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

[DSpencer]

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

I'm confused....is EJ suggesting that health insurers should always have been required to sell an insurance policy to someone for an illness or condition they already have? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "insurance"?

I'm sure you've heard the analogy of requiring a company that sells homeowner insurance to sell a policy to someone whose house is already on fire.

How in the world is it "immoral" for a company in the business of insuring against the possibility of a health problem developing to decline to sell a policy to someone who already has the health problem? That's not just MORAL, that's essential to survival as a business.

I don't get it...I didn't expect this kind of "social justice" nonsense out of E.J. I think I must have misunderstood his point somehow....otherwise I have to say this makes me question his judgment.

Not saying this is EJ' view, but some people reach this conclusion by starting with the premise that healthcare is a "right". If you start by saying "anyone who is born has a claim to the services and money of everyone else in order to extend or enhance their life beyond what nature would allow" it's not a stretch to say that companies should be forced to "insure" against known risks even if it means going out of business. Absurd premises yield absurd conclusions.

Hopefully something else was meant. Either way the end point is still true. The goal of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" had very little to do with either protecting patients or making care more affordable.

[jk]

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

about 25% of all healthcare dollars are spent on ins co overheads, and most of that is spent figuring out ways NOT to pay for care: to deny coverage to prospective participants with a history of illness, to retract coverage already paid for by finding a technical problem in the original application so as to avoid responsibility for care already delivered, to refuse payment for medically indicated treatment by declaring it experimental, to refuse payment for prescribed medications because there is something else, cheaper, they'd rather you use [sometimes reasonably] or by saying that the dose is beyond what they want to cover [i've had insurers say they will only pay for 1 of each pill, even if the recommended doses are higher]. what they spend on actual care is called the medical LOSS ratio, and if they can keep that low enough, the c-level execs get big bonuses.

[c1ue]

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

I'm confused....is EJ suggesting that health insurers should always have been required to sell an insurance policy to someone for an illness or condition they already have? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "insurance"?

I'm sure you've heard the analogy of requiring a company that sells homeowner insurance to sell a policy to someone whose house is already on fire.

How in the world is it "immoral" for a company in the business of insuring against the possibility of a health problem developing to decline to sell a policy to someone who already has the health problem? That's not just MORAL, that's essential to survival as a business.

I don't get it...I didn't expect this kind of "social justice" nonsense out of E.J. I think I must have misunderstood his point somehow....otherwise I have to say this makes me question his judgment.

Maybe that's because you're overly enamored with your own libertarian mindset.

The reality is that no health care insurance company should be allowed to deny coverage.

The entire business of insurance is intended for arbitrage. Those who actually use health care less still pay their equalized share according to actuarial averages.

To increase profit by excluding those who experience the unfortunate low probability events - why even bother with insurance at all then? This is worse than pay as you go.

With Pay-as-you-go, at least the damned health insurance company overhead is removed. Or does your libertarian brain not understand the fiscal impact of 500,000+ health care insurance company employees? This number doesn't include Medicare or other government related payment system jobs.

[Chris Coles]

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

George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Thomas More .... the most noted authors of dystopian fiction .... and not coincidently all British!

Sometimes I fear we americans like our gilded cages a bit too much.

Blimey! Dystopian..... And, surely, your gilded cage has got very tarnished lately; has all the Gold turned out to be "Fools Gold"?

[Mn_Mark]

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

CI: As they did in the case of the health care debate?
EJ: Yes, as they did in the case of the so-called health care so-called “debate.” That debate was framed by health insurance companies. The key principle is this: whoever frames the debate wins the debate. The objective for a group of interests is to narrow the debate to two positions, the average of which is a positive outcome for the interested parties. The health care “debate” was framed between death panels versus free enterprise. The health care plan we got as a result was a compromise between two absurd extremes. Imagine if the debate was instead about which approach achieves the lowest economic rents and management overhead, helps the most citizens, best promotes sickness prevention, encourages medical technology innovation, and motivates bright young people to enter the medical industry? Instead, in the end the health insurers gave up the immoral privilege of denying coverage to those who most need it, a privilege they should never of had in the first place, in exchange for 40 million new customers at taxpayer expense. Good deal for the health insurers, bad deal for the American people. And it will happen again and again and again as long as the system persists. My friends in Europe and Asia watch slack jawed at the way public policy issues are debated in the US. But most Americans have no idea how broken our media is, yet wonder why nothing gets fixed.

I'm confused....is EJ suggesting that health insurers should always have been required to sell an insurance policy to someone for an illness or condition they already have? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of "insurance"?

