Economy

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by ElfBane Socialized medicine should (and hopefully one day, will) be a Right. NO ONE should be financially ruined because of health. We should make medicine free, and not count the cost. I realize (and everyone else on this BB realizes it) that socialized medicine is paid for by increased taxes (your knee can jerk now), so please don't say that again.

My knee isn't jerking at all. The left are the ones that keep lauding socialized healthcare as "free" healthcare and the general public tends to buy the rhetoric since all they see is that they won't have to pay directly when they go to the hospital. So, all I'm doing is stating a fact - there is no such thing as "free" healthcare; it has to be paid for - by the consumer - one way or the other.

Those who keep calling for "free gov't healthcare" are no more informed or intelligent than the random teabagger that said "Tell the gov't to leave my Medicare alone".

I've also said before (again, many times) that I'm not opposed to a national health care plan and, in fact, it's one of the reasons I voted for Obama. While I seriously doubt the ability of our gov't to run an effective and efficient healthcare system, Obama's plan is the best option for one I've seen proposed for our nation so far. That doesn't mean it's a good plan, by any means. There are MANY inherent flaws in the plan, but any healthcare system will have to start somewhere and then be adjusted and tweaked by future admins as time goes along and Obama-Care can give the foundation to start building on. I still don't think it is a great idea and it will end up costing us more in the long run (both in higher taxes and restricted services), but if we're going to have a nationalized plan, we have to start somewhere.

Originally Posted by ElfBane Education should be free, or heavily subsidized. Until that happens I don't want to hear politicians OF ANY STRIPE, tell us about Education's Importance. Because they aren't putting their money where their mouth is.

You'll get no argument from me there. EVERY state in the nation is facing huge budget deficits because the federal and state governments always seem to cut education funding first. Teachers have worked for several years without any raises and face increasing lay-offs every year. Aside from the keen personal interest I have in education being better funded, it just makes fundamental sense as well. NO politician ever got elected by saying "I think we should slash all the money we're spending on education". Nope, not a one. To a man (and woman), they ALL say "I'll work tirelessly to insure better-qualified teachers educating our children in classrooms with fewer students so each child can get the more individual attention they deserve". That lasts until they get in office and start working on the budget (although our own State Governor DID fight the Repubs General Assembly tooth and nail to prevent the passing of a huge cut in education spending).

The reality is that ANY society that does NOT emphasize educating their population are doomed to eventually fail. Why our politicians cannot see this universal truth is beyond me.

Originally Posted by ElfBane Micah and Cerek: Good to see you back. The endless sea of right-wing BS over at the Oasis does get old, and here you will get lively debate.

No, here you guys have been having an endless sea of left-wing BS. It just seemed "lively" because you all agree with each other, with the rare exception of occasional interruptions from Felix and LoA.

The debates over at Oasis are generally based far more on actual data and statistics and less on rhetoric than the arguments here, but you're right that the lefties left Oasis so the conservatives have been left to debate issues among ourselves. And, like the core group here, we tend to agree on most issues, so the debates were usually pretty short-lived.

[Micah Foehammer]

[QUOTE]How can you not understand something then think it's wrong? Or is it because you don't understand it that it becomes wrong by default? IRDK. Btw those figures are awesome. [QUOTE]

No what I can't understand is how you can continue to insist that mortgage debt is insurmountable when it simply isn't.

Look i get it that it's a HUGE amount for a loan, and assuming that much debt CAN be scary. But IT IS NOT INSURMOUNTABLE. The ability of the overwhelming majority of mortgage holders to NOT default on their mortgages should have been more than ample proof of that.

When I originally said this you agreed that some borrowing was necessary - expected, almost. Now you're talking about infinite borrowing, which is different.

Not infinite and some creep is expected due to inflation but the government is adding debt WELL beyond that.

Many do, but many don't. People are silly with money. Credit lines etc. are the enablers to living beyond your means. There are far more of these people now than ever before.

Since you didn't offer any numbers, I did some checking and the numbers were higher than I expected. (The following numbers are from 2011 unless otherwise noted)

The majority (~60%) of credit card holders pay their balance in full each month. However according to the Federal Reserve Bank, 40% of American families spend more than they earn. Okay that's just STUPID imho and the 60-40 ratio is lower than I expected. But it's nice to see that the majority of credit card holders DO manage their finances well. Surpisingly, TransUnion is reporting that in 2010 the number of credit card delinquencies actually went down by 17% despite the status of the economy.

