Originally Posted by cabo35

When are CD rates going up? Don't hold my breath right?

Oh my. If I could answer that question with certainty, we could all get rich.

I don't know, but the way we're piling on debt, rates have to be going up before they come down. Deposits are just another source of money and if the foreign buyers of our Treasury debt withdraw some of their funding, the effect will be to drive the "price" (rates) of all debt of similar maturities upwards as all borrowers compete with the Treasury to obtain the funds.

The Treasury can forestall such rate increases by increasing the money supply (printing money), but that strategy will only result in inflation, which will also tend to drive rates upwards.

What I'm saying is that cash (CD's) are not a bad place to be these days. I just wouldn't buy CD's with really long maturities, so when rates start to climb you can cash in your CD's and jump on the bandwagon of increasing rates. Watch the chart of the yield curve published in the Wall Street Journal or Investor's Business Daily. Here's the curve from today, as published by Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html That will tell you what the market thinks will happen to rates over various maturities.

I began reducing my exposure to equities in favor of cash and high-yielding bonds well more than a year ago. It worked pretty well for me to temper the results of the stock market downturn. I'm still staying where I've been and haven't jumped back on the stock market bandwagon yet. I don't think the weak economic news is over quite yet.

But again, if I could answer the question of when the bottom of the stock market really occurred--that's different from the bottom of the economic cycle, of course--we could all get doubly rich.

Originally Posted by retiredguy

Kahuana: I have heard many alternatives that I would like to see regarding our health care system. They do not destroy what we have, but they do correct alot of what is currently wrong regarding costs, etc.

If you care to hear alternatives, which in this case are from some Republicans, then I will channel you to their sites. If you are against anything a Republican has to say, then that's okay too.

Your statement is incorrect in suggesting that there are no one has a better idea.

Hey, I've never rejected the discussion of good ideas, regardless of the "party source". Recent history seems to have proven that party labels really don't assure political conduct. (Are all Republicans really conservatives? Are Blue Dog Democrats totally liberal? What's Arlen Specter?)

I've said that I'm a fiscal conservative and left-leaning on social issues. What's that?

Sure, post some good sources of ideas. We can all learn something from them.

By the way, I really liked the two ideas that Charles Krauthammer included in the article that someone linked earlier in this thread. I had the medical tort reform included on my list, as well. But neither my list nor Krauthammer's is what I'd call a total reform program. Then again, maybe we'll never get much further than the enactment of law that reflects some of these ideas. Maybe there never will be a total and integrated program of healthcare reform. Krauthammer's ideas are good. So are some of those in the Dole-Daschle-Baker proposal. For that matter, there are some good elements in HR 3200. And from what I've read, the Danish system works quite well. Maybe some combination of them all would work.

I agree that Krauthammer's are good and would make a sensible first step. I believe that changes to the current system should be guided by the principle, "...first do no harm."

Kahuana:

You're probably leaning Democrat if you are left leaning on social issues. Entitlement programs (government run) like Obamacare would put you in liberal camp.

I'm fiscally conservative and socially conservative. Meaning, I believe in free enterprise, private sector business, no entitlements, responsibility for yourself. There are many aged, poor (who really ARE poor), and children who need help. I'm all for helping them out. That's probably as 'social' as I get.

Since I have paid in to SS and Medicare for more than 35 years, I feel I should get something back. But young people starting out in their careers should be able to invest the way they want to and be responsible for their retirement years.

Nothing is cut and dried, but I think you get the point.

2010 I'm going to vote out anybody I can who voted for TARP, R or D. If everyone really KNEW their candidates in their districts, we would not have this mess. Too many just go to the polls and vote party line. Vote policy. Then we the people will get control back from those whose salaries we pay.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

Oh my. If I could answer that question with certainty, we could all get rich.

I don't know, but the way we're piling on debt, rates have to be going up before they come down. Deposits are just another source of money and if the foreign buyers of our Treasury debt withdraw some of their funding, the effect will be to drive the "price" (rates) of all debt of similar maturities upwards as all borrowers compete with the Treasury to obtain the funds.

The Treasury can forestall such rate increases by increasing the money supply (printing money), but that strategy will only result in inflation, which will also tend to drive rates upwards.

What I'm saying is that cash (CD's) are not a bad place to be these days. I just wouldn't buy CD's with really long maturities, so when rates start to climb you can cash in your CD's and jump on the bandwagon of increasing rates. Watch the chart of the yield curve published in the Wall Street Journal or Investor's Business Daily. Here's the curve from today, as published by Bloomberg.com http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates/index.html That will tell you what the market thinks will happen to rates over various maturities.

I began reducing my exposure to equities in favor of cash and high-yielding bonds well more than a year ago. It worked pretty well for me to temper the results of the stock market downturn. I'm still staying where I've been and haven't jumped back on the stock market bandwagon yet. I don't think the weak economic news is over quite yet.

But again, if I could answer the question of when the bottom of the stock market really occurred--that's different from the bottom of the economic cycle, of course--we could all get doubly rich.

