LeoTheDog

3 Market Scenarios for the Coming Years

This is an excellent point that seems to be lost on every bull. If you believe that valuations drive returns, the market is and has been (but for a short period of time earlier this year) terribly overvalued. To be a bull, it seems that you either have to believe that valuations don't matter, or that corporate profits will (at a time of tight credit) explode to the upside in the near future to bring these valuations down. I'm doubtful....


On Sep 03 11:07 AM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> tyui. US stocks are now the most expensive they have been in seven
> years, and never really got cheap during the March low, just fairly
> valued.

Will the Market 'Melt Up'?

This is a ridiculous article. The answer to the title of the article is that "IT HAS MELTED UP". That's how we got a 50% move on the basis of "it is getting worse more slowly".

The author appears to think that 1200 on the S&P and 12,000 on the Dow are within reach. At what P/E would the market be trading at if he is right, and is that a reasonable valuation...?

Due for a Correction? Market Is Already Priced for Grim Future

"the rally has been driven by a lessening of the horror of big government, and that in turn has been largely a function of Obama's policy prescriptions being rejected by the electorate and bogged down in Congress."

Really, is THAT what has driven the rally?

Morgan Stanley Sees V-Shaped Recovery: I See W-Shaped Recession

Or, for that matter, a recovery. Numbers that show that things are getting worse, but worse more slowly than before, are not particularly strong evidence of a recovery. It isn't even clear that things are getting better, only that they aren't getting worse as fast as before.

Moreover, even when we can see improvement it should be remembered that "improvement" does not equate to "recovery".


On Aug 06 02:25 PM JCC wrote:


> Suffice it to say that It is way early to predict a W shaped recession.

'Blue-Dogging' Health Care

No, imagine a government run program like the Marine Corp. Or, on a more realistic level, a government run healthcare system like TRICARE (an existing government run healthcare program deemed good enough for our soldiers and the "finest available" according to Bill Kristol).

Oh, and under the guise of "fraud and abuse" they spend money seeking ways to not pay legitimate claims too....


On Jul 29 03:01 PM levin70 wrote:

> To the OP
>
> There is a reason that private companies spend on G&A. They
> spend significant sums on fraud detection and prevention. They happen
> to do a much, much better job at it than medicare does. Not only
> that, but you introduce a medicare type system that mandates reimbursement
> at lower rates than what the system charges those in private policies,
> and those private policies go away. What's the problem with that
> - well then, 20% of the hospitals and 20% of the doctors go away
> with them. They don't want to make less than what they are making
> now and having to work twice as hard to get reimbursed 300 days later
> than private paying suppliers.
>
> Imagine a gov't run program to devlier healthcare that turns into
> the DMV.
>
> Yeah, because thats exactly what I want.

One Big Problem with Private Health Insurance

It is anything but. This issue perfectly encapsulates the problem with private insurers, and your ignorance of it perfectly explains the statistics that suggest most people are "happy" with their current insurance.

Rescission is a common practice in the individual plan. It is also called "post-claims underwriting" since, as the article pointed out, insurance companies don't want to bother with underwriting until you make a claim (up to that point, they are happy to take your money, but when a claim is filed they start looking for ways to weasel out of covering you--BECAUSE they have a profit motive).

Rescission is not simply about addressing "lies" on applications. It also applies to "errors" on applications. Errors like saying you haven't been screened for a heart condition, when in fact (without your knowledge) your doctor did screen you for, among other things, a heart condition, and your test results showed that you did not have one. In such a case, your policy can be rescinded because (again, without your knowledge and without a positive result) you WERE "screened". Why on earth should this be the basis for rescinding a policy when the insured later seeks coverage for breast cancer? Google Patsy Bates if you think this is "fake".


On Jul 29 03:29 PM bcncv wrote:

> This is alarmist nonsense. Given all of the other issues with health
> insurance, do you actually think that coverage cancellation is even
> within the top five issues that need to be covered?
>
> You gave two examples. What is the frequency of occurrence? Does
> it happen to one out of a million, or one out of ten?
>
> Adding enough information to make these stories realistic would also
> help. For the man who's policy was canceled after lying about his
> weight; how much did he lie by? If he lied by 200 pounds and then
> had health related issues because of weight, there is plenty of ground
> to cancel a policy.

One Big Problem with Private Health Insurance

No, but when we are talking about healthcare, it is cheaper.

Again, no, were talking about something like Social Security or public education (or the military, or law enforcement, or firefighters). Are you comparing our soldiers to public toilets?


On Jul 29 03:13 PM Hot Richard wrote:

> Because when the government gives us something it is FREE!
>
> No, wait, when the government gives us something it costs anywhere
> from 2-2,000,000,000,000,000 times as much.
>
> If you want public health care (like public toilets and the DMV),
> you deserve public health care.

