Ryan vs. Obama on Medicare - Obama's Stance

OBAMA'S STANCE

Obama's website doesn't have any information dealing with medicare or medicaid directly. It only has information on the Affordable Care Act. So, here is a good sum up of Obama's stance on Medicare. This is an article taken from 

http://medicarenewsgroup.com/news/medicare-faqs/individual-faq?faqId=e7642be4-317f-490e-8dd0-43455d3a674a

"President Obama lays out his plan for Medicare reform in his “Budget for Fiscal Year 2013.”  The proposal would mostly maintain Medicare in its current form, while implementing structural payment reforms to encourage the utilization of high-value rather than high-cost services. Thus, Obama focuses his Medicare reform proposal on two main areas: (1) altering the current payment system, and (2) reducing fraud and waste in the system. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the reforms in the president’s budget for Medicare, Medicaid, and other health programs will save $364 billion over the next 10 years. 

Premium Support

President Obama unequivocally opposes any plan to turn Medicare into a voucher or “premium support” system. In the president’s introduction to his fiscal year 2013 budget proposal, he clearly articulated his opposition to replacing Medicare with a voucher system, stating, “What I will not support are efforts to turn Medicare into a voucher or Medicaid into a block grant.  Doing so would weaken both programs and break the promise that we have made to American seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families—a promise I am committed to keeping.”

Medicare Payment Reform

Obama’s proposal for Medicare reform seeks to maintain the financial stability of Medicare in the long run by initiating both general and specific payment reforms that would improve the sustainability of Medicare. The intention of payment reform is to encourage the appropriate use of health services by making new beneficiaries responsible for payment for certain services.

Obama’s FY 2013 budget proposes general payment reforms that would extend the solvency of the Hospital Insurance Trust fund for up to two years, including:

·                                 Modifying payments to certain providers in order to address payments that exceed patient care costs.

·                                 Reducing government payments to Medicare providers for beneficiaries’ nonpayment of their deductibles and copayments.

·                                 Aligning Medicare drug payment policies with Medicaid policies for low-income beneficiaries.

·                                 Reducing the federal subsidy of Medicare costs for beneficiaries with the highest incomes.

Obama’s payment reform proposals also include more specific actions to incentive efficiency, such as:

·                                 Introducing a modified Medicare Medical Insurance (Part B) deductible for copayments for home health services that are not preceded by inpatient care services for new beneficiaries beginning in 2017.

·                                 Implementing changes to Medicare Supplement Insurance (Medigap) coverage plans and charging a premium surcharge for those who choose Medigap plans beginning in 2017.  Research indicates that beneficiaries with Medigap plans that provide first dollar coverage have less incentive to consider the costs; therefore, by charging more for Medigap coverage, the administration hopes to give beneficiaries an incentive to consider the costs of their health care services.

Obama also supports permanently changing Medicare’s physician payment system. Currently, physician payments are determined under a formula referred to as the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR). Since 2002, this formula has called for reductions in physician payment rates, which Congress has had to override in order to prevent dramatic reductions to physician reimbursements. The administration aims to work with Congress to fix the SGR and to create a Medicare physician payment system that is more predictable and permanent, because the failure to do so only prolongs long-run structural budget issues.

Finally, the president’s budget emphasizes containing health care costs through the use of expanded preventative services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), in order to address the growing problem of chronic illness. Chronic diseases—such as heart disease, cancer, strokes and diabetes—are a pervasive and costly health care issue in America, accounting for 75 percent of the nation’s health care spending. To better contain the cost of chronic illness, Obama believes that health care must emphasize wellness and encourage preventative screening to identify issues early on. Accordingly, the ACA created the Prevention and Public Health Fund (Fund), which is designed to create and expand the necessary infrastructure to prevent disease or detect it early, and to manage conditions before they become severe. As a result of certain provisions in the ACA, since 2011, 32.5 million Medicare beneficiaries have received at least one new free preventive service, including screenings for cancer, diabetes, depression and blood pressure.

Obama intends to continue to support wellness and chronic illness prevention in 2013 by allocating $1.25 billion from the Fund for activities that will improve health outcomes and reduce health care costs by increasing the availability of preventative services, such as screenings and immunizations for both children and adults. Furthermore, the budget creates a Comprehensive Chronic Disease Prevention Program that will combine select chronic disease programs into one main program. The hope is that this will “provide[LS1]  States with additional flexibility to address the leading causes of chronic disease and disability, while increasing accountability and improving health outcomes through performance incentives.”

