Price controls coming for health care

Which is worse? columbiacounty wife, or columbiacounty mother?
http://www.google.com/search?q=columbia+county+mother&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch
http://www.google.com/search?q=columbia+county+wife&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch

That's correct,huntersburg:
It's painful for liberals to admit.

"whether the lack of a safety net is directly correlated to longevity and infant mortality is irrelevant to me."

You sound like a Borg. Honestly you do.

Steve: I love Borgs. It's not an insult.

I liked the tennis-player Borg.

Wasn't meant to be an insult.

"whether the lack of a safety net is directly correlated to longevity and infant mortality is irrelevant to me."

There have been endless studies saying that they ARE clearly related, including some mentioned by me. There are NO studies saying they are not related. This is something frequently and explicitly mentioned over and over! Just willful ignorance.

Does Steve need Jason the retard to support his position?

nyc10023 - Don't worry; those without reading comprehension issues understand the difference between (1) saying a factor is "irrelevant" to your conclusion and (2) disputing the accuracy of whatever anyone might say about the given factor. I also suspect the majority of readers here understand the difference between correlation and causation. On a separate note, I always appreciate your posts, and congratulate you on your U.S. citizenship if I am recalling you correctly. I love it whenever anyone chooses the United States and is able to navigate the complex immigration laws to gain citizenship.
And P.S.- I think it is "The Borg" rather than "Borgs." I am not worthy of the Trekkie label, but my older brother dominated our single TV when we were young, so I found myself happily watching it whenever he allowed me to watch with him.

It's true that we don't have a government-controlled healthcare system (thankfully) like some other countries, but we don't have an individual free-market system either. Health insurance costs should be tax-credited at the individual level, not the employer level. Introduce individual choice and competition into healthcare and costs will go down while quality goes up. Introduce government control and price controls and it will spiral into disaster.

HB - When I was laughing out loud yesterday re the fundraiser comment, my husband asked me what I was laughing at, and I explained your history of comments; the one that I recalled feeling most horrible laughing at involved someone skipping down the street wearing a certain type of helmet. And no, Stevejhx does not need Jason's support in any way; while I do not draw the same conclusions from the data as Stevejhx does, and while I don't have the identical preference structure as Stevejhx does, Stevejhx makes an excellent case for his position and I respect it.

LICC, the tax credit for health insurance IS at the individual level. Employers deduct it as a compensation expense, but then employees are not taxed on it.

Unfortunately there are no studies or data anywhere in the world that support your conclusion that "Introduce individual choice and competition into healthcare and costs will go down while quality goes up." If there were I'd be 100% for it. But all of the data - without exception - supports the opposite conclusion. We have the freest-market healthcare system in the world, which is simultaneous the most expensive and the least efficient.

Yes, it is "The Borg." Swedes don't pluralize with an "s".

You may have saved yourself from a stevie apology demand because of your input on the Borg thing,
NYCNovice.

But individuals must get their healthcare insurance through their employer. A person should be able to get a tax credit regardless of his or her employment situation.

This just in:

NYCNovice:
There is a service from UPS called: "UPS My Choice" which sends an e-mail before the delivery of a package
by UPS. The recipient can sign electronically and the package will be left at the door, or can be re-routed
to another address for signature.
This is relevant to the doorman/non-doorman discussion of last week.
NYCMatt will probably still have a problem with that option but it's good to know you can do that.

O.K., carry on with this discussion. You are heading to the 400 comment level any hour, now.

No they don't have to get healthcare insurance through their employers. The self-employed can get insurance through group policies (see Freelancers Union), through associations, or using individual policies (as I have). They remain tax deductible.

The unemployed do not get a tax break for individual policies or COBRA - it is doubtful that if they did it would have much of an effect anyway, though the reason is because the tax break shows up on your W-2 as an employment benefit. Someone else must pay for it for it to be classified as such.

I don't know if this will change under Obamacare.

