Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Last | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1282.1 | -4 | -0.31% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2333.4 | -14.120 | -0.60% |
| Oil (WTI) | 101.41 | -0.830 | -0.81% |
| LIBOR | 0.5765 | -0.003 | -0.52% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 81.325 | 0.426 | 0.53% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.94% | -0.03% |
Markets are a touch weaker this morning after yesterday’s rally. Euro sovereign yields are tighter on a lack of news. The Fed’s Beige Book comes out around 2:00 this afternoon and tomorrow we get jobless claims and retail sales data.
Bloomberg is speculating that the Fed is ready to start large-scale mortgage purchases again. I suspect the reason for this is the new increased fee that Fannie Mae is going to charge, which will probably tack on 10 basis points or so to the interest rate on new mortgages starting next month. The hope is that they can reduce the base yield of MBS in order to take the sting out of the increased fee.
Rumors of a big refi package coming from the GSEs will get more life as Fannie Mae’s CEO Michael Williams is stepping down. The rumor has been that the government will start offering no-questions-asked refis to anyone who is current on their mortgage. I have said before that the originator is the weak link in this plan, but there is an election coming up. Even if it doesn’t work, it allows obama to say he is doing something about house prices.
Lennar reported earnings in line with expectations this morning, but the focus is going to be on the outlook. They reported a 35% increase in backlog and a 20% increase in new orders – more indications that construction is coming back, albeit from a very depressed level. Historically, housing starts would be 1.5MM to 2MM units at this point in the economic cycle, not the current 650k annual pace. Their view is that the housing market is stabilizing.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Market Watch posts the top ten worst states to retire in. CT edged out IL for this years dubious honor. CA is no longer on the top ten list…………yay.
LikeLike
Courtesy of Paul KrugmanUncompassionate Conservatisma pointer to more intentional irony at Digby's.Why Romney's "Firing" Gaffe Resonates"But not even that gets at the heart of what is so wrong with Romney's statement. It goes much deeper, to Romney's sense of privilege, and a relationship to the world around him that is alien to most Americans and reinforces everything that is wrong with the 1% in America.The key part of what's off-putting about the gaffe isn't the first part about liking to fire people, so much as the second part about "who provide services to me." Liking to fire people is bad enough, but this is the real kicker.When it comes to basic services like healthcare, almost no one in America sees the relationship that way. Most of us wouldn't speak of "firing" our health insurance company. No matter how much we might detest our insurance company, we probably wouldn't describe the experience of removing ourselves from their rolls an enjoyable one.But most of all, we don't see the health insurance company as providing us a service. We see ourselves, rather, as indentured supplicants forced to pay exorbitant monthly rates for a basic need that responsible people with means can't get out of paying for if we can help it. We don't see ourselves as in control of the relationship with them. They are in control of us–and no more so than when we get sick and need the insurance most. If the company decides to restrict our coverage or tell us we have a pre-existing condition after all, we're in the position of begging a capricious and heartless corporation to cover costs we assumed we were entitled to based on a contractual obligation. It's precisely when we need insurance most that we're least able to "fire" the insurance company.The same goes for the rent/mortgage, for the utilities, for the car, for the cell phone bill, for nearly everything."I find these posts from the blogger at Digby's Hullabaloo illuminating as they unintentionally reveal the mindset behind many progressive/liberal policies, to wit that the relationship of most Americans to corporations and other service providers is that of medieval serfs to the lords. What's ironic about this view is that just a few months ago, one of the actions that OWS supporters were urging was for everyone to "fire" their banks and switch to credit unions.In general though, this doesn't correspond to my own experience with corporations. The closer to a "free market" any given product or service is, the better the service and choices. Specific examples would include buying cars, contracting for home repairs, going to restaurants, etc. Health care insurance is currently the glaring exception because I have minimal control over the purchase given that it's done through my employer, based on what's best for them. I have no expectation that shifting that control from the employer to the government would improve matters. I would expect that I would do better shopping on my own. There can be a GEICO for health insurance.
LikeLike
Correction: "a pointer to more intentional irony at Digby's."Should read"a pointer to more unintentional irony at Digby's."
