Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

[bill]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Did you invest in the Chicago Climate Exchange?

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...dead.?p=181391

How about the RGGI?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...e-program.html

What about European carbon credits? [trading suspended due to theft]

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/01/...arbon-credits/

Between the Republican House, and the ongoing freezing weather, and most importantly the ongoing economic malaise, carbon trading is in for a very rough ride.

I invest in “Real Assets” not paper.
Unfortunately gov. subsidies do move market pricing and low carbon energy going forward will get its fair share.
I passed on farm land in 2006 for the very reason not wanting to rely upon gov. ethanol subsidies. That was a mistake, farm land in Iowa doubled.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...12550#poststop

bill 07-20-07
ethanol (never exercised option on farm ground I had tied up in Iowa 1 year ago and since then the price doubled) and if Nuclear comes into the picture wind and ethanol will struggle.

I purchased over 1000 ac. (2000+ rai) and still accumulating rice and cassava farm land in Thailand. No gov. subsidies needed to turn a profit.
With oil 100+ alternative energy, energy efficiency and nuclear are more competitive without subsidies.
That does not mean I’m focused on USA market for investments.

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

I choose to make $$$$.
Be prepared for the movement.
Like it or not carbon markets will develop.

Did you invest in the Chicago Climate Exchange?

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...dead.?p=181391

How about the RGGI?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...e-program.html

What about European carbon credits? [trading suspended due to theft]

http://www.redd-monitor.org/2011/01/...arbon-credits/

Between the Republican House, and the ongoing freezing weather, and most importantly the ongoing economic malaise, carbon trading is in for a very rough ride.

[bill]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Zoi in fact is a good example: as 'Alternative Energy Czar' or whatever ridiculous title she had, she steered government funds into a company managed by her husband, as well as to a company for which she and her husband were granted 120,000 'founder' shares. This woman's presence as a 'leader' in 'investment' is actually a red flag, at least for those who care about results as opposed to movement.

I choose to make $$$$.
Be prepared for the movement.
Like it or not carbon markets will develop.
http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/art-567581

World Bank corners climate funds?

News|Bretton Woods Project|17 February 2011|


As governments reached an agreement at the climate negotiations in Cancun in December 2010, the World Bank continued to stir controversy as it attained a role in a new global climate fund, launched new carbon market initiatives, and touted the success of the controversial Bank-housed Climate Investment Funds.
While some civil society groups applauded the Cancun agreement, there was warning about optimism from a range of organisations. “A careful analysis will find that its text may have given the multilateral climate system a shot in the arm and positive feelings among most participants … but that it also failed to save the planet from climate change and helped pass the burden onto developing countries,” said Martin Khor, Executive Director of think tank the South Centre.
Ongoing opposition from civil society groups to the role of the Bank in climate finance came to a head, with over 100 NGOs signing an open letter to governments demanding there be no role for the Bank in future climate change architecture, and staging protests in Cancun. “[Having] directly experienced the consequences of [Bank] loans, loan-financed projects and policy conditionalities, to us, it is inconceivable that this institution can be entrusted with climate finance," said Abdul Awal of SUPRO, a network of grassroots community groups in Bangladesh and a member of Jubilee South.
Others such as Brussel-based NGO Eurodad highlighted that the Bank is unfit for a role in climate finance stating “The World Bank will deliver a significant part of climate finance as loans that will very likely come attached with conditionalities, advisory services and undermine recipient ownership of the funds. The World Bank's governance structures are undemocratic, with representation dominated by governments of rich, industrialised countries that will pursue their own commercial interests through the process." The group also drew attention to the Bank's privileging of the private sector.
Despite uproar about Bank involvement, an agreement to create a new Green Climate Fund (GCF) was reached, naming the Bank as interim trustee for the first three years. This role was hotly debated, with several negotiators from developing countries trying to define that role as narrowly as possible, and civil society groups speaking out against it. Tim Gore of international NGO Oxfam expressed the opinion, repeated by many civil society organisations and delegates from developing countries, that the fund must “act under the authority of the UNFCCC … independent from institutions such as the World Bank.”
The fund is to be designed by a transitional committee that will report at the next negotiations at the end of the year in Durban. The committee will be comprised of 40 members, with 25 from developing countries, as well as staff seconded from multilateral development banks (MDBs) and UN agencies. As think tanks Overseas Development Institute and the Heinrich Boell Foundation point out in a January paper, it is likely that Bank experts will be seconded to the transitional committee to recommend operational procedures, project selection criteria, and performance standards or safeguard measures for adoption in Durban. According to UK government officials, thus far the MDBs are the only ones to put forward names for secondment. Attention has also been drawn to the question of whether and how civil society participation will take place, with more than 50 NGOs submitting a letter to the UNFCCC calling for full civil society participation as “active observers”. The letter also calls on the UNFCCC to ensure balance in those selected for the transitional committee. “We particularly encourage you to ensure the secondment of staff with expertise in areas such as gender, sustainable development and poverty alleviation, new renewable energy and efficiency technologies, and social and environmental safeguards and not over-rely on experts from the finance community and multilateral development banks,” it states.
In early February, at an event in the UK parliament, Bank president Robert Zoellick highlighted that the GCF needs resources committed to it. This was followed by the message that the Bank is eager to apply the knowledge it has gathered through the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs). In Cancun, comments from Bank staff about being a development institution that would rather apply its knowledge than just write cheques, further suggests the Bank’s ambitions for long-term participation in the international climate architecture go far beyond that of a trustee role. That said, the Bank does receive significant earnings by providing trustee services. The high costs rendered for these services led the Montreal Protocol to move to use Barclays Bank, in conjunction with UNEP, as trustee.
Touting the Climate Investment Funds

