End ALL preexisting condition exclusions NOW.
jane
Republicans are in agreement about ending the preexisting condition
exclusions. However, they aren't going far enough. They are only
looking at eliminating the exclusion for Health Care Insurance.
What about eliminating this exclusion on all the other forms of
insurance? I tried buying life insurance for my father and was denied
because of one simple preexisting condition; my father had already
died. Why should this preexisting condition prohibit me from buying
life insurance?
What about car insurance. I wanted to buy auto insurance after I
totaled my car, but these evil insurance companies excluded that
accident from my coverage!
These evil insurance companies are ripping us off and are only
interested in profits!
Jane.
Patriot Games
wrote:
Stop being such a wuss!
Why do I have to buy light bulbs? It's the electricity that burns out
light bulbs, electricity I already paid for, yeah!? Of course the
power company should provide light bulbs!
Why do I have to pay for air for my car's tires when I already bought
them with air in them?
Damnit!
Nickname unavailable
a corporate shill advocating for corporatism, priceless!
jane
No, I am not a corporate shill. I am a liberal; not a modern fake
liberal, but a liberal based on the original meaning of the word. I
am a liberal that believes in "liberty". The origin of the word
"liberal" means "a free man".
The current modern "fake liberals" are selling their liberty for
security. When you sell your liberty, you also sell your security.
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Benjamin
Franklin
Jane
Nickname unavailable
you mean you are a neo-liberal. who is shilling for corporate profits.
jane
Wrong! The prefix "neo" means "new". I am an old liberal, from the
"original" meaning of the term, a person who defaults to liberty.
A new liberal, or neoliberal, is a progressive or socialist.
Jane
Jeffrey Turner
> On Feb 25, 11:37 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 25, 1:54 pm, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> During the current insurance reform talks, both the Democrats and the
>>> Republicans are in agreement about ending the preexisting condition
>>> exclusions. However, they aren't going far enough. They are only
>>> looking at eliminating the exclusion for Health Care Insurance.
>>> What about eliminating this exclusion on all the other forms of
>>> insurance? I tried buying life insurance for my father and was denied
>>> because of one simple preexisting condition; my father had already
>>> died. Why should this preexisting condition prohibit me from buying
>>> life insurance?
>>> What about car insurance. I wanted to buy auto insurance after I
>>> totaled my car, but these evil insurance companies excluded that
>>> accident from my coverage!
>>> These evil insurance companies are ripping us off and are only
>>> interested in profits!
>>> Jane.
>> a corporate shill advocating for corporatism, priceless!
>
> No, I am not a corporate shill. I am a liberal; not a modern fake
> liberal, but a liberal based on the original meaning of the word. I
> am a liberal that believes in "liberty". The origin of the word
> "liberal" means "a free man".
I love how conservatroids want to define the world to their liking.
> The current modern "fake liberals" are selling their liberty for
> security. When you sell your liberty, you also sell your security.
>
> "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Benjamin
> Franklin
You didn't even get the quote right.
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
Jeffrey Turner
>
> "Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
> of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
> engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
> to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
> deal with the real world. The other involves orcs."
Great quote.
liberal
And you're so stupid you're selling your freedom to add a few dollars
to your wallet. If "liberty" is your goal, and given the way *YOU*
define it, why don't you move to Somalia. No laws, no taxes...and you
can be whatever you wish to be...including a pirate.
jane
Please. I am definitely not a conservative; I am a Classical Liberal.
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis
suitable for a freeman - Merriam Webster
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the
19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is
committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of
individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and
assembly, and free markets.[1] Notable individuals who have
contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas
Malthus, and David Ricardo. There was a revival of interest in
classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Friedrich Hayek,
Milton Friedman and other economists." - Wikipedia.
Jane.
> > The current modern "fake liberals" are selling their liberty for
> > security. When you sell your liberty, you also sell your security.
>
> > "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Benjamin
> > Franklin
>
> You didn't even get the quote right.
Picky, Picky, Picky. I used one of the many paraphrases.
In actuality, a similar phrase was in a book authored by Richard
Jackson and predated Franklin's use.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
jane
Wrong. There is a difference between a Classical Liberal and an
anarchist.
For example: Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the
sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen
as essential to individual liberty. You can't have property rights and
piracy at the same time.
Therefore, you need a government that protects and enforces the rights
of the individual.
Jane
Bert Hyman
news:61808bcd-b727-45f0...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com
liberal <liber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If "liberty" is your goal, and given the way *YOU*
> define it, why don't you move to Somalia.
Do you really believe that the only alternatives are your proposed
authoritarian state and anarchy?
Are you as stupid as you make yourself out to be?
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Nickname unavailable
milton freidman was a neo-liberal. shilling and investing in
corporations means liberty? ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! its amazing how
people can justify greed.
Nickname unavailable
ricardo was a banker that was looking for ways to gut the wages of
the british worker, that is where his nutty free trade assumption(its
not a theory, theory has to be backed up by some facts)came from. of
courser hayek and freidman worked with known fascists, and have gutted
the demand(wages)of the western worker, and we are living their
nightmares right now.
Nickname unavailable
> On 26 Feb 2010 20:46:32 GMT, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> >In
> >news:61808bcd-b727-45f0...@v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com
> >liberal <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> If "liberty" is your goal, and given the way *YOU*
> >> define it, why don't you move to Somalia.
>
> >Do you really believe that the only alternatives are your proposed
> >authoritarian state and anarchy?
>
> >Are you as stupid as you make yourself out to be?
>
> "liberty".
>
if government provides health insurance, its authoritarian. if a
corporations takes your money, and tells you to fuck off and die, its
considered liberty. anyone sane see something wrong with that
scenario:)
> _________
jane
If you don't like being a wage earner, then you have the liberty to be
an entrepreneur. You can benefit the society and the economy by
creating jobs and hiring wage earners.
Jane
Michael Coburn
That is one of the major benefits of a single payer health insurance
system which we do not see in the current malaise of HCR. The individual
is free to leave the big corporation and strike out on his/her own
without the fear of major health problems destroying all that is earned.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Nickname unavailable
your attempted cheap smear is something that all you so-called lovers
of liberty try. you have no idea who i am, or what i am. i am self
employed, i own patents and copyrights. i am not rich, my market is
small, but i have made work for many, who had no work at all.
free market america has thrown away many good americans, on the alter
of greed, a cult that destroys nations. i do what i can, to get these
good talented americas some income.
obtw, seeing as you did not respond to my points, i can only imagine
that i have hit a sore spot.
Nickname unavailable
well said.
Tater Gumfries
Some folks is just too sick to insure. Costs too much to take care of
em. Tater don't see no good reason to force everybody to pay for em.
Tater
maxw...@my-deja.com
> During the current insurance reform talks, both the Democrats and the
> Republicans are in agreement about ending the preexisting condition
> exclusions. However, they aren't going far enough. They are only
> looking at eliminating the exclusion for Health Care Insurance.
>
> What about eliminating this exclusion on all the other forms of
> insurance? I tried buying life insurance for my father and was denied
> because of one simple preexisting condition; my father had already
> died. Why should this preexisting condition prohibit me from buying
> life insurance?
>
> What about car insurance. I wanted to buy auto insurance after I
> totaled my car, but these evil insurance companies excluded that
> accident from my coverage!
>
> These evil insurance companies are ripping us off and are only
> interested in profits!
