Single Payer Healthcare = Raise Standard of Living & Liberty

[typicalLefty]

The joke is on anyone who actually believes that this healthcare bill is actually about healthcare.

Actually, the joke is on anyone that believes CaliforniaBimbo is capable of rational thought beyond her initial emotional reactions.

Yep, clearly anyone who has a differing opinion than the whining of the left, and happens to be female, is absolutely just emotional. At least, you have promptly shown what kind of fool you are - a sexist whiny leftie who thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to force 'assistance' on others. My initial assessment was, therefore, correct. You should fuck off and live in a socialist country. The UK may suit you very well - they have a government who tells its citizenry how to live, it is the most surveiled country in the world, but they have this 'free' universal healthcare..... fucking crap, you die waiting for treatment, can't get the drugs you need and if you dare pay for the drugs yourself, they take your 'free' healthcare (that you've paid for your whole working life) away from you.

Once thing is certain, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.... but carry on regardless.

Actually, I was pointing out your inability to debate without insult- a clear sign of your emotions exceeding your intellect.

 

[typicalLefty]

The joke is on anyone who actually believes that this healthcare bill is actually about healthcare.

Actually, the joke is on anyone that believes CaliforniaBimbo is capable of rational thought beyond her initial emotional reactions.

answer the bolded part or i will start thinking that you are another pro UHC individual that cant or WILL not answer questions posed to them....

of course. When you have insurance- it should pay for the treatment of illness and injury.

 

[California Girl]

Neither of those 'benefits' has happened anywhere in the world with single payer. Therefore, your conclusion is, basically, crap.

You should go to the United Kingdom, as they have a national healthcare without anyone being charged walking out of the hospital. In fact, the United Kingdom has a higher standard of living then the United States of America. In fact, Germany and Japan that lost World War II to the United States of America after being destroyed and invaded and occupied by the United States of America has a national healthcare and a higher standard of living then we do.

In fact, I would rather live in a country that lost World War II then being in a country that won World War II.

They don't pay "walking out of the hospital" because they already pay in oppressive tax rates. Universal healthcare will not be free to anyone...most of us that actually pay taxes will pay for it in higher tax rates.
You are welcome to live in one of those countries that lost WWll but I am sure that is just talk on your part. The posters that seem to think other countries are so much better that the US, never seem to have the courage to move. I guess it's not that bad of a country after all.

Britain didn't lose WWII - they won. Their single payer system (the National Health Service - NHS) was created just after the war... because of the vast poverty in the country at that time. It was created to provide basic health care to the hugely poor population, suffering the effects of WWII.

At that time, it was a tremendous improvement to the lives of a population left devastated by years of war (both WWI and WWII) and huge unemployment.

For such a small country - the NHS is the 4th biggest employer in the world. And it has moved from providing basic, life saving care to a ridiculous, cumbersome albatross around the neck of the British people. They love it but.... it provides services such as IVF and gender reassignment but not innovative drugs to cancer patients. The system is fucked up and they know it. They just don't know how to fix it - so they keep throwing more and more money at it. Anyone who can afford it has private insurance.

If the British government now had the choice to ditch it, they'd take it a heartbeat.

 

[MajikMyst]

When do you wise up?

Figure out the basis of the take-over.

How's this for a 10-page bill to fix the problem:

Overview: Keep the government out of healthcare, except for legislation that accomplished the following:
1. Allow the 1300 companies to sell in every state.
2. Tort reform limiting damages to actual costs.
3. No state mandates: buy what coverage you wish.
4. Use the tax system to incentivize more into the medical field.
5. Encourage more to buy their own health insurance with tax deductibility.
6. Government step aside.
The End.

The problem with that is you still will have insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone? How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions? Government step aside is what got us in the economical jam we are in now.. Banks and financial institutions ran amok and killed our economy and housing market..

Tort reform? Your son or daughter dies due to medical mal practice?? How much is that worth? I agree that there needs to be some limiting.. But people diserve something for their loss.. Or how bout this?? If a patient dies, the doctor is brought up on criminal charges or at least investigated for them.. I would much prefer some of these neglegent doctors go to jail than just pay a court fee and continue their practice..