Truth - If Stevejhx is inclined to discount my input on anything, I doubt my comment on The Borg changed his estimation of me, and to the extent that it did, I need to confess that any increased consideration based on that comment would be undeserved, because I cannot say with any certainty that I understood his reference - was he referring to Anders or Cy? At first I thought he meant Anders, but I do not think nyc10023 sounds like a follower of Anders Borg; then I thought, maybe Stevejhx means cyborg? but then that didn't seem right either, because if he meant cyborg, then I think he should have said "you sound like the Borg" rather than "a Borg." I decided not to get bogged down by it, but then I couldn't help myself when nyc10023 said "Borgs."

LIC - ughhh, its frustrating that you don't know about other countries HC systems at all, apparently. The Swiss, Dutch, and Australians have systems more or less like Obamacare that are disconnected from employers - people buy private insurance on their own. The problem with that in a vacuum is that there is no monopsomy power. No bargaining power on the side of the many individuals. In the US those that can bargain as a group - JPM Morgan, GM, Medicaid, the VA - get much lower prices for EVERYTHING than the list price or emergency room price.

Ergo in countries where people are required to buy insurance on their own (like the above mentioned ones) have various forms of price controls. Some say that all consumers must pay the same exact price for everything, no exceptions, and no special discount for large purchasers. Others explicitly set prices.

But if you simply said "everyone buy health care on your own!" in the US with nothing else, you'd end up with a system where some people would pay double or triple for the exact same service from the exact same provider, as we have now. This in addition to insurance companies denying coverage altogether to some people, or charging much higher prices for insurance for some versus others, not to mention many young, healthy people just not getting insurance at all and freeloading off of the healthy.

un-healthy and reverse, depending on the situation. Hate that you can't edit these comments.

An individual would need to be part of the union or association to get a group policy. For others, it is not feasible. The prices on individual policies are much higher than employer-based policies, which would not be the case if we moved off the employer model.

Maybe steve was referencing Star Trek with his Borg comment?

...or you could just say (as is the case in other countries) that providers are only allowed to charge ONE price to all comers, regardless.

No problem, jason. Just post another comment to correct your previous comment.

My comment now will make this discussion closer to the 400-comment-mark.

Eighty more to go.

Discussion of Borgs will count towards the grand tally.

I do not have a song for "Borgs".

Yes, it was Star Trek.

You do need to be a member of a union or association to get a group policy, but that is not hard. In fact, in FL, you need to be a member of an association to get an individual policy, as well.

But the new healthcare exchanges will include 2 federal "national" options, which will give people the right to be members of the federal employee healthcare system. That is in addition to other individual and small group policies that will be offered.

Combine that with the limit of a 20% profit on insurance premiums, and it should do a lot to drive down prices. Right now there is no real competition in our health insurance systems because information is scarce and hard to find, and the policies are not necessarily comparable based on price - because the benefits differ so much from one to the other. That should change because a minimum set of benefits must be offered, by state.

Why the Republican governors resist setting up insurance exchanges is beyond me - beyond being good for competition, if they let the federal government set up the exchanges, they are setting the groundwork for the very thing that they don't want: insurance controlled by the federal government.

Sometimes Republicans seem to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Re "the Borg" - I ultimately had concluded it was a Star Trek reference (see my Trekkie comment to nyc10023 above) because that made the most sense in the context of this discussion; but then I got confused by Steve's reference to the Swede's not pluralizing with an "s." I am going to have to ask my brother, but I thought "Borg" in the StarTrek context was meant to be a collective proper noun such that there is no such thing as "a" Borg and that such was meant to be a philosophical statement rather than having anything to do with the Swedes. I would actually love to hear any further thoughts Stevejhx has on this because he does appear deliberate in choice of words, so it also occurred to me that I might be missing some greater meaning he intended.

The Republicans I know who are opposed to Obamacare are opposed to it primarily based on its imposing additional costs on employers/businesses and what this will do to the economy. The person with whom I discuss this with the most runs a number of small businesses and tells me that he is electing to pay the penalty rather than continue to provide insurance to his employees. He says he has to choose between cutting headcount or cutting health insurance, and that he can maintain current headcount by paying penalty but not by providing mandated benefits. I am not privy to his margins, calculations, etc., but aside from being a self-made businessman, he is also a longtime board member (15+ years) of the largest hospital in the city where he resides, so I am always interested in what he has to say about the various approaches to healthcare. He will give you no argument on the U.S. system's being the most expensive and highly inefficient. However, he does state that the quality in specialized care is far beyond what you see anywhere else in the world. When I ask him what he proposes instead of Obamacare, the answer is a bit frightening: He believes better health education and steps such as outlawing twinkies and large sodas are a good place to start, as well as mandating exercise. I am not saying I agree at all, but he is quite Darwinian in his approach and resents having to pay for healthcare for those whose poor health he believes is entirely their own fault. Again, I am not saying that I agree; I am just throwing out there why some Republicans appear to be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Just as long as the Repubs aren't eating their noses.

The Swedish Borg joke was an old joke told by many comedians.

Regarding "runs a number of small businesses," the healthcare mandate is only for companies with more than 50 employees, and second of all the mandate doesn't start for another 2 years, so that is all BS.

Regarding the rest of it, Bloomberg LLC is not a small business.

^^That is a new joke told by stevie.^^

I have always questioned his characterization of his ventures as "small businesses." And I guaranty you this dominates our discussions, and he has stated that such is his intention if there is no change to what has been enacted. The gentleman in question is many things, but he is not somebody who engages in BS. I've had to cut off our discussions in this area and have advised him to start a blog or join one of the many undoubtedly already out there devoted to this subject.

P.S. - I have also asked him why he doesn't fear losing his employees to a competitor who will continue to offer health insurance. He says he will cross that bridge if/when he comes to it.

Best of luck to him.

"The person with whom I discuss this with the most runs a number of small businesses and tells me that he is electing to pay the penalty rather than continue to provide insurance to his employees."

This is a complete bullshit response. NYS is already pretty out-there in terms of what it requires for coverage, so there is 0.00% chance that the HCA is MORE imposing to NYS employers than HCA. If he was in Texas or Alabama, i might buy this, but insurance is no more expensive in NYS than it was beforehand. And having mandatory coverage at the individual level unambiguously costs hospitals LESS. 100% of hospital companies were for the mandate - less absorbing of costs for them at the emergency room. It sounds like your friend has an ideological agenda he is persuing regardless of the facts. If his company was already providing benefits in NYS, nothing in the HCA will make it more expensive than it is now.

Actually costs in NY will especially go down because of the free-rider problem: in NY there is no preexisting condition prohibition, which is part of what makes health insurance so expensive.

Jason - OMG; are you just messing with me by upping the idiot factor in each of your posts or are you serious? He is not an NYS employer, and his businesses are not hospitals or hospital-related companies; he is on the board of the largest hospital in his city because he is a respected businessman, and he lives in a rather depressed area in the midwest. His businesses are related to automotive technology.

Stevejhx - I was actually hoping, sincerely, that you might provide me with a link to a study that I could arm myself with in the next conversation with Republican in question to debunk everything he tells me about the effects Obamacare are going to have on economic growth. He is as passionate about his side as you are about yours and is constantly citing all sorts of statistics that supposedly support his argument that the United States cannot afford Obamacare. We are going to be at the same dinner in a few weeks, and I'd love to have just a good study to show him that there are two sides to his economic argument. I have not had any time to do independent research on this aspect, but you seem well-versed in the entire debate, so I would love any ammunition you might have on hand.

? The CBO report, done and done. And I said IF your friend had an NYS business. You are on ignore because you have insisted on hurling personal insults at me for several posts in a row now. I will not see your reply.

Jason - I apologize for the personal insults; really. I admire your passion.

Jason, please come back and take me off ignore. Not only do we share a love of Nate Silver, but I also think it is warmer in SF! I feel bad.

LOL, NYCNovice.

jason likes to write that he's putting posters on ignore.
I think he still reads my comments. He never wrote that he's refusing to read my comments.
I even posted a recent comment, saying that he's not a retard.

Let me guess: Is your friend a business owner in Detroit?
NYCNovice, please let me know so I will feel better about myself in the real world.
I worry that my streeteasy detractors have ruined my real life with their disapproval of me.
How my real life goes on unaffected is miraculous.