LikeLike
Lms, this is from a George Will column. These two paragraphs address what we talked about the other day, but with more current data."This includes generational strife. Most transfer payments redistribute wealth from workers to nonworkers in the form of pensions and medical care for retirees. The welfare state's primary purpose is to subsidize the last years of Americans' lives, and the elderly are, after a lifetime of accumulation, better off than most Americans: In 2009, the net worth of households headed by adults ages 65 and older was a record 47 times that of households headed by adults under the age of 35 – a wealth gap that doubled just since 2005.The equalizing effects of redistributive transfer payments is less today than in 1979, when households in the lowest income quintile received 54 percent of such payments. In 2007, they received 36 percent."
LikeLike
McWing, I'm not disputing the facts, I linked to similar ones the other day. Did you notice the poverty charts that showed a dramatic decrease, around 20%, in the poverty rate for seniors since the 60's? I'm disputing, or maybe just questioning, the reasons for this generational wealth imbalance.
LikeLike
Lms, I understand. One of the questions you had was what would more recent data show, since the sources I linked to we're up to '06.
LikeLike
"In 2009, the net worth of households headed by adults ages 65 and older was a record 47 times that of households headed by adults under the age of 35 – a wealth gap that doubled just since 2005."Add to the list of reasons why SS needs to go.
LikeLike
"Romney talks about paying for health insurance as if it were the same as getting a pedicure, hiring an escort or getting the fancy wax at a car wash. It's a luxury service being provided to him, and he doesn't like it, he can take his business elsewhere"If only that were true.
LikeLike
McWingYes, I understand, but then I linked to more recent data from the 2010 census that basically detailed the same imbalance. I'd like to understand, non-partisan wise, what is really causing this. Technically, this is a normal phenomenon in that most retired people have equity of some sort and perhaps a pension or at minimum SS. I think where they really come out ahead is in their cost of medical care through medicare. I believe our focus should be in fixing this, not necessarily by more cost shifting, but more along the lines of means testing. Additionally, we need to get control of medical costs for all age groups and rising insurance premiums for those under 65. I doubt raising the age to 67 will help but I'm open to suggestions. I thought yours were interesting but I doubt the scenario of the insurance industry being as accommodating as you seem to believe.I also believe these statistics highlight our failure to provide adequate opportunity and or education/training for our work force in light of the global economic dynamic playing out in the 21st century.
LikeLike
lms — CBO just issued a white paper on what changing the ages for Medicare and SS would do. I haven't looked at it yet, but it hit my inbox yesterday.http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/125xx/doc12531/01-10-2012-Medicare_SS_EligibilityAgesBrief.pdf
LikeLike
"NoVAHockey said… lms — CBO just issued a white paper on what changing the ages for Medicare and SS would do. I haven't looked at it yet, but it hit my inbox yesterday."Related:CBO: Raising Medicare age would save $148 billion
LikeLike
NoVALet me know what you think of the white paper when you have time.jncI read that CBO piece yesterday and wondered about this.According to a CBO report released Tuesday, gradually raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 would save the federal government about $148 billion over 10 years. But it would increase costs to seniors, and some seniors would become uninsured or would pay higher prices for private insurance.As someone in the 60-65 age group for insurance premiums and paying $800/mo just for mine, it's difficult to imagine how much it would go up at 65 and whether I'd still be able to pay our premiums. We are already committed to working full-time until age 65 and 67 respectively and will probably keep a portion of our business going after that. The problem with a blanket age revision is that it become very onerous on people with limited income at that age. Hence, I think some form of means testing might be a better alternative. But what do I know?
LikeLike
Lms, in my opinion there will never be the political will to ration care. There is only one sure-fire way a politician can use to help reduce medical costs: appeal to recipients greed. Allow recipients to keep some or all of their unspent benefits in the form of cash. All other methods of care rationing will be demagogues by the. Jeremy politicians political opponents. Don't forget, the number one voting demographic is the elderly. The number one growing demographic is the elderly.
LikeLike
I hate the word elderly………….;o)
LikeLike
Jnc4p wrote :" Health care insurance is currently the glaring exception because I have minimal control over the purchase given that it's done through my employer, based on what's best for them. I have no expectation that shifting that control from the employer to the government would improve matters. I would expect that I would do better shopping on my own. There can be a GEICO for health insurance."That there is not already a GEICO for health insurance illustrates how the free market is imperfect. It is next to impossible to buy health insurance as an individual that is price-competitive with what we can get as members of groups (typically employers). Interestingly, UNIS is a problem that the exchanges under the ACA are designed to solve. They set up groups into which individuals can buy which expand the risk pool for insurers and theoretically lower costs for individuals.