Sadly your solutions above will do nothing.. Insurance companies will form agreements not to sell in certain markets to continue to drive costs up.. It would be the same princple as two competeing theatres having different movies.. They do so by agreement..

A single payer syestem is the only true way keep them honest.. Cause if the consumer doesn't like their insurance, they have else where to go..

1."... insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone..."
"According to AMA’s National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurer’s average."
Medicare: Largest Denier Of Health Care Claims » The Foundry

2."How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions?"
Of course they shouldn't!

Do you have auto insurance? How absurd would it be to call Geico from the scene of your accident and demand that you be covered for it?
Why would anyone with a brain pay for health insurance before they contracted a serious disorder, if they knew that the insurance company had to give them insurace at that point???

3. "... killed our economy and housing market.. "
Wrong. GSE's and forcing banks to give unwarrented loans resulted in the mortgage meltdown. Government interference.

4. Since practice of 'defensive medicine' costs 15 times as much as the total profit in the healthcare industry, I encourage you to look at the Canadian answer to tort reform.

Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

Report: Reining in lawsuits would cut deficit - Washington Times

5. "Sadly your solutions above will do nothing..."
Sadly your comprehension is lacking.

1. I wouldn't trust the AMA for anything.. Medicare doesn't deny anything.. Some hospitals and doctors don't accept medicare in favor of private insurance??

2. I am not a car and what kind of sick bitch are you that you aren't going to cover a child with a heart defect that they were born with!! Nuff said on that topic!! Consider yourself bitch slapped!! What do you think a pre-existing condition is?? Acne? Your damn right they should cover them!! They should cover all of them!! Nobody and I mean nobody is free from some form of pre-existing condition..

3. Wrong again.. Actually our melt down started in the Reagan era and came to a head in the Bush Era.. Do some research will you.. Government deregulation is what killed our economy..

4.So you avoided my question and my proposal.. Typical.. Either stay on topic or get off the boards!!

5. I am not the one that wants to deny coverage to babies!! I would worry more about your own lacking comprehension than mine.. Again, your ideas accomplish nothing for children and the people of this nation..

 

[California Girl]

Actually, the joke is on anyone that believes CaliforniaBimbo is capable of rational thought beyond her initial emotional reactions.

Yep, clearly anyone who has a differing opinion than the whining of the left, and happens to be female, is absolutely just emotional. At least, you have promptly shown what kind of fool you are - a sexist whiny leftie who thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to force 'assistance' on others. My initial assessment was, therefore, correct. You should fuck off and live in a socialist country. The UK may suit you very well - they have a government who tells its citizenry how to live, it is the most surveiled country in the world, but they have this 'free' universal healthcare..... fucking crap, you die waiting for treatment, can't get the drugs you need and if you dare pay for the drugs yourself, they take your 'free' healthcare (that you've paid for your whole working life) away from you.

Once thing is certain, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.... but carry on regardless.

Actually, I was pointing out your inability to debate without insult- a clear sign of your emotions exceeding your intellect.

No, my problem is that I don't suffer fools gladly. It is both a gift (I get repped for it) and a curse (it sometimes upsets the whiners). I have learned live with my ability to annoy the intellectually challenged.

 

[Bern80]

The OP doesn't really work because it is founded on a faulty premise about our standard of living. It presumes that it is the role of government to provide for one's standard of living.

When people start to argue that single payer is a good idea by citing the life expectency or standard of living highlights a fundamental trait of liberals. An overwhelming revulsion for holding individuals accountable for their own outcomes. We have a lower life expectency than many countries not because of our health care system, but because our level of freedom affords people the opportunity to live really unhealthy lives. We have a lower standard of living than many countries because people refuse to hold themselves accountable for their low standard of living.

