insurance drive up the cost. They don’t care that it costs $300 because they pay $10. The people without insurance are not holding down the cost.

    But answer the question. Do you think it would affect the price of housing if the government covered 80% of the cost for 50% of the people? That’s our current medical system with employer coverage plus those that buy their own insurance.

    why does europe cover everyone and spend 1/2 less per capita than we do if you are correct?

    Again because I doubt they have an insurance system layered upon a capitalistic system. If you want to control costs and provide everyone with services, you need to have government control the entire system.

    Oh, and they have death panels! ;-)

    as the study I’ve linked shows government control leads to better health outcomes.

    the US has over 40,000 deaths per year due to lack of healthcare.

  30. 30
    Scotsman says:

    RE: pfft @ 29

    Dude, you should move to Canada- you’d be happier.

  31. 31
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 30:

    RE: pfft @ 29

    Dude, you should move to Canada- you’d be happier.

    is that your way of saying I was right?

  32. 32

    RE: pfft @ 29 – Well if your standard is deaths due to lack of healthcare, of course a country that covers everyone is going to come out better. But I’m not talking quality. I’m talking cost. If you try to cover everyone in the US with insurance the costs will skyrocket even more than they have.

    Any time you have anything that some people can use without paying the full price for, prices will skyrocket. To avoid that result you need to ration using some other method than money. That will be specifying what services are available to who.

  33. 33
    Andrew says:

    Pffft you’re categorically wrong – misinterpreting data

    If you have NON-ESSENTIAL (read: non life-threatening) medical needs, that is where the rationing happens in other systems, and that is where I would warrant where many of us find ourselves with medical needs. If you compare standard U.S. healthcare (the kind much of the middle class has with typical insurance) to Europeans or Canadians, you will find that for a dislocated shoulder, or sports injury, or some such malady, you might be looking at 6-18 mos. for treatment in those countries. When I ruptured my achilles it was surgically repaired within one week. I have always made job choices with good insurance as a high priority. This type of injury might take a year or more to be addressed in another country with 100% public/universal coverage. But I certainly wouldn’t show up on any record as a casualty of the system, but it’d be a horrible year, and I wonder how good my recovery would be?

    If you have severe allergies or (pick one) various non-threatening issues, many of which can make day to day existence very uncomfortable, your attention will be markedly different over there, vs. than in the U.S. with the system we currently enjoy, and which allows us as individuals to prosecute our own healthcare choices and remedies, provided you have reacted to the incentives aforementioned, and incorporated healthcare/insurance as part of your career path and sought out decent coverage. Ever had to pass a kidney stone? It won’t kill you, but you’ll feel like you’re dying until it’s done, and I’d wager that treatment may or may not be prioritized for someone suffering from one of those…

    I certainly don’t deny the costs of some types of U.S.healthcare are out of limit, and the reasons for that are many and varied, and definitely demanding, and needing response. But tell me how an elderly/retired parent will fare, despite being in good health, but needing a knee replacement or new hip, with good benefits here vs. living in one of the countries with universal healthcare? Get in line. Enjoy the ‘on hold’ quality of life in your golden years. There is simply no way to not ration healthcare. It happens here, and most certainly happens in other ‘free’ public systems. How do you want to slice the cake?

    If you review tiers of healthcare, and factor in choices, and autonomy to make those choices, I believe you’ll find that despite our poor healthcare record as a nation that you cite, for many of the most severe and extreme situations, the world’s richest and powerful oftentimes find themselves in U.S. facilities for this ‘sub-standard’ care you decry over and over again.

  34. 34
    Pegasus says:

    Top Parks Managers Get 20 Percent Pay Raises This nonsense has to stop.

    This is the kind of thing that really makes a lot of tax payers mad.

    A dozen King County parks managers just scored 20 percent pay raises – plus a sizable pile of extra bonus cash.

    Now Team 7 Investigative Reporter Chris Halsne unravels how union maneuvering and backroom politics put “The Supervisors” in the money.

