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

[c1ue]

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

My personal take on the propaganda (i expect this to go down in flames as this is way outside my area of expertise...) is that oil companies wish to keep the debate alive as long as possible to postpone inevitable regulation and take as much profits as possible before the party is over. It is just a smokescreen.

I've posted many times on the tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars spent by various governments on AGW. Even now in 'News' there is a thread where it is noted that the Japanese government spent 6.5 trillion yen ($80 billion) in the last 6 years just on anti-AGW biomass research.

Thus it is quite unclear to me that the oil companies are the ones to blame. There's a lot of money sloshing around, and very little of it, if any, is in 'denial of AGW'.

There is, however, absolutely a dynamic at work: the natural gas companies want to push coal out of electricity generation. The oil companies actually spend far more donating to various foundations and universities than even all their indirect funding for all areas, and in turn the oil companies were the ones who spent the most money on alternative energy research prior to the last decade.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, no doubt, the others aren't, only water vapor (4%). Therefore with two identical earth systems (lets forget about feedbacks/internal dynamics that may be an effect of the CO2) the one with more CO2 will trap more outgoing radiation.

This is true, but you're focusing only on the atmosphere. Through irrigation and dams, humans have significantly interfered with the 'natural' water cycle via the most powerful greenhouse gas: H20. In addition, it is very clear that there is at least some effect via surface albedo changes due to urbanization/infrastructure building (i.e. roads and houses). Then toss in the effect of agriculture: how does monoculture whether vegetable or animal differ than the previous 'natural' habitat.

The IPCC has chosen to call all of these as being insignificant compared to CO2, but their evidence is underwhelming being entirely based on computer modeling. As someone who has extensive experience in modeling - models only tell you what you can envision, unless straightened out by real life test cases.

Unfortunately, there cannot be a real life test case for a computer climate model extrapolating 100 years into the future, though the performance in the past 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20 year intervals is pathetic.

Lastly there are clearly natural cycles also in play. There are demonstrable multi-decadal cycles in ocean temperature behavior. There are decadal cycles in atmospheric currents. There are millenial cycles via the sun.

Thus to say that CO2 is the primary driver is to reframe the normal scientific question entirely. Normally a single factor amongst such a wealth of other factors has the burden of proof; somehow this has been reversed in 'climate science'.

2. Now if you include feedbacks the only mechanism that gets you out of the warmer earth argument (that has been found so far to the best of my knowledge) is if you argue, we don't know how clouds react to a warmer atmosphere, so let's assume there are more (most people just assume it will stay the same in the absence of knowing). More white stuff around the planet (clouds) that reflect the sun. It could work that way. However, you add more clouds, you change where is sunny, where is cool, where it rains, where it snows so even if you kept the planet about the same temperature, you changed the climate...

This again is focusing on a specific aspect related to CO2. Yes, the net effect of clouds can be either positive or negative, and there is no known method right now of either modeling or empirically measuring cloud feedback either way - though the 'consensus' assumes it is positive.

Some of these other effects include:

1) How much loss due to entropy? The models are all kilometer scale, but the fundamental behavior is all molecular scale. Also a factor in the 'butterfly effect'

Normally this is insignificant, but the warming effect due to CO2 're-absorption' is so small that it is on a similar scale as entropic losses throughout the climate system.

2) How much energy dissipated via tornados/hurricanes/typhoons?

These effects all funnel high energy air into the upper atmosphere and thus increase energy radiation into space - unclear if these scale up or down in number (there is no pattern either way), or in energy with greater temperature/atmospheric energy (Again, no pattern in total hurricane energy). Note that neither hurricane incidence nor energy has clearly increased as a function of CO2 or anything else except El Nino, but the energy lost via pumping warm air into the upper atmosphere can/should increase - because these storms function due to temperature differential, but energy radiation is a function of absolute temperature.

3) How do rainfall patterns change with temperature, if at all? This area is totally chaotic: more evaporation could mean more rain or higher water vapor in the atmosphere (in reality it has been stable/dropping). Or, warmer atmosphere could mean less water vapor and more rain. Or more rain could change surface albedos higher/lower via plant growth.

There are literally dozens of other, likely smaller effects.