There is the logistical problems of supply and demand with a single payer system. And before someone tries to tell me that supply and demand doesn't apply to health care, they need to tell it to the Obama administration first because they are leglislating under the pretext that it does. The argument we are being fed is that we have a crisis where people are not able to see the doctor because of the cost. So we must then presume that if costs were lowered to the individual, which is the goal of the legislation, said people who did not use health care now will which translates to an increase in demand on the system. And people have been duped into thinking that cost is a synonym for access. What needs to be addressed is whether we have the 'supply' (in physicians, facilities, staff, available hours, etc.) to meet this increased demand. I doubt it.

 

[typicalLefty]

Yep, clearly anyone who has a differing opinion than the whining of the left, and happens to be female, is absolutely just emotional. At least, you have promptly shown what kind of fool you are - a sexist whiny leftie who thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to force 'assistance' on others. My initial assessment was, therefore, correct. You should fuck off and live in a socialist country. The UK may suit you very well - they have a government who tells its citizenry how to live, it is the most surveiled country in the world, but they have this 'free' universal healthcare..... fucking crap, you die waiting for treatment, can't get the drugs you need and if you dare pay for the drugs yourself, they take your 'free' healthcare (that you've paid for your whole working life) away from you.

Once thing is certain, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.... but carry on regardless.

Actually, I was pointing out your inability to debate without insult- a clear sign of your emotions exceeding your intellect.

No, my problem is that I don't suffer fools gladly. It is both a gift (I get repped for it) and a curse (it sometimes upsets the whiners). I have learned live with my ability to annoy the intellectually challenged.

Your childish name-calling and quick resort to insults indicates that what you call a "gift" and a "curse" is not your main problem.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with that is you still will have insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone? How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions? Government step aside is what got us in the economical jam we are in now.. Banks and financial institutions ran amok and killed our economy and housing market..

Tort reform? Your son or daughter dies due to medical mal practice?? How much is that worth? I agree that there needs to be some limiting.. But people diserve something for their loss.. Or how bout this?? If a patient dies, the doctor is brought up on criminal charges or at least investigated for them.. I would much prefer some of these neglegent doctors go to jail than just pay a court fee and continue their practice..

Sadly your solutions above will do nothing.. Insurance companies will form agreements not to sell in certain markets to continue to drive costs up.. It would be the same princple as two competeing theatres having different movies.. They do so by agreement..

A single payer syestem is the only true way keep them honest.. Cause if the consumer doesn't like their insurance, they have else where to go..

1."... insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone..."
"According to AMA’s National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurer’s average."
Medicare: Largest Denier Of Health Care Claims » The Foundry

2."How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions?"
Of course they shouldn't!

Do you have auto insurance? How absurd would it be to call Geico from the scene of your accident and demand that you be covered for it?
Why would anyone with a brain pay for health insurance before they contracted a serious disorder, if they knew that the insurance company had to give them insurace at that point???

3. "... killed our economy and housing market.. "
Wrong. GSE's and forcing banks to give unwarrented loans resulted in the mortgage meltdown. Government interference.

4. Since practice of 'defensive medicine' costs 15 times as much as the total profit in the healthcare industry, I encourage you to look at the Canadian answer to tort reform.

Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

Report: Reining in lawsuits would cut deficit - Washington Times

5. "Sadly your solutions above will do nothing..."
Sadly your comprehension is lacking.

1. I wouldn't trust the AMA for anything.. Medicare doesn't deny anything.. Some hospitals and doctors don't accept medicare in favor of private insurance??

2. I am not a car and what kind of sick bitch are you that you aren't going to cover a child with a heart defect that they were born with!! Nuff said on that topic!! Consider yourself bitch slapped!! What do you think a pre-existing condition is?? Acne? Your damn right they should cover them!! They should cover all of them!! Nobody and I mean nobody is free from some form of pre-existing condition..

3. Wrong again.. Actually our melt down started in the Reagan era and came to a head in the Bush Era.. Do some research will you.. Government deregulation is what killed our economy..

4.So you avoided my question and my proposal.. Typical.. Either stay on topic or get off the boards!!

5. I am not the one that wants to deny coverage to babies!! I would worry more about your own lacking comprehension than mine.. Again, your ideas accomplish nothing for children and the people of this nation..