I sounds like you are trying to give everyone a lesson
in semantics. Good point, I think calling it health insurance
is wrong and it should be called something else.
Insurance companies should only be selling
accidental heath insurance. What we call health
insurance should be redefined. It should be basically
like Medicare.
maxw...@my-deja.com
> On 27 Feb 2010 05:12:59 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> If you don't like being a wage earner, then you have the liberty to be
> >> an entrepreneur. You can benefit the society and the economy by
> >> creating jobs and hiring wage earners.
>
> >> Jane
>
> >That is one of the major benefits of a single payer health insurance
> >system which we do not see in the current malaise of HCR. The individual
> >is free to leave the big corporation and strike out on his/her own
> >without the fear of major health problems destroying all that is earned.
>
> an engineer with several patents and an expert in his niche. A very
> productive bright guy that any society would be happy to have.
Yes, I have been trying to make that point for sometime that
health security would unleash innovation and entrepreneurship
that would overall help the US economy. It could also unburden
existing companies.
Nickname unavailable
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:56:02 -0800 (PST), Tater Gumfries
>
> <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>
> >Some folks is just too sick to insure. Costs too much to take care of
> >em. Tater don't see no good reason to force everybody to pay for em.
>
> More compassionate conservatism. Ya gotta love it.
>
> Just wait till it's you or your wife they decide are too expensive and
> drop you from your insurance because you have the audacity to actually
> need it.
>
even after hitler lost the war, there are still those that believe in
his polices. its always ok if its the other fellow, till it becomes
them. whats that saying, first they came for the trade unionists and
communists, then the jews, the liberals, and i said nothing, then they
came for me. he is a sad case.
Nickname unavailable
universal or single payer is efficient. yet, the conservatives and
libertarians, and liars who attempt to say they are for efficiency,
and understand money, debt, and business, are the most inept,
inefficient, corrupt, and selfish to the point of being destructive
bunch of morons, i have ever seen.
Day Brown
> retro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>> "Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
>> of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
>> engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
>> to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
>> deal with the real world. The other involves orcs."
>
> Great quote.
read cause everyone knew he was the patron saint of Nazis. Which Ayn
Rand also read, and realized she could steal his ideas without any of
the liberals catching on.
The Liberal opponents of Nazism were so lacking in scholarship they
didnt know Nietzsche called anti-Semites tragic buffoons, with magic
hoods to cover their straw heads. Rand never had an important idea she
didnt steal from Nietzsche.
And today, I see Avatar show us a primitive race defeat the ham handed
methods of a trans galactic technology, as if any race that could do
that would be so fucking stupid as to handle an indigenous population in
this way.
Naturally, the non-white cultures all over the world have paid well to
go see this display of revenge fantasy, while the white entrepreneurs
who made the film laff all the way to the bank in true Yankee fashion.
Oh yeah. This non-terrestrial race is blue. Wont offend any other color.
Just like Smurfs.
Tater Gumfries
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:56:02 -0800 (PST), Tater Gumfries
>
> <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>
> >em. Tater don't see no good reason to force everybody to pay for em.
>
Why do you want to kill them? They're just sick.
> Just wait till it's you or your wife they decide are too expensive and
> drop you from your insurance because you have the audacity to actually
> need it.
Then Tater's gonna have to be sick, ain't he? That's how it is.
Sometimes you get sick and don't no insurance cover it. Seems to ol
Tater the way you want it is for ever body to have a right to get
treated for whatever they got. Is that right?
Tater
Tater Gumfries
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:25:31 -0800 (PST), Tater Gumfries
>
> <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>
> >Then Tater's gonna have to be sick, ain't he? That's how it is.
> >Sometimes you get sick and don't no insurance cover it. Seems to ol
> >Tater the way you want it is for ever body to have a right to get
> >treated for whatever they got. Is that right?
>
Some things cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat. Tater has
a problem payin to treat really expensive diseases. As time goes by,
Americans will expect to have more and more insubstantial conditions
covered, and the cost will go up and up...
Yes, Tater has a problem with treatin everything.
Tater
Nickname unavailable
> Jeffrey Turner wrote:
don't forget that custer was handed his head by a primitive race. the
problem with many advanced nations, is that they think the ones that
they are subjugating are stupid, or corrupt, and it can be that way.
but sometimes not. we just witnessed that type of thinking with iraq.
Nickname unavailable
costs go down in a universal system. tater has no comprehension how
economics of scale works.
Michael Coburn
Tater has a problem with civilization.
Jeffrey Turner
Strangely enough, it was the Americans - those progenitors of Custer and
Jim Crow - who pioneered eugenics and really gave the Nazis all their
"best" ideas.
Jeffrey Turner
>
>
> Please. I am definitely not a conservative; I am a Classical Liberal.
If you feel better about being a self-centered asshole by calling
yourself a Classical Liberal, I guess there's not much I can do.
A turd by any other name...
Nickname unavailable
i also think mussolini read some of wilsons writings in the late
1800's, wilson was a corporatists.
jane
I have known several entrepreneurs. Typically, health care was not a
problem. In some cases, the entrepreneur was covered by the spouse's
policy. In other cases, the health care was not an actual problem,
but a rather "threat" of a problem.
The "actual" problem to the entrepreneur is paying the mortgage,
buying food, paying wages and, in some cases, buying capital goods.
So, if you want to follow the path of spawning entrepreneurship by
relieving the "threat" of health care, then you should first provide
universal food distribution. After all, you can likely go decades
without needing health care, but you can only go for 3 weeks without
food. How dare Kroger make a profit off of an absolute necessity such
as food distribution. Kroger doesn't actually create food; like
health insurance companies, Kroger is nothing but a pass through
entity. We can create a Universal Food Distribution where you can go
and get your food for free. Economy of scale will make it cheap and it
will be paid for by taxes
Next, we can spawn entrepreneurship by relieving the entrepreneur from
his mortgage payment. Once again, the mortgage holder is nothing but
a greedy pass through entity. We can have Universal Home Ownership
where you can go and get your home for free. It will be included in
everyone's taxes and, once again, economy of scale will make it cheap.
Next, we will eliminate the need to pay wages. All wages will be paid
by the state. The entrepreneur will be freed from the burden of
actually paying his employees.
We can determine what projects the entrepreneur will initiate by
creating a "Central Planning Committee". The Central Planning
Committee will coordinate growth by creating a "5 Year Plan". This
new concept will be called "The Principle of Democratic
Centralism". This is a new world concept that has never been done
before. It WILL work.
Jane
jane
The reason I didn't respond to your points is because your points are
irrelevant to the topic. The topic is the proposed health reform and
its threat to liberty and freedom.
The reform is going to eliminate the preexisting condition exclusion.
This is just as insane as forcing a life insurance company to sell
life insurance on an individual AFTER his death.
Forcing an insurance company to sell health insurance AFTER the
accident or illness creates a major problem that must be solved with
more legislation. The problem created is the leach who takes advantage
of the new law by not buying health care insurance until after an
accident or major illness. So, our brilliant legislators have fixed
that first problem by including a law that "forces" every American
subject to by health insurance.
Forcing every American subject to buy insurance creates a second
problem. How do you "force" your subjects into submission? Our
brilliant legislators have fixed the second problem with a new law, a
penalty fine.
After congress has beaten its American subjects into submission with a
fine, there is a third problem. How do you enforce the fine? This is
a major problem because our our constitution guarantees a trial and
protects the subject against self incrimination. It is now up to the
government to prove in a court of law that you have violated the law
of not purchasing insurance, RIGHT??? Well our congress isn't going to
let a silly, outdated 213 year old document stand in their way; Our
congress has ABSOLUTE control over its subjects.