I'm still waiting for that bullshitter, apt23 to contact my music biz friends and associates, whom she claimed to know (although, not as a hack, like me!) and inform them that they must disown me.

HowTF I was allowed backstage at the "Love For Levon" concert, The Rolling Stones at Barclays on Saturday (most excellent, NYCNovice) and all of the events I've attended since her threat to me, can only be explained by way of calling her bullshit out.

This week I will be backstage at the Hurricane Sandy benefit concert at MSG.
Still unaffected by the bullshit of the apt23 threats against me.

Novice: is your friend starting from the viewpoint that any amount of increased taxation is onerous? If so, it is nigh impossible to argue for any governmental measure that would increase his taxes.

In general, I am against linking any attempt at a universal health system with employer-provided insurance. It is inelegant, a burden for businesses, and inadequate with respect to the self-employed, the unemployed, students, etc. I'm curious as to what your friend (and any Republican) thinks about having basic, "no-frills", government provided medical care (that would include dental care for anyone under 18). When I think of basic medical care, I'm not thinking about cancer treatment or organ transplant or anything like that. I'm thinking of prenatal care, annual physicals for at least everyone under 18, FREE birth control, free vaccinations. It would seem that it makes sense as it removes from having people worry about going into bankruptcy for a five-figure medical bill which can derive from something as pedestrian as a broken leg. Medical care that is of the greatest utility per $ spent (i.e. not end-of-life stuff).

The most consistent and cogent Republican POV is that presented by Cliff Asnes, who is not against a basic healthcare safety net for all - the most pressing issue being what we, as a society, decide how much to spend on that.

Don't forget the $8000.00 for braces that your friend thinks should be covered under insurance.
ORTHODONTICS FOR ALL! COVERED BY INSURANCE.

Jason the retard is ignoring yet another person who disagrees with him. What a surprise from our favorite angry numbnut!

but....

you have another wack job friend.

well done.

You and me are friends?

huntersburg
2 minutes ago
Posts: 9853
Member since: Nov 2010
ignore this person
report abuse

Nope.

Here's two:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w16012
http://www.urban.org/health_policy/Massachusetts-and-Health-Reform.cfm

And since every other developed nation in the world has universal healthcare, as do many developing nations, I fail to see the problem.

Honestly, though, a single-payer system is much more efficient. Unfortunately Republicans wouldn't allow that to happen.

But it will.

Single payer provides poorer service in many areas, and will hinder innovation. Other countries piggyback off the U.S. for medical innovation.

I've read that Republican governors are not setting up the state exchanges because the federal payments to the states to do so are capped, so the states will winding up having to take on the costs. If the federal government has to set up the exchanges, the costs are federal (which basically pushes the costs to all the states in some form).

Star Trek was inconsistent with its Borg as collective story. In several episodes and a movie, individual Borg personalities were displayed, including a Borg Queen.

Star Trek was always inconsistent. Enjoyable (usually) nonetheless.

There is no evidence that "Single payer provides poorer service in many areas". If that were true it would show up in the mortality and morbidity statistics, but it hasn't. It may lead to dissatisfied customers who want immediate service at any price (provided that they're not paying for it), but it hasn't affected anyone's health.

Unless you can show any statistics or studies otherwise.

I've not heard why Republican governors are doing that, but if that is the reason then they are giving up control over their state healthcare systems. But since Republican governors are also refusing to expand Medicaid, which is 90% paid for by the federal government, and will save their hospital systems enormous amounts of money, I tend to doubt that's the real reason.

I think the real reason is to appeal to their base - it's the only reason that fits both actions. Both are illogical and self-defeating in the end, though.

Nyc10023 - The Republican in question is a former mentor of mine, and I have unending respect for him. Re taxes, he believes taxes for those making over a million dollars per year should be raised (he would be personally affected by such an increase), but that tax cuts should remain in place for those earning between $250,000 and $1,000,000. I believe he also thinks the deduction for mortgage interest should be eliminated. I will ask him how he feels about the approach you outline. FWIW, I am in your camp here, but I am not well versed in the economic impact of that approach. I think my former mentor will be delighted to discuss this; he is, I think, the best of the Republicans - you should hear him rant against members of his own party regarding many positions they take (line in the sand on taxes, all the social conservatism). His wife has asked me to do an intervention on his rants against Obamacare; she says he has become intolerable and wishes that I would engage with him on this. She says one of the reasons that he is obsessed is that the Democrats whom he respects (and there are many) refuse to acknowledge his points here, which he says are impossible to refute if one examines the data. I don't know because I have not examined all the data he says support his position.

