Had to re-read the post again due to confusion. Stated that the value decreased to -.39 from -.02 but the first negative figure was on the line above. Couldn't figure out why we were decreasing from a negative to a positive.

Mark to model, perhaps?

According to Chicago Fed, it is still too early to call the official recession over - but with the three month average CFNAI-MA3 above -0.70, the likelihood that a recession has ended is increasing.

I thought NBER declared the recession over way back when? If not, then can we have the blue bar back?

What I hate about the bill as passed.

1) It's not health care, it's legally mandated health insurance. There is more than a semantic difference between the two

2) It does little for the status quo of out of control premiums that are destroying the competitiveness of American businesses.

3) There are enough loopholes that the seriously sick middle class and working poor may end up having to pay the penalty since they still will not be able to afford the 3-8% of their income for a crap plan.

4) They still haven't addressed the Medicare doctor problem that is forcing doctors to drop medicare patients.

Grrrr.

My fist full of faz is off to good start.

I hope noob's Chinese tea leaf prediction is coming true.

We never received the silver lining of the Section 8 Years: celebrities that claimed they were going to leave the country if King George II was elected, but we have a possibilty with Rush, as he's a man of his word and can be trusted to follow through on a one-way journey somewhere outside of our border, now that the health care bill passed...

Basel Too wrote:

tiger and i just want to know if sex addiction will be covered.

You don't need to worry until you start having sex with other people.....cyber sex doesn't count

Now on to a stand-alone consumer financial protection agency.

Let's see Judd Gregg filibuster to give the Fed more power in favor of banks and against people.

pavel.chichikov wrote:

Did you oppose single payer?

No, I support a single pool/single payer model.

For the deflationistas:
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Inflation Issuance Hits Record $200 Billion; Predictably Wrong Hyperinflation Calls; Ducks in a Row
Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis: Inflation? Where?

Cinco-X wrote:

Did he actually say that? I never listen to him or any other talk radio host, so I wouldn't know...

He said he'd consider Costa Rica. Which is odd, as they have single payer there.

The Take: Historic win or not, Democrats could pay a price

By Dan Balz

Heh, heh, heh.....he said balz.....

The Lorax wrote:

It's not health care, it's legally mandated health insurance

It feels like a step in the right direction, though. I sure wish Congress hadn't insisted on continuing to feed the big fat health care insurance companies the huge portion of our health care dollar pie--but at least it's something. Finally.

Pearl wrote:

It feels like a step in the right direction, though. I sure wish Congress hadn't insisted on continuing to feed the big fat health care insurance companies the huge portion of our health care dollar pie--but at least it's something. Finally.

By that do you mean it's okay for them to keep feeding the pharmacutical companies, and members of the AMA? They were all in on the money grad. Rest assured of it-

Costa Rica = Cabana Boys
Any more questions?

I was trying not to go there AB...

It was rumored many of Rush's SA trips were to frequent the booming sex trade there (young men for sale).

I Currency
cause of fire was undetermined. that's a designation for insurance purposes, I believe... plus, they aren't a lot of sharp blades in the local fire unit. the house was 2,400 sq ft 17 years old built by my brother's rich father-in-law. wife was a super shopaholic and unfortunately used the entire house as a storage unit, literally piles of stuff to the ceiling, in fact nobody outside had been inside in over 2 1/2 years, in short a tinder box. tough to get people therapy when you're living beyond your means and her daddy's cash is filling the hole. both were in separate parts of house during fire and died from smoke inhalation. luckily, 2 boys of 17 and 21 were staying elsewhere.
hell of a good dad though but lost some control when grandparents would by their kids new cars every year starting at 16.
....
thanks for all the condolences, y'all!

duke

Cinco-X wrote:

By that do you mean it's okay for them to keep feeding the pharmacutical companies, and members of the AMA

The health care insurance companies' role in our health care system just perplexes me the most. I just don't get why (we) Americans feel that we need them. I'm with Lorax--I wanted single payer.But this is a start--I don't mean to sound ungrateful.

Dodd, 65, and other opponents of the audit [-the Fed] measure including New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg, 63, are retiring from the Senate, leaving a potential opening in 2011 for its main backers -- Vermont Independent Bernard Sanders, 68, and South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint, 58 -- to pick up more support.

Pearl wrote:

just don't get why (we) Americans feel that we need them.

To sit between consumers and providers, extracting rents.

Underemployment Hits 20% in Mid-March

He doesn't have a son or a daughter. He has three ex wives though. Those rumors got started after his trip to the Dominican Republic were he got busted with all that viagra. The DR is a known homosexual friendly vacation spot that specializes in the sex trade. It was also found that his then wife lived down the street from him. Personally I don't care if he's gay, he's a hypocrite on everything else, why not that as well?

Same here Pearl. They add no value to the system whatsoever. Just skim money out of the process so they can give their CEO's 111 million dollar retirement packages for denying care to some poor schmuck that needs a kidney transplant.

Duke, I watched a special on pedo sex stings. I can't remember what country it was in though.

Cinco-X wrote:

What's an NGO?

Non-Government Organization. Non-profit, usually.

Cinco-X wrote:

the taxpayers as losers

The taxpayers lose in that they will continue to send so much money to the big fat health care insurance companies. That's what I don't get about this argument--the people who are screaming that health care reform is too expensive seem to be the same people that insist on keeping the health care insurance companies in the mix. Single payer would have been far more affordable for taxpayers.

Grayson is still pushing his Medicare buy in for all bill. He has 80 cosponsors now.