    King County has been slashing budgets everywhere. Departments are under a hiring freeze and to save money, they’ve been giving away parks and pools to local cities. Now, we’ve learned the King County Parks Department is being forced to make more emergency cuts this month after losing a battle with the employees union over pay scale increases for 12 top level managers.

    http://www.kirotv.com/news/24073343/detail.html

  35. 35
    Pegasus says:

    Home Prices Could Drop 50% As The Great Recession Resumes

    Home prices will decline again with risk of another 50% down to get house prices back to levels of 1999 / 2000. Community banks can’t lend as they continue to choke on C&D and CRE Loans written in 2004 through 2006. These are nearly uncollectible. Financial regulations just might shift the burden to the “too big to fail” banks who will need to raise capital while reducing their main source of income, proprietary trading.

    There is no double-dip, just a continuation of the Great Recession. I have been calling this “The Great Credit Crunch”. On April 26th predicted the beginning of the second leg of the multi-year bear market which is again led by housing and financials.

    http://blogs.forbes.com/investor/2010/06/28/home-prices-could-drop-50-as-the-great-recession-resumes/

  36. 36
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 17

    As I concluded in the other thread quoted; Private Health Insurance is bankrupt because there is no insurance for a random out break of AIDS. Private Health Insurance ran out of money treating AIDS in the 1980s. They have been raising premiums ever since, the government has bailed out that system ever since, and the only one’s with money are those new shiny hospitals we see all over the place. Insurance can cover those hospitals because there is limited exposure to risk, but “health” is a broad term. You’re arguing the word “health.”

    Health Care will be a World Health Organization project. You will see it as an invasion of privacy, but “health” is a global issue. Cheer Leading about who’s the best will get us all killed.

    Don’t we have a separate post for this?

  37. 37
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 32

    Kary, this is by far the most way out there idea. Let’s see, having insurance drives up costs because people don’t pay for care, the insurance company pays for the care so people use it more.

    Rationing? let’s say 3 visits to the doctor a month. How about you can see a doctor the second Tuesday of every month?

    How about we just have catastrophic coverage and we pay doctors like we pay auto mechanics.

    I’ve heard it all. Sat on panels, discussed, written letters, opinions, watched a lot of people die, and still it comes down to we need Universal Care, that is globally broad, and we need to do it soon.

  38. 38

    RE: David Losh @ 37 – David, I’m not against universal care. I’m against getting there through an insurance system layered on top of free enterprise. If we’re going to have universal care it will need to be what people call socialized medicine. I’m not real crazy about more government involvement in health care, but if you want universal care that is how it needs to be done.

  39. 39
    softwarengineer says:

    RE: D. in Ballard @ 2

    Tell That to the “Clear American Voter Majority” That Agrees With the AZ Law and Disagrees With You

    But the majority of American Voters are just a bunch of wild eyed extremists like SWE….LOL…the foreign corporists wanting more slave labor is the ethical way and We the People should just shut up.

    I’m glad you want to challenge the AZ Law in court….you’re putting coffin nails in your own coffin. My only worry is extremists like you may cause another Civil War.

  40. 40
    dancingeek says:

    By Andrew @ 33:

    …If you compare standard U.S. healthcare (the kind much of the middle class has with typical insurance) to Europeans or Canadians, you will find that for a dislocated shoulder, or sports injury, or some such malady, you might be looking at 6-18 mos. for treatment in those countries.

    Source? I have a couple of friends in England and they have never experienced such delays. Are you basing the ideas you are presenting on actual statistics/studies, or are you speculating? I’m not one to side with pfft, but I also don’t support throwing out stats without backing them up.

  41. 41
    Ricoshea says:

    If you are truly interested in how the US healthcare differs from the top medical plan in the world here are 2 great free Frontline specials that investigate the top systems and how they compare. It truly shows how much better run the healthcare is from around the world. Some from other democracies. They all don’t have it 100% right, but they are much better than our healthcare.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/

  42. 42
    softwarengineer says:

    RE: pfft @ 6

    LOL….American Incomes Were UP?