The Bank held a high profile event in Cancun alongside other MDBs, hosted by Mexican president Felipe Calderón, extolling the virtues of the CIFs as “a new model for transparency, cooperation, and scaling-up climate action.” The CIFs will hold another Partnership Forum (see Update 70) in March where stakeholders are expected to discuss lessons and experiences so far, with rumours that the focus will be on how these can be applied to the design of the GCF.
Civil society groups have highlighted an array of continuing concerns over the CIFs (see Update 72, 68, 61), including the extent to which projects are genuinely contributing to transformational change, the monitoring and accountability of MDBs who act as implementing partners in CIF projects, and whether the CIFs are offering developmental gains. A February 2011 Eurodad report, Storm on the horizon, focuses on how the Bank is disbursing climate finance at the CIFs. It finds that only one sixth of the pledged funds will be delivered as grants, and that eligibility criteria for CIF funding “may constrain the policy space available for developing countries to decide on their own pathways for sustainable development.” It highlights the fact that over one third of CIF funding is channelled to the private sector, arguing that “private equity is a risky and opaque instrument, likely failing to deliver on intended climate purposes and often undermining country-led equitable and sustainable development.” It also suggests that this type of investment is often marked by “a lack of transparency and environmental and social safeguards.”
Doubts also remain over the extent and depth of community participation. A notable example is the failure of the Forest Investment Program’s Dedicated Mechanism, aimed at ensuring extensive consultation with indigenous peoples and local communities, to be developed in time to allow participation in the development of investment strategies.
A recent report by the Global Gender and Climate Alliance and the United Nations Development Programme has critiqued CIF policies' and projects' approach to gender. The report argues that CIF projects risk “perpetuating existing gender imbalances in climate change funding.”
Carbon finance

In Cancun, the Bank also launched the Partnership for Market Readiness (PMR), a fund designed to help middle-income countries establish and participate in international and domestic carbon markets through a range of market instruments. A recent report on the PMR by NGO Carbon Trade Watch identifies how it is seeking to pioneer new market instruments beyond those agreed under the UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol. Despite the fact that the Cancun accords state that new mechanisms should be agreed in Durban in 2011, “the Bank clearly intends to pursue the creation of new carbon market mechanisms irrespective of UNFCCC negotiations.” This includes controversial 'sectoral carbon markets', which would for the first time oblige developing countries to reduce emissions in certain specific sectors of their economies. The report warns that this could “chip away at the idea – enshrined in the UNFCCC – that Annex 1 (industrialised) countries bear the burden of current and historical responsibilities for climate change, and seek to extend further obligations to developing countries”.
The Bank’s ambition to drive forward the growth of carbon markets was further underlined in January when the Umbrella Carbon Facility, one of its carbon funds, announced a new funding tranche of $92 million. The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Bank’s private sector lending arm, also launched its $200 million Post-2012 Carbon Facility. Both funds are aimed at ensuring the operation of carbon-credit creating business beyond the potential expiration of the Kyoto Protocol commitment period in 2012, when there would no longer be a legal obligation for countries to reduce emissions.
However, a recent overview of the Bank's role in carbon markets by London based NGO the Bretton Woods Project outlines a wide range of concerns, from both civil society and internal Bank reviews, regarding the effectiveness of Bank carbon finance in reducing emissions and generating development benefits. These include a lack of meaningful additional emissions reductions, an improvement in the profitability of fossil fuel intensive industries, and a lack of focus on development in both design and monitoring of projects.

