patrick.net

New Renter says

Speaking of writing styles you are sounding an awful lot like RFHTC.

IIRC, RFHTC is in CA, whereas I'm on the east coast, snow belt.

Reality says

Yes seriously. Like you asked yourself, what kind of person has enough time to make 19k posts; the same question should be asked of the account making nearly 16k posts.

Someone who enjoys chatting on PatNet.

You forgot to include Patricks poll/survey interface in your post.

To create a poll, just create a thread as usual, but at the end of your thread content, precede each of your poll response options with the new "r" tag I made up:

http://patrick.net/?

I was going to do a sample here, but I guess it only works in the initial thread post .

They look too much like baby vomit when blended. Chop makes them look like dog food.

Reality says

Yet it's extremely impolite to post photo of the home of another person in the same discussion,

Still you try to divert attention from the fact YOU posted the address of someone you acknowledge you are not friendly with.

They would blend perfectly into a Pile of Shit.

Ah someone has already disliked my thread - I wonder who that could be...

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Friday, December 6, 2013 __ Level is 102.5

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

/?p=1227424

Q. What do you get when you stab a Realtor 30 times?
A. An erection, and over 30 places to stick it.

Q. What does a Realtor look like in a microwave?
A. I don't know. I was too busy masturbating.

Q. What's the difference between a dead Realtor and a rock?
A. You can't skullfuck a rock through the eyesocket.

Q. Whats worse then finding a dead Realtor in your bed in the morning?
A. Realizing that you had sex with it the night before.

Q. What's the difference between a Cadillac and a pile of dead Realtors?
A. I don't have a Cadillac in my garage.

Q. What is the worst part about killing a Realtor?
A. Getting blood on your clown suit.

Q. How do you make a dead Realtor float?
A. Take your foot off of it's head.

Yes, debt is the only solution we have right now, and it works well, just right the debts off/down and have the govt. bail yah out if need be.

IF the banksters can make enough in interest on the front end of all this debt that's really all that matters. So the trick is to just keep the party going.

We're waiting for the rest of the REALTORS® to have similar moments of reflection.

http://longnow.org/clock/

Designed by Danny Hillis, the Clock is designed to run for ten millennia with minimal maintenance and interruption. The Clock is powered by mechanical energy harvested from sunlight as well as the people that visit it. The primary materials used in the Clock are marine grade 316 stainless steel, titanium and dry running ceramic ball bearings. The entire mechanism will be installed in an underground facility in west Texas.

Why not vitrification as a means of realtor disposal? Melt mixture of glass and boron, add realtors to mixture, then pour into steel canisters, a la Hanford. Store in geologically stable formation.

If and when the Hanford vitrification plant gets cranking, I think realtor would mix nicely with strontium-90, cesium-137, plutonium, and the rest of the periodic table collected in those storage tanks. Realtors could run the place, sparing normal people the hazards of working there.

Wait...I thought gov't payer solutions forcing lower prices on doctors wouldn't have any unintended consequences. I don't understand.

I don't understand, why would Doctors have a fit over this? Obamacare is just insurance carrying requirement, it doesn't change the insane prices.

It's still fee for service model.

“Enrollment doesn’t mean access, because there aren’t enough doctors to take the low rates of Medicaid,” warns one health director. “There aren’t enough primary care physicians, period.”

How touching, this newfound concern for the supply of physicians.

I was under the impression that the only interest physicians took in the supply of providers was to shrink it by limiting the number of teaching hospitals.

FortWayne says

why would Doctors have a fit over this?

Once patients have paid for the mandatory insurance, they tend to stay in network, where co-payments may also be subsidized. It is very difficult for independent doctors to compete with insurance networks.

Imagine if you are running an independent sandwich shop. Now imagine a McDonald's opens across the street. You might think, OK, my food is better and healthier than McDonald's, I can compete. But now imagine McDonald's pays politicians to require everyone to submit to McDonaldCare, so their food budget goes to McDonald's whether they want that or not. (And Homeboy shouts about the wonderful subsidies, because everyone should be able to swallow McDonald's junk "food".) You know that your food is better and healthier, but customers might not know or care, so they spend what's left of their food budget on whatever appears cheapest. You can't compete with McDonald's subsidized prices unless you sacrifice quality, and if you don't cut prices you won't have enough customers left to stay in business.

If you read how little insurance companies pay providers for basic services, you might see why so many providers in the insurance system upsell to more expensive "services", even if they make the patient worse off. Honest practitioners, who learned their profession to help people, try to get out of the insurance system if they can. Now that everyone is required to pay for insurance, honest independent work becomes more difficult.

One business model to deliver primary care that seems intriguing is Direct Primary Care. Similar in my understanding to "Concierge" practices but they take no insurance of any kind, strictly cash. Imagine the savings in staffing costs in a clinic with no insurance billing, hell no billing of any kind.
Are you familiar c2?

tatupu70 says

You need a tax structure to slow this natural trend. A flat tax by itself doesn't lead to inequality--it just doesn't stop it. A progressive tax does.

