patrick.net

Eliza, My dentist has been so far been very good about disclosing the cost of any "extras", and in fact will take a break to print the estimate and have me sign it before we proceed. Again, much like a reputable auto repair shop would (or have to in California).

justme, Well or like Utility Boards that have to appeal for a rate increase? I recall reading a report in 2002 where in the 50's HC was like 4% of GDP. What is it now? 12%? I don't know. At what point does it eclipse any hope of real productivity? Having ( or not having ) HC Insurance shouldn't be a Do or Die proposition. If you'd 'prefer' to even out your expenditures, it should always be an option. But *not having it shouldn't be that big a deal either. THAT'S the America we need to get back to.

DinOR

[botched post] DinOR, Health care was 17% of GDP in 2008, according to the link I posted earlier. http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

Just to add to stupid things dentists/docs/Insurance do: I needed to get a tooth removed, I asked the dentist if the tooth can be removed within the same week, cause i had some FSA amount left which needed to be completed within the week. Went to dentist, he took some x-rays and referred me to another guy. Now, the whole procedure was a waste and add to that, they sent only a partial amount and rest of bill came in after my FSA amount expired. My wife went to this dentist for braces and he said, he would do it for $4500. We confirmed that there would be no other charges. 6 months into it, he referred my wife to another dentist to remove one tooth ($600). Now, he is doing the same for another tooth. HR dept arranged a healthy check up for free at office, so myself and wife took it up. We are also mandated to do a healthy check up at docs place every year. It so happens, free check up office was not actually free, those guys billed against free healthy check from insurance and docs office guys sent us the bill for both of us. It's always something or the other. Every month, the bills keep coming.

There should be a law against abusive billing practices. If anyone sends you a bill for something you did not order in writing, the biller should be liable for 100% of the amount of the bill in penalties.

justme, We need an extreme make over ("Health Care") version. Any thing short of that is a disaster.

So I asked for a fee sheet so that I could plan for the next visit, and I got, “He doesn’t like for us to give out that information.” Nothing like the free market to bring a little pricing transparency. http://www.quickhealth.com/service.htm

I'm always amazed how people presume that doctors are more ethical than lawyers..... In California, a client MUST be given a firm fixed fee schedule IN WRITING up front. Otherwise the lawyer can and generally will be DISBARRED.

sa, And there's nothing like that feeling of being "passed around" amongst HC providers now IS there!? Right, when you've got a system that's so generous they can afford to feed each other "referrals" you know something is wrong. The more HC expenses escalate... ( the more you need INSURANCE! ) It should be apparent that these people are plugged into the HR Dept's. as well? All in the interest of your good health of course. If *justme's link doesn't scare the hell out of you, nothing will.

We could have make over for lawyers too. Another day.

sa, Surprisingly I'm a little less cynical there. Can't speak for CA ( as Dennis has shared ) but in OR you will definitely be disciplined! I went to see a labor atty. regarding "alienation" in my former employer's 401K plan and being part of the Bar Ref. Svc. they agree to a 1/2 hour free consultation. Guy tries to bill me for $110 any...way. I contact the Bar Referral Service and in short order that is absolutely the LAST I hear of it! Try getting 'that' level of satisfaction from the medical community?

Dinor, You are right, people look at healthcare costs and believe insurance is the solution and fail to see insurance is one of the biggest problem.

kewp Do any of these help? http://www.billcara.com/CS%20Mar%2012%202007%20Mortgage%20and%20Housing.pdf http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2007/11/21/dslmtgresets.jpg http://www.scribd.com/doc/14166113/T2-Partners-Presentation-on-the-Mortgage-Crisis4309-3 First one is Credit Suisse report - 2007. Second link is a reset chart and third is a report from April 2009.

This is a good topic. I will start a new thread on medical costs.

FAB says: I was told that the X Rays were not going to be covered by my insurance and I got a bill for about $1K. $1,000 for X-rays? I get full panoramic X-rays every year, and combined with the exam and cleaning the bill is under $300. And DS's comment that the UK NHS covers dental is very surprising. I have seen many English, including some well to do, who have oral conditions that make me think they have never heard of a dentist. Definitely not an orthodonist.

Headset, In San Francisco!? LOL! Another reason I feel that HC costs have gotten SO out of hand was just like anything else, The Wealth Effect! What's next? Having to pay for parking when you go to have an appointment at the clinic? I mean after all, what hasn't had the patented REIC "these are people that -have- money" standard applied to it?

NHS does not cover much dental - a lot of dentists have gone private so they can charge more and only some people are able to get totally free dental treatment for necessary procedures ( think fillings) - children, old people and those on social security. Orthodontics - much more teasing if you have braces as a kid in the UK and lots of people think you don't really need them - just cosmetic. Also, dentists in the UK have a bad reputation for painful injections etc - so many people avoid them until it's absolutely necessary.

DinOR Says: > FAB, Good for you! ( Actually I thought a comm. appraisal was > more like 5-6K at a min. ) In recent years most (fully self contained narrative MAI) commercial appraisals for CMBS loans have been around $3-4K. I just did a few page Brokers Opinion of Value (since I'm not a licenses appraiser)...

repo4sale Says: > I sold 198 properties with a 1165% avg. Gross > profit, with a 23.65 month avg. hold. How about some details on just one “average” deal? An example of a 1165% return would be buying a condo in Santa Ana for $300K with $100 K down and selling it for $1.5mm 24 months later (the rent for 24 months would be less than the cost of sale)…

If your concerned over your child's education, suggest you send them to a private school. You can skip Cupertino and send them to Bellermine, Presentation or St Francis. After all many who been here decades favor these over all other. Do you rather overpay 200-300K or spend a fraction on private school ? Even in Cupertino you will see pretty large declines.

Isn't tuition there about $15k a year? If you have a lot of kids, that could add up pretty quickly: $60k per kid per high school. You could break even with 4 or 5 kids.

So.... who is the pic of? Just curious.

Me, in 4th grade.

I also made each comment author's name a link to all of that author's posts.

It's only a problem if they buy them at whatever the bank owes on them. What they SHOULD do is offer 20% of what the peak value was, and if they get a home at that price, put the refugees in there and let them apply their rent to buying it. It beats plowing them under.

Fox News is not a serious news source. The story may be true, but they have such low standards that you should not count on it. They specialize in riling people up. Here's a description of a bogus story from them about a rail line from Disneyland to a brothel: http://news.gaurc.us/?p=1462

See, now I could see the use of a rail line from Disneyland to a brothel at least.

OK, but find it in a more reputable source and I'll be more convinced. There's a certain lizard-brain nerve that Fox is optimized for poking. That's all they do.

And here is a more reputable source, the AP: http://www.wkrg.com/weather/article/fema_may_use_foreclosed_homes_as_shelters/76237/ So it does seem to be true that FEMA is considering that.

On the other hand, it will give the banks & note holders sufficient time to get ready to file thousands of foreclosures. I don't know enough about this moratorium, does it mean that all foreclosure activity will cease or just the part where they toss the people out on their asses? This means that my sister, who was due to be kicked out next month sometime, will have a 90 day reprieve during which time she'll save NO money nor will she make any solid plans.

Laws governing how property may be foreclosed have always been a matter of state law. Just like rules regarding how real estate is transferred, how title to property is recorded, etc. As far as the source of the authority, states generally retain the right to enact any law that is not prohibited by either the state or federal constitution. The question you should be asking is what statute or constitutional provision would prevent a state from enacting a foreclosure moratorium. I can't think of any off the top of my head. It would only clearly become an unlawful taking of property if the moratorium were indefinite or permanent.

I was there. A friend of my Wife took us there when we were on vacation in Las Vegas two years ago. It's a man made lake north of the city. Lots of golf courses, a made made river and several waterfalls were at the enterance. (run on pumps) There a small shopping area in the downtown of the village. Lots of hills around so people could have hilltop houses over looking the lake. It was pretty empty in the downtown shopping area when we were there, not sure if it was the time of day or just indication of how bad things were there even then.

This is another useless attempt by govnt to reinflate RE. The banks can hold back foreclosures for a few months while the selling season winding down in the fall. This artificially suppresses the REO inventory in Jan/Feb of next year. Come spring, the RE cheerleaders will trumpet the market has bottomed and hope to fan up a feeding frenzy. It isn't going to work because the internet is enpowering buyers to be better informed and high unemployment, rising interest rate will choke off the supply of trade-up buyers. This is a sham because the "hold" is optional if the bank has a loan mod program in place. Which major bank doesn't have a program? There is no measure of mod success or rate of approval. It squeals but doesn't pass the smell test.