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

SERIOUSLY???

Are you REALLY trying to have a climate debate with me here? That is hilarious. Did you not get that this is a waste of time? What is your agenda? Because clearly you didn't read a word i wrote and are assuming *you* have some sort of authority to judge the degree by which i have been influenced by the consensus.

You poor man. Put your energy somewhere more productive. I am seriously trying to stop this stupid climate debating.

You really want to do this? You want to spend all your energy on this vendetta? And what happens if i win? What would you do if i knocked all your facts out of the arena and left you in a bloody pool? What would that accomplish? I could address each of your points in kind. But instead lets play this game. You address my points:

1. Why do you trust somebody that says they are 'skeptics', why do you believe them?
2. Why do you trust somebody that says they are a critic?
3. Why do you not believe that you are being played as much as the opposition is being played by somebodies agenda? Why not just cut to the chase and stop fighting by proxy?
4. Why do you assume that i learned anything from the consensus? Because they are more consistent with basic physics most likely. My degree is in physics, my publications are in physics, my patent is in software algorithms, and i got kicked out of graduate school for standing up to my climate science professors. And yet, my RATIONAL view STILL falls closer to the consensus because that community as problems, but they are also way closer to correct than everything you reference.

I will not debate this any more.

I care far more about over-population, peak oil, plastics, uni-crops and the end of topsoil to be honest. This is a black hole. Get it yet? A friggin black hole.

Please, WAKE UP. And put your energy somewhere useful.

Please. Read more carefully before you assume somebody's bias. Because, in case you did not notice, you exposed yours in full glory.

You choose not to debate because in your mind, everything is 'settled'.

I posted a video in the Video section which shows a Dr. Richard Muller, a person who believes in the AGW thesis much as you do, but who recognizes the lack of scientific rigor in the present 'consensus' position.

His view at least recognizes that the criticisms leveled at the IPCC, at the high priests of AGW, are valid, and furthermore recognizes the underlying facts about CO2.

So you may not choose to debate, but the reality is that there is much to question and debate about.

Your complete faith in what you've been told is clearly unshakable, even in the face of fact.

For my part, I refuse to allow the terms of the engagement to be set by those who have demonstrated zero objectivity and capability.

You might note that I have many times clearly supported alternative energy, but not at massive subsidies. Massive subsidies help nobody except those industries which immediately profit - the poor don't get helped, the Earth doesn't get helped, nor are natural resources/energy sources conserved.

Zoi in fact is a good example: as 'Alternative Energy Czar' or whatever ridiculous title she had, she steered government funds into a company managed by her husband, as well as to a company for which she and her husband were granted 120,000 'founder' shares. This woman's presence as a 'leader' in 'investment' is actually a red flag, at least for those who care about results as opposed to movement.

You can choose to learn, or you can choose to wallow in your beliefs.

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Is your proposed public system funded entirely by its users or is it funded/subsidized by taxpayers? That distinction would be very important to me.

Clearly if there is to be a public network, it must be funded through public funds. The question is whether/how much is needed.

I don't think there is any debate that a huge amount of public funds is already being used: between welfare/health care programs, Medicare, VA, and existing government health plans, there absolutely is already a gigantic pool of money.

Of course this pool isn't free for the taking, but then again neither does the public system need to be an end-all, be-all replacement right away.

Even taking the baby steps of having said public system be available for GP level work and/or prevention/early diagnosis would be a huge change.

That's not my view at all. In fact, I've pointed out specifically that the only area I'm debating is the denial of coverage for people who have pre-existing conditions.

Perhaps the issue is that you're talking about pre-existing conditions in isolation.

If, hypothetically, a person who's never paid a dime for health insurance got ill, then got a pre-existing condition, certainly this is a very different actuarial situation for which an insurance company justifiably can choose to protect itself.

In reality, most people have had some type of health insurance at some point. Clearly they have paid into the system, thus the denial after a pre-existing condition develops is a very different situation. And this happens because there is no portability of benefits or of 'presence' in the insurance scheme.

