The Debates for '08

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Do you think the debates should be held earlier in the campaign?

It seems that the final ticket is confirmed so late in the process that people either stop caring or are already too set in their ways.

If only they have the final tickets set in stone earlier. I suppose that's tough with the primary system the way it is now.[/font]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Do you think the debates should be held earlier in the campaign?

It seems that the final ticket is confirmed so late in the process that people either stop caring or are already too set in their ways.

If only they have the final tickets set in stone earlier. I suppose that's tough with the primary system the way it is now.[/font][/QUOTE]

I think the first debate should be help a couple days after the conventions. They wait until more than a month after the RNC to hold the first debate and the last debate is like a week before the election, thats way too late.

But like some people on this thread have been saying that was the final (excuse the pun) nail in the coffin for me not voting for McCain; the choice of Palin. I could handle McCain as president if he would have choose Mitt Romney or even the mayor of America, Rudy Giuliani, but not Palin. I don't think McCain would do a bad job, but I just don't think anything would really improve, and thats what we need... improvement.

It's really a shame Clinton didn't get the nomination but Barack Obama can play a mean game of hoops, so that counts for something... right?

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"][QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]This also leads me to a question for everyone here: How important are the debates to you?

I imagine that by the time they roll around, most people have already chosen their candidate. Do the debates sway anyone? Or do they just confirm your original choice?[/font][/QUOTE]It completely depends on the situation. If I am wavering between the two, then the debates are very important. If I am not, then other than to find them amusing, they don't carry much weight.

I imagine the debates help people who are still undecided and uncertain as to who they will vote for. So for those who need a bit more to make up their minds, they're just another means to get a feel for the candidates. [QUOTE=James][font=franklin gothic medium]Do you think the debates should be held earlier in the campaign?

It seems that the final ticket is confirmed so late in the process that people either stop caring or are already too set in their ways.

If only they have the final tickets set in stone earlier. I suppose that's tough with the primary system the way it is now.[/font][/QUOTE]It certainly wouldn't hurt, or at least I'd like to think it would not. I believe it would make getting to know who you are considering voting for easier.

I'm sure a certain degree of no longer caring does set it. Usually by this point, people know what issues they are for and against so unless the one chosen completely throws you off, there isn't much point in watching since you're unlikely to change who you'll vote for.[/FONT]

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"]For the record Joe Biden is 66 and has his own health problems, so he could also at any time drop dead from an aneurysm or an attack of the myocardial sort. You never know. After all, if you don't have your health... [/COLOR][/QUOTE]

Okay, so if Joe Bidden died then Nancy Pelosi would become vice president. But if McCain died then Palin would become president, big difference.

[eleanor]

[quote name='Esther'][SIZE="1"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]You can deem the position "worthless" but, like people have already said, God forbid something happen to John McCain Palin would be in charge. We have to go over these scenarios before running off to the voting booths and casting our ballot for the Presidential candidate alone.
[/FONT][/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] Yeah, but I think it's sort of silly how everyone keeps bringing it up. He's in pretty damn good shape, and he's not going to keel over. At least that's what the Mayo Clinic says, and I trust them. lol And he's a tough guy. I think we can lay off on the death-scenario thing. And his family history is better than Obama's, if you want to look at it that way.

VPs are important this round (I guess, not really, meh), yeah, but... I'm starting to think people are more concerned with the VPs than they are the actual presidential candidates. I don't really think about assassination attempts and age when I think about who I want to vote for, as they're incredibly subjective and generally not worth worrying about.[/font]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']Okay, so if Joe Bidden died then Nancy Pelosi would become vice president. But if McCain died then Palin would become president, big difference.[/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] At least Stewart and Colbert would have their funniest episodes ever if this happened.[/font]

[Esther]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]So, what'd you guys think about the debate tonight?

My opinion: Zzzzzz.