Your anger indicates that you are unable to deal with my cogent explanations.

Your language indicates that you belong in the gutter.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Yeah, right.

When has any full-blown monopoly on anything resulted in lower prices, more efficient service and the more freedom for anyone?

Ummm....the railroads...oh wait....the banks, nope...

 

[saveliberty]

no matter how much it costs, we need universal health insurance because too many people make bad choices for themselves and do not get insurance, costing all of us. If everyone had insurance, noone could make bad decisions about cverage. We need to save pe

Thanks for the ammo dimwit. "No matter how much it costs"? NO LIMIT huh? You know there is a limit even for government. They have to print devalued money until it is worthless (pretty expensive for all of us in the long run). They have to sell bonds which have to be repayed ( a limit you can borrow). NOT UNLIMITED get it?

Then you limit yourself in the same sentence. People without insurance cost all of us which is apparently a problem for you, but you will cover them at ANY cost. Sure hockeypuck.

"If everyone had insurance, no one could make bad decisions about coverage." First, this plan DOESN"T cover everyone, still about 20 million short. You also realize that not every medical bill will be covered. There is also a deductable that some will not pay, so we get to pay still. You still get to choose a plan, so a bad decsion can still be made. Also, someone in government gets to decide what is covered and not covered. They can't make a bad decision?

An abortion clause will kill people. Rationing of services will kill people. I see dead people. I'll give you one thing in your post, you are a typical Liberal. Here's your sign, go stand off to the side and stay out of way. Toothpick please, I have a lefty in my teeth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with that is you still will have insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone? How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions? Government step aside is what got us in the economical jam we are in now.. Banks and financial institutions ran amok and killed our economy and housing market..

Tort reform? Your son or daughter dies due to medical mal practice?? How much is that worth? I agree that there needs to be some limiting.. But people diserve something for their loss.. Or how bout this?? If a patient dies, the doctor is brought up on criminal charges or at least investigated for them.. I would much prefer some of these neglegent doctors go to jail than just pay a court fee and continue their practice..

Sadly your solutions above will do nothing.. Insurance companies will form agreements not to sell in certain markets to continue to drive costs up.. It would be the same princple as two competeing theatres having different movies.. They do so by agreement..

A single payer syestem is the only true way keep them honest.. Cause if the consumer doesn't like their insurance, they have else where to go..

1."... insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone..."
"According to AMA’s National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurer’s average."
Medicare: Largest Denier Of Health Care Claims » The Foundry

2."How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions?"
Of course they shouldn't!

Do you have auto insurance? How absurd would it be to call Geico from the scene of your accident and demand that you be covered for it?
Why would anyone with a brain pay for health insurance before they contracted a serious disorder, if they knew that the insurance company had to give them insurace at that point???

3. "... killed our economy and housing market.. "
Wrong. GSE's and forcing banks to give unwarrented loans resulted in the mortgage meltdown. Government interference.

4. Since practice of 'defensive medicine' costs 15 times as much as the total profit in the healthcare industry, I encourage you to look at the Canadian answer to tort reform.

Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

Report: Reining in lawsuits would cut deficit - Washington Times

5. "Sadly your solutions above will do nothing..."
Sadly your comprehension is lacking.

1. I wouldn't trust the AMA for anything.. Medicare doesn't deny anything.. Some hospitals and doctors don't accept medicare in favor of private insurance??

2. I am not a car and what kind of sick bitch are you that you aren't going to cover a child with a heart defect that they were born with!! Nuff said on that topic!! Consider yourself bitch slapped!! What do you think a pre-existing condition is?? Acne? Your damn right they should cover them!! They should cover all of them!! Nobody and I mean nobody is free from some form of pre-existing condition..

3. Wrong again.. Actually our melt down started in the Reagan era and came to a head in the Bush Era.. Do some research will you.. Government deregulation is what killed our economy..

4.So you avoided my question and my proposal.. Typical.. Either stay on topic or get off the boards!!