The reality that people need more health care as they age dovetails nicely with this paradigm.

This is where I think the reform should start. First, we stop these subsidies such as employer tax breaks. I think that issue alone is a big part of the problem. The consequences of that law have been very significant, widespread and negative.

As a side note, being involved in the health insurance decision process at my workplace, I hate making these decisions. Trying to choose one plan or even a couple options that are the best fit for different people in different circumstances is impossible. It's like deciding what kind house or apartment every person should live in.

You'll note that while I describe the employer health subsidy as a root cause of the problem, I don't advocate its unilateral repeal. Besides being extremely vulnerable to political demagoguery, it is unclear that there is any infrastructure capable of handling the switchover to a more individual health insurance paradigm.

Secondly the fact that health insurance is employer subsidized assumes the problem is only on the payment side - when in reality there is as much problem on the provider side.

It isn't that doctors are greedy - I've noted before in my own case that the doctors literally did not know what the operation cost. If the person conducting the operation doesn't know, then it is difficult to imagine a patient having a prayer of knowing.

That's why I suggest having an alternative: a provider which doesn't have a profit incentive and thus is able to inject fiscal reality into the equation.

This is sort of the reverse house on fire scenario where the insurance company cancels your existing policy right when someone throws a molotov cocktail through your window

If we get rid of the other problems that protect insurance companies from competition and insulate them from any real penalties for their behavior I think these problems will be addressed. If we stop the subsidies and protective regulation and none of the problems go away, I would be much more inclined to look to regulation or public options as a solution.

As I note above, the problem isn't just on the payment side. thus removing the subsidy isn't going to solve the problem.

What we have is a 5 decade old weed infested jungle of entrenched interests. My view is the only way to start fixing the problem is cutting a few paths through which let in some sunlight.

The objective of the public option isn't to take over health care, nor to subsidize it.

It is to inject transparency.

[metalman]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

SERIOUSLY???

Are you REALLY trying to have a climate debate with me here? That is hilarious. Did you not get that this is a waste of time? What is your agenda? Because clearly you didn't read a word i wrote and are assuming *you* have some sort of authority to judge the degree by which i have been influenced by the consensus.

You poor man. Put your energy somewhere more productive. I am seriously trying to stop this stupid climate debating.

You really want to do this? You want to spend all your energy on this vendetta? And what happens if i win? What would you do if i knocked all your facts out of the arena and left you in a bloody pool? What would that accomplish? I could address each of your points in kind. But instead lets play this game. You address my points:

1. Why do you trust somebody that says they are 'skeptics', why do you believe them?
2. Why do you trust somebody that says they are a critic?
3. Why do you not believe that you are being played as much as the opposition is being played by somebodies agenda? Why not just cut to the chase and stop fighting by proxy?
4. Why do you assume that i learned anything from the consensus? Because they are more consistent with basic physics most likely. My degree is in physics, my publications are in physics, my patent is in software algorithms, and i got kicked out of graduate school for standing up to my climate science professors. And yet, my RATIONAL view STILL falls closer to the consensus because that community as problems, but they are also way closer to correct than everything you reference.

I will not debate this any more.

I care far more about over-population, peak oil, plastics, uni-crops and the end of topsoil to be honest. This is a black hole. Get it yet? A friggin black hole.

Please, WAKE UP. And put your energy somewhere useful.

Please. Read more carefully before you assume somebody's bias. Because, in case you did not notice, you exposed yours in full glory.

[bill]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

I am seriously trying to stop this stupid climate debating.

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!
I would like to make a little $$$$$.
Now, what is Soros doing joining with Grosser and hiring Cathy Zoi.
What industries get the government checks?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20036038-54.html

February 24, 2011

There have been hundreds of green technology start-ups funded by venture capitalists but a new fund with an impressive pedigree is looking to scale up clean energy technologies.
Private equity company Silver Lake today said that it has joined with George Soros' Soros Fund Management to create Lake Kraftwerk, a fund designed for late-stage investments in energy technology companies.

Former Foundation Capital venture capitalist Adam Grosser will head the fund. Cathy Zoi, which recently resigned as acting under secretary of Energy at the Department of Energy and assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy, is part of the investment team.