LikeLike
Jeremy = current.
LikeLike
Stupid autocorrect. UNIS -> this.
LikeLike
" the net worth of households headed by adults ages 65 and older was a record 47 times that of households headed by adults under the age of 35"That's a ridiculous statistics. Of course people over 65 have a higher net worth than people under 35. The bluehairs (better, lms?) Should have a lifetime of savings, while the youngsters are still paying off student loans, buying their first homes, etc. Of course they have limited – or negative – net worth. Will is a putz.
LikeLike
Troll/bsimon:LOL! For you two.
LikeLike
"Should have a lifetime of savings, while the youngsters are still paying off student loans, buying their first homes, etc. Of course they have limited – or negative – net worth."But this speaks to the flaw in the program. the bluehairs are taking candy from a baby. that's really not cool.
LikeLike
Bluehairs?……………blechI wondered what the heck Jeremy and Unis were but was afraid to ask…………I hate to be the dumb one, lol.Once again, the financial problem we're all facing down now or in the future is the cost of medical care. Funny how everything always boils down to this essential "not a commodity".
LikeLike
"But this speaks to the flaw in the program. the bluehairs are taking candy from a baby. that's really not cool."Word. For the record, Will is a pompous "putz," who is, however, correct in this instance.
LikeLike
Older blonds used to be babies and also paid.
LikeLike
"Funny how everything always boils down to this essential "not a commodity"."My solution treats healthcare for what it is, a commodity.
LikeLike
McWing, not a true commodity until we eliminate the employer subsidies IMO. And then we need to work on the monopolistic nature of the insurance industry and do something about pharmaceuticals. I don't see how your solution lowers costs or guarantees access to the system that will be affordable. I wish I did.
LikeLike
" Will is a pompous "putz," who is, however, correct in this instance."We're halfway there! How is comparing aggregated net worth between generations at all useful? Having one multibillionaire geriatric (buffet) somewhat skews the results, doesn't it?
LikeLike
lms:McWing, not a true commodity until we eliminate the employer subsidies IMO.What do you mean by employer subsidies?
LikeLike
Well, we're not going to get anywhere with using market competition to lower costs if every attempt to do so is labeled as "ending Medicare as we know it."
LikeLike
Lms, I agree that employer subsidies should be phased out. And you can blame your (and other states) for heavy insurance requirements and restricting interstate selling of insurance. That would drive costs down. Suppose it costs a doctor $5 to produce an X-Ray, and another $25 for the administrative costs due to Medicare and or medical insurance costs. He/She'd be happy to take, say, $10 bucks cash from me for the XRay, but they can't. If they did, then the government would demand they get the $10 price as well. Get rid of that ridicoulous re and that would help, among many, many other reforms.
LikeLike
"ending Medicare as we know it."I think that the Rs should embrace that label. push back w/ "of course we are. Obama/Dems are defending a relic from the 60s. it's obsolete and leaking oil. time for an overhaul."
LikeLike
I would end Medicare as we know it by opening it up to younger people – who'd pay a premium, of course – and go into competition with the exchanges.
LikeLike
bsimon:I would end Medicare as we know it by opening it up to younger people – who'd pay a premium, of course How would you establish what the premium should be?
LikeLike
eliminate the segmentation of the risk pools is a good idea.
LikeLike
" How would you establish what the premium should be?"Hire actuaries.
LikeLike
I seem to remember the attempts from Dems to take a few benefits away from seniors and a bunch of people wearing flags shouting "keep your hands off my medicare" and attempts to encourage end of life counseling as "death panels". There's no shortage of elimination of medicare rhetoric from either side…..I thought we were trying to get away from some of that. I'm trying….really.Scott, I was referring to the tax breaks employers receive. We either need to give the same ones to the individual market or eliminate them all…IMO. I know I didn't always believe this so you don't need to point it out again. I keep studying and reading and my opinion fluctuates regarding many of the reasons for our high health care costs. I just don't see how we can expect seniors, especially those who comprise the majority of that demographic, to afford medical care without them paying for it in advance to some degree during their working years. I hate to inform all of you, that God willing, you're all going to be 65 eventually and hopefully retired.