I'm sure you've heard the analogy of requiring a company that sells homeowner insurance to sell a policy to someone whose house is already on fire.

How in the world is it "immoral" for a company in the business of insuring against the possibility of a health problem developing to decline to sell a policy to someone who already has the health problem? That's not just MORAL, that's essential to survival as a business.

I don't get it...I didn't expect this kind of "social justice" nonsense out of E.J. I think I must have misunderstood his point somehow....otherwise I have to say this makes me question his judgment.

[vinoveri]

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

There is no doubt that I am going to upset a lot of Americans here; but my reaction to the Fox News report is that it represents the most serious example of flagrant Treason, I have ever seen, or heard described.

The United States is supposed to be a free nation led by people that recognise the duties imposed by the ideals set into stone by their constitution; but what we see is a desperate group of unworthy criminals prepared to do anything they can to undermine the purpose of that freedom.

Here in the UK, I would expect that the smiling individual that headed up the report AND the fellow followers in the background .... running right to the top of the tree of responsibility; would have been summarily shown the door, never to find such employment anywhere again.

Considering that there are millions of Arabs putting their lives on the line for the same freedoms denied to them under dictatorships liberally propped up by CIA money for many decades; perhaps this is only to be expected.

I call that broadcast Treason.

George Orwell, Aldous Huxley, Thomas More .... the most noted authors of dystopian fiction .... and not coincidently all British!

Sometimes I fear we americans like our gilded cages a bit too much.

[yernamehear]

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

bush sr. ran an oil corp but his boy couldn't run a lemonade stand. bush sr. was a way better pres than bush jr.

i like my plumber... but he'd last 37 seconds as president like all the other armchair quarterbacks out there.

Remember that the POTUS is just a person, even though we want to believe they are all above average. In my lifetime I think there have only been mediocre to poor except maybe Eisenhower and Reagan. BushI vs. BushII? Not much to differentiate-country club repubs.

Most history is an "accident"= right place/right time. Reagan comes to mind. He was a pretty mediocre governor, but a very good president (far from perfect). FDR= excellent prosecution of the war, pretty mediocre domestically (active, but caused as much damage as benefit).

As I said, the pols are just the tip of the iceberg. The businessmen, who used to help keep the pols in line, have gone brain dead too. I think that has more to do with our economic problems that some dopey pol/consultant.

[Chris Coles]

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

If you think most Americans don't need a crash course on critical thinking and how to specifically apply it to media reports, please think again.

Fox News isn't going to be in any hot water from their viewers over this act of deception and propaganda:

There is no doubt that I am going to upset a lot of Americans here; but my reaction to the Fox News report is that it represents the most serious example of flagrant Treason, I have ever seen, or heard described.

The United States is supposed to be a free nation led by people that recognise the duties imposed by the ideals set into stone by their constitution; but what we see is a desperate group of unworthy criminals prepared to do anything they can to undermine the purpose of that freedom.

Here in the UK, I would expect that the smiling individual that headed up the report AND the fellow followers in the background .... running right to the top of the tree of responsibility; would have been summarily shown the door, never to find such employment anywhere again.

Considering that there are millions of Arabs putting their lives on the line for the same freedoms denied to them under dictatorships liberally propped up by CIA money for many decades; perhaps this is only to be expected.

I call that broadcast Treason.

[metalman]

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

why isn't bernays taught in school... when he must be one of the most important men of the past century...

"Life" magazine satirically expresses this idea in the reply which it represents an American as giving to the Britisher who praises this country for having no upper and lower classes or castes:

"Yeah, all we have is the Four Hundred, the White-Collar Men, Bootleggers, Wall Street Barons, Criminals, the D.A.R., the K.K.K., the Colonial Dames, the Masons, Kiwanis and Rotarians, the K. of C, the Elks, the Censors, the Cognoscenti, the Morons, Heroes like Lindy, the W.C.T.U., Politicians, Menckenites, the Booboisie, Immigrants, Broadcasters, and—the Rich and Poor."

Yet it must be remembered that these thousands of groups interlace. John Jones, besides being a Rotarian, is member of a church, of a fraternal order, of a political party, of a charitable organization, of a professional association, of a local chamber of commerce, of a league for or against prohibition or of a society for or against lowering the tariff, and of a golf club. The opinions which he receives as a Rotarian, he will tend to disseminate in the other groups in which he may have influence.

This invisible, intertwining structure of groupings and associations is the mechanism by which democracy has organized its group mind and simplified its mass thinking. To deplore the existence of such a mechanism is to ask for a society such as never was and never will be. To admit that it exists, but expect that it shall not be used, is unreasonable.