Even the Nordic eurosocialist paradises are starting to fray at the edges due to idiotic housing/land policies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-14/denmark-feeds-world-s-biggest-private-debt-as-caps-rejected.html

Gotta tax land, first and foremost.

If you do that, you've fixed a lot; don't do that, and you haven't fixed much, since land is always the source and sink of all wealth, until we invent antigravity, teleportation, or all live in vats.

New Renter says

Gold only hit $1200/oz in April of 2010 - how were American mines able to be worked profitably before that date?

Also what about international mines, what might their break even cost/oz be?

This is the same question I have. In 2004, the cost to dig out an ounce of gold was $300. All of sudden it got to $1200 in less than a decade.

I do not understand mining industry well and many pundits claim this as a reason that a supply of gold will go down sharply if prices drop below 1200.

Bellingham Bill says

Gotta tax land, first and foremost.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I don't see how you could ever implement such a tax policy from where we are now.

Robert Sproul says

Are you familiar c2?

Yes, but because they don't take insurance, their patient base will be limited to people who still have enough left over after paying for the mandatory insurance.

Robert Sproul says

One business model to deliver primary care that seems intriguing is Direct Primary Care. Similar in my understanding to "Concierge" practices but they take no insurance of any kind, strictly cash. Imagine the savings in staffing costs in a clinic with no insurance billing, hell no billing of any kind.

Are you familiar c2?

Of course skipping insurance paper pushing would make medical service less expensive. That's why the insurance lobby bought Obamacare -- to head off the cost savings by requiring everyone, especially those still have any money in their pockets, to buy useless insurance. The ideal medical insurance from the insurance company's view is one that covers every medical procedure, but has no doctor in the network available to render service . . . therefore you pay for the insurance but can never get the insurance company to pay for any bill. In order to sell such a policy, government mandate is necessary.

Bellingham Bill says

Gotta tax land, first and foremost.

If you do that, you've fixed a lot; don't do that, and you haven't fixed much, since land is always the source and sink of all wealth, until we invent antigravity, teleportation, or all live in vats.

What is "land"? Even Henry George himself had to re-define in the second phase of his Georgism "land" as anything that is government granted monopoly; e.g. patent, exclusive license, etc. etc..

In today's world, talks about "land" is a distraction, when the biggest monopoly is "money." Even buying land usually necessitates the buyer to rent money.

Antigravity and teleportation are quite unnecessary for drastically more land to be available: self-driving cars will suffice for a long time. . . just like automobile and highways enabled drastic increase in home ownership in the mid-20th century: by making large tracts of formerly nearly useless land into metropolitan land.

FortWayne says

It's still fee for service model.

Damn right it is, but I think they are referring to the Medicare recipient reimbursements. Not those that were forced to buy on the wide wild exchange. They are jumping ship because millions signed up for free healthcare but there aren't many takers for the Ballbreaker monthly.

They'll end up doing far more colonoscopies for $25.00 than for $3500 that is just the coinsurance and another $3000 on the deductible. Not many young and invincible in need of a good look up the ole poopshoot.

So let's see if I have this right. Complaints against ACA so far:

No cost controls on medical procedures.
Too many cost controls on medical procedures driving doctors away.

It's just an excuse to make the pharmaceutical industry rich.
It has unfair taxes on pharmaceutical industry that will hurt them.

Poor people will be forced to buy expensive insurance.
Poor people will get unfair government handouts.

It won't allow me to have the high deductible plan I want.
Deductibles will be too high.

Pretty hard to please people when their complaints are exact opposites of each other.

Homeboy says

It has unfair taxes on pharmaceutical industry that will hurt them.

Who said that? PhRMA gets subsidies, its competitors get taxed.

Homeboy says

Pretty hard to please people when their complaints are exact opposites of each other.

Actually, the complaints tend to be consistent: prices are too high, government exacerbates that while pretending to help, etc.

Doctors are the frontman for healthcare. They aren't the ones getting rich, but they sure as heck are the ones the hospital corps, pharma, and insurance companies would love to blame. It's entertaining how many regular Joes buy that BS. Take a look at who runs the big hospitals. Doctors haven't been running hospitals for years. They were run out by MBAs who promised greater returns to shareholders. There are plenty of stories of people paying absurd amounts for simple hospital procedures (eg, $13k for D&C after miscarriage).... Doctor's fees aren't the bank busters. The doctor got a couple of hundred from that procedure. As he should have! Where the rest goes is where the problem lies, but no one seems to want to look closely at that one. It's easier to blame the doctor because he/she is the person the patient associates with his/her care.

Look at the report on Obamacare on 25 June 2013.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

It's all Obamacare's fault from effective date: 2014

Pre-existing coverage will create a Global Financial Cataclysm.

Cannibal Anarchy will be knocking on the door, 1/1/2014.

curious2 says

Yes, but because they don't take insurance, their patient base will be limited to people who still have enough left over after paying for the mandatory insurance.

