"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2014, 04:42 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 04:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  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:

I'm not ignoring or running from your questions. This is the first time you've asked them, so how can I be avoiding them. However, You aren't really asking me, you are trying to test my knowledge. I have no desire to participate in this. Now, if you care to know what I think, there are nicer ways to ask me that doesn't involve a test of my knowledge. This isn't Jeopardy where I show you how much I know in order to keep playing.


Further, I take serious issue when discussing things with you because you use the Reductio Ad Absurdum argument like you draw breath. You use nonsensical "scenarios" that involve African safaris and shit. Also, you also compare things like having choices of toothpaste (which I brought up in reference to choices of health care plans), and you compare it to an illegal narcotic, like heroin. Then try to insinuate I'm the moron because there is a difference between the two. (again with your reductio ad absurdum).

You seem to think that any act of government that limits your choices is holding you at gunpoint. again, this is ridiculous. We are not talking about choices between something legal and something illegal. We are talking about choices in healthcare. Its not "illegal" to not have healthcare. There is just a penalty tax accessed but you are free to choose to pay the tax and move on with your life. You will not go to jail and there are no guns involved. unless of course you are going to equate refusing to pay your taxes (illegal) with choosing to incur a penalty (legal).

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, 04:49 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 04:28 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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....

Obviously you know more about what the Fed does than, say, the Chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, who said in this interview:

Bernanke: "To lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.”

Pelley: “You’ve been printing money?”

Bernanke: “Well, effectively.”


Where exactly did you get your economics degree from? You seriously need to ask for a refund if you think "money" is only treasury bills, and that, when the Fed just adds extra zeros to banks reserve accounts that this isn't printing money.

(20-01-2014 04:28 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Forgive me, but you have a very poor understanding of the Fed and how it functions.

Funny, I say the same thing about you. Only I have direct quotes from the chairman of the fed to back up my claims.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 04:59 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 05:09 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 04:49 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 04:28 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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....

Obviously you know more about what the Fed does than, say, the Chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernanke, who said in this interview:

Bernanke: "To lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.”

Pelley: “You’ve been printing money?”

Bernanke: “Well, effectively.”

Frank - you've lost allllll credibility since you don't understand that printing money and effectively printing money are different concepts. The chief difference is that one bell can be unrung and the other can't.

Further, to congressmen Keith Rothfus in that same hearing, Bernanke didn't say, "well, effectively". he said, "Not literally" See here

The Feds actions mirror the printing of money, except that once money is in circulation by the treasury, it takes a long time to reduce it. The FED can unprint money instantaneously.

Your quote, if used out of context, are useless. As I said above,
(20-01-2014 04:28 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  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.

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, 05:12 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
I'm waiting, Frank, for you to tell me how your ROI of 7% is a reasonable ROI, given the extremely conservative investment model and risk tolerance for this type of "health account"

Especially given that the average bond fund, which is slightly riskier than an actual bond, is only 2-3%.....

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, 05:18 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 04:59 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  The Feds actions mirror the printing of money, except that once money is in circulation by the treasury, it takes a long time to reduce it. The FED can unprint money instantaneously.

That's pretty funny. That's like GW Bush being asked about the instability he created in Iraq and he says "I can instantly undo everything. Just drop a bunch of nuclear bombs until the country sinks into the ocean, and, voila, problem solved."

The Fed cannot "unprint" it instantly without the equivalent of setting off a nuclear bomb on the economy. Hell, when the Fed even HINTED that they might TAPER the money printing over a gradual period of time, the markets panicked. Imagine what would have happened if they not only stopped printing it immediately, but on top of that, instantaneously deducted it from all the banks' reserve accounts?! Remember what caused the Great Depression, where people were starving in the streets? Oh yeah, that's right, the Fed rapidly reduced the money supply. And so you're saying "Don't worry about all this money printing, the Fed can just instantly shrink the money supply, like they did before the Great Depression".

I know you said you wrote your thesis on Friedman, but you sure don't sound like someone who studied Friedman. My guess is that you studied Keynesian economics and any "study" of Friedman was just a hatchet job. Because nobody who followed Friedman and learned what happened the last time the Fed rapidly shrunk the money supply would be so cavalier and nonchalant as to say "The FED can unprint money instantaneously."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 05:23 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(29-12-2013 01:30 PM)JAH Wrote:  I have not read this thread thoroughly and certainly will not get into the debate which is raging above.

I will relate an interesting story about health care in the US.

My son caught the wheels of his bike in the street car tracks on Market St. in San Francisco. He spent a night in San Francisco General getting one front tooth reinstalled and under observation for a potential concussion. His health insurance was billed something like $17,000.

I, through stupidity, was uninsured when a significant blood clot in my right leg landed me in Temple hospital in New Orleans. I must say here that the rather attractive young woman who ran a lubed sensor repeatedly up and down the inside of my thigh was almost worth the cost. I had to pay something a little more than $5,000 for the experience.

I will allow that my son demanded a semi-surgical procedure which should require more cost. The discrepancy however is telling.

I was uninsured and therefore the hospital was only interested in recovering something like their real costs plus a little. My son being insured was charged much more because the hospital could get away with it.

Within the last 6 months there was an article in the San Francisco Chronicle that had the different costs of a hip replacement (if my memory is correct) at various hospitals in the state. The differences were staggering.

As long as health service and health insurance are for profit entities we are all screwed.

Jah, I hear you regarding this experience. However, I caution you not to be so quick to demonize any entity that makes a profit. The discrepancy of price had a lot to do with demographics, since New Orleans is a lot cheaper than the most expensive place to live - San Fran.

