patrick.net

But haven’t the successful citizens earned their money through hard work?

Of course. The hardest workers are always the ones who enjoy the most wealth. Wealth is rarely if ever accumulated through exploitation, fraud, larceny, nepotism or luck.

Do other countries have nationalized health care that covers everyone? Yes. Do they pay for it? Yes. Are the populations of these countries wandering the streets dying of disease. No. Are we in the USA so stupidly incompetent that we can't do that too without bankrupting our populace or creating a rationing worse than that created by private insurers? That, apparently, is what's being argued by the conservative members of this forum.

ian807 says

Are the populations of these countries wandering the streets dying of disease. No.

Umm, wow....Where did that fact come from. I would argue that in every country there are going to be people are wondering the streets dying of diseases because almost every one will get one at one point or another. I would feal that by being in the US will currently get me faster and better treatment then what I would get in one of the countries with nationalized healthcare plan in place. The US system needs to be fixed, but I do not think handing it over to the government is the solution. d3 - aka knightparzival

Tenpoundbass says

d3 says

The US system needs to be fixed, but I do not think handing it over to the government is the solution.

Wow, um if not the Government to take the task then who would fix it. Those making a killing on the system now?

Just because I don't let the government run healthcare, does not imply that we have to keep things the way they are. I would be fine with the government helping to subsidize the cost or preventative care and emergency treatments for those who are not able to afford commercial coverage. I however do not think they should run the system. Politicians are not the patients waiting for treatment nor are they doctors; they should not have any say in how people’s health should be managed. For this reason I have made the following suggestions 1. Give doctors more legal protection from law suits. I feel that at doctor should be treated as a good Samaritan when it comes to treatment http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/good-samaritans/ . Although I strongly feel that people should maintain the right to compensation if a doctor is negligent, I feel we should have much higher standards to what negligence is when someone is trying to save your life. As is one of the MAJOR costs associated with being a doctor is malpractice insurance. The costs associated with malpractice and malpractice insurance has scared away people from entering certain fields of medicine (i.e. primary care) and has driven costs up so much for doctors many small practices can no longer afford to stay in business. 2. Loosen Medicare and health insurances power over price control. Although price control seems good, it has only managed to create high profitability for insurance providers and it has been hurting primary care provider’s ability to stay in business. Although it may seem counter intuitive to loosen this control, I strongly believe by allowing primary care providers to have more control over their prices you will create new competition. This competition will give doctors a reason again to become primary care providers. This will create more competition and lead to more doctors. When the number of doctors has increased less resources will need to be spent on emergency rooms. 3. Stop allowing foreign nations from capitalizing off of US medical research. Currently a lot of nations have laws that allow them to limit how much they can be charged for drugs. Because of these limits, the citizens have to pay for most of the drug research for the drugs that get sold overseas. If someone wants to buy US medicine they should be required to pay the US price for that medicine. The only subsidizes should be ones provided to nonprofit charitable organizations. 4. Make medical billing more transparent. From my understanding one of the reasons why bills are so high for an emergency room is because paying customers are indirectly subsidizing the cost of non-paying customers through having to pay exuberant prices for things. My guess is that the reason a getting a basic shot at an emergency room can cost over $1k is because I am paying for all of the people who could not afford to pay here their bills. This is probably the only way for some hospitals to stay in business. Even in an emergency room a shot should not cost a few hundred dollars at most + the cost of the medicine. By lowering the costs of emergency medical bills and insurance should become a lot cheaper. 5. For those who cannot afford insurance, there should be a government program in place that helps subsidize the cost of treatment. For example unemployed people should be able to get vouchers for preventative care. If someone goes in to the emergency room without insurance the government should have a scale in place to determine what % of the treatment they will subsidize. Yes, these things would require more taxes, however I believe doing these things would make regular healthcare cheaper. As I said before we are already paying the bills of uninsured people through having to pay higher medical bills for our own treatment. I really do not think the medical field is making a killing off people like we think they are. People just do not understand how things are currently getting paid for. The reason why I am against complete government control is that I think in order for the US to have the best doctors we need to fairly compensate them and I do not believe the government can do a better job than the market. If the government ended up setting pay rates from for doctors what would be the advantage for someone to spend a lot of money and work hard to become the top of their class at an IV league school. In order to get people to spend 8 years in school and work there 4ss off, you have to pay them a lot of money. Most of the money though we are currently spending is not going to the doctors, to is going to the costs associated with being a doctor (ie insurance, tools, facility) and the cost associated to cover the medical bills for those who could not pay. Money is a powerful motivator and we can’t just expect that if we take it away everything will work out just fine.