Our legislators are going to FORCE its subjects into "proving" their
innocence by stating their health insurance coverage on their IRS
forms. If the American subject can not prove innocence, then the
American subject is presumed guilty and the subject WILL be fined.
None of the above makes any difference to the dumb masses because the
dumb masses are willing to trade freedom and liberty for the security
provided by the Nanny State.
Jane
Michael Coburn
Please let me interject that the proposed health care reform is not any
threat to liberty and freedom as those terms are used by sane people.
> The reform is going to eliminate the preexisting condition exclusion.
> This is just as insane as forcing a life insurance company to sell life
> insurance on an individual AFTER his death.
False analogy:
There is no way to determine the amount if the benefit unless you simply
say that all lives are equal and you nationalize the insurance company.
See Social Security survivors benefits.
> Forcing an insurance company to sell health insurance AFTER the accident
> or illness creates a major problem that must be solved with more
> legislation. The problem created is the leach who takes advantage of the
> new law by not buying health care insurance until after an accident or
> major illness. So, our brilliant legislators have fixed that first
> problem by including a law that "forces" every American subject to by
> health insurance.
So....
> Forcing every American subject to buy insurance creates a second
> problem. How do you "force" your subjects into submission? Our
> brilliant legislators have fixed the second problem with a new law, a
> penalty fine.
So......
> After congress has beaten its American subjects into submission with a
> fine, there is a third problem. How do you enforce the fine? This is a
> major problem because our our constitution guarantees a trial and
> protects the subject against self incrimination. It is now up to the
> government to prove in a court of law that you have violated the law of
> not purchasing insurance, RIGHT??? Well our congress isn't going to let
> a silly, outdated 213 year old document stand in their way; Our
> congress has ABSOLUTE control over its subjects.
Good grief....
> Our legislators are going to FORCE its subjects into "proving" their
> innocence by stating their health insurance coverage on their IRS forms.
> If the American subject can not prove innocence, then the American
> subject is presumed guilty and the subject WILL be fined.
Actually, this "subject" will not be allowed a tax credit to which this
"subject" would have been entitled.
> None of the above makes any difference to the dumb masses because the
> dumb masses are willing to trade freedom and liberty for the security
> provided by the Nanny State.
>
> Jane
Actually, the sane people are willing to participate in an insurance
system. The concept of insurance is, in fact, a form of "socialism" in
the very broad definition of that term. And it doesn't matter if we are
discussing car or home or health insurance. They are all conceptually
equivalent. An insurance system is a "joint" savings program in which
all participants donate premiums to a "pool" (could be taxes even). The
"pool" is merely a buffer and if the monetary authority manages the
"pool" it does not even need to exist. The reality is that when any
participant's barn burns down then the rest of the participants pay to
have the barn rebuilt (the pool is not actually needed). THAT is what
insurance is.
Only theologically stunted ninnies see an insurance system as a threat to
freedom and liberty. The sane people see it as a huge benefit.
Michael Coburn
> On Feb 27, 12:52 pm, maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 11:33 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 27 Feb 2010 05:12:59 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >> If you don't like being a wage earner, then you have the liberty
>> > >> to be an entrepreneur. You can benefit the society and the
>> > >> economy by creating jobs and hiring wage earners.
>>
>> > >> Jane
>>
>> > >That is one of the major benefits of a single payer health insurance
>> > >system which we do not see in the current malaise of HCR. The
>> > >individual is free to leave the big corporation and strike out on
>> > >his/her own without the fear of major health problems destroying all
>> > >that is earned.
>>
>> > Yep. I have a friend in his 60s recently retired from Microsoft. He's
>> > an engineer with several patents and an expert in his niche. A very
>> > productive bright guy that any society would be happy to have.
>>
>> Yes, I have been trying to make that point for sometime that health
>> security would unleash innovation and entrepreneurship that would
>> overall help the US economy. It could also unburden existing companies.
>
>
>
> I have known several entrepreneurs. Typically, health care was not a
> problem. In some cases, the entrepreneur was covered by the spouse's
> policy. In other cases, the health care was not an actual problem, but
> a rather "threat" of a problem.
Reality being presented so far....
> The "actual" problem to the entrepreneur is paying the mortgage, buying
> food, paying wages and, in some cases, buying capital goods.
No. The entrepreneur is at risk of losing all (s)he has earned if (s)he
ever has a medical problem. It is not really different from car or home
insurance but for the fact that health insurance costs way too much.
> So, if you want to follow the path of spawning entrepreneurship by
> relieving the "threat" of health care, then you should first provide
> universal food distribution.
We actually have this already. No person in the United States of America
will be turned away from a food bank and no person has ever been
bankrupted by the need for food, and the number of people in the USA that
die of malnutrition or hunger is infinitesimal. We have essentially made
food a "right" in this country.
> After all, you can likely go decades
> without needing health care, but you can only go for 3 weeks without
> food. How dare Kroger make a profit off of an absolute necessity such
> as food distribution. Kroger doesn't actually create food; like health
> insurance companies, Kroger is nothing but a pass through entity.
Kroger profits by virtue of the vast number of suppliers all over the
world, a vast number of consumers of varying preferences and means and by
virtue of controlling operating costs while suppliers and consumers vary
in their demands.
Health care and individuals are local to a particular community and there
is little demand or supply elasticity. And the statistics tell us the
probability of medical loss very, very accurately. In a pool of 300
million people the statistics produce near certainty. This means that
entrepreneurialism is wasted in this endeavor. There is essentially no
"creative" work to be done here.
> We
> can create a Universal Food Distribution where you can go and get your
> food for free. Economy of scale will make it cheap and it will be paid
> for by taxes
Markets work because the consumers have different tastes and the
providers are almost limitless. Health care is not a typical market in
that the demand and the supply are both highly inelastic. And health
_insurance_ is statistically close to a certainty. Competition between
many small insurance companies actually increases costs because
uncertainty is increased by virtue of more and smaller pools.
> Next, we can spawn entrepreneurship by relieving the entrepreneur from
> his mortgage payment. Once again, the mortgage holder is nothing but a
> greedy pass through entity. We can have Universal Home Ownership where
> you can go and get your home for free. It will be included in everyone's
> taxes and, once again, economy of scale will make it cheap.
Actually, this is another area that might work a lot better if it was
more socialized/nationalized/regulated. Not the sales and servicing, but
the actual finance. It has to do with controlling the amount of credit
such that entrepreneurs can do their thing while ensuring that bubbles do
not occur. Unfortunately, politicians and financiers are both very
egoistic and history shows that they believe they can create some sort of
utopia by over pumping the supply of credit, tax cutting, monopolization,
etc. The problem we have is in controlling this egoism.
Just a little more transparency please and a little more education for
the people.
> Next, we will eliminate the need to pay wages. All wages will be paid by
> the state. The entrepreneur will be freed from the burden of actually
> paying his employees.
This one can actually be done somewhat better also as the state pays a
stipend to the unemployed such that they do not need to kiss ass quite so
much for a job. If you have health care and food and a few bucks coming
in then you won't be forced to beg at the gates of the mansion. You
might have to sleep under a bridge and by dirty and uncomfortable all the
time, but you will survive and you _WILL_ try to improve your lot.