I'm sorry but it was dreadful! For one, half the time neither of the candidates really answered the questions. Second, the areas covered were extremely disporportionate in favor of the economy. It's in my understanding that the economy is a top priority right now but I would have liked a little broader range of questions asked during this debate. It wasn't very interesting to hear a regurgitation of what we've already been hearing these last couple of weeks. [/SIZE][/FONT]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Sucks to hear that Esther. I was hoping to watch this debate (I'll have to see a repeat due to time differences), so I'm not sure if I'll watch it now. Hm...[/font]

[Retribution]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Sucks to hear that Esther. I was hoping to watch this debate (I'll have to see a repeat due to time differences), so I'm not sure if I'll watch it now. Hm...[/font][/QUOTE]
[font=Arial]I would recommend at least watching half of it. While they do deliver their normal talking points ad nauseam, there are definitely great moments of verbal dueling. A much more somber and sharp debate than the last.[/font]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff]I missed most of the debate last night due to having to get residents to bed and some guy continuously hitting the doors (IE: Trying to get out or being lost) But I did catch a lot on the economy. Loved McCain's explanation of how Obama's policies are 'Like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall' He probably got most of the LeRoy vote for that comment (FEI: LeRoy, New York is the birthplace of Jell-O)

So if anyone did see most or all of it can you clue me in a little more. I did also see that McCain dodged a lot on health care. Shame really[/color]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']I agree that it does require a better system and neither of these guy's plans are perfect. Obama's health plan seems to provide for those with less annual income. While McCain's plan caters to those who can already afford insurance. What we have to look at here is a combination of the two. We already have government backed insurance (Medicare, Medicaid). It works smoothly. "In 10 years, McCain's proposal would reduce the number of people who are uninsured by 2 million out of a projected 67 million, while Obama's plan would reduce the number of uninsured people by 34 million," a report by the Commonwealth fund said. Now Obama does propose we increase our overhead to pay to ensure quality healthcare. Which is already 31% higher than Canada. But McCain will introduce tax incentives to large Insurance Companies. Either way the tax payer will pay.

I don't fully believe either one of these are the answer. I believe it's going to have to be multiple phases of varying health plans until we reduce our overhead and manage to provide quality healthcare to those you can't afford it.[/QUOTE]


Originally I was just going to leave this as a given, but a question was raised in my head yesterday:

If the Commonwealth Fund came out with accurate predictions, exactly how did the fund account for the price decrease due to the competitive national market?


I get the feeling that they didn't, because that isn't some value that can just be calculated. It is dynamic in relationship to a non-numerical system (culture). What they can do is give a "theorized projection", but those have been consistently wrong in the past.

I don't think that it is by direct tax credit that McCain's plan will insure people, but the effects on the market that will allow people to be insured. It is unfortunate that this factor is invisible until it is too late.


EDIT: I watched the most recent debate myself. I agree with Esther. Obama would double talk, McCain would point fingers, all in all I was unimpressed, and my vote will still be for McCain.

[Rachmaninoff]

Once again the debates were at a time frame that did not agree with me. Plus, I already know that McCain's stances are something I completely disagree with. So though I could have seen about recording it and watching later, I already know who I'm voting for so it makes little difference at this point.

There's another thing I consider as well, debates though interesting to watch, don't speak as loudly as a candidates actions, so I rarely use them as a means to determine how effective they will be.

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']If the Commonwealth Fund came out with accurate predictions, exactly how did the fund account for the price decrease due to the competitive national market?


I get the feeling that they didn't, because that isn't some value that can just be calculated. It is dynamic in relationship to a non-numerical system (culture). What they can do is give a "theorized projection", but those have been consistently wrong in the past.

I don't think that it is by direct tax credit that McCain's plan will insure people, but the effects on the market that will allow people to be insured. It is unfortunate that this factor is invisible until it is too late.[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=707948[/url]

That "theorized projection" is based on history and actual numbers. It's usually pretty accurate. And even if it is slightly off, the spand (34 million to 2 million) is so wide that even with a lot of inflection Obama's health plan still covers many more individuals. McCain's plan suits the young and healthy so it may be good for you, but for low income families, children, elderly people or people with pre-existing conditions, the fact is it will be more difficult to find affordable health insurance.

"John McCain's plan for a health-care system built around consumers shopping for their own insurance comes with a significant downside: for people with a history of illness, it can be impossible to find coverage on their own.

The Republican presidential candidate's main answer is to bolster the role of high-risk pools, which sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, cancer and AIDS.

These pools, typically created by state governments, require significant government subsidies, charge high premiums and sometimes sharply restrict benefits or enrollment. Nationally, fewer than 200,000 people are enrolled in such pools, while 47 million people in the U.S. are without insurance.

These plans would work only for individuals who are healthy and who will remain healthy, defeating the purpose of insurance.

