All Things in Moderation

Morning Report – the beginning of a secular bear market in bonds? 5/31/13

20 Responses

1. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 31, 2013 at 8:41 am said:

   First!

   Ha!

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 31, 2013 at 9:27 am said:

   Wow!

   http://t.co/B9Z9fT4UqB

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     Geanie, on May 31, 2013 at 10:38 am said:

     Troll, did you read any of the comments that were posted for the article? I tend to read them as a way of learning more… I never fully trust any article.

     I tend to agree with the very first poster on this. You simply cannot compare the way the author of that article did. The lowest rates on e-insurance are definitely teaser rates. After you fill out their massive application, there is no way you will get that lowest rate.

     When my job was outsourced (for 3rd time) in 2010 and lost my employer provided insurance, I searched and found the plan I wanted on e-insurance. After spending a lot of time providing all the information their lengthy application required, and then waiting for a response, I was so very disappointed.

     The insurance provider required both my husband and I to have “full and complete” physicals, at OUR own cost, provide all the results to them… and THEN they would determine if they would accept us and at what cost they would do so.

     Well, needless to say, we didn’t get the insurance, mostly because we simply could not afford to pay for 2 “full and complete” physicals… including blood tests, xrays, etc.

     And the insurance plan price posted online was going to be just over $1100 PER MONTH. Which was comparable to the over $1100 PER MONTH I was paying for our insurance through my employer (employer paid no part if it, just made it avail).

     I laughed out loud as soon as I started reading the article as it was stating monthly costs of less than $200 per month from e-insurance…. oh yea, take me back to the 80’s there LOL.

     I, for one, am not taking the article seriously. I do expect to find out for myself how this all works, once Oklahoma gets the Federal exchange set up next year… since we won’t be having a State exchange.

     LikeLike

     Reply
     • 

       ScottC, on May 31, 2013 at 11:50 am said:

       McWing:

       Tough to navigate on the IPhone while driving.

       Probably shouldn’t admit to that.

       LikeLike

       Reply
     • 

       ScottC, on May 31, 2013 at 12:02 pm said:

       Geanie:

       I laughed out loud as soon as I started reading the article as it was stating monthly costs of less than $200 per month from e-insurance…. oh yea, take me back to the 80′s there LOL.

       You have a point with the teaser rates, but remember that the $182 plan referred to the minimum amount of health insurance allowed by law, the catastrophic plan, for a 25 year old. So unless you and your husband were trying to get the same minimal insurance plan, and were under 30, then the comparison between what you got and what the article says is on offer isn’t really a fair one.

       (BTW…how completely unbelievable is it that in America the words “minimum amount of health insurance allowed by law” can be spoken in any way other than as satire? Very depressing.)

       LikeLike

       Reply
       • 

         Geanie, on May 31, 2013 at 5:30 pm said:

         Scott,

         I’m fully aware that a 25 year old will be able to get much less expensive insurance than what my husband and I need. Regardless, they are teaser rates, on every policy they offer there is a teaser rate shown online. So unless the author of the article actually went through the entire process of the application to obtain what the actual rates would be, then I have no use for his article.

         LikeLike
3. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 31, 2013 at 11:48 am said:

   Thank you Geanie; thought provoking.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   yellojkt, on May 31, 2013 at 12:01 pm said:

   Carrying over:

   And I agree that the desire to federalize domestic issues is more pronounced in the D Party. It is also alive in the R Party.

   The much vilified No Child Left Behind was a top-down federalization of education policy under the Bush Administration. The new Common Core standards were developed as a consortium of state education officials with some federal coordination. The Tea Party has decided the latter is an unacceptable level of federal over-reach.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on May 31, 2013 at 12:04 pm said:

     yello:

     The much vilified No Child Left Behind was a top-down federalization of education policy under the Bush Administration.

     Exactly. So was this an indication of a leftward or rightward moving R party?

     LikeLike

     Reply
5. 

   yellojkt, on May 31, 2013 at 12:08 pm said:

   Pre-buttal:

   National Review, of course, disagrees:

   So the Tea Party is right when it accuses the Obama administration of nationalizing education standards through the back door. The Founders opposed that for a reason. Once de facto nationalization is achieved, parents will lose their ability to influence their children’s education. Leverage that can be easily exercised at local school-board meetings or through representatives in state legislators will be lost to unaccountable federal bureaucrats (like Lois Lerner), and worse, to the even less accountable private education consortia that are developing the Common Core.