> We can determine what projects the entrepreneur will initiate by
> creating a "Central Planning Committee". The Central Planning Committee
> will coordinate growth by creating a "5 Year Plan". This new concept
> will be called "The Principle of Democratic Centralism". This is a
> new world concept that has never been done before. It WILL work.
>
> Jane
Amazing.... Absolutely amazing.
jane
Your response to the statement, "a law that "forces" every American
subject to by health insurance" was, "So..."
If you believe that giving a government the power to "force" the
citizens to buy a private product is NOT a threat to liberty, then you
and I have no room for discussion.
Regarding your last statement: I do not believe that an insurance
system is a threat to freedom and liberty. I believe that giving
government power to force its citizens to purchase any private product
IS a threat to liberty and freedom.
Jane.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Next these guys will want to pass a law to force us to buy BROWN SHIRTS!
maxw...@my-deja.com
Because it is a "private product".
>
> Regarding your last statement: I do not believe that an insurance
> system is a threat to freedom and liberty. I believe that giving
> government power to force its citizens to purchase any private product
> IS a threat to liberty and freedom.
So it sounds as if the problem is the fact that it is private. It
would
help if it were a public product like Medicare. We are all paying for
that now. I agree with you here lets make it a "public product" at
least that way we will know our money isn't being spent on
store bought air blowing up someones shirt. or skirt.fat cats.
you get the picture. .
maxw...@my-deja.com
> On Feb 27, 12:52 pm, maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 11:33 am, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > On 27 Feb 2010 05:12:59 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >> If you don't like being a wage earner, then you have the liberty to be
> > > >> an entrepreneur. You can benefit the society and the economy by
> > > >> creating jobs and hiring wage earners.
>
> > > >> Jane
>
> > > >That is one of the major benefits of a single payer health insurance
> > > >system which we do not see in the current malaise of HCR. The individual
> > > >is free to leave the big corporation and strike out on his/her own
> > > >without the fear of major health problems destroying all that is earned.
>
> > > Yep. I have a friend in his 60s recently retired from Microsoft. He's
> > > an engineer with several patents and an expert in his niche. A very
> > > productive bright guy that any society would be happy to have.
>
> > Yes, I have been trying to make that point for sometime that
> > health security would unleash innovation and entrepreneurship
> > that would overall help the US economy. It could also unburden
> > existing companies.
>
> I have known several entrepreneurs. Typically, health care was not a
> problem. In some cases, the entrepreneur was covered by the spouse's
> policy. In other cases, the health care was not an actual problem,
> but a rather "threat" of a problem.
Yes I have been of them. But what happens when the spouses
company no longer has health coverage? When asked the
response is "well most people usually depend on their spouses
policy. That is quite a situation if neither have a policy.
You are talking about times 15 years ago. Or else you are
talking about a 20 year old guy with a lawn mower and a pickup.
> The "actual" problem to the entrepreneur is paying the mortgage,
> buying food, paying wages and, in some cases, buying capital goods.
Those are real concerns because they are constant. But the
differenc is those costs are known. That is another thing when
you run company you learn. Known costs whatever they may
be can be accounted and planned in the budget. But
unforseen costs which health care is one, are largely unknown.
I think a lot of people would be just fine if it were like a mortgage
and they knew how much they would out every month.
>
> So, if you want to follow the path of spawning entrepreneurship by
> relieving the "threat" of health care, then you should first provide
> universal food distribution. After all, you can likely go decades
> without needing health care, but you can only go for 3 weeks without
> food. How dare Kroger make a profit off of an absolute necessity such
> as food distribution. Kroger doesn't actually create food; like
> health insurance companies, Kroger is nothing but a pass through
> entity. We can create a Universal Food Distribution where you can go
> and get your food for free. Economy of scale will make it cheap and it
> will be paid for by taxes
>
I snipped all of your silly talk. What you need to understand
is there would be no discussion of health care reform if it
were cheap. Just like there is not talk about food
distribution reform. So stop making silly comparisons.
Bert Hyman
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:48:15 -0800 (PST), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Your response to the statement, "a law that "forces" every American
>>subject to by health insurance" was, "So..."
>>
>>If you believe that giving a government the power to "force" the
>>citizens to buy a private product is NOT a threat to liberty, then you
>>and I have no room for discussion.
>
>
> Hmm So mandatory auto insurance is a threat to liberty?
You're not required to buy auto insurance as a condition of living in
the US.
In fact, the only insurance you're required to buy is liability
insurance to protect others in the event you harm them while driving
your car on the state-owned roadways.
People who don't drive, or people who don't drive on the state-owned
roads aren't forced to buy auto insurance.
> You folks are nuts.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
jane
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:48:15 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Your response to the statement, "a law that "forces" every American
> >subject to by health insurance" was, "So..."
>
> >If you believe that giving a government the power to "force" the
> >citizens to buy a private product is NOT a threat to liberty, then you
> >and I have no room for discussion.
>
>
>
> _________
>
> "Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
> of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
> engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
> to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
> deal with the real world. The other involves orcs."
This has been discussed many times. Auto insurance is NOT mandatory.
My mother does not have auto insurance; she doesn't own or drive a
car. I have a relative who owns and drives a car with no auto
insurance; he uses it on his private property (a farm). There are
alternatives to auto insurance, such as a bond backed by property as
collateral.
Driving on public roads is not a right, it is a privilege. One of the
obligations to exercise this privilege is to protect the "other
individual" against financial loss by YOU demonstrating fiscal
responsibility in case you do damage to "the other individual".
Jane.
jane
Our current direction is not health care reform but insurance reform.
If it were truly about health care reform, there would be no need to
eliminate the preexisting condition exclusion.
And yes, my discussion was silly. It was just as silly as eliminating
the preexisting condition exclusion. Coburn didn't like my comparison
with buying life insurance AFTER a person's death. If he didn't like
that one, then I will provide a more similar comparison: buying home
owner's insurance AFTER the fire.
Jane.
jane
I am discussing the preexisting condition exclusion and the forced
purchase by subjects of the government because those are the topics in
the bill. The reason I am not discussing government capitalism
(government provided insurance) is because it is not in the bill.
Jane.
hal
wrote:
>> So it sounds as if the problem is the fact that it is private. It
>> would
>> help if it were a public product like Medicare. We are all paying for
>> that now. I agree with you here lets make it a "public product" at
>> least that way we will know our money isn't being spent on
>> store bought air blowing up someones shirt. or skirt.fat cats.
>> you get the picture. =A0.
>
>I am discussing the preexisting condition exclusion and the forced
>purchase by subjects of the government because those are the topics in
>the bill. The reason I am not discussing government capitalism
>(government provided insurance) is because it is not in the bill.
But it should be.
>
>Jane.
Jeffrey Turner
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 06:53:04 -0800 (PST), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I have known several entrepreneurs. Typically, health care was not a
>> problem.
>
Health care is never a problem for Republicans - just don't get sick.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Turner
>
> Next these guys will want to pass a law to force us to buy BROWN SHIRTS!
Your like already have those.
Jeffrey Turner
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:13:21 -0800 (PST), maxw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>> I agree with you here lets make it a "public product" at
>> least that way we will know our money isn't being spent on
>> store bought air blowing up someones shirt. or skirt.fat cats.
>> you get the picture. .
>
>
> I mean that would be a real choice and it would bring down prices and
> that would hurt the private insurance profits, and they would have
> less to give the party.