In a less-regulated market, more comprehensive coverage comparable to current employer-sponsored plans attracts individuals who have greater health care needs. It is unlikely that those plans would even be offered in the individual market under Sen. McCain's proposal, but if they were, they would rapidly withdraw from the market because of the death spiral caused by the ever higher premiums that must be charged as the sick enroll and the healthy drop out. People who need care would be shut out of the individual market."
-Wall Street Journal

Enough said.

[COLOR="Blue"]Obama '08[/COLOR]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

This is where certain things annoy me. Taken directly from McCain's website:

[quote]Setting the Record Straight: Covering Those With Pre-Existing Conditions

MYTH: Some Claim That Under John McCain's Plan, Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Would Be Denied Insurance.

FACT: John McCain Supported The Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act In 1996 That Took The Important Step Of Providing Some Protection Against Exclusion Of Pre-Existing Conditions.

FACT: Nothing In John McCain's Plan Changes The Fact That If You Are Employed And Insured You Will Build Protection Against The Cost Of Any Pre-Existing Condition.

FACT: As President, John McCain Would Work With Governors To Find The Solutions Necessary To Ensure Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Are Able To Easily Access Care.

[/quote]

Which, though not all plans are officially and expressly written, provide that no, McCain will not sit back and let people with pre-existing conditions go uninsured.


Now that I actually have the studies, it seems that the evaluations that the Commonwealth have preformed are lacking in their depth. A few examples:

[quote]
But allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines would effectively remove consumer protections now in place in some states, such as community rating and guaranteed issue. This would reduce access to insurance for older people and those with health problems and increase access for young and healthy people. McCain proposes to cover people with preexisting health conditions by using federal funds to expand high-risk pools, which now cover fewer than 200,000 people in 34 states. [/quote]

This statement completely ignores the GAP plan:

[quote]As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.[/quote]


Down the page, I constantly see McCain's plan being labeled as de-regulation, and then assuming that it is complete de-regulation. This is not true. McCain will open up state lines, but it will also create watchdog groups, GAP plans, and give states control over the private insurance. The entire assumption for the increase costs for McCains plans aren't based on capitalism and market data, but under the assumption that capitalism will fail.

Basically, they outlined a worse case unlikely scenario for McCain's plan, and then compared it with a best-case Scenario for Obama's plan. I would like an evaluation that won't assume that capitalism will fail, that won't assume that any necessary fixes for the system of state distribution will be ignored by the legislative branch, and won't assume that mandating fines for business won't have a sliver of an effect on the market.

[Mr. Blonde]

I've pulled all of my information from 3rd party studies and evaluations. Of course John McCain's website will praise his health plan, it' JOHN MCCAIN'S WEBSITE. The fact remains that what John McCain says and what he does are completely different things.

You can be liberal or conservative, but what is painfully obvious is John McCain is fundamentally wrong on healthcare. Just look at the facts, and not the twisted logic from the McCain website. It's like the bizarro world.

"The Commonwealth Fund is a private, charitable foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable populations. These populations include low-income, uninsured, ethnic minorities, young children, and elderly adults."

So yes they may have a view sympathetic to these groups, and they may focus on issues pertaining to these groups. Is that a bad thing? These are the people that health insurance is the most imporant for, and the same people that the McCain health plan will damn.

"The goal of McCain's healthcare plan is to reduce the number of people who get employer provided health insurance coverage. Here's what will happen: Younger, healthier workers will opt-out of their employer's plans and take up private policies. That will leave behind older people, and those with preexisting insurance - in other words, a higher risk insurance pool. This will inevitably cost the employer more to insure his employees and increase the incentive to stop providing insurance for his employees. This isn't a bug in McCain's plan, it's a feature.

Assuming that most employers won't increase wages to compensate for the dropped healthcare benefits, as the program matures how will the government pay for the $5,000 credit when less benefits are taxed and more people receive the credit? To use an extreme example, what if no one had employer provided healthcare anymore? Then we would all be getting the $5,000 tax credit - paid for with our own taxes.

Ultimately the program will stop being revenue-neutral, and will become a huge annual government subsidy to the health insurance companies. At that point the program will probably end. Obsolete by design."
-emaxhealth.com

[Guest Crimson Spider]

The fact is, the commonwealth fund provided an evaluation that makes several shallow assumptions that McCain will just sit on his hands and do nothing through the years, even though his health plan already has provisions for putting certain regulations on states.