Stevejhx - Thank you for the links; I will read them. I have a feeling a discussion between you and the gentleman in question would come down to a disagreement over interpretation of data, and I fear no study is really capable of answering the unknowns here, but I do look forward to digging into the issue when I get some time. My husband loves to make fun of my choice of recreational reading; his favorite story to tell about me is how we were once at a small gathering with Gene Sperling and Bono. I was so excited to meet Gene Sperling because I admire his work on TAA but had no interest in meeting Bono (whose music I enjoy nonethelss). A friend of Gene Sperling's teased him that I am the only person who would ever approach him in such a manner - "Gene - mystery solved! Here is the one person who bought your book."

LICComment - I am in your camp regarding innovation; that is one of the main reasons I don't want a single payer system.

Truth - Out of privacy for the Republican in question, I cannot reveal the city. He would be identifiable from that information, and I am not authorized to speak for him.

Hi HB.

CC - Please don't be jealous of my friendship with HB. There is room in my life for you both.

I have no idea who Gene Sperling is and couldn't give a damn, and I've never listened to any of Bono's music.

However, name-dropping makes me yawn.

O.K., NYCNovice, don't give his info up.
re: Bono. Better that you didn't meet him. He talks too much.

stevie is getting sleepy.

That's who was at the gathering that NYCNovice attended.
The point of mentioning Bono was probably that most people would rather meet Bono and talk to him rather than
Gene Sperling.

stevie doesn't know who Gene Sperling is,and has never heard a U2 song.
The Gene Sperling part, I believe. Never having heard a U2 song?!
stevie must live a sheltered life.

Stevejhx - I don't mean to imply that I am friends with any of the people I have mentioned on this board whose names one might recognize (or not), and I don't think I have done so in any of my postings. I am a bona fide nobody, and none of the names that I have "dropped" would have any idea who I am. If I care about an issue, I try to educate myself on the issue, and one of the ways I try to educate myself is by attending readings, conferences, fundraisers where featured speakers are individuals whose work I have read and want to know more about. I believe people who name drop do so to imply that they are a "somebody" or are friends with famous people. I have no illusions about being a "somebody" and have no famous friends, etc. I am a happy, anonymous, and inconsequential member of the audience who enjoys educating herself on issues affecting society for the sole purpose of trying to behave in a productive manner.

Truth - Exactly my point re story about Gene Sperling. I am a huge geek.

P.S. to Stevejhx - While we are discussing things that make us yawn; I do find degree dropping and salary boasting tedious. Brooks2 got the better of you on that one. I would not have brought it up, except you opened the door, much in the same manner Jason opened the door with his statement to me about not knowing what I was talking about.

I don't think that Brooksie - who claims to be a VFW and a pilot and all sorts of things - got the best of me on anything. He said that I didn't know what I was talking about; however, I am more than well trained in what I do.

If he seeks to deride me based on what continuing education I take - that is his prerogative. But the facts are the facts.

And the fact is he STILL hasn't told us why MBS's have negative convexity at a certain point when they are not callable. I know the answer ... we're waiting.

I like your and Brooksie's back and forth, but rather than continue with that, I actually think you would genuinely enjoy reading Gene Sperling's work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Sperling

I know lots of famous people. Some I work with, many of them are my friends.
They are known to many people who have never met them and don't have a friendship with them.
Anybody who doesn't like my mentioning them in my streeteasy comments can kiss my ass.

I don't give a shit about MBS and all of the back-and-forth bickering between stevie and Brooks.
Brooks is a retired Air Force fighter-jet pilot , like I'm a retired MBA Wall Street macher.
Or, a retired NBA champoinship basketball player.

