Let us **** over Imran and Apocalypse in the housing market thread number two

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MRT144
if you had to choose between getting an ARM and not buying...then most people shouldn't have taken the ARM. Enabling poor decision making by offering poorly structure loans is awful.

if a place was expensive and the only way to get into it was through a ****ty loan and if there were more ****ty loans gulping up supply, perhaps it would have been better not to offer ****ty loans and avoid undue expense in the first place. but a realtor doesnt think that way I guess. they only want that 6%

The loan is ok. Around 7.75% right now and I'll likely see a nice rate deduction this month from the federal reserve. My days of a 4% fixed are over though so the rate freeze doesn't help me.

I'm surprised more of the people in trouble don't take to their mortgage company about a loan modification. They'll normally jump at restoring the fixed rate instead of foreclosing as foreclosure is one of the most expensive things a lender can do.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If you can't aford it without such stupid measures, you don't need to be doing it.

Easy for you to say. If you're a self employed person who has an accident then medical costs easily can be tens of thousands of dollars for just a few days in the hospital. You're assuming everyone is doing it to buy big screens which isn't the case. The reasons people borrow money are likely the same reasons which leave people into to bankruptcy. The two lead causes are divorce and illness.

[DinoDoc]

In the situation you describe, that person should have a) either insurance or an HSA and b) an emergency fund.

[Patroklos]

It is my experience that most people own more of a house than they need. God forbid your two year olds have to share a room, or you can't have a pool you use only two times a year.

If people just bought a more reasonable house instead of staining their finances to the limit to get the absolute maximum they can achieve, they wouldn't need to borrow against their house because they would have a smaller mortgage and more money in the savings account (or to pay for health insurance).

And divorce is normally another thing we can lay at the altar of individual stupidity of the irresponsible.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
In the situation you describe, that person should have a) either insurance or an HSA and b) an emergency fund.

Most people have an emergency fund to cover 2 months worth of expenses. One trip to the hospital for an injury can easily cost $50,000. Do you have that in your emergency fund?

It's laughable that you think it is so easy for the self employed to get insurance. They have to pay both the employer's and employee's share so for a family of four it can easily run $2000 a month. Why do you think so many people are pushing for national health care?

[DinoDoc]

Babies want mommy to take care of them?

[Dinner]

It's a competitiveness issue and it is the most cost efficient thing we can do. It costs France something like $3500 per person per year to provide gold plated health care to every person in France. Truly best of the world coverage. To compare the US total health care spending is around $6000 per year per person and we don't cover 1/3rd of the population. Many of the people who do have insurance actually have very poor coverage.

Economies of scale aren't just for businesses; governments can get them too. This is just a competitiveness issue which is killing many American companies like GM.

[Patroklos]

Then its a good thing the self empolyed make up, oh, 1% of the workforce maybe?

[Dinner]

More like 9% of the work force.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/00/11/0011yg.pdf

Now include their spouses and dependents and you can easily find this is a problem with effects 25% of the population. Especially since the 9% figure doesn't include farmers.

Besides, national health insurance would also mean coverage for the 1/3 of Americans who don't have coverage. Also, I noticed you once again avoided the competitiveness issue for companies like GM or US Steel or even Boeing. Not a comment on that issue or that EVERY European country gets massively better health care for just a fraction of the cost Americans pay?

[Patroklos]

Besides, national health insurance would also mean coverage for the 1/3 of Americans who don't have coverage.

A good portion of that 1/3 is young people who purposely don't buy health insurance because they are invincible.

But back to the point of the thread. If these 1/3 who are homeowners had bought a 3 bedroom instead of a 4 bedroom house and opted not to put in hard wood floors and granite countertops, they would have the best health insurance money can buy. They chose poorly.

[DanS]

That "1/3rd don't have coverage" figure is erroneous by a long shot.

[Dinner]

Still avoiding the question I see. Classic Patroklos.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS
That "1/3rd don't have coverage" figure is erroneous by a long shot.

Ok, it is 16% without insurance and another 15%-20% who are under insured. Meaning they think they're insured but their insurance would run out before the bills did if there was serious illness.

http://www.cbpp.org/8-29-06health.htm

[Patroklos]

Did you ask a relevant question?

Also, I noticed you once again avoided the competitiveness issue for companies like GM or US Steel or even Boeing.

You actually didn't bring up that issue, so why would dI comment?

But in any case GM, and more accuratly the unions, are simply paying for makeing stupid contracts in the 70-80s that any fourth grader could see would not be sustainable in the long run. I can't keep you from shooting yourself in the foot.

Not a comment on that issue or that EVERY European country gets massively better health care for just a fraction of the cost Americans pay?

Speak for yourself, I get awesome health care from my employer. I also make the personal choice of not being a fat ass or smoking/killing myself with the more abusive forms of drugs or drinking myself to death. I am just more responisble/intelligent than most, to include the idiots losing their shirt from their own doing in the OP.

[Patroklos]

Ok, it is 16% without insurance and another 15%-20% who are under insured. Meaning they think they're insured but their insurance would run out before the bills did if there was serious illness.

And how much of that 16% is in an age group who probably won't use insurance (ie they choose not to have it)? And how many of those people who are uninsured are simply being irresponsible and spending that money on sqare footage they don't need instead (like the parents of that kid the Dems shamelessly exploited and forgot to vet)?

The simple fact is your individual sob stories are not the bulk of these cases. Nowhere near.