[Mr. Blonde]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The fact is, the commonwealth fund provided an evaluation that makes several shallow assumptions that McCain will just sit on his hands and do nothing through the years, even though his health plan already has provisions for putting certain regulations on states.[/QUOTE]

"Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) makes his case for deregulating the health insurance industry by extolling the benefits of the last decade of deregulation in the banking sector. ?Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation,? McCain writes. Since the banking industry?s collapse this week, the McCain campaign has tried to distance itself from the senator?s remarks, claiming that McCain was referring to ?policies which allowed Americans to use an ATM anywhere in this country.? But McCain?s proposal to allow health insurance companies to sell policies across state lines is evidence that the senator supports the same kind of deregulatory polices that created the economic crisis. The latest financial meltdown highlights the dangers of deregulating the health insurance industry and only underscores the sheer impracticality of McCain?s proposal."
-Roxanne Walker

Doesn't sound like regulation to me. The straight talk express lost a tire on that one.

[Guest Crimson Spider]

The collapse of the credit system was inspired by tertiary causes, such as financial mistakes and consumer error. Nothing is inherently wrong with making insurance companies able to sell policies across state lines. You have to provide specific reasons on why the system will fail, because if you point fingers at de-regulation causing the credit crisis, you can point fingers at de-regulation helping out many other markets.

[Mr. Blonde]

"Following a pair of Supreme Court decisions which deregulated the banking industry, credit card companies relocated to states with no interest rate caps and charged “what they wanted” to borrowers in states with interest rate limits. McCain’s reform takes a similar tact. He would allow health insurers to operate across state lines “without complying with the laws in the state in which they operate,” and permit insurance plans from out-of-state to lure away healthier patients.

I insurance companies “would have little incentive to continue doing business” under certain state rules which “require that companies issue coverage to all new customers and not set higher rates for people who are already sick”:

[Under legislation that McCain supports], insurers wouldn’t even need to pick up and move their operations; it would be enough to file some paperwork with a state insurance commissioner and pay that state’s relevant taxes…An insurer operating under Arizona law would be able to offer healthy New Yorkers a cheaper policy than an insurer working under New York law that has to price policies the same for everyone.

If the deregulated environment allows credit card companies to “use pricing practices, like teaser rates, to attract cash-strapped families and then…double or triple those rates without notice,” Robert Gordon (senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund) argues that McCain’s approach to deregulating the health insurance industry would similarly permit insurance companies to deny coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions and “improve their own profits by offering targeted policies to people with the fewest health expenses”:

As with the history of credit cards, it’s Robin Hood in reverse. Apart from the obvious injustice, this approach could add to spiraling health costs. The sickest 10 percent of Americans are already responsible for 70 percent of the nation’s health expenses. When more such Americans go uninsured, skip checkups, and land in the emergency room, they end up costing taxpayers more.

Pre-existing conditions are not confined to chronic diseases. In fact, some individual insurance companies do not count a C-section as a pre-existing condition, and policies differ based on state laws and regulations. Under McCain’s proposal to free insurance companies from state regulations, insurers that continue to extend coverage to moms who have had a C-section would quickly find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with insurers that provide the least protection to new moms. Thus, McCain’s deregulation scheme, like past banking reforms, seeks to extend industry profits, not consumer protections."
-thinkprogress.org

[James]

[quote]Nothing is inherently wrong with making insurance companies able to sell policies across state lines. You have to provide specific reasons on why the system will fail, because if you point fingers at de-regulation causing the credit crisis, you can point fingers at de-regulation helping out many other markets.[/quote]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Deregulation was one major factor for the current crisis, but so was consumer and corporate error. (This relating to the economic crisis, not healthcare):

In terms of regulation, there are several problems.

First and foremost, companies have a lack of capital reserves while simultaneously taking massive financial risks. This is not effectively regulated.

Also, current accounting rules do not accurately value assets - many of the corporate collapses we've seen in America relate to speculation (especially on assets) rather than the production of genuine value.

And there is no real prudential coverage or oversight in the present American system, which is a large problem.

This is why Australia has held up so well to this crisis - it has a strong regulatory environment that both allows market freedom/flexibility while also ensuring strong accounting rules, appropriate valuations and a focus on strong capitalization.