Silver Lake Kraftwerk will focus on companies involved in energy efficiency, waste and emissions reduction, renewable energy, and better use of natural resources.
The point is to provide "growth capital" for companies that already have developed technology and a proven business model, Grosser said in an interview today. It will stay away from traditional project finance, the type of investments used to finance building new factories.
Specific areas that Silver Lake Kraftwerk expects to invest in are in the grid, such as sensors or software for more efficient operation, Grosser said. Efficient LED lighting, low-carbon content building materials, and alternative solar technologies are also of interest as well as remediation methods for the coal and oil industries, he said.
There have been billions of dollars of venture capital invested in the clean tech category in the past decade but there have only been a handful of companies which have successfully gone public and remain profitable, in part because energy businesses are typically require lots of capital to get to large scale.
Investors often say there's a funding gap between the money that's needed to develop products and get first customers and capital to expand. Grosser said that Silver Lake Kratwerk aims to be the "last money" in before a company is self sustaining.

[Jill Nephew]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

SERIOUSLY???

Are you REALLY trying to have a climate debate with me here? That is hilarious. Did you not get that this is a waste of time? What is your agenda? Because clearly you didn't read a word i wrote and are assuming *you* have some sort of authority to judge the degree by which i have been influenced by the consensus.

You poor man. Put your energy somewhere more productive. I am seriously trying to stop this stupid climate debating.

You really want to do this? You want to spend all your energy on this vendetta? And what happens if i win? What would you do if i knocked all your facts out of the arena and left you in a bloody pool? What would that accomplish? I could address each of your points in kind. But instead lets play this game. You address my points:

1. Why do you trust somebody that says they are 'skeptics', why do you believe them?
2. Why do you trust somebody that says they are a critic?
3. Why do you not believe that you are being played as much as the opposition is being played by somebodies agenda? Why not just cut to the chase and stop fighting by proxy?
4. Why do you assume that i learned anything from the consensus? Because they are more consistent with basic physics most likely. My degree is in physics, my publications are in physics, my patent is in software algorithms, and i got kicked out of graduate school for standing up to my climate science professors. And yet, my RATIONAL view STILL falls closer to the consensus because that community as problems, but they are also way closer to correct than everything you reference.

I will not debate this any more.

I care far more about over-population, peak oil, plastics, uni-crops and the end of topsoil to be honest. This is a black hole. Get it yet? A friggin black hole.

Please, WAKE UP. And put your energy somewhere useful.

Please. Read more carefully before you assume somebody's bias. Because, in case you did not notice, you exposed yours in full glory.

[DSpencer]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

I'm going to leave the libertarian debate for another thread that's more relevant.

What I have derided is the fact that these health insurance companies are not only in the business of making profit, they are specifically preventing reform via their political contributions.

Making a profit itself isn't a crime; preventing any alternatives from being developed - knowing full well this kills a lot of people unnecessarily - this is.

You'll note that what I've proposed as an alternative is a parallel public system - one based on the VA's existing infrastructure - which would give everyone an alternative to private health care.

You'll also note that I've also proposed that the government itself run a health insurance company - again as an alternative.

Because the present system is effectively an oligopoly.

I think our views on this subject are not as different as you're making them out to be. My view is that the insurance companies have bought themselves a politically protected position from which they can make excessive profits and never really answer for any wrongdoings.

Is your proposed public system funded entirely by its users or is it funded/subsidized by taxpayers? That distinction would be very important to me.

Your view is apparently that an insurance company can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want.

That's not my view at all. In fact, I've pointed out specifically that the only area I'm debating is the denial of coverage for people who have pre-existing conditions.

So I'd like to hear just why this behavior is considered acceptable by you - given that insurance companies are not just regulated by government, but also in many ways are subsidized by government starting with the employer tax break on corporate insurance policies.

This is where I think the reform should start. First, we stop these subsidies such as employer tax breaks. I think that issue alone is a big part of the problem. The consequences of that law have been very significant, widespread and negative.

As a side note, being involved in the health insurance decision process at my workplace, I hate making these decisions. Trying to choose one plan or even a couple options that are the best fit for different people in different circumstances is impossible. It's like deciding what kind house or apartment every person should live in.

It is not. Because the insurance premiums you paid in the previous 20 years were for the possibility that you'd have that or some other condition develop.

This is sort of the reverse house on fire scenario where the insurance company cancels your existing policy right when someone throws a molotov cocktail through your window

If we get rid of the other problems that protect insurance companies from competition and insulate them from any real penalties for their behavior I think these problems will be addressed. If we stop the subsidies and protective regulation and none of the problems go away, I would be much more inclined to look to regulation or public options as a solution.