Thanks for a thoughtful, informative post. We pulled a chunk out of equities last year also. We sold off the balance on the up tick of the recent Obama bounce. I believe we are in the eye of the storm and we have to go through some nasty turbulence before we hit meaningful measurements of recovery. I have to say being out of the market now has a residual peace of mind benefit. Going to miss those dividends and growth windfalls for a while.

Thanks again for the information.

Originally Posted by cabo35

Thanks for a thoughtful, informative post. We pulled a chunk out of equities last year also. We sold off the balance on the up tick of the recent Obama bounce. I believe we are in the eye of the storm and we have to go through some nasty turbulence before we hit meaningful measurements of recovery. I have to say being out of the market now has a residual peace of mind benefit. Going to miss those dividends and growth windfalls for a while.

Thanks again for the information.

Did I hear STORM?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqlyb...layer_embedded

Originally Posted by cashman

Medicare works well because in nearly every medical situation the treatment is decided by the doctor and the patient. There are exceptions but nothing is perfect.

If we end up with a government program for all of us regardless of our age ,which is what obama wants, it will only work if it is precicely like medicare.

Finally, a sane non-partisan perspective. We simply need "Medicare for all" -- which we participants pay for monthly.3

Again I disagree with you VK on your original premise. There are lots of good ideas out there. And very few of them are in the current proposed bill. Retiredguy, we think much the same way. As to a plan that would improve the current system, move forward one step at a time. It may take 5 or 10 years to get there, but at least when we get there, what we have will work and work well.

1. Do no harm
2. ALL LEGAL US citizens will utilize the same plan including our elected officials.
3. Fix Medicare for the long term
4. Fix Social Security for the long term
5. Resolve tort reform and determine viable caps
6. Create an insurance pool for malpractice insurance to lower cost and eliminate unnecessary testing to CYA.
7. Provide government funded coverage for any annual medical cost that hits someone with over $1 million. With this all private insurance has a maximum exposure so cost will be lowered.
8. Lower Medicare age requirement by 2 years every year for the next 10 years to cover ALL LEGAL US citizens over 45. With this, Insurance cost will drop because the average health of a person under 45 is significantly lower risk then those over 45.
9. Incentives for students going to medical school to become doctors, nurses, and our health care professionals. Probably something like a reverse mortgage for a student loan payment plan. Open to good ideas on this one.
10. MONITOR all these first 9 steps to verify cost, effectiveness, and make necessary adjustments to resolve problems.

This plan will cost around 21% of the current proposed plan and provide a much better solution for most Americans. It does not cover Illegal people in this country. Illegal is Illegal and should be treated as such. It does help small business as it provides for lower insurance cost and makes private insurance more affordable. It moves us in the direction of providing health care for more and reduces the number of people not covered. I am sure my ideas are not the best and a team of smart people who better know all the issues could improve them. However my ideas are miles ahead of those currently proposed by those in Washington.

So far, the majority of comments have been by everyone except those whose professions are directly affected - t health care community itself. What is their consensus opinion. By consensus, I don't mean the AMA or AHA, as that's like AARP speaking for all seniors.

HR 3200 ends up with essentially-capped compensation, controlled working environments, and government supervision/reporting at all steps within the process.

Considering the cost of a medical education/training, will HR 3200 affect the medical school input population, since renumeration appears to be eventually less than now. Is that a negative incentive to go into medicine?

The basis of this question is close to me. I have a niece who was undecided about a medical career (research type) or other industy. In the end she decided on chemical engineering, and one of the largest energy companies just agreed to fund her master's degree in full at one of the top schools in the country. She will end up with her doctorate, and a well-compensated career, all debt-free.

She epitomizes the type of person one would want in the health care industry - at any level. Rather than go into a field with, in her mind, a questionable future, she took the golden route.

I know that some will say that health care "is a calling," and that everything else is secondary. Well, that used to be the situation with public education (pre-1960's), and then the field got flooded with people seeking draft deferments - the result being the start (and continued trend) of ever-decreasing SAT scores. The point of this is that when "we, the people" meddle (with the best of intentions) with any profession, there are unanticipated results, and almost always to the negative.

This is one of those "nasty details" that may or may not have been thought out, and in the mad rush to "pass anything soon" may fall through the cracks.

"We never have time to do it right, but we always have the time (and money) to do it over." We all have heard that one many times. When will we ever learn from it?

Medicare system works fairly well but has it's share of problems. Congress wants to cut it's budget 500 billion. WE who worked all our life waiting for and paying for Medicare will wind up with the short straw. The only persons who will benefit are folks that do not have health care and refuse to work for it. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but just watch the protests and see who is making the noise. Look past the sound bite.

Originally Posted by l2ridehd

Again I disagree with you VK on your original premise. There are lots of good ideas out there. And very few of them are in the current proposed bill. Retiredguy, we think much the same way. As to a plan that would improve the current system, move forward one step at a time. It may take 5 or 10 years to get there, but at least when we get there, what we have will work and work well.