Another problem - systemic in corporate institutions in America - is that executives are often given bonuses related to risky speculation and short-term gains, rather than the development of longterm growth and stability. This system has run rampant and has encouraged a massive shift in attitude toward hollow gambling rather than sound economics.

And previous regulations (like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act) were largely useless. Michael Barr (US Treasury official) recently commented that 50% of sub-prime loans came from institutions not covered by the legislation. And a further 25 - 30% were only partially covered.

So the problem there was not the existence of regulation, but the absence of [i]comprehensive[/i] legislation.

To get back to the topic more directly, I think it should also be said that neither Obama nor McCain have responded well to this current problem. [i]Both[/i] men have shown their inexperience and desire to push a populist rather than pragmatic line.

McCain's $300Bn dollar plan to buy up mortgages is asenine. Not only is it completely fiscally irresponsible, but it [i]encourages[/i] reckless borrowing by consumers.

The message is essentially that if you stupidly borrow 110% of your home value (and therefore have no equity at all), and you default, the Government will dive in and bail you out. This is totally irresponsible, goes against many of his earlier comments and also ignores one of this problem's chief causes.

It also creates a precedent whereby Government will become responsible for defaulting mortages in an ongoing sense - there did not seem to be a "one off" sense about this concept. This is highly dangerous and it comes across as utterly desperate.

And Obama - apart from the fact that he also supports mortgage relief - has linked this current crisis to the unrestrained free market system.

Yet he ignores the fact that during the Clinton era, the problem of sub-prime loans really started when President Clinton directly encouraged the likes of Fanny and Freddy to increase housing loans to people who would not normally qualify for them.

This populist stance has now backfired in an enormous way and it set a precedent that encouraged this kind of risky behavior in the first place (especially where countless numbers of people are now defaulting, which is causing these collapses).

It's one thing to guarantee bank deposits (where you won't lose your positive bank balance if the bank goes under), but it's another thing to guarantee that bad debts will be covered as an ongoing rule.

As for healthcare, I just think that the US needs to get out of this mindset that it's either 100% free market or 100% "socialism". What a joke. Whether or not an institution or system is public or private isn't relevant to its performance - what matters is the design of the system and its effectiveness to deliver outcomes for its consumers.

I'm so sick of hearing the same objection to public healthcare that involves it being "socialist". That argument betrays both an ignorance about existing public systems (including in other countries) as well as a stubbornness to simply [i]not improve[/i] or reform for the sake of politics or ideology. While that kind of debate prevails, Americans will continue to go without the healthcare that they rightfully deserve.[/font]

[Guest Crimson Spider]

[quote name='Katakidoushi']"Following a pair of Supreme Court decisions which deregulated the banking industry, credit card companies relocated to states with no interest rate caps and charged “what they wanted” to borrowers in states with interest rate limits. McCain’s reform takes a similar tact. He would allow health insurers to operate across state lines “without complying with the laws in the state in which they operate,” and permit insurance plans from out-of-state to lure away healthier patients.

I insurance companies “would have little incentive to continue doing business” under certain state rules which “require that companies issue coverage to all new customers and not set higher rates for people who are already sick”:[/quote]

This ignores the GAP plan by generalizing the credit situation into the insurance situation. Pretty much just re-stating the worst-case scenario given that assumes that McCain would sit on his hands for four years after the bill is passed IF a problem occurs.

Insurance companies already don't have this issue. Consumer protections don't exist in the majority of states, so letting inter-state trade will refine the system by forcing companies to provide decent coverage for decent costs. Even then, McCain is going to expand the high-risk pool to cover those few unlucky individuals that it would be insane to insure, so they wouldn't need to have public insurance.

[quote][Under legislation that McCain supports], insurers wouldn’t even need to pick up and move their operations; it would be enough to file some paperwork with a state insurance commissioner and pay that state’s relevant taxes…An insurer operating under Arizona law would be able to offer healthy New Yorkers a cheaper policy than an insurer working under New York law that has to price policies the same for everyone.[/quote]

That, my good man, is the fundamentals of capitalism. The companies with better plans and operations do better. New-York companies are going to have to stand up and work in a better environment. Also, think of all the people with pre-existing conditions that will move their business to New York because it gives a flat rate to everyone instead of adjusted rates like in Arizona.


