"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2014, 03:23 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(28-12-2013 10:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Consider another way. Instead of the government writing a check for $500 each month to an insurance company, they write it to the individual's own health savings account, which they can choose where it's invested, but they can't spend it on anything but health care until a certain age. Now, every month, they see a statement with THEIR name on it, showing how much money THEY have. And it compounds quickly.


So apparently in your fantasy land, the market always goes up and never goes down, eh? What will become of those people who are not investment savvy and lose their money on stocks when they should have been in bonds? Ppssstt...news flash, As interest rates go up, bond prices go down..so bonds aren't always "safe" either.

Further, the financial institution where there money is held is not "safe" either. FDIC insurance only covers a max for each account of $250,000. Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble. Even SIPC insurance has a cap.

so what becomes of people during a recession or worse, a depression? Its an inevitability of one or the other. meh, fuck em. As long as its not you, Frank, then its not your problem, eh?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 03:25 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(28-12-2013 10:37 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Consider another way. Instead of the government writing a check for $500 each month to an insurance company, they write it to the individual's own health savings account, which they can choose where it's invested, but they can't spend it on anything but health care until a certain age. Now, every month, they see a statement with THEIR name on it, showing how much money THEY have. And it compounds quickly.


So apparently in your fantasy land, the market always goes up and never goes down, eh? What will become of those people who are not investment savvy and lose their money on stocks when they should have been in bonds? Ppssstt...news flash, As interest rates go up, bond prices go down..so bonds aren't always "safe" either.

Further, the financial institution where there money is held is not "safe" either. FDIC insurance only covers a max for each account of $250,000. Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble. Even SIPC insurance has a cap.

so what becomes of people during a recession or worse, a depression? Its an inevitability of one or the other. meh, fuck em. As long as its not you, Frank, then its not your problem, eh?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 03:26 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 03:04 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(27-12-2013 09:33 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The correlation isn't strong, so I'm not making a big point of this. But it's absurd for you to insist there is absolutely zero evidence that insurance results in a moral hazard. If it was so absurd, government agencies and economists wouldn't be researching it, pouring through economic data looking for trends.

empirical studies have yet to provide sufficient evidence to support this prediction... And to completely discredit everything you said... Way to think that one through, Frank.

Read my statement above and your rebuttal. Why do you waste your time battling your strawmen? Since you're an expert in economics, why not share some of your wisdom. Explain this: Say right now the money supply (total quantity of all dollars) is $100 trillion. And the banks currently have $10 trillion. The banks have 10% of the money. Now, say the Fed does some QE, printing another $10 trillion to give the banks. What % of the money do the banks have then? And since the banks' % of the money went up, what group(s) saw their % go down the most? If you spent just a day reading Friedman or Hayak you'd know the answers. My guess is that after studying Keynesian economics in the university all those years you never learned any of this, and that's why you're fighting strawmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 03:35 PM by frankksj.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 03:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So apparently in your fantasy land, the market always goes up and never goes down, eh?

Strawman.... Again. Copy/paste where I ever said that. I'm waiting.

(20-01-2014 03:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  What will become of those people who are not investment savvy and lose their money on stocks when they should have been in bonds?

Sure, with my system some win more than others. As I proved on my spreadsheet, the AVERAGE person, assuming an average (or even below average) health, and an average ROI of 7% will end up with around $3.5 million. Some will end up with more, some with less.

But with your solution everybody ends up with ZERO, and the insurance companies get all the money, since there's no residual value in a health insurance policy. When you retire, it's worth precisely $0. So with my solution, WORST CASE, if you're the worst investor in the world and lose EVERYTHING, you'll be precisely where EVERYBODY will be anyway with your solution. That's really smart. My worst case scenario is precisely the same as your best case scenario.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 03:38 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
seriously Frank. If you are going to tell me that you never claimed that eliminating the police was a good idea, then I'm going to tell you that I never said anything about holding people at gunpoint.

Why is this your favorite phrase? Its old. Pick a new one.

I, like you, were making points, not quoting verbatim.


In the 1,000 conversations with you, you seem to be anti FDA, anti-FINRA, anti-Fed, anti regulation of any fucking kind, and any law that limits your choice is tantamount to someone pointing a gun at you, which is a ludicrous and hysterical exaggeration.

SAMs club and all the other whole sale stores specifically limit your choices to two manufacturers. Crest or Collegate. Tampax or Playtex. Dove or Ivory. due to the proven fact that when people are given too many choices, they cannot decide. Are they holding you at gunpoint too because they didn't offer sensadyne?

As an aside - do you oppose gun regulation?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 03:41 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 03:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 03:23 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  So apparently in your fantasy land, the market always goes up and never goes down, eh?

Strawman.... Again. Copy/paste where I ever said that. I'm waiting.

"Instead of the government writing a check for $500 each month to an insurance company, they write it to the individual's own health savings account, which they can choose where it's invested, but they can't spend it on anything but health care until a certain age. Now, every month, they see a statement with THEIR name on it, showing how much money THEY have. And it compounds quickly."

In this cockamamie solution you have, never once did you provide for market corrections, which means you may as well said that you didn't consider the market going down. Or when happens to someone who needs access to their health "account" when its down?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 03:46 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 03:49 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 03:31 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Sure, with my system some win more than others. As I proved on my spreadsheet, the AVERAGE person, assuming an average (or even below average) health, and an average ROI of 7% will end up with around $3.5 million. Some will end up with more, some with less.

An average return of 7% for a low risk tolerance? Mutual bond funds haven't pulled in anything above 2-3% in 5 years. Now I know you are insane.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 03:56 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 04:06 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
"but with your solution everybody ends up with ZERO, and the insurance companies get all the money, since there's no residual value in a health insurance policy. When you retire, it's worth precisely $0. So with my solution, WORST CASE, if you're the worst investor in the world and lose EVERYTHING, you'll be precisely where EVERYBODY will be anyway with your solution. That's really smart. My worst case scenario is precisely the same as your best case scenario."


news flash. The purpose of the government is NOT to hand out $100 bills like they are M&Ms, ok? You don't just get money for free, which is what you are suggestion. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme system where the people paying in now, are supporting those that paid in before. Everyone was all for privatizing SS, until the market crapped the bed.

Further, I didn't offer any solutions, so I'm not sure what you are referring to. All I said was that your solution is completely and utterly retarded and completely short sited. Some people will end up with more and some will end up with less, well, thats great. So what happens to people when their money runs out? Fuck em? Have them refused health care? So how can I have a "best case scenario" when I didn't even mention any scenario at all? Stay on point please.

The purpose of insurance, as you know because we've agreed on this, is to POOL risk. You don't get zero, or nothing with insurance companies. You get the coverage from the risk, regardless if that risk is realized.

The government should not fund anyone's self insurance. You wanna self insure, go for it. Thats not a viable option for the majority of people and you know it.


Further - the chief reason that Medicare costs are so high for taxpayers is because of the influx of baby boomers now approaching that age. As the baby boomers die off, there will be much less of population stress of everyone dipping their hand into the pot all at once. Generation X, Generation Y, and the Millennials are much smaller as groups than the baby boomers.

So you need to look at the bigger picture in terms of expansion, peak, decline and trough. I don't have a crystal ball, and can't know the future, but I'd be willing to bet that with the next generation approaching the age where they can qualify for Medicare, we will see a reduction in the deficit due to the sheer reduction in volume of people on medicare.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 04:28 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 03:26 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Read my statement above and your rebuttal. Why do you waste your time battling your strawmen? Since you're an expert in economics, why not share some of your wisdom. Explain this: Say right now the money supply (total quantity of all dollars) is $100 trillion. And the banks currently have $10 trillion. The banks have 10% of the money. Now, say the Fed does some QE, printing another $10 trillion to give the banks. What % of the money do the banks have then? And since the banks' % of the money went up, what group(s) saw their % go down the most? If you spent just a day reading Friedman or Hayak you'd know the answers. My guess is that after studying Keynesian economics in the university all those years you never learned any of this, and that's why you're fighting strawmen.

You don't understand the concept of the straw men argument. I used YOUR cited data to refute you. That isn't a straw man.

Since I did my thesis paper of Friedman, I think you are the one with the strawmen, my dear. And since you aren't asking this question out of general interest, but more to test my knowledge, I'm not going to waste my time proving myself to you, thanks.

I am going to show how stupid you are though. The FED does NOT print money, first of all. That is the Department of the Treasury. Tut-Tut. You should know that. The term "printing money" often refers to a situation in which the central bank is effectively financing the deficit of the federal government on a permanent basis by issuing large amounts of currency. Its not the actual printing of money, but merely an expansive monetary policy, which is usually a precursor to inflation. You of course, seem to think that the Fed can't "unprint" money, when the Fed either raises the reserve requirements for banks, raises interest rates, or sell US government securities through the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). By selling US government securities, each sale sis charged against a bank's reserve balance, hence tightening the money supply just as easily as they loosened it.

Forgive me, but you have a very poor understanding of the Fed and how it functions.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
20-01-2014, 04:29 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
How convenient. Every question I asked you about economics, you're supposed specialty, you ran from and ignored. Here's a few more since it's so amusing to see what lengths Keynesian economists will go through to avoid answering questions...

Q: Approximately how many times in human history has the current monetary system of fiat currency?

Q: Of those, how many times has it lasted more than 50 years before collapsing?

Q: What do you think are the odds that the current monetary system will collapse?

Now, to address your silly points:

(20-01-2014 03:38 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm going to tell you that I never said anything about holding people at gunpoint....

Ok, well you advocated "law that limits my choice". So what happens if I disagree with that law and choose to exercise free will and select a choice which is not approved? Are guns and threats of violence involved to make me comply?

(20-01-2014 03:38 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  In the 1,000 conversations with you, you seem to be anti FDA, anti-FINRA, anti-Fed, anti regulation of any fucking kind

No, I am simply pro-choice, pro-liberty, pro-allowing people to exercise free will. Sure it would be great if government helped people make good choices. The ONLY thing I'm opposed is to using threats of physical force to deprive people of their free will. That's it. I've asked non-libertarians thousands of times to name one policy which they disagree with me on that does NOT boil down to them using violence to make people do things against their will. I'm still waiting for an answer.

But, instead of accepting that this is the difference between us, instead of acknowledging that the only time I disagree with you is when you use violence to deprive people of their liberty, you paraphrase and build strawman arguments against fantasy positions that I never assumed. See, the difference I understand my belief system, I know what I believe, and I accept that it is wise and moral. You seem to enjoy living in denial, which is why you won't come right out and admit the issue that's dividing us, so you fabricate these fantasy debates.

(20-01-2014 03:38 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  any law that limits your choice is tantamount to someone pointing a gun at you, which is a ludicrous and hysterical exaggeration.

I've said a million times, and will say it again. Any law that threatens to point a gun at me for not doing what someone else wants IS "tantamount to someone pointing a gun at me". No shit, Sherlock. There are plenty of laws which I fervently support which do NOT involve pointing a gun at someone--such as laws against murder, rape, burglary. And I support all forms of taxation that do not require guns to be enforced, such as property taxes. So, stop saying I'm against laws and against police. I'm against using violence to force people into doing things against their will. That's all. That's the one and only issue dividing us.

(20-01-2014 03:38 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  SAMs club and all the other whole sale stores specifically limit your choices to two manufacturers. Crest or Collegate.... Are they holding you at gunpoint too because they didn't offer sensadyne?

Surprisingly, Sam's club has never yet hauled me off at gunpoint and locked me in their basement for refusing to buy their Crest or Colgate. AFAIK, there's nothing stopping me from going to Walgreens and buying sensadyne, if that's what I prefer. Now, what if I want to buy, say, heroin. Is it the same? You seriously can't see the difference?

(20-01-2014 03:38 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  As an aside - do you oppose gun regulation?

As I've said a million times before, I only oppose regulation when you don't provide people a way to escape if they find it too oppressive. In other words, if it's done at the national level and every place I'm legally allowed to live I'm bound to it. States and local communities can do what they want, so long as they don't stop people from leaving if their regulations become too oppressive. I've never owned a gun, never fired a gun, and never will. Therefore, if I lived in a community that banned guns, I wouldn't find that oppressive at all, and would be happy there.

The difference, however, is that I accept not everybody thinks that way. Texans love their guns. It's bizarre to me, but I accept that we're all different. So if Texans wants to walk around all the time with fully automatic weapons as fashion accessories, I won't ever vote to send in Federal marshalls to stop them. If I were born in such a place, when I turned 18 and left home, surely I'd move far away. But I'm not going to use violence to stop other people thousands of miles away from me from living their life the way they want to. This is the difference. Non-libertarian gun-control advocates will say "Guns are evil. Anybody who thinks differently from me is an idiot, and I will send in men with guns to make them do what I tell them to." And these national-gun-control-advocates don't see the irony that it is THEY who are using guns against people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: