Everyone in the USA is going to pay for themself or perish. That is how the end game of socialism works. Study Nazi Germany. Read my post again, I expanded it. If a citizen of Singapore needs more than basic care, they have to pay extra.
Exactly. Element of self-responsibility. Solvent insurance can't be actuarially structured to be open ended to pay for $million end of life strategies. And that is not the only point of corruption in the USA system. P.S. Filipinos die of cancer without even morphine. Not $50,000 medical bill. Just death and rejuvenation of youth. Maybe Boomers would spend more time exercising and change their diets if they knew they were responsible for the cost of their end of life. I don't think it is as doom and gloom as you forecast, but I do agree things need to/will change. The average person is one catastrophe from financial ruin. Trying to educate the US populace on the benefits of saving some income for this eventual accident would be nearly impossible let alone even trying to convince people to stop buying so many things they don't need with money they don't have. Americans today are not known for their self responsibility. It's not in the culture anymore. Many young people want to be individualistic and think short sighted. You make a very good point on Boomer lifestyle, but this most likely won't change. In the same breath, their lifestyle choices are not the root of the problem. America is a very different place than it was even 50 years ago. People are living way longer (~70s-80s on average) which taxes the system incredibly. The Filipino way of life is interesting and with great merits. America doesn't have a death and rejuvenation of youth culture. We have a every-man-for-himself, fuck all, take all, live forever mentality and culture. The only think Americans invest in these days is anything with a larger dollar sign at the front of it, definitely not next generation's youth or out of personal responsibility. |
|
|
|
|
Singapore pop: ~5 mil
US pop: ~320 mil
Do the math. Thats 60X more people to insure and cover if Singapore absorbed the US. You still think their system could support that? It's successful in part because they are a smaller country and because their people have to pay. If a citizen of Singapore needs more than basic care, they have to pay extra. There is a fee structure.
Having money helps in all situations (being wealthy), but you cannot blindly discard those who don't make a lot of money per year in your ideas because... well just because.
|
|
|
|
Sorry B.A.S you are not understanding. The Prime Minister focused on sustainability stressing the need for individuals to take personal responsibility and save for their own healthcare (Singapore currently requires all citizens to save 20% of their income in health savings accounts which the can tap if they become ill). He stresses the need for government to keep costs contained and not shift expenses to future generations by promising things that cannot be delivered. He warns that if the government succumbs to the temptation to promise benefits while leaving bills to the next generation it will hurt Singaporeans in the long run. Obama's speech is miles apart. Here you find no talk of tradeoffs, personal responsibility or costs. Instead all you see is a litany of open ended unfunded promises. 1) Obama promises that those who have insurance can keep their current plan 2) Obama promises that no insurance company can deny you insurance coverage no matter how much treating you will cost. 3) Obama promises that there will be no limits on how much insurance companies will have to pay to take care of you 4) Obama promises that that individuals out of pocket expenses will be strictly limited What is brushed aside is who pays for it all. We are only told that everyone must do their part "especially the young and the healthy". Obama's first promise has already been broken as millions of people have been forced to transition from low cost health insurance plans that insurance companies were forced to cancel to more expensive Obamacare alternatives. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/nov/06/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-what-hed-said-was-you-could-keep/The rest of the promises will over time eventually prove equally false because you cannot promise the impossible. If you set up a system with open ended liabilities and no cost controls there is no one to blame but yourself when you go bankrupt. The only question is how far will the government go when making sure everyone pays "their part". Iamback, this is America with one of its most entitled generations coming of age (millennials). A massive die-off is in works and will be over the next 20 years from the WWII boom generation. The system in place to take care of America's healthcare needs cannot support this die off. Proper planning was not done back in the late 40s to supersede what we have today. Somebody needs to pay for this and at the end of the day, whether you like it or not, you're going to pay for it (I am not saying this makes it right). Healthcare in Singapore