Putting aside Judicial nominations and steroids
 

If America's large corporations decide that we need government provided healthcare that is going to turn the whole debate upside down. The insurance companys and drug companys may have a lot of clout, but it is pretty much nil when you match it up against the combined clout of the rest of the fortune 500 company's.

Putting aside Judicial nominations and steroids
 

I have two thoughts, which I will express briefly. First, you say that the health care market is not an example of market failure, but of non-market/regulatory failure, because a true market doesn't exist. We agree on the state of the market -- there isn't one. Isn't that the most extreme kind of market failure?

Second, you suggest that the moral issue is whether health care should be allocated in a way other than the market? I would be inclined to respond that yes, it should. Basic health care should be available to all people, at a price consistent with the true cost of the service provided.

What this means is that the hospital can't charge $3000/night for a stay in a semi-private room to the patient in for pneumonia, because the room price has to subsidize the cost of the MRI machine. No $3.50 aspirin to help defray the cost of a clinical trial for a drug which the pharmaceutical company is charging $10,000/month per patient.

The cost of basic health care should be within everybody's means. And the government should provide ransfer payments for those who can't afford it.

I would start there, and then I would try to tackle an ethical way to deal with high-cost treatments.

Putting aside Judicial nominations and steroids
 

A true market doesn't exist because there have been various regulatory and legislative efforts to keep medical care out of the free market. That's a legitimate social choice, but the justification for it is not that a free market wouldn't function well, it's that a free market would result in an allocation that we as a society don't think is fair.

Putting aside Judicial nominations and steroids
 

For the fourth consecutive year, health insurance costs have increased at double-digit rates and at five times the overall rate of inflation. Employers and employees are increasingly unable or unwilling to purchase health insurance coverage as it is currently offered. Part of this problem results from government’s disruption of the marketplace through over-regulation, over-mandating and limiting customer choice of health insurance plans. The Maryland Chamber believes that restoring market competition to Maryland’s health insurance system will improve customer choice, help to control costs and provide greater access to those who want coverage. The Maryland Chamber supports the following steps to help make health care more affordable and available to Marylanders:

Improving our market-based health insurance system, which successfully provides coverage to most Maryland families - - not replacing it with a government-mandated universal health care system;
Supporting efforts of the Maryland Insurance Commissioner to review and modify current laws and regulations to increase competition by encouraging additional insurance carriers to enter the Maryland market;
Reviewing mandates and underwriting requirements that add to the cost of health insurance and limit customer choice; and
Implementing the Limited Health Benefit Plan in July of 2005 as a means of improving customer choice.

Putting aside Judicial nominations and steroids
 

heh.

Putting aside Judicial nominations and steroids
 

Exactly. Why was this google quote selected as better than all others?

Putting aside Judicial nominations and steroids
 

Dunno. I'm the dumbest poster, remember?

Putting aside Judicial nominations and steroids
 

Except for the last item, the Limited Choice - I mean, Limited Benefit Plan approval - this is a whole lotta words that mean nothing, other than they see there's a problem.

But it's a great post, Hank. Really, it is. I learned a lot.

Did anyone here actually have six forms of ID when they first got their drivers licenses?

This is ridiculous.

So is the claim. From the bill:

• To meet the requirements of this section, a State shall require, at a minimum, presentation and verification of the following information beforei ssuing a driver's license or identification card to a person:
  
  (A) A photo identity document, except that a non-photo identity document is acceptable if it includes both the person's full legal name and date of birth.
  
  (B) Documentation showing the person's date of birth.
  
  (C) Proof of the person's social security account number or verification that the person is not eligible for a social security account number.
  
  (D) Documentation showing the person's name and address of principal residence.

H.R. 418, § 202(c)(1).

I can't see how that gets you to six. I see three or four. I'd go with a birth certificate, ss card, and (if a student) a report card or if not some government letter, like a tax doc, voting record, etc.

Can (A) and (B) be the same thing? A birth certificate works for (A), but then that's my (B), too. A Social Security card gets you (C), and I suspect I have one of those somewhere. (D) could be easy, depending on what kind of documentation they have in mind.

When would this take effect? If I'm going to move to another state, maybe I need to do it soon.

Putting aside Judicial nominations and steroids
 

I don't agree with your assessment. I believe the insurance effect is what has led to the market's collapse. Although I do note that the free market failed abysmally before unionization made health insurance widely available.

It's passed in the House. That's all.

Calling RT...
 

Texas legislature takes swift action to end the scourge of...bawdy high-school cheerleading.

"Edwards [the bill's sponsor] argued bawdy performances are a distraction for students resulting in pregnancies, dropouts and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases."

Oh, the humanity!

local rules change
 

Here this passed...
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3166954

• House to cheerleaders: hooray, but no hip-hips
  Bill that bans dirty dancing, but doesn't define it, nears passage
  By KRISTEN MACK and ALLAN TURNER
  Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle
  SPIRIT OF THE LAW
  Highlights of the cheerleader legislation:
  • What it does: Prohibits school dance teams, drill teams and cheerleaders from performing "in a manner that is overtly sexually suggestive" at public school events.
  • What it doesn't do: Specifically define the prohibited behavior or set any penalty for violations.
  • What supporters say: Pep routines have pushed the boundaries of decency and exploit performers.
  • What foes say: The bill is a toothless and meaningless effort to legislate morality.
  • What's next: If it survives one more House vote, the bill goes to the state Senate.
  
  AUSTIN - House members got into the spirit of toning down suggestive cheerleading Tuesday, rallying behind a bill that could leave Texas cheerleaders shakin' a little less booty next year.
  
  By a 65-56 vote, the House gave preliminary approval to a bill sponsored by Rep. Al Edwards, D-Houston, curbing "sexually suggestive" routines by cheerleaders, drill teams or other public school performance groups.
  
  The bill doesn't define the behavior it is trying to prevent or specify punishment.
  
  Edwards, who in past sessions has battled raunchy pop lyrics and advocated cutting off drug dealers' fingers, pledged that Tuesday's vote was just the opening volley in his effort to curb gyrating teenage booty-shakers.
  
  "I've seen it with my own eyes," Edwards said. "I've had people talk to me about it at football games. There was just a feeling that people were waiting for something to be done about it."

RT- WTTW- next he's going after nips showing in depos- gotta wear a bra he says. Of course, that would be for state court cases only.