The costs for uninsured will continue to largely be carried by the same population that is carrying it now, just with the addition of massive government inefficiencies adding immensly to it.

The only part of it that makes sense is that formerly uninsured people will now have access to preventitive care instead of just treatment - which gives the hope of some cost avoidance for those that actually use it. However, I fear that will work out about as well as the war on poverty or the war on drugs. The government has poured trillions of dollars into those over 50 years. While I'm sure there are many grateful individuals who managed to use those programs to turn their lives around, the overall numbers are worse than ever. Just a bigger heap of government to pay for, still the same percentage of problems.

I don't see how the government would handle insurance with any more inefficiency over what the private sector is currently doing on its own.

Normally, in the world of private business, the consumers have a role in determining the price of the goods and services. They ensure value for themselves by evaluating the price and the quality, then deciding whether or not to go with a competitor that does it cheaper and/or better. That's elementary economics: consumers are informed, price stays down, quality stays up.

In the private healthcare business, there is a towering, opaque barrier between the consumers and the cost of the goods and services they're receiving. The normal, healthy interaction between the informed consumer and the price/quality of the business is not there. They don't know whether they should or shouldn't agree to one treatment over another because they have no substantive understanding of the cost to themselves, which also ties into a lack of importance placed upon preventative medicine. There is nothing stopping the piling up of hidden costs, legitimate or illegitimate. These conditions have forged an industry that can feather its own nest without providing fairly to its patrons in return.

This is the business we've trusted to help us stay alive. Without something to check and balance it, there is no incentive for it to change anything in the way it does business, which hurts everybody.

I don't necessarily agree with the letters, dots, and commas of the current legislation. I think it was a patch to begin with, and I think many of the compromises that found their way in were originally designed to make the legislation so appealing that nobody would want it. There are much deeper problems with the system that need to be addressed, and sooner rather than later. But maybe this will, at the very least, be the first foot in the door. I hope it isn't the end of the discussion.

Ken,

There is much truth in what you have written. However, the current insurance administrators at least have an incentive to keep their own cost minimized so that their profits will be maximized. They may not give a rat's rear about the individual consumer, but they will do everything they can to wring the maximum profit out of what the market will bear and will do what they can to attract corporate customers with lower group rates. The government does not even have an incentive to watch it's own efficiencies and since they can mandate the payment at will, have even more disdain for the consumer. There will always be increased waste when disinterested parties with minimal worries about job security are given control of anything.

Amended to add that its not that I don't think it is possible to have a community government run health care successfully, I just don't think our system has a good track record of it. With all of the faults of our health care system, I don't look at that established in other countries with any particular envy.

On a lighter note,

I just saw on the news that Bobby Jindal was quoted as saying Romney will work to repeal "Obamneycare".

Everything Bobby Jindal says is condescending. I can't tell if he just operates on a different frequency or if he just thinks voters are idiots. Maybe its just because he is used to appealing to people who live in Louisiana.

Political Correctness.

I understand that some things are really sensitive and should be treated as such. But sometimes, people take it too far.

I'm talking for example, about all those special interest groups that protest a film when it comes out for a really stupid reason, sometimes without even seeing the film. The people that protested Tropic Thunder for the whole Simple Jack thing (it's a comedy, for God's sakes!). All those religious groups that picketed The Da Vinci Code, which in the end was a shitty film (and a shitty book). All they really had to do was not watch them.

Really, I think people nowadays have become way too sensitive, to the point that you have to keep apologizing for every little thing.

A personal example... one time me and my sister were talking, with no one else around, and she was telling me about the time she lived in China. At one point I asked her: "I've heard stories that Chinese people are bit slobbish, is that true?" And she shot me a look like I had slapped her in the face, followed by a lecture about not being offensive to other races. I felt like a total idiot and didn't speak again for two hours.

It's like you can't make a simple joke (even a bad one) anymore for fear it'll piss someone off.

It reminds me of a quote by Jeremy Piven from the movie PCU, which I feel applies: "It's true, the majority of students today are so cravenly PC, they wouldn't know a good time if it was sitting on their face."

Just substitute "students" for "everyone".

Well know, I know: this is an older post, but I just have to comment on that.