is under the Ministry's control. Their care is UNIVERSAL. The US does NOT have a UNIVERSAL system. Ie. technically you should be responsible for saving and paying your own care or finding an employer to do so on your behalf. Furthermore, healthcare pricing in Singapore is set by the Ministry. They decide how much things cost. The USG does not. It's funny how no Americans want to pay for a more universal system, but when cancer comes knocking; all of a sudden everyone is willing to spend what it takes whether they can afford it or not. How about that massive car accident that causes a bill of $50K. Are you saving for this? You better be if you are bitching about paying. Do you have $10K plus in extra savings per year to pay for your own plan? How about all those vaccines you may have had as a child; they are $250-1000 a pop uncovered. Which "person" do you think paid for this? How about that time you got your wisdom teeth pulled at the dentist? That's a $2800-5000 procedure if your teeth are impacted and you are not covered by health insurance. This is just the basics. What about when you're old: maybe you will need heart surgery, medications, cancer, a walking aid, a wheelchair... The list goes on. If you privatize all this and continue to make uninformed comments about the system, you will pay for these out of your own pocket. Are you going to do that? Are you willing to put 1/4 of your paycheck away for unknown costs now and into the future regarding your own health? It's easy to say what you do, but you have no idea the full implications of this. I am in the healthcare profession. I see it everyday. Start thinking about your fellow MAN and not your next dollar. Singapore has a very successful system because EVERYONE pays. The US is struggling because we are trying to transition to a system that can support everyone because the current system cannot. Of course the young are needed to get the transition started. Have a little compassion for your fellow man. Obama is not forcing the young en mass to empty their pockets to support the old and dying. It's not a perfect idea, but it has a sustainability factor to it that the current system doesn't. America is not a free for all and it never has been. You cannot leave basic healthcare on the private level. People die and countries fall apart. This is something everybody must do their part in. There are no fees or huge premiums if you have a job in America that has a healthcare plan. As always, costs only add up for those who use the system a lot. |
|
|
|
The USA is inundated with blacks and Latinos (Filipinos and other non-white cultures) which lack self-discipline and are not erudite. Even most or many of the whites are copying the gang banger, low-life culture. For example, note the high percentage of youth in the USA that do some drugs, or that smoke in Europe. The high quality social capital in the West will be hunted down by these parasites via the socialism. You're entitled to your opinion, but understand making blanket personal judgments regarding other ethnicities (and their supposed work ethics) makes you appear unknowledgeable and juvenile. Don't do this. Additionally, trying to draw parallels between capitalism and the apparent denigration of it via socialist parasites supports this. Whether you believe what you are writing or not, posting this here serves no one. The worst possible citizenship to have now is USA, because the USA has the strongest government, military, and a large tax base to expropriate. If you have this citizenship, try to get out of it while you still can. Europe at least doesn't tax its citizens who reside abroad. Europe may collapse into the night without hunting its citizens abroad and its has a withering tax base unable to fund a military, but the USA is going to be hunting its citizens even with unseen stealth drones from the air. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/bradley-manning-leaks_n_3788126.htmlNever quote the HuffPo. I repeat, never. They are not a credible source of information for anything other than what the Kardashians are wearing. OBAMACARE was perhaps the most toxic enactment ever to be implemented by the Democrats using the poor to raises taxes on the working class – not even the “rich”. The left-wing press that ridicule the Republicans for trying to repeal it deserve what they are going to get – much higher taxes and the future of their children will be destroyed. Not only will OBAMACARE cap small business from expanding due to its massive penalties, but it will soon begin to tax benefits employers give workers - ALL WORKERS. That is correct. At the discretion of the government, they will be able to move the line at which any benefit that exceeds some arbitrary number not adjusted for inflation will become taxable income. The Obama secret agenda has been to raise taxes in every possible manner and OBAMACARE was the typical political way to get people to cheer for raising their own taxes. Obama wants to personally raise taxes back to 70% but without the deductions and to include ALL benefits as income. Healthcare is a very