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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)