"Obamacare"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-01-2014, 05:45 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 05:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(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.

Hmmmm.....Consider Had someone just explained that to me to begin with, I would have saved myself 2 hours. Thanks CJ!

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, 05:51 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 05:56 PM by Buddy Christ.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(Only read the first 4 pages of the thread)

As I was reading this, I was thinking to myself how strange it was to be having an honest discussion about Obamacare like rational adults. I can't think of another social medium (media?) where it isn't just uninformed parrots shouting Fox News talking points and referring to Obama as Nobama or Obummer like the children that they are. I was proud of the site and had hope it would continue.

Then along comes Alla.

(23-12-2013 09:23 PM)Alla Wrote:  Obamacare is:
if you like your doctor you can NOT keep your doctor. Period.
Obamacare is Unaffordable Care Act

It really is a mental condition. The mindset of the religious bleeds over into other aspects of life. Everything is black and white, one extreme or another. God exists and there is no room for argument. Obama is a Kenyan socialist and there is no room for argument - emphasized with a "period." It's a certain immaturity that is apparent to those not currently dangling by puppet strings.



And as for the whole "website was a disaster" thing, it was kind of expected by anyone who knows how these things work. As a gamer, I've witnessed many many million dollar game campaigns ruined on launch because of the simple fact that servers get overloaded when flooded by an entire nation. The newest Sims comes to mind. If Electronic Arts - one of the reigning kings of the gaming community and have been doing this since 1982 - can't get it right, do you really expect a tech team who works for the government to do any better?

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 05:51 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 05:45 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 05:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.

Hmmmm.....Consider Had someone just explained that to me to begin with, I would have saved myself 2 hours. Thanks CJ!

It is an axiomatic application of the transitive property.
Rolleyes

Believe me, it took several wild rides on the trollercoaster before I appreciated how fully such... special thinking was not the exception but the rule, as regards our case study here.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
20-01-2014, 05:58 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 05:27 PM)frankksj Wrote:  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%.

Thats not how insurance works, Frank. Its not an account. Its pooled risk. You get coverage as long as you pay your premiums. If everyone was able to "cash out" their insurance if they didn't ultimately realize any risk, the entire concept of pooled risk collapses as does the insurance company.

Further, you do have value even though that risk is never realized. Remember you always have the option of self insurance, but if you don't have a large amount to sock away immediately, your ass is hanging out int the wind.

For example, you can decide not to buy collision/comprensive insurance and self insure. So, for a car that has replacement costs of $40,000, in order to self insure that car, you will need $80,000. ($40,000 to buy the car and the $40,000 sitting in your account to self insure it) Alternatively, if you only have $40,000, you can buy the car and pay yourself payments gradually of $800 every six months (average cost to insure a BMW of that value assuming a perfect driving record). Thats $1,600 a year. Do you know how many years it will take you to fully insure yourself?? Simple Math Frank: Lemme help you. $40,000/1,600 = 25 years. 25 YEARS. You can't become fully self insured during the lifetime of the car.

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, 06:09 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 05:51 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 05:45 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Hmmmm.....Consider Had someone just explained that to me to begin with, I would have saved myself 2 hours. Thanks CJ!

It is an axiomatic application of the transitive property.
Rolleyes

Believe me, it took several wild rides on the trollercoaster before I appreciated how fully such... special thinking was not the exception but the rule, as regards our case study here.


yeah, but I rely on things like negative overall reps. If someone has a positive rating, even a low rating, I generally assume its because they are new, or not a frequent poster. I never spoke much with I&I or Excubitor because I knew not to get on the ride.

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, 06:13 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 06:21 PM by frankksj.)
RE: "Obamacare"
Well what economics did you study? Friedman said the Fed has done more harm than good and that it should be abolished, which I think most Monetarists agree with. Hayak, von Mises, and the Austrians hated it even more. AFAIK, the Keynesians are the only group that defends it. So, when I hear you defending the Fed, I assume you're Keynesian. CJLR's statement that "frankksj disagrees with Keynesian theories. Therefore, You are a Keynesian" is ridiculous. A more accurate statement is if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, then it probably is a duck. Assuming you're trained in Keynesian economics based on your defense of the Fed is a logical deduction, even if it's not true. So, what school of economics did you study?

(20-01-2014 05:43 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  POOLING risk aka Insurance is not an investment.

Look, I've been saying repeatedly that insurance is a risk-management tool, pooling risk--it's a product and that has a value and a place. Remember, my frustration has always been that people get ripped off buying "insurance" if they forget what insurance is and what it's for, and end up buying something else. My complaint with Obamacare is that people are so used to the screwed up system, they forgot that's it not really even insurance, and it's not a good value. You wrote that we agree on this point: Health Insurance is not "True" insurance.