One Big Problem with Private Health Insurance

Uh, aren't you doing the same thing?

There are thousands of rescission cases you can look to if you are unimpressed with the two that were cited. They are representative of the problem, and for purposes of a blog, it is not feasible to list every single example. But you already know that.

These are examples of a symptom of the larger problem. The problem is that if you put a profit-motive behind healthcare decisions, you get something other than an objective analysis. Every single insurance company accounts for claims paid as a cost. To ensure profitability, they have to keep costs down. They are incentivized to NOT pay claims. Do you not get that?

A public option (which is not a "takeover") is intended to provide an alternative insurance provider that does not have the profit motive. If, as many of us believe, the profit motive is taken away, you can achieve a higher quality of service at a lower cost to the consumer. If we are right, the public plan will thrive (and the nation will benefit, since higher quality and lower cost should be the goal, no?). If we are wrong, the public plan will wither, and private insurers will continue to dominate.

I just don't see the basis for the fear. You can't have it both ways: public plan = horrible service and too costly, but public plan = wildly popular and monopolizes the market. It is one or the other, but not both. You pick.


On Jul 29 02:54 PM levin70 wrote:

> To the OP
>
> You make a generalization of how the entire system is a failure based
> on one specific problem area. Also, you seem to suggest that recisission
> is only problematic for those that purchase individual polcies, wheras
> more than 80% of private healthcare is delivered through employer
> or other group type polcieis.
>
> Btw - since public heath care systems are so much better - what is
> the survival rate in britain for breast cancer vs that in the US?
>
>
> Try harder

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

"I've got mine, so screw you." Nice philosophy to live by. Not sure what lies and mangled statistics you are referring to, but I did notice that you didn't answer the question of what you would do about the current situation (counting the chronic uninsured is a pretty weak course of action...). Chalk you up as one of the "status quo" advocates. That's fine; of course, that makes you a selfish moron who apparently thinks that bankruptcy is an acceptable consequence of illness or injury.


On Jul 16 02:56 PM user344210 wrote:

> Maybe start by counting the number of "chronic" uninsured, as opposed
> to those who either chose not to be insured because they don't perceive
> the need, those who can afford it but choose not to, those in between
> jobs who go uninsured for less than a few months, etc.
>
> Face the facts, you have to lie and mangle statistics to make your
> ideology seem "reasonable". Up yours with your false "dilemmas".
> You're so concerned about it, adopt an uninsured person and pay their
> insurance premium. Just leave me alone.

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

"I've got mine, so screw you." Nice philosophy to live by. Not sure what lies and mangled statistics you are referring to, but I did notice that you didn't answer the question of what you would do about the current situation (counting the chronic uninsured is a pretty weak course of action...). Chalk you up as one of the "status quo" advocates. That's fine; of course, that makes you a selfish moron who apparently thinks that bankruptcy is an acceptable consequence of illness or injury.


On Jul 16 02:56 PM user344210 wrote:

> Maybe start by counting the number of "chronic" uninsured, as opposed
> to those who either chose not to be insured because they don't perceive
> the need, those who can afford it but choose not to, those in between
> jobs who go uninsured for less than a few months, etc.
>
> Face the facts, you have to lie and mangle statistics to make your
> ideology seem "reasonable". Up yours with your false "dilemmas".
> You're so concerned about it, adopt an uninsured person and pay their
> insurance premium. Just leave me alone.

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

William, I appreciate the response and the tenor of your comments (unlike some of the others on this board, you appear to be rational and I appreciate that).

I don't disagree that once given a benefit the people will want more; I just think that outcome is preferable to one in which we see 17% of the population without health insurance.

One thing in your response stands out me though: the idea that after aggressive hospital collection efforts you paid what you could and that was the end of it. I don't think that's exactly accurate. The difference between what you paid and what the hospital charged did not just disappear; it was absorbed by the "system" and passed on to those who do have insurance. Insurance companies end up paying more for services and pass those costs on to their customers. Your situation multiplied by 50 million, including many who were not so fortunate as to have only minor encounters with the healthcare system (thank God you didn't get cancer during your period without insurace) and you're talking real money.


On Jul 16 03:13 PM WilliamQuigley101 wrote:

> Leo, I was one of those uninsured for many years. How much did it
> cost society? Not much. I only sought medical attention when I
> needed it (broken noses, broken fingers a few times). The hospital
> collection efforts were aggressive. I paid what I could and that
> was the end of it. But the important point is that today - in every
> state - we have laws requiring that urgent healthcare be provided
> to those in need of it. The actual drain on society from this is
> not much. The VAST majority of our federal budget is spent on two
> programs: social security and medicare. Not on uninsured Americans
> - most of whom are the young who wisely opt out of the insurance
> pool while they are fit and healthy. If there were a government
> solution, I would prefer one with high deductibles for urgent medical
> care. Unfortunately, the program will create is own new constituency
> and they will demand levels of healthcare that cannot be sustained
> within the $1 trillion price tag quoted by the Obama administration.
> Who in government will argue for restaint when only a few percent
> of the people are burdened with for paying it? This is not an ideological
> argument. It simply reflects human nature. Once a good or service
> is offered to many people gratis, the impulse for that group is to
> demand more. How do we balance the political power of that large
> 50 million group against the need for fiscal realism about what can
> be afforded?