Truth - I have no problem with names you mention and don't consider you a name dropper; it appears to be part of your profession, and you do not strike me as someone who is trying to impress anyone, etc. I like your posts, except when they are directed at other posters, but as noted repeatedly, I am not judging here and assume you all have legitimate gripes with each other. Not to mention, I have demonstrated that I am not above name-calling; never appropriate. Nevertheless, I do note that I would never say anything on here that I would not say directly to anybody in person. I live in Washington, DC and may well offer myself up for public service again at some point in the future. I underwent security clearance process pre-9/11, and even at that time it was incredibly thorough. I was at the lowest level one could imagine; less than a nobody, and the FBI appeared to have spoken with everyone I knew, everyone I had worked with, worked for, gone to school with, neighbors, etc. Given everything that just occurred with Petraeus, one has to assume that disclosing participation in Internet forums with user names, etc. will become part of security clearance process in the future. I have no problem with that.

I spend all day long reading legal briefs and police reports and financial statements - the last thing I want to do is read more, but thanks anyway.

NYCNovice:
I don't have gripes with anybody on streeteasy.
This is just an internet discussion board.
Some posters were part of a bully gang who thought they ran streeteasy discussions.
Threats were part of their M.O.

Truth doesn't take shit from anybody, least of all internet bully gangs.
Since the demise of the se bully gang a couple of months ago, a few of them have tried to restart their
attempts. I've never met any of them in real life. They are merely comment-posters on streeteasy who have a lack of real-life activities to keep them busy.
I would say whatever I say here on streeteasy to them but will never meet them in person in real life.
They aren't on the invitation list of the real life events that I attend.
Especially apt23 and her se buddies whose posted threats to me were laughable.

I'm just an entertainment industry publicist and I don't think that the FBI is interested in investigating me.

If they investigate your nom de se, they will see that you are chatting with and trying to get along with a troll from Columbia County. All in all, I think you will pass the FBI investigation and will get your clearance.

If not, try dropping Brooks'name.
He's a decorated retired Air Force fighter pilot.
That ought to be good for some FBI admiration.

It didn't get them very far and only served to highlight their need to bully.

stevie is tired of reading.
He makes an exception for streeteasy discussions.

I don't dislike stevie. He's never posted comments threatening me.

I'm calling: 400 comments on this thread by midnight.

truth is too pathetic to waste time on---

^^oh, look who's here: wbottom/yikes.
Wasting time on me.

pls tell us more panty-wetting stories about all the famous people you know......

This is useful info BTW

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/how-medicare-is-misrepresented/

yikes, truth has been on "ignore" for me for maybe 2 years. I think most people have him/her on ignore. I don't mind the odd insult, but s/he spends 90% of its time insulting people and very little time on whatever the topic actually is.

oh, jason: I'm heart-broken.

Do your math. I certainly don't spend 90% of my time insulting people on discussion threads.

When have I insulted you, jason?
and how would you know if you have me on "ignore"?

jason is upset because NYCNovice laughed at the huntersburg comment , calling jason a retard.
I chat with NYCNovice here on se, so that makes me an anti-jason insulter? Odd or even?
Show me where and when I insulted you jason.
You used to chat with me and we got along.

So now you throw in with the likes of wbottom/yikes? How lovely for you.

jason will now pretend he didn't read this comment because he has me "on ignore".

So, NYCNovice: what you read above is typical of the wbottom (now yikes) issue with me:
He's just a jealous guy.

I'm not good at math, jason but most people posting comments on se get along with me just fine.
Regular commenters and new commenters.

What was the comment I posted, "maybe 2 years ago", that insulted you?

jason: What was the turning-point comment wherein I insulted you, "maybe 2 years ago"?

WHAT WAS IT, jason?

Truth is still on ignore.

Anyway...you will never guess who they states went for in the 2012 elections. Especially the top 10.

The 25 Unhealthiest States In America

http://www.businessinsider.com/25-unhealthiest-states-2012-12?op=1

Yeah, right jason.
How do you know that I was directing my comment to you, if you had me "on ignore"?
I've been chatting with NYCNovice and stevie (who doesn't get his panties in a bunch) on this thread.
How do you know I was posting a comment asking you a question, jason, if you have me on ignore?

