Why has the national healthcare debate ignored one of the most feasible options to insure all Americans? Like federal transportation funds that are provided to states that abide by MPH limits, why not give each state funds based on how many people are provided with health insurance? Let the states decide what type of insurance to offer - my personal favorite is Catastrophic coverage with a $3k deductibe. The cost is about $100 per month for the insured. Above that, they need to cover any health expenses up to $3k out of pocket. But, at the least, these people are now given peace of mind for any expensive treatments or operations.
The feds could cover some portion of that $50 per month with tax credits, or partial reimbursement to the state if it is picking up the cost. Let's keep in mind that the majority of people in this country are not sick, but need emergency care, which is what is driving up healthcare insurance for those of us who have it.
Btw, Judd Gregg proposed a solution similar to this, but it got nowhere.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
The other shoe is dropping
We are Japan:
Aging population
Loss of manufacturing base
Severe debt
Lack of political will for change
Financial-Legal economic base
Some can argue effectively that we are worse off than Japan - we are fighting two wars, 40% of homeowner are underwater in their mortgages, real unemployment is close to 20% and on.
Aside from the fact that Japanese save more than - oops - that just changed too as Americans are now saving more than they have in the last 30 years.
The housing market won't be coming back for at least another 5-10 years. Where will jobs come from? Unless our government backs huge subsidies for residential and commercial green energy (solar, geothermal and wind), we will continue to fall behind the rest of the world in this area and lose an opportunity to create millions of new jobs in the tech and manufacturing verticals (by selling our better products overseas). Think about it, what is the next big economic boost? The internet was supposed to be that, but it really is a productivity tool in disguise, ultimately leading to a shift in jobs, not a creation tool.
If you want to see where our stock markets are going, simply look to the Nikkei. Anyone expecting a long bull market going forward will be disappointed. Dividends are a must. Having the time to find the diamonds in the rough in the key sectors is critical. But buy and hold at best will keep your portfolio neutral.
Your best bet? Pay down debt.
Aging population
Loss of manufacturing base
Severe debt
Lack of political will for change
Financial-Legal economic base
Some can argue effectively that we are worse off than Japan - we are fighting two wars, 40% of homeowner are underwater in their mortgages, real unemployment is close to 20% and on.
Aside from the fact that Japanese save more than - oops - that just changed too as Americans are now saving more than they have in the last 30 years.
The housing market won't be coming back for at least another 5-10 years. Where will jobs come from? Unless our government backs huge subsidies for residential and commercial green energy (solar, geothermal and wind), we will continue to fall behind the rest of the world in this area and lose an opportunity to create millions of new jobs in the tech and manufacturing verticals (by selling our better products overseas). Think about it, what is the next big economic boost? The internet was supposed to be that, but it really is a productivity tool in disguise, ultimately leading to a shift in jobs, not a creation tool.
If you want to see where our stock markets are going, simply look to the Nikkei. Anyone expecting a long bull market going forward will be disappointed. Dividends are a must. Having the time to find the diamonds in the rough in the key sectors is critical. But buy and hold at best will keep your portfolio neutral.
Your best bet? Pay down debt.
Friday, March 6, 2009
RIP: Conspicuous Consumption
Incredibly the mass media continues to portray the current economic downturn as a one-sided affair: bad for everyone.
Interestingly, i see a very big silver lining: the end of conspicuous consumption as we know it. When i was a kid in the 70's, I remember my folks saving money and only spending on items as we needed them. TV's weren't upgraded unless they died. The same was true with cars, and to some extent clothing.
Clearly, as we entered the 80's, all of that changed and the cause de rigeur was consumption for any reason. The downside of this new lifestyle (an age of selfishness i believe) was a huge downturn in savings.
Well, after 28 years of consumption-based lifestyles, the world has quickly changed and hopefully it will be a permanent one. In order to keep people in the consumption lifestyle of the last 28 years, the government (via the Fed, Treasury and Fannie/Freddie, etc) worked its hardest to keep people flush with cash to spend. Clearly the outcome of this was multiple economic bubbles including commodities, housing, stock market, gold, etc.
The piper needs to be paid, and it will take awhile. In the meantime, hopefully parents will spend more time with children instead of shopping, neighbors will stop and chat a little more and people in general will recognize that life is still pretty good. Don't let the media convince any different.
Interestingly, i see a very big silver lining: the end of conspicuous consumption as we know it. When i was a kid in the 70's, I remember my folks saving money and only spending on items as we needed them. TV's weren't upgraded unless they died. The same was true with cars, and to some extent clothing.
Clearly, as we entered the 80's, all of that changed and the cause de rigeur was consumption for any reason. The downside of this new lifestyle (an age of selfishness i believe) was a huge downturn in savings.
Well, after 28 years of consumption-based lifestyles, the world has quickly changed and hopefully it will be a permanent one. In order to keep people in the consumption lifestyle of the last 28 years, the government (via the Fed, Treasury and Fannie/Freddie, etc) worked its hardest to keep people flush with cash to spend. Clearly the outcome of this was multiple economic bubbles including commodities, housing, stock market, gold, etc.
The piper needs to be paid, and it will take awhile. In the meantime, hopefully parents will spend more time with children instead of shopping, neighbors will stop and chat a little more and people in general will recognize that life is still pretty good. Don't let the media convince any different.
Monday, February 2, 2009
The Future of America is Green Subsidization
The answer to how will America grow its economy quickly is simple: The government needs to heavily subsidize commerical and residential green development. If the government subsidized 50% of the cost of all green installation (wind/solar/hydro/geothermal, etc.) through 2015 as long as the purchases were from products manufactured in America, we would:
1) generate millions of new jobs (manufacturing/sales/engineering)
2) quickly become the world leader in technology
3) cut our oil dependence dramatically
We should stop bailing out Detroit and the banks and let the poorly run companies fail. Any bailout money should become a stimulus package in the form of subsidies to purchase green goods.
1) generate millions of new jobs (manufacturing/sales/engineering)
2) quickly become the world leader in technology
3) cut our oil dependence dramatically
We should stop bailing out Detroit and the banks and let the poorly run companies fail. Any bailout money should become a stimulus package in the form of subsidies to purchase green goods.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Saving Social Security
Obama has tons of political capital right now AND the country needs to save money, so why not tackle Social Security with the increase in age longevity in mind. Since SS was introduced more than 60 years ago no change to the starting age has occurred, which makes absolutely no sense since the average person lives 10 years longer than they did then.
1) As of February 1, 2009, if you are 60 or over your Social Security benefits remain the same (start at age 65, etc.)
2) As of February 1, 2009, if you are 50-59, your benefits will begin at age 68.
3) As of February 1, 2009, if you are 40-49, your benefits will begin at age 71.
4) As of February 1, 2009 if you are 30-39, your benefits will begin at age 74.
5) As of February 1, 2009 if you are 20-29, your benefits will begin at age 77.
Once this is done, the same thing can be done for all pensions at Federal and State levels. Run the numbers and you'll see this will effectively and signicantly reduce national and state debt.
1) As of February 1, 2009, if you are 60 or over your Social Security benefits remain the same (start at age 65, etc.)
2) As of February 1, 2009, if you are 50-59, your benefits will begin at age 68.
3) As of February 1, 2009, if you are 40-49, your benefits will begin at age 71.
4) As of February 1, 2009 if you are 30-39, your benefits will begin at age 74.
5) As of February 1, 2009 if you are 20-29, your benefits will begin at age 77.
Once this is done, the same thing can be done for all pensions at Federal and State levels. Run the numbers and you'll see this will effectively and signicantly reduce national and state debt.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Sports teams contract
My first prediction for 2009 is that by the end of 2010, at least 4 professional sports franchises in the NHL, NBA, MLB and NFL will shut their doors and have to be absorbed by the league or terminated altogether. Ultimately, this will make the overall product better as expansion over the last 25 years has diluted play and ultimately, the value of the product.
I believe this will happen primarily as fans pull back on paying for ridiculous ticket prices, concessions and parking. Sadly, this could be a boon for teams like the Yankees who picked up 3 marquee players and over the next 5-6 years should have a huge financial advantage over most of MLB.
I believe this will happen primarily as fans pull back on paying for ridiculous ticket prices, concessions and parking. Sadly, this could be a boon for teams like the Yankees who picked up 3 marquee players and over the next 5-6 years should have a huge financial advantage over most of MLB.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Football Tease
Well, to date i'm 7-1 in picking either 4 team or 2 team teases. It's been a reasonably easy year to go with the four team tease as you get an extra 13 points to add or deduct from the point spread.
Last week i went with the Texans at home against a vulnerable Titans team and the Steelers on the Road vs the Ravens. While i still can't buy the Steelers as the best team in the AFC, they continue to find a way to win and as 10 point underdogs in a 2 team tease, there was no way not to pick them.
Stay tuned for this weeks picks, which i will post on Friday.
Last week i went with the Texans at home against a vulnerable Titans team and the Steelers on the Road vs the Ravens. While i still can't buy the Steelers as the best team in the AFC, they continue to find a way to win and as 10 point underdogs in a 2 team tease, there was no way not to pick them.
Stay tuned for this weeks picks, which i will post on Friday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)