Sunday, March 25, 2012

Intrade Update

Current Odds for:

1. Romney to be nominee: 93.1%

2. Obama to be re-elected: 60%

3.  Marco Rubio to be Republican VP (highest odds): 31.2%

4. Chris Christie to be Republican VP: 11.3%

Bottom Line: Intrade odds are currently predicting that the most likely outcome in November is an Obama victory over a Romney-Rubio ticket, obviously subject to change....

29 Comments:

At 3/25/2012 10:25 AM, Blogger juandos said...

Does that mean we could be on our collective way to Santorum's idea of Obamaville?... Heh!

 
At 3/25/2012 11:53 AM, Blogger Jon Murphy said...

Interesting. At the current odds, it even seems like an overwhelming victory for Obama.

 
At 3/25/2012 3:11 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

It's a LONG WAY until Nov and a LOT can happen.

Besides, Romney is not yet in a position to appeal to liberals, eh?

:-)

 
At 3/25/2012 3:48 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

March 21, 2012

"“If you’re looking for free stuff you don’t have to pay for, vote for the other guy.” Romney told a young woman who told him that free contraception would make her happy."

 
At 3/25/2012 3:58 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

in terms of health insurance, there are a LOT of other things that insurance pays for besides contraception that some of us would like to not be "included" and be ala carte.

We could say that most tests... liks PSAs for men should be ala carte and _not included_.

Hell.. I'd rather not pay the uninsured motorist fee on my auto insurance either.

Maybe all plans should be "cafeteria" plans...you know...like cable service....where you buy "bundles" eh?

 
At 3/25/2012 4:15 PM, Blogger esoltas said...

Mr. Perry,

Intrade predicts the instantaneous likelihood of an event, not an event per se. The distinction is important, because if Romney was / was not in the end the nominee or Obama was / was not re-elected, Intrade has not made an "correct / incorrect prediction." It has estimated at any moment the probability of it happening or not happening, neither of which is zero. Traders buy or sell based on how accurately they feel the market estimating the probability, not by whether they think it will occur or not. For example, if you think it will be sunny tomorrow, there are still cases in which it is rational for you to sell the prediction security -- if you estimate the probability of sun tomorrow to be 60 percent, and Intrade prices set the probability at 80 percent, say.

I think it would be more accurate to say that Intraders currently think the most likely outcome of the 2012 elections is an Obama victory over a Romney-Rubio ticket.

- Evan Soltas
http://esoltas.blogspot.com/

 
At 3/25/2012 4:35 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Larry, I know workers in the private sector who pay over $1,300 a month for health insurance (the highest plan out of three plans, for themselves and their families).

Now, don't you think that's ridiculous for most workers? So, why should government get involved anymore than it already has?

 
At 3/25/2012 4:37 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

I stated before:

The U.S. government has raised the cost of health care so high that many Americans can't afford it. Even with the high cost, the U.S. would have the highest life expectancy in the world if infant mortality rates across countries were equal, and excluding the black population, motor vehicle deaths, and gunshot deaths.

Government has done a great disservice to the American people by forcing them to pay higher premiums and co-payments, or pricing them out of the market, through over 100,000 pages of regulations, and it'll be a greater disservice when it takes over health care.

How to reduce health care costs:

1. Limit medical lawsuits and awards, to lower malpractice insurance premiums and unnecessary medical tests.

2. Lower standards to practice medicine (to increase labor).

3. Allow insurance companies to sell health-care policies across state lines (currently, average health care insurance ranges from a low of $1,254 in Wisconsin to a high of $8,537 in Massachusetts).

4. Allow innovation (example below):

Kaiser Microclinics At 50% of the Cost of a Full-Service Hospital

Two doctors working out of a microclinic at a mall could meet 80% of a typical patient's needs. With a hi-def video conferencing add-on, members could even link to a nearby hospital for a quick consult with a specialist. Patients would still need to travel to a full-size facility for major trauma, surgery, or access to expensive diagnostic equipment, but those are situations that arise infrequently. The per-member cost at a microclinic is roughly half that of a full Kaiser hospital.

 
At 3/25/2012 4:57 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"...there are a LOT of other things that insurance pays for besides contraception that some of us would like to not be "included" and be ala carte."

So then take your case to Lord Almighty Obama. He now dictates the terms to insurance companies.

 
At 3/25/2012 5:06 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

" So, why should government get involved anymore than it already has?"

you are FREE to NOT TAKE the employer insurance and go to the free market to buy catastrophic insurance if you wish.

No WHY is there catastrophic insurance available for a LOT LESS than employer-provided insurance if it's the govt that is driving the cost up?

It's a pretend world.

It's the people who get the employer-provided insurance who drive up the cost,

And the irony is that it's the Govt that allows both the company AND employers to receive the health insurance as a tax-free compensation whereas the person who buys market catastrophic gets no such tax break.

If the market insurance got to play by the same rules as employer-provided, many might not take the employer-provided and instead price-shop for the best combination of price and benefits that suited them.

Remember also - Obama did not create the current health care system.

it's been here a long time. How long has employer-provided insurance been a tax-free benefit?

way before Obama....right?

 
At 3/25/2012 6:18 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Remember also - Obama did not create the current health care system."

The current health care system is Obamacare, a transition system designed to eventually give way to Single Payer.

So yeah, he did.

 
At 3/25/2012 6:19 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Remember also - Obama did not create the current health care system."

