Health Care

Nobody’s heard of John Prine? Originally Posted by terbul

Of Course!

Nobody’s heard of John Prine? Originally Posted by terbul

Of Course! Originally Posted by WTF

WTF--is that "Of course" nobody's heard of John Prine?

No I haven't. Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Writes songs with a strong social context.

Born in Maywood, IL on October 10, 1946, John Prine’s body of work has become the high-water mark of American songwriting and his songs have found a home in the repertoire of musical luminaries such as Bonnie Raitt, Johnny Cash and George Strait.

On March 9, 2005, at the request of Poet Laureate Ted Kooser, John Prine became the first singer/songwriter to read and perform at the Library of Congress.

Full lyrics:

While digesting Reader's Digest
In the back of a dirty book store,
A plastic flag, with gum on the back,
Fell out on the floor.
Well, I picked it up and I ran outside
Slapped it on my window shield,
And if I could see old Betsy Ross
I'd tell her how good I feel.
Chorus:
But your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.
They're already overcrowded
From your dirty little war.
Now Jesus don't like killin'
No matter what the reason's for,
And your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.
Well, I went to the bank this morning
And the cashier he said to me,
"If you join the Christmas club
We'll give you ten of them flags for free."
Well, I didn't mess around a bit
I took him up on what he said.
And I stuck them stickers all over my car
And one on my wife's forehead.
Repeat Chorus:
Well, I got my window shield so filled
With flags I couldn't see.
So, I ran the car upside a curb
And right into a tree.
By the time they got a doctor down
I was already dead.
And I'll never understand why the man
Standing in the Pearly Gates said...
"But your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more.
We're already overcrowded
From your dirty little war.
Now Jesus don't like killin'
No matter what the reason's for,
And your flag decal won't get you
Into Heaven any more."

This is somewhat flawed logic. Just because something is absent from the Constitution doesn't mean that it should be none of the federal government's business. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Neither does it mean it's fair game for federal involvement, and the argument is much stronger for it being not federal business.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Boldface mine.

We can start the debate about the definition of necessary and proper any moment now. Fair warning that you're talking to someone who thinks if we can cry "Commerce clause!" for legislature forcing every American to buy health insurance to solve the healthcare problem, might as well go whole hog and legislate every American must also establish savings accounts with a minimum of $5000 balance and fines for going below the mandated limit. It'll save our too-big-to-fail finance sector! Wheeee, commerce clause!

WTF--is that "Of course" nobody's heard of John Prine? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I meant, ''Of course I have heard of John Prine''

The argument is always that people need health care. Yes, they need food too, but nobody expects the government to provide food insurance that lets somebody have as much high priced steak and lobster as they want every day.

A big part of the problem is the tax code, where employers provide tax-free "benefits" to employees. Why don't we have tax-free employer provided car insurance too? Because it would be fucking stupid -- just like it is for health insurance.

Another part of the problem is state monopoly markets that mandate special coverages whether you want to buy them or not. This is as stupid as allowing states to specify that all new cars sold in Georgia have to have GPS so nobody get lost. Now thats cool if you run a GPS biz, but sucks if you have a map biz.

And the strangest part is the insane Government/Insurance negotiated prices where if you walk into a hospital without insurance it costs you something like $1,000 a night, but they buy in bulk and get the same room for something like $300. Maybe we need to get William Shatner and Priceline working on this.

The fundamental problem is that they have destroyed most of the market elements of the healthcare system. No wonder it is functioning poorly. But I hardly see the wisdom in giving the people who screwed it up more say in how it works. Thats like trying to cure a drunk by buying them another case of booze. Originally Posted by pjorourke

All excellent points, and they cut right to the heart of the problem.

The "reform" proposals currently on the table attempt to address coverage expansion, not cost containment --and do not even address tort reform in any meaningful way. The senate bill's pushers have to resort to Enron-style accounting to keep their 10-year cost estimates below a trillion bucks. Even Warren Buffett, perhaps the non-political world's best-known liberal Democrat and Obama supporter, said it would be preferable to address cost-control first.

It's a sad state of affairs when a grocery store CEO, of all people, offers a far better set of proposals than our political leaders:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...072865070.html

I believe the main reason the idea's supporters are having difficulty making their case to the public is that few people trust their analysis. Most everone has heard that the budget estimates involve tricks, gimmicks, and unrealistic expectations of Medicare cuts.

If I were to try to drum up interest in any of my private equity offerings by rolling out such phony numbers, I would risk being indicted and arrested.

All excellent points, and they cut right to the heart of the problem.

The "reform" proposals currently on the table attempt to address coverage expansion, not cost containment --and do not even address tort reform in any meaningful way. The senate bill's pushers have to resort to Enron-style accounting to keep their 10-year cost estimates below a trillion bucks. Even Warren Buffett, perhaps the non-political world's best-known liberal Democrat and Obama supporter, said it would be preferable to address cost-control first.

It's a sad state of affairs when a grocery store CEO, of all people, offers a far better set of proposals than our political leaders:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...072865070.html

I believe the main reason the idea's supporters are having difficulty making their case to the public is that few people trust their analysis. Most everone has heard that the budget estimates involve tricks, gimmicks, and unrealistic expectations of Medicare cuts.

If I were to try to drum up interest in any of my private equity offerings by rolling out such phony numbers, I would risk being indicted and arrested. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Exactly. It is ass backwards. They want to grow a backwards systems before fixing it. I didn't read the grocery store article, but by way of analogy, it would be like a chain of unprofitable grocery stores deciding their plan is to expand instead of fixing their operations and figuring out how to make profit.

The fundamental problem is that they have destroyed most of the market elements of the healthcare system. No wonder it is functioning poorly. But I hardly see the wisdom in giving the people who screwed it up more say in how it works. Thats like trying to cure a drunk by buying them another case of booze. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Actually my analogy here is wrong. They aren't attempting to cure this drunk, they are just filling it with coffee. And as we all remember from experience, the net result is a WIDE AWAKE drunk, not a sober one.