5. I am not the one that wants to deny coverage to babies!! I would worry more about your own lacking comprehension than mine.. Again, your ideas accomplish nothing for children and the people of this nation..

Let's see how much effort it takes to prove that you are a fool:


"Medicare doesn't deny anything.. "
"An analysis of almost 10,000,000 insurance claims by the AMA to seven private insurance companies and Medicare between March 2007 and March 2008 reveals that more than half a million (574,591) claims were denied, and the chart above displays the percentage of claims denied by each insurer during that period. Medicare led the group with the greatest percentage of insurance claims denied (6.85%), more than double the denial rate for private insurers like UHC (2.7%), Coventry (2.9%), Humana (2.9%) and CIGNA (3.4%)."
Medicare Denies More Insurance Claims Than the Private Sector « Free Market Mojo

"Medicare doesn't deny anything.. "
"What's fascinating, says the Heritage Foundation, is that although the American Medical Association (AMA) has endorsed a public option, some member physicians at the group's annual meeting (in June) likened the notion to communism." In short, the AMA is effectively endorsing a public plan that is the largest denier of health care claims."

MEDICARE: LARGEST DENIER OF HEALTH CARE CLAIMS

"Medicare doesn't deny anything.. "
General Appeal Procedures Under the Original Medicare Plan
Below is a list of procedures you should follow to file an appeal when your claim, filed under the Original Medicare Plan, has been partially or fully denied.

_____ Review in its entirety, the Medicare Summary Notice (MSN) or other notice that was mailed to you.

_____ Look closely at item 10, Non-Covered Charges, on your MSN to determine which charges were not covered.

_____ Read item 15, Notes Section, for more information about your claim.

_____ Review and complete item 18, Appeals Information, for tips on how to begin the appeal’s process.

_____ Consult the back of the MSN, or other notice, for more information
Filing Appeals for Medicare Insurance Claims Denials

"Medicare doesn't deny anything.. "
Non-reimbursable Claims
While many conditions were considered, the list was eventually narrowed down to the following conditions for which Medicare will not provide any reimbursement:
•Pressure ulcers
•Hospital falls
•Certain catheter-associated infections
•Air embolism as a result of surgery
•Leaving an object in during surgery
•Providing incompatible blood or blood products
•Mediastinitis following coronary bypass
https://members.mtbc.com/mtbcstatic/medicare-deny-claims.aspx

"Medicare doesn't deny anything.. "
When your Medicare claim is denied or approved for less than the full amount, you have 120 days to request a “redetermination” of the decision. The Medicare Redetermination Request Form (Form CMS-20027) is available on the Medicare and Medicaid Web site (www.cms.hhs.gov/cmsforms/downloads/cms20027.pdf) or by calling 800-633-4227.

So, are you a fool yet?

Oh, you've always been?

 

[Bern80]

1. I wouldn't trust the AMA for anything.. Medicare doesn't deny anything.. Some hospitals and doctors don't accept medicare in favor of private insurance??

Oh good. Then you won't trust their endorsement of the Senate bill right?

2. I am not a car and what kind of sick bitch are you that you aren't going to cover a child with a heart defect that they were born with!! Nuff said on that topic!! Consider yourself bitch slapped!! What do you think a pre-existing condition is?? Acne? Your damn right they should cover them!! They should cover all of them!! Nobody and I mean nobody is free from some form of pre-existing condition..

Could you perhaps attempt a modicum of objectivity without being melodramatic? Why, out of all the various types of insurance out there (car, life, fire, flood, etc.) is the health insurance industry the only one that should not be allowed to protect itself from exhorbitant risk? Wouldn't you be just as indignant about someone demanding they be accepted and covered under a fire insurance policy when their house is on fire.

3. Wrong again.. Actually our melt down started in the Reagan era and came to a head in the Bush Era.. Do some research will you.. Government deregulation is what killed our economy..

Wrong again.....again. Try Carter and the CRA.

5. I am not the one that wants to deny coverage to babies!! I would worry more about your own lacking comprehension than mine.. Again, your ideas accomplish nothing for children and the people of this nation..