[DSpencer]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

INSURANCE, n. An ingenious modern game of chance in which the player is permitted to enjoy the comfortable conviction that he is beating the man who keeps the table.
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

It seems like a great stock investment. Until you realize that the execs are also ripping off the shareholders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnitedH...ion_of_McGuire

On 6 December 2007, the SEC announced a settlement under which McGuire was to repay $468 million, including a $7 million civil penalty, as a partial settlement of the backdating prosecution.

McGuire's exit compensation from UnitedHealth, expected to be around $1.1 billion, would be the largest golden parachute in the history of corporate America.

Poor guy. He had to pay back some of his backdated stock options and then just barely got over a billion dollars when he left the company.

[c1ue]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Not all all libertarians are anarchists. Many (I would guess the vast majority) do want a government to protect rights. A political philosophy with a "bizarre" focus on human rights... OH THE HORROR!!

Perhaps you can elucidate some of these human rights supposedly shared by libertarians.

Because on the one hand, they want 'human rights' to be protected by government.

But on the other hand, they don't want to pay taxes.

Similarly the lifestyle enjoyed by Americans in general is that of a wealthy nation - a nation for which its wealth is significantly furthered by the infrastructure built by government, by the laws made and enforced by government, and by institutions like public education.

My position is more that of public good. Human rights are just words; specific liberties exist not because they are 'rights' but because they are a net benefit to society either in production or prevention.

I don't know lots about Lyndon LaRouche. My understanding is that he has Marxist/Socialist/Labor party backgrounds, runs for office as a democrat and has views that are not at all typical of libertarians. I assume this is just an attempt to sling mud at a group you dislike by associating them with a political extremist. But don't just take my word for it:

"I’ve never been a Libertarian, though some people have tried to confuse me with them. I don’t know why." —Lyndon LaRouche Oct 19th 2004 (WCIN AM interview)

His quote is because in reality, his goals are similar to a number of libertarian goals. Whether he chooses to allow himself that label is irrelevant - for one thing one reason he doesn't is because there is an American Libertarian party.

As such, perhaps you should define what you consider libertarianism to be - with some specific people as examples and a platform.

My goal is to point out the difference between dishonest acts that defraud patients, doctors, hospitals and situations that are unfortunate but not illegal or immoral. I still think it's important to understand the details rather than just say that ins. companies are bad and therefore everything they do is bad.

I have never advocated the elimination of private health care insurance companies.

Nor have I advocated the heavy handed government regulation thereof.

What I have derided is the fact that these health insurance companies are not only in the business of making profit, they are specifically preventing reform via their political contributions.

Making a profit itself isn't a crime; preventing any alternatives from being developed - knowing full well this kills a lot of people unnecessarily - this is.

You'll note that what I've proposed as an alternative is a parallel public system - one based on the VA's existing infrastructure - which would give everyone an alternative to private health care.

You'll also note that I've also proposed that the government itself run a health insurance company - again as an alternative.

Because the present system is effectively an oligopoly.

All the time. My brother can no longer get coverage through State Farm. I have State Farm for my auto and renters insurance but they won't give me an umbrella policy because my brother lives with me and they will not insure him in any way.

Perhaps you can provide some details on why this is so. In particular, is this denial due to something he did, or something he might do?

If a person otherwise seemingly normal suddenly gets into 2 or 3 DUI at fault accidents, it is certainly understandable why an insurance company would no longer want to cover him - for one thing, state auto insurance regulators impose an effective cap on insurance charges. There is a point where future insurance payments will never make up for any future, much less past losses.

Keep in mind, however, that this isn't the same thing as being denied coverage for something that hasn't even happened yet. The equivalent for what health insurance companies' do is to deny collision coverage for someone who has made 2 claims due to broken windows.

If I don't agree with your position on this issue then I'm hopeless because obviously I don't understand the issue or else I'd come to the same conclusion? Wow. Thanks for that reasoning. You may as well just type "I'm right, you're wrong" for all of your posts instead of discussing/debating.

Your view is apparently that an insurance company can do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want.

Yet this is false in its face. An insurance company has tremendous potential for abuse: Insurance companies are regulated in how they invest their 'float'- the sum of all existing insurance policy payments minus payouts - because in the past there were numerous instances where this float was embezzled, was invested recklessly, was manipulated financially, etc etc.

