Do Third-Party-Payment-Providers (Insurance) result in increased costs?

 

I am writing this post due to an online discussion post that stated: “Only an idiot would believe that having insurance increases costs.”  Oh really?  I thought to myself.  It was too complicated a subject to respond to in a short message so I am putting my thoughts down here.  I have no intention of debating the morality or usefulness of insurance in this post, only addressing whether insurance providers lead to increases in costs. 

First, Insurance was originally developed to handle the unexpected events in your life, things you wouldn’t normally plan on.  Car insurance for example, is in case of the unexpected gut-wrenching, accident.  Now let’s imagine that someone suggests adding regular, every-day kinds of things to your car insurance and everyone in the nation suddenly owns a car (the comparison is health insurance so just go with me on this one).  Tire replacement and oil changes are now covered on your insurance.  Hurray!  You will only pay $50 for a set of 4 new tires and $9 for an oil change while your insurance premium handles the rest.  What will happen next?

We have leveraged our purchasing power by ordering tires in bulk through our insurance provider.  Tires are now more affordable and better traction means a safer drive.  For a teenager it may mean quicker acceleration to get on the freeway or for those impromptu races down State Street. So everyone in the nation gets in the habit of buying brand new tires every month or so.  After all, why bother with used tires when a new set is so affordable?  And you might as well change your oil every month to keep that machine well lubricated.  Ignoring the environmental impact of mountains of used rubber piling up, let’s just focus on cost.  You are paying less for tires now right?  WRONG.  The suppliers are not giving out tires for $12.50 apiece.  They aren’t even supplying them for $120 apiece, after all demand and consumption has increased dramatically and they are having a tough time keeping up.  (Demand determines price along with supply which cannot keep up) The cost per tire has gone from $120 to $300 per tire.  You may have noticed your insurance premium going up too.  Not only is the insurance company paying out more for all these tires but you have to pay them for the service of managing your money.  The insurance company needs you to cover their extra operational costs as well.  

This is what happens when there is a disconnect between purchaser and seller – over-consumption.  It isn’t a little extra that you’re paying, it is A LOT of extra dough.

So now instead of paying $120 for a decent tire you are paying $350 (once the insurers include their fees) and our story isn’t over yet.  Eventually the tire industry cannot support the demand and not only are they increasing the prices but now you have to get on a waitlist to get your tires.  Eventually the customers yell at the insurance company to stop raising premiums and so they, or the government start limiting how often you can purchase a tire.  Now instead of wait lines you have additional regulations which have to be monitored by someone, and you are going to pay their salaries one way or another.  It would have been cheaper and more effective for people to just purchase tires themselves.

Now let us bring this thought back to every day medical expenses being covered as opposed to limiting insurance to unexpected events.   A lot of people who didn’t use Viagra now have easy access to such treats.  People who checked their wallet before going to see the doctor, now run down to the hospital without a second thought.  The mere idea of being able to visit the doctor whenever leaves us all cheering inside for social advancement and who can argue against having a better sex drive?  Demand is going to increase exponentially on services and products which before were handled on an as-needed basis. I doubt that the supply of doctor’s hours will keep up.  Microeconomics dictates that costs will go up, as will the wait lines and eventual over-regulation by a 3^rd party (the Federal government or the health insurance industry).  It is really not a matter of if but only a matter of when.  So while our liberal friends cheer the addition of contraception to every health plan in the nation, the economists are asking, why do you want to pay so much more for contraception?   

Help Hawaii Vote

There is a serious problem with our election system and it has to do with the last nation to join the union.   Hawaii has the lowest voter turn out in the nation.  Hawaiians aren't really voting for president or in general.  One of the biggest problems is that Hawaii was essential taken over by the united states and some of the population don't really consider themselves American.  The other big problem is that Hawaii is 5 hours behind the East coast.  So when the polls close at 7 PM ET it is only 2 in the afternoon in Hawaii.  Why is this a problem?  Imagine how you would feel if before you even got to the booth to vote all the major news outlets had already declared which candidate had won the election.  Would you feel like your vote mattered if before you even get to vote Ohio had already declared Obama the victor?  Imagine voting at 10 PM in your state on election night.  It would be pointless.  So how can we help this state feel more included when we forced them into the country to begin with? 