THanks Brazos. well, now I have another question. WHen does the ball pass from state to national?

At one time, the Supreme Court would not have permitted Congress to enact a law such as a foreclosure moratorium, reasoning that it was beyond the power of the federal government. However, beginning with the New Deal and onward, the power of the federal government has expanded, and the Supreme Court has upheld most laws as long as they touch upon some part of interstate commerce. Traditionally, laws governing real property would not have been considered part of interstate commerce, but with the securitization of mortgages, that argument is gone.

Also, where does “equal protection” laws come into play? I was not protected, nor would I be treated in the same manner for not paying my rent, as these non-buyers. And what if a person were removed from their home last Thursday. They may have a reason to bring suit — I mean if the only reason a person is still in their home at this time is because some lazy person at the bank did not get thier file completed on time, but another hard working employee got their work done and that resulted in a non-buyer getting tossed out under the deadline … I think we have an issue.

First, equal protection only precludes laws that have "no rational basis" -- which essentially is no prohibition at all -- unless the law singles people out on the basis of race, religion, or gender, at least at the federal level. In CA, sexual orientation is also included. But equal protection has never required that all laws treat everyone the same. A bank not foreclosing, however, does not implicate equal protection. Generally speaking, our constitutional rights only protect us from state action, not actions by private parties. E.g., Patrick deleting your posts would not be a First Amendment violation, because he is not a state actor. Obviously, constitutional law is a bit more complex than the above summary, but these are the basic concepts.

"I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you..."

“I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you…” Ironic that the person who uttered those words (sarcastically) was responsible for the biggest increase in government spending in history, only to be outdone by George W. Bush. More like: “I’m from the government and I’m here to bankrupt the country.”

Dont get me started on that. Even today he embraced the same shithole policy from Bush not allowing CREW access to who lobbies to him directly? What f*** change?

Reagan, Obama, same diff. :)

THanks Brazos. well, now I have another question. WHen does the ball pass from state to national?

At one time, the Supreme Court would not have permitted Congress to enact a law such as a foreclosure moratorium, reasoning that it was beyond the power of the federal government. However, beginning with the New Deal and onward, the power of the federal government has expanded, and the Supreme Court has upheld most laws as long as they touch upon some part of interstate commerce. Traditionally, laws governing real property would not have been considered part of interstate commerce, but with the securitization of mortgages, that argument is gone.

Also, where does “equal protection” laws come into play? I was not protected, nor would I be treated in the same manner for not paying my rent, as these non-buyers. And what if a person were removed from their home last Thursday. They may have a reason to bring suit — I mean if the only reason a person is still in their home at this time is because some lazy person at the bank did not get thier file completed on time, but another hard working employee got their work done and that resulted in a non-buyer getting tossed out under the deadline … I think we have an issue.

First, equal protection only precludes laws that have “no rational basis” — which essentially is no prohibition at all — unless the law singles people out on the basis of race, religion, or gender, at least at the federal level. In CA, sexual orientation is also included. But equal protection has never required that all laws treat everyone the same. A bank not foreclosing, however, does not implicate equal protection. Generally speaking, our constitutional rights only protect us from state action, not actions by private parties. E.g., Patrick deleting your posts would not be a First Amendment violation, because he is not a state actor. Obviously, constitutional law is a bit more complex than the above summary, but these are the basic concepts. You need to go back further than the New Deal. The big shift in attitude about federal power happened during the Civil War. Going from "the united states are" to "the united states is" was the massive shift in authority. Everything since then has been incremental. Of course, most of this was inevitable. What we have today is just frustrating -- we have a big federal government that sucks up a lot of money and is responsible for doing a lot, and we still have big state governments doing the same. The amount of redundancy between the two is just staggering. I'd much prefer either state governments with a very thin layer of federal glue to hold them together, or a strong federal government with states mostly being responsible for issues like land use policies. Either way would work equally well from my perspective.

Palin would make the perfect host for Family Feud.