How people make decisions is a fascinating topic. Choosing homes, toasters, cars, lawn mowers, health plans, investments and many other things involves decision process. I having studied this for years, but have more of my share of bad choices and wrong decisions. Hopefully we continue to learn.
Triangle MLS is holding its annual Tech Fair from 8:30 to 4:00 on Thursday, March 11 at their headquarters. BestHomePro.com is exhibiting its services, including its IDX and search software for REALTORS and its new BestHomePro MarketPlace lead and referral network.
It's obvious to almost anyone that an agent has earned their commission when they've helped a buyer or seller close on a home. However, based on the standard real estate agreements used by the majority of North Carolina brokers, real estate buyers and sellers are surprised by some of the other scenarios in which a real estate agent has technically earned a commission. http://www.besthomepro.com/blog/post/when-do-you-owe-your-realtor-commission
It sounds incredibly simple, but "buy low and sell high" needs to be the basic tenant for any investment in real estate. Like with the stock market, it is incredibly difficult to gauge the precise bottom of a bear market or the exact peak in a bull market. Real estate is similar. If you can buy within 20% of the bottom and sell within 20% of the top, you will do extremely well. http://www.besthomepro.com
It is a confusing world today. But I am certain it has always been a confusing world. Take the debate over health care reform. I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I believe government, and affluent individuals, and not-for-profits, have a responsibility to care for the less fortunate and the "under-served." I completely agree with the concept of safety nets and I believe that governments must establish laws to regulate abuse and corruption.
I do not believe that any government or any people can afford to make all benefits available equally to all people. This may sound harsh, but no economy can be viable if everyone is said to have an inalienable right to equality in the receipt of all goods and services. It may sound nice, but is simply cannot be afforded. The burden placed on tax-paying citizens and corporations would be overwhelming.
It seems to me that the conflicts in Washington these days are more about core philosophies than they are about pure politics. The media wants us all to believe that most politicians are corrupt and self-serving. I do not believe that. There is plenty of corruption in Washington, but I believe it is a corruption of good intentions, rather than greed. The media chooses to make the debate about which party "cares about people" the most. I don't think that is the argument at all. If it could be afforded, I don't think any elected official would be against universal health care, or college education or home ownership.
We as a people must decide what, in the collective conscience of our society, is the appropriate path that 1) covers the most people possible, and 2) can be afforded by our society while allowing consistent innovation and growth in our economy. I don't pretend to have the answers, but as a compassionate AND responsible citizen I want rational debate. Name-calling and demagoguery are dysfunctional exercises that do not move us forward.
I wrestle with "should everyone compromise" or "stand-up for what they believe." Our country is based on the concept of compromise, so why not start to fix problems in health care by taking those things that everyone believes are wrong and fixing them?
If you are Republican, tell your elected officials to stop saying "no" to everything and start suggesting solutions. If you are a Democrat, insist that your party stop portraying Republicans as the evil, Wall Street, money-grubbers. There are real problems in health care. Our society and our corporations cannot afford the run away money-train in medical costs.
Here is my short list of things that can be done quickly and easily:
1. Tort reform is essential. Health care providers use the threat of law suits as an excuse for ordering unnecessary procedures (that pad their pockets). Limits on punitive damages would make a huge difference quickly. 2. Force insurance companies to compete across state lines. It is silly not to allow competition. 3. Force all insurance entities to use the same risk pool. Do not allow people with pre-existing conditions to be excluded from care, and don't let insurance companies cherry-pick who they cover. 4. Establish online databases that offer profiles of doctors and health care facilities, and posts their "retail" costs per visit and procedure, and encourage them offer discounts for cash. 5. Establish a marketplace where health insurance companies compete for subscribers. Let online decision tools help people choose the plan that is most appropriate for them at the lowest cost. (The Federal Employees Health Benefit Program is a good example of an existing marketplace, but currently it is only available to federal employees and retirees.) 6. Establish rebates on premiums or tax credits for consumer-based cost-saving decisions.
I believe in free-enterprise and in capitalism, but successful capitalism is based upon competition and rewards for productivity. In health care in The United States, we have virtually no competition. This is the fault of our elected officials over a long period of time and it needs to be fixed. If health care is not fixed, our entire society stands the good chance of becoming bankrupt.
I am sure I have missed a great number of critical issues, but let's encourage our elected officials to work together to solve the problems.
After the Scott Brown surprise win in Massachusetts Democrats are looking for scapegoats. I suppose I would too under the same circumstances. Interestingly, Republicans have seemed pretty quiet given what some might consider a real boost to their agenda.
Truth is, every politician needs to be nervous.
I have always felt that I could be a good candidate for public office. I am dashingly handsome (at least not anymore if truth be told), and I can give an articulate, passionate speech. But the facts are that in our political environment, moderates cannot be elected. It seems you need to be a zealot on one extreme or the other.
In my opinion, both sides try to do too much. They get kicked-back and are too nervous to do anything, so they do too little. They then get angry about their impotence and try to do too much.
Why not do "just right?"
Just right might mean compromising with your fellow legislators. Compromising might be to fix some little things, and then a few more and then a few more. Shake hands with your colleagues across the isle (or get rid of the isle). Perhaps everyone should declare themselves independents.
Sound familiar? It ends with "Santa Claus is coming to town!" Last night's victory by Scott Brown in Massachusetts was truly a stunner. Ted Kennedy must literally be turning-over in his grave, Obama clearly did not sleep well last night and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid may have thought about "smokin' something..."
The "no one can define what's in it" health care behemoth is now likely dead. Cap and Trade may disappear and other legislative initiatives by the democrats likely will go nowhere with freightened politicians and an election coming up.
But before Republicans begin dancing in the street (they are allowed to dance for precisely one day with Scott Brown), they better recognize that the electorate is more and more independent and more and more angry about the corruption of ideals in Washington, the out-of-control spending and the lack of recognition that the independent middle class finally is saying "enough" to all politicians who recklessly spend our money without consideration of long-term benefits to our society.
You better watch out -- every elected official. THE PEOPLE are Santa Claus.
It may be time to clean-house and begin a reasonable government agenda.
I don't pretend to understand the complexities of the healthcare reform debate, but I do know that whatever is going on in Washington has not been explained by the proponents and solid, reasoned objections have not been voiced by the opposition.
As a business person, the one thing I am certain about, however, is that competition does not exist in health care. I also know that there has been lip-service to the idea of engendering competition, but no real attempt to create competition.
Let's blame the Republicans. Okay, let's blame the Democrats. Well, let's blame the insurance companies. Hmmmm. What about let's blame the fact that there is no competition for health CARE.
When was the last time anyone checked an Internet site to see which dermatologist had the lowest price for having a mole removed? When was the last time a person with heart problems or cancer evaluated the quality of service available by different providers and the prices they charge? NEVER!
We have been covered by insurance plans with the lowest co-pays possible, so none of us has any idea what healthcare costs -- and there is no pain for us to go to the first place suggested.
Have any of you ever been treated by a doctor where the nurse didn't say, "ah, Doctor Jones is the best..." Well, if every doctor is "the best," then let them compete on price. Realistically, let them compete on experience, training and price (plus perhaps the number of malpractice claims filed...)
It is the insurance industry that caused this, but it is not their fault. Will the new federal health plan cover ALL citizens like Medicare? That will NEVER save money. My 86 year-old mother goes to the doctor 2 or 3 times a week because she has aches and pains AND the visits don't cost her anything, so there is no incentive for her to say, "I guess it is not so bad. I will save the money." And do you really think doctors or hospitals want consumers to know what things cost? Absolutely not.
Simple question for pet owners: Has pet insurance saved money? No. It has allowed veterinarians to raise their prices.
If we want everyone covered, then competition must be engendered. The health insurance companies want everyone covered because it means more revenue. The federal government wants more people covered because it establishes greater dependence upon the government from our citizens. I doubt a "government option" will engender competition. You can't have the public sector competing with the private sector and have a fair fight. "Public sector" will be the death of the "private," and thus any hope we have of establishing competition.
Let your congressman know that you want competition in health care, not higher taxes and government control.
Founded BestHomePro to build a new real estate marketplace. Happily married to Sandy for 38 years, son, husband, brother, father of three daughters, grandfather to two granddaughters, seriel entpreneur, 5th company in 30 years, patent holder, communicator, would like to do something to change the world and eventually write the great American Novel