LikeLike
bsimon:Hire actuaries.Would you include administrative costs in the premium formula?
LikeLike
"you're all going to be 65 eventually and hopefully retired."I know we disagree here — but that's my concern. certainly not the taxpayers. that's why i'd like an opt out. In a couple of years, I'll have paid into SS for 20 years. that's my fair share. then let me wash my hands of it. besides, if the program is so popular, only a few nut-jobs like me will decline the coverage.
LikeLike
lms:I was referring to the tax breaks employers receive.OK, so with that in mind, let's revisit what you originally said:McWing, not a true commodity until we eliminate the employer subsidies IMO.Is it your contention that the tax treatment of a good or service determines whether or not it qualifies as a commodity? So, for example, in many states, food bought in a grocery store is exempt from sales tax. Does this mean that, say, an apple ceases to be a commodity because a person who purchase it gets a tax break?
LikeLike
" Would you include administrative costs in the premium formula?"Those associated with the buy-in, yes. Actuaries are good at creating such formulas. Or so I'm led to believe. That science looks more dismal than economics to me.
LikeLike
lms:I hate to inform all of you, that God willing, you're all going to be 65 eventually and hopefully retired. Yes, and hopefully I will have enough wealth remaining to take care of myelf and my wife despite the fact that the government has taken from me an absolutely enormous amount of wealth over my lifetime. If not, I have 3 kids who will have hopefully gotten past their teenage disapproval of me and will help me out.
LikeLike
bsimon:Those associated with the buy-in, yes. What about on-going administrative costs?
LikeLike
NoVA, I was referring to Medicare and retirement not SS.Scott, thanks for pointing out my lack of consistency in terminology again. I don't believe health care constitutes a true commodity now because of the many strange and un-consumer friendly treatments…………I suppose if the tax on an apple meant that I could not acquire one and was a matter of life and death……it wouldn't feel like a real commodity to me either. Remember I was a Psych/bio major not an economics student.
LikeLike
hopefully I will have enough wealth remaining to take care of myelf and my wifeThen you'll be more fortunate than most of the people we know. It's convenient to blame our tax system but I think the problems go much deeper than that and will not be eliminated simply by lowering the tax rate and ending the guarantees of SS and Medicare. I find it compelling that right now, when people need them more than ever, we're hearing more and more rhetoric that IMO will only enhance a race to the bottom and lower standard of living for many or even most Americans.
LikeLike
"That there is not already a GEICO for health insurance illustrates how the free market is imperfect. It is next to impossible to buy health insurance as an individual that is price-competitive with what we can get as members of groups (typically employers)."The lack of GEICO for individual health insurance is a failure of government tax policy, not the free market. There is no free market system for health insurance."Interestingly, this is a problem that the exchanges under the ACA are designed to solve. They set up groups into which individuals can buy which expand the risk pool for insurers and theoretically lower costs for individuals. "Yes, but only for those who don't have an option to receive employer provided insurance. Hence the "firewall" designed to preserve the employer provided system in the ACA. This is one of the primary differences between Wyden-Benette and the ACA. The "firewall" and the government subsidies on the ACA exchanges will lead to all sorts of perverse incentives and unintended consequences which will cause it to cost dramatically more than estimated by the CBO.ObamaCare by the Numbers: Part 1ObamaCare by the Numbers: Part 2
LikeLike
"NoVAHockey said… "ending Medicare as we know it." I think that the Rs should embrace that label. push back w/ "of course we are. Obama/Dems are defending a relic from the 60s. it's obsolete and leaking oil. time for an overhaul.""And has failed dramatically to meet it's original cost estimates from the time it was enacted.
LikeLike
lms:Scott, thanks for pointing out my lack of consistency in terminology again.I wasn't trying to point out your lack of consistent terminology. I was trying to point out that your perpetual desire to exclude health care from the category of commodities is not logically supportable. Certainly not, in any event, on the grounds which you have most recently offered.I suppose if the tax on an apple meant that I could not acquire one and was a matter of life and death……it wouldn't feel like a real commodity to me either.However it might feel to you, neither the inabilty to obtain something nor the relative importance of it to one's life excludes that something from being a commodity.