   I have read significant portions of the actual Common Core standards and while written in nearly impenetrable Educatorese, they are a common sense consolidation of what used to be a rather scattered hodge-podge of often contradictory objectives.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on May 31, 2013 at 12:28 pm said:

     yello:

     they are a common sense consolidation of what used to be a rather scattered hodge-podge of often contradictory objectives.

     Whose objectives? The fed or individual states? If the latter, then I don’t see anything wrong with individual states having differing or even contradictory objectives to one another.

     LikeLike

     Reply
6. 

   Troll McWingnut or George, whichever, on May 31, 2013 at 12:21 pm said:

   “Probably shouldn’t admit to that.”

   Since I’m not a reporter writing stories critical of the current administration, no worries.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • 

     ScottC, on May 31, 2013 at 12:34 pm said:

     MCwing:

     hah.

     LikeLike

     Reply
7. 

   jnc4p, on May 31, 2013 at 12:42 pm said:

   Progressives turn on Jerry Brown and also attempt to rewrite history:

   “Friday, May 31, 2013 01:17 PM EST
   How liberals saved California
   It wasn’t Jerry Brown’s austerity that led the fiscal comeback. It was the state’s smart, bold progressive movement
   By David Dayen”

   http://www.salon.com/2013/05/31/how_liberals_saved_california/

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   jnc4p, on May 31, 2013 at 12:55 pm said:

   For those who’ve never read this, it’s worth doing so. This piece was written by President Obama’s nominee to head the FBI, who I believe is a good choice.

   “Intelligence Under the Law, May 2005
   Speech given by former deputy attorney general James B. Comey, before the National Security Agency in Fort Meade, Maryland, on May 20, 2005.”

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/cheney/doc-comey-nsa.html

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   markinaustin, on May 31, 2013 at 1:33 pm said:

   Great speech, JNC.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    jnc4p, on May 31, 2013 at 3:56 pm said:

    Worth a read

    “Imprisoned CIA Torture Whistleblower John Kiriakou Pens “Letter from Loretto”
    By: Brian Sonenstein Wednesday May 29, 2013 5:25 ”

    http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/29/imprisoned-cia-torture-whistleblower-john-kiriakou-pens-letter-from-loretto/

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    lmsinca, on May 31, 2013 at 4:49 pm said:

    I’ve got some catch up reading to do I see, but can’t help but comment on this,

    McWing:

    Tough to navigate on the IPhone while driving

    Scott:

    Probably shouldn’t admit to that

    Even if Texas has a no texting while driving law, real men would just ignore it.

    LikeLike

    Reply
12. 

    lmsinca, on May 31, 2013 at 5:40 pm said:

    I read just read McWing’s linked piece about insurance rates. I think Geanie has already highlighted at least one problem with the article, but I did have one other thought.

    The individual market as it stands now in CA is completely closed to people with pre-existing conditions. There is a separate plan for them (PCIP) because of the ACA which is closing soon and the exchange will take it’s place.

    These people will still not be able to purchase insurance on the individual market, but they will be able to purchase through the exchanges at what looks like a very competitive small group rate. Because these plans take all comers, not just healthy non-smokers, they will naturally be slightly higher.

    I have small group insurance now, am unable to purchase on the individual market, and from what I can tell my insurance premium will go down about $200/mo for a similar benefit package.

    I think the author in this piece is the one comparing apples to oranges.

    LikeLike

    Reply
13. 

    lmsinca, on May 31, 2013 at 5:56 pm said:

    jnc, thanks for the Dayen piece (I like him a lot, and he lives in CA). I think he’s right on restoring the dental plan in medi-cal but largely wrong about Brown. Brown’s under a lot of pressure from Dems to restore spending and I mostly hope he stands firm but I think there are a few areas where he can open the purse strings a little. Priorities, priorities.

    I need to look into it but I’ve heard some rumblings about Brown and the ACA. I’ll try to see what I can find, beginning with an email I received today but haven’t read yet.

    LikeLike

    Reply