It bothers the Democrats too, at least Baucus, Reid and Obama. It
bothers Lieberman (I-Insurance) also. The problem is that neither of
the "respectable" parties is democratic, i.e. willing to govern in the
interests of the people.
Michael Coburn
Every day my government forces me to buy weapons, uniforms and other
stuff for wars that I totally disagree with. In the case of the warts it
is called a tax and it is enforced on all of us. The same is true for
laws that require me to have liability insurance on my car. Yet most of
us still go about our lives feeling quite at liberty and free.
> If you believe that giving a government the power to "force" the
> citizens to buy a private product is NOT a threat to liberty, then you
> and I have no room for discussion.
"private" product??? What the hell difference does that make? You want
single payer? That would fix yer problem just fine. We could just levy
the tax directly and force everyone into the same pool. But it was
decided to stay with the private insurance crap.
> Regarding your last statement: I do not believe that an insurance system
> is a threat to freedom and liberty. I believe that giving government
> power to force its citizens to purchase any private product IS a threat
> to liberty and freedom.
>
> Jane.
You can also believe that Peter Pan is a place to wash a tallywhacker.
You can BLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE whatever you want. It's called "free
thought".
Michael Coburn
Well now... There's yer answer.... Off yourself.
maxw...@my-deja.com
> retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:13:21 -0800 (PST), maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >> I agree with you here lets make it a "public product" at
> >> least that way we will know our money isn't being spent on
> >> store bought air blowing up someones shirt. or skirt.fat cats.
> >> you get the picture. .
>
> > Except of course the public option bothers the bejeses out of the GOP.
> > I mean that would be a real choice and it would bring down prices and
> > that would hurt the private insurance profits, and they would have
> > less to give the party.
>
> It bothers the Democrats too, at least Baucus, Reid and Obama. It
> bothers Lieberman (I-Insurance) also. The problem is that neither of
> the "respectable" parties is democratic, i.e. willing to govern in the
> interests of the people.
If it were in the bill I know Obama would sign it. At the summit
a few days ago Obama looked like one of the few adults in the room,
the rest are trying to justify their actions. It is obvious some of
these senators have been swayed by the lobbyist. When arguments
of saving the insurance companies are brought out it says 2 things
1.) They are only speculating. The public option doesn't mean any more
of
and end to private insurance than USPS means and end to FedEx.
2.) Such arguments are irrelevant to the goal.
They have either lost sight of the goal or never knew it in the first
place.
maxw...@my-deja.com
Your logic eludes me. Health care reform includes insurance
reform. But it is more than just changes to insurace.
>
> And yes, my discussion was silly. It was just as silly as eliminating
> the preexisting condition exclusion. Coburn didn't like my comparison
> with buying life insurance AFTER a person's death. If he didn't like
> that one, then I will provide a more similar comparison: buying home
> owner's insurance AFTER the fire.
Fine I think calling it insurance is silly. Maybe they should just
leave the insurance companies alone. Let them continue to
do what they want. Let them have the free market.
But opening Medicare to all or something like that should be
allowed because that isn't insurance. Insurance is for
accidents.
Michael Coburn
As I so patiently explained: The beneficiaries in your example are not
the same as the payers. So the analogy does not work.
So now you have offered a similar situation but for the fact that there
are some tight restrictions on the health plans that can be used by any
insurance company. The primary one is the restriction of enrollment to
an annual window. This says that you can't just "sign up" while in the
ER unless you happen to be there during the annual window. The other
restriction is that the insurance company can adjust your rate based on
"actuarial value". If your actual costs place you in a actuarial pool of
high risk then you can be charged accordingly. It's sorta like when you
have too many accidents and the car insurance people raise your rates.
You can't be EXCLUDED but you can be charged higher rates.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>>
>> Next these guys will want to pass a law to force us to buy BROWN SHIRTS!
>
> Your like already have those.
That would be a problem too, why force me to buy another one?
This Socialist, one size fits all mediocrity never works.
Jeffrey Turner
> On Mar 1, 4:50 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:13:21 -0800 (PST), maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>> I agree with you here lets make it a "public product" at
>>>> least that way we will know our money isn't being spent on
>>>> store bought air blowing up someones shirt. or skirt.fat cats.
>>>> you get the picture. .
>>> Except of course the public option bothers the bejeses out of the GOP.
>>> I mean that would be a real choice and it would bring down prices and
>>> that would hurt the private insurance profits, and they would have
>>> less to give the party.
>> It bothers the Democrats too, at least Baucus, Reid and Obama. It
>> bothers Lieberman (I-Insurance) also. The problem is that neither of
>> the "respectable" parties is democratic, i.e. willing to govern in the
>> interests of the people.
>
> If it were in the bill I know Obama would sign it.
If he had to, he might. The first thing he did was cut a deal with the
insurance companies.
> At the summit
> a few days ago Obama looked like one of the few adults in the room,
> the rest are trying to justify their actions. It is obvious some of
> these senators have been swayed by the lobbyist. When arguments
> of saving the insurance companies are brought out it says 2 things
> 1.) They are only speculating. The public option doesn't mean any more
> of and end to private insurance than USPS means and end to FedEx.
> 2.) Such arguments are irrelevant to the goal.
> They have either lost sight of the goal or never knew it in the first
> place.
Their goal is to get re-elected. Unless the electorate wises up, it's
easier to do with insurance company money on your side.
Nickname unavailable
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:01:17 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
> >Jane.
maxw...@my-deja.com
> maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 4:50 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:13:21 -0800 (PST), maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >>>> I agree with you here lets make it a "public product" at
> >>>> least that way we will know our money isn't being spent on
> >>>> store bought air blowing up someones shirt. or skirt.fat cats.
> >>>> you get the picture. .
> >>> Except of course the public option bothers the bejeses out of the GOP.
> >>> I mean that would be a real choice and it would bring down prices and
> >>> that would hurt the private insurance profits, and they would have
> >>> less to give the party.
> >> It bothers the Democrats too, at least Baucus, Reid and Obama. It
> >> bothers Lieberman (I-Insurance) also. The problem is that neither of
> >> the "respectable" parties is democratic, i.e. willing to govern in the
> >> interests of the people.
>
> > If it were in the bill I know Obama would sign it.
>
> If he had to, he might. The first thing he did was cut a deal with the
> insurance companies.
He had to cut a deal or there would be no bill.
>
> > At the summit
> > a few days ago Obama looked like one of the few adults in the room,
> > the rest are trying to justify their actions. It is obvious some of
> > these senators have been swayed by the lobbyist. When arguments
> > of saving the insurance companies are brought out it says 2 things
> > 1.) They are only speculating. The public option doesn't mean any more
> > of and end to private insurance than USPS means and end to FedEx.
> > 2.) Such arguments are irrelevant to the goal.
> > They have either lost sight of the goal or never knew it in the first
> > place.
>
> Their goal is to get re-elected. Unless the electorate wises up, it's
> easier to do with insurance company money on your side.
Obviously. Hillary hinted about this during the campaign.
Obama was not supportive of a mandate. But Hillary was strongly
opinionated that you had to get all "stakeholders on board
or you won't have a health care bill". This is where you see
hints of the truth.
So the reason is insurance companies have been enriched
over the years and have been buying politicians.
None of this is surprising, it is just sad that we don't
have a true democracy.
Tater Gumfries
> On Feb 28, 12:31 am, Tater Gumfries <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 10:26 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:25:31 -0800 (PST), Tater Gumfries
>
> > > <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>
> > > >Then Tater's gonna have to be sick, ain't he? That's how it is.
