I couldn't resist this. Spider-Man was always my favorite as a kid. I just wish I had "great power."
Your results:
You are Spider-Man
| You are intelligent, witty, a bit geeky and have great power and responsibility.  |
CDs listened to today:
CDs listened to today:
I had lunch with my friend Andy today. We usually shoot the breeze and our conversations tend to be rambling, enjoyable affairs. Today was also enjoyable, but the conversation was a little more focused 'cause I had the need to hold forth on the state of healthcare in the United States.
I've been alternately concerned or alarmed about the topic for a few years now, but a recent news report I heard felt like a tipping point for me. I don't recall the source, but I think it was ABC News and the item was this:
46% of the children of Wal-Mart employees don't have health insurance and rely on public assistance for their health care.
To me, this amounts to a subsidy for the business. Our governments are paying to make up for the shortfall in wages and benefits offered by our friends from Little Rock. I imagine that other businesses are similarly taking advantage of the fact that they can offer deficient pay and rely on the taxpayer to make up the difference. I know my own employer employs contract personnel and those people don't get health insurance as part of their pay.
The problem is, the business might get off without the expense, but somebody pays when these folks are sick or hurt. that expense is made larger by the fact that these folks rarely get preventive care and only see a doctor when they can no longer avoid it, leaving chronic conditions unmanaged and more expensive in the end (that's a bit of an article of faith, but nobody seems to gainsay it). That greater cost is borne by us, the taxpayers.
Why don't we just go ahead and tax employers (head tax, perhaps), and then give every American a fixed health insurance subsidy. For example, $200/month that is transferred to the insurer of their choice. Everybody gets a fresh subsidy at their 18th birthday and everybody under 18 is covered under their parents' policy (with childrens' subsidies paid as well). Then we require every insurer to offer a health insurance policy for that basic subsidy rate. The insurers would not be permitted to refuse coverage for anyone, but could offer a competitive plan, so long as it met a minimum standard. In addition, people could pay extra in addition to the subsidy amount for better insurance or a supplemental policy. Insurers and health care organizations could compete however they wanted, withing that basic framework.
Meanwhile, the last presidential election was about the stupid war and they ignored the fact that nearly everybody is watching their health insurance costs skyrocket.
CDs listened to today:
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."
John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence
I pulled this quote from a web discussion on MySpace--some philosophy club or other. Interesting bit of calculation. the underlying assumption is that the only risk to execution is that we may kill murderers. Professor McAdams would seem to believe that the justice system is infallible and that the capitol punishment process never inadvertantly kills an innocent. The cost of his "former" proposition actually includes that risk as does the "latter." Now the cost is higher and his argument is specious and shallow.
CDs listened to today:
