National Health Insurance, 'Cap and Trade': Two Steps in the Wrong Direction 53 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Misguided government policies have already dealt vicious body blows to our economy, but that hasn't stopped politicians this week from launching two new kicks to the groin: a national health insurance plan and a carbon emissions regulation system called “cap and trade.”
Even if these plans could achieve their desired ends, which is highly unlikely, I would have hoped Washington would refrain from throwing more monkey wrenches into the economy until it shows some signs of resurgence. The last thing we need right now is to further encumber our economy with higher taxes and additional regulations.
The meteoric rise in health care costs, which has become an unending nightmare for U.S. businesses and consumers, is not an accident. This painful condition has arisen from excess government involvement in the system, tax provisions that encourage the over-utilization of health insurance, and government support of an out-of-control malpractice industry. Rather than allowing more bad policy to drive health care costs further upward, we should be looking at ways to allow market forces to reign them back in.
If left alone, the free market drives quality up and costs down. Government programs produce the opposite result. Despite the president's claim that a federal plan will bring costs down, there is no historical precedent for such faith.
Simply providing more widespread health insurance, as the Obama plan offers, is not a solution. In fact, it will aggravate the problem. Since consumers no longer pay for routine medical expenses out of pocket, comprehensive health insurance creates a moral hazard for both patients and doctors. To maximize the value of the health insurance “benefit,” most workers opt for low deductibles and co-pays. Therefore, doctors learn that their patients are not concerned with the cost of care, and so they are free to bill insurance companies at the maximum allowable rates.
Given our current tax code, the simplest way to bring down medical costs would be to fully tax health care benefits as wages and simultaneously increase the personal deduction by an amount significant enough to neutralize the effect of the tax increase.
This would do two things. First, the uninsured would get a huge pay increase, enabling them to buy reasonably priced catastrophic policies. Second, those currently insured could opt out of expensive employer-provided plans, trading premiums for extra wages, then buy a more economical plan. The savings would go right into their pockets.
The bottom line is that aggregate medical costs will never come down unless services are rationed more wisely. Rather than being used as a pre-payment plan for routine care, insurance should only cover unpredictable, catastrophic costs.
As a comparison, homeowners often carry fire insurance, but seldom maintenance insurance. You buy fire insurance to guard against a catastrophic loss, which is a low probability but high cost event. As a result, fire insurance is relatively affordable, since premiums paid by all those homeowners whose houses do not burn down more than pay for the losses on those few whose houses do.
On the other hand, no one carries home maintenance insurance to pay for a clogged drain or broken garage door. If insurance paid for the plumber visit every time a toilet overflowed, we would now have a plumbing crisis, and Congress would be looking to reign in runaway plumbing bills with “national plumbing insurance.”
In his press conference, President Obama claimed that government insurance would not drive private providers out of business. This is absurd. As the government provider will not have to produce a profit or accurately account for its contingent liabilities, it will provide insurance on an actuarially unsound basis. With taxpayer subsidies, the government provider can run losses indefinitely. If private insurers did this, they would either be shut down or go bankrupt.
Therefore, the cost of government provided health insurance will not be confined to the premiums paid, but will include the taxpayers' bill to continually bail out the government provider.
When Medicare was first proposed back in 1966, it cost $3 billion per year, and the projection was for inflation-adjusted annual costs to rise to $12 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $107 billion, and the 2009 estimate is a staggering $408 billion! So much for government estimates on health care.
As if this were not bad enough, today the House votes on “cap and trade” legislation. Disguised as an environmental bill, this proposal would merely be another gigantic tax. The lion's share of the new revenue is already committed to politically connected special interests that will reap windfalls at everyone else's expense.
To make matters worse, the bill before Congress amounts to a blank slate, with the EPA empowered to draft the details in any manner they see fit. If Congress is going to shoot the economy in the knee, they should at least be required to pull the trigger themselves.
“Cap and trade” will do nothing to reduce pollution, yet it will drive up production costs throughout the economy – rendering us even less globally competitive that we are today. In addition to the huge cost of paying the tax, its enforcement involves the creation of an entire new bureaucracy, the costs of which will be borne by American consumers in the form of higher prices.
Years of reckless borrowing and spending have left us in a gigantic hole. Getting out of it requires that we make the most effective use of all available resources. We need labor and capital to operate as efficiently as possible so we can save and produce our way back to prosperity.
Unfortunately, national health insurance and “cap and trade” are two steps in the wrong direction. Rather than getting us out of this hole, they will merely cave in the walls around us.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 53 comments:
Vote some decent regular people in - non elitist folks
someone to serve your interests
for a "change"
H R 2454
Climate Change Bill
projects.washingtonpos.../
H.R 1913
Hate Crimes/Pedophile Protection Act
projects.washingtonpos.../
Don't know your members of congress?
www.congress.org/congr...
SHARE These links !
Do not underestimate the tremendous fear of lawsuits and cost to insure them that drive over-utilization. Not sure why this is not getting the attention it deserves other than the fact the Tort lawyers partially own BO and the DNC with the labor union.
The government owes us that, for sure. And when the truth comes out, we'll discover that we don't really want it after all.
These are the angry marxist college students from the sixties. Many of our leaders today loath the US for what it is. They really want to see, and have engineered, a crash in the system.
They are heaping obligations on the system so onerous that the system will implode. They want a revolution.
Their goal is even distribution of wealth, not a thriving economy.
• Government-run "businesses" can operate at a loss indefinitely because their losses will always be subsidized by taxpayers held at gunpoint. What private business, which actually has to break even just to continue operating, stands a chance of competing with that? Extortion is illegal, unless the government is doing it.
• So-called health "insurance" is not really insurance at all but more of a prepaid health service plan. There is no incentive for one to curtail consumption or minimize waste when a given procedure will be covered whether one obtains it from an emergency room that charges $700 or from a walk-in clinic that charges $300.
• The correct solution to rising health care costs is to get *market forces* acting on them again. This means putting consumers back in the driver's seat so they will, in due course of serving their own self-interest, seek out the best quality service for the lowest price. The reason health care is broken is because the forces that make capitalism work have been artificially shunted and distorted by tax policy.
The Civil War knee capped the 10th Amendment......
And then FDR put a bullet in its head......
On Jun 28 05:39 AM jaq wrote:
> What happened to the tenth amendment? Or the previous nine?
Thus, I compliment Peter for his work at calling people's attention to the trouble ahead. But I'd be much more interested about recommendations on what to do about it.
Good luck to all.
Puts on the SPY, gold, silver, TBT. The possibilities are almost endless. Lets make some bucks. You can't dump them until 2010 so lets get some mola out of it before the idiot voters wake up.
On Jun 28 05:44 AM jaq wrote:
> It is ludicrously implausible that these politicians are representing
> the people. They are intelligent--they are not *making a mistake*.
> The best explanation of their crazy conduct is that they are intending
> the result. They want our country to fail.
CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS NOW!!! Two an out. Return government to the citizens as special interest own incumbency.
On Jun 28 04:21 AM sticktoitiveness wrote:
> No it's all good, they fixed the economy, remember. It's crashing
> less forcibly so we can all afford an extra 1000 bucks a year or
> so in energy, riiight.
CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS NOW!!! Two an out. Return government to the citizens as special interest own incumbency
On Jun 28 11:59 AM Ergo wrote:
> Yes. The path we are on is clear. With the support of mass media
> and majority voting, the powers that be will march us right to our
> own destruction. And when it comes, they will deny responsibility.
> At this point, I no longer care to debate the certainty of what is
> ahead. I merely want to take whatever practical steps I can to protect
> my family - such as by making good investment decisions with responsible
> risk management.
>
> Thus, I compliment Peter for his work at calling people's attention
> to the trouble ahead. But I'd be much more interested about recommendations
> on what to do about it.
>
> Good luck to all.
CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS NOW!!! Two an out. Return government to the citizens as special interest own incumbency
>
They have finally gone too far---thousands called their Congressman and almost all did not want cap and trade but these fascists rammed it thru not giving a damn for the people. Like Iran?
Cap & trade to our economy now would be like putting environmental restrictions on the military after Pearl Harbor.
The problem and solutions in health care described in the article are exactly correct. There are sane sensible responses to our problems. It seems political clout is the ONLY factor politicians care about any more.
On Jun 28 08:57 AM yellowhoard wrote:
> All of us need to understand who we are dealing with in D.C.
>
> These are the angry marxist college students from the sixties. Many
> of our leaders today loath the US for what it is. They really want
> to see, and have engineered, a crash in the system.
>
> They are heaping obligations on the system so onerous that the system
> will implode. They want a revolution.
>
> Their goal is even distribution of wealth, not a thriving economy.
Rather: Their goal is even distribution of whats left of the wealth of our nation after they've plundered everything they and their cohorts can of the fruits of our efforts, not a thriving economy.
As with the stimulus bill, the "Cap & Trade" bill was passed unread. A 300 page amendment was added at 3 am, banana republic style. Members of Congress were told there was no copy of the amendment that they could read before voting, but they could go look it up on the internet.
"We the People" are entitled to at least have the issues discussed and debated before our non-representing representatives jam it down our throats.
Unelected officials run the Federal Reserve. Congress asks them where the money has been spent and who they have given it to, and they refer Congress to the obscure law that exempts them from such impertinent questions. They are taking great risks with our monetary system, and "We the People" have no say.
No matter what your ideology or political affiliation, this should be scaring the hell out of you. We are witnessing the most reckless, irresponsible and dangerous government this nation has ever seen.
Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do to stop this train wreck now.
Americans have bought into Obama's "Yes, we can".
"Yes, we can" actually means the government can do anything and everything - and they are doing it now.
With the obvious moral consequences of engaging in bloodshed in mind, It seems the clear the real power of the people can be taken from the lessons of less violent resistance such as was demonstrated by individuals like Mahatma Gandhi.
You are right, YB, they do want a revolution, and about the Marxists, but If the masses were to go up against the government, they would sweep away the violent revolutionaries in one fell swoop because. delusions of successful revolution are a pipe dream, and fail to take into account the powers and tools of war that revolution would come up against. Especially when you factor in the current provisions for the utilization of foreign/UN troops on U.S soil if such an event were to occur.
www.wnd.com/index.php?...
A mass revolt will be crushed like a dust mite under a jack-boot.
Then what is left of freedom will evaporate.
So the question is; are most of the people dumb and immoral enough to fall into the revolution trap? Yes - Yes they are!
They want revolution; and they are ready for it!
And the cleansing will commence.
Peace my friend,
Sphira
On Jun 28 08:57 AM yellowhoard wrote:and
> All of us need to understand who we are dealing with in D.C.
> These are the angry marxist college students from the sixties. Many
> of our leaders today loath the US for what it is. They really want
> to see, and have engineered, a crash in the system.
> They are heaping obligations on the system so onerous that the system
> will implode. They want a revolution.
> Their goal is even distribution of wealth, not a thriving economy.
90% of corporate money doesn't.
If public health care drives private providers out of business, GOOD. The sooner the better. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people. Health care for profit is unethical, and violates the hippocratic oath. Look into it.
Peter Schiff here reduced to FOX News-level propaganda. Nice work, you sellout. How do you sleep?
2010. 2010. 2010.
90% of corporate money doesn't."
The truth of the statistic is that 72% of Americans want to consume more health care than they pay for, with 'the government'--i.e. their taxpaying neighbor--picking up the tab for the balance. Peter Schiff is right: insurance should cover only catastrophic losses, not 'take two aspirins and call me in the morning' routine health care.
The basic principle that makes markets work is price signals. If there is no cost to the consumer of using a product or service demand will skyrocket and prices will skyrocket with them. The current health insurance system is, as Mr. Schiff says, a pay in advance system that encourages people to cash out at some point by using more health care than they paid for. New hips and knees are not a medical panacea: half the time they fail to reduce the pain and even if they do work they only last a few years. But if these expensive operations are 'free' for the insured then what the hell, why not give it a shot?
Malpractice reform is another issue that must be addressed, but I want to reinforce Mr. Schiff's point that there must be some cost to the consumer every time they use health services so people make rational cost-benefit decisions about the health care they consume, or demand will become limitless and the cost will bankrupt the USA.
I'll quote some Marx, from the Communist Manifesto,
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie; to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State...Of course in the beginning this cannot be effected except by despotic inroads on the rights of property..."
So far I am reminded of what was done to the GM and Chrysler bondholders. Marx continues,
"These measures will of course be different in different countries. Nevertheless, in the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
5.Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
10.Free education for all children in public schools. (the better to propagandize them, by showing them Al Gore's 'Inconvenient collection of bullshit' and similar 'educational' materials)
We've gone pretty far down Marx's path. Violating property rights to run transmission towers in the name of 'preventing global warming' is just another step.
I don't think Obama and Bernanke are so stupid or blinded by ideology not to realize this. So I wonder if some exit plan is being prepared or is already in place to rescue us somehow from our financial Armageddon. Of course, the exit plan is not being shared with we the people so as not to cause panic amongst us or disturb the green shoot hoax until the die is cast. But without such a plan, the financial recklessness of the behavior of our leaders makes no sense to me, as they are so clearly self destructive.
Maybe they have promised California to China and Alaska to Russia, and call our debts even? Or maybe WWIII, beginning with North Korea, ending with China? Maybe they have been planning on default all along, so there is no downside to further indebtness. In any of these scenarios, we should be borrowing as much as we possibly can, as the end, one way or another, is near.
I am not a conspiracy-type by nature, but this makes no sense to me otherwise.
To understand this, read *Atlas Shrugged*. In short, there is no exit-plan, no plan at all beyond short-range expediency.
Dagny Taggart, the novel's heroine, was also baffled by this self-destructive behavior and kept asking herself, "Don't they want to live?" In the end, she discovered the answer: No, they don't want to live. They want you to die.
SIGN ME: GERRY MANDER
if you fail to understand the signature, that is the proof of fact. if you do understand, you may have been party to the fix.
On Jun 28 07:39 AM optionsgirl wrote:
> We can vote them out of office, but in the meantime, they are ruining
> businesses, lives, and future prosperity. They are destroying what
> is left of capitalism, personal property ownership and freedom of
> choice . Perhaps impeachment is in order. California got rid of Gray
> Davis, now it's time they booted Nancy Pelosi. The charge should
> be treason! And, of course, it's time for term limits.
On Jun 28 11:36 PM Ihatedebt wrote:
> What mystifies me is that neither of the cap and trade measure, nor
> the health care plan is urgent, in the sense that a further several
> years delay would not change the outcome materially. So why are they
> being undertaken now, when the economy and our financial health in
> general are so weak? These measures would only appear to accelerate
> our plunge over the fiscal cliff, by committing us to another set
> of ever-increasing financial obligations.
>
> I don't think Obama and Bernanke are so stupid or blinded by ideology
> not to realize this. So I wonder if some exit plan is being prepared
> or is already in place to rescue us somehow from our financial Armageddon.
> Of course, the exit plan is not being shared with we the people so
> as not to cause panic amongst us or disturb the green shoot hoax
> until the die is cast. But without such a plan, the financial recklessness
> of the behavior of our leaders makes no sense to me, as they are
> so clearly self destructive.
>
> Maybe they have promised California to China and Alaska to Russia,
> and call our debts even? Or maybe WWIII, beginning with North Korea,
> ending with China? Maybe they have been planning on default all along,
> so there is no downside to further indebtness. In any of these scenarios,
> we should be borrowing as much as we possibly can, as the end, one
> way or another, is near.
>
> I am not a conspiracy-type by nature, but this makes no sense to
> me otherwise.
This is a white paper from a middle-aged, middle/middle income, moderately educated, midwest mom and taxpayer. I would respectfully request that anyone here correct my current state of belief/knowledge that I base my opinions/suggestions on because clearly, those that are currently governing are making decisions based on some very different facts/beliefs about how things are for those you are governing:
What I think I know:
1. Most of the jobs in this country are provided by small businesses which are not unionized.
2. The rest of the world has no or socialized healthcare; consequently, unlike other corporations that can outsource their jobs and/or market their product in other countries, healthcare insurers have nowhere but here to sell their product to make profit.
3. The overwhelming majority of research and development that the rest of the world benefits from occurs in this country, much of which is subsidized by the government through educational institutions.
4. Pharmaceuticals are more expensive here than the rest of the world.
5.. Government (local/state/fed) employees enjoy cadillac healthcare benefits which we the taxpayers fund. In the past, the markets and our backs could bear these costs and these benefits were especially designed to be competitive with the private sector (parity) in an effort to attract and retain good employees. That was THEN. This is NOW.
6. Union benefits, overall, would be considered in this "cadillac" category of benefits (low or no premium contributions, low or no co-pays, low or no deductibles).
7. We are currently in an extreme economic crisis.
8. The current plans are to tax health benefits for all but union employees, and apparently not address the 800 pound gorilla of government employee benefits, all while espousing the need to spread costs more evenly to cover more people.(assuming you mean the same people that make up the 'for the people, by the people, of the people - people).
9. Our family is currently paying $2,895/year premiums with a $10,000 yearly deductible which must be met on our $68,780/yr gross income. As full disclosure, prescriptions count towards the deductible and are paid at 100% once we reach $10,000.
Now, I'm aware of the 'rule of unintended consequences' and I'd put more energy into considering them, but after observing the 'unintended consequences' of your decisions, a simple acknowledgement that they happen is apparently sufficient. So without further ado:
1. NO, THAT IS NO business/employment sector will get an exemption or special treatment when it comes to shouldering the overall cost of healthcare or experiencing increases/changes that may be proposed,
2. NO MORE cheaper drugs in the rest of the world. IF WE ARE SPREADING COSTS AND WE LIVE IN THIS NEW WORLD-AWARE COMMUNITY, then EVERYONE pays the same. I'm sick to death of hearing how cheap healthcare is everywhere else when they have borne very little of the R & D costs that created the treatments/drugs they can choose from. A little credit where credit is due just as an aside.
3. Premium and deductible caps will be instituted possibly based on percentages of pay or percentages based on income brackets. Increases to those who have cadillac benefits will have increase limits per/year so they don't have to go from a $500 deductible to, say, $10,000 in one year (admittedly a bitter personal reference, sorry).
4. Minimum health benefits will be defined like they are by states that already have requirements for those who sell Medicare Supplemental policies. That ability is and has been in place for these policies for years. It hasn't seemed to result in 1)all companies refusing to offer this kind of coverage or 2)the collapse of the insurance industry or 3)relocation of insurance products to foreign countries.
5. Insurers who want to do business in this country (please note #2 in section one above) will not be allowed to exclude "groups" that may form thru local community/trade/organi... or memberships and will NOT be limited to unions/goverment. So if there is an association of "small business owners" in a community, they must be offered GROUP rates as those in government or unions.
6. Quality of care will suffer as labor is the first to get cut to lower overhead;however, fewer nurses and aides, etc., to care for AND OBSERVE CHANGES TO THE PATIENT, mean marked increase in the potential for error. Having heard the statistic that 20,000/yr people in this country die because of no healthcare made me think of the over 90,000/yr that die FROM healthcare errors. So at least have the gonads to mandate, regulate, guide, whatever - staffing minimums. The point of service is not the place to recoup overhead costs.
7. Misuse of emergency rooms, while not the cause of this crisis, is large enough to address here and suggest a requirement of hospitals. Persons presenting with non-emergency may be referred and not treated ONLY WHEN THEY ARE PROVIDED WITH AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CARE THAT IS WITHIN 24HRS OF THE EMERGENCY ROOM VISIT. They would not be allowed to charge for the emergency room visit but may charge a small processing fee for the time/labor to evaluate and refer.
1. Term limits
2. If you've been a lobbyist you can't serve in Congress
3. If you've been in Congress you can't be a lobbyist
4. There is NO retirement plan for Congress...at all...zero...serve your country for up to your maximum (two terms, maybe??) and then go home and back to your career/job/whatever.
5. Every law that applies to us applies to Congress.
As the bubbly Oracle of Omaha chirped "the economy is a shambles." So how does one preserve wealth in shantytown? Diversify across currencies, short duration sovereign debt, and maybe a little heavy metal ("its never been worth zero").
Regardless of what happens in the global economy, the US Congress will continue to push the agenda they feel gets them re-elected. That's a fact. That plan (for both parties) includes growing the budget at an increasing rate regardless of the revenue collected. Making foaming mobs rant against the "rich". And, using "World Police" policy as an excuse for spending trillions on guns. Does not match to "Great Country" in the book of Hot Richard.
American citizens can look forward (as their reward for asking for expansion of government) confiscatory taxation at Federal, State, and Local levels. There will be no limits to their creativity...and by creativity I mean stupidity.
The US government will never be replaced due to their unbelievable commitment to doing anything and everything to preserve the union. However; if something happens that cripples the US government, it will most certainly be replaced by something much worse.
Americans are not ready for a fair and efficient government. No revolution can change that.
On Jun 28 09:47 PM sether wrote:
> 72% of americans want public health care.
> 90% of corporate money doesn't.
> If public health care drives private providers out of business, GOOD.
> The sooner the better. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
> Health care for profit is unethical, and violates the hippocratic
> oath. Look into it.
> Peter Schiff here reduced to FOX News-level propaganda. Nice work,
> you sellout. How do you sleep?
Countries are losing faith in Treasuries because they know we have to forcefully devalue the dollar. Once the dollar is strongly devalued, securities of well-managed depression-proof US corporations will become interesting from a global buyer's perspective. Issuing billions of dollars worth of securities at this bottom nadir in the dollar's value would allow the creation of millions of jobs..
Since possibility theory is now the focus after 9/11, there could very well be a plan to rapidly knock down the dollar via a gold price spike, US corporations then sell more securities or get "loans-for-equities" in order to bring back employment. This would be tantamount to the "dissolution of the USA," or like a Gordon Gecko move on the dollar: "I did it because it was doable".
The good part of this scenario would be a huge rise in employment. The bad part about this scenario is that it would be the most horrific thing that ever happened to the dollar, since there would be little spending power. The ugly part would be that the average retirement portfolio would be worth close to nothing in short order. Since this is possible, your suggestion to get off at the next train station is becoming more clear.
One question is: During the biggest garage sale of corporate America, who would do the "loans-for-equity" swap?
Provided that the people participating in such a free market desire such qualities and are sane and rational enough to choose it to do so....
The historical precedent that the free market 'finds' the best and most effective pricing and solutions to the social circumstance is rather shaky at best. Markets don't determine value, people do and as it is with democracy, free markets give you the economy and society you <i>deserve</i... by what your values dictate.......
And...why invest in industries that will be subsidized with confiscated tax dollars, aren't you encouraging the theft and unethical policies and lies?
On Jun 28 04:13 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:
> So why didn't the previous administration come up with a better idea
> sooner? They knew plenty of energy people. If the 2009 Clean Energy
> Bill passes, it is going to pave the way for major structural changes
> to the US economy, which few of the non-engineering types voting
> for it in Congress understand. The bill encourages electric power
> utilities to switch to renewables, upgrade the electric power grid,
> and put in place a cap and trade system which places an enormous
> burden on the power industry to go green (see www.madhedgefundtrader...).
> The bill is expected to sail through the House, but faces a major
> fight in the Senate, where the administration is going to have to
> get all of their ducks in a row for it to pass. The bill provides
> the legal structure to spend that $100 billion for alternative energy
> already passed in the stimulus bill. In his cheerleading press conference
> for the bill, Obama correctly declared that dependence on hydrocarbons
> was jeopardizing our national security. He also cleverly described
> this as a massive creator of high tech jobs that can’t be exported.
> I’m not highlighting this because I live in California, wear sandals
> all year, drive a Prius, or have a refrigerator stuffed as if a giant
> gerbil does my shopping. Since this economic crisis started, the
> key has been to buy whatever the government is buying, and since
> they are going into alternatives in a big way, you want to be right
> ahead of them (see my solar piece at www.madhedgefundtrader...).
> Time to add more alternative energy names to your list to buy on
> dips. Look at American Superconductor (seekingalpha.com/symbo...),
> which is involved in advanced wind turbine designs and electric power
> grid upgrades. Also take a peek at Covanta (seekingalpha.com/symbo...),
> an established business that profitably burns trash to create electricity.
You are also operating under the false assumption that doctors care about you. Some do, but to many you are a piece of meat; they can't afford to become emotionally invested in you.
On Jun 28 09:47 PM sether wrote:
> 72% of americans want public health care.
> 90% of corporate money doesn't.
> If public health care drives private providers out of business, GOOD.
> The sooner the better. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
> Health care for profit is unethical, and violates the hippocratic
> oath. Look into it.
> Peter Schiff here reduced to FOX News-level propaganda. Nice work,
> you sellout. How do you sleep?
Im in Gold and silver, and maybe some alt energy investments once this market drops another 15ish percent.
---------
sether: If the free market can solve everything, why is it so afraid of a public healthcare option? Private healthcare is so great right now it should kick the ass of any public option, right? What harm can a little increased competition do to our health care oligarchs?