> > > >Sometimes you get sick and don't no insurance cover it. Seems to ol
> > > >Tater the way you want it is for ever body to have a right to get
> > > >treated for whatever they got. Is that right?
>
> > > Sure. You got a problem with that?
>
> > Some things cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat. Tater has
> > a problem payin to treat really expensive diseases. As time goes by,
> > Americans will expect to have more and more insubstantial conditions
> > covered, and the cost will go up and up...
>
> > Yes, Tater has a problem with treatin everything.
>
> > Tater
>
> costs go down in a universal system. tater has no comprehension how
> economics of scale works.
Sure he does. You cover a lot of folks for common illnesses,
eventually the costs go down cause people figure out how to do them
fast, cheap and effective. That's why Tatercare's so cheap
http://kernsholler.net/KHC/OpinionTaterCare.html
But you start coverin the less common, more costly illnesses, and
extend care to heroic end of life extensions, and you bankrupt the
system. You cover *everything* and you got a recipe for disaster.
Tater
Tater Gumfries
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:31:33 -0800, Tater Gumfries wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 10:26 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:25:31 -0800 (PST), Tater Gumfries
>
> >> <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Then Tater's gonna have to be sick, ain't he? That's how it is.
> >> >Sometimes you get sick and don't no insurance cover it. Seems to ol
> >> >Tater the way you want it is for ever body to have a right to get
> >> >treated for whatever they got. Is that right?
>
> >> Sure. You got a problem with that?
>
> > Some things cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat. Tater has a
> > problem payin to treat really expensive diseases. As time goes by,
> > Americans will expect to have more and more insubstantial conditions
> > covered, and the cost will go up and up...
>
> > Yes, Tater has a problem with treatin everything.
>
No he ain't got no problem with civilization. Like it just fine. It's
the idea that we got a right to get whatever's ailin us fixed
no matter the cost got Tater upset.
Nickname unavailable
> On Feb 27, 11:47 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 28, 12:31 am, Tater Gumfries <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 27, 10:26 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > > > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:25:31 -0800 (PST), Tater Gumfries
>
> > > > <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>
> > > > >Then Tater's gonna have to be sick, ain't he? That's how it is.
> > > > >Sometimes you get sick and don't no insurance cover it. Seems to ol
> > > > >Tater the way you want it is for ever body to have a right to get
> > > > >treated for whatever they got. Is that right?
>
> > > > Sure. You got a problem with that?
>
> > > Some things cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat. Tater has
> > > a problem payin to treat really expensive diseases. As time goes by,
> > > Americans will expect to have more and more insubstantial conditions
> > > covered, and the cost will go up and up...
>
> > > Yes, Tater has a problem with treatin everything.
>
> > > Tater
>
> > costs go down in a universal system. tater has no comprehension how
> > economics of scale works.
>
> Sure he does. You cover a lot of folks for common illnesses,
> eventually the costs go down cause people figure out how to do them
> But you start coverin the less common, more costly illnesses, and
> extend care to heroic end of life extensions, and you bankrupt the
> system. You cover *everything* and you got a recipe for disaster.
>
> Tater
i did not say everything, i said everybody. yea, people always learn
and do the right thing. sick people who self medicate, can be fools.
geesh.
Michael Coburn
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 03:54:38 -0800 (PST), maxw...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>> If he had to, he might. The first thing he did was cut a deal with
>>> the insurance companies.
>>
>>He had to cut a deal or there would be no bill.
>
>
> I think he's learned though that they do not bargain in good faith. Now
> if Emmanuel is as good as he seems at politics they shall pay a price
> for it.
>
> It's beginning to look like it may come in the form of national
> regulation of health insurance coupled with the end of the anti-trust
> exemption.
I think I have finally found someone who can tell us what the hell all
this "anti-trust" crap is about in regard to health insurance. All I
know is that the moonbats are all for "ending" it because the Republicans
and the insurance companies like it. They have no clue as to what "it"
is. I _ADMIT_ that I don't know what "it" is. But it seems to me that
we _WANT_ these state based exchanges to be able to form "trusts" across
state lines. And certainly a national exchange or a national Public
option would be e "trust". So I get nervous when I here all this crap
about anti-trust.
What does "retro" have to say about this??? HMMMMMMMMMM????
Michael Coburn
> On Feb 28, 10:33 am, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:31:33 -0800, Tater Gumfries wrote:
>> > On Feb 27, 10:26 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:25:31 -0800 (PST), Tater Gumfries
>>
>> >> <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >Then Tater's gonna have to be sick, ain't he? That's how it is.
>> >> >Sometimes you get sick and don't no insurance cover it. Seems to ol
>> >> >Tater the way you want it is for ever body to have a right to get
>> >> >treated for whatever they got. Is that right?
>>
>> >> Sure. You got a problem with that?
>>
>> > Some things cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to treat. Tater has
>> > a problem payin to treat really expensive diseases. As time goes by,
>> > Americans will expect to have more and more insubstantial conditions
>> > covered, and the cost will go up and up...
And that is why the sane countries have adopted a SOCIAL mechanism for
LIMITING the amount that will be shelled out from the JOINT account.
>> > Yes, Tater has a problem with treatin everything.
>>
>> Tater has a problem with civilization.
>
> No he ain't got no problem with civilization. Like it just fine. It's
> the idea that we got a right to get whatever's ailin us fixed no matter
> the cost got Tater upset.
This is because Tater is woefully stupid. There is absolutely nothing in
any health care legislation in this country that would stop Tater from
spending as much as Tater wants on anything medical. OOPS I FORGOT!!!
You can't get an abortion unless the Republicans agree and you can't do
Medical Marijuana. Jeebus won't like it.
Michael Coburn
> On 2 Mar 2010 18:13:16 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>I think I have finally found someone who can tell us what the hell all
>>this "anti-trust" crap is about in regard to health insurance. All I
>>know is that the moonbats are all for "ending" it because the
>>Republicans and the insurance companies like it. They have no clue as
>>to what "it" is. I _ADMIT_ that I don't know what "it" is. But it
>>seems to me that we _WANT_ these state based exchanges to be able to
>>form "trusts" across state lines. And certainly a national exchange or
>>a national Public option would be e "trust". So I get nervous when I
>>here all this crap about anti-trust.
>>
>>What does "retro" have to say about this??? HMMMMMMMMMM????
>
>
> Id originally heard the justification for anti-trust for health insurers
> was so they could share actuarial data. But it's more complicated
> evidently:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/health/policy/27health.html
> http://www.articlesbase.com/insurance-articles/will-health-insurance-
companies-lose-their-antitrust-exemption-1817128.html
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/02/23/repealing-antitrust-exemption-
health-insurance-companies-0
>
This works _ONLY_ if the exchange is national and there is a Public
Option. People do not seem to understand that the providers are the
point of monopoly control in this deal. If _ALL_ insurance companies
join hands and refuse to pay so much then this _consumers union_ will be
able to regulate health care costs. Passing this bill is a real screw
up. The Senate bill on HCR limits the "take" of the insurance companies
but there is no control on what the providers charge. What a bunch of
monkeys.