LikeLike
lms:It's convenient to blame our tax system but I think the problems go much deeper than that…I agree. A lot of the blame belongs to a culture which has led to a diminished sense of personal and family responsibility, distorted if not destroyed a true sense of community, and fostered an attitude of entitlement and government dependence.
LikeLike
neither the inabilty to obtain something nor the relative importance of it to one's life excludes that something from being a commodity.I get it……..technically anything that can be bought and sold is a commodity. The fact that the market distorts the price doesn't matter. The fact that someone with asthma shouldn't be able to acquire insurance shouldn't matter. I get it. Commodity = commodity no matter what. Life and death shouldn't be a consideration.A lot of the blame belongs to a culture which has led to a diminished sense of personal and family responsibility, distorted if not destroyed a true sense of community, and fostered an attitude of entitlement and government dependence.Those damn progressives like TR, FDR and LBJ.
LikeLike
Politicians love handing out cash! Turn it into a "here's cash, go get treatment (or not) program will lower medical costs.
LikeLike
"Then you'll be more fortunate than most of the people we know. It's convenient to blame our tax system but I think the problems go much deeper than that and will not be eliminated simply by lowering the tax rate and ending the guarantees of SS and Medicare. I find it compelling that right now, when people need them more than ever, we're hearing more and more rhetoric that IMO will only enhance a race to the bottom and lower standard of living for many or even most Americans."Unfortunately, the current standard of living has been financed by trillions of dollars of debt. What can't go on forever, won't.
LikeLike
lms:The fact that the market distorts the price doesn't matter.How does the market distort the price? Pick any instance of health care (hip replacement, heart surgery, whatever) and tell me a) what is the "right" price for that thing and b) how has "the market" caused the price to be different.The fact that someone with asthma shouldn't be able to acquire insurance shouldn't matter. I get it. Commodity = commodity no matter what. Life and death shouldn't be a consideration.A consideration in what way? If you mean a consideration when determining whether a thing is a commodity, or what the cost of providing that thing is, no they are not relevant considerations.Those damn progressives like TR, FDR and LBJ.They certainly have a lot to answer for.
LikeLike
They certainly have a lot to answer for.Yep, for example a decrease in senior poverty of 20%.And unfortunately, the insurance industry sets the prices and as I haven't had a hip replacement I couldn't tell you the actual or listed price on that. Those costs are hidden from the consumer.Pre ACA, someone with asthma couldn't purchase said commodity.
LikeLike
What can't go on forever, won't.Yep, too bad we went on a spending spree when we had a little surplus.
LikeLike
" neither the inabilty to obtain something nor the relative importance of it to one's life excludes that something from being a commodity."What definition of commodity are you using?
LikeLike
"Yep, too bad we went on a spending spree when we had a little surplus."Which is another good point. All this bellyaching about the tax rate's impact on the economy is blown way out of proportion. More importantly, of the myriad economic problems we face, some prioritization is in order. 1) get the economy back on track. 2) balance the budget; whether by spending cuts or raising taxes is TBD. 3) pay down the national debt. Solving #1, above, first makes solving 2 & 3 much easier.
LikeLike
"Yep, too bad we went on a spending spree when we had a little surplus."Agree completely, and adding over a trillion a year in a failed "stimulus" along with over a trillion a year in deficit spending, as far as the eye can see is compounding the problem. Adding a new entitlement on top of that seems criminal.
LikeLike
New entitlement?
LikeLike
lms:the insurance industry sets the prices…No. The insurance industry sets what it will pay for a given service. Insurance companies are purchasers of, not providers of, health care.I haven't had a hip replacement I couldn't tell you the actual or listed price on that.That is why I suggested you use any example you did know about. You are the one who claims that prices are distorted by "the market". I'm just trying to figure out how this can be. I understand how markets can be distorted by factors external to the market. But I don't understand how the market itself "distorts" a price.Those costs are hidden from the consumer.I'm not sure I know what you mean by this.Pre ACA, someone with asthma couldn't purchase said commodity.When I was growing up my sister had asthma and my parents routinely purchased (via insurance) health care for her.