The ultimate point is: whether CO2 is involved or not - it is quite unclear what the net climate feedback is, but historical evidence absolutely points toward a slight negative. There has never been a documented historical example of CO2 preceding a temperature increase; in contrast there are many periods where temperature fell even as CO2 level rose.

2. The CO2 in the atmosphere is due to burning fossil fuels (we can carbon date it).

Yes, and it also came from the atmosphere to start with. CO2 levels in the past were far far higher (10x or more).

3. Any extra CO2 that we don't burn can green the earth to a point (plants need other stuff too and eventually that becomes limiting) but we are already measuring that a bunch is being absorbed by the oceans (again, we know it is ours by carbon dating).

CO2 in the atmosphere also greens the earth. Tons of documentation showing how plants in higher CO2 environments grow faster.

4. Oceans CO2 levels are critical for all kinds of things having to do with the bio-geo-chemistry of the planet, making shells is a big one, can't do it with too much CO2, they just dissolve.

Another complete fabrication. The 'acidification' being spoken of is from something like 8.0 to 7.8 - i.e. basic, not acidic. Besides historical CO2 levels being 10x higher when present day corals were evolved, the ocean itself varies in pH well beyond this delta. This is a complete scare tactic.

5. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas because it's absorption spectra falls in a gap (one of the few) that water vapor doesn't cover. Where there is less water vapor (where it is colder and the air is dryer) CO2 becomes a HUGE player. AKA the poles. The poles are white. If you melt them, they become dark and absorb more sunlight and you heat up the surface pole water (on top of having more greenhouse gases up there to warm things up). The poles are where the surface water gets dense enough to sink to the bottom of the ocean and drive the upwelling that gives us nutrients to feed the plant life on the surface that makes all the oxygen for us to breath. If you warm up that water, it may not sink. So water won't rise up somewhere else, so maybe no more oxygen? Who knows.

Again, overfocus on CO2. The Arctic has been ice free several times in the past 100 years, yet no 'tipping point' was reached - furthermore historically there have been numerous cases of ice-free Arctic periods.

The research extant actually indicates that Arctic Ice is much more a function of wind patterns than temperature; Lindzen for example has noted that the increase in Arctic temperatures actually has to do with the periods between summer and winter, i.e. summer and winter temperatures are the same, it is autumn and spring which are warmer.

Similarly in the Antarctic, whatever warming purportedly occurs (and there has been documented example of peer review blocking going on there), the temperatures at worst are varying from -65 to -64...hardly a recipe for disastrous melting.

Your views on 'climate science' are admirable, but I would note that your beliefs have been shaped by the 'consensus' more than you realize.

[flintlock]

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

Some great posts btw.

The reason many don't buy into the AGW scenario is they see the "racket" forming to profit from it. Fix that and you might be able to convince more. But of course, a lot of the support for it flies out the window once you do that.

I'm always amazed at how people will pick their political affiliation, then only seek information that will support that party line. When in fact, there should be more randomness on how people's opinions fall in regard to the issues. So they are more influenced than they think they are.

It's also funny with some of these posts that assert, "How can you not see things like I do? Therefore you discredit yourself entirely!" Come on, that is neither tactful nor intelligent.

[DSpencer]

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

Libertarians in contrast desire all their rights, but without a government to regulate or enforce them.

Were it not for the bizarre focus on rights, this would otherwise be known as anarchy.

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!!

And yes, I do bash the libertarians as represented by such fine examples of humanity as Lyndon LaRouche.

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)

But I do have problems with insurance companies finding excuses not to pay, booting people out for pre-existing conditions, denying coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, etc etc - all behaviors intended to cheat on the actuarial odds.

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.

Let me put it another way: if you have a terrible driving record, it is reasonable that an insurance company charge you more for providing auto insurance to you.

How often do auto insurance companies deny coverage completely to even bad drivers?

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.

If you cannot understand why denial of coverage is wrong, then I cannot help you as you clearly have no idea what insurance is.

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.

Again, you are conflating denial of coverage with enforced coverage for all at a fixed price.

In a situation where the entire population is forced into a single plan, then this is invalid.

Equally so, if a company chooses to simply exclude the 'high risk' population from its models, then said company isn't providing insurance.

It is acting on a Ponzi scheme where those most likely to require payouts are simply booted out.

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.

[jk]

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

some thought experiments:
1. suppose you had a crystal ball that allowed you to foresee all the medical events in a person's life. would you sell him insurance?
2. suppose you had a printout of someone's dna, with a list of relevant genes and probabilities of various medical events. would you sell him insurance?
3. if the purpose of insurance is to spread risk, and relieve the particular burden on those who happen to draw a bad number in the lottery of life, what is the purpose of underwriting? if knowing someone's zipcode, gender, ethnic background, height, weight, diet, habits and so on, allows you to assign probabilities of various medical events, how would price insurance? going back to the crystal ball model, if you price insurance so that it is essentially prepayment for services which will be delivered, what are you selling? and what do you want to do about people who under no circumstances can afford the services their illnesses will necessitate?

[jiimbergin]

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

some thought experiments:
1. suppose you had a crystal ball that allowed you to foresee all the medical events in a person's life. would you sell him insurance?
2. suppose you had a printout of someone's dna, with a list of relevant genes and probabilities of various medical events. would you sell him insurance?
3. if the purpose of insurance is to spread risk, and relieve the particular burden on those who happen to draw a bad number in the lottery of life, what is the purpose of underwriting? if knowing someone's zipcode, gender, ethnic background, height, weight, diet, habits and so on, allows you to assign probabilities of various medical events, how would price insurance? going back to the crystal ball model, if you price insurance so that it is essentially prepayment for services which will be delivered, what are you selling? and what do you want to do about people who under no circumstances can afford the services their illnesses will necessitate?

as a retired actuary, my answers are:

1. yes, as long as I could price it

2. same answer

3. spreading the risk is not the purpose of insurance. Spreading the risk only works when essentially all members of a given population are in the risk pool, whether voluntarily or by force. Insurance is risk taking by the insurer for a price much like a bookie, which is the purpose of underwriting. Much of what is now called health insurance is not truly insurance. Group Health insurance is not in general 'insurance". Those who can never afford their illnesses need to be taken care of by others, either family, friends, charity or the government.

[DSpencer]

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

some thought experiments:
1. suppose you had a crystal ball that allowed you to foresee all the medical events in a person's life. would you sell him insurance?
2. suppose you had a printout of someone's dna, with a list of relevant genes and probabilities of various medical events. would you sell him insurance?
3. if the purpose of insurance is to spread risk, and relieve the particular burden on those who happen to draw a bad number in the lottery of life, what is the purpose of underwriting? if knowing someone's zipcode, gender, ethnic background, height, weight, diet, habits and so on, allows you to assign probabilities of various medical events, how would price insurance? going back to the crystal ball model, if you price insurance so that it is essentially prepayment for services which will be delivered, what are you selling? and what do you want to do about people who under no circumstances can afford the services their illnesses will necessitate?

jiimbergin pretty much answered these how I would but here are my additional thoughts:

The prepayment of services is in many ways what a lot of insurance is today. Routine office visits, dental cleanings, lifelong pharmaceuticals, contacts/glasses. Buying insurance that covers things like this may perform a variety of functions: group discounts, preventative care incentives, subsidizing higher cost patients, etc but in my opinion it's not really "insurance" even though it's bundled together. What sense does it make for a transaction where I buy insurance that pays for contact lenses when I know in advance I will need them. The conclusion must be that either I pay more in premiums and/or the optometrist takes less in payment and the insurance company pockets the difference.

I think family, friends, and charities are the best options to take care of people who can't afford their treatment although those support systems have been somewhat displaced by government.

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.

[jk]

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

3. spreading the risk is not the purpose of insurance. Spreading the risk only works when essentially all members of a given population are in the risk pool, whether voluntarily or by force. Insurance is risk taking by the insurer for a price much like a bookie, which is the purpose of underwriting. Much of what is now called health insurance is not truly insurance. Group Health insurance is not in general 'insurance". Those who can never afford their illnesses need to be taken care of by others, either family, friends, charity or the government.

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

[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.

[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!

[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 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.

[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

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.

[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.

[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.