WHAT WAS THE COMMENT I POSTED, "maybe 2 years ago..." THAT CAUSED YOU TO PUT ME ON IGNORE,jason?

What was my posted comment, jason, that resulted in you putting me "on ignore" 2 years ago?
Just answer the question.

(the Queen of the subtle shuttle just posted on that other thread.)
Lord knows that she never insulted anybody in her se comments.
She ripped a new one on some guy who was only asking a question about how to deal with a noise complaint. It was a lovely, helpful, non-insulting response, cursing like a drunken sailor at him.)

NYCNovice: jason got caught bullshitting about me and his having me "on ignore".
Now jason doesn't know what to do with himself.
That's what happens to those who try to suck up to the former bully gang-members.

go reread your last 8 comments.

NYCNovice:
around 36 comments down from the top of this page 4, I wrote that I don't know if jason reads my comments, or not and he's never posted a comment stating that he doesn't read my comments.
That was "one day ago".

Now, today : HEEERE'S jason, posting a comment to verify his response to my comment.
(which, according to jason's bullshit, he doesn't read because he has me "on ignore for maybe the last 2 years...")

What a load of bullshit from yet another a-hole leaking buulshit onto se discussion threads.

this must be serious. no lyrics. no tickets. no limo.

oh now...disaster in bay ridge.

Steve, bottom line, MBS are negatively convex! Most if what you say regarding that topic does not make sense. You are wrong! Case closed! Move on.

The case is never closed unless you stop posting comments on this thread, Brooks.

Even NYCNovice has moved on, she's postinga reply to a commenter on the Grammercy Park North discussion thread.

She's not here, she's over there.

I never said they weren't brooksie, in fact I said they were. I asked you why - you don't know.

Here, Brooksie, since you don't know the answer I'll post it:

http://www.securitization.net/pdf/Nomura/MBSBasics_31Mar06.pdf

Callable bonds are negatively convex. MBS's are not callable, but they have a prepayment risk on the underlying mortgages, which gives them similar properties.

It is also what makes them so hard to price - since every MBS is comprised of discrete mortgages, and the price of a bond is basically a prepayment of a flow of interest payments at a certain interest rate (the market rate), it is not possible to know with certainty whether you are paying the proper price for the flow of interest rate payments when you buy an MBS, because you are uncertain of whether you will get that flow of payments, due to the prepayment risk.

If you have any more questions let me know - in the meantime, start looking up whether banks keep their originated mortgages on their books, or whether they securitize them and sell them to the market.

LMFAO.

Great product to use to hedge duration risk. Lmfao

Absolutely, Brooksie - the reason why MBS's are negatively convex is not the same reason why callable bonds are negatively convex, because MBS's can't be called. The convexity of an MBS is due to the prepayment risk, not due to the (nonexistent) callability.

The prepayment risk of an MBS is a function of time - the longer MBS's are held, the greater the risk of prepayment. That is why - as I clearly stated - MBS's are held in the trading portfolio at banks, not the investment portfolio.

Therefore MBS's are not convex because of interest rate changes, as callable bonds are. That makes them more stable with respect to interest rates than callable bonds.

MBS's are used to hedge treasury bond, and vice versa.

LMFAO.

I guess we can have government price controls as we do for electricity and water but it changes healthcare into a commodity which may not provide the quality of care we need or some are willing to pay for. Additionally, most things with price controls have significant fixed costs, like power plants, so perhaps it can be applied to existing drugs, but then will we have any new drug development as what is the profit incentive unless the government starts to subsidize development including the many failures. Also I wonder though, maybe a hospital is a utility, but an individual doctor can't be a utility and can't be treated as one for very long or they'll leave or new ones won't join.

Ok too funny Steve

Do me a favor google MBS burnout. Than restate what you said again.. in a different way and try to correct your self

Also reread the continuing Ed presentation from NYU you posted. Dope

Also you clearly started that banks use MBS to hedge duration risk. Wrong again. Or are you dying to wiggle out of that statement too

Steve, do you even know what duration is?