difficult topic to argue. Whether you like it or not, we (U.S. citizens) live in a land where the right to healthcare is law. You cannot be turned down from the ER. Someone must pay for this. Who do you suppose that someone is? I am not trying to argue Obamacare one way or another, all I am insinuating is that if everyone is entitled to medical care, then who should pay for de facto? Civil Asset Forfeiture Police Corruption Exposed The police have become outright criminals and can confiscate people’s property and keep it for themselves. This is one of the best explanations I have ever seen. It correctly states that the legal action is against the property – NOT YOU! Yes, they can do this. The burden of proof is on the State in order to confiscate things in cases of criminal activity. Further, the judicial system is generally run on precedent. Yes, there are many obscure laws on the books dating from historical perspectives, but as you can see (with regard to your link), the cases were dropped. Bureaucrats[/s]Governments Have Been Corrupt Since the Start
The greatest problem with government is how it consumes capital until it kills the private sector. This has been the course of every government – power corrupts universally. The bureaucracy has also gamed the private sector for personal gain. They currently are exploiting of the people through Civil Asset Forfeiture which is reminiscent of the Roman legions who just began to sack their own cities to pay themselves. Quoting verbatim large quantities of someone else's writing does not make you right or authoritative. The question is, do you actually believe this or is it because some economics blog site says so? The real economist named Martin Armstrong has been in swaths of legal trouble over his lifetime for things he speaks violently against. I urge you to be less apocalyptic. It's easy to say things suck or that government is bad from an armchair, but enacting policy is difficult and very subjective. Instead of being violently against one side, it's better to figure out how it works and adjust your positioning to benefit from it. Didn't mean to nitpick, you make some good points and foster a lively discussion. |
|
|
|
If Greece exit Euro, wouldn't that essential make euro stronger. It might send a jolt to the market, that probably would have positive impact on btc price but in long term, I don't think so. Probably more significant is the total collapse of euro.
The euro would take a hit relative to itself if Greece leaves (which won't happen). A exit would leave a very large debt/tax bill uncollected to the eurozone. Greece would fall into a massive inflationary spiral if they tried to implement their own currency again. The price of goods and services would skyrocket in Greece; most citizens wouldn't be able to afford anything; Greece wouldn't be able to afford anything with their near valueless country. I.e. Greece is not leaving. It's just acting like the little brother right now because his older brothers got new clothes and he didn't (for once). |
|
|
|
- Greece won't exit the euro
- Grecce's situation won't have any dirrect effect on bitcoin's price
Oh and by the way, news about Cypriots using bitcoin when their bank funds were locked were overhyped bullshit. Also, if you see the price rising and people blame it on news related to Greece it's still not a direct effect. It's irrelevant people trying to pump the price thinking that their trend will catch on after the news. Get your facts straight. And if you think that any of the above is not true, please enlighten me how come you know more about Greece than someone who actually lives in the country? Relevant read: http://newsbtc.com/2015/01/28/will-bitcoin-solution-greeces-deep-rooted-problems/I fully agree. I don't understand people's obsession with a "doom-gloom" collapse of Greece and a massive flocking to BTC. I see the current events surround Greece as a call for help. Greece entered the eurozone for the same reason it now wants to leave it; debt. They need solutions to their debts. Those in the eurozone stand to lose to much if Greece left. Besides, per the European Central Bank I am not too sure it is even legal for Greece to sever its ties to seek sovereignty under the current circumstances. What do you think may happen? |
|
|
|
Singapore Prime Minister Lee gave a speach about health care today. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/4-shifts-in-singapore-s/1648186.htmlCompare his speech to one given by president Obama in 2009. Its fairly clear which of these societies is in trouble just from the content of these speeches. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said in a speech at the Universal Health Coverage Ministerial Meeting. "We know there will be political pressure to defer necessary fee increases and to manage the services. And it's easy to leave bills to the next generation and focus on the short-term political gain," he said. "If we succumb to this temptation, we will end up with system which becomes non-viable, and will hurt Singaporeans not just financially, but even purely in health terms."
