I think it's an example of how a free market economy works.... people have an item, others want it, the supply and demand concept takes hold, and prices increase.

I think that a free market economy is vastly superior to a number of other economic market concepts.

I think that housing in Phoenix is outrageous and I wish I had the money to buy one, but it's also a classic example of this concept writ large... I know a guy who won the lottery for a new housing subdivision, and the first guy to get passed up offered my buddy $75K to NOT close on his house. That's right... 75 grand to NOT buy a house.

I think I prefer this concept of a free market economy over, say, the government buying all the houses and dolling them out to everyone equally. Socialism has been tried, and it didn't work.

What do YOU think, Curt?

By not offering solution, he's saying not change is needed???

Nice bit of critical thinking, Bob.

No...what he is saying is he has no idea how to change the system. Only complain about it and accept the current way of doing things.

Just like you. :lol:

Curt...the average cost of a home in Denver, CO is $254,000. The median household income is (per year) $46,558. Do the math.

I don't know people do it.

Curt...the average cost of a home in Denver, CO is $254,000. The median household income is (per year) $46,558. Do the math.

I don't know people do it.

bobd1953 wrote:
Curt...the average cost of a home in Denver, CO is $254,000. The median household income is (per year) $46,558. Do the math.


$200,000 @ 5%, 30 yr. = 1073/mo or 12,876/yr.

What's your point?

Quote:
I don't know people do it.


What?

Lacking a sufficient mental capacity to face people head on, some people resort to such petty tactics, to cover up these deficiencies.

$200,000 @ 5%, 30 yr. = 1073/mo or 12,876/yr.

What's your point?

$200,000 @ 5%, 30 yr. = 1073/mo or 12,876/yr.

What's your point?

Should read: I don't know how people do it. Maybe even you could of figure that one out.

Most people don't put 25-per-cent down.

What is your point?

Glad to see that you finally looked in mirror! :wink:

Should read? So much of what you post makes no fucking sense. I didn't see why this was any different.

Where's you get 25 per-cent? More Bob finance?

Curt...the average cost of a home in Denver, CO is $254,000. The median household income is (per year) $46,558. Do the math.

You really are a dip-s---!

What is 25-per-cent of $200.000?

Should read? So much of what you post makes no fucking sense. I didn't see why this was any different.

Where's you get 25 per-cent? More Bob finance?

You posted $200.000! The buyer would have to put at least 25-per-cent down (50,000). Pretty simple!

How about the median cost and the average income?

So, Mr. "I find it incredible that ANYBODY needs this spelled out for them",

How do you see increasing costs as a way to cut costs?

We know the situation:

Our health care costs, in many cases, are twice as much as other countries that are delivering better care to their populations. So it’s easy to see that we have a tremendous margin of error within which to work.

We know the major, root causes of the situation:

1) Lack of coverage (and preventative care) for the entire population.
2) We deliver treatment to everyone, but in the most costly manner possible – often in emergency rooms, and after diseases have progressed to the point where more complex and costly treatments are required.
3) The supply/demand balance between medical facilities and staff (supply) and patients (demand) is a bit out of kilter.
4) Failure to use our market power to negotiate favorable pricing.

There are more problems, but if we just address the above issues we can have better care at lower cost – easily.

We know that our performance is so abysmal that there is plenty of money to be saved. If we know what some of the root causes of the high costs are, and we change the conditions that are causing the high costs, then we will no longer have those high costs.

Please see my signature. :wink:

The big question is what can be done to reduce these costs?

Your solution seems to be about increasing costs (through giving everyone coverage), promoting preventative care and negotiating prices.

Seems like a bandaid on a cut artery.

No doubt $216,337 is high, but let's use the same standard when comparing these two issues

You offer up simple general or theoretic solutions that may work. Given the political and legal climate in this country, I don't see how we get from where we are now to a system on par with the Brits.