29% of low and middle income households with credit card debt reported that medical expenses contributed to their current balances. (That's one of the situations where I maintained overextending was justified remember?). If you reduce the 40% by the 29% who had medical emergencies, the % who overspend is now closer to 28%. Still pretty high but closer to what I expected. That's better than a 2-1 ratio for those who CAN manage their money and those who can't.

And here's the icing on the cake - 60% say credit card debt is usually the result of bad decisions. 91% believe debt can be controlled by disciplined saving and spending. What a disconnect! 91% say they believe debt can be controlled and yet ~30% of them spend money they don't have. Talk is cheap.

Maybe the moral here is this: If you can't manage a credit card account, don't get one and don't blame the bank for issuing it to you. How about taking some personal responsibility for your own finances?

Now to mortgages:

The same principal of not spending more than you earn applies to taking out a home mortgage.

By definition, sub-prime mortgages are generally reserved for consumers who are deemed to be non-credit worthy. At least one measure of that is a FICO score below 640. For prime mortgages it is generally accepted that homeowners should not spend more than 36% of their income on housing costs (principle, insurance, taxes, and interest) and that mortgage to asset value ratio should not exceed 80% (i.e. 20% of purchase price applied as a down payment). In the case of subprimes, these restrictions are relaxed to allow some borrowers proceed with loan applications where that % escalated to OVER 50% in many cases AND where the mortgage to purchase ratio was allowed to reach 100% and in many cases incomplete or no documentation/verification of income and assets was conducted. This is a bit oversimplified in that many hybrid mortgages (FRM to ARM conversions) would also be classified as subprime. By 2005-2006, nearly one in six subprime variable-rate mortgages was originated with "low quality" underwriting, meaning they had little or no documentation and LTV ratios in excess of 95 percent.

Color me confused and call me Shirley, but the higher credit risks actually have relaxed restrictions on borrowing? How can that be?

Subprime mortgages come at a cost. The average subprime hybrid mortgage rates at origination were in the 7.3 to 9.7 percent range for the years 2001–2007, compared to average prime hybrid mortgage rates at origination of around 2–3 percent and 4 to 6% for FRMs. The increased mortgage rates reflect the increased risk of default for subprime mortgages. So by the very nature of the mortgagor's finances they are MORE likely to end in default. That's why the rates are higher.

According to research done by the Federal Reserve, almost 25% of all mortgages originated in 2006 and 14% of all mortgages outstanding in 2007 were considered subprime (which the Fed defined as loans made to borrowers with FICO scores below 620-660 and/or unable to make a 20% down payment). That's a HUGE jump from historical levels.

As of November 2010, consumers on average spend roughly 12% of their disposable, after tax income, to pay their mortgage obligations, personal loans and car loans and 15.2% if you add in home insurance, real estate taxes etc. However ~ 15% of homeowners are spending at least 50% of their income on housing costs. Is it any wonder then that historically 10% of those subprime mortgages go into default? That's overextending by a BUNCH!

But it's not entirely that simple.

An analysis of subprime mortgages shows that within the first year of origination, approximately 10 percent of the SP mortgages originated between 2001 and 2005 were delinquent or in default and the % of defaults was increasing slowly during that time frame. In 2006 and 2007 that percentage suddenly increased to 20%.

Part of that sudden increase is due to a worsening of the criteria associated with larger default rates, but the changes between the 2001–2005 and 2006–2007 periods were not sufficiently high to explain the near 100 percent increase in default rates for loans originated in these years.

In a market with rapidly rising prices, mortgage contracts that cannot be sustained can be terminated through prepayment or refinancing. Borrowers can change houses and mortgage contracts easily in a booming environment, and defaults do not occur as frequently as they would without the boom. Because of this ability to dispose of unsustainable mortgages, signs of the crisis brewing between 2001 and 2005 were hidden behind a “mask” of rising house prices.

Part of the boom was fueled simply due to the easy availablity of credit. Outstanding mortgage debt increased by a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 9.2% - more than 50% higher than the 6.6% CAGR for commercial real estate. That demand artificially fueled a price run up that was simply not sustainable. Every boom has its bust, and by 2006 the housing market started to decline. When the market collapsed however, many borrowers were left with negative equity.

Once house price appreciation slowed considerably (and turned negative in many locations) and underwriting subsequently tightened considerably, homeowners were less able to refinance or sell their homes, leading to increased risks of default.