He added that Singapore's healthcare efforts depend on "a supportive political environment", with people willing to take personal responsibility to save for their own healthcare and participate in a universal medical insurance scheme, healthcare providers ensuring that they deliver cost-effective care, and the Government adopting a people-centred approach while staying hard-headed about costs.
"(The Government must) be a trustworthy steward, presenting the trade-offs as they are to the citizens and not sacrifice tomorrow for today’s political gain," said Mr Lee.
"Healthcare is always an emotional and political issue – it's tempting to make promises and say we will do more, we will do better and it will cost less."
He added that every dollar that the Government spends on healthcare is a dollar taken from taxpayers : "This requires an honest conversation among ourselves, and hard choices made, so that we can move ahead together, with clarity on what our society wants and stands for."
Compare this to President Obama talking about health care in 2009 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-obamas-health-care-speech/President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009 Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan. First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, or Medicare, or Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. (Applause.) Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.
What this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Applause.) As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. (Applause.) They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. (Applause.) We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. (Applause.) And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies -- (applause) -- because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives. (Applause.)
Now, that's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan -- more security and more stability.
Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. (Applause.) If you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage.
Now... there may be those -- especially the young and the healthy -- who still want to take the risk and go without coverage... The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money.... unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved.
The two speeches are miles apart: PM Hsien is beautifully practicing the art of obscurity; saying a whole lot without really saying anything. Very common in propaganda. Pres. Obama on the other hand has laid out specifics in his speech. He covers the insured (existing), those who may want to be insured (small business, etc.) and those who don't think they need to be (the young/healthy). |
|
|
|
The worst possible citizenship to have now is USA, because the USA has the strongest government, military, and a large tax base to expropriate. If you have this citizenship, try to get out of it while you still can. Europe at least doesn't tax its citizens who reside abroad. Europe may collapse into the night without hunting its citizens abroad and its has a withering tax base unable to fund a military, but the USA is going to be hunting its citizens even with unseen stealth drones from the air.
While you do make a good point, however; IMO this doesn't pertain to the majority of Americans. The mean household income in the States was $60,528 (Census Bureau 2004). Taxation on foreign income doesn't apply to anything less than $90K. On top of that, you can contribute to a Roth IRA, get child tax credits, etc. to keep your income below $90K. Europe and America have two different financial systems which make them incomparable with regards to how they tax their citizens, fund their military, etc. While many may argue against paying taxes on Foreign Earned Income, it could be worse if the law weren't in place. It protects from double taxation. Places like Germany have taxes up to 60%. U.S. workers in Germany for instance: If the U.S. didn't have these laws, a U.S. citizen could be taxed 60% on German-earned income and then up to 25% on that German-earned income by the U.S. With the law, there is a subtraction before taxation. The people you should direct your comment to are in the top of America (10%) and working abroad. Corporations who make a mint working abroad where prices are lower are not happy. |
|
|
|
|
I give it another decade. We have been heading into a financial trough since the mid 2000s. Regulatory frameworks haven't kept up with financial innovations for over 10 years. Couple this with a few bubbles, a poorly managed QE program and turnover in authority with our "friends in the UAE" (U.S.), the next 5-10 years will be a digging out process.
Nothing is going to catastrophically collapse. There will most likely be massive financial restructuring and a return to mass production on the U.S. home front.
This means good things for BTC in the future if it hangs around. There will be great potential for BTC/digital-stores-of-wealth market as the masses seek to save more and spend less.
|
|
|
|
|
IMO, Bitcoin ownership (amassing) will mean nothing in the future if BTC stays around. Once the majority are mined, a few will have managed to get rich (for hodling so long), but the majority will have little to no coins. The technology is what will stick around. The using of BTC will be in the form of conversions.