The answer I believe is quite simple.  You need to give them a concession and that concession is to let the General public of Hawaii vote one day before everyone else.  It may not solve the problem entirely but at least they wouldn't feel that voting was entirely useless.  Most states already allow early voting and then just count those votes on election night.  So why not let Hawaii vote 18 hours before you?  We could even wait to count their votes until later. They only get three votes anyway and it still couldn't throw the election.  I find it laughable when CNN marks Hawaii as giving their electoral votes to the democratic party when only 1% of the votes have been counted there.  Of course they are going to vote democrat for years to come as the labor unions hold sway over most of the people that actually go out and vote.  However it would go a long ways toward helping Hawaii feel like they really are a part of this great nation.  And after forcing them to join the club, letting them go first at something so important as a presidential election might assuage some of the anger some feel towards the US of A. 

Next up, Organic food. 
In one of my earlier posts I thought a guy was crazy for stating that Organic food is a major concern of middle class Americans.  But it turns out this subject could become very important over time as food and water become difficult to obtain due to a growing population and as we continue to pollute the land and water. Organic food is much better for you and even more certainly it is expensive!  So what can middle class populations do in order to eat more natural foods not full of preservatives?  I am no farmer but I think a Co-op idea would be really cool.  Each neighborhood gets together and buys some cows, chickens or whatever.  Opt in would be entirely voluntary and those who are really organic smart could volunteer to help set up the program in their neighborhood.  The richer people in the community could contribute a higher allotment of cash and those not as well off could donate more of their time on the farm.  Obviously this wouldn't be possible in some major cities but for places like Utah it would be easy for the city of bountiful to own farm land in West Bountiful and the neighborhoods would share the animals to lighten the burden.  This wouldn't feed everyone obviously but would supplement meals.  Then if people decide they enjoy the taste of free range chicken and eggs they would be self motivated to grow the program and if they don't it would obviously loose steam.  Seems doable but would require a large effort to get such a program started.  I would also love to see plants and fruit trees on the roofs of buildings in major cities which could help reduce pollution and provide home grown organic fruit for major metropolises.  I figure that is just a pipe dream, but it would be so great to turn the urban jungle into a real rooftop jungle.  Join me next time for my ideas on education!

Is the Middle Class Shrinking?

In order to find out if the middle class is truly shrinking or being hollowed out as some say we first need to to define the middle class.  This has been brought up recently in national politics as both Governor Romney and Obama refer to the middle class as those making "between $200,00-$250,000 and less".  Obama doesn't want to increase taxes on anyone making less then $250,000 a year.  According to the New York Times Cathrine Rampell, both candidates have been referring to the ceiling of the middle class not the midpoint.  She continues however that this is a very high ceiling.  The Census Bureau reported that the median household income was $50,000 a year.

Any definition of middle class tied to raw income levels or earning percentiles will be flawed by its failure to factor in vast geographic differences in cost of living, not to mention variations in household size and other relevant factors. As we can presume a given level of income goes further for a childless couple in Nashville than for a family of four in San Francisco.

The consensus among economist is that the simplest definition of the middle class is "not rich and not poor".  Eric at the Atlantic defined the Middle class as follows:
You should define class by the ability to pay for two new cars, a $1200 mortgage, private schools, a $3,000 health insurance deductible, and organic/sustainably produced foods. (Huh?  Organic food?  who is this guy?) Then assume that most people pay for cable and cell service. Anyone who doesn't worry about these things is above middle class. Anyone who must make trade-offs among them is in the middle. Anyone who cannot pay for any of these is poor.