Lastly, Obama’s proposal seeks to strengthen the authority of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to reduce long-term drivers of Medicare cost growth.

Fraud Prevention

Obama’s Medicare reform proposals focus heavily on reducing waste, fraud and abuse. In 2011, the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program (HCFAC) recovered nearly $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars in 2011 and $10.7 billion over the last three years. Furthermore, the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) has helped stop 150 defendants charged with approximately $950 million in fraud, and increased the number of individuals charged with criminal fraud from 797 in fiscal year 2008 to 1,430 in fiscal year 2011.

Going forward, the Department of Health and Human Services will continue to focus on implementing ACA[LS3]  anti-fraud provisions, in order to achieve the administration’s goal of cutting the Medicare fee-for-service improper payment rate in half by the end of 2012. The president’s 2013 budget invests $610 million to implement activities that reduce Medicare payment error rates, prevent fraud and abuse, target high-risk services and supplies, and enhance civil and criminal enforcement. Specifically, Obama’s budget proposes the following measures: 

·                                 Authorizing civil monetary penalties or other intermediate sanctions for providers who do not update enrollment records.

·                                 Permitting excluding individuals affiliated with entities sanctioned for fraudulent or other prohibited actions from federal health care programs.

·                                 Affirming Medicaid’s position as a payer of last resort when another entity is legally liable to pay claims for beneficiaries.

·                                 Rescreening 1.5 million home health agencies, medical equipment suppliers, doctors, hospitals and providers to ensure they are not defrauding taxpayers.

Medicare Beneficiary Age

Obama’s budget proposal contains no mention of altering the age at which American citizens begin to receive Medicare benefits, which is currently set at 65.

Insurance Exchanges

President Obama’s 2013 budget proposal also allocates $76.4 billion to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—$300 million above HHS’ current 2012 funding level—so that the department can focus on the administration’s priority of implementing the Affordable Care Act.   Specifically, HHS will use this money to help states establish Affordable Insurance Exchanges and create cost-sharing and assistance programs to make coverage affordable for all Americans."

So, here are the facts. Now it is time to decide which plan will work better.

Ryan vs. Obama on Medicare - Ryan's Stance

RYAN VS. OBAMA ON MEDICARE

Here are the right and left wing approaches to medicare. It is very interesting to see how they differ.

RYAN'S STANCE

The following is taken from Paul Ryan's official website. http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=9969

"Medicare is the cornerstone on which all other government health programs rest.  Unfortunately, the deteriorating financial conditions of this program are threatening beneficiary access to its benefits.  In their most recent report, the Medicare Trustees projected that the account that funds Medicare’s hospital benefit will go bankrupt in 2024.  Reports like this illustrate that we can no longer let politicians in Washington deny the danger to Medicare – it is all too real, and the health of our nation’s seniors is far too important. We have to save Medicare to avoid disruptions in benefits for current seniors and to strengthen the program for future generations.

The President’s Health Care Law

On March 25, 2010, a Democrat controlled Congress passed the President’s new health care law which fundamentally realigns our nation’s health care system. This massive health care overhaul will exacerbate the very problems this reform effort sought to address. It will dramatically alter our deteriorating economic and fiscal conditions for the worse and may irrevocably impair the American identity.

Sky-rocketing health care costs are drowning families, businesses and governments in red ink—leaving millions priced out of the market and without coverage. This law—with its maze of mandates, dictates, controls, tax hikes and subsidies—pushes costs further in the wrong direction. It initiates a government takeover of the health care sector (17% of the U.S. economy), intrudes in the doctor-patient relationship, and increases total spending by almost $2.6 trillion. The law relies on 10 years of tax increases and 10 years of Medicare cuts to pay for six years of new spending.  Moreover, it raids over $700 billion from Medicare to finance a new open ended entitlement.  All told, this law will dramatically add to an already unsustainable rate of government spending growth that will overwhelm the Federal budget and will dramatically change the way Americans get health care.

The health care law will have significant and serious consequences on the sustainability of Medicare and access to medical care. Before the bill’s enactment, the Medicare program was already on an unsustainable path. According to the most recent Medicare Trustee’s report, the Medicare program will be insolvent by 2024 —meaning Medicare will have exhausted the assets in its Hospital Insurance trust fund. Instead of reforming this important program so that current beneficiaries will not see a disruption in their services and future generations will be able to plan their retirement around Medicare’s assistance—as I have been advocating for several years—the health care law treats Medicare like a piggy bank.

Instead of promoting real competition – which would moderate costs naturally—the law nationalizes the regulation of health insurance premiums. This will lead to shortages and rationing.  Waiting times will replace prices as a means of balancing limited supply and higher demand. Quality will decline as consumers begin facing restricted access to the full range of treatment options. Greater government regulation also will limit incentives for medical innovation.

Yet, despite all the new spending and all the increased taxes, supporters of this law argue that it will actually reduce our current deficit levels. However, the fiscal arguments just do not add up. The only way reduce the deficit, while at the same time having the government pick up the tab for more than 30 million uninsured Americans and subsidize millions more is through the use of smoke and mirrors.

Medicare Reimbursements for Physicians

Medicare reimburses health care providers for various procedures they perform.  These reimbursements are made according to a fee schedule, which is updated annually by a formula called the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR).  If spending exceeds the established targets, payment rates to providers are cut; if spending is below the target, payment rates are increased.  The intent of the formula is to place a restraint on overall increases in Medicare spending for physicians’ services.

Since 2003, Congress has chosen to override current law in order to prevent reimbursements from being cut as a result of the formula.  On December 23, 2011, the House and Senate approved legislation that would provide, among several provisions, a two month delay in the scheduled cuts in physicians’ Medicare reimbursements that would have taken place on January 1^st due to the flawed SGR formula.  On February 16, 2012, Congress extended the delay through December 31, 2012.  However, since the law only provides a temporary patch to the more than 30% cut, Congress must address the issue again before the end of the year. 

Rather than passing temporary fixes, I would prefer to address the more important matter of wholesale reform to the Medicare reimbursement system.  Physicians should not have to wait on Congress to act every year in order to prevent pay cuts that are arbitrarily determined by an outdated formula. Fundamental reforms to Medicare and our broken health care system are urgently needed, and I will continue to push my colleagues to take on this challenge.

Path to Prosperity

Medicare’s structural imbalance threatens beneficiaries’ access to quality, affordable care.  Currently, Medicare reimburses health care providers for services, creating a perverse incentive to order more tests and perform more services than may be necessary as a way to maximize one’s share of the program.  By basing payment on volume, not quality, costs rise and efficiency is reduced.  Ultimately, this flaw in the structure of the program is driving up health care costs, which are, in turn, threatening to bankrupt the system – and ultimately the nation.

Unless Congress fixes what’s broken in Medicare, without breaking what’s working, the program will end up causing exactly what it was created to avoid – millions of American seniors without adequate health security and a younger working generation saddled with enormous debts to pay for spending levels that cannot be sustained.

It is morally unconscionable for elected leaders to cling to an unsustainable status quo with respect to America’s health and retirement security programs. Current seniors and future generations deserve better than empty promises and a diminished country. Current retirees deserve the benefits around which they organized their lives. Future generations deserve health and retirement security they can count on. By making gradual structural improvements, Congress can preserve America’s social contract with retired workers.

Recognizing the problems facing Medicare, the House-passed Budget:

Strengthens health and retirement security by taking power away from government."

Experienced investors can stabilize markets

Commentary: Lessons from Dallas can be applied to other locales

BY INMAN NEWS, THURSDAY, AUGUST 23, 2012.

Inman News®

REO property image via Shutterstock.

By CHARLES E. CARRIER

As the economy continues to move forward, slowly and erratically, there are considerable opportunities involving the purchase and sale of distressed homes. These circumstances vary significantly across the country, which is why it is useful to understand the profile of the markets and the investors who operate in each city.

Dallas-Fort Worth represents a classic "investor" market, as opposed to a "speculator" market. The characteristics of the former, which are relevant for reviewing the real estate market in any given area, include: income and rental rates that align with property values; a moderate level of new residential construction, even during the real estate boom; a large, diverse and stable economy; and solid population growth and demographic trends.

Based on these criteria, a real estate agent or broker should be able to work with a core group of long-term, seasoned, local investors who act as a stabilizing force on the market.

n fact, many of the problems responsible for the collapse of the real estate market elsewhere -- rampant speculation, easy access to credit, lack of financial oversight and a boom-to-bust mentality -- are not as prevalent in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Apply these factors to other cities, and you will quickly know the relative health of the real estate market in your city.

For sellers, this means that realistic exit strategies from otherwise tough situations continue to exist. For neighboring homeowners, this improves the likelihood of price recovery -- thanks in part to the liquidity and property improvement enabled by the financial community.

Compare this approach to the dynamics in Southern California or Las Vegas. Rapidly increasing prices bring speculators and even less scrupulous actors to a market where the situation devolves into "buy/fix/flip." The mentality is to get in and out quickly, before the bubble bursts.

As prices rise, there are no cash flow investors -- rental rates are inconsistent with property values, and renting becomes only a way to minimize loss while holding a property for more price appreciation.

The ability to accurately evaluate property becomes difficult as traditional valuation techniques break down. Inevitably, inexperienced buyers and out-of-area money enter the market. Investors not familiar with the street-by-street, neighborhood-by-neighborhood variables of an area become more prevalent, and an already difficult situation worsens.

In this win-lose scenario, many people lose money, and sellers are left with few or no options. After the market crashes and bottoms, speculators come back into the picture and the cycle repeats itself.

One lesson we can learn from Dallas and apply to other locales, which is different than Los Angeles or Las Vegas or Phoenix (another city undergoing a severe bust), involves the type of investor who enters the marketplace. This point is significant because, when I counsel sellers and review market data, properties must meet certain criteria.

Listings need to satisfy the interests of seasoned experts who know how to deal with the reality of a challenging environment. For example, a purely speculative investor who relies more on emotion than analysis may not know the history of a neighborhood, the strength of the rental market, or the repairs needed to transform a neglected home into a profitable investment.

Remember, distressed homes in a distressed marketplace require a radically different mindset than the outlook for a traditionally functioning real estate market.

The surest way to understand pricing in a distressed marketplace is to invest capital and take a risk position on a property -- this is the unique perspective that a veteran real estate agent, broker or investor offers. Which means you must analyze the evaluation of properties on both a "market comparable" basis, and also as a long-term cash flow investment. In higher-priced and more speculative markets, a different approach applies.

The renewal of distressed properties is a win for everyone. By turning these homes around, and through our efforts on the ground, neighborhoods improve and price stability returns.

Equally important, recycling these distressed properties into quality retail homes (and clean rentals) aids those owners who are currently underwater on their mortgages. Experienced local investors who have a stake in the long-term economic viability of a community are completely aligned with the interests of homeowners.

That's a recipe for success.

Charles E. "Chas" Carrier is a principal of We Buy Ugly Houses Dallas, a HomeVestors of America Inc. franchisee.

Why Mortage Rates are Rising

Why mortgage rates are rising 

Commentary: To foster recovery, something has to give, but what?

BY LOU BARNES, FRIDAY, AUGUST 17, 2012.

Inman News®

Dollar sign sinking image via Shutterstock.

Two things this week: Explain the sudden rise in Treasury and mortgage rates, and then provide a simple tool for understanding budget issues in the election. Nuthin' to it.

In the last two weeks the 10-year T-note has run up from 1.45 percent to 1.85 percent, taking many mortgages from below 3.5 percent to above 3.75 percent.

Explanations offered by sharpies: The economy has turned for the better, no longer sliding toward recession. Or because the Fed will not soon begin QE3, either because the economy is better, or because it won't do any good, or because of the election, or because of internal politics. Or rates have risen because Europe might save itself.

Put all that eyewash in a bucket. Then dump the bucket. July's 0.8 percent upwobble in retail sales is not a "turn" -- not with the Philly and N.Y. Feds' indices sinking, not with the National Federation of Independent Business optimism index returning to recession threshold, not with eurozone gross domestic product (GDP) going negative, and not with China verging on distress. The Fed may not act now, but inflation is tipping again below the Fed's target, and a solid majority at the Fed does not want to risk deflation or a run-up in long-term rates.

When there is no "fundamental" economic explanation, look to "technical" -- chart patterns reflecting the emotional condition of the herd. For nine months prior to April, the 10-year traded 2 percent (mortgages 4 percent to 4.25 percent). Then 10s fell in a straight line to 1.5 percent, wandered at 1.6 percent in June, and then spent July in the 1.4s. At yields like these, nobody makes money on the rate; you make money when bond prices rise (yields falling more). A month with no buyers to take prices higher, and a few in the herd begin to take profits, then many, and so prices will fall (rates rising) until low enough that they can rise again. Tens might go all the way back to 2 percent, might stop here, but rates are not going all the way back down until something ugly happens.

From that complexity to something simple: the budget. (Note: In the long run, the yield on 10s and the budget are linked. Heh-heh.)

Democrats say the Republicans are cruel, want to rob the poor to benefit the rich, and that Medicare and Social Security will be fine if rich people pay more taxes. Republicans say the nation is broke, Democrats will never stop spending and taxing, and besides, we've got ours. Each party offers to play a shell game with no pea.

We have to pay money for all the social goodies, and yet have to pay a social cost if we cut the goodies. Today we borrow 41 cents of every dollar we spend, and we spend $80 billion each day. Something has to give, but what?

Any time you hear a politician's pitch this fall, here's the pea to put under all the shells: What's the politician's proposal as a percent of GDP?

Since World War II, federal spending has run about 20 percent of GDP, and revenue about 18 percent, a perpetual but modest deficit ... until the Great Recession.

Spending is now 24 percent of GDP, and revenue 15 percent. The revenue decline is partly the result of the recession; reversal of the Bush tax cuts would not get revenue past 17 percent of GDP. That recession shortfall is the reason recovery is so desperately important.

Rather worse, social-goody spending will take total spending over 30 percent of GDP in the next decade, health care doing 85 percent of the damage. Worse yet, our borrowing ability will be tapped out in a very few years. At the current pace ... two years. If that. Then markets will pull our plug.

Many of my friends on the Left are soaked in European tax-rate propaganda, 35 percent to 50 percent of GDP, but are blind to nationalized healthcare, railroads and so on, all requiring higher taxes and spending, and with intractable deficits.

Republicans envisage a dinky government, 18 percent of GDP, but are utterly dishonest about the social cost, and are resistant to deep cuts in defense. Democrats refuse to consider any upward limit on GDP, or a budget deficit smaller than 3 percent of GDP.

The Bowles-Simpson "Co-Chairs Proposal" caps spending at 22 percent, eventually 21 percent, and raises revenue to 21 percent. Please read it.

Mr. Politician, don't tell me what's wrong with the other guy's deal. Please do tell me what you want to do, and your GDP metric, and consequences. Then compromise.

Real estate rates fall after Fed official drops 'bomb': But more rate hikes expected

Monday, June 06, 2005
By Lou Barnes / Inman News

A peculiar confluence of weak data and goofy Fedology suddenly knocked the 10-year T-note below 4 percent, which in turn took mortgages under 5.5 percent.

The rate slide started on Tuesday with the newest drop in the purchasing managers' index, down in a straight line for a year from healthy-pink 60s to 51.4, perilously close to the economic stall marker at 50. Weekly filings for unemployment insurance have popped to 350,000; the Challenger layoff forecast has sharply deteriorated, especially in IT; and this morning's payroll gain for May was an anemic 78,000, less than half the forecast.

The lousy payroll number "should" have taken rates even lower, but by Friday rates had fallen so far that lousy wasn't enough; we needed awful.

Enter the peculiar parts. The economy does not appear to be all that weak – feeling the effect of global competition, but not in a stall. Example: U.S. auto sales slumped 8 percent in May – "U.S." as in GM, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler. Foreign-made cars, or cars made here under foreign management, did fine. Ford takes 37 hours to build a car; Toyota less than 28.

Foreign competition hurts wages and employment, but it has also slammed the lid on the inflation that $55/bbl should have brought. Should the Fed tighten more, into a low-inflation, sluggish-employment, and slowing economy?

Managing the economy is serious business, but last week's Fed follies were full-on black comedy. Wednesday morning, wearing a big grin on CNBC, the rookie president of the Dallas Fed, Richard Fisher: "We've gone through eight innings here, 25 basis points an inning. The next meeting in June is the ninth inning."

The 10-year T-note instantly fell from 4 percent to 3.9 percent on the assumption that the Fed would stop after a hike to 3.25 percent on June 30. Nine and done.

The Fed has only one rule for its senior officers – unspoken because nobody dumb enough to break it is ever supposed to become an officer: Thou shall not ever appear to leak a policy announcement unless the Chairman asked you to. You may blab all you want about risks and this and that, but you cannot say something that will alter the market's expectation of the Fed, not without permission.