Real debt (fiat debts) can be incorporated into BTC. The lender would save a bundle of fiat on the buying and selling of their 'assets' to other lenders/collectors and the debt holder could benefit from utilizing digital BTC denominated debt for BTC related services/goods.
|
|
|
|
|
Pump or dump aside, what I found interesting about the CB fiasco was that fiat is truly ready and waiting on the sidelines! It's been a long, tiring bear market and sentiment supports this, but with just a tiny ray of sun BTC was pumped for 24 hours. We just need a spark to light the fire.
|
|
|
|
I have yet to find where Coinbase claimed to have been licensed in CA and NY. They do make a very bold claim that they are the first regulated US exchange: http://blog.coinbase.com/post/109202118547/coinbase-launches-first-regulated-bitcoin-exchangeThat's arguably wrong because there are other regulated US exchanges like CoinX and CoinSetter. But really, no one has a clear definition of what "regulated" means. It seems to me that Coinbase told the press that they are launching a "regulated" exchange and that they support 24 states. And the press clearly jumped to the conclusion that Coinbase has licenses in all of these 24 states. And Coinbase didn't bother to correct them and that led to the statements from CA and NY, which were pretty embarrassing for Coinbase. To go from this to having Coinbase be responsible for someone's speculative loss on BTC requires quite a bit of stretching the laws of consumer protection. If it were Coinbase stock, you might have a case. Even then, the price movements just don't match up. Same here, I was doing some digging myself. I am not sure CB needs licensing in NY or CA (as of yet). The States the exchange is not available in (S. Dak for example) probably has to do with needing an expensive license, it's not legal yet or the potential profits for opening up in that State are not high enough. Per their website: The USD wallet is only available to Coinbase customers located in US states where Coinbase is either licensed to engage in money transmission, where it has determined that no such license is currently required, or where licenses are not yet being issued with respect to Coinbase's business. |
|
|
|
That's why there is also projects like Lighthouse, Bitsquare, OpenBazaar, DarkWallet etc to counter this direction and bring equilibrium and choice.
Very true. These projects need more attention and awareness. Throwing out random numbers, I'd say the speculation forum is: 50% about big money getting in 25% to the moon quotes 15% dump incoming 5% centralized BTC infrastructure news (Exchanges) 2% Butt hurt trolls 2% TA analysis 0.99% polls 0.01% projects like Lighthouse, Bitsquare, OpenBazaar, DarkWallet It's hard to get razzed up about BTC in the decentralized direction when the masses would rather lose/make money on the speculation of its value relative to fiat. (end rant, it's a grouchy day today). |
|
|
|
|
Instead of paying attention to economics, people should start paying attention to those who define what economics is and study them. This is where you will learn what "real" economics is and how it's implemented.
|
|
|
|
Why do everybody awaits their golden knight Wallstreet, Winlkevii ETF or other 'big' companies to save them??
Do you really need those fuckers to come? Bitcoin is free, is decentralized, anyone can join. I'd prefer 10,000 new peasants with $100 each instead one big, psychopathic company to join.
I agree with that but on the other hand mainstream adoption will happen faster with Wall Street jumping in. Ironic isn't it? Makes me start to think that all the idealism I've read about BTC since 2011 was from a bunch of people looking to get rich; that nobody truly cared about decentralization in the first place. It was just a proxy. Bitcoin development is pushing both ways. The mainstream way and the honeybadgers way which is ironically making bitcoin even more decentralized and robust and is also part of the open and inclusive nature of the network. Making money out of it is part of the incentive mechanism from the whole beginning. Were you expecting anything else? Yes I was/still am, but the problem lies in the decentralization. You cannot have decentralization without trust and without trust, you can not have anonymity. What is happening now is the requirement of anonymity is being defined on the corporate level only. Infrastructure is being built that ties real world personal data to blockchain transactions/wallets/etc. on the level of companies that interface between users and miners. These companies hold massive data on the financials of most users (US at least). I.e. Individual anonymity is not respected, only infrastructure level. Centralized services are "safeguarding" your anonymity (KYC/AML/linked bank accounts/CCs) under the premise that business through them is "safe." Essentially, this is required for mainstream. I understand this, but it really takes away what BTC technology could do for people, but they are too foolish or naive to see it/care. Fiat is not going anywhere, but a restructuring and new application from it's controlling powers is underway. |
|
|
|
Yeah, look into SDRs if you haven't already. They are potential claims on freely usable currencies available to IMF members. Not a currency per say, but an asset reserve. Value is determined by a few of the economic powerhouse currencies of nations with ties to the IMF: US, Japan, Euro, Great Britain.
