The Tyranny of Medical Bills in America

[Alan Klein]

Isaac:  The government is doing the same thing they did to cause the real estate bubble that burst in 2008.  Sure the banks and others played games, basically to protect bad mortgages they gave out.  But those mortgages would not have been done if Congress stayed out of it in the first place.  Instead Congress set it up as they are doing again to give loans out to people who can't afford it.  Even Liberal rep Barney Frank said, "It was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.”  

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/01/opinion/underwriting-the-next-housing-crisis.html

[Diego Pigozzo]

No, their behaviors would not be acceptable.  That's why we have those laws. The original poster complained that these people committed fraud without penalty.  He was mistaken.  Enron officials paid severe penalties.

So you're saying that we have laws that forbid damaging behavior.
Allowing to have people to pay big money for life-saving therapies isn't a damaging behavior?

[Rob C]

The point is, just a small fraction of the uninhabited area of the Sahara Desert would be sufficient to provide our current energy needs.

Ray, the Sahara's a pipe dream. You can't build where sands can drift right over the top of you, where religious bandits will smash the things to bits in the pursuit of fifty illusive virgins (where do these guys get these ideas? You can hardly find one anywhere in the new Permissive!).

Just imagine the people you'd need to hire, armed with big brooms and powerful fans! Far better go nuke and if it goes wrong, well goodnight, and maybe the virgins will turn out to have been realistic after all. A thought: perhaps they might all be PC activists, so probably no luck there. Back to the casting couch.

You see? There's always a bright lining to stormy clouds!

Rob

[jjj]

Here is one plausible explanation of what is going on: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615​

They predict it could only a few decades left for us.

Plus ça change.
The capitalist system does much the same thing on albeit on a much faster cycle. All because humans are involved, boom and bust is inevitable because of greed, stupidity and completely ignoring lessons of the past. Rather than try and prevent such things, governments should just accept that is what will always happen and learn to deal with it. Rather than trying to continually patch an ever expanding balloon with promises that cannot be kept.

[jjj]

In other words you haven't a clue what "profit" actually is. I guessed that from your statements, but this makes it clearer.

HA HA HA HA HA HA, OUCH, HA HA HA HA. Still ROTFL!

Evidently you've never quite understood that there's no free lunch.

Misreading, misquoting and ignoring anything that you do not like to suit your own agenda as usual I see.

[jjj]

We are limited only by our energy supplies and our imagination. Energy from the sun is huge. Unfortunately, our imagination might be lacking. 

Solar power generating roads are being developed by a few people. It's a very clever solution to the problem as power production and distribution are the very same thing.  Not to mention that smart roads would be transformative to society in the way computers were.

Working out the tech will be a challenge obviously, but nothing compared to the even more difficult task of changing how things are currently done with all the vast sums of money behind the vested interests that will be threatened by something like this.

[jjj]

Ray, the Sahara's a pipe dream. You can't build where sands can drift right over the top of you, where religious bandits will smash the things to bits in the pursuit of fifty illusive virgins (where do these guys get these ideas? You can hardly find one anywhere in the new Permissive!).

The point being made is not that solar panels should be built in the Sahara, but that more energy than we need can be obtained from such a small area. I'm sure there are single oil/coal production areas in the world that are bigger than the area needed for solar power to supply the entire world's needs.

[Diego Pigozzo]

It's a very clever solution to the problem as power production and distribution are the very same thing. 

Too bad they don't work (which doesn't means they don't produce electricity).

[Isaac]

Sure the banks and others played games, basically to protect bad mortgages they gave out.

Investment banks are not in the business of giving out mortgages.

"Whether the true reason that led the drive to lower underwriting standards for US sub-prime mortgages was unacceptable commercial practices or flawed housing policies and the distortion of the market by the operations of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae … these arguments are merely capable of explaining what triggered the crisis.
…
However, they can neither account for the global dimensions of the crisis nor for its magnitude. The misuse of financial innovation … meant that the right channels opened up for US mortgage-backed securities regardless of whether the issuers were investment banks or the GSEs. As a result, US sub-prime loans' risk was distributed to and 'infected' a very large number of non-US financial institutions, which because of herding had largely taken one-way bets on the continuous rise of the US housing market. The ensuing generalized loss of confidence … and not the sub-prime mortgage crisis explains why the 2008 turmoil was a true Global Financial Crisis and not merely a serious shock to the US financial system."

But those mortgages would not have been done if Congress stayed out of it in the first place.

But the S.E.C. complaint makes almost no mention of affordable housing mandates. Instead, it charges that the executives were motivated to begin buying subprime mortgages — belatedly, contrary to the Big Lie — because they were trying to reclaim lost market share, and thus maximize their bonuses.