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/a-decade-with-no-income-gain/

    “…To me, that’s the big news from the Census Bureau’s annual report on income, poverty and health insurance, which was released this morning. Median household fell to $50,303 last year, from $52,163 in 2007. In 1998, median income was $51,295. All these numbers are adjusted for inflation.

    In the four decades that the Census Bureau has been tracking household income, there has never before been a full decade in which median income failed to rise. (The previous record was seven years, ending in 1985.) Other Census data suggest that it also never happened between the late 1940s and the late 1960s. So it doesn’t seem to have happened since at least the 1930s….”

    And this rosy income decrease data is household income data which excludes more incomes bunched together in cohabitation to weather the Great Recession/Depression. It excludes the top 2% of American incomes that sky-rocketed and skewed the general data. It excludes the growing army of ghost unemployed we “just don’t count anymore”.

    To support your rosy allegations though, the BEA showed a 1st quarter 2010 1.9% per capita income increase….but so what? It excludes all the exceptions and skew polling I documented above.

  43. 43
    softwarengineer says:

    RE: Andrew @ 33

    Healt Care Reform Implementation a Joke?

    Besides all the implementation delays until after 2014 [after the Republicans take over and eliminate all the Bill provisions?]….even the touted “existing conditions” and kids on the family plan unti age 26 is a joke this year too. My daughter is turning 22 and I just got notification from my family’s health care provider that she is being terminated after age 22.
    It’s for sure and in writing, unlike the health care reform bills’ promises?

    I did hear/read health care premiums in general are going way up this year though…LOL

  44. 44
    zoneman says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 8

    That’s crap Kary. What world do you live in?

  45. 45
    Scotsman says:

    RE: zoneman @ 44

    It sounds to me like Kary lives in the real world. If you want to see costs go down, put a significant co-pay on insured services and watch people think twice before heading off to the doctor for every little thing. Instead, we’ll get rationing.

  46. 46
    Tim McB says:

    Found an interesting link questioning if this is 1930 all over again that got me thinking:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/high-unemployment-lower-stocks-and-growing-worries-is-this-1930-all-over-again-yftt_511661.html

    Reminds me of how Scotsman used to post newspaper articles from 1930 a while back. So in light of Paul Krugman’s latest comments on a 3rd Depression, The Tim I think an interesting poll might be:

    Going forward what historical economic crisis will the current economic crisis most mirror?

    1.) 1930’s Great Depression

    2.) 1980’s-1990’s+ Japanese Lost Decade

    3.) 1970’s Stagnation/Stagflation

    4.) Early 2000’s Tech Bust

    5.) Economic Crisis, What economic crisis?

  47. 47
    Scotsman says:

    From the Wall Street Journal, June 25, 1931- when Keynes was alive and around to debate his position:

    “John Maynard Keynes, British economist, finds cause of depression “not in the high level of investment which was proceeding up to the spring of 1929, but in the subsequent cessation of this investment. I see no hope of a recovery except in a revival of the high level of investment.” Goes way out on a limb: “There is, I think, a possibility that when this crisis is looked back upon, it will be seen to mark one of the major turning points. For it is a possibility that the duration of the slump may be much more prolonged than most people are expecting and that much will be changed, both in our ideas and our methods, before we emerge.” Taking the opposing view is the prolific T. Woodlock: Following somewhat gloomy analysis of rail revenues and expenses in 1930, concludes more optimistically that current situation is unlikely to last since “the country at large has reached a stage where industry and commerce temporarily have shrunk to what virtually is an irreducible minimum”; production “barely is providing for wastage by use and by actual current consumption, if it is doing even that. … It is clear that shelves of goods are now rapidly being cleared and reorders can not long be delayed.” This is therefore like reaching the top of a steep grade; what rails need from the ICC is “a ‘pusher engine’ to take the train over the hill.”

