Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
My understanding is that the chairman of GM has been quietly polling other companies about about healthcare. He seems to think that the recent troubles there are directly related to healthcare costs.

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.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's not really market failure, that's non-market/regulatory failure. That's been created by a belief that health care should not operate within a normal market. Instead, people should get health care through employers, free or at low cost, and should not bear much or any of the actual costs they impose on the system.

Yes, the health care system is fucked up for a variety of reasons, but you can't claim it's market failure when the current structure is far from any kind of "market" as we usually understand the term.

The moral question is the fundamental one--should health care be allocated in a way other than the market. If so, how do you design a regulatory regime to implement best whatever allocation you want, while also minimizing waste and unfairness. But the justification for doing that is not because the "market" failed--it's because you don't "like" the result the market would reach.* To the contrary, the US has the best health care because it has, to the greatest degree of any developed country, actually let a true market remain to a fair degree.


*contrast, e.g., a market failure like pollution--there there is not a market in the cost of pollution, and there's a collective action problem in limiting it, so one can say it's market failure that we need to cure, not merely impose a moral view of how much pollution should be permitted.

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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?

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.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

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.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The Maryland Chamber

heh.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
heh.

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

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Exactly. Why was this google quote selected as better than all others?

Dunno. I'm the dumbest poster, remember?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
blah blah blah

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.

[Replaced_Texan]

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

This is ridiculous.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.

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.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

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!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's passed in the House. That's all.

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.