Tenpoundbass says

I think paying more than $100 a month per household, is grossly too much for health insurance.

Finally found a point on which I agree with TPB ... True...

Funny how they can write a bill to funnel trillions of dollars to their bankster buddies in a month, but anything inside of a year to get health care for the millions of uninsured Americans is “rushed”. Well said. Also interesting how they can justify billions for un-necessary wars under the pretense of being in danger of attack from the "advanced weaponry" of a third world nation. Yup, them armored camels and scimitar swords sure cause me to lose sleep at night.

We have socialized, government-run systems for public schools, law enforcement, fire department, military, buses (transportation), parks, and others. Why wouldn't a socialized health care system be feasible? I need health care more than I need a bus ride. We need a civilized, moral health care system and private industry has allowed insurance and pharmaceutical companies to take costs higher and higher for profit. Steps towards universal health care and wide availability of generic drugs need to happen. The state of our system right now is embarrassing on a global level. Americans are even leaving the US to get health care and are combining health care with their vacations. Its really bad right now.

drfelle -- Love your sense of humor. FYI, my husband and I share a car (year 2003) that we own outright. We both do take the bus occasionally, but I still need health care more. And regarding vacations -- I meant that it is actually cheaper in some cases to go out of the country for treatment or to buy needed drugs. Some people just can't afford health care or insurance in the US. Personally, my husband needed some drugs and they weren't covered by our plan, so we got them at 1/5 the price in Canada. Even including all travel expenses it was cheaper to buy them in Canada one weekend. Isn't that pathetic considering the US is supposed to be a world superpower? The health care system is not taking proper care of US citizens.

Failure in this country is almost always attributed to laziness, poor planning, sense of entitlement, and poor-decision-making.

Yes, but I wasn't referring to people marginalized by their own bad attributes - rather, to hard work and how equal parts toil rarely results in equal parts wealth. It should, but it doesn't. It could even be said that the harder you work, the less you earn. Almost always, wealth in the West comes from knowing the right people, exploiting loopholes, usury, speculation, skimming, bribery, and...luck! Only occasionally is wealth the result from sacrifice, concept, R&D, production, invention or service.

Wait - I thought that we have a Democratic stronghold that's filibuster-proof. So how can the republicans block it? (this is a serious question, not an invitation for libs v. conservatives trashtalk)

Actually, although there are 60 democratic members, Edward Kennedy is still recovering from his health problems and the 90 something year old senator, Robert Byrd, from West Virginia is also having health issues. Further, it is highly unlikely that you'll get all 60 democratic senators there for a vote on the same day. The 60 seat "filibuster proof majority" is just an illusion. Unless they all show up on the same day and vote for cloture, they can't stop any filibuster.

all this talk of filibuster proof majority is ridiculous. Neither Democrats or Republicans for that matter can ever agree on any one topic. Especially Dem's. Every state has it's own needs, so votes before the house or senate are always issue based, not just party based.

ian807 says

Do other countries have nationalized health care that covers everyone? Yes. Do they pay for it? Yes. Are the populations of these countries wandering the streets dying of disease. No. Are we in the USA so stupidly incompetent that we can’t do that too without bankrupting our populace or creating a rationing worse than that created by private insurers? That, apparently, is what’s being argued by the conservative members of this forum.

Well put, Ian807. Whenever any of the wingnuts bring up some strawman blah-blah about some irrelevant aspect of the whole health care debacle, we would all be well served in going back to basics and remember that there at least a dozen western nations that have already proven that healthcare can be universal, and at half the cost we expend. End of story.