A new study from VantageScore, Fico score’s main adversary, revealed that in regions with only high home depreciation, the SP default rate increased 44 percent. What dropping house values it became a strategic option for many subprime mortgage holders to simply default on their loans. They had negative equity and have less incentive to remain current on their mortgage payments. They saw default as simply a way of getting out from under a bad investment. And the increase in defaults for home depreciation outstripped the increase in defaults due to economic issues (e.g. unemployment) by almost 2-1. However the combination of the two factors was DEADLY. Subprime defaults increased by over 340% in areas where BOTH factors were in play.

So while the base historical rate for subprime defaults is more closely tied to the financial well-being of the borrowers, the sudden increase is more due to the current economic downturn AND the collapsing housing market. The subprime crisis didn't fuel the economic collapse but rather it was driven by the housing market collapse and accelerated by rising unemployment.

[SpiritWarrior]

No what I can't understand is how you can continue to insist that mortgage debt is insurmountable when it simply isn't. Look i get it that it's a HUGE amount for a loan, and assuming that much debt CAN be scary. But IT IS NOT INSURMOUNTABLE. The ability of the overwhelming majority of mortgage holders to NOT default on their mortgages should have been more than ample proof of that.

I don't think we are on the same page here. It is insurmountable at the time of acquisition. Which is why you work out a payment plan, which and in turn is why America utilize mortgages as a way of life because this proved so popular. Which is (again) why I say it is silly to believe "You can't borrow from Peter to pay Paul" when the majority of people do this every day. Not sure how this is complicated. We borrow amounts we can in no way shape or form afford right now and set up a plan with someone who allows us to pay it back in fractions. Insurmountable then becomes manageable because we used a mortgage. We ask someone to do us a favor and pay the other guy off in full, while we pay this guy in monthly integers.

I also question this new statement about the "overwhelming majority" not defaulting on loans, especially in the last few years with the market crisis. "Overwhelming" suggests like 80% to me. I'd go with (at the least) an underwhelming amount similiar to the 60/40 below, personally.

Not infinite and some creep is expected due to inflation but the government is adding debt WELL beyond that.

But you yourself say such scary debt is not insurmountable (and you do it with caps lock on).

Since you didn't offer any numbers, I did some checking and the numbers were higher than I expected. (The following numbers are from 2010 unless otherwise noted) The majority (~60%) of credit card holders pay their balance in full each month. However according to the Federal Reserve Bank, 40% of American families spend more than they earn. Okay that's just STUPID imho and the 60-40 ratio is lower than I expected. But it's nice to see that the majority of credit card holders DO manage their finances well. Surpisingly, TransUnion is reporting that in 2010 the number of credit card delinquencies actually went down by 17% despite the status of the economy.

Good thing you did the research here - clearly you were off on this as you dismissed my assertions as "Nonsense". While I personally think the numbers to even be a little higher, I will run with these ones for the sake of argument, because it is still a staggering amount. 40% - almost half of them. You'd now agree that this is a disturbing statistic, close to half of the people living beyong their means.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis I want some of what Cerek's smoking. Most of the spending increases (yes, tax rolls went down, spending went up) has been in the military, obviously, barring a slight dip when a very sensible President Clinton tried to start doing the downsizing we need.

I want some of what YOU are smoking.

Most of the spending increases in Defense? Utterly incorrect dude. Based on % of GDP, Spending on Education and Health care and Pensions have surpassed Defense spending. That's not a bad thing but at least get the facts right.

Defense spending rose to 42 percent of GDP in 1945. But after the war it never returned to previous levels. From a low of 7.33 percent of GDP in 1948 it doubled to 15 percent at the height of the Korean War in 1953, and was maintained at about 10 percent during the peak of the Cold War through the end of the Vietnam War. During the Reagan era, rose from 5.6 percent of GDP in 1979 to 7 percent of GDP in 1986. The Bush buildup from 3.6 percent in 1999 to 6 percent in 2010. The plans of the Obama administration show a reduction in spending back to 4.6 percent of GDP by 2015.



Government spending on education has expanded from about one percent of GDP in 1900 to 7 percent in the second decade of the 21st century.



Government did not intervene significantly in the provision of health care until the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in the mid 1960s. Since then government health care has increased to around 7 percent of GDP.