Maybe. I read today that the co-pay for some degraded new Kaiser Gold Obama(doesn't)Care plan was 50 bucks.
The Direct Primary office visit, in the article that brought this to my attention, was 60. (Although it would surely be more in some locales)
I just love the idea of striping the insurance predation out the primary care end of this bloated swindle.
I don't need insurance to see my accountant or call my plumber.
I should be able to afford to hire an MD for 20 minutes.

bgamall4 says:"Sorry man."

Damnit! Learn the rules of this site.

WE NEVER APOLOGIZE, WE ONLY ATTACK! lol

Call it Crazy says

70% Of Calfornia's Doctors Expected To Boycott Obamacare

Someone wrote an unfounded conjecture on the Internet. It must be true. The great Internet gremlins don't allow anything untrue to be sent through HTTP.

No one, not even the smuck writing the article or the one he referenced, actually expects 70% of doctors to refuse to take patients whose insurance came through the exchange.

Dan8267 says

Someone wrote an unfounded conjecture on the Internet.

He cites an article in the Washington Examiner, which was also picked up and supplemented in the (unrelated) San Francisco Examiner. The reports are consistent with the WSJ report of McKinsey studies finding fewer than half as many doctors in Obamacare plans as other plans. All three of those newspapers tend to align with Republicans, so it is possible they may have coordinated an exaggeration, but their reporting seems to have significant corroboration.

curious2 says

Who said that? PhRMA gets subsidies, its competitors get taxed.

Or locked out completely such as compounding pharmacies, not good.

70% figure is BS as related to Obamacare plans. The article is taking about Medicaid which always had low doctor participation. Normal Obamacare plans will have normal doctor participation.

Have to be careful with ZH articles. A lot of things that they find are very interesting, but sometimes their headlines are more misleading than Huffington Post's.

New Renter says

To me this indicates gold has a lower floor than $1200/oz

ISTM there's a lot of trucks waiting to be backed up in this market.

The system can't tolerate deflation.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCMDODNS

Production isn't failing:

but at ~90M ounces/yr

there's not enough new supply to meet the demand of the global population of goldbug stockpilers/savers (taking the 1% meme seriously, the global 1% is 70M people now, and I'm sure they want to acquire more than one ounce of gold a year each).

turtledove says

Doctors are the frontman for healthcare. They aren't the ones getting rich, but they sure as heck are the ones the hospital corps, pharma, and insurance companies would love to blame. It's entertaining how many regular Joes buy that BS

Pretty much true. The insurance industry and managers are masters of remaining moving targets throwing up obstructive rules, paper and ever shifting standards. The doctors become the only non-shape shifting, constant entity, and are thus easy to blame, and that's the way the insurance companies like it and encourage it.

When patients call insurance companies complaining about their coverage, it is standard operating procedure, coached into the insurance representatives, to shift blame to the doctors.

Try telling people that their financial relationship with the insurance company is completely separate from their relationship with the docotor, it is distinct, they just don't believe the doctor and direct their wrath at who is immediately available instead of the faceless bureaucratic enemy who created the problem.

This contributes to the general malaise of the system and is contributory to practicing doctors choosing to bail out.

Bellingham Bill says

New Renter says

To me this indicates gold has a lower floor than $1200/oz

ISTM there's a lot of trucks waiting to be backed up in this market.

The system can't tolerate deflation.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCMDODNS

Production isn't failing:

but at ~90M ounces/yr

there's not enough new supply to meet the demand of the global population of goldbug stockpilers/savers (taking the 1% meme seriously, the global 1% is 70M people now, and I'm sure they want to acquire more than one ounce of gold a year each).

Demand can certainly keep gold costs well above $1200/oz. The events of the last 9 years proves that. My point was simply that the majority of global gold production will not cease below this value.

Of course they may also collectively decide platinum is the metal du jour...

Everyone can look at the insurance companies all they want, but it's the cost of medical services that's the crux of the problem. If mechanics were to charge $15,000 to replace your windshield, you can bet that your auto insurance premiums would be a hell-of-a lot higher than they are today. Providers/hospitals are setting the prices...insurance companies just discount from there as much as possible, and Medicare/Medicaid pretends their prices never existed.

debyne says

Everyone can look at the insurance companies all they want, but it's the cost of medical services that's the crux of the problem.

Yeah, it is a fierce competition, which racket amongst these interlocking corrupt cartels is the most egregious?
I imagine this entire predatory enterprise was teetering after years of exponential growth, feeding off the formerly prosperous middle classes.
Hence the government wing of Corporate America steps in and mandates participation.
I wonder how long this latest conscienceless wealth extraction will last.

Heraclitusstudent says

Tim Aurora says

1. Home is an appreciating asset while car is a depricating asset

How many 1oo yrs old houses do you see around you?

Houses do have a limited lifetime, and are in fact depreciating.

I don't know in what sense one could say that a home is an "appreciating" asset.

A home is a commodity. More can be built as needed. Building costs are not increasing faster than inflation. And there is a lot of land to build. There is absolutely no rational reason for home prices to "appreciate" over time, in real terms - except maybe from a speculative perspective.

Some places have a shortage of land and are always in high demand. Prices here will continue to outperform all other places. New York, London, Paris, coastal California to name a few. If you buy and hold in these locations, you will come out ahead in the long run.