WitchOnWheels says

I am very curious to know if the people here, and all over the country, screaming about socialized medicine, communism, etc have any plans to turn down medicare when they’re old enough. If govt run healthcare is so terrible, it would seem as if they would pass it up and stick with their private insurance plans instead. But nobody ever mentions it. It’s very curious. Some Guy, you’ll be turning down medicare, surely. Right?

The government forces us to pay 3 percent of our entire lifetime earnings into Medicare, we have no say in the matter they force us to do it. So yes, since we are forced to pay into the program of course no one should walk away from it. But many people do get supplemental insurance in addition to their Medicare. Even worse, the program is fast approaching bankruptcy and now represents a nearly $ 100 Trillion unfunded liability. Basically, the government spent all that money on other things and did not set it aside for Medicare. As a result we are now in deep trouble just as millions of baby boomers approach retirement. This is why the government is so concerned about driving down costs, because they know they cannot afford to deliver the services everyone has been promised all these years. Just another example of criminal government mismanagement, and so typical. How anyone would think we should give these idiots any more control than they already have is a mystery to me.

JJ says

We have socialized, government-run systems for public schools, law enforcement, fire department, military, buses (transportation), parks, and others. Why wouldn’t a socialized health care system be feasible? I need health care more than I need a bus ride. We need a civilized, moral health care system and private industry has allowed insurance and pharmaceutical companies to take costs higher and higher for profit. Steps towards universal health care and wide availability of generic drugs need to happen. The state of our system right now is embarrassing on a global level. Americans are even leaving the US to get health care and are combining health care with their vacations. Its really bad right now.

1. Public schools are ran out the county level, not the federal level and most public schools have major problems even at the county level. 2. You don't need a PHD to drive a bus. 3. You are not going to find a lot of people with PHDs or even bachelor degrees who would be willing to join the military. With that said there are government employees in skilled positions. However most of these positions have non-government contractor equivalent jobs. One thing I have noticed in my own job field is that the people who are really skilled will not accept or stay in a government positions because the government would not pay them what they are worth.

patrick, Could you moderate my previous post in this thread? It is waiting for moderation from yesterday.

After using socialized medicine in other countries, I am all for it. Although, taxes may be slightly higher or not at all, the quality of healthcare provided is better than what the "average" American gets presently. This is because all the money is spent on care of patients instead of insurance, excessive drug cost (drug cost are lower where goverments can negoiate price), doctors are paid fair salaries (not $500,000/yr) and primary care is widely available to closely manage patients which avoids many complications (instead of people waiting to see a doctor until it is late). Skipping your family doctor to see a specialist does not improve patient outcomes. Having a good and readily availble family doctor (who is not spending excessive time on paperwork due to insurance demands) does improve outcomes. Just think how much more energy your and your doctor would have to focus on your health if all your insurance issues went away or were greatly reduced....

Its interesting to me that in the healthcare insurance debate, I don't hear anything about the individual having to pay his own premiums. The notion of employer paid health care is an abberation, driven by wage and price controls in the WWII era and is responsible for much of the drive to send US jobs overseas. It should be abolished. I favor an individual mandate paid through a payroll tax. That forces everyone into a system at a young age so that when they reach the age when health care becomes an issue, they have put some money into the system. The young and healthy tend to think that they do not need health insurance, but the young and healthy are much more likely to be injured in accidents are not immune to catastrophic illnesses. When that happens and they are uninsured, they become as much a burden on society as do the elderly, z and for a much longer time. Unless there is an enforcable individual mandate, there will always be a large segment of society that is willing to freeload on the rest of us. Families with lots of kids should be required to pay more than individuals or childless couples. All of this would be enforcable through the federal tax reporting system. We require people to have liability insurance to drive a car, to me, its not a great stretch to say that to protect society as a whole from the costs of treating the uninsured, everyone must pay into the system.