The current health care system is Obamacare, a transition system designed to eventually give way to Single Payer.

So yeah, he did.

 
At 3/25/2012 6:20 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

The Three Stooges and Ron Paul---the current GOP field---do not an appealing cast make.

On Santorum: The previous Pope said he was against the Iraq war. Santorum makes a big deal about his devout Catholicism, thus making it an issue. He has already aggressively pushed his religious views into the campaign center stage. So, unlike a Paul, there is reasons to ask about Santorum's devout religious infection.

Okay, so the Pope says don't invade Iran. What does a Santorum do? The Pope's word is God's word, btw.

 
At 3/25/2012 7:02 PM, Blogger Paul said...

"Santorum makes a big deal about his devout Catholicism, thus making it an issue."

So what. Ted Kennedy did the same thing and he was one of the best friends Planned Parenthood ever had.

"He has already aggressively pushed his religious views into the campaign center stage."

So has your boyfriend. He routinely invokes the "I am my brother's keeper" line completely out of biblical context. Meanwhile, millionaire Obama has an actual brother who lives in a mud hut in Kenya earning something like $20 a year.

 
At 3/25/2012 7:24 PM, Blogger Benjamin said...

PAUL-

You dodge the question. If the Pope says "do not go to war," does Santorum ignore God's advice and go to war anyway?

Devout Catholics regard the Pope's word as divine.

So Santorum is a Catholic except when he isn't?

Ted Kennedy worshiped alcohol and girls before God, so I count him as a secularist. Obama's government is ungodly piss-poor, so I do not worry about his religious affiliations either.

PS I just noticed that Juandos gun avatar appears to be firing. Is that a new feature?

When will Larry G's airplane take off?

 
At 3/25/2012 7:29 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

There's another one on intrade:

Probability that the SCOTUS will rule the individual mandate unconstitutional before 12/31/2012

Odds currently at 34%
______________

In any case, their decision will impact the election.

 
At 3/25/2012 7:32 PM, Blogger arbitrage789 said...

Larry G @ 3:58

"We could say that most tests... like PSAs for men should be a la carte and not included... ... Maybe all plans should be "cafeteria" plans"
________________

Yes, why the hell not?

 
At 3/25/2012 8:02 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Ted Kennedy worshiped alcohol and girls before God, so I count him as a secularist"

He also went swimming at night.

 
At 3/25/2012 9:49 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Larry says: "You are FREE to NOT TAKE the employer insurance and go to the free market to buy catastrophic insurance if you wish."

My health care insurance is part of my compensation. Are you saying my employer will give me cash instead of the health care insurance?

And, are you saying there's an actual free market in health care, where I won't need to pay ridiculous premiums and co-payments, because of over 100,000 pages of regulations?

 
At 3/25/2012 10:25 PM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Also, Larry says: "It's the people who get the employer-provided insurance who drive up the cost."

Can an individual get a better deal on insurance than a firm with thousands of employees?

And how do people who pay the cost drive up the cost?

 
At 3/25/2012 10:40 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Yet another bit raving idiocy as expected from the pseudo benny: "You dodge the question. If the Pope says "do not go to war," does Santorum ignore God's advice and go to war anyway?"...

You know you're just like California pseudo benny, everytime you come up with something indescribly stupid I ask myself "can it get worse than this?" and damn if you don't suprise me again...

Did you find what the Pope said in your personal real time news outlet?

 
At 3/25/2012 10:56 PM, Blogger juandos said...

Hey PT, in your list of trying to drive down the costs of health care shouldn't getting rid of EMTALA be in there somewhere?

 
At 3/26/2012 7:01 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

your employer-provided health insurance is taxfree compensation.

why?

why should some folks get their insurance tax-free and others not?

if employer-provided health insurance were taxed as compensation and you could choose cash instead and shop for your exact needs - would that be a more market-based, less govt-involvement approach?

 
At 3/26/2012 8:18 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

what if - you can write off your health insurance in full, i.e. get a credit for the total amount as a refundable or non-refundable credit?

which would be more appropriate?

what would happen to overall tax revenues if people could do this?

if we did this, wouldn't that provide everyone, no matter how they earned a living, a level playing field on health insurance?

Wouldn't that be better than the current system?

 
At 3/26/2012 9:09 AM, Blogger PeakTrader said...

Larry, deregulation will reduce costs and increase supply, which will benefit the masses.

The price of health care can fall over 50% with little change in quality.

 
At 3/26/2012 9:55 AM, Blogger Larry G said...

so... we should make employer-provided health insurance a taxable benefit and let everyone decide where they get their insurance and how much they want to pay for it?

that way - no one is stuck with a job because of their "free" health care?

 
At 3/26/2012 12:28 PM, Blogger Paul said...

Larry,

"if employer-provided health insurance were taxed as compensation and you could choose cash instead and shop for your exact needs - would that be a more market-based, less govt-involvement approach?"

Yes. Or provide the same tax benefits to individuals that corporations receive. Also, a tax credit for people who purchase health care would be sorta like the mandate in reverse. It would help reduce the unfairness of the "free rider" problem.

 
At 3/26/2012 2:12 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

geeze Paul.. I'm speechless.. we seem to agree...

 
At 3/26/2012 2:14 PM, Blogger Larry G said...

so why does the govt whack 7.5% of the unreimbursed medical expenses anyhow?

why not 2% or 20%?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home