Cinco-X wrote:

Insurers are supposed to distribute risk among the population, and that's what they have done. You want government managed health care. If you think it's expensive now, wait until it's free.....

The whole "wait till it's free" is a load of crap. With dozens of layers skimming off the top, layers of bureaucracy at every doctors off just to deal with the multiple systems, and everyone getting socked with additional costs that each office/hospital has to absorb because of the massive number of uninsured not getting basic preventive care; reasonable single payer would be a huge step up.

It's not like people start fires because the fire department "is now free".

Good point The Lorax. I don't put going to the Doctor on my list of fun things to do if I could just afford it.

Pearl wrote:

the taxpayers as losers

The taxpayers lose in that they will continue to send so much money to the big fat health care insurance companies.

No! I'll continue to send money too these clowns for my own family, but now I get to send more money for all the folks deemed too poor to afford insurance. Add to that the fact that costs will now go up to accommodate the additional demand, and I turn out to be taking a real beating. If you think that government price controls will fix it, then you're delusional. Look back to Nixon's wage and price freezes and see how they turned out. It was a disaster-

I'm pretty sure homedad said something about having a pre existing JD. My company just got dropped by BC/BS for not having enough employees enrolled. They tried to do another plan for smaller groups but they still didn't get enough people to sign up. It is simply too expensive for the people that work at this business. The cheapest plan with high deductibles and yearly out of pocket limits still cost the employee 160 bucks a month. That's a big chunk of money for someone making 9 bucks an hour.

Comrade Kristina wrote:

Grayson is still pushing his Medicare buy in for all bill.

If they just let the over 50 or 55 group buy into Medicare it would do several things:

Increase what is collected into the system.
Remove higher cost employees from company insurance rolls, lowering the cost,
Lower insurance cost for that group.

Bubblisimo Gerkinov wrote:

I hope noob's Chinese tea leaf Elmo! prediction is coming true.

is on his way. Just can't keep a good Dow down, apparently.

Juvenal Delinquent wrote:

Anybody here have a pre-existing health condition, on account of which you couldn't get health insurance?

My wife does. When my bank failed in 2008, we'd have been well and truly fucked had we not lived in Illinois, which has a state-run plan you can buy into when your COBRA is exhausted (or, as happened to us, if you don't get COBRA).

Comrade Kristina wrote:

The cheapest plan with high deductibles and yearly out of pocket limits still cost the employee 160 bucks a month. That's a big chunk of money for someone making 9 bucks an hour.

Did the company kick in a large amount? 160*12=1920/year. I've haven't seen insurance for that kind of price in more than 20 years!

I have 2 preexisting conditions,one due to a mosquito bite,one due to a drunk driver.

Outsider wrote:

I wonder what Gregg's reasoning is in supporting the Fed so strongly.

friendly legislators and regulators, are well rewarded at the end of a public career.

Tom Stone wrote:

I have 2 preexisting conditions,one due to a mosquito bite,one due to a drunk driver.

I can't believe you were pigged with that. Do tell, maybe in the next thread.

The Oligarchy 'splained things to them Outsider. Think Marlon Brando "splainin" his offer...

We have a "no-fault" car accident law in NY. We are well aware that some reckless drivers "benefit" from the structure. It's considered well worth it for the savings in cost from less litigation. There is a fund for victims of accidents caused by or involving uninsured motorists (generally judgment-proof) even though insurance is required by law. This is a form of public option insurance.

Why should an accident victim get nothing and another get full medical payment and lost wages just because one was unlucky enough to get hit by a deadbeat? Do we really want children whose parents can't afford-or neglect to buy- health insurance not to get care?

Actually yogi, children whose parents can't afford health insurance do pretty well under the state CHIP programs.

Unless, like Arizona, they start pulling the rug out from under that. That's a problem.

Federal mandates to states without money for states to carry the programs out is a big problem. (Not that CHIP is a mandate - it's more an opportunity. If it were a mandate, then Arizona would really be in big trouble.)

Thank you yogi, it's all a help.

I am not a staunch supporter of either party. My votes are commonly split d/r depending on the issue. And if he's a lover then he's on my bad list.

But I do give him the benefit of the doubt until I research otherwise.

(I'm going to look up his voting record. Nothing reveals stripes like public voting records.)

Nothing is more important in evaluating an elected official than her voting record, so true.

Outsider wrote:

Just to point out that universal coverage may not be the panacea either.

It's definitely a balance. I'm not a big advocate of universal coverage for adults, but I'm pointing out that a public option can reduce transaction costs (insurance company profits) through economies of scale, if well-managed. I don't think competition by private insurers has benefited the system as a whole and I can't stand the knee-jerk attitude that "the government will just screw it up". Of course they will, but private profiteers will screw it up worse.

At this point we'll never know about the potential success of a public option, seeing as it's not in the bill.

Unless you know something I don't and there will be a work-around.

I wonder if opening up the private ins. competition across state borders would have helped reduce costs.

Another option that may have helped might have been an expanded HSA program - something that includes incentives, rewards, market investment options that might make the more happy and amenable, catastrophic coverage, moderate deductibles on non-catastrophic care. And maybe subsidized premiums. (With no pre-existing or chronic illness disqualifications.)

Health insurance companies should be banned, they are nothing but parasitic middlemen between patients and doctors. Except more than a few doctors are also parasites themselves now, working for those s. They are in the business of selling coverage you do not need and denying things you might need (and cost serious money to the company). The US system is totally fubar for American middle class. Arguing about premiums is like arguing which mafia family offers the best "protection" for the weekly "voluntary deposits"...