Now you write: "lets say though, for the sake of argument, Health Insurance was a true insurance". I already said that before Obamacare I _DID_ have "True" health insurance--$2 million in coverage that only covered major, unplanned medical problems. It had a $15,000 deductible, and didn't cover anything preventative. And it only cost $50/month, because it was true insurance. So, at that modest price, even though I never used it, and hopefully never will, it was worth it. However, post-Obamacare the cost has gone up 500% to $250/month. I've been arguing that the system was fucked up before, and this is just a big step backward. So I'm not sure why I get you so upset since it sounds like you agree on all the key points. My point is that if people stop and look at what they're paying vs. what they're getting and what they're actually buying, you make wiser decisions. For example, I was always a car nut, and when the new style Corvette came out in 1991, I wanted one really, really bad. But being young with no credit and not having $40k cash to buy it, I would have paid over 10% interest to finance it, and the insurance was $7,000/year. So, I did the math and decided to set aside the money I _WOULD_ have otherwise paid in car payments + car insurance for 2 years. By then, the money I saved let me buy the same car used for around $27k all cash. And I chose to get no insurance on the car (only the state required PL/PD), because, even if I wrecked the car in a couple years, I'd still have been ahead. And you know what, not having insurance changed my behavior. I was a lot more careful, and drove more cautiously. And never got into an accident. And after a couple more the money I saved by not buying insurance was enough to cover a BMW 850. Then a couple years later, a Mercedes CL600. And a couple years later, a Ferrari 512TR. And several years later, a Lamborghini Murciélago. All without ever buying car insurance, or ever having an accident. Even though this was perceived as a car for the super rich, the reality is it cost me no more than what everybody else was paying for normal domestic cars--my annual spending on cars never went over what most people pay who buy, say, a new Cadillac every few years with financing and insurance. But, few people stop to think how much they're spending on insurance, and how much they could have instead if they invested it, and that they could have a Rolls for the same price of their Cadillac if they just did the math.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 06:20 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 05:58 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Do you know how many years it will take you to fully insure yourself?? Simple Math Frank: Lemme help you. $40,000/1,600 = 25 years. 25 YEARS. You can't become fully self insured during the lifetime of the car.

Our messages crossed and both of us were talking about self-insurance car insurance. The difference is that I have the pink slips to prove that your math is all wrong because for all your economics training you forgot to take into account the ROI. 7% _IS_ a reasonable ROI if you're careful. So, plug this formula into Excel: =FV(0.07/12,120,700) that tells you that if you set aside the $700/month that insurance on that BMW will cost you when you're young and starting out, instead investing it and getting 7% ROI, over 10 years you'll have $121,159. That's enough to pay for the car 3 times over JUST on the savings you get from insurance. Now, if you also buy cars that are 3 years old instead of brand new, that reduces the cost of the car by another 40%, so for that $121k that you saved from not insuring your BMW, you could buy a Bentley Continental GT cash.

Yes, the math works. And if you studied economics, you should be able to do a future value of money calculation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-01-2014, 06:39 PM
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Assuming you're trained in Keynesian economics based on your defense of the Fed is a logical deduction, even if it's not true. So, what school of economics did you study?


You understand it is possible to study something and not agree with it, correct? Or to agree with parts of it? I agree with parts of Friedman, and parts of Keynesian.

I dunno if you know this, and this is probably why you like Friedman, but he was the MASTER at Reductio Ad Absurdum arguments.

You seem to think that Friedman shit rainbows....negative. Here is some critics of Freidman. For the sake of balance of both sides

I do agree with some things Friedman advocated, just not everything.

My expertise and field of study was mainly global trade theory. (john Nash)


(20-01-2014 06:13 PM)frankksj Wrote:  For example, I was always a car nut, and when the new style Corvette came out in 1991, I wanted one really, really bad. But being young with no credit and not having $40k cash to buy it, I would have paid over 10% interest to finance it, and the insurance was $7,000/year. So, I did the math and decided to set aside the money I _WOULD_ have otherwise paid in car payments + car insurance for 2 years. By then, the money I saved let me buy the same car used for around $27k all cash. And I chose to get no insurance on the car (only the state required PL/PD), because, even if I wrecked the car in a couple years, I'd still have been ahead. And you know what, not having insurance changed my behavior. I was a lot more careful, and drove more cautiously. And never got into an accident. And after a couple more the money I saved by not buying insurance was enough to cover a BMW 850. Then a couple years later, a Mercedes CL600. And a couple years later, a Ferrari 512TR. And several years later, a Lamborghini Murciélago. All without ever buying car insurance, or ever having an accident. Even though this was perceived as a car for the super rich, the reality is it cost me no more than what everybody else was paying for normal domestic cars--my annual spending on cars never went over what most people pay who buy, say, a new Cadillac every few years with financing and insurance. But, few people stop to think how much they're spending on insurance, and how much they could have instead if they invested it, and that they could have a Rolls for the same price of their Cadillac if they just did the math.

Your math is way off. Sure - when you buy used cars, you save money than when you buy new cars., Duh. But you are comparing buying new cars and insuring them, to buying used cars and not insuring them.

And I don't believe for a second that you bought a new Lamborghini. Unless you want to post a picture of yourself with it.


