You can't escape math (gun, pay, work, best)

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

This is the same deflection as "I can explain it but you can't understand it". Quite juvenile.

The funny part is, he's sure that his resume makes his the superior mind.

I don't bother with resumes. I just think.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by lvoc

Uhh no. I said I could explain it but your belief system would prevent you from dealing with it. A really bright guy can drive you nuts as he dives into the absurd ways you could be wrong. He won't deal with the real probabilities but work the least likely half percent. Not worth the effort.

You won't make the effort... because you haven't got anything.

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

1. Litigation- physician over order imaging ( major source of medical costs) and labs for CYA.

2. Inability to withdraw care when mortality is greater than 95%

3. Providing total joints to everyone who wants one, regardless of age

4. A population that has come to demand no waits

5. A population that demands the latest meds/technology and shuns generic meds as inferior

6. higher costs incurred in medical training (many european nations allow med school admits after high school).

7. overuse of emergency services


Physicians could deliver cheaper healthcare, if only patients and the trial lawyer's association would let us.

This leaves out the three largest factors: Insurance with massive limits, which pays extremely large bills for exotic services with low assurances of success.

Employer paid insurance and other health benefits: Employees do not economize these services as they appear to be "free", and thus, overuse them freely.

A lack of any retail pricing and price accountability to the customer. Because individuals depend on someone else to pay the bill, price and consumption are mostly irrelevant. It's related to the first two, but a distinct factor.

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

No, let's not assume... Because those are arbitrary and atypical assumptions.

most people have...
150,000 mortgage @ 4-5%
30,000 car @ 5-9%
10-20,000 unsecured credit @ 14 to 28 %

And for those who are stretched into oblivion, they have additional payments for a variety of things from rents to medical bills, often ranging from 9 to 18 percent.

In each case, while it may not be the numerically PERFECT way of reducing your interest outlays, you have more considerations than JUST that. One, is changing behavior. Another is to get more control over your incoming and outgoing money.

All you've proven, is that you make knee-jerk reactions to wholly sensible ideas, because they didn't come from your desired source.

And again, why wouldn't Ramsey teach someone the most financially reasonable approach to paying down debt? If he taught a better system (higher interest rate first) your example would pay the least interest in total, but people in my scenario would not.

Claiming that someone should teach a system that financially makes the most sense in all scenarios is not a 'knee jerk reaction'. It is wanting someone to push a system that actually makes sense. All you've proven is that you are more invested in the feel-good emotions of paying off a loan than you are in long-term financial viability.

'numerically perfect' is what we should move towards. Pushing a system that leaves people with less money is the opposite of sound financial advice.

[aus10]

Originally Posted by hnsq

And again, why wouldn't Ramsey teach someone the most financially reasonable approach to paying down debt?

Because the people who NEED financial help with the kind of problems they call Ramsey with don't realize that the most reasonable approach to paying down debt is not being in that much debt in the first place.

'numerically perfect' is what we should move towards. Pushing a system that leaves people with less money is the opposite of sound financial advice.

I can see the benefits in both sides. At least Ramsey is getting people to do SOMETHING to pay down their debt. It does work. And while it might not be numerically perfect... what is these days? Our Federal Budget? A balance sheet with a bad debt column that gets larger and larger each month? The fact that most people think just because it's not cash out of their pocket that the debt disappears if they default? Having worked in banking for years you should hear some of the stuff that comes out of the general publics mouths. I was cussed up one side and down the other by a self-proclaimed "Math genius" because his checking account was overdrawn. When ask about his statements he said, "I throw them away." After spending hours recreating his statements, this "genius" found out that Wow... balancing your checkbook so often might be a wise idea. Come to find out... he'd gone 9 years and never once wrote down a service charge, overdraft charge nor did he have a clue what an outstanding check was. He'd get his statement.. write down the ending balance.. throw the statement away.. and think he had that much money to write checks on for the next month. Yea... genius..

If you want to be numerically perfect to save the most amount of interest over the course of the lives of the loans... sure... highest interest first. But.. if you want the quickest way to see progress, and also to be able to "up" those additional payments to a different loan faster without changing your total monthly outflow.. Ramsey's snowball does work wonders...

[hnsq]

Originally Posted by aus10

Because the people who NEED financial help with the kind of problems they call Ramsey with don't realize that the most reasonable approach to paying down debt is not being in that much debt in the first place.