Some people believe that being middle class is a state of mind and there are several surveys that go out and ask people if they believe they are in the middle class.  Apparently many who earn more then $100,000 still believe they are middle class. Much of economics is perception and I guess that can extend to peoples own perception of their economic standing.

Most people in the US refer to tax brackets to define the middle class.
Wall Street Journal Marketwatch piece simply asserted that the middle class is comprised of "the 50% of American households earning between $39,000 to $118,000." Using the Journal's calculator, that range runs from the 46th to the 84th percentile of tax filing households.  Another Wall Street Journal article defines the middle class as households with between two-thirds and double the nation’s median income.  The median income is $50,000 So let us loosely define the middle class as those earning between $35,000-$120,000.  Now back to our original question, what is happening to the middle class?

The Pew research center indicates that in 2011 the middle class shrank to 51% from 61% back in the 1970s.  The Pew research shows that the Upper crust has grown by 6% while the Lower income bracket has grown by 4%.  This sounds like reason to cheer until we consider the sheer population numbers.

Since 1971, the ranks of the upper crust have grown by 27.9 million, but the ranks of the lower-income group have grown by 34.5 million. The largest group by far, the middle class, has grown by the smallest percentage, adding just 27 million people since 1971.  (In other words, 4% of a big number is a lot more then 6% of a small number)  As pew puts it, there has been virtually equal parts movements up and down the income ladder. So there has been both progress and regression in the economic status of American families."  So the country is indeed becoming more polarized economically speaking.  I guess it is true what they say "your either moving forward or falling behind, never standing still.  So which way is your household moving?

Does Trickle-Down work?

The battle is nothing new.  Do we support Keynesian Economics or supply-side economics?  Keynesian Economics in brief states that you should give the poor an extra fish or two (aka money back) which they will spend.  This extra spending will encourage employers to hire more people. 
Supply side or trickle down economics rests heavily on the idea of taxes and revenue.  If the Government charged no taxes, there would be no revenue (for the government).  If the government charged 100% taxes no one would work or report earnings.  So the tax rate at both extremes would generate 0 revenue.  The question that economist Arthur Laffer asked is what is the maximizing revenue point between those two extremes.  He created what is known as the Laffer Curve.  He argued that if tax rates became too high the steep tax discouraged work to the extent that revenue suffered. (if a million dollars is taxed at 50% but anything over a million would be taxed at 90% it would discourage you from working as you get close to reaching that point.  You would settle for a little under a million and retire to your beach house.  Why work harder if you only were to keep 10% of any additional revenue?)  The range when taxes are too high is called the prohibitive range and this range discourages production.

Jude Wanniski then built on this idea in "The way the World Works" explaining that boosting the supply side or increasing production will give more people jobs and they will have money to buy more products.  This has been re-titled as supply-side economics, but the meaning is the same. 
so to sum up the idea -tax breaks improve revenue and boosting production is key to exiting a recession. 

Moving forward-The idea of giving the wealthy tax breaks causes them to invest in equipment and more employees (they spend money to make money) the employer must create jobs before they can expect to see profits.  So the idea is the employers are spending their money and it is the workers who receive immediate relief not the wealthy.  (He has to wait and see if his investments pay off). Somehow we come up with the number 2.5.  For every job created an additional 2.5 jobs is made.  Essentially if you pay your workers well they will then go out and buy stuff.  This means that lots of other commercial businesses pop up.  Imagine the auto industry.  You have a factory that makes cars.  these workers then need to buy food, clothing, find housing and buy luxury goods.  This creates work for real estate agents, banks, food chains and retailers. 

Trickle down follows the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats-an improving economy benefits everyone.
Many people think Reagan was the first president to implement the tactic but Harding, Coolidge and Kennedy all used the theory before Reagan.