The hospital doesn't just need to get its cost back "plus a little more" They need to pay the staff their unionized pay, overhead, etc. Further, Sloan Kettering, one of the best cancer hospitals in the world, pours tons of that money back into medical advancement, research and expansion. So without the hospital maintaining a profit, they couldn't afford to expand...couldn't afford research departments, etc.

I agree that the cost of healthcare is reaching the tipping point, but expecting people to get it for almost cost is ridiculous.

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, 05:25 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 05:18 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 04:59 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  The Feds actions mirror the printing of money, except that once money is in circulation by the treasury, it takes a long time to reduce it. The FED can unprint money instantaneously.

That's pretty funny. That's like GW Bush being asked about the instability he created in Iraq and he says "I can instantly undo everything. Just drop a bunch of nuclear bombs until the country sinks into the ocean, and, voila, problem solved."

The Fed cannot "unprint" it instantly without the equivalent of setting off a nuclear bomb on the economy. Hell, when the Fed even HINTED that they might TAPER the money printing over a gradual period of time, the markets panicked. Imagine what would have happened if they not only stopped printing it immediately, but on top of that, instantaneously deducted it from all the banks' reserve accounts?! Remember what caused the Great Depression, where people were starving in the streets? Oh yeah, that's right, the Fed rapidly reduced the money supply. And so you're saying "Don't worry about all this money printing, the Fed can just instantly shrink the money supply, like they did before the Great Depression".

I know you said you wrote your thesis on Friedman, but you sure don't sound like someone who studied Friedman. My guess is that you studied Keynesian economics and any "study" of Friedman was just a hatchet job. Because nobody who followed Friedman and learned what happened the last time the Fed rapidly shrunk the money supply would be so cavalier and nonchalant as to say "The FED can unprint money instantaneously."

The FED decreases and increases the money supply every god damn day. You just don't pay attention. They do it through raising and lowering the reserve requirements, buying and selling securities into the market. You and I are done talking because you have no idea what you are talking about. For the last time, my concentration was not Keynesian economics.

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, 05:27 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 05:12 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm waiting, Frank, for you to tell me how your ROI of 7% is a reasonable ROI, given the extremely conservative investment model and risk tolerance for this type of "health account"

Especially given that the average bond fund, which is slightly riskier than an actual bond, is only 2-3%.....

Well what's the ROI on your preferred alternative investment, namely giving the money to the health insurance companies? If I write a check to the insurance company for $500/month, how much will I have after 40 years if I don't use it and decide to cash out. The ROI on your preferred investment is -100%.

Also, the only reason the bond market hasn't been paying any meaningful return the past 10 years is because the Fed has been keeping interest rates at zero. And, if you actually understood the effect that has and how this effects the markets, then 10 years ago you'd have transferred any dollar-denominated savings into gold-backed accounts, like Ron Paul and us libertarians did. We've been enjoying an average of 10%/year returns the past 10 years just parking money in gold.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 05:39 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 05:25 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  For the last time, my concentration was not Keynesian economics.

Ah, but you're forgetting how this works, Cathym112. You're dealing with a master of the I and I syllogism here.

You disagree with frankksj.
frankksj disagrees with Keynesian theories.
Therefore,
You are a Keynesian.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 05:43 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 06:16 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 05:27 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 05:12 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm waiting, Frank, for you to tell me how your ROI of 7% is a reasonable ROI, given the extremely conservative investment model and risk tolerance for this type of "health account"

Especially given that the average bond fund, which is slightly riskier than an actual bond, is only 2-3%.....

Well what's the ROI on your preferred alternative investment, namely giving the money to the health insurance companies? If I write a check to the insurance company for $500/month, how much will I have after 40 years if I don't use it and decide to cash out. The ROI on your preferred investment is -100%.

Also, the only reason the bond market hasn't been paying any meaningful return the past 10 years is because the Fed has been keeping interest rates at zero. And, if you actually understood the effect that has and how this effects the markets, then 10 years ago you'd have transferred any dollar-denominated savings into gold-backed accounts, like Ron Paul and us libertarians did. We've been enjoying an average of 10%/year returns the past 10 years just parking money in gold.

Apples and oranges again. POOLING risk aka Insurance is not an investment. Not in a monetary way, unless of course a risk is ultimately realized. Then its an "investment" (and even that term is very loose) through the discrepancy between your premiums and the claim. But thats not an investment in a true sense. ppssstt....all investments carry at least some risk of -100% ROI.

Further,
You are looking at this in a purely monetary standpoint. That cash and only cash = value. However, value is found in the piece of mind of having insurance.

You and I agreed on this one point: Health Insurance is not "True" insurance. Lets say though, for the sake of argument, Health Insurance was a true insurance, your preferred rate of return is not necessarily -100%. Why? Because at some point, you will need your insurance. The difference is just how much you will need your insurance. Have cancer? The insurance company loses because you didn't pay enough premiums in to cover that amount....not by a long shot. I pay $1,200 a month through my business for my family. I have used $50,000 worth of insurance after only having it a year (neighbor's dog mauled me - needed surgery, PT, PTSD treatment)

Are you telling me you don't have homeowners insurance because if your house never burned down, its -100% ROI? Your return was being covered all those years, nimrod. Thats the concept of POOLED risk and you know it.

Where the insurance companies start being criminal is by denying legit claims.

Look - the current system sucks...but your solutions are not based in reality, your economics is faulty, and you are just plain being nonsensical. I notice I am not the only one to tell you that......

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: