All Forum Posts by: Alan Mackenthun

What fact? Where is it stated in the constitution or law that anyone has a right to food or healthcare? That is your opinion, but it is not law.

1. Not yet
2. We bought our 1st rentals in 2008 and have 10 now. I have gotten my real estate license and have put together a business plan that would allow me to quit my day job anytime, but I have to spend some more time convincing my wife it's the right thing to do. Right now it looks like it will be 1-4 years down the road.
3. 6-7 rentals while holding a day job is work, but it's certainly doable. We focus on getting newer units in good shape or we get them into good shape up front to reduce maintenance calls later. We also buy in good areas and screen our applicants carefully to get good tenants. We spend more on our units than many, but can then charge top dollar rents while getting fewer maintenance calls.

I agree with you that Bill had some good points. Beyond that I don't see much clarity in your comments. You say you're for free enterprise, but proceed to advocate for a system without risks. You state "but the basic healthcare should be sufficient to cure or relieve any illness ..." That's fairy tail reasoning. We're all going to die some day. I can gaurantee that any system private or public will fail that standard for 100% of the people. Either you've got free markets or you've got government distortions neccesarily requiring rationing. I stand with private markets and freedom.

Sorry, I was up in the BWCA for a while and wasn't able to respond promptly. As I said before. I believe your assumptions are total and complete hogwash. No one has a right to food, housing or health care. The government, especially at the Federal level, has no business taking money - taxes - from one to give to another. These robin hood schemes are immoral and wrong. Doing so conflicts with the fundamental principles this country was founded upon. That is an individuals rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Specifically, if my happiness and liberty are confiscated through taxes to give to another, then I no longer have my rights. If someone needs food or shelter, they can go to freinds, relatives, charities or strangers. I've helped plenty of people along the way, but charity should not be the business of government especially of the federal government.

Well I'm not an idiot. My employer pays a substantial portion of the cost and if I got my own insurance it wouldn't be deductible. I was just as opposed to cash for clunkers as I am Obamacare, but I took advantage of it at the same time. Like the vast majority of people, if i end up without insurance and this atrocity is in effect I'll wait till I need it before I go get it. There's just too many layers of disincentives here to be sustainable.

The feds can regulate interstate commerce. The purpose is to protect internstate commerce and prevent states from charging tariffs for goods imported to the state. Instead, the states generally ban shopping for health insurance across state lines and the Feds do nothing. The state and feds cooperate in this so they can both regulate the market to death. Thus there really is no free market for health insurance.

I absolutely do think that there is merit in states rights and the laboratories of democracy. That's the fundamental idea this country was founded on. Different states have different problems and may approach solutions in different ways. Viva la difference. So called libs only like diversity when it suits them. States can learn from each other to find optimal solutions. If the Feds do it, it's one size fits all.

Finally, I don't even know where you're going with that last paragraph. I have insurance through my employer. I'm not costing anybody anything. I'd much prefer to own my own insurance so I could keep it when I change jobs. Rather than the Feds regulating everything to death, I'd rather go back to charitable hospitals providing care for those who can't afford it. I give plenty to charity and that's how it should be handled. As stated before there hasn't been a free market for health care since WWII. We need less gov't meddling rather than more. Why do you think cosmetic surgery is so much cheaper than regular medical care? How is it that Lasix can cost so little? Even dental care is much cheaper than regular medical care. Why is that? Free up the provision of health care, lose most of the middle men and the costs will fall dramatically.

Interesting question. This is what makes RE investing so interesting. Personally, we've ended up with mostly newer townhomes. The monthly association fees are a downer, but we don't have to worry about new roofs, siding, or exterior maintenance. I've owned a few older homes and they never fail to convince me to never do so again ;).

Regarding the question of appreciation: I really believe appreciation has to be heavily discounted. It's very difficult to predict what changes will occur in the state, region or even on neighboring properties that will impact appreciation. Your estimate of appreciation should be heavily discounted. The income from rent should really be by far the greatest concern for a long term investor.

Police and fire absolutely protect our rights to our lives and property. The FBI falls into the category of police and the police are a necessary role of government. I'd categorize the CIA and NSA as contribution to national defense and international relations (state department) which are also the proper role of government. Naturally, you cannot have a liberty or property if a foreign country is attacking. EMT services are generally provided by private parties. If a local municipality decides to offer those services, that's their perogative and I have no trouble with it. On the other hand, if the Federal government insisted on any role in this I'd have huge concerns. The federal government has certain duties as explicitly expressed in the constitution. Everything else is explicitly left to the states. Heath insurance is not something required or specified as a role for the federal government in the constitution. It should simply be left to the states. Get rid of the federal intrusions (business deductions for health insurance, federal health insurance mandates, medicaid, medicare, etc.) currently in force and the states can solve this.

That's utterly ridiculous. Rights protected by our constitution require nothing from anyone else. We have rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, religion, speech, and the like. None of these require anything from anyone else. We don't have rights to food, housing, or healthcare. You cannot have a right to something someone else has. If you did, the other person's rights to their property, work, and liberty would be infringed. If you want access to the other person's time or products, you must pay or otherwise convince them to provide their services. Besides, health and security are illusions that can never be guaranteed. At some point, we're all going to die no matter how big you grow the government.

No problem, yes that's what I was saying. Right now most people are at least two jumps from paying for their health care. The insurance company pays the doctor etc., their employer pays for the insurance, and the person taking the services has almost no connection to the cost. That's wrong and will not work for long. Your also absolutely right that single payer has the same problem which is why it would only make the system worse since even the insurance companies wouldn't be there to limit costs. My proposal is to eliminate employers from the equation and in fact limit the deductability of insurance, but rather encourage direct payments from consumers to providers through beefed up medical savings accounts and possibly making directly paid medical expenses deductable. People should be buying major medical insuance only. That limits the big bad insurance companies and reintroduces the only cost controls that will work which is when people are actually watching what they're getting. On the other hand, your proposal for a single payer system and government efficiencies will only increase costs and limit the control that people have over their own care. Since when has government ever, in the history of the world, been efficient at delivering services. Your proposal increases government control and necessarily limits freedom. It's unAmerican and wrong in my opinion.