    The Krugmman of his time! ;-)

  48. 48

    By zoneman @ 44:

    That’s crap Kary. What world do you live in?

    One where some people understand simple rules of economics and others, like you, don’t. But nice analysis. I can see you really have a lot of useful stuff to say.

  49. 49
    pfft says:

    By softwarengineer @ 39:

    RE: D. in Ballard @ 2

    Tell That to the “Clear American Voter Majority” That Agrees With the AZ Law and Disagrees With You

    But the majority of American Voters are just a bunch of wild eyed extremists like SWE….LOL…the foreign corporists wanting more slave labor is the ethical way and We the People should just shut up.

    I’m glad you want to challenge the AZ Law in court….you’re putting coffin nails in your own coffin. My only worry is extremists like you may cause another Civil War.

    and at one time the civil rights movement wasn’t popular.

  50. 50
    pfft says:

    By softwarengineer @ 42:

    RE: pfft @ 6

    LOL….American Incomes Were UP?

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/a-decade-with-no-income-gain/

    “…To me, thatâ��s the big news from the Census Bureauâ��s annual report on income, poverty and health insurance, which was released this morning. Median household fell to $50,303 last year, from $52,163 in 2007. In 1998, median income was $51,295. All these numbers are adjusted for inflation.

    In the four decades that the Census Bureau has been tracking household income, there has never before been a full decade in which median income failed to rise. (The previous record was seven years, ending in 1985.) Other Census data suggest that it also never happened between the late 1940s and the late 1960s. So it doesnâ��t seem to have happened since at least the 1930s….”

    And this rosy income decrease data is household income data which excludes more incomes bunched together in cohabitation to weather the Great Recession/Depression. It excludes the top 2% of American incomes that sky-rocketed and skewed the general data. It excludes the growing army of ghost unemployed we “just don’t count anymore”.

    To support your rosy allegations though, the BEA showed a 1st quarter 2010 1.9% per capita income increase….but so what? It excludes all the exceptions and skew polling I documented above.

    no number is ever good enough for you ever because it disagrees with your extremly bearish stance.

    incomes were up last month. that is good. deal with it accordingly.

  51. 51
    pfft says:

    By Scotsman @ 45:

    RE: zoneman @ 44

    It sounds to me like Kary lives in the real world. If you want to see costs go down, put a significant co-pay on insured services and watch people think twice before heading off to the doctor for every little thing. Instead, we’ll get rationing.

    WE ALREADY HAVE RATIONING. WHEN WILL YOU GET THAT? 40,000 AMERICANS DIED LAST YEAR FROM LACK OF HEALTHCARE.

    if we have european style-rationing we’ll get better care, less deaths and less spending per capita.

  52. 52
    pfft says:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 48:

    By zoneman @ 44:

    That’s crap Kary. What world do you live in?

    One where some people understand simple rules of economics and others, like you, don’t. But nice analysis. I can see you really have a lot of useful stuff to say.

    you still can’t explain why europe covers everyone at half the cost. you still can’t explain why the tens of millions of people who don’t have insurance aren’t pulling costs down. how many people need to not have health according to you to drive down costs. there are some serious issues with people getting too much care.

  53. 53

    By pfft @ 51:

    if we have european style-rationing we’ll get better care, less deaths and less spending per capita.

    I don’t see the number of deaths changing. Maybe their timing. ;-)

  54. 54
    magnolia44 says:

    Saw a guy on CNBC today saying instead of banks borrowing at 0 or .25% why not let the consumer borrow at rates like 1 to 2%. 1-2% mortgage rates free up cash flows and leave some money for consumer spending. He was also for getting more americans to invest in treasuries and put in some tax policy to make it favorable.

    Lower rates would be nice, I heard Chase actually was allowing for rate buy downs (not a refinance) to people who wanted to change their existing rates to the current lower interest rates, this was being done for current payers with no issues on their mortgage.