That's one overly melodramatic way to look at it. The other would be that YOU are the one who thinks it's okay to rip people off as long as it's big bad corporate America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem with that is you still will have insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone? How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions? Government step aside is what got us in the economical jam we are in now.. Banks and financial institutions ran amok and killed our economy and housing market..

Tort reform? Your son or daughter dies due to medical mal practice?? How much is that worth? I agree that there needs to be some limiting.. But people diserve something for their loss.. Or how bout this?? If a patient dies, the doctor is brought up on criminal charges or at least investigated for them.. I would much prefer some of these neglegent doctors go to jail than just pay a court fee and continue their practice..

Sadly your solutions above will do nothing.. Insurance companies will form agreements not to sell in certain markets to continue to drive costs up.. It would be the same princple as two competeing theatres having different movies.. They do so by agreement..

A single payer syestem is the only true way keep them honest.. Cause if the consumer doesn't like their insurance, they have else where to go..

1."... insurance run amok.. What is preventing them form wrongfully denying coverage on someone..."
"According to AMA’s National Health Insurance Report Card, Medicare denies 6.85 percent of its claims, higher than any private insurer (Aetna was second, denying 6.80 percent of its claims), and more than double any private insurer’s average."
Medicare: Largest Denier Of Health Care Claims » The Foundry

2."How does that force them to accept pre-existing conditions?"
Of course they shouldn't!

Do you have auto insurance? How absurd would it be to call Geico from the scene of your accident and demand that you be covered for it?
Why would anyone with a brain pay for health insurance before they contracted a serious disorder, if they knew that the insurance company had to give them insurace at that point???

3. "... killed our economy and housing market.. "
Wrong. GSE's and forcing banks to give unwarrented loans resulted in the mortgage meltdown. Government interference.

4. Since practice of 'defensive medicine' costs 15 times as much as the total profit in the healthcare industry, I encourage you to look at the Canadian answer to tort reform.

Canada keeps malpractice cost in check - St. Petersburg Times

FactCheck.org: Pushing for a Public Plan

Report: Reining in lawsuits would cut deficit - Washington Times

5. "Sadly your solutions above will do nothing..."
Sadly your comprehension is lacking.

1. I wouldn't trust the AMA for anything.. Medicare doesn't deny anything.. Some hospitals and doctors don't accept medicare in favor of private insurance??

2. I am not a car and what kind of sick bitch are you that you aren't going to cover a child with a heart defect that they were born with!! Nuff said on that topic!! Consider yourself bitch slapped!! What do you think a pre-existing condition is?? Acne? Your damn right they should cover them!! They should cover all of them!! Nobody and I mean nobody is free from some form of pre-existing condition..

3. Wrong again.. Actually our melt down started in the Reagan era and came to a head in the Bush Era.. Do some research will you.. Government deregulation is what killed our economy..

4.So you avoided my question and my proposal.. Typical.. Either stay on topic or get off the boards!!

5. I am not the one that wants to deny coverage to babies!! I would worry more about your own lacking comprehension than mine.. Again, your ideas accomplish nothing for children and the people of this nation..

"Actually our melt down started in the Reagan era and came to a head in the Bush Era.. Do some research will you.. Government deregulation is what killed our economy.. "

Time for a remedial:


a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost.

Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009


So, in summary, when one is as ignorant as you are, it may be dangerous to be out unattended.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The openning salvo of this thread gets my vote for fucktard thought of the week!

 

[Political Junky]

McCain is on the Senate floor decrying health care legislation, while saying he defends Medicare.
I'd think he'd be ashamed to show his face in the Senate when he was such a lousy candidate.

 

[blu]

The openning salvo of this thread gets my vote for fucktard thought of the week!

in other words... you can't debate it

 

[Meister]

McCain is on the Senate floor decrying health care legislation, while saying he defends Medicare.
I'd think he'd be ashamed to show his face in the Senate when he was such a lousy candidate.

PJ, McCain sounds more like decrying the healthcare bill that the democrats have slopped together, not healthcare legislation. sheesh...