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

Who said it is a right of citizenship? It isn't. Neither is public education, law enforcement, firefighting or any of the myriad of government programs that you appear to take for granted and don't consider to be "socialist." It isn't a right of citizenship, but an enlightened country would provide it.


On Jul 16 04:13 PM Robespierre wrote:

>
> Where is it stated that mortgage interest tax deduction is a right
> of citizenship in America?

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

Your response says everything anyone would ever need to know about you. You are a selfish piece of garbage. Good luck with that employer sponsored health insurance. I'm sure your employer will have no problem continuing to provide it with costs escalating at the current rate. Good luck to you, jerk.


On Jul 16 02:43 PM user344210 wrote:

> Total taxes paid dropped because there was a recession, idiot.<br/>
>
> I have zero interest in your single-payer BS, which would eventually
> bankrupt the country. I do just fine with the health insurance I
> have now through my employer, thanks. In fact, I have zero interest
> in anything you're selling. I'm a libertarian (obviously) and I feel
> less intruded upon when there are Christian conservatives in power
> than I do when there are lefties always poking around in my wallet.
> My money's got stuff to do for me, not to go to however many millions
> uninsured people there are. I simply do not care about them, you
> or anything else that I chose not to care about. Why can't you get
> that through that thick head of yours?

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

So, William, your proposal to address the crisis of 50 million uninsured Americans is:

1. Do nothing, the status quo is fine; or

2. ______________?

Just curious.


On Jul 16 02:29 PM User 449150 wrote:

> So many bizarre comments here about the 'rich' not paying enough
> in taxes. The figures are available for anyone who cares to read
> them. They are well known by now. The top 5% of earners in the
> US pay over 50% of the federal tax burden. The top 10% of earners
> pay over 70% of federal taxes. But the figure I find most grotesque
> is this: the bottom 50% of earners in the US pay nearly no federal
> taxes (actual figure around 4%). Half of working Americans are enjoying
> the benefits of a federal bureaucracy but pay nothing into it (in
> fact, many of these people enjoy negative taxes through the earned
> income tax credit). So now the brilliant solution from a democratic
> congress is to further skew this unfair policy? And of course, one
> thing can be sure. Once a health care subsidy tax is implemented,
> it will only go up as the system heads towards insolvency (probably
> within 5 years). Then what?
>
> William Quigley

Unwise to Tax the Rich to Pay for Health Care

Interesting tact. As their tax rates (and total taxes paid) dropped, their percentage of total taxes collected went up. Nice use of statistics to distract from the fact that the wealthy have done quite nicely over the last decade, and have seen their incomes and, yes, wealth, increase far more than for the middle-class. Contrary to what you might believe, few people enjoy the imposition of new taxes, even among liberals. We just understand that there are some things we need that we don't currently have, and those things cost money. We think it makes sense to have those who can most afford to pay, pay. Crazy thinking, I know.

Of course, looking to your tables one can see that the House's reform bill, which seeks to increases taxes on the top 1.2% (not 10 or 25% as you erroneously suggest) would affect only those whose taxable incomes exceed $400,000. Do you understand this fact? Really, do you? Nearly 99% of the country will see no tax increase under this proposal, but you've got your panties in a bunch over the increase for the top 1.2%.

So, cry me a river. If you make $400k and you can't or won't pony up an extra $40 per month to help address the embarrassment of having 50 million uninsured (and tens of millions more underinsured), then I'm not terribly sympathetic.

Of course, there is a simpler, more effective and FAR less costly option available: it is called single payer and it would actually save the federal government money over the next decade rather than cost us $1 trillion. Tell you what, you agree to single payer and I'll agree to cut taxes FOR THE RICH by the amount of the savings generated by our new system. Deal?


On Jul 16 02:04 PM user344210 wrote:

> I just have one question: Do you live your entire life guided by
> false data or is it just vis-a-vis taxes?
>
> www.taxfoundation.org/...
>
> Scroll down to Table 6 and tell me what proportion of total income
> taxes "the rich" (use the top 10% or top 25% since those are probably
> the folks you want to soak) paid under Clinton and under Bush.<br/>
>
> Now go ahead and move the goalposts to something like "but they own
> all the wealth and we don't have a wealth tax" or make some conceptually-flawed
> "marginal utility" argument.