Is This the Start of the Big One?

[TeePee4Prez]

That's basically what I am saying. It appears that though the Obama Administration has become as polarizing as Bush's, that the Republicans are still not a likely alternative.

The Republican's are playing "management's handbook" when it comes to intimidation at Town Halls, etc.  Basically, it's drum up a right winged populist movement, scare off and bully people who disagree with them, and voila Dems in certain districts have to take these fringe people seriously.  Over time, people see them as an alternative because the Dems "can't get sh**t done."  It's the same thing with union organizing drives.

[Sam Spade]

Just wanted to add:  Another ugly day for China today, down another 4.3%, which makes it down 20% in about the space of 3 weeks and a break through yet another important technical level.

Naturally, our stock market is up today and can continue to go up, more than you might think, but be careful.  Without any significant turnaround there soon, leads like that tend to have similar followthrough down the line here, it's just merely a question of when.

[Person Man]

That's basically what I am saying. It appears that though the Obama Administration has become as polarizing as Bush's, that the Republicans are still not a likely alternative.

The Republican's are playing "management's handbook" when it comes to intimidation at Town Halls, etc.  Basically, it's drum up a right winged populist movement, scare off and bully people who disagree with them, and voila Dems in certain districts have to take these fringe people seriously.  Over time, people see them as an alternative because the Dems "can't get sh**t done."  It's the same thing with union organizing drives.

Well, there are signs that our organizers and congressmen are taking the offensive.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Just wanted to add:  Another ugly day for China today, down another 4.3%, which makes it down 20% in about the space of 3 weeks and a break through yet another important technical level.

Naturally, our stock market is up today and can continue to go up, more than you might think, but be careful.  Without any significant turnaround there soon, leads like that tend to have similar followthrough down the line here, it's just merely a question of when.

agreed, but China is still up huge and a 20% pull back after such a run up does not mean China's stock market is going to crash.  This pullback may simply be a healthy correction that breaks the parabolic pattern and returns China's stock prices to more sustained non-parabolic growth.

[TeePee4Prez]

That's basically what I am saying. It appears that though the Obama Administration has become as polarizing as Bush's, that the Republicans are still not a likely alternative.

The Republican's are playing "management's handbook" when it comes to intimidation at Town Halls, etc.  Basically, it's drum up a right winged populist movement, scare off and bully people who disagree with them, and voila Dems in certain districts have to take these fringe people seriously.  Over time, people see them as an alternative because the Dems "can't get sh**t done."  It's the same thing with union organizing drives.

Well, there are signs that our organizers and congressmen are taking the offensive.

Now here's the twist with our offensive.  We get branded as "Obama's Union Thugs."  Their PR is relentless.  They make it sound like they're ordinary, concerned citizens who espouse conservative values and the proponents of Obama's plan are bussed in union guys.  This is starting to get like the Grapes of Wrath and NIMBY vigilantism.  You would think with this economy people would get sympathetic, but people are now getting worse.  For some reason the people who are the "kinda haves" (new phrase of the day) are the most nasty.  Example like in the Grapes of Wrath are the landowners of the San Joaquin Valley and their armed thug cops.  They went after the Hollywood "elite" and branded union organizing as Communist "Reds."  The parallels between them and the Tea Parties are striking.  The trick is effectively dealing with the "kinda haves" and that can be most difficult.     

[Sam Spade]

Just wanted to add:  Another ugly day for China today, down another 4.3%, which makes it down 20% in about the space of 3 weeks and a break through yet another important technical level.

Naturally, our stock market is up today and can continue to go up, more than you might think, but be careful.  Without any significant turnaround there soon, leads like that tend to have similar followthrough down the line here, it's just merely a question of when.

agreed, but China is still up huge and a 20% pull back after such a run up does not mean China's stock market is going to crash.  This pullback may simply be a healthy correction that breaks the parabolic pattern and returns China's stock prices to more sustained non-parabolic growth.

Non-parabolic growth is the complete antithesis of the SSE.  Look at its long-term chart.

Of course, that's what tends to occur when you ban shorting.  Not that I necessary disagree with your possibility as being, well, a possibility.

I'm still waiting to pull a trigger if I want to (up or down).  Last few weeks has been a whole lot of nothing. 

[Richard]

Let's see.

Let us start with today, in particular with the 70 day CMB auctioned off by the Department of the Treasury.  Here's the official results:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/preanre/2009/R_20090819_1.pdf

Observe how the primary dealer involvement is 76%, which means most of it was gobbled up by the big banks, and that they were willing to park their money at a rate of 0.145% annualized.  Funny.  Even better, the bid to cover ratio is 4.744 which means they were willing to buy nearly 5 times more.  Now why in the hell would you park your money at that rate if there's an equity market that is rallying like that?

[Torie]

Sam Spade, do you have a list of the defects as you see it in the Obama health care proposal (or House bill or whatever), that you could share with us, now that you are completed your masochistic task of wading through it all (just why you did that escapes me, but we all have our odd little hobbies I guess)?  Thanks.

[Sam Spade]

Sam Spade, do you have a list of the defects as you see it in the Obama health care proposal (or House bill or whatever), that you could share with us, now that you are completed your masochistic task of wading through it all (just why you did that escapes me, but we all have our odd little hobbies I guess)?  Thanks.

I like reading legislation.  Scary. 

It would take me a while.  Actually a good long while, and I didn't take particularly good notes, so I'd probably have to survey it again.  Fortunately, for the House bill and the Kennedy-Dodd bill, they are actually pretty similar in scheme, so its easy comparison.

As one might expect, it is heavy on details (even though the House bill in comparison to Kennedy-Dodd is much more vague and poorly written - and naturally of course 400 pages longer) and very, very light on how exactly it'll be paid for.  Much of the health care specifics (i.e. what a "qualified plan" would cover in terms of "expected health benefits") would be delegated to the 27-person MAC appointed by the Secretary for Health and Human Services, so in general, discussions on what would happen with a specific health care issue are not in the bill itself.  There would also be three different tiers of plans, but once again, the specifics of what those plans would/wouldn't cover would be subject to the MAC.

In the House bill, you might find it amusing to note that, maybe because of bad drafting or on purpose, it does reserve some power for health care specifics that are generally left to the MAC to the House also.  I just thought that was kind of odd.

I did point out one (of the many) cost issues in one of the original threads on this subject which I specifically referenced to you, namely about pre-existing conditions (basically no one can be excluded by any insurance in either bill) and health status (basically, no matter what you do to your health, you can't be excluded).  Look up my past posts.

[Torie]

Thanks Sam Spade. Does the bill or bills cost out in an itemized way what the costs will be, or is your concern about costs per reading other material or your own calculation? How much did you think it would cost? Thanks.

[Sam Spade]

Thanks Sam Spade. Does the bill or bills cost out in an itemized way what the costs will be, or is your concern about costs per reading other material or your own calculation? How much did you think it would cost? Thanks.

Very, very little about costs in either bill. 

I'm basically throwing out numbers based on guesstimates, but keep this in mind - the general figure I hear bandied about is about $1 trillion over ten years.  You know what that means most likely, based on health care costs, but based on what I read, unless the MAC does some pretty strong rationing of care, I would be shocked if it is at or under that figure. 

I personally think it could easily be double.  One more example that stuck in my crawl was that the bill also increases health care subsidization from the government up to 250% of poverty level salary for a family of four (it's actually up to 500% in the Senate = lol, costs).  I think it's presently at 125% or 150%.  Not to mention the people who qualify for Medicaid are increased (don't remember the exact figure there).

[opebo]

I personally think it could easily be double.  One more example that stuck in my crawl was that the bill also increases health care subsidization from the government up to 250% of poverty level salary for a family of four (it's actually up to 500% in the Senate = lol, costs).  I think it's presently at 125% or 150%.  Not to mention the people who qualify for Medicaid are increased (don't remember the exact figure there).

That's excellent!  Thanks for the good news. 

Of course two trillion over ten years sounds well worth it to me.  Just reduce the 'defense' budget by 200 billion/year.

[Torie]

Thanks Sam Spade. Does the bill or bills cost out in an itemized way what the costs will be, or is your concern about costs per reading other material or your own calculation? How much did you think it would cost? Thanks.

Very, very little about costs in either bill. 

I'm basically throwing out numbers based on guesstimates, but keep this in mind - the general figure I hear bandied about is about $1 trillion over ten years.  You know what that means most likely, based on health care costs, but based on what I read, unless the MAC does some pretty strong rationing of care, I would be shocked if it is at or under that figure. 

I personally think it could easily be double.  One more example that stuck in my crawl was that the bill also increases health care subsidization from the government up to 250% of poverty level salary for a family of four (it's actually up to 500% in the Senate = lol, costs).  I think it's presently at 125% or 150%.  Not to mention the people who qualify for Medicaid are increased (don't remember the exact figure there).

Ya, the subsidy threshold is outrageous and won't stand of course.  I suspect the costs will be in line with a trillion because the cost overruns will be offset by cannibalizing research and other medical services assets. In 20 years we will wonder what we have wrought I suspect. It seems inevitable to me, in part because the creation of expensive but efficacious medical technologies just causes too many political problems, so shutting it down is one way to avoid that. I know I sound cynical about this matter, but that is because in fact I am - cynical. 

I quite loathe the whole matter of the delivery of medical services. It must be dealt with, but the whole industry is so dysfunctional in so many ways, that it almost needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. As one example, when the  are medical records going to be computerized?  It's ludicrous!  It leads to inefficiencies and lost records, and lots of mistakes unless you demand a copy of all your medical records from soup to nuts and carry them around to every medical appointment that you have, and then chastise the folks for not doing their homework and relying on yo the patient to rely the content of such medical records.

I am not a popular guy in medical offices, and that is particularly true when I have to wait an hour. In one instance, after waiting an hour, I thought by the time I was done traducing the dermatologist, that he was going to have a stroke - he got that red in the face. 

And so it goes. Medical services and all things related bring out the worst in me. I admit it.

[opebo]

Why would you guys balk at one trillion over ten years?  That's a mere 100 billion/year.  Its nothing compared to many other budget items, nor would it be any significant tax increase upon your class if we paid for it that way.