The disconnect comes because of globalization.  People don't have to make stuff in the same place it is sold anymore.  So Apple makes transistors and touch screens in Japan, and has their product assembled in China, which is then sold in the USA (and many other places including Japan & China)  But how are US citizens going to buy luxury goods when the products are being made overseas?  Is trickle down broken because it is not working at the local level?  The truth is that trickle down still works but we are now seeing it work throughout a global community.  As Chines workers start demanding more luxury goods at better prices, China will start sending jobs overseas to 3rd world countries.  How many countries would have to be used to support the demand in the USA, China and Europe?  A lot.  You have millions of chines jobs that would be sent to 3rd world countries.  This should lift more and more countries out of poverty due to the huge influx of work.  So we still see jobs (or industry) continues to create additional jobs, they just aren't in your neighborhood anymore.

So in order to improve the situation at home things get more complicated.  Do we want lower wages so we can get those jobs back from China? (no one wants that do they?) Or do we increase our education so we can get the high paying, high tech jobs back from Japan and Germany? I believe Trickle-Down is still the answer as opposed to giving a temporary but false jump start to the economy as Keynesian's suggest.  I believe a lot of economics is based on perception and trust and little hand-outs to the poor don't provide enough trust that the economy is well and back on its feet again.  We just need a nation that knows how to compete.  Something Obama apparently doesn't know enough about.  Which is why I feel we need capitalists in office to get things moving again.

Premium Support and Medicare

I am going to start this post by admitting that my health care knowledge is lacking.  If I overlook or misinterpret information I am more than happy to make corrections to my writing.  My brother in law asked about Premium support  and it got me going on health care and this is what I have found so far.

First understanding a few key terms is helpful.
Pay-for-quality or pay-for-performance: is supposed to pay health services for the quality of care they deliver.  Better service means they get better payments.  Payment-for-quality programs take many forms, such as bonuses to physicians for satisfying certain performance measurements or incentives to physician groups for implementing health information technology, or, conversely, can include financial disincentives for not meeting quality benchmarks.  This is a key component of Obamacare and current payment policies are not effectively structured to reward improvements in the quality of care.
Exchanges: Exchanges use competitive bidding to allow insurance companies to offer the cheapest price possible for comparative coverage.  These will be advertised online and each state will have their own exchange site.  Exchanges are part of both Obamacare and Romney's health plan.

Both Obamacare and Romney's plan are based off of existing Medicare Models.  Medicare Advantage or MA is medicare brought into the private sector.  Romney's plan takes a lot of its ques from MA.

To answer Micah's question:
Premium Support: There’s a big difference between vouchers and premium support but regrettably it goes unnoticed. According to Politifact: vouchers are paid to individuals who may use the funds for a designated purpose. School vouchers are an example. They are a specific amount that don't keep up with rising costs.  So essentially vouchers lose value over time.  By contrast, premium support payments in Medicare would be made directly to qualified health insurance plans on behalf of seniors who choose them from a Medicare exchange.  In order for a policy to qualify as "Premium Support" it’s crucial to peg the beneficiaries’ payment to the actual rise in health care costs so people don't end up having to pay more because of inflation. Voucher plans that don’t do this "are virtually guaranteed to become increasingly inadequate," You could argue and some do, that Obamacare is actually a premium support plan. 

According to Reihan Salam The difference is as follows:
Vouchers cannot be "topped up" or people cannot add their own money on top of it.  With school vouchers this is supposed to prevent parents who would send their kids to private schools regardless of financial aid from taking advantage of the system.  Premium Support on the other hand allows people to top up their aid.  Wealthier seniors will be expected to add onto their medicare to get more expensive coverage.  Under Romney's plan, the wealthier you are, the more you pay on your own.

For a great overview of Obamacare vs. Premium Support plans I highly recommend visiting:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106298/guide-to-medicare-debate-romney-ryan-obama-voucher-premium-support#

At the bottom it has a quick breakdown with commonly asked questions.

National Senate Races

I was hoping to find time to write about some cool new tech in the works, but since it is political season, I decided to keep going while people are still interested enough to read about the national scene.  The national senate races have been quite interesting this year.  Let me break it down.

Republicans are slated to take 2 democrat seats: 1 from Nebraska and another from North Dakota. 

Democrats are likely to steal one Rep seat up in Maine from Snow who is retiring from politics.

This puts Democrats at 46 seats and Republicans at 44.  The 10 toss up senate races are in 

Arizona

Connecticut

Indiana

Massachusetts

Missouri

Montana

Nevada

Ohio

Virginia &

Wisconsin

If Republicans can bump up to 51 seats they will control both sides of the house. How likely is this?  Well the elections are about a week away and according to polls here are the current standings:

Massachusetts, Connecticut and Virginia are solidly (enough) in Democrat hands.  This pushes them up to 49 seats meaning they only have to grasp 2 more to maintain majority in the Senate.  It is very likely that Ohio will fall into the democrats court and Missouri has a slightly blue tilt after Akins now famous remarks about "legitimate rape".  If somehow Akin pulls off a win then the democrats are on shaky ground.  The Republicans are solid in Montana and Arizona with a good chance of winning Nevada.  Wisconsin, Indiana and Missouri are all true ties in the polls.  It would be unlikely that the Republicans would gain all 3 seats and here is why -the Tea party.  Todd Akin in Missouri had a solid lead and a spot at the table in DC until he gave his remarks about "legitimate rape".  He quickly squandered his lead and now the good people of Missouri are questioning whether he is sane enough to be in the Senate and the Democrats are up 2 points in the polls.  In Indiana Richard Murdock beat out long time favorite Richard Luger in the primaries by leaning further to the right.  Luger, who had kept the seat safely republican for 36 years.  Last election they couldn't even scrounge up a democrat to run against him.  Now Murdock is the nominee and in a dead heat and liable to loose the seat.  Loosing these two "safe seats" in the senate leave republicans in the lurch.  Last election cycle 3 weak Tea party candidates cost the republican ticket 3 seats in the senate and it looks like now they will loose 2 more.  Why does this even really matter you ask?  Back when Bill Clinton was president a unified republican house led to budget compromises and much was accomplished.  With a divided house we can expect little to be accomplished over the next 2 years as Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has promised preemptive gridlock for 2013 stating: the idea of any attempt at bipartisan tax reform next year is "obsolete".  So the final count comes down to 49 solid blue and 47 solid red.  

The most interesting Senate race actually comes out of Ohio despite all the Tea party's "thoughts" on rape.  There you have a young 33 year old republican names Josh Mandel.  After serving 2 tours in Iraq and getting degrees in communications and law, he joined his local city council.  After a brief stint he somehow managed to become Ohio's state treasurer without a degree in accounting.  His campaign positioned his black opponent as an extremist Muslim (he wasn't Muslim) and proclaimed if he were Treasurer he would install qualified staff instead of his friends as the democrat had done.  I guess he didn't count on reporters looking into his administration.  Friends who had been paid 13.50 to help run his campaign suddenly had salaries of $100,000.  Once again, these people have no relevant degrees to the the office they are working in.  This candidate also avoided taxes while running his campaign by labeling employees as contractors.  This way he avoids paying payroll and other necessary taxes on his employees because he calls them independent of his operation.  However they had campaign email addresses, worked exclusively for his campaign, etc.  Then he missed the first 10 meetings while in office.  Does he really care about the office of treasurer?  In less then a year of obtaining the office he had already filed papers to run as a republican contender for Senator and now he is running.  Many are questioning if even his time in the military was politically motivated.  Then there are also questions floating out their as to whether he misappropriated funds while in office as treasurer but I haven't researched those claims yet.  If this 33 year old unqualified candidate can be a state Senator for Ohio then I fear for our nation.  As the political saying states: As goes Ohio, so goes the nation.  Anyway the senate races can be fun to watch as well so I hope you do pay attention to them.  The Senate may play a greater role in what is accomplished in the next for years then even who we choose as president.