Emil Ludwig represents Napoleon as "ever on the watch for indications of public opinion; always listening to the voice of the people, a voice which defies calculation. 'Do you know,' he said in those days, 'what amazes me more than all else? The impotence of force to organize anything.'"

It is the purpose of this book to explain the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and to tell how it is manipulated by the special pleader who seeks to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. It will attempt at the same time to find the due place in the modern democratic scheme for this new propaganda and to suggest its gradually evolving code of ethics and practice.

eg... this guy...

[Slimprofits]

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

If you think most Americans don't need a crash course on critical thinking and how to specifically apply it to media reports, please think again.

Fox News isn't going to be in any hot water from their viewers over this act of deception and propaganda:

[metalman]

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

Hmmm, the last 2 business presidents:






Sorry, I'm going with the empathetic, excellent reasoning plumber!

bush sr. ran an oil corp but his boy couldn't run a lemonade stand. bush sr. was a way better pres than bush jr.

i like my plumber... but he'd last 37 seconds as president like all the other armchair quarterbacks out there.

[we_are_toast]

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

Hmmm, the last 2 business presidents:






Sorry, I'm going with the empathetic, excellent reasoning plumber!

[metalman]

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

Experience, be it running a business, a military unit, or even a law practice is preferable to someone with non of the above. (That means all you internet blogger/know-it-alls don't bother. )Sorry, but just the ability to think and reason is not, in my opinion, a decent qualification for high office. And I am 100% in agreement with EJ that public office is more and more becoming a means to enrich oneself in the US, much like 3rd world nations. US government is for sale. Fix that and you go a long way towards fixing the problem. Most "rich" people are NOT the kind of sociopaths like we have in office today. So excluding them does nothing but dilute the talent pool. Do any of you anti-rich people out there actually know any?

same as he says in his book... waxing ayn randish... a safe, sound & prosperous usa sits on a foundation of entrepreneurs. gov't by ex-entrepreneurs makes sense to me. china's run by engineers... a close second. the usa's run by friggin lawyers. the worst of all...

[flintlock]

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

Experience, be it running a business, a military unit, or even a law practice is preferable to someone with non of the above. (That means all you internet blogger/know-it-alls don't bother. )Sorry, but just the ability to think and reason is not, in my opinion, a decent qualification for high office. And I am 100% in agreement with EJ that public office is more and more becoming a means to enrich oneself in the US, much like 3rd world nations. The US government is for sale. Fix that and you go a long way towards fixing the problem. Most "rich" people are NOT the kind of sociopaths like we have in office today. Many are office holders are sociopaths who just happen to be rich. Excluding the rich does nothing but dilute the talent pool. Sometimes I wonder if any of the anti-rich people out there actually know any?

And don't confuse leadership skill with brains. The best leaders are usually not the ones with the highest test scores. They are the ones who can organize and assemble a team that is smart, and then be willing to listen to them.

[c1ue]

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

Originally Posted by jk
i think you might want to refine your criteria. imo running a company is neither necessary nor sufficient for such learning. ready to support a presidential bid by angelo mozilo?

I didn't say that everyone who has run a business is qualified for elected office, or even that anyone who hasn't run a business isn't qualified. It's the experience of having run an organization that is critical. That's what happened to Lula. He learned the lesson of accountability, and that reshaped his thinking. If you have had the experience of being accountable for the well being of an organization, without necessarily having direct control over it, as in a military chain of command, you are have already received a major part of the training that you need to succeed in elected office.

I understand the basis behind your view, but I have to point out:

Besides the Mozilo factor, Obama actually has been thoroughly accountable to the massive donations he's received.

The 'it' factor cannot be pure 'accountability' - it has to be the idea of fiduciary responsibility to the American people.

Fiduciary responsibility:

It is defined as a relationship imposed by law where someone has voluntarily agreed to act in the capacity of a "caretaker" of another's rights, assets and/or well being. The fiduciary owes an obligation to carry out the responsibilities with the utmost degree of "good faith, honesty, integrity, loyalty and undivided service of the beneficiaries interest." The good faith has been interpreted to impose an obligation to act reasonably in order to avoid negligent handling of the beneficiary's interests as well the duty not to favor ANYONE ELSE'S INTEREST (INCLUDING THE TRUSTEES OWN INTEREST) over that of the beneficiary. Further, if the agent should find him/herself in a position of conflicting interests, the agent must disclose the dual agency (acting for two parties at the same time) or risk being accused of constructive fraud in regards to both or either principals.