Nickname unavailable
Reaganomics:Wall Street was conning, scamming and manipulating you all
along, all day, every day for the past decade. And yet I'll bet you're
still an optimist, gullible, trapped in Wall Street's seductive pseudo-
optimism
8 Reasons Wall Street Loses Another 20% in This Decade
by Paul B. Farrell
Monday, March 1, 2010
provided by
Commentary: Warning, you can't get back to even, cannot win Wall
Street's 'Loser's Game'
Remember Charlie Ellis' famous 1975 classic: "Winning the Loser's
Game: Timeless Strategies for Successful Investing?" Like Napoleon
Hill's "Think & Grow Rich" everyone on Wall Street has read it.
Well, guess what: Charlie failed us the past decade. Wall Street lost
trillions, lost 11% of your money. Adjusted for inflation, Wall Street
lost 20% of your money. Warning: Wall Street will do it again by 2020.
First, let's review Ellis' famous 10 strategies for winning at Wall
Street's casino: "Never speculate. Your home's not a stock or piggy
bank. Save more money. Your broker's not your friend. Never trade
commodities. Don't chase hot stocks. Bonds also ride up and down.
Don't invest for tax benefits. Write goals and stick to them. Never
trust your emotions."
You probably knew them by heart. What happened? This insider gave you
10 rules for beating the Wall Street casinos ... and still you lost
20%.
But in your defense, even if you broke all 10 of Charlie's rules the
past decade and lost 20%, it still wasn't your fault. Wall Street was
conning, scamming and manipulating you all along, all day, every day
for the past decade. And yet I'll bet you're still an optimist,
gullible, trapped in Wall Street's seductive pseudo-optimism, one of
the majority of Americans who believe the market will go up 20% or
more in 2010, "confident better times are ahead."
Best advice today? Burn Ellis' book. His next edition should be
titled: "Losing the Loser's Game: How Wall Street Got Rich Between
2000 and 2009 Because Main Street Investors Are So Gullible, Stupid
and Predictably Irrational." You cannot win at Wall Street's "Loser's
Game." The past decade proves it. The house always wins in Vegas and
on Wall Street.
How Not to Lose 2010-2020? Avoid Wall Street; Don't Play by Their
Rules
So why bet on the house? Why bet with the Wall Street casino for
another decade? Why? You're betting in a rigged casino. Worse, they
keep adding powerful new tools, scams and algorithms to their
"financial weapons of mass destruction" arsenal, as Warren
Buffett calls this mysterious $670 trillion global shadow banking
world of derivatives. You cannot win.
Statistically, the odds now predict Wall Street losing another 20% of
your money in the next decade. The momentum's headed down. So, what
should you do? Sell all your stocks, ETFs, bonds and funds. Get out of
commodities and gold. Sell.
You think I'm crazy? Imagine: You're a 50-year-old boomer. Flash
forward to 2020. Retirement time? But you've lost another 20%, while
those Wall Street Fat Cats will be paying themselves record bonuses
averaging half-a-million annually for all 10 years from 2010 and 2020
… but you can't retire. They got their bonuses siphoning money out of
your accounts.
What do you expects some kind of divine intervention will save you?
Get real, consider the "Swiss Family Robinson" scenario.
No, You Cannot Get Back to Even
My guess is you're still smiling about that 60% short-term gain in
2009. You're still an optimist. You really believe you can "get back
to even," like Jim Cramer and other hucksters are promoting on the
Wall Street propaganda machine.
Yes, your portfolio did ride up on the 60% rebound wave in 2009.
You're happy. Short-term gratification. You believe it'll continue.
Wrong. You're forgetting the massive losses of more than $10 trillion
in market cap the last decade since the Dow peaked at 11,722 in 2000.
Worse, you're forgetting the Dow's still about 30% under the 14,164
peak in 2007.
What if you don't sell? What if you take the risk and gamble Wall
Street will change its evil ways. What if you ignore me? What if you
gamble and you lose another inflation-adjusted 20% by 2020, like you
did between 2000 and 2009? Or worse, what if you're close to retiring
or putting kids in college, and you lose 40% like so many did in the
2007-2008 meltdown?
Studies prove that nobody -- neither Wall Street pros nor Main Street
amateurs -- can predict long-term trends. But we do know Wall Street's
high-frequency quant traders are making thousands of millisecond bets
every second gambling on short-term shifts in volatile markets.
You got a job all day. They're 24/7 gamblers. They don't have a clue
what's going to happen in a decade. Worse, they don't give a damn.
It's irrelevant in their 24/7 short-term trading world. Irrelevant to
guys making anywhere from 10 times the income of the average American
to making more in a single year than you'll make in a lifetime.
Irrelevant in a culture that needs no moral compass and lives by one
rule: "Greed is very good!"
Eight Reasons Wall Street Will Lose Another 20% in the Next Decade
The world of 2010-2020 is far more dangerous for investors than it was
in the "Lost Decade," as many economists now call the years from 2000
to 2009. Listen closely: Here are eight reasons Wall Street will lose
another 20%, why the odds are heavily against you "Winning the Loser's
Game" by 2020:
1. Foreign policy and wars. The investment world's far more volatile
and dangerous today than in 2000 when Bush was elected. America
started a preemptive war-of-civilizations by attacking Iraq under
false pretenses, the single biggest foreign policy blunder in American
history, a war that's had the unintended consequences of playing into
the hands of our enemies, made them stronger, and unnecessarily cost
us trillions, weakening America as a military and economic power, with
no end in sight.
2. Monetary policy and the Fed. Your world of investing is also in a
far worse condition as a direct result of former Fed Chairman Alan
Greenspan's too-long legacy of free-market Reaganomics ideology
funneling endless cheap money to Wall Street banks. Worse, three
regional Fed presidents recently endorsed an indefinite continuation
of current Chairman Ben Bernanke's cheap money policies, thus
accelerating the next bubble. But worst of all, when he had a chance
to prove he was a real change-agent, President Obama made the biggest
domestic policy blunder in history by reappointing Bernanke, a
Greenspan clone, a Reaganomics ideologue and a Trojan Horse protecting
Wall Street with trillions in cheap money loans, guarantees and toxic
asset takeovers, all hidden from taxpayers.
3. Dysfunctional politics and the Party of No-No. America's
unpredictable and hostile political world will also have enormous long-
term economic consequences. In this age of online citizen journalism
the public is becoming more and more aware of the breakdown of
Washington politics and the two-party system, the widening cultural
gap between the rich and the rest of America, the exploding conflict
between Corporate America and Main Street America and the "GOP Party
of No-No's" scorched-earth defense of all-things-business while
fighting everything favoring the masses, including health care and
financial reforms. Warning: This trend will get far more destructive.
The elections of 2010 and 2012 are guaranteed to make your investment
world a dangerous no-man's land.
4. Statistics guarantee you will lose at the Wall Street casino.
Remember: Between 2000 and 2009 Wall Street's casino was in fact a
"Loser's Game" for Main Street investors. The Dow did in fact drop
from 11,722 in 2000 and from a peak of 14,164 in 2007 to the 10,400
range today. The fact is, Wall Street's lost an inflation-adjusted 20%
of your retirement nest egg in the recent "Lost Decade." And the odds
are high they'll lose more of your hard-earned money in the next
decade. The game's fixed.
5. Wall Street has absolutely no moral conscience. Wall Street's greed
knows no bounds, thanks to the moral hazard endorsed by the Fed and
Treasury bailouts, Wall Street's obsession with mega-bonuses for
insiders and their addiction to the new high-risk, high-leveraged,
high-frequency derivatives gambling game that easily generates $100
million trading-profit days. Their cultural DNA must ignore lending to
the little guy, to homeowners, to small businesses, to regional banks,
to all the businesses that money-center banks used to help before
investment bankers took over. Wall Street's DNA makes them incapable
of feeling the pain the rest of America feels in an economic downturn
with underemployment near 20%. Wall Streeters have zero moral
conscience. Unfortunately, it's guaranteed to get far worse.
6. The 'Third Meltdown' is dead ahead. America is again being
propelled to the edge of an economic cliff, already burdened with an
estimated $23.7 trillion debt from the misguided political decisions
of the past decade. Endless deficits lie ahead. Yet politicians, CEOs,
bankers and Main Street folks have all failed to learn any lessons. As
Yale's Robert Shiller put it: "Until we understand and address the
psychology that fuels" these bubbles, they will "keep forming. We
recently lived through two epidemics of excessive financial optimism,
we are close to a third episode." To another meltdown, to another
Great Depression.
7. Lobbyists fueling America's new 'Capitalist Anarchy.' America's
becoming a "socialist" nation? No, the truth is America's becoming the
world's first "Capitalist Anarchy," thanks to the explosion of
lobbyists running government. This trend shows no sign of abating.
Imagine: 42,000 Washington lobbyists today, versus a handful in 1975.
Other experts estimate 261,000 of these selfish special-interest
"influence peddlers" throughout our nation. And it's so bad the Center
for Public Integrity just reported that "more than 1,750 companies and
organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists, eight for each member of
Congress, to influence health-reform bills in 2009." Worse: this
emerging "Capitalist Anarchy" is draining the Treasury with endless
deficits piling up more killer debt that will negatively impact future
market returns.
8. Taxpayers cannot afford Wall Street's next bailout. I'll bet you're
in total denial about this one. And you can bet Congress will avoid
action till it's too late. But when the bomb detonates all hell will
break lose. Moral-hazard critics warn that Wall Street's arrogant "too-
political-to-fail" bankers actually believe taxpayers will bail them
out again when they trigger the new meltdown. Wrong. Even if our
politicians are dumb enough, the money won't be there. That scenario
will inevitably trigger a new Great Depression. This is our destiny.
In fact, it's highly doubtful that you, your portfolio, your family or
your America will make it past 2012, let alone into that comfortable
retirement you may be planning for 2020. The Wall Street casino's
version of "Liar's Poker" is a "Loser's Game," and the odds are high
are they'll lose a lot of your money again in the coming decade.
So again I ask you: Do you really want to bet on the market winning
for the next decade? Do you really believe that stocks, mutual funds,
ETFs, commodities and bonds will make a profit in the next decade
after Wall Street's miserable performance the past decade? Trust them,
you lose.
Copyrighted, MarketWatch. All rights reserved. Republication or
redistribution of MarketWatch content is expressly prohibited without
the prior written consent of MarketWatch. MarketWatch shall not be
liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions
taken in reliance thereon.
maxw...@my-deja.com
So what is Tater goin to do when he has an ail he ain't
got no cure fer? What if Tater ain't got the money for
the doctors that could cure him?. Is Tater gonna clock out
so I don't have to pay fer it?
Occam's Razor
maxw...@my-deja.com
There is a difference in fantasy and reality.
I know people that get told that now when the provider
discovers they don't have health insurance.
Nickname unavailable
that is the republican health care plan.
Occam's Razor
Those Meds are working for you, the Hallucinations are gone?
Good for you, welcome back.
> I know people that get told that now when the provider
> discovers they don't have health insurance.
Then why do we need 2,500 pages of Legislation and new taxes if NOTHING
is changing for the better MEDICALLY?
Occam's Razor
maxw...@my-deja.com
Well at least you agree it is the republican plan.
Nickname unavailable
yes.
Occam's Razor
I don't think I said that, I think I said it was Obama's plan all along.
At least as long as Obama's a Socialist.
maxw...@my-deja.com
Why do you believe nothing would change?
maxw...@my-deja.com
LOL. Then you better go back read what you said.
You never denied it was the republican plan, you
simply questioned if Obama was really a republican.
LOL
Tater Gumfries
That ain't the point at all. Tater don't want to pay for *other* folks
expensive procedures.
> OOPS I FORGOT!!!
> You can't get an abortion unless the Republicans agree and you can't do
> Medical Marijuana. Jeebus won't like it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe-er9FqhYA
Tater
Tater Gumfries
Yep. That's God's way. Everyone dies, and ain't no stoppin it. The
question is how much money gonna be spent to keep gramma alive for
those two extra months, how much we're gonna spend on "life saving"
liposuction on a fat ol boy can't stop eatin chips.
Tater
Tater Gumfries
Obama's right then.
Tater
Jeffrey Turner
> On Mar 1, 11:45 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>> maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 4:50 pm, Jeffrey Turner <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
>>>> retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 11:13:21 -0800 (PST), maxwel...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>>>>> I agree with you here lets make it a "public product" at
>>>>>> least that way we will know our money isn't being spent on
>>>>>> store bought air blowing up someones shirt. or skirt.fat cats.
>>>>>> you get the picture. .
>>>>> Except of course the public option bothers the bejeses out of the GOP.
>>>>> I mean that would be a real choice and it would bring down prices and
>>>>> that would hurt the private insurance profits, and they would have
>>>>> less to give the party.
>>>> It bothers the Democrats too, at least Baucus, Reid and Obama. It
>>>> bothers Lieberman (I-Insurance) also. The problem is that neither of
>>>> the "respectable" parties is democratic, i.e. willing to govern in the
>>>> interests of the people.
>>> If it were in the bill I know Obama would sign it.
>> If he had to, he might. The first thing he did was cut a deal with the
>> insurance companies.
>
> He had to cut a deal or there would be no bill.
He didn't even try another approach. He is just another Bill Clinton,
corporate Democrat. But it's not 1993 any more.
>>> At the summit
>>> a few days ago Obama looked like one of the few adults in the room,
>>> the rest are trying to justify their actions. It is obvious some of
>>> these senators have been swayed by the lobbyist. When arguments
>>> of saving the insurance companies are brought out it says 2 things
>>> 1.) They are only speculating. The public option doesn't mean any more
>>> of and end to private insurance than USPS means and end to FedEx.
>>> 2.) Such arguments are irrelevant to the goal.
>>> They have either lost sight of the goal or never knew it in the first
>>> place.
>> Their goal is to get re-elected. Unless the electorate wises up, it's
>> easier to do with insurance company money on your side.
>
> Obviously. Hillary hinted about this during the campaign.
> Obama was not supportive of a mandate.
You can't make sure everyone is insured without a mandate, unless you
have single-payer. You can't make sure that insurance is as affordable
as possible without a public option.
> But Hillary was strongly
> opinionated that you had to get all "stakeholders on board
> or you won't have a health care bill". This is where you see
> hints of the truth.
You don't have to give away the store from the start.
> So the reason is insurance companies have been enriched
> over the years and have been buying politicians.
> None of this is surprising, it is just sad that we don't
> have a true democracy.
--Jeff
--
Love consists of overestimating
the differences between one woman
and another. --George Bernard Shaw
Michael Coburn
It's a long time to 2014. Going forward from the laws created by this
bill is a lot easier than starting over. There are ONLY GOOD THINGS IN
THIS BILL THAT HAPPEN IN THE NEAR FUTURE. All the boogerman crap is put
off so that Americans have plenty of time to "get it right".