Even Liberal rep Barney Frank said…

What he actually said to Lawrence Kudlow is -- "I've been wrong about things, we all have been; but I really feel good about having been right about saying -- It was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.” 

(I have not found anything that shows Barney Frank previously made a statement like that.)

[Ray]

Ray, the Sahara's a pipe dream. You can't build where sands can drift right over the top of you, where religious bandits will smash the things to bits in the pursuit of fifty illusive virgins (where do these guys get these ideas? You can hardly find one anywhere in the new Permissive!).

Just imagine the people you'd need to hire, armed with big brooms and powerful fans! Far better go nuke and if it goes wrong, well goodnight, and maybe the virgins will turn out to have been realistic after all. A thought: perhaps they might all be PC activists, so probably no luck there. Back to the casting couch.

You see? There's always a bright lining to stormy clouds!

Rob

Rob,
You have missed the point, as Jeremy mentioned in post #266.

This is what I wrote:
"The point is, just a small fraction of the uninhabited area of the Sahara Desert would be sufficient to provide our current energy needs. There are many deserts on the planet, and large areas of arid and sparsely populated land, including vacant roof areas on millions of buildings."

I imagine if any country decided to build a large solar farm in a desert, the project would need a water supply, if for no other reason than to wash the dust off the solar panels. The solar farm would therefore be ideally located near an oasis or underground water supply. Alternatively, the same route used for the underground HVDC cables to transmit the electricity from the desert to the cities, could be used for underground water pipes. The water used to wash the dust off the solar panels could be used to irrigate certain food crops. Waste not, want not. 

The dangers of bandits and terrorists are a separate issue which can affect any source of power.

[Rob C]

Rob,
You have missed the point, as Jeremy mentioned in post #266.

This is what I wrote:
"The point is, just a small fraction of the uninhabited area of the Sahara Desert would be sufficient to provide our current energy needs. There are many deserts on the planet, and large areas of arid and sparsely populated land, including vacant roof areas on millions of buildings."

I imagine if any country decided to build a large solar farm in a desert, the project would need a water supply, if for no other reason than to wash the dust off the solar panels. The solar farm would therefore be ideally located near an oasis or underground water supply. Alternatively, the same route used for the underground HVDC cables to transmit the electricity from the desert to the cities, could be used for underground water pipes. The water used to wash the dust off the solar panels could be used to irrigate certain food crops. Waste not, want not. 

The dangers of bandits and terrorists are a separate issue which can affect any source of power.

Rubbish, Ray! You're just shotgunning your reply in order to avoid the literal pitfalls from which you now choose to divert attention!

Worse yet, and perhaps slightly your responsibilty for eschewing the cause of the 'clean air' lobby, climate change will increase rainfall in years to come in currently more 'normal' areas, making existing roof-based solar power even less reliable. Would the deserts of Africa move northwards across the Mediterranean, converting Spain and France into solar energy farms (imagine what the local farmers, truckers, charcuterie merchants would do with that propostion, not to mention the winegrowers!) or simply move southwards over the rain forests, inspiring the sale of rubber dinghies to even newer heights? It is long said that Africa already begins on the southern shores of France. The changes will, of course, go both north and southwardly: Nature loves equilibrium. Our friends in your adopted part of this topsy-turvy planet will, of course, have long left their scented isle after pledging and celebrating absolute twindom with the Namib.

Interesting to realise that the polar bear will roam the Pyrenees, the seal imitate the actions of the salmon and that little old Man will learn again to make the bow and arrow, a talent once reserved to childhood.

I hope we can shoot all of this on lightweight MF with optional additional DR, bought at the local branch of Comet. There should, by then, be an ample supply of "free-at-point-of-use" hydro-electric power with which to energize our fun...

;-)

Rob C

[Diego Pigozzo]

The problem with Sahara solar power (and solar roadways, for that matter) is that is uneconomical because of the huge maintenance costs of the structures and the costs of transporting the energy to the users.

Just think of the copper wiring costs.

[Rob C]

The problem with Sahara solar power (and solar roadways, for that matter) is that is uneconomical because of the huge maintenance costs of the structures and the costs of transporting the energy to the users.

Just think of the copper wiring costs.

I can think of at least two multi-nationals doing exactly that!

;-)

Rob C

[Diego Pigozzo]

[The problem with Sahara solar power (and solar roadways, for that matter) is that is uneconomical because of the huge maintenance costs of the structures and the costs of transporting the energy to the users. Just think of the copper wiring costs.]

