+ Saturday footballl report: Seattle eked out a win without Shaun Alexander and the Patriots battled but made too many mistakes to win (truth in reporting: including a Tom Brady interception). They did get ripped off on an interference call that basically spotted the Broncos a touchdown, but that's how the ball bounces. I still think they're a dynasty (now that we're in the era of salary caps and free agency), and they'll probably be back tough next year. We'll see. More good football today.
+ Based on the Wal-Mart law I commented on the other day, Brad asks who should be paying for health care, and discussion ensues. My comments:
right now those costs are being born by taxpayers (ie, Medicaid). is that preferable? why should Wal-Mart and its stockholders get richer and the employees not even get better health care?
not suggesting we chuck capitalism. it's not an all-or-nothing choice. like Brad, i'm wondering who should pay for healthcare. and i do think it's more important for a company to take care of its employees than it's shareholders. or i might settle for equal treatment.
the good thing about employer-provided healthcare is that bigger employers can get good rates and packages. group buying or something to get better options for all employees sounds good to me. i liked Kerry's idea of everyone having access to Congress' package, if just for the chutzpah of it. shake 'em up a little.
i don't really think socialized medicine is the answer, either, though the economics sometimes
point me there. we waste a lot of money on health care expenses in this country, though it's probably better than the alternative.
bottom line: i wish we had something better.