I think we should get over CD's. A standard established by Sony and Phillips back in 1983 and sold with arguments which just don't hold water. (sources to back me up: EQ magazine and Audio Pro articles) I lived through the vinyl era and it was a huge part of my childhood and youth. I was way into my 20s when CD's finally took over. Many of the pop/rock vinyl editions back in the 70s and 80s were made from leftover vinyl from the classical music editions and the molds were overused, resulting in an inferior product. Quality vinyl editions from "virgin" vinyl (not re-melted and re-used scraps) sound great, even with all their technical limitations, such as surface noise, pop and crackle if not handled carefully, limited dynamic range, etc. It was great listening to a vinyl LP while looking at the large square sleeve and the artwork. There was some kind of "ritual" to it. But that is just valid for old folks like myself. I understand when younger folks dismiss vinyl. But please don't tell me that standard audio CD is superior. It isn't.

CD's are more obsolete than vinyl LP's: they are unreliable (one scratch in the wrong place and they won't play anymore - many older CD's suffer from aluminum layer deterioriation and are unplayable), they can be ripped and played from a hard drive or turned into mp3 files - then you can throw them out of the window - what's the use of CD's nowadays anyway? The standard is utter crap. We are just used to it - and ace sound engineers working around these limitations (with so-so results because there is only so much one can do with an almost 30 year old standard). If you ever listened to a 24 bit 96 Khz recording - which is mindblowing if the equipment is top notch, you will dismiss any CD standard (and mp3, depending on the amount of lossy data compression) as metallic, glassy and lifeless.

The moment we get the equivalent of BluRay in audio (CD being the audio equivalent of standard DVD) at affordable prices, I will gladly dismiss vinyl. Until then: no way.

This is just my humble opinion. I'm open to hearing others.

Music is pretty much a digital distributed medium now. As storage size and download speeds increase, we'll naturally see in increase in bitrate and encoding quality.

with no increase whatsoever in "warmth," which simply isn't possible digitally. Its a lost feature, outside of the live show or when this happens... The new Aimee Mann album is being released on vinyl, though it aint virgin....

http://www.amazon.com/Charmer-Aimee-Mann/dp/B008OW1SDY

Some musicians still engage in archaic practices such as recording on tape and not brickwalling the final mix. It helps. It's not a total remedy, but it helps. When it comes to the ugliness of modern recorded music, there are a lot of layers in the cake.

Still waiting for Rush to release a version of Vapor Trails that doesn't look like a big fat bar when you load it into a DAW...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war - Rush has admitted that there was digital distortion during recording, which also contributed to the damage. Remastering the album would not correct the damage from digital distortion that was introduced during recording, but it could correct the other, more destructive damage that is the result of overly compressing the audio during mastering.

The bigger problem is that most everything after Signals sucks anyway...

Though they get a bad rap in some circles, I rather like Roll the Bones and Vapor Trails. But then, I've always been the guy who prefers Hemispheres over 2112, which gets me some weird looks.

I probably prefer Hemispheres to 2112.

Less Ayn Rand is ok with me!

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

I'm not musically inclined enough to appreciate Rush. At least, I suspect that's the problem. I tend to get hung up on the lyrics and Geddy Lee's voice. I recognize their abilities as superior and the music as complex but remain unable to connect.

That said, Rush plays a significant role in Ernest Cline's novel "Ready Player One" along with an enthusiastic tribute to the beauty of vinyl. I live a good forum convergence.

Speaking of vinyl, I purchased one last album from my soon-to-be-closed local record store today. It was a heartbreaking experience.

Same here, Rush's lyrics usually don't do much for me, too science-y for my taste.

Yea, those are tough to like....

I was thinking of lyrics like this:



I realize that may not be representative of Rush as a whole. One day, and this day may be a long way off, I'll possibly consider listening to one of their albums and really trying to experience it as it was meant to be experienced.

For point of reference, I love The Fall and have been known to forgive them many a horrifying lyric.

Give these a shot. Rush is one of the few bands for whom I actually give a crap about the literal content of their lyrics.

From "Dreamline":


From "The Trees":


From "Freewill":

Moving to a different subject, everyone needs to clear out their inner anti-Semitism and admit that Israel has a right to exist.