[quote]If the deregulated environment allows credit card companies to “use pricing practices, like teaser rates, to attract cash-strapped families and then…double or triple those rates without notice,” Robert Gordon (senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund) argues that McCain’s approach to deregulating the health insurance industry would similarly permit insurance companies to deny coverage to Americans with pre-existing conditions and “improve their own profits by offering targeted policies to people with the fewest health expenses”:[/quote]

This is an issue with assuming the worst case scenario: You assume illegal practices will be done. My family was offered the balloon payment system to buy a house, and was smart enough to actually read what the plan was. We declined, and now we have a steady mortgage and interest rate. This also ignores the transparency program proposed that would prevent "teaser rates" from hiding the real costs.

[[quote]As with the history of credit cards, it’s Robin Hood in reverse. Apart from the obvious injustice, this approach could add to spiraling health costs. The sickest 10 percent of Americans are already responsible for 70 percent of the nation’s health expenses. When more such Americans go uninsured, skip checkups, and land in the emergency room, they end up costing taxpayers more.

Pre-existing conditions are not confined to chronic diseases. In fact, some individual insurance companies do not count a C-section as a pre-existing condition, and policies differ based on state laws and regulations. Under McCain’s proposal to free insurance companies from state regulations, insurers that continue to extend coverage to moms who have had a C-section would quickly find themselves at a competitive disadvantage with insurers that provide the least protection to new moms. Thus, McCain’s deregulation scheme, like past banking reforms, seeks to extend industry profits, not consumer protections."
-thinkprogress.org[/QUOTE]

And the company that does provide coverage from C-sections would find themselves a competitive edge with the amount of women who go to them. It's called capitalism, and unlike Obama's plan, countless private insurers are not going to go under due to the extensive costs to the company that need to be made because they are required to offer equal opportunity coverage to everyone with premium caps. I will bring this up when responding to James.


[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]
Another problem - systemic in corporate institutions in America - is that executives are often given bonuses related to risky speculation and short-term gains, rather than the development of longterm growth and stability. This system has run rampant and has encouraged a massive shift in attitude toward hollow gambling rather than sound economics.

And previous regulations (like the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act) were largely useless. Michael Barr (US Treasury official) recently commented that 50% of sub-prime loans came from institutions not covered by the legislation. And a further 25 - 30% were only partially covered.

So the problem there was not the existence of regulation, but the absence of [i]comprehensive[/i] legislation.[/font][/quote]

I did a search on the CRA of 1977, and found an interesting link.

[url]http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0[/url]

Though it is mostly trying to mud-sling Obama (both a red-herring, and also largely irrelevant to the issue it is trying to address), it does bring some light into the nature of the risky loan system. And in part, I am personally thankful for this act, because it is how my family managed to get a home. It tries to enforce an ideal that I don't necessarily agree with, but I have found to be naive of the nature of the universe.

The CRA plan aimed to give opportunities to low-income families, that were made up primarily of ethnic minorities recovering from the recent civil rights movement. Under the current system, it was all but impossible for the poor man to pick himself up and continue on in his life, because he was a high-risk investment. Companies would be insane to try to give a loan to such a person, so the poor were going to stay poor.

The best option? Who knows. What we eventually went with was legislation pressuring banks to make risky loans. They did so, and now my family has a house and very little credit card debt after being buried in it. So, though my family was high-risk, it paid off and then some for the banks.

But this raises a question in my head, which I will summarily answer: Why did it take 30 years for the financial melt down? The answer? Two things: the changing economy with inflation in common markets, and the changing culture with obsessions towards material objects.

From what I have heard (I have yet to research this), people who were offered the balloon payment plan for their house were established an account that would give lee-way for future price increases in the market by providing financial support (savings? loan? tax credit? Not sure). What people did, however, was withdraw the money from this account and blow it on material possessions. Markets in the U.S. were moving incredibly fast, with the Iphone and the Blackberry and the GPS-music playing-camera-calculator phone that sends text messages with various new fonts that would come out every three months, each one costing hundreds of dollars.

There were other pressures, as well. The modernization of China (along with other pressures) caused the prices of all metals to skyrocket, along with gas prices. With gas prices climbing by 200% in the span of a year, Ethanol initiatives quickly took away from the food market, making all foods more expensive and not making a dent in the oil prices. It was unfortunate that the SUV was one of the most popular vehicles until it was naturally selected out, which made oil consumption prices skyrocket, along with insurance premiums on vehicles (gigantic rolling death machines, after all).

All of these factors combined made risky loans a lot riskier, because unforseen costs were now weighing heavy on the standard American's wallet. That is my initial thesis. Though I just remembered a source I usually consult first, but I'll read up what Letxa has to say later.


[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]McCain's $300Bn dollar plan to buy up mortgages is asenine. Not only is it completely fiscally irresponsible, but it [i]encourages[/i] reckless borrowing by consumers.

The message is essentially that if you stupidly borrow 110% of your home value (and therefore have no equity at all), and you default, the Government will dive in and bail you out. This is totally irresponsible, goes against many of his earlier comments and also ignores one of this problem's chief causes.

It also creates a precedent whereby Government will become responsible for defaulting mortages in an ongoing sense - there did not seem to be a "one off" sense about this concept. This is highly dangerous and it comes across as utterly desperate.

And Obama - apart from the fact that he also supports mortgage relief - has linked this current crisis to the unrestrained free market system.

Yet he ignores the fact that during the Clinton era, the problem of sub-prime loans really started when President Clinton directly encouraged the likes of Fanny and Freddy to increase housing loans to people who would not normally qualify for them.

This populist stance has now backfired in an enormous way and it set a precedent that encouraged this kind of risky behavior in the first place (especially where countless numbers of people are now defaulting, which is causing these collapses).

It's one thing to guarantee bank deposits (where you won't lose your positive bank balance if the bank goes under), but it's another thing to guarantee that bad debts will be covered as an ongoing rule.[/quote][/font]

Eloquently said. I agree for the most part. The credit system has proven itself unable to cope with the costs of the ideal universe (coverage and no poverty), and it is unfortunate that the innocent people get harmed. Though me and my sister have incredible job security, my father's employer can go under in a heartbeat, though it has never made any risky loans or financial mistakes on its own. And this is the greatest support for the rescue plan.

The system has been stretched so far that [i]everyone[/i] loses. The rescue plan is really for the innocent people pulled into the void. Though it does come with its list of problems.

Namely, it assumes that people, after tripping and nearly falling off of a cliff, will learn their lesson and not sit on the edge. Some will, but will enough people learn their lesson and not have this happen again? That, I cannot answer. If they do, then the tax-hike from the bailout is truly the lesser of evils, and things will continue on with a lesson learned. If... they learn.

The greatest issue is that the political ideal of equal opportunity blindly given to everyone WILL still be applied. It is unfortunate for me to say this, but the fact of the matter is that no, not everyone can be covered. Not everyone should be pulled out of poverty. Not everyone can have a loan, go to college, or pursue their dreams. This is not because it is inherently evil for them to do so, but it is inherently impractical and impossible for them to do so.



[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]As for healthcare, I just think that the US needs to get out of this mindset that it's either 100% free market or 100% "socialism". What a joke. Whether or not an institution or system is public or private isn't relevant to its performance - what matters is the design of the system and its effectiveness to deliver outcomes for its consumers.

I'm so sick of hearing the same objection to public healthcare that involves it being "socialist". That argument betrays both an ignorance about existing public systems (including in other countries) as well as a stubbornness to simply [i]not improve[/i] or reform for the sake of politics or ideology. While that kind of debate prevails, Americans will continue to go without the healthcare that they rightfully deserve.[/font][/QUOTE]

Thankfully both candidates are proposing a mix system, but the real debate is what each system will favor. Both sides have problems, and sitting smack dab in the middle has problems, too. The debate really is which point should we hang out at.



EDIT: So I finally read what Letxa had to say, and again I think he has brilliantly orchestrated what has gone down, and where.

A very interesting read here: [url]http://www.letxa.com/articles/25[/url]

Basically, though my criticism of Balloon Payments isn't as correct as I'd like it to be, this is recommended reading for anyone interested in the Financial Crisis.

[Mr. Blonde]

First of all, I'd hardly turn to the NY Post for comprehensive journalism. It's little more than a glorified tabloid. Murdoch prints what Washington bureucrats pay him to print.

But thats not the point. And I'm also washing my hands of this thread after this because I'm about to Incredible Hulk my computer, so this is all I have to say on this subject:

Through all of the articles we've sited and experts (some of us) have quoted, one fact remains undeniable, that Barack Obama's health care plan is more favorable to a wider majority of the population. You mentioned you had a problem with government backed insurance, how do you believe McCain is going to pay for those "high risk" pools? The same way they pay for them now, with government backing. His plan is unnessesarily complicated.