Also - you get more from car insurance than just PL and PD. You also need PIP, which insures yourself against assholes like yourself that just get the minimum PL & PD. My mother was in a wreck against an underinsured driver. She was out of work for 6 months. Being that she was a self employed doctor, she lost a lot more than the state minimum requirement. She had to use her own insurance to help her cover the total cost of the accident.

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, 06:44 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 07:00 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 06:20 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-01-2014 05:58 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Do you know how many years it will take you to fully insure yourself?? Simple Math Frank: Lemme help you. $40,000/1,600 = 25 years. 25 YEARS. You can't become fully self insured during the lifetime of the car.

So, plug this formula into Excel: =FV(0.07/12,120,700) that tells you that if you set aside the $700/month that insurance on that BMW will cost you when you're young and starting out, instead investing it and getting 7% ROI, over 10 years you'll have $121,159.

haha. no wonder. You aren't using the correct equation for FV. FV= PV(1+i) to the power of t, which is the number of compounding periods in the future. Laughat

What the hell do you do for a living, Frank? Math is not your strong suit.
Second, you are talking bout $700 per month vs $1,600 per year. Thats $8,400 vs $1,600. NO INSURANCE COSTS YOU $8,400 per year for a $40,000 car! I guess the numbers work when you just fucking make them up and not base them on reality, eh?My insurance for 100/300/100, and collision (1000 deductible), comprehensive (no deductible) for my car (valued at 38,000) is $383 every 6 months or 726 per year. Not per month, idiot. YEAR. Now try that math again, with a 450 per month car loan payment, (3 years left), and $60.50 per month for insurance. Remember that your 7% is an annual rate of return, not a monthly.

Furthermore for the last fucking time ROI of 7% is an unreasonable assumption for the conservative nature/risk tolerance. Bond Funds produce 2-3%, to consistently generate the returns you are claiming, it would require at least a partial basket of highly speculative securities. Not a good assumption for the idea of self insurance and a completely unfair one IMO.

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, 07:48 PM (This post was last modified: 20-01-2014 07:54 PM by frankksj.)
RE: "Obamacare"
(20-01-2014 06:44 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Not per month, idiot. YEAR. Now try that math again, with a 450 car loan payment, (3 years left), and $60.50 per month for insurance.

Let's see who's the idiot. The case in point I was talking about is a 19 year old male with a new Corvette. I said the rate I was quoted was $700/month. You've done your math based on $60.50/month. Go to esurance.com, punch in the car/driver details in this example, assume a clean driving record (no accidents, dui's or tickets), and you get.... $685.86/month. So my estimate was off by precisely 2%. And yours by 1,140%. Screenshot below.

(20-01-2014 06:44 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  also, for the last fucking time ROI of 7% is an unreasonable assumption for the conservative nature/risk tolerance. Bond Funds produce 2-3%

Here's the actual historical ROI data. Bonds, the lowest possible investment for the completely risk-averse, have averaged 5.5%/year. If you add just 30% stocks, which is still very low-risk, the ROI already exceeds the number I provided of 7%. Put it all in stocks, and even with all the crashes caused by the Fed, you still get 10%. And if you actually study this stuff and get out of the stock market when there's hysteria in the air (like right now), and park your money in gold for the crash, and then when there's doom and gloom put it back in, you can do much better than 10%.

So when I picked 7%, that is conservative, and I get much, much better than that. Again, you're figures are way off. And if you're only able to get 2-3% ROI on your investment, I don't believe you're as rich as you suggested.

(20-01-2014 06:44 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Math is not your strong suit.

Okay, well I stated that if you invested $700/month for 120 months and got a 7% annual ROI you would have $121k. If my math is so wrong, please, tell us what the real number is. I'm waiting....

Besides which one of us forgot to factor in any ROI at all when calculating how much money someone would have by self-insuring and investing the insurance money.

(20-01-2014 06:44 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  And I don't believe for a second that you bought a new Lamborghini. Unless you want to post a picture of yourself with it.

Like I said, I always buy them when they're 3 years old, so I got the Murcielago back in 2004 when I was living in the US and sold it many years ago. Besides I'm currently not in my main home, so all I've got at this condo is a Bentley Continental GT. I attached a pic with your name on the front seat as proof. As always, paid for cash, and not insured. I do have a pic from last summer, however, when I took the Aventador from Switzerland to Italy for some training on the track with a test driver from Ferrari. I deliberately didn't mention the Aventador because at that point, spending $400k on a car, it was costing me quite a bit more than what the average Joe pays for a Cadillac each year. What I gave you was actual cars that a person of average means really could buy simply by always getting a used car and not insuring it, and putting the savings in a safe investment, like 70% bonds, that yields 7%/year.

The bottom line is that I think you'd be doing people a disservice if you tell them they can't get more than 2-3% ROI from investing, and that they should spend a big chunk of their income on health and car insurance. By contrast, I put up the spreadsheets showing people how much insurance costs, how much they'll save if they invest it instead.


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
           
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: