Mmarrkk

Cramer's Mad Money -10 Reasons the Economy Is Not So Bad (2/6/09)

Healthcare is not a right. But we can debate that for a long time without agreeing.

I am not supporting a company's "right" to deny healthcare. What I am questioning is why do we assume the companies MUST provide healthcare coverage at all? Where did that get written in a law, a constitutional amendment or regulation?? You see, I don't agree that companies should be FORCED to supply healthcare coverage. If they offer it, then that is great. But if they don't, then we shouldn't judge them harshly. Now, their employees can judge them harshly and use their feet to vote! They can decide not to work for WMT because Target or anyone else decided to offer healthcare coverage.

What we're approaching, since so many of you decided that healthcare is a "right", is healthcare as welfare. Again, if that's what the majority of the country wants, then I guess that's where we're going. But don't impale the system with rules that will strangle the free-market side of the biz. Previous attempts would have made it ILLEGAL for a provider to work within the government's system and a free market pay as you go system. That is ludicrous. If I can pay for a doctor out of my pocket, why shouldn't he be allowed.

How about we take a few trillion out of O's "Steal-from-us" plan and use it to buy a high deductible healthcare plan for everyone?? Then, I'm sure we'll have to give out checks for the deductibles for everyone but the evil rich. Personally, I have a HSA and a HDHP that covers catostophic events.

What next? Owning a home is a right? Owning a car is a right? I guess with the new "fix" the gov't will be bailing out the idiots that got in over their heads with high leverage mortgages and couldn't read or comprehend those evil loan documents. While those of us living within our own means still have to pay 100% of our mortgage, these clowns will have 30-50% of their loan balances "forgiven". I'd like for someone to say "thank you" when I finish paying for their stupidity and greed.

Cramer's Mad Money -10 Reasons the Economy Is Not So Bad (2/6/09)

Atypical: you said that WMT is "not providing benefits, (pushing costs onto states rolls for healthcare)".

Please answer me this: Where is it written that healthcare benefits MUST be underwritten by employers?? Why is that something that HAS TO BE PAID for by an employer? Healthcare is not a right, particularly a right of employment. Companies that pay for healthcare pay for it either out of the kindness of their hearts or because they have a business case...keep employees healthy and they show up at work and make me lots of money!!!

The nanny state...a trainwreck waiting to happen! Just ask your friends in the Former Soviet Republics how great it USED to be for them!!

Options Trader: Tuesday Outlook

Old: triple down on CHK at this point. If it falls a bit further, dump more in. Within the next 3 years you will have at least doubled your money if not a heck of a lot more.

Options Trader: Tuesday Outlook

Thanks Phil for your followup.

Why build the terminals if gas won't come here? The LNG terminal projects were initiated when we were suffering through shortfalls in NG (only 3 years ago the forecast was big shortfalls) and we didn't have the big shale gas discoveries like the Haynesville, Marcellus, etc.. Since it takes several years to finance, design and build a terminal, the work was kicked off only to find the market whipsawing the builders. Bad investments to say the least.

Also, the LNG re-gas terminals cannot store large quantities of gas so their use as storage is not possible. And to your comment that these terminals can be used to send LNG out of the country, well Phil that is not phyically possible. The LNG terminals being built here in the US are re-gas terminals...the take LNG off of ships, decrease the pressure and re-gasify the product for pipeline use. These plants cannot reverse this process...they don't have the equipment needed and converting them to do this is a multi-billion dollar exercise that will take a few years. So, that was a misstatement. Now, there are some folks talking about export LNG as we (US) grow our natural gas business and more wells are drilled, etc. Aubrey of CHK has mentioned it, although I really don't think he's all that serious about it. But LNG export facilities are 3 year projects and require 20-year guarenteed supply contracts for 3-8 TCF gas. I seriously doubt anyone would put the money into this type of a project with US gas needs being so volatile.

Options Trader: Tuesday Outlook

Phil: I finally followed that LNG link you inserted in your post. I must admit, that is the most misleading, dishonest website I've seen in a long time. That Riley guy is a flake and I really am sorry to see you stooping to a point of giving him any credibility. I've disagreed with you many times on many energy related subjects but always felt that you were a reasonable, honorable person who did some good analysis, just little which I agreed to. That's healthy as there are always 2 sides to a trade. Zman speaks highly of you as well and that always made me feel that I should at least listen to your opinions. However, that link to the quack's website has me seriously re-thinking the above.

The site links to a listing of headlines supposedly showing the corruption of LNG. When in fact, most of the links relate to bribery/corruption at a contracting/constructi... level, not the business case of the LNG plant or anything else. It is all about a contractor trying to secure a construction contract. These have occurred in the building industry, most industries located in Chicago (sorry, a small mob-related dig) and probably half of any work done with Washington DC policiticians from both parties. But to try and reach from that to a "LNG is corrupt" stance is beyond the pale. Once I finished puking over that guy's website, I decided to respectfully ask that you take that link out of your post. It is below you and your standards.

Options Trader: Tuesday Outlook

Phil: I'm not sure I'd characterize the current storage levels as "drifting along at the upper end of the 5-year average storage levels, a little below last year ". As I see it, the 5 year average high/low band is about 1000 BCF in width and we are currently only about 60-70% in to the range, leaving us 30-40% below the upper levels. I just can't see how that is "along at the upper end". Not even close. Above the median? Yes. just below the upper end? Not really. We are 300 BCF below the upper end. That's a lot. And to say we are "a little below last year" is again a misstatement! Last year and 2006 were at the very extreme of the range and we are far from it.

Basic premise is probably okay...we are seeing supply running higher than last year and demand falling, but our storage is still about average...which is good. The storage is there to help ensure we can get through a severe winter and/or a supply disruption. Like, a hurricaine in the GOM or some other disaster.

I don't see the storage as a way to game the system nor do I see LNG as a dirty scheme. But you have a basic distrust of my industry so I've grown to expect it. Truth of the matter is that no one will be able to attract large quantities of LNG to the shores of the U.S. due to pricing differentials with the Far East. Why send gas to the U.S. ofr $7, $8, or even $12/mmBTU when it can go the the Far East for $15??

My read on pricing/supply: prices will probably drop a bit more; when they hit $6-7, new drilling for expensive gas will stop. When it stops, you'll see supply drop as our new plays can only sustain production levels with intensive new drilling. As the supply drops, you'll see prices start to go back up again. As they reach $12-13, drilling will accellerate and the supply will go back up and the whole cycle will repeat itself. All of this assuming no large scale disasters that take GOM supply offline or that pull the remaining LNG out of the US market.