Debate 3: The ending may surprise you

The debate was great to watch.  It moved smoothly due to a great moderator and both candidates stayed on topic... that is, most of the time.  Obama did a great job explaining how he has handled the military over the last 4 years and in that regard I would say he won the debate.  Mitt Romney however could not have had a better night.  While he ended up agreeing with most of what Obama has done militarily he actually ended the debate on a much higher note then Obama.  (if you can't read it all, make sure to read the last few paragraphs)

My favorite line of the night came from Obama after Romney brought up that our navy is the smallest it has been since before WWI.  Obama stated that we also have fewer horses and bayonets. LOL He stated military spending has gone up every year during his presidency. (This is true we are now up to $711 billion for 2011) Obama brought up a great point that we spend more then the next top 10 countries combined. He goes on to state that spending should not be determined by politics but by what the military needs. 

Romney later brings up that Obama's own Secretary of Defense called these defense cuts devastating.

On overall policy and drone use they are both on the same page.  Both wish to use military as a last resort and both agree with economic sanctions that are in play against Iran.  Obama constantly tried to bring up Romney's shifting position and stated we need someone consistent leading our troops abroad.  Mitt Romney kept stating that personal attacks are not policy and do not tell the country how the next four years will be better.  These were probably the best possible tack each candidate could take.

Romney also brought up the "apology tour" when Obama met with many Arab leaders and avoided Israel. Obama states it just isn't true. Romney then went on to quote Obama as saying America had "been dismissive and derisive" and had "dictated to other nations".  Romney states we have not dictated, we have freed people from dictators. (But couldn't both be true?  Doesn't America dictate to dictators?)

Romney did a great job clarifying his stance on Russia being our greatest political foe as they constantly block us in the UN.  He continued that in that same paragraph he had listed Iran as the nation who is the greatest threat to our national security.  The media has had a field day claiming Romney still thinks we're in the cold war.  These debates have finally given Romney opportunities to clarify statements that the media constantly miss-interprets...on purpose?  I think so. 

On Syria: Romney and Obama's stance is pretty much the same.  Romney said this is what we should be doing and Obama said we are already doing it.  In associated news however Qatar and Turkey and several other middle east nations say they have a plan to move forward with Syria but are waiting on the USA.  My guess is elections are stalling any real action on Syria for the moment.

Obama also during this portion came out saying that the USA is the one indispensable nation in the world.  a great statement as the republican party often paints him as an anti-nationalist.

On Iraq: 

The candidates traded sharp barbs.  Obama attacked Romney stating just two weeks ago he said we should still have troops in Iraq.  Romney came back clarifying that back in 2011 both Obama and he thought there should be a Status of forces agreement-this means we leave some troops behind.  Obama looked right at Romney and said "no I didn't".  CNN's fact check has proved Romney to be accurate.  The Obama administration fought to keep some troops behind in Iraq to continue training personnel but the Iraqi's wouldn't agree to it.  

On Israel and Iran:

Obama stated Israel is our greatest ally and we will stand with Israel if they are attacked.  But stopped short of declaring we would actually defend them militarily when asked by the moderator.  He reminds everyone that we have put down harsh sanctions against Iran.

Romney says we have their back not just politically, not just socially but militarily. The governor said we should tighten sanctions-don't allow another countries ships carrying Iran's oil to enter our ports.  Indite Iran's president (seems extreme seeing as how Iran actually hasn't done anything yet).  Romney had 7 steps to stopping Iran and sanctions is the first step, war would be the very last.

Obama-was tough on sanctions-put them in as quickly as world community would allow. Visited the Holocaust museum and and went to Steroke and reminded himself what this means and funded the Iron dome program to stop Hamas missiles from killing Israels.

Romney says he see our influence receding in the world.  Reminds us that Obama received a letter from 38 democrat senators asking him to repair the relationship with Israel.

On Pakistan:

Romney-Pakistan is important because they have over 100 nukes and terrorist in partial control of their country.  Pakistan needs a more stable government.  We need to continue to support them or terrorist may overcome all the work we have been doing in that region.  They are an ally even if though they aren't acting like one at the moment.