Government health spending breached two percent of GDP in 1970, three percent of GDP in 1980, and four percent of GDP in 1991. Spending breached five percent of GDP in 1995, six percent in 2007, and seven percent of GDP in 2009.

Spending cuts are mathematically not possible of being the entire solution. So, when some idiot like the Orange Boner guy says tax hikes are not off the table, well he's not living in reality.

I think you meant Boehner said that tax hikes WERE off the table.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/...ikes-are-table

Spending under Clinton grew 3.29% YoY
Spending under Bush grew 6.61% YoY
Spending under Obama is expected to Grow by 6.71% YoY (according to White House projections).

Obama's campaign promise: "No family making less than $250,000 will see 'any form of tax increase.'" Yet by your own admission, tax hikes HAVE to be part of the solution. So it's just Boehner that isn't living in reality? Or is it simply the RICH that you want to tax?

Tell you what, when Obama starts making REAL cuts in spending, THEN you can start grousing about BOTH Obama and the Republicans holding firm against tax hikes. Until then, STFU.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior I don't think we are on the same page here.

Would you just look up the definition of Insurmountable? It means simply something which is "incapable of being overcome". "incapable of being surmounted, passed over, or overcome; insuperable"
It doesn't specify time frame nor does it specify means. The fact that mortgage loans can and are paid back regardless of whether it is over time or due to sudden cash windfalls means they do not represent insurmountable debt. Got it?

I'm sick of arguing over semantical BS like this.

But you yourself say such scary debt is not insurmountable (and you do it with caps lock on).

That comment was made with reference to mortgage debt. Please check the context of my statements. Whether US government debt is insurmountable or not is beyond me. The fact that it continues to escalate at alarming rates IS scary though.

I also question this new statement about the "overwhelming majority" not defaulting on loans, especially in the last few years with the market crisis. "Overwhelming" suggests like 80% to me. I'd go with (at the least) an underwhelming amount similiar to the 60/40 below, personally.

Go back to my earlier post. The current default rate for all home mortgages is ~2% to 2.5% percent. That means that ~98% are NOT in default. The 99.75% represented PRIME mortgages only. Sounds like an overwhelming majority off to me.

Here's a link:

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-...our-years/229/

And an excerpt from it (2011):

In a rare bit of good news for the housing market, fewer Americans are walking away from their mortgages, according to recent data from S&P/Experian. The latest numbers indicate that between April and May, the rate of defaults on first mortgages fell from 2.16 percent to 2.09 percent, while the percentage of defaults on second mortgages fell from 1.51 to 1.42 percent.

You think those numbers are wrong? Look them up yourself then.

While I personally think the numbers to even be a little higher, I will run with these ones for the sake of argument, because it is still a staggering amount. 40% - almost half of them. You'd now agree that this is a disturbing statistic, close to half of the people living beyong their means.

And almost a third of those are due to catastrophic medical debts. That's NOT exactly the same as living beyond your means.

Approximately 33% of all credit holders hold less than 10K credit debt, with the median outstanding balance $2,254. 13% carry balances over $10,000 (median balance: $17,366). Only 1 household in 50, 2%, carry more than $20,000 in credit card debt. Now what's sadly lacking in those raw numbers is some context as to what percentage of income that debt represents. Without that context, we really don't know whether those numbers are truly disturbing or not.

Here are the breakdowns by income brackets (now if I can just find the income ranges those represent):

Less Than 20th Percentile: $855.30
20th – 39.9th Percentile: $1,896.20
40th – 59.9th Percentile: $2,632.20
60th – 79.9th Percentile: $3,103.90
80th – 89.9th Percentile: $4,573.50
90th – 100th Percentile: $6,303.40


Again if you don't like the numbers I found - so look them up yourself.

[SpiritWarrior]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer Would you just look up the definition of Insurmountable? It means simply something which is "incapable of being overcome". "incapable of being surmounted, passed over, or overcome; insuperable" It doesn't specify time frame nor does it specify means. The fact that mortgage loans can and are paid back regardless of whether it is over time or due to sudden cash windfalls means they do not represent insurmountable debt. Got it? I'm sick of arguing over semantical BS like this.

My definition is the same ("incapable of being overcome". "incapable of being surmounted, passed over, or overcome; insuperable"). Just because a time-frame is not mentioned in the definition does not mean one cannot be applied. You surmount the presently insurmountable by finding a different route or method to do so. (i.e. a loan) which then makes this goal realistic, achievable.