Similarly insurance companies are regulated on how much cash they must keep around in order to pay claims, as well as theoretically regulation on their corporate governance.

So I'd like to hear just why this behavior is considered acceptable by you - given that insurance companies are not just regulated by government, but also in many ways are subsidized by government starting with the employer tax break on corporate insurance policies.

I understand the ability to vary premium payments based on risk. However, if an ins. co. estimates that a person will have a 90% chance of requiring $100k+ of medical care in the next year due to an existing condition. What are they supposed to do? Offer them premiums of $95,000 a year? It just becomes impractical.

Insuring against KNOWN outcomes is NOT the nature of insurance. The goal is to pool risk in a group where nobody knows which person will need the insurance. I do understand that insurance companies only want to insure healthy people because that's where the profit is. I also understand that health insurance is more complicated because many people have pre-existing risk factors that won't necessarily lead to expensive treatment.

There's definitely problems in our system. There's also solutions if we understand the root cause of the problems.

I agree with your example, but the point of disagreement is seen best by adding a time component to your example.

Let's say you were perfectly healthy from age 20 to age 40, then developed the condition you note above.

The insurance company then cancels your policy.

Is this right?

It is not. Because the insurance premiums you paid in the previous 20 years were for the possibility that you'd have that or some other condition develop.

Actuarially speaking of course the insurance company has the right to preserve its financial health, but in this case what is actually happening is that the insurance company is cutting its otherwise agreed upon payout.

This is what I mean by you're not understanding how insurance works. It isn't how much of your present insurance payment is to pay some percentage of unhealthy 'free loaders', it is that your payment in aggregate with all of the others is intended to even out over the lifetime of your policy and you.

By chopping down the actual payout, the insurance company then grows even more profitable than otherwise possible via actuarial analysis.

It is very similar as a 2nd order concept to mortgages: most people focus on the monthly payment, but the reality is that every time you refinance, you've literally thrown away the payments (mostly interest) you made previously. Just because you get a lower payment does not mean that you necessarily are financially better off - in fact in most cases it is untrue.

Health insurance companies in turn rely on ignorance of this to cheat.

[DSpencer]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

as i understand it, the bolded text above is the reason insurance is mandatory in the recent package.

I'm more inclined to believe it's because of MONEY MONEY MONEY for the insurance companies when they get millions more insured. Plus many people who don't have insurance are healthy - which is why they don't buy insurance in the first place! Healthy people are the insurance companies' goldmine.

unfortunately, our gov'ts agricultural policies encourage the consumption of subsidized corn in all its highly processed forms: corn starch, corn oil, corn syrup. i wish we would abolish the agricultural subsidies and the corn ethanol boondoggle.

On one hand: Protectionist sugar import quotas
On the other hand: Corn subsidies to farmers

Everybody wins! Unless of course you're a US consumer and not one of these small protected/subsidized groups, in which case you lose.

When people talk about the "free market" in the US, it's hard to choose between arguing, laughing or crying.

[EJ]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

Really, the answer should be: OF COURSE, as long as I could price it! But the real question then is: if you could buy insurance from someone who had a crystal ball and knew exactly what your medical costs would be, would you buy it? And my answer would be: definitely not!

INSURANCE, n. An ingenious modern game of chance in which the player is permitted to enjoy the comfortable conviction that he is beating the man who keeps the table.
- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

[DSpencer]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

as a retired actuary, my answers are:

1. yes, as long as I could price it

2. same answer

Really, the answer should be: OF COURSE, as long as I could price it! But the real question then is: if you could buy insurance from someone who had a crystal ball and knew exactly what your medical costs would be, would you buy it? And my answer would be: definitely not!

[jk]

Re: Next Bubble or Last Hurrah? - Part I: Stocks and houses - Eric Janszen

It's also worth mentioning that a huge percentage of medical conditions are the result of people's lifestyle choices. Everyone cries foul about how high risk people get denied coverage. In many (most?) workplaces the obese, heavy-drinking, smoker still pays the same premiums as the healthy co-worker down the hall and gets the same coverage. I'm not sure why that is considered fair. If on a national level, health care is too expensive, a big reason is that people are too unhealthy and it's mostly preventable.

unfortunately, our gov'ts agricultural policies encourage the consumption of subsidized corn in all its highly processed forms: corn starch, corn oil, corn syrup. i wish we would abolish the agricultural subsidies and the corn ethanol boondoggle.