It is likely, in my opinion, that should the so called government option be put in place that over time it will morph into some form of a single payer system. I believe this is well understood by the insurance companies and their minions as well as those in congress and the administration that are promoting this. This "reform" is to be a transition to single payer. You cannot do it in one fell swoop without huge disruptions to an economy that is already in some state of collapse. It is seen by those that can look at this objectively that the only way to get costs under control is through government intervention. A free market approach which really is not what we have or will ever have, cannot control costs without leaving people to die and or live in misery until they die. There are those that may like the survival of the fittest approach or reliance on private charities for help but unless the economy completely collapses and we enter some sort of apocalyptic future that is not going to happen. Obama has taken a different approach to reform than Clinton did in that he has presented congress with a basic outline of what he wants and congress is developing the legislation. He is vulnerable to attacks like those noted above that he "doesn't even know what is in the bill". This type of criticism shows a complete lack of understanding of the legislative process and or a merely is a way to torpedo reform and gig Obama. The bill if it ever emerges from the House and Senate as well as a reconcilation committee and is presented to Obama to sign will not look much like the bill in the House. Everyone with even a gain of knowledge of the process knows this but as they say politics ain't bean bag and in avoiding the Hillary top down approach to reform that was stopped by congress Obama has opened himself up to other problems. Still I believe his tactics may prove successful and a bill could emerge. It will only be successful if the government option is included otherwise we are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. While other reforms may help a bit to patch the rupture the ship is still going to sink in what can be called the sea of red ink.

I like the new health care bill already. I see the part cutting back and rationing on medicare and medicaid, very nice.

camping says

Just because foreclosures are increasing does not mean inventory overall is going up. And if those foreclosures are selling faster than they come on the market, inventory will go down. In places that I’ve been watching, I know inventories are much lower right now than they were last year. I think in Fremont, CA there are actually about half the number of homes listed (around 500, down from over 1000).

Ok, let's look at some facts now. As you mentioned Fremont., let's look at it. Check out these charts in following site http://www.rereport.com/alc/monthly/fremont.html The first chart tell you number of units (SFH) sold (the black line). Number of sold homes in June 2008: 100 Number of sold homes in June 2009: 105. Now, look at the inventory data here - http://www.altosresearch.com/research/CA/fremont-real-estate-market Go to the last chart at bottom. Aug 2008 inventory: about 600 July 2009 Inventory: 384. So where is the magical volume of sale that ate up all inventory in last one year? Number of sale increased marginally from 100 to 105. The only change I see here is inventory dropped 35%. It indicates that two things 1. Many homeowners took their homes off from market, as they are not selling (waiting for good time to come back). 2. Banks are holding foreclosed properties. They are not listing them at the same rate they did in last summer. Bottomline, inventory drop is not due to sale volume increase (because there were no substantial increase). But the real question is how long can banks hold their properties. Someday they have to sell. Want proof? Check out foreclosure database in SF Chronicle - http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/foreclosures/ Numbers for Fremont's four zipcode - 94536: 240 94538: 209 94539: 31 94555: 85 Total: 565 and more to come. How long banks can hold properties do you think?

I'll bet you conservatives have alot of the good stuff - you need it to help you remain believers...

Here's a summary of the bill H.R. 3200, also known as H.R. 3200—“America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009” http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/hr3200_summary.pdf Recommended reading if you have not read it already. Especially if the goal of this thread is enlightened discussion. It has been lacking lately.

The word “Transparency” in the first Paragraph gave me the willies… [ughwugh] i got that warm funny sensation running down my leg when i got to the America's AFFORDABLE part

There was another thread that discussed how banks aren't foreclosing and have less incentive to because of the gov't. Where do pending sales fall in the charts? Or are they a gap? I've heard that the time to close on a house lately is 2-4 months. So if a pending sale doesn't count as sold but also isn't considered part of the inventory, then this could create a gap. We'll see in a couple of months if things go up more.

camping says

Where do pending sales fall in the charts? Or are they a gap? I’ve heard that the time to close on a house lately is 2-4 months. So if a pending sale doesn’t count as sold but also isn’t considered part of the inventory, then this could create a gap. We’ll see in a couple of months if things go up more.