If you're sick of arguing semantics then don't start nit-picking imo.

That comment was made with reference to mortgage debt. Please check the context of my statements. Whether US government debt is insurmountable or not is beyond me. The fact that it continues to escalate at alarming rates IS scary though.

I'm aware of the context. You then concede that it is "beyond you" and agree it is "scary". By your own admission there are similiarities, is all. Which is why I thought I would bring it to your attention as you spoke about debt once more.

Go back to my earlier post. The current default rate for all home mortgages is ~2% to 2.5% percent. That means that ~98% are NOT in default. The 99.75% represented PRIME mortgages only. Sounds like an overwhelming majority off to me. Here's a link: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-...our-years/229/ And an excerpt from it (2011): In a rare bit of good news for the housing market, fewer Americans are walking away from their mortgages, according to recent data from S&P/Experian. The latest numbers indicate that between April and May, the rate of defaults on first mortgages fell from 2.16 percent to 2.09 percent, while the percentage of defaults on second mortgages fell from 1.51 to 1.42 percent. You think those numbers are wrong? Look them up yourself then.

Nice try heh. How about you go back to my earlier post - you just quoted from it. I said "last few years" not this year, sir. The link talks about this year the market is looking good and almost back to where it was in 2006 and 2007. It alludes to obvious issues between then and now, but makes no numbers because it is talking about the current "good news" in 2011. Which is awesome don't get me wrong. But I clearly referred to the crisis over the last few years. Not today.

I did the work for you. Here's what I said.

I also question this new statement about the "overwhelming majority" not defaulting on loans, especially in the last few years with the market crisis.

Again last few years, as opposed to April and May of this year.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Micah Foehammer Would you just look up the definition of Insurmountable? It means simply something which is "incapable of being overcome". "incapable of being surmounted, passed over, or overcome; insuperable" It doesn't specify time frame nor does it specify means. The fact that mortgage loans can and are paid back regardless of whether it is over time or due to sudden cash windfalls means they do not represent insurmountable debt. Got it? I'm sick of arguing over semantical BS like this.

This is what SW does. He makes statements, then turns the responses of others around and adds his own spin, then turns his own words around to say he didn't really say what you thought he said in the first post. Since he can't really refute your argument, he turns it around to mean something he can refute. Oh....and then declares himself the "winner".

There's no real logic to it, but once you realize that, it can be amusing to see what he comes up with next.

[Gabrielles blades]

of course gov, run healthcare would cost money. Its a terrible idea to have health insurance companies making money off of people. I dont think we should get rid of the current hospitals - i just think that instead of trying to pay an insurance company to pay overpriced hospitals that we would be better off just having the gov. run a few hospitals. So those people who can afford to go to the capitalist hospitals can go, and those who cant possibly afford that can go to the gov. run ones - and yes, there may be a long wait and it may be inconvenient, but its better than no treatment at all.
Hospitals in general need an overhaul i think, you dont need any doctors or admins etc making more than 50k a year; if the work load is so much that you feel its justified, then instead hire more people. With one 400k doctor you could instead get 8 doctors.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Nice try heh. How about you go back to my earlier post - you just quoted from it. I said "last few years" not this year, sir. The link talks about this year the market is looking good and almost back to where it was in 2006 and 2007. It alludes to obvious issues between then and now, but makes no numbers because it is talking about the current "good news" in 2011. Which is awesome don't get me wrong. But I clearly referred to the crisis over the last few years. Not today.

Those 2011 current numbers are not that far off the 2007 peak and fairly representative of what default rates look liked back in 2001 thru 2007 and after. In April 2007 the mortgage default rate hit what was at that point an all time of high of 2.87%.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusin...10009716.shtml

Default rates continued to climb and subsequently maxed at ~3% later that same year before falling slightly into 2009 and then increasing again. In 2010, a report released by First American CoreLogic showed the foreclosure rate in the US increased in January to 3.19 percent, an increase of 60.3 percent from a year ago (2009) when the national foreclosure rate was 1.99 percent.

http://realestateinvestordaily.com/f...inues-to-rise/

The rate has then declined back to the numbers I used for 2011.

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-...our-years/229/


So those 2011 current numbers are not that far off the 2007 or 2010 peaks and are slighty higher than default starting in 2001 and continuing into 2011. So as much as you might THINK the default rate was more like 40% or even 20% it simply isn't true. Even the deliquency rate never got much over 10% for any protracted period.

