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

[Apocalypse]

I have yet to hear an NPR cry me a river story about something legitimate. They did mention a rich person the other day, but this person had bought four homes and it was fairly ridiculous.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DanS
I recognize why Bush is making this proposal (he's no Hoover

Right you are. Apparently, he's Nixon.

[Kuciwalker]

Nixon

[Dinner]

Bush's plan covers so few people it is hard to see it as anything more then his typical appear to do something while actually not doing anything type moves. New Orleans is still waiting for his help.

[DinoDoc]

It's a PR move. Why should he do more to subsidize people with bad money habits?

[PLATO]

There are so many misconceptions and errors in this thread that I hardly know where to start. If I can come up with the time, I will do my best to get you guys a full explanation of all of what is happening.

Suffice this to say that little more than this could be done to protect the homeowners and the fact that this much was done is both amazing and a sign of the depth of the problem.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's a PR move. Why should he do more to subsidize people with bad money habits?

QFT... but it's a bit more than just a PR move (it still is mostly PR).

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Oerdin
New Orleans is still waiting for his help.

Probably due to the corrupt local government.

Texas is still waiting for help from Rita...oh wait no it is not since politicians didn't steal funds.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by PLATO
Suffice this to say that little more than this could be done to protect the homeowners and the fact that this much was done is both amazing and a sign of the depth of the problem.

No, I think it is more an indication that politically it is more important to do something than let what is best for the economy happen.

[DanS]

Originally posted by PLATO
If I can come up with the time, I will do my best to get you guys a full explanation of all of what is happening.

I wouldn't mind a partial explanation.

[Dinner]

And why can't you understand that in America, only people using health care pay for health care. I don't need it, so I don't pay for it. Not to mention that if we are willing to pay for it we get the best in the world, as opposed to everyone getting blah.

Wrong again. Healthy people pay every time they pay their health insurance bill and their employer pays every day as well. The problem is even a big company with a couple hundred employees is small potatoes where as a national system would have 300 million people worth of buying power and so can wrestle real economies of scale and price reductions out of the system.

[Kuciwalker]

That's assuming there are real economies of scale to be had, and that a political body can actually achieve them (rather than one motived purely by financial gain).

[Patroklos]

Healthy people pay every time they pay their health insurance bill and their employer pays every day as well.

How is paying for insurance different than paying for taxes? Oh yeah, with insurance I can pay for better service if I want, or not pay for health care at all if I want. Freedom of choice

Face it Oerdin, most people in America have crappy coverage because the chose to (just like they chose to take out a crappy loan for a house that was too expensive), and thier coverage costs more because of the crappy way most of us live and not some economy of scale crap, there is no way around it. I don't care if government can provide better health care for people who don't deserve it, the point is they shouldn't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Why not? Why shouldn't the government provide a base level of health care for everyone so that they can get some free preventative care, which may prevent far more costly emergency room visits (costly for the government as well as the patient, because the government is on the hook for it if the patient doesn't pay)?

[Dinner]

Wrong again patty. Did you ever even listen to Hillary's 1992-1993 proposal? Health care providers would have remained in private hands and people would have been free to purchase secondary insurance for increased coverage if they so chose. What would have changed is that everyone would have had a set minimum level of health insurance provided at heavily discounted rates because that organization would have covered every American and so had economies of scale. It really was a no brainer, slam dunk win. Of course Republicans opposed it because, like you, they hadn't bothered to actually read or understand how it worked and just feared change.

Face it Oerdin, most people in America have crappy coverage because the chose to

No, most people have crappy coverage because they can't afford better.