LikeLike
Actually, what seems criminal to me McWing was denying people access to medical insurance, kicking them out of the pool when they became sick and bankrupting families because of health care costs. If those people constitute an entitlement society then we have a different definition of entitlement. Everyone here should know by now that I'm open to suggestions on reform but going back pre ACA doesn't really seem like a legitimate option to me and neither does doing away with Medicare. If I thought handing people money at age 65 who'd paid into the system all their lives would actually buy them an insurance policy at a competitive price I might think your idea had some merit. An industry that decides to go back 10 years to look for some little ailment forgotten on an insurance application after someone gets sick isn't an industry I'd trust. Granted my perceptions are formed from personal experience but IMO that's more legitimate than faith in a free market.
LikeLike
"bsimon said… New entitlement?"The ACA exchange subsidies.
LikeLike
New entitlement?Obamacare, and I would Include Medicare part D.
LikeLike
The insurance industry sets what it will pay for a given service.Then this becomes the price. Even if doctors and hospitals want more, that is the price which is paid by some combination of patient and insurance contribution.I'm not sure I know what you mean by this.Make a few phone calls and try to get prices on various treatments…..you'll get it.When I was growing up my sister had asthma and my parents routinely purchased (via insurance) health care for her.Our daughter had insurance also as long as she was a dependent or a student……….after that nada, until the pre-existing conditions requirement in ACA.
LikeLike
"Medicare part D"ugh. I helped get that passed. I quit CMS shortly thereafter. I keep a redline of the law framed in my office as penance.
LikeLike
bsimon:What definition of commodity are you using?How about Webster's: anything bought or sold; an article of commerce.
LikeLike
Lms, should someone dying of stage 4 pancreatic cancer pay the same for life insurance as a healthy 20 year old? Should a person repeatedly convicted of drunk driving pay the same auto insurance rate as a 50 year old who's never been in a wreck or gotten a ticket?We are all going to be paying much, much more for our healthcare either because Medicare collapses or is reformed. It's gonna happen regardless.
LikeLike
we need to reform the idea of insurance altogether — so that it pays for actual unforeseen catastrophic medical expenses.
LikeLike
I'm sure we have a different understanding of what constitutes an entitlement. Repealing Obamacare and starting to unwind Medicare (and SS for that matter) is absolutely essential to our survivabity as a nation.
LikeLike
lms:Then this becomes the price. Even if doctors and hospitals want more, that is the price which is paid by some combination of patient and insurance contribution.Is this an example of what you mean by the market distorting prices? Do you think that insurance companies are forcing prices to be too low?Make a few phone calls and try to get prices on various treatments.The last time I had a major medical treatment it was lasik eye surgery. Before I had it done, it was made perfectly clear to me what the price of the surgery was going to be. Our daughter had insurance also as long as she was a dependent or a student..We have been talking about health care, not insurance. And your claim was that someone with asthma couldn't purchase health care. That is manifestly not true. To take another example, the person who sits next to me in my office has asthma, and he purchases health care for it all the time. (He uses a puffer all the time…look out, ozone hole!!!)To say that person X, who has condition Y, cannot get insurance to cover condition Y is quite a different thing than saying that no one who has condition Y can purchase health care. The former may be true, but the latter plainly is not.
LikeLike
NoVA:we need to reform the idea of insurance altogether — so that it pays for actual unforeseen catastrophic medical expenses. Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!
LikeLike
McWing, should someone like me who's paid into an insurance pool of some sort her entire life and had very few medical expenses suddenly pay more or be kicked out of the pool because I get breast cancer? And I agree Medicare needs to be reformed and so does the insurance industry. We disagree how to do that. I recently found out that as a cash paying, uninsured customer at our gp's office I could pay $30 for a standard office visit but with insurance my co-pay is $40. What? The market is totally distorted and I suppose we could blame medicare for that but I don't really buy it. The entire industry needs an overhaul.
LikeLike
" New entitlement?"The ACA exchange subsidies"Best way to get rid of those subsidies – and welfare programs – is to make sure there are enough good paying jobs out there. If people have good jobs, they won't qualify for subsidies. Problem solved.
LikeLike
kind of OT — but Medicare and SS are linked, in the sense that courts have rule that you have to enroll and pay for Part A if you want SS. http://www.benefitspro.com/2011/06/01/proceed-with-caution-on-medicare-enrollment
LikeLike
"The entire industry needs an overhaul."agreed.