    In the past i said the gov. was going to do something and that something has not been enough. I still look for more to be done because if we do see another 20%+ in areas, mail it in people will walk in even bigger droves.

    Obviously i am biased but i see something coming down the hatch….. either that or complete collapse and having a (home, mortgage,foreclosure,bk,deficencey judgement) will not matter to anyone. :) cheers!!!

  55. 55

    By pfft @ 52:

    By Kary L. Krismer @ 48:

    By zoneman @ 44:

    That’s crap Kary. What world do you live in?

    One where some people understand simple rules of economics and others, like you, don’t. But nice analysis. I can see you really have a lot of useful stuff to say.

    you still can’t explain why europe covers everyone at half the cost. you still can’t explain why the tens of millions of people who don’t have insurance aren’t pulling costs down. how many people need to not have health according to you to drive down costs. there are some serious issues with people getting too much care.

    I don’t know why you think people without insurance would pull costs down. It’s the people with insurance that drive costs up. They are the ones overusing the services because they aren’t paying the full cost of the service and are not being otherwise rationed.

    Look at the effect of double incomes on housing prices over the past 50 years. The people with double incomes (more money to spend on housing) drove prices up. The people with single incomes didn’t hold the prices down. It’s the people spending money that affect the price, at least where there isn’t a lot of extra capacity. Hospitals and doctors apparently have been smart enough not to build a lot of extra capacity.

    Which brings up the other side of the issue. As is often pointed out here, it’s much harder to become a doctor than a real estate agent. That means the supply doesn’t change as much as it should, and so the effect on the demand curve of insurance has a greater effect on price than what it otherwise would.

  56. 56
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 55

    Really? The double income argument for the rise in residential Real Estate prices?

    The Note is secured by an asset of value, once the price exceeds value there are problems, I guess we can see that now.

    The double income argument was debunked ten years ago, or more. Banks set the standard of security for the Note. Promise to pay is still only a promise.

  57. 57
    D. in Ballard says:

    RE: pfft @ 49

    Yeah, I don’t think any argument was ever won by “everyone else thinks the same thing.”

    All I am saying is that this is a real estate blog, founded by a person who uses real data and facts to try and make reasonable predictions. It seems to be read however by a lot of people who believe in 911 conspiracies, take Sarah Palin’s facebook account to be the word of God, and now believe an completely unsubstantiated rumor (albeit spoken by a governor) that all illegal immigrants are drug mules. Now those last 3 things can be be easily disproved through minimal research.

    If you want me to listen to your real estate/economic opinions then don’t point out all the gobbledy-gook that you believe and the web sites that you derive your information from. It’s like taking real estate advice from an OJ Simpson Juror. Given that their reasoning processes are completely flawed, I’m not likely to listen to them.

  58. 58

    RE: David Losh @ 56 – You’re going to deny that people with two typical incomes can afford more house than someone with one?

    Just out of curiosity, why do you think they don’t build too many 3 bedroom, 1 bath homes anymore? It’s because people want more house, and with two incomes a lot of them can afford it.

  59. 59
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 38

    Yes, it is socialized meddicine, single payer, and yes it can be a co-pay. Private Insurance has been gone for a long time, but no politician wanted the socialized medicine debate. Private enterprise in health care has brought us the biggest innovations. The fear is, with the government involved the incentive to cure cancer, or find a miracle drug will be lost.

    The fact is that our government is heavily involved in research, props up the private sector through medicare, and medicaid. Converting regulation to administration would be money better spent.

    Private medicine doesn’t have to go away. Group Health is an example of that. What we need is a broader based Public Health System.

    Don’t we have a post for this some place other than here?

  60. 60
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 58

    Completely irrelevant, the ability to pay has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the Real Estate. That would be like saying it was supply, and demand driven, which would be like saying lower interest rates raise the price of properties.

    Real Estate, a Real Estate has an economic value. It is skewed because you have properties that have a priceless value, like the Rockefeller Center. These are called Prestige Properties. Here we have the Highlands, California has Beverly Hills, New York, Park Avenue, and so forth.