Go to redfin and search for homes for four zipcodes in Fremont. Search first by clicking checkbox "Exclude under contract" and then re-search unchecking that checkbox. Different of search result is sale pending. So these are the pending sales: 94536: 109-98=11 94538: 67-59=8 94539: 184-176=8 94555: 51-47=4 If escrow-closing is taking 2-4 months, it did in all the recent months - March, April, May, June. Why do you think July or August number will be any dramatic different last few months? Does not make too much sense. In a nutshell, so far 2009 sale increase is not any dramatic different from seasonal change that start from Spring. Numbers are marginally better than 2008, but that's all. It isn't enough to digest foreclosed inventory.

Damn! everytime I put a link in my post, it says "Your comment is awaiting moderation".

chrisborden says

To all, you need to read this excellent analysis by the Associated Press (based on today’s news conference) to learn some of why this plan is grossly misleading. This is the kind of reporting we need in this country: FACT CHECK: Obama’s health care claims adrift?

Dude, Be careful. How many of these articles are being written by paid agents of Insurance companies, you will never know. Power of propaganda is very great. Don't underestimate it. At least in Communist countries and Nazi Germany right to propaganda was confined to State and so you knew where it was coming from. But in democracy everyone has to right to propaganda and big businesses know it full well. Before you know, you have been had. All of us who trade in stock market know it full well.....So beware and don't spread other people's propaganda. I will prefer Obama plan anyday and give the man credit for thinking of ordinary people.

Just saw this asshole David letterman make fun of Obama healthcare plan. Of course when you made millions over the years reciting lame vulgar jokes why do you need health insurance. You could go to any doctor you want. Of course obama plan sucks !! fuck the poor....bomb the third world...Ain't that cherished American dream !!!...

none of you people screaming howling fantods over healthcare reform have mentioned anything about the socialist-public police force, or the socialist-public fire dept, or highway or park management, or any number of other gov run systems that serve us quite well... you seem to have no problem with those, but when healthcare comes up its suddenly a screaming bloody horrible thing to have gov involvement. last time I checked the healthcare system in the states was a nightmare. it costs a fortune, it drops people for having problems, it drains employer money, it has faceless bureaucrats dictating what services I can and can't get, what doctors I can/can't go to, etc, etc, but now potential reforms to this is suddenly a problem worth screaming and fighting for? what are you people actually thinking? my guess is something else is going on in your heads that has nothing to with healthcare systems. because non of the arguments I've heard so far supporting the current system make any sense... what is it?

P2D2 says

camping says

Where do pending sales fall in the charts? Or are they a gap? I’ve heard that the time to close on a house lately is 2-4 months. So if a pending sale doesn’t count as sold but also isn’t considered part of the inventory, then this could create a gap. We’ll see in a couple of months if things go up more.

Go to redfin and search for homes for four zipcodes in Fremont. Search first by clicking checkbox “Exclude under contract” and then re-search unchecking that checkbox. Different of search result is sale pending. So these are the pending sales: 94536: 109-98=11 94538: 67-59=8 94539: 184-176=8 94555: 51-47=4 If escrow-closing is taking 2-4 months, it did in all the recent months - March, April, May, June. Why do you think July or August number will be any dramatic different last few months? Does not make too much sense. In a nutshell, so far 2009 sale increase is not any dramatic different from seasonal change that start from Spring. Numbers are marginally better than 2008, but that’s all. It isn’t enough to digest foreclosed inventory.

Your "sale pending" numbers are not valid. If a listing agent takes the property off the MLS when it goes under contract instead of indicating "under contract," it will not show up using your calculation. Many of them do this. But, it's probably not a huge enough number to make up for the significant drop in inventory. So then the bottom line is that, like you said, people are de-listing their houses and banks are not foreclosing at such a high rate. There may be several reasons why banks are not foreclosing (e.g. re-working the mortgages under the Obama plan). If the Obama plan works, then inventory may stay this low. When the gov't and the people who control all of the money have a goal, my doubts about going against them continue to grow.

Some Guy says

It’s just tearing you guys up that a black man became president, isn’t it?

Uhmmm, the guy is a MULATTO. His mother was WHITE, his father was a BLACK MUSLIM. That makes him a half~breed, MULATTO. It's just tearing you guys up that a MULATTO man became president, isn't it? And that his mother had the outrage to be white.

Good for whom? The govt is bribing people to buy houses at absurdly low interest rates. "Good" would be slightly higher rates and an established bare minimum of 10% down.

camping says

Your “sale pending” numbers are not valid. If a listing agent takes the property off the MLS when it goes under contract instead of indicating “under contract,” it will not show up using your calculation. Many of them do this. But, it’s probably not a huge enough number to make up for the significant drop in inventory.

That's right, even if you double or triple the number, it is not enough.

Although interest rates are low, they have actually been going up over the last few months. Last year 4.85 was the norm and now it is getting close to 5.5

camping says

If the Obama plan works, then inventory may stay this low. When the gov’t and the people who control all of the money have a goal, my doubts about going against them continue to grow.

They poured so much money already. They are literally bribing people to buy home. Yet the impact we have seen in market for in past six months is nominal. Why do you think the impact will be any different in next few months? They can delay inevitable for few months, but they cannot stop it. Evidence is all over. Next wave of foreclosure is coming. Banks cannot keep holding properties forever. In addition, slowly expensive areas started getting affected. Take the example of Fremont. 94539 zipcode is Mission district - with better schools. Inventory is piling up there (176) - higher than other parts of Fremont. Listing in this zipcode are not coming from foreclosure. People are simply not buying homes with a notion "home price always go up" anymore. Mission district price will drop significantly. The question is how-fast or how-slow. But it will.

I'm in favor of Universal Health~care, I just question the timing of this proposal. The economy is much too weak to be taking on such a task. Besides, neither the President nor the members of Congress will be participating in the proposed ObamaCare. If it's as good as they tout, they should gladly be willing to give up their own insurance plans and join the rest of the nation. Why in the world should Obama, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy get different health~care than anyone else in the nation? I thought this was a Democracy. We have no 'kings' and no 'emperors' everyone here is a citizen (and under Obama perhaps, even, a comrade), but it is the height of hypocrisy to want to overhaul health~care for everyone but oneself. I say that Congress and the White House should put their money where their mouth is and give ObamaCare some legitimacy. Otherwise, how do they expect a vote of confidence.

P2D2 says

camping says

If the Obama plan works, then inventory may stay this low. When the gov’t and the people who control all of the money have a goal, my doubts about going against them continue to grow.

They poured so much money already. They are literally bribing people to buy home. Yet the impact we have seen in market for in past six months is nominal. Why do you think the impact will be any different in next few months? They can delay inevitable for few months, but they cannot stop it. Evidence is all over. Next wave of foreclosure is coming. Banks cannot keep holding properties forever. In addition, slowly expensive areas started getting affected. Take the example of Fremont. 94539 zipcode is Mission district - with better schools. Inventory is piling up there (176) - higher than other parts of Fremont. Listing in this zipcode are not coming from foreclosure. People are simply not buying homes with a notion “home price always go up” anymore. Mission district price will drop significantly. The question is how-fast or how-slow. But it will.

I'm not sure it is nominal. The number of sales for the Bay Area was pretty respectible in June. Why do you think they can't delay it for longer? What evidence is there that they can't keep delaying? The goal is clearly to delay things as long as possible so that inflation eventually kicks in and there is a meeting in the middle. My concern is a very slow drop mixed with increasing inflation with a rise in mortgage rates, and you wind up being worse off by waiting 3 years than buying today.

I love when NAR starts jumping with so-called positive news. Then at the bottom of the aticle it says:

That probably won't happen until next year because of a backlog of foreclosures that have yet to come on to the market. The median sales price was $181,800 in June, down 15 percent from year-ago levels but up slightly from $174,700 in May.

The fact is that people who have been sitting on the fence have decided to buy some of the bargains that are available. In the future many more bargains may be available and perhaps more buyers will jump in to buy at that time. The market has gone up. I know it's painful for some here but there are a lot more foreclosures coming down the pike. Wait and buy later or find something you want at a price you can afford. I think buyers can decide that for themselves.