ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:02:09 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:




Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.


You want to pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket? I suppose
that's
fair.

I am curious, who's pocket do you think health care gets paid out of?

Do you really think it is sustainable to have an insurance premium or
tax that is less than the cost of care?
It is true that healthy people pay for the sick, the ones with
unhealthy lifestyles and the hypochondriacs but that is the plan isn't
it?
Medical insurance has been a huge loser for me. I suppose I will get
sick some day but so far I would have been a lot better off if I had
my premiums back and just paid my bills.


Subscribers spread the risk with a little left over to build insurance
company sky scrapers. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.
For the average person who doesn't get sick Health Insurance isn't
necessary. But WHAT IF something un foreseen happens and you don't have the
cash to pay the expenses? That's how insurance companies, all insurance
companies, hook you.

Now, thanks to Bam Bam, you get to pay for insuring the heretofore
uninsured and uninsurable. Many of whom probably subscribe to unhealthy
lifestyles such as Alcohol-Tobacco-Drug-Firearm abuse and or obesity.

--
Harold

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"Harry ?" wrote in message
m...
On 7/26/10 12:04 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:49:23 -0400, Harry
wrote:

On 7/26/10 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.

... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't?


It wouldn't have to, would it? Remember, I am an advocate of the swiss
system, in which the basic plans offered are all the same, and could
easily be administered (claims received, claims paid) by a non-profit
third party, since procedures and medications would be covered or not,
and lists would be circulated and coded. If you want additional
coverages, and many would, private insurance companies could sell those
separately through a regulated process.

I advocate dumping the current health care payment process and coming up
with something entirely different.

I guess my problem with the government is their vulnerability to
fraud. Medicare is the shining example of a low overhead way to pay
bills, when you ask but their fraud rate is a lot higher than the
private insurers. For some reason our government is very susceptible
to getting robbed. (Medicare, DoD procurement, USDA programs,
whatever)
Perhaps the Swiss are just more honest.


Sadly, we tolerate fraud. Look at government defense contracting.


Why stop there.

--
Harold

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:02:09 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:




Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.


You want to pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket? I suppose
that's
fair.

I am curious, who's pocket do you think health care gets paid out of?

Do you really think it is sustainable to have an insurance premium or
tax that is less than the cost of care?
It is true that healthy people pay for the sick, the ones with
unhealthy lifestyles and the hypochondriacs but that is the plan isn't
it?
Medical insurance has been a huge loser for me. I suppose I will get
sick some day but so far I would have been a lot better off if I had
my premiums back and just paid my bills.

Because you can predict the future? The point of insurance is to have a
hedge against the future. All it takes is one catastrophic illness to
destroy your savings.

And, as far as basic coverage goes, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for
checkups and such and deal with minor problems than have people show up in
the ER requiring heroic/expensive procedures.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"Harold" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:02:09 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:




Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.


You want to pay for your healthcare out of your own pocket? I suppose
that's
fair.

I am curious, who's pocket do you think health care gets paid out of?

Do you really think it is sustainable to have an insurance premium or
tax that is less than the cost of care?
It is true that healthy people pay for the sick, the ones with
unhealthy lifestyles and the hypochondriacs but that is the plan isn't
it?
Medical insurance has been a huge loser for me. I suppose I will get
sick some day but so far I would have been a lot better off if I had
my premiums back and just paid my bills.


Subscribers spread the risk with a little left over to build insurance
company sky scrapers. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.
For the average person who doesn't get sick Health Insurance isn't
necessary. But WHAT IF something un foreseen happens and you don't have
the cash to pay the expenses? That's how insurance companies, all
insurance companies, hook you.

Now, thanks to Bam Bam, you get to pay for insuring the heretofore
uninsured and uninsurable. Many of whom probably subscribe to unhealthy
lifestyles such as Alcohol-Tobacco-Drug-Firearm abuse and or obesity.

--
Harold


Thanks to you, we get an example of a congenital moron on a daily basis.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.

... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't?

The "huge gov't bureaucracy" has much lower overhead than private companies.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 11:49:23 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:

On 7/26/10 11:43 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:52:05 -0400, Harry
wrote:

Health insurers do not deliver a product the consumer needs or wants.
Health care is already out there...it exists. Health insurance adds an
unnecessary middle-man factor.

... and a huge government bureaucracy wouldn't?


It wouldn't have to, would it? Remember, I am an advocate of the swiss
system, in which the basic plans offered are all the same, and could
easily be administered (claims received, claims paid) by a non-profit
third party, since procedures and medications would be covered or not,
and lists would be circulated and coded. If you want additional
coverages, and many would, private insurance companies could sell those
separately through a regulated process.

I advocate dumping the current health care payment process and coming up
with something entirely different.

I guess my problem with the government is their vulnerability to
fraud. Medicare is the shining example of a low overhead way to pay
bills, when you ask but their fraud rate is a lot higher than the
private insurers. For some reason our government is very susceptible
to getting robbed. (Medicare, DoD procurement, USDA programs,
whatever)
Perhaps the Swiss are just more honest.

Right. It's higher, but that's fixable. The Medicare system works pretty
well for most people. But, it sure is easier to decry all gov't and tell
people to fend for themselves.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:23:25 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

The guys who operate them don't need near as much skill as the worker
they replaced and the robot does a more consistent job.

Not necessarily. The person who now controls a whole production line from
a
control room has to be highly skilled.


That is said by a person who doesn't understand how long it takes to
learn to be a machinist or even a good welder.
The computer operator can learn his job in a week. Most of the
processes are actually monitored by another computer. There are
usually a couple of techs around who have a bit of training but not as
much as you would suspect. These machines are like most of the
computer industry. It is cheaper to replace whole assemblies than to
fix them.
We called it "cut open the box" technology.