LikeLike
We have been talking about health care, not insurance. And your claim was that someone with asthma couldn't purchase health care. That is manifestly not true.Jeebus scott…….someone with asthma and no insurance would have a tough time paying for medical costs in any given year. A one or two day stint in a hospital is more than most people can afford without insurance. But technically, you are correct again. I need to mince my words more carefully as you don't seem to want to grant me any leap of faith at my meaning. I had to beg our daughter to let us help her pay the insurance cost of the PCIP plan here in CA because I knew how much she, without our help, or we, would have to pay otherwise if she had a bad episode. It's not even very good insurance, more along the lines of a huge deductible and catastrophic that everyone's recommending, but hey we'll take it. I think everyone here but us must be rich or something, and I don't mean that in an envious way. It's just that for most of us health care, other than routine care, is unaffordable and so is the insurance premium.
LikeLike
" We are all going to be paying much, much more for our healthcare either because Medicare collapses or is reformed. It's gonna happen regardless."Why are we going to pay more? Many other countries have comparable or better outcomes, at lower cost. Why can't we borrow some of their ideas?
LikeLike
"should someone like me who's paid into an insurance pool of some sort her entire life"this is a problem. but it's the way the system is designed, as you're technically paying into the pool on a year-to-year basis. while it seems like you've had the same product for a lifetime, your buying coverage every year. but agreed that it's not a good design.
LikeLike
also -i'm out of town for a week. catch you all later.
LikeLike
but agreed that it's not a good designThat's why a cradle to grave insurance policy makes more sense. I don't really care if it's a government or privately provided policy but economically it makes much more sense to me and is less wasteful of everyone's money. We would still have people with chronic illness, some from birth, but most of us will have paid in plenty by the time we actually get a debilitating disease. It seems there should be some reasonable way to do this without everyone freaking out about universal coverage.
LikeLike
Bye NoVA…..see ya when you get back.
LikeLike
Is someone playing with the format? Just curious. Font has changed and we have a reply button now?
LikeLike
Kevin, if that's you, the comment box only shows up as an option when you hit reply, just FYI. I need to get back to my bookkeeping as I haven't even started today yet……..yikes. Will check in later.
LikeLike
" That's why a cradle to grave insurance policy makes more sense. I don't really care if it's a government or privately provided policy"Right; same here. I don't care who's getting my check; I want reasonably high quality care at the lowest possible cost; with no possibility of losing coverage for getting a bad disease. From an insurance perspective it means the largest possible pool. I'm willing to give up life on a ventilator for lower premiums. I'm willing to give up the last month(s) of high-cost bedridden suffering for lower premiums. But if I lose my legs I want advanced prosthetics or a high end wheelchair. And ski chair. And I don't want it tied to my employer.
LikeLike
As one who got a 'bad disease' I quickly discovered the only way to get coverage was through an employer-based plan. I got lucky and ended up at employers with decent plans until I qualified for Medicare.Advanced artificial legs can cost up to $50,000 each, BTW.True story: Late last year I ended up at the local ER after eating bad takeout food. Four hours and a couple of IV drips later I went home feeling fine. The gross amount on the bill was over $5,800. Medicare and my co-insurance paid about $4,500 and the hospital ate most of the rest.My outlay was less than $150, so my cost isn't the point. Had I known that up front I probably would have punted and stayed home. Four grand for the care I needed is just crazy.
LikeLike
MsJS, I spent New Years Eve in the emergency room with my daughter (the one with asthma). She went to urgent care first as she was feeling worse and having trouble breathing even after two rounds of antibiotics for bronchitis. They sent her to emergency and Xrays showed she had pneumonia. She's allergic to a lot of antibiotics (probably why the first two didn't work) and so they cautiously started an IV in the emergency room, needless to say her reaction was immediate which necessitated even more proceedures and IV steroids. They finally got that under control and then started another antibiotic which seemed okay. They wanted to keep her but she refused because of the cost, even though we have no idea how much it's going to be. We know from experience it will be a lot, especially with her minimal insurance coverage. It's a mess really and I'm not sure that people who haven't actually dealt with some of this stuff on a limited income understand.
LikeLike
" Advanced artificial legs can cost up to $50,000 each, BTW."Its a quality of life issue. $50 grand to maintain mobility is something insurance should pay. But short term life extending medications for a terminal patient don't seem very worthwhile.
LikeLike