I have a problem with figuring out exactly what the SDR is. It seems member states have in advance agreed to on request exchange SDR's for a set of fiat currencies, up to a certain amount per country, more for the well standing coundtries. I guess that means it is a form of credit. SDRs are utilized through the IMF, so only countries who have a relationship with the IMF (very few, but powerful ones) can partake. Post WWII, most foreign currencies are on a floating exchange rate. Countries that have poor exchange rates can "buy" SDRs from other holders or they can get them from IMF designation. By having a basket of different currencies determining the exchange rate, countries with floating exchange rates that are poor stand a better chance to get better rates for their own currencies against the value of larger nations who's currency is higher value at that time. |
|
|
|
Why do everybody awaits their golden knight Wallstreet, Winlkevii ETF or other 'big' companies to save them??
Do you really need those fuckers to come? Bitcoin is free, is decentralized, anyone can join. I'd prefer 10,000 new peasants with $100 each instead one big, psychopathic company to join.
I agree with that but on the other hand mainstream adoption will happen faster with Wall Street jumping in. Ironic isn't it? Makes me start to think that all the idealism I've read about BTC since 2011 was from a bunch of people looking to get rich; that nobody truly cared about decentralization in the first place. It was just a proxy. BTC (or something like it) will revolutionize the financial industry in the next coming decades. It will also be the greatest and largest data mining operation ever to take place because of the giant companies that will run the show. |
|
|
|
Institutional as well as private investment will not pump the price as they are not buying BTC, they are investing in the infrastructure. Except for guys such as Draper, few are going the way of purchasing. We need fiat to pump the price; aka we need new individuals to buy coins and have existing individuals stop selling them.
Yeah, like better infrastructure is the only thing holding Average Joe back from finally buying some bitcoin.  The Average Joes of the world need a MUCH better incentive than that. Like discounts at Walmart, Auto Zone, Burger King, etc. Or be able to purchase lotto tickets and cigarettes with bitcoin. I agree. The average joes don't care about BTC (as of yet) because it simply offers no advantages over traditional payments options. The masses who use technology rarely care about how it works, what it symbolizes or any other thinking surrounding its implementation. They just want to buy it and say they own it/use it if it's cool/high tech/widely used/etc. BTC could benefit from advertisement: expanding its niche market to larger companies (Walmart as you said) perhaps grocery stores, convenience marts. Right now it costs real fiat money to change your already good USD to BTC. Once in BTC your choices are heavily limited right now. Why would any average joe want to do that? |
|
|
|
I still dont understand this how can we make it go back up?
Step 1: Buy more coins. Convince your buddies to buy coins. Have them convince their buddies to buy coins. Step 2: Appeal to the BTC community at large to stop selling their coins and to either hodl or buy more coins. Caveat: A large amount of people in BTC these days are in the red by $300-600 USD per coin if they didn't sell. Many are butthurt or just plain financially hurting over losing 25-50% of their coin value in just under a year's time. |
|
|
|
|
Institutional as well as private investment will not pump the price as they are not buying BTC, they are investing in the infrastructure. Except for guys such as Draper, few are going the way of purchasing. We need fiat to pump the price; aka we need new individuals to buy coins and have existing individuals stop selling them.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