China: This segment just blew my mind.  Romney really knows what is going on here.

Obama shows how aggressive he has been by bringing lawsuits against china -now we can sell steel to china.  He also stopped cheap Chinese tires from being shipped into the USA and flooding the tire market. 

Romney:  China wants a stable world.  They have 20 million people coming out of the farms every year into the cities to find work.  They need job markets to grow.  I will label them a currency manipulator which will allow us to take strict measures against them.  They are stealing our designs and hacking into our systems.  -When the moderator asked if this would cause a trade war.  Romney's response was stellar!-   China has a lot more to fear from a trade war then us.  China exports this much to the US (hand up high by his head)  The US exports this much to China (hand down by his waist)  Its really unbalanced and if anyone has need to fear a trade war it isn't us.  There is already a silent trade war with china and it is costing American jobs.  China is selling cheap valves and counterfeiting products and duplicating serial numbers.  This cannot continue. (People are afraid the price of products would go up here in the USA, but with China's biggest buyer -the EU- in such a financial mess, their second biggest buyer -the USA- stopping trade with China it would destroy their economy.  China has been trying to stock up on raw materials from many countries.  They are well aware that if a trade war occurs, the world will side with the USA.)

Obama's response is simply that Romney ships jobs overseas.  (pathetic response- rhetoric is what you throw out when you have no plans of your own.  We have seen both candidates do it, but for the President to be so limited on how to deal with China is just sad) 

Domestic issues:  Watch out Obama, Romney is about to throw another Grenade at you!

Obama picks up with a thought that the government has been investing in research.  Stating that the private sector never does enough research and research needs government help.  Romney's retort is that government investments do not make us successful.  Making battery operated cars is not research.  Investing in Solyndra is not research! (for those who don't yet know- Solyndra went bankrupt because it had a solar tech that didn't use polysilicon which at one point was $400 a kilogram.  However before the government even gave them money the price had dropped to just over $50 a kilogram as plant productions increased the supply.  This meant that Solyndra's Tech was way overpriced and their bankruptcy was inevitable.  Private investors would do their homework before investing in something like this.  But what do democrats even care, its just tax payers dollars, right?) Romney continues that if you want to push technology forward you invest in universities and think tanks not manufactures.   

Romney- attacking me is not an agenda.  I am a son of Detroit and love American cars.  I said companies need to go through managed bankruptcies.  Obama says Romney said to let the car industry fail and Romney replied that we should provide guarantees as major manufactures go through managed bankruptcy.  Obama says "No you did not".  So what are the facts- according to the LA Times here is what Romney said. “A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs,” Romney wrote. “The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.”  Romney never said we should liquidate the industry. 

Last Obama states that Romney was against hiring teachers-Romney's retort- Let states hire teachers.  We cut some funding in Massachusetts and still had the best rated schools.  We did it without the federal government. 

In Conclusion: Obama defended his military record admirably and as this was the main reason of the debate it is fair to say he won.  He and Romney were in agreement on so many military issues, you couldn't tell their programs apart.  However whenever it came to trade and economics I think it is quite fair to say that Romney put the Smack down on Obama.   Yeah I said it, I said it cuz I can.  Romney wants to increase trade with Latin America stating that Latin America has the same rough population size as China and would be much easier to work with, language, etc.  Obama has been one of the the toughest democratic military leaders in recent memory (compare to Clinton who kept giving North Korea money to stop them from building nukes...any guesses on what Korea did with the money?)  Mitt had a tough job of representing the traditional military party and trying to sound tougher then Obama while avoiding mention of war, which the American people are quite tired of.  

Extra:

Romney's plan to allow the middle east to reject extremism on its own

1.assist with economic development

2.provide a better education

3.promote gender equality

4.Promote rule of law

Many countries such as Qatar and Turkey could help with these type of endeavors.

Obama replies

We cannot do nation building in these regions.  We need nation building at home.

I guess that will do.   Now go vote.