But nice try at obscuring the truth thru nitpicking the time frame of the discussion over the mortgage default rates. Whats even MORE curious is that you had NO problems with accepting the credit card debt 60/40 numbers which were based on 2011 numbers as opposed to being "from a few years back". That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that CCD numbers fit your pre-conceived notions and the default rate numbers don't?

If you don't believe them go check out the numbers yourself. Just make sure you don't mistake delinquency rates (one missed payment 30 days in arrears). or serious deliquency rates (90 days overdue) for default/foreclosures rates. Delinquency rates simply represent overdue payments - NOT foreclosures. Oh and PLEASE try to include a link. Unfortunately a large number of reporters couldn't properly distinguish between deliquency rates and default rates. They aren't the same thing. It's SO helpful in trying to support your conclusions.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Gabrielles blades of course gov, run healthcare would cost money. Its a terrible idea to have health insurance companies making money off of people. I dont think we should get rid of the current hospitals - i just think that instead of trying to pay an insurance company to pay overpriced hospitals that we would be better off just having the gov. run a few hospitals. So those people who can afford to go to the capitalist hospitals can go, and those who cant possibly afford that can go to the gov. run ones - and yes, there may be a long wait and it may be inconvenient, but its better than no treatment at all. Hospitals in general need an overhaul i think, you dont need any doctors or admins etc making more than 50k a year; if the work load is so much that you feel its justified, then instead hire more people. With one 400k doctor you could instead get 8 doctors.

Having to wait several weeks or months to see a doctor is not better than no treatment at all, because the end result can be the same thing. I've been having some recent health issues that are (apparently) indirectly related to my Crohn's disease. When I went to see my local doctor (actually a PA), she recommended I go see a new gastroenterologist she was familiar with and gave me a referral. He works in a LARGE office and the soonest I could schedule an appointment with him was two months, but I needed to be seen now. In fact, I ended up in the hospital twice and the E.R. twice during the time it would have taken to see the new doc. So I ended up making an appointment with another doc in the same practice and got seen in a couple of weeks instead of two months.

I had developed a very deep abscess, which required X-Rays and CatScans for the docs to get a better idea of just how serious it might be. Being put on a waiting list for 5-12 months was, again, not a feasible option, since the problem could have become much more serious and even life-threatening in that time.

The main selling point behind Obama Care is to give competition to private insurance carriers. However, the competition already exists, IF the gov't would allow private carriers to compete across state lines for health insurance like they do for property and casualty (Notice all the commercials for auto insurance companies offering lower rates than their competitors?) But the gov't doesn't allow health carriers to compete across state lines. If they did, the competition would take care of itself.

Another big selling point was that we needed to get private health carriers OUT of health care equation. I said long before this came about that, once a national plan became inevitable, the insurance companies would make sure they got their slice of the national pie...and did they ever. Now the gov't has declared health care will become mandatory for everyone over the next few years. That's the very definition of having your cake and eating it too, because some people could (and did) simply choose NOT to buy health insurance at all and take a chance on not getting sick. Now the insurance companies don't have to worry about that. I know this point is being challenged, but it was still in the original plan and I don't know that it has been eliminated.

Finally, Obama and others kept using the figure of "40 million Americans" that could not afford health insurance as one of the reasons we needed a national plan. Even though that number was grossly inflated (the real figure was closer to 15 million, but we'll still use the 40), it actually weakens the argument for national health care. Why? Well, we can assume these 40 million uninsured Americans will be the first ones added to the national plan, but guess what? They STILL won't be able to afford the premiums, which means you automatically have 40 million policies that have to be subsidized by the taxpayers.

Oh yeah, part of that 40 million were illegal immigrants and Obama assured us the national plan would NOT be extended to them. Once again, I said that just means that he will use this as an excuse to simply "legalize" them arbitrarily and make them citizens....and that is exactly what he has proposed doing.

Those are just a few of the biggest flaws and misinformation regarding ObamaCare. There are many others that affect the average citizen on different levels, but this should be enough to illustrate my point.

Now, again, if we have a TRUE competition among ALL health insurance carries (both public and private) then I agree it could stimulate some real competition between the carriers, but ONLY if the private companies are allowed to compete nationwide, just like ObamaCare can. Otherwise you have a monopsony with one provider (the gov't) effectively controlling the market for a good or service.