The Brookings Institution and Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center estimate that the tax-related provisions in the McCain plan would cost about $1.3 trillion over ten years starting in 2009. In addition, the Guaranteed Access Plans, or high-risk pools, envisioned in the plan would cost about $70-$100 billion over this period. Over the 10-year period analyzed by the TPC, Obama's plan provides far greater "bang-for-the-buck," and spending far less per capita for its coverage of the uninsured population.

Also how does McCain expect to be able to cover millions upon millions of high risk Americans with a pool that can barely (and ineffeciantly) cover a couple hundred thousand people now. Even with the expansion of these pools the Tax Policy Center estimates that under McCain's health plan by 2013, 16 million Americans would lose the health benefits they get from their employer and the number of uninsured would increase to 55 million, 8 million more than today. Twenty million Americans; about one in every eight people with job-based coverage would lose their current coverage as a result of the change in the tax treatment of coverage.

Initially, this loss of job-based coverage would be offset by an increase in coverage in the nongroup market (although not necessarily for the same individuals). Within five years, however, the net effect of the plan is expected to be a net reduction in coverage relative to what would have been observed if the tax treatment of employer-sponsored coverage remains as it is now.

The decline of job-based coverage would force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system (the nongroup market), where cost sharing is high and covered services are limited. McCain's proposal to deregulate this market would mean that people in it would lose protections they now have.

How will he deal with age rating, medical underwriting, and pre-existing conditions? If McCain does not develop an individual health insurance market everyone can access, no matter how old they are or how sick they are, his scheme will fall way short.

Loop hole after loop hole leaves his plan looking more like a leaky ship than a way out of our healthcare crisis. The question regarding the health care crisis has always been how do we protect the sick? What is an AIDS patient that spends nearly 1 million a year on medication going to do with $2,500? They're going to die.

By deregulating the healthcare market, McCain plan would clearly decrease the sharing of health care risk. This would result in lower insurance costs for the young and healthy but would increase cost and decrease access for older individuals and the sick (the people who need health care.)

You're assuming that capitalism and social Darwinism would take over just as it has in other industries and then you say you can't compare health care to other industries. Why hasn't your theory worked regarding oil prices? Why doesn't Shell just drop their price of gas by $1 a gallon and clean up? Because that's not how the real world works.

Healthcare cost inflation is a constant. It has always rose and it will always rise. A dip in healthcare costs under McCain's plan is next to impossible. It won't dip under Obama's plan either but at least the sick will get the care they need. The $2,500 ($5,000 for families) bonus would be obsolete as soon as the market costs rise, which is inevitable.

[Anime_girl5]

Ok i wanna say this to the people who havent voted yet!

DONT VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!!!

He will ruien america!

y vote for the type we're fighting aginst!?

truthfully I dont agree with mccain or obama.


but mccain over the freak anyday!

[Rachmaninoff]

You've missed the point of the thread [B]Anime_girl5[/B].

That point being: for you to tell us what you thought of the debates instead of a pitch to vote for McCain. If you really want people to listen to what you've said, I'd suggest taking the time to learn about the candidates in question, in addition to cleaning up your grammar and spelling.

No one is going to take what you've just said seriously. Especially since it made no sense whatsoever. You failed to back up the claim that Obama is going to ruin America just as calling someone a freak doesn't really lend any credibility to your statements.

I'm kind of curious to know if you've even watched any of the debates at all.

[Anime_girl5]

I'm not stupid!

and u dont listen then.

I believe obama is wrong. and if he wins, america is doomed.

Truthfully, I wish Bush could run again ( eve tho he cant)

I will stand up for my self from people like u.


so what if I missed the point idc. sry that I did.

but ik for a fact that I am right about obama.

get over it please.

I wont post here again, unless I need to. and hopefully I wont have to...


thank you very much....:animesigh

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=#9933ff]Okay the above post makes no sense to me and is badly typed so I'll ignore it just like I ignore most of the GOP

I think Obama would be a breath of fresh air to the states. Heck maybe now our allies will like us since right now they don't and maybe now we'd have health care.

That's all I have to say right now because I have to go to bed.[/color]