I can see the benefits in both sides. At least Ramsey is getting people to do SOMETHING to pay down their debt. It does work. And while it might not be numerically perfect... what is these days? Our Federal Budget? A balance sheet with a bad debt column that gets larger and larger each month? The fact that most people think just because it's not cash out of their pocket that the debt disappears if they default? Having worked in banking for years you should hear some of the stuff that comes out of the general publics mouths. I was cussed up one side and down the other by a self-proclaimed "Math genius" because his checking account was overdrawn. When ask about his statements he said, "I throw them away." After spending hours recreating his statements, this "genius" found out that Wow... balancing your checkbook so often might be a wise idea. Come to find out... he'd gone 9 years and never once wrote down a service charge, overdraft charge nor did he have a clue what an outstanding check was. He'd get his statement.. write down the ending balance.. throw the statement away.. and think he had that much money to write checks on for the next month. Yea... genius..

If you want to be numerically perfect to save the most amount of interest over the course of the lives of the loans... sure... highest interest first. But.. if you want the quickest way to see progress, and also to be able to "up" those additional payments to a different loan faster without changing your total monthly outflow.. Ramsey's snowball does work wonders...

You don't seem to get my point. If Ramsey is going to teach people something, why wouldn't he teach them the best way to grow money? Why would he choose to teach something that gives people less money over their lifetime? Why not teach people that a quick fix do anything to see progress approach does nothing but keep you from making as much money as you can in your lifetime?

Obviously Ramsey's approach is better than doing nothing, but I can't imagine someone coming to me for financial advice and I choose to teach them the second or third best way to grow money instead of taking the time to teach them the method that will eliminate their debt the fastest.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

How about "you don't sign contracts with those provisions"?

Seriously... Do you expect drivers with multiple DUI's on their record to keep renewing what was their cut rate insurance? Insurance is not health care, it is a financial service based on risk. When the risk of outlay exceeds a rational level, it is wholly stupid to insist on insurance. At that point, it is not risk, the bills are real. You can't pay someone $1200/mo to pay 40,000/mo for you. They won't do it.

Obamacare attempts to turn insurance into "cost pooling", but that, too is an abject failure. It doesn't work.

That's why we need single payer. Sick the private insurance mess

Sent from my SPH-L300 using Tapatalk 2

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

This leaves out the three largest factors: Insurance with massive limits, which pays extremely large bills for exotic services with low assurances of success.

Employer paid insurance and other health benefits: Employees do not economize these services as they appear to be "free", and thus, overuse them freely.

A lack of any retail pricing and price accountability to the customer. Because individuals depend on someone else to pay the bill, price and consumption are mostly irrelevant. It's related to the first two, but a distinct factor.

What you want can't work. Patients can't be expected to diagnose themselves to prevent over use. Btw another term for it is rationing.

Sent from my SPH-L300 using Tapatalk 2

[pnwmdk]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

What you want can't work. Patients can't be expected to diagnose themselves to prevent over use. Btw another term for it is rationing.

Sent from my SPH-L300 using Tapatalk 2

That's just plain stupid. It does work. Millions of people pay attention to what's going on, educate themselves, and become vastly better consumers.

[aus10]

Originally Posted by hnsq

You don't seem to get my point. If Ramsey is going to teach people something, why wouldn't he teach them the best way to grow money? Why would he choose to teach something that gives people less money over their lifetime? Why not teach people that a quick fix do anything to see progress approach does nothing but keep you from making as much money as you can in your lifetime?

Obviously Ramsey's approach is better than doing nothing, but I can't imagine someone coming to me for financial advice and I choose to teach them the second or third best way to grow money instead of taking the time to teach them the method that will eliminate their debt the fastest.

Have you ever listened or seen his show? The kind of folks (and I swear some of them reside here on CD) that call into Ramsey's show, they've got credit card debt three times greater than their annual income. They have fancy cars, boats, etc. He does eventually teach long-term strategies, he does talk about having an emergency fund.. He also tells folks pretty point blank to sell things, eat rice and beans and to pay off the debt. But for so many of these folks, they can't think long term right now. The best that they can hope to do is to make those debts go away as quickly as possible.

While I do not disagree with you at all that high interest reduction is better... honestly... if a person can't understand the basic's of credit do you really think that trying to explain to them the intricacies of amortization will work? I had a young wife who's husband works for my husband come to me a couple of weeks ago wanting lending advice. They wanted to buy a house. She couldn't figure out how to calculate a 20% (or less) down payment. After doing her debt to income ratio ... well... lets just say if any lending institution lends to them it would be a surprise. She needs this snowball. She needs to get rid of debt fast. Any debt. And as it turned out... her smallest balance is her highest rate.. If they ever hope to get that house she's got to pay off that debt, save a down payment.. get some reserve.. then buy. And that's exactly what I told her. Anything else is totally irresponsible.

At least he's telling these folks to get it together, pay it off, not default, and take responsibility for the position they've gotten themselves into.