I can think of at least two multi-nationals doing exactly that!
;-)
Rob C

Could you tell who they are?

[Rob C]

Could you tell who they are?

Of the many: Rio Tinto and Glencore. They are big in minerals in general. Why?

Rob C

[Diego Pigozzo]

Of the many: Rio Tinto and Glencore. They are big in minerals in general. Why?

Rob C

Both are mining and commodity multinational: do they are investing in solar roadways or Sahara solar panel powerplants?

[Rob C]

Both are mining and commodity multinational: do they are investing in solar roadways or Sahara solar panel powerplants?

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about your reference to COPPER, as in wire!

;-)

Rob C

[Diego Pigozzo]

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about your reference to COPPER, as in wire!

;-)

Rob C

Sorry, I didn't get it

[Ray]

Rubbish, Ray! You're just shotgunning your reply in order to avoid the literal pitfalls from which you now choose to divert attention!

Worse yet, and perhaps slightly your responsibilty for eschewing the cause of the 'clean air' lobby, climate change will increase rainfall in years to come in currently more 'normal' areas, making existing roof-based solar power even less reliable. Would the deserts of Africa move northwards across the Mediterranean, converting Spain and France into solar energy farms (imagine what the local farmers, truckers, charcuterie merchants would do with that propostion, not to mention the winegrowers!) or simply move southwards over the rain forests, inspiring the sale of rubber dinghies to even newer heights? It is long said that Africa already begins on the southern shores of France. The changes will, of course, go both north and southwardly: Nature loves equilibrium. Our friends in your adopted part of this topsy-turvy planet will, of course, have long left their scented isle after pledging and celebrating absolute twindom with the Namib.

Interesting to realise that the polar bear will roam the Pyrenees, the seal imitate the actions of the salmon and that little old Man will learn again to make the bow and arrow, a talent once reserved to childhood.

I hope we can shoot all of this on lightweight MF with optional additional DR, bought at the local branch of Comet. There should, by then, be an ample supply of "free-at-point-of-use" hydro-electric power with which to energize our fun...

;-)

Rob C

You've missed the point again, Rob. This diversion is in connection with a scientific study which was mentioned by Petrus in post #239. In the conclusions of that study it was mentioned that the most significant factor that could likely cause the complete collapse of a civilization, as has happened a number of times in the past, is the over-exploitation of natural resources in combination with the 'social stratification' of significant income inequality.

I agree with such conclusions, and whilst I don't agree that current and predicted future levels of CO2 are a cause for alarm, I do think there is justified alarm about the environmental effects of the industrial processes that generate the CO2, such as lots of smog in China that affects people's health, and acid rain which is caused by sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides emitted by coal-fired power stations, but not by CO2 which is a clear and odourless gas essential for all life.

I also think that without the political alarm generated about the potential catastrophic effects of rising CO2 levels, we would continue exploiting fossil fuel reserves to the point where they became very scarce and expensive, which, in combination with the existing social stratification of income inequality, could result in a civilization collapse.

Fortunately, the political alarm generated about CO2 levels over the past few decades has resulted in significant development in solar-generated electricity to the point where the cost of unsubsidised solar electricity is now on a par with the cost of unsubsidised electricity from burning coal.

In Australia we've set a world record for solar energy efficiency, at 40%. By comparison, the efficiency of coal-fired power stations averages at less than 40%, ranging from about 33% to 37%. Only the latest Ultra-Supercritical coal-fired power stations reach a higher efficiency than 40%, but such power stations are very expensive to build.
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-technology/unsw-researchers-set-world-record-solar-energy-efficiency

It is reasonable to suppose that solar panels will become even more efficient and more affordable in the future, as indeed digital cameras have. I guess my fascination with solar power is connected to my fascination with digital cameras. They have something in common. A digital camera's sensor is in effect a solar panel, converting light into electricity, even when the light is poor. (Very appropriate for a photographic analogy on a photographic forum, don't you think  )

One myth about solar power is that the sun has to shine directly on the panels for electricity to be produced. This is no longer true. Solar panels can be designed to generate electricity on the cloudy and foggy days which are the norm in places such as the U.K. and St Petersburg.

The future is bright. You can all rest in peace. 

[Petrus]

Totally OT, but anyway: the use and importance solar energy is certainly rising as the panels get more efficient, but the big problem still is that there is no cheap and efficient way to store electricity. In countries like Finland we need most of the electricity in winter, when it is dark 20 hours a day and solar panels are next to useless. On coldest days also windmills stand still. So we fire up the coal power plants, which also means double investment for power generation. The only way to store power in practice are water reservoirs, which in turn are opposed by the greens...