Oh, Brooksie, tisk-tisk-tisk. I'm glad you perused some continuing ed presentation, but I never posted one, from NYU or elsewhere. What you are discussing is the prepayment risk, and it is exactly what I said: "The prepayment risk of an MBS is a function of time - the longer MBS's are held, the greater the risk of prepayment."

Or, as Investopedia says:

"A period of slowing mortgage prepayment within a mortgage backed security (MBS). This usually occurs after the mortgages start to mature"

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/burnout.asp#axzz2Esg0Fmdp

Read CLEARLY, Brooksie: "AFTER THE MORTGAGES START TO MATURE...."

What do you think that means? "OVER TIME," maybe?

Let me post something that might make it clearer for you, from an SEC filing by BankUnited:

"[Bank]United enters into hedging transactions that utilize forward contracts for the delivery of mortgage-backed securities as hedge vehicles to offset the risk that a change in interest rates will result in a decrease in the value of United's current mortgage loan inventory or its commitments to originate mortgage loans (the "pipeline")."

I stand by what I said.

Want another one?

"We also enter into forward commitments to sell loans and mortgage-backed securities to hedge the value of the interest rate lock commitments and loans held for sale. We typically designate forward sale commitments that hedge mortgage loans held for sale as fair-value hedges if we can demonstrate the sale commitment is highly effective at offsetting changes in value of the mortgage loans."

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Temple-Inland_%28TIN%29/Derivative_Instruments

Do I need to continue, Brooksie, or are you ready to cry Uncle yet?

To make it plain for you Brooksie, "duration" is the sensitivity of a bond to a change in interest rates.

How about this one: "Consider a mix of corporate bonds, municipal bonds, government bonds, agency bonds and mortgage-backed securities to hedge against fluctuation in one sector."

http://www.life123.com/career-money/investing/bonds/investing-in-bonds-2.shtml

Want me to keep on going...?

How about this one, Brooksie:

"Retirement funds, which have suffered as Europe’s debt crisis and low interest rates hurt government bond yields and drove up liabilities, could benefit from increased margins on mortgages, Eloy Lindeijer, head of investment management at Dutch investor PGGM NV, said in June. Investors could use Dutch residential mortgage-backed securities to hedge interest-rate risks, he said."

http://iriscake.com/tag/june-investors/

Or this one: "Traded mortgage-backed securities, euro-dollar futures contracts, treasury futures contracts and options on mortgage-backed securities to hedge interest rate volatility for banks’ mortgage pipelines."

http://www.linkedin.com/in/kmapel

Or this one:

"Delivered product to investor on a Mandatory and AOT basis utilizing Mortgage Backed Securities to hedge the interest rate risk."

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/kevin-keadle/6/2a6/296

Do I need to keep on going Brooksie, or have I made enough of a fool out of you already?

Now, Brooksie, STFU.

stevie: Not until 5 more comments (after this one of mine) posted.
I've got a thousand bucks on 400 comments by stage-time at 7:30pm.
My winnings are for charity.
The entire wager on both sides goes to the Hurricane Relief fund.

Truth - I'll contribute to assist your winning wager, but I only have time for single post, so here it is: Is anyone else as disappointed with Season 5 of Sons of Anarchy as I am? Seasons 1-4 rivaled The Wire, but Season 5 is really floundering IMHO.

How much?

NYCNovice: You just got a group LOL!!! for that comment.

stevejhx
about 8 weeks ago
Posts: 12277
Member since: Feb 2008
ignore this person
report abuse

First, you don't even know what they are: they are NOT closing prices, but rather model-estimated benchmarks for different types of notes with different nominal interest rates.

Second, treasury prices do not have the default and prepayment risks, and therefore all like treasuries trade at the same interest rate.

And third, yes, actually, they are extremely difficult to price, and that is not from me via my advanced certification from NYU in FIXED INCOME SECURITIES MANAGEMENT (you can look it up), it is the first thing you learn in the textbooks about pricing securities.

Here are some course notes on how to do it:

http://people.stern.nyu.edu/igiddy/ABS/

Here Steve----

I guess you certification us useless. F FAIL
Stfu poser!

You leave me convinced you are the biggest idiot on this site. Just stfu if you don't know what you are talking about. PLEASE