  61. 61

    By David Losh @ 60:

    – Completely irrelevant, the ability to pay has absolutely nothing to do with the value of the Real Estate. That would be like saying it was supply, and demand driven, which would be like saying lower interest rates raise the price of properties..

    Yes it would be like saying it’s supply and demand driven, because it is. You seem to be the only one that thinks that real estate has a certain set value. I really don’t understand that.

  62. 62
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 61

    I understand you don’t understand.

    We just created, out of thin air, millions of housing units in the past few years while prices continued to go up. People bought millions of housing units; and the ability to cheaply build more, like town houses, was established. What’s the value of those town houses? The price of the dirt, because they are fee simple?

    We can supply billions of housing units. We have that ability. The price of dirt keeps going down, the cost of construction is going down, so the supply is plentiful. Then it’s a matter of demand. Who would want those housing units, and the answer is every one, and any one, at the right price.

    It is all a matter of price, relative to the value of the property. Banks lend on the value of the asset, coupled with the Promise to Pay. The promise is never the driver when it come to the security of the loan, it’s the value of the asset, relative to the price.

  63. 63

    RE: David Losh @ 62 – Lots of houses (the supply) did get built because the prices were going up. That increase in supply doesn’t continue when prices go down. The problem with housing though is you can have a delay factor measured in years between when a project is first contemplated and when it is completed. That makes housing very prone to oversupply.

  64. 64
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 63

    Shanghai, China, perfect example, the supply keeps increasing, there are more than enough people to buy, but the price is artificially high.

  65. 65

    RE: David Losh @ 64 – Are either of those places under a capitalist system?

  66. 66
    David Losh says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 65

    Anyway we have the units for sale right now, plus shadow inventory, plus projects that are permitted, plus the people who want to sell, plus the people who need to sell. Then we have buyers who can’t qualify for the price, because banks know the value. Banks will lend on value.

    That goes along with, it’s a fact, it’s not a Real Estate until you own it free, and clear, until then it’s just leverage.

  67. 67
    pfft says:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 55in the same way that people who don’t buy homes drives costs down so should the same happen with healthcare.

  68. 68
    Ross Jordan says:

    By Andrew @ 33:

    Pffft you’re categorically wrong – misinterpreting data

    If you have NON-ESSENTIAL (read: non life-threatening) medical needs, that is where the rationing happens in other systems, and that is where I would warrant where many of us find ourselves with medical needs. If you compare standard U.S. healthcare (the kind much of the middle class has with typical insurance) to Europeans or Canadians, you will find that for a dislocated shoulder, or sports injury, or some such malady, you might be looking at 6-18 mos. for treatment in those countries.

    BS! I’m Canadian and have some experience with their system. I dislocated my shoulder growing up and got same day treatment at a canadian hospital and follow-up care over the next week. Without paperwork and insurance billing headaches no less.

    There’s occasionally horror stories that pundits use to fear monger about Canadian or European health providers. These are typically for patients who live in small communities and where there isn’t a major health center. Average waiting time in major Canadian cities with not significantly different than average waiting time in US cities. You can find corner cases anywhere.

  69. 69
    ARDELL says:

    Looks like the Homebuyer Tax Credit closing date extension is going to pass after all. The house just passed it as a stand alone Bill by a huge majority. Expected to pass the Senate any day now.

  70. 70

    By pfft @ 67:

    RE: Kary L. Krismer @ 55in the same way that people who don’t buy homes drives costs down so should the same happen with healthcare.

    Try dealing with the positions I took regarding capacity. It’s supply and demand. Not supply or demand.

    And for the third time, are you saying that if the government paid 80% of the housing costs for 50% of the people, that such a program wouldn’t increase the price of houses?

Leave a Reply

Use your email address to sign up with Gravatar for a custom avatar.
Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Please read the rules before posting a comment.