Fed officials often stumble into rule-breaking ("But, I didn't mean it that way!"). The Fed repairs a stepped-in-it by applying quick, public and understated disagreement from two or three same-level officials, the unseemly affair beneath the public notice of the Chairman, the offending official then gagged for a year or two.

This time, for two days after Fisher's Bomb, no Fedder said a thing, thereby adding authenticity. Nor did anybody pay attention to his other lines: "We may have to go into extra innings in this contest against inflation. The economy is strong. It's inflation that's still at risk." The Chairman may have figured that listeners should have paid attention to those sentences instead of the first, or that anyone paying attention to a Fed rookie deserves what he gets.

In any event, the only post-Bomb word from the Fed came Friday from old-timer Lyle Gramlich, dead-pan, face as straight as Rushmore: "I don't know what inning we're in. Period."

I think the following: you won't hear again soon from Mr. Fisher. The Fed will not stop at 3.25 percent on the 30th. A global savings glut and demand drought is causing long-term rates to fall, and the Fed must keep raising to offset the stimulus from the drop in long-term rates, and intercept a deeper drop. There is no housing bubble, but no free pass from the Fed, either. Bonds and mortgages are vulnerable.

Historically, high short-term rates coupled with low long-term ones has been a recession precursor; I think not this time. As in the U.K. since last fall, we could have an extended period of flat or inverted yield curve, but the economy is OK.

Lou Barnes is a mortgage broker and nationally syndicated columnist based in Boulder, Colo.

***Copyright 2005 Lou Barnes

Home buyers: Do not disturb home seller without an agent

By: Dian Hymer / Inman News

Recently, a home seller who valued her privacy was unpleasantly surprised when she found a prospective home buyer in her backyard. The buyer was not accompanied by a real estate agent. The seller was very upset. She had listed her home for sale with a real estate agent because she didn't want to interact directly with prospective buyers.

Even after the "Do Not Disturb Occupant" sign went up, some buyers attempted to gain access to the house without an appointment. The seller kept track of these people and vowed not to sell to any of them.

HOUSE HUNTING TIP: It's natural to be excited when you hear about a new listing. But, showing up at the front door unannounced is usually not the way to win a seller's heart. If the house is shown by appointment only, make sure that your agent calls the seller in advance. Adhering to reasonable home buying etiquette will go a long way to convince the sellers that you're a buyer they'd like to work with.

Buyers with small children can have difficulty finding a sitter on short notice so that they can take a look at a new listing. In most cases, it's fine to bring children with you to a property showing, although you may find it distracting. But, if you do, be sure to keep your children in tow.

One seller returned home after his home was shown and found his children's toys strewn all over the house. He called his listing agent and complained bitterly. The incident left a bad impression in the seller's mind.

Home buyers shouldn't have to keep their real estate agent in line. However, it's wise to make sure that your agent's behavior doesn't reflect poorly on you. One agent who couldn't find a sitter for his own children brought them along when he showed a listing to his client.

Another real estate agent who was showing the listing at the same time reported back to the seller's listing agent that the children ran around the house and yard unsupervised. This created a nuisance and a very unpleasant environment for showing the listing. The listing agent was livid.

In another case, an agent who was showing a hot new listing refused to let other agents and their buyers into the house. She even went so far as to tell the other agents that the listing was already sold, which was not true. This unethical behavior didn't endure the agent to the listing agent. Ruthless and unprofessional tactics usually don't gain favor with the listing agent, whose opinions can have a big influence on the seller.

Buyers are often confused when they call a real estate office and have a hard time making an appointment to see a listing. Knowing a little bit about how the real estate business works may help you the next time you find yourself in this situation.

In most real estate offices, agents take turns answering calls. So, unless you specifically ask to talk to the listing agent, you're likely to reach an agent who's covering calls in the hope of generating business.

Real estate agents usually work on commission. If you already have an agent, another agent will be less than enthusiastic about showing you a listing. There's nothing in it for him. Proper protocol would be to ask your own agent to show you the listing.

If you don't have an agent, don't be offended if the agent you talk to on the phone requires that you meet at her office rather than at a vacant property. The agent has no way to know who you are.

THE CLOSING: This is done as a security precaution.

Dian Hymer is author of "House Hunting, The Take-Along Workbook for Home Buyers" and "Starting Out, The Complete Home Buyer's Guide," Chronicle Books.

***Copyright 2005 Dian Hymer