I don't think you know me well enough to make such a statement. There is
extensive training for many, many professions, including computer "operator"
(sounds like you're not to familiar with those requirements).



so you tell me: how does the middle class spend money it does not
have?

You are starting to see why I fear for out future.
The idea that you can get employers to pay workers more when the
product cost can't go up is not going to happen.

Well, fear is the operative word. Product cost can go up if the quality is
better and/or it has better features/functionality.


That has not been the trend. The American public does not appreciate
quality, nor demand service. In the late 80s, IBM and most other
industries started a "quality quest" with quality circles, Six Sigma
and ISO 9000. The holy grail was to emulate Sony.

Actually, that has been the trend, whatever that means. There are lots of
American made, high quality products that sell fine.

That was quickly replaced with a philosophy of "market driven quality"
and the model became WalMart. We were all marched into a room, given a
bag of M&Ms and told to evaluate them. It turned out there were not
even the same number in each bag and there were defects in at least
half of them,. (true story) Everyone was still happy with the quality
and was not interested in paying more for better quality control.
The whole company was moving in that direction. We even got new hats
http://gfretwell.com/electrical/mdq.jpg

It's easy to id an anecdote and claim that is the general case, but that
doesn't make it so.

The lesson was clear. The American public values a lower price more
than quality, service or even saving American jobs.
I ask you, do you go to Sam's/BJs/Costco? It is certainly not for the
service or even the quality. It is for the price.

Actually, I go to Costco because of the customer service. If something
breaks, they don't hassle you at all. The quality is pretty much the same as
you would find elsewhere, especially for things like cameras/computers, even
some clothing. Most people go there for the wholesale quantities.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:27:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:13:47 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 18:28:29 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the
speculation.
But you're a speculator.

The debt is 14 trillion, they will either have to raise taxes or
monetize the debt and inflate this money away.




?? Not sure what you're trying to say. We're at historically low tax
rates.
Taxes will likely rise. Not sure what the national debt has to do with
the
strategy I outlined.


I am saying the same thing you just said. Taxes are going to go up. It
would behoove people to lock in their gains at the lower rate but if
many people try to do it, the gains will go away. That is the classic
game of chicken. I just think the cliff is in December so the question
is only, "when do you jump out of the car"?

Firstly, it's not much of a speculation that taxes will likely go up...
as
I
said, several times, and again... they are at historic lows.

Speculation was your word.

Nope. I never used that word. I said it's likely that taxes will rise.

Who wrote the top quote here?

"You're speculating about future taxes with no basis for the
speculation.
But you're a speculator."

There's no way to "lock in your gains" at the lower rate, unless you're
talking about a Roth conversion, and not everyone can do that or should
do
that. There are other strategies, one of which I outlined that can
reduce
tax payout.

I have equities too but even if I simply cashed out my 401k it might
be better than waiting to see what the tax man would do to me down the
road.

Feel free. I doubt you'll be doing that.

I do believe I can roll into a roth tho.

Well, you can. The question is, is it worth it. Are you going to make up
for
the taxes you'll have to pay when you front-load... that's the question.
Usually, that sort of move is best for fairly young people.

I am not sure I am going to mess with my 401k but I will have my
finger on the trigger for a few of my stocks.

Investing in individual stocks is a very risky business. It can be a
full-time job to time things properly.


What else do I have to do? I am retired. It is really not that hard to
track 4 or 5 stocks. These days with the internet you can find out
things used to take days to dig out in seconds.

The "cliff" in December will likely be for those over $250K/year. It's
highly doubtful that a Democrat would vote for a tax increase for lower
and
middle class taxpayers just prior to an election.


I have already said, my real guess is they will just extend the cuts,
unaltered for a year and deal with it next year after the election. It
is in the GOP's interest to do that and there are enough blue dogs to
make it stick.

Yes, it's possible. It's in the GOP's interest to protect their rich
benefactors.


The GOP are not the only ones taking big money contributions. Both
parties are beholden to essentially the same people. The whole idea of
small individual contributors falls apart when you learn about
bundlers.

The GOP aren't the only ones, but they are certainly the most strident when
it comes to protecting those big money interests.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 23:18:00 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 22:53:40 -0400, wrote:




I am saying the same thing you just said. Taxes are going to go up. It
would behoove people to lock in their gains at the lower rate but if
many people try to do it, the gains will go away. That is the classic
game of chicken. I just think the cliff is in December so the question
is only, "when do you jump out of the car"?

in the last 30 years the richest 1% have had a 500% REAL increase in
income.

any reason they SHOULDNT pay more taxes?

I think they should but as long as they are pumping close to a billion
into an election cycle, the whores in DC are not going to do it.

I only have to point to the health care bill. After lots of promises
to help the little guy, the Senate let a couple of UHC lobbyists write
a bill that simply handed 20-30 million new customers into the
existing system ... at the point of a government gun.

UHC lobbyists didn't write the bill. They had too much input, but it's a
right-wing conspiracy that they wrote it.

Is the bill perfect? No. Can it be improved? Yes. Will it be improved? Yes.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:28:09 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:



If only them thar people up there in Washington would start acting decently
and responsibly to serve the needs of ALL the people. The first thing the
Govt. needs to do is get out of the jobs and cars and healthcare businesses
and plant the seeds for entrapanerial ventures that create products and

the govt IS out of the healthcare business for most people

that's why healthcare is so expensive and doesnt cover everyone. it's
known as a 'market failure