1. Do no harm
2. ALL LEGAL US citizens will utilize the same plan including our elected officials.
3. Fix Medicare for the long term
4. Fix Social Security for the long term
5. Resolve tort reform and determine viable caps
6. Create an insurance pool for malpractice insurance to lower cost and eliminate unnecessary testing to CYA.
7. Provide government funded coverage for any annual medical cost that hits someone with over $1 million. With this all private insurance has a maximum exposure so cost will be lowered.
8. Lower Medicare age requirement by 2 years every year for the next 10 years to cover ALL LEGAL US citizens over 45. With this, Insurance cost will drop because the average health of a person under 45 is significantly lower risk then those over 45.
9. Incentives for students going to medical school to become doctors, nurses, and our health care professionals. Probably something like a reverse mortgage for a student loan payment plan. Open to good ideas on this one.
10. MONITOR all these first 9 steps to verify cost, effectiveness, and make necessary adjustments to resolve problems.

This plan will cost around 21% of the current proposed plan and provide a much better solution for most Americans. It does not cover Illegal people in this country. Illegal is Illegal and should be treated as such. It does help small business as it provides for lower insurance cost and makes private insurance more affordable. It moves us in the direction of providing health care for more and reduces the number of people not covered. I am sure my ideas are not the best and a team of smart people who better know all the issues could improve them. However my ideas are miles ahead of those currently proposed by those in Washington.

Sounds like a viable plan to me.

Originally Posted by SteveZ

So far, the majority of comments have been by everyone except those whose professions are directly affected - t health care community itself. What is their consensus opinion. By consensus, I don't mean the AMA or AHA, as that's like AARP speaking for all seniors.

HR 3200 ends up with essentially-capped compensation, controlled working environments, and government supervision/reporting at all steps within the process.

Considering the cost of a medical education/training, will HR 3200 affect the medical school input population, since renumeration appears to be eventually less than now. Is that a negative incentive to go into medicine?

The basis of this question is close to me. I have a niece who was undecided about a medical career (research type) or other industy. In the end she decided on chemical engineering, and one of the largest energy companies just agreed to fund her master's degree in full at one of the top schools in the country. She will end up with her doctorate, and a well-compensated career, all debt-free.

She epitomizes the type of person one would want in the health care industry - at any level. Rather than go into a field with, in her mind, a questionable future, she took the golden route.

I know that some will say that health care "is a calling," and that everything else is secondary. Well, that used to be the situation with public education (pre-1960's), and then the field got flooded with people seeking draft deferments - the result being the start (and continued trend) of ever-decreasing SAT scores. The point of this is that when "we, the people" meddle (with the best of intentions) with any profession, there are unanticipated results, and almost always to the negative.

This is one of those "nasty details" that may or may not have been thought out, and in the mad rush to "pass anything soon" may fall through the cracks.

"We never have time to do it right, but we always have the time (and money) to do it over." We all have heard that one many times. When will we ever learn from it?

Here is what a growing number of physicians support. www.pnhp.org

A growing number of physicians support a single payor system? Did it go from 1.5% to 1.55%? A single payor (which is government run) is not supported by private practice physicians. They do ot want to be government employees. Can you imagine their productivity if that were to happen. Government Healthcare will have the efficiency of the postal service and the compassion of IRS.
A successful system will allow the market to ration care in the same way it rations food and shelter. We should make a commitment to "consumer driven healthcare". Google that phrase.

Originally Posted by rshoffer

Here is what a growing number of physicians support. www.pnhp.org

Clearly, PNHP is a large group of doctors supporting a government single-payer system. But if their research is correct, adoption of such a system may be justified. It certainly can't be any worse than the collection of alarming and offensive ideas included under HR 3200.

Here's why the doctors support a single-payer system...

...private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans....

I've seen other estimates that the inclusion of medical tort reform would save another $210 billion per year. If my arithmetic is right, that's a little more than a 50% cut in the cost of healthcare as it stands now.

What are we waiting for? Who knows better about this stuff, Congress or the doctors? At least the doctors don't have lobbyists stuffing their pockets with money while stuffing their heads with legislative proposals.

Originally Posted by Number 6

...Can you imagine their (doctors) productivity if that were to happen? Government Healthcare will have the efficiency of the postal service and the compassion of IRS...

Alarming words. But they're not borne out by the facts in several other countries that have nationalized, single-payer healthcare. The doctors report that they're happier and so are the citizens in many of the countries with government-run single payer systems. And their costs are significantly lower than we're paying in the U.S.

This is the kind of stuff we hear at the noisy town hall meetings that get people all upset, but bears little relationship to the subject we're talking about. What does the post office have to do with health care? The U.S. Postal Service has been a privately-managed GOC (government-owned corporation) for years. Other similar GOC's are Amtrak, the TVA, PBS, the FDIC, Exim Bank, the Federal S&L Insurance Corporation, almost every water company in the country, etc.

Other than oversight, the Congress has little to do with the operation of GOC's. Someone explain how using the USPS as an example has any predictive value in projecting what might happen under a government-owned health insurance company?

Until we start really thinking about this situation and rejecting the statements being thrown around by either political partisans or special interests with their own agendas, we'll never understand what's going on in the efforts to reform healthcare.