At least I have control over my elected officials.
You believe that? On a state level, I might agree with you. On a federal level (where this program is implemented), unless you're in a swing state, you're deluded as to what level of influence you have on your elected officials.
The whole idea of profiting from denying healthcare is abhorrent.
Healthcare has never been denied. EMTALA assured that. All Obamacare does is give people a blank check to do whatever they want, necessary or not. Wanna see how that plays out? Look at Massachusetts, where everyone goes to the most expensive hospitals to get their healthcare, caus' why not when it's "free"? (http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2013/08/report-mass-residents-pay-more-get-less-from-health-insurance/). So long as people don't feel the cost of heatlhcare, it will always be ludicrously expensive.
In '96, I did. In '92 I was too young to vote. I was actually much more of a Democrat back in those days.
Because 'Obamcare' was crafted by the Heritage Foundation
It's not the same program, it merely shares similarities. Small details matter. The Heritage Foundation envisioned a program that was far less intrusive and more state-controlled. Additionally, the Heritage Foundation's plan was released a long time ago (early 90s) and long before the failure of Romneycare in Massachusetts played out. Why should we implement something federalwide that we know doesn't work? (http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2013/08/report-mass-residents-pay-more-get-less-from-health-insurance/)
Exactly! People are too busy to prepare healthy food and at the same time forced to take jobs where they aren't getting much exercise.
Just because it's harder to stay thin doesn't mean it's impossible to stay thin. Sure, we may not be do physical labor all day for our jobs, but a half hour to an hour of cardio per day (perhaps while watching our favorite TV show) is not unreasonable. Similarly, denying ourselves some of our favorite snacks once and awhile to cut down on calories is also not hard. The average American is unwilling to even take the smallest steps. That's my point. They are obese because they choose the path of least resistance, not because it's forced on them.
The problem is that the healthier alternatives don't sell as well, so people end up getting pushed to buy the less healthy alternatives.
But I don't entirely believe they don't sell as well merely because they're expensive. There's lots of cheap and filling foods out there. Hell, you can get a 5 pound bag of carrots at Shoprite for $5. And that's not even using coupons. People want sweets because they enjoy sweets.
There are lots of countries that have cheaper health care than us and lots that have healthier citizens. From a logically standpoint, you'd think we'd look at those and take the best parts for our own system
Life isn't that simple. For instance, Switzerland is very lax on gun control, and has very low crime. Yet there are plenty of other locations with lax gun control and high crime. Many problems are cultural, and can't merely be legislated away. Healthcare is one of these. Simply adopting a European system is not going to magically introduce cost controls into our system. It merely shifts costs from the industry and the consumer to the government (which is then foisted back on the consumer in the form of taxes). We need a solution that lowers costs, not simply changes who pays for the ridiculously high costs.
The federal government does not have the constitutional power to order the states to do anything
I'd argue there's a mighty thin line between "don't have the power to" and "do it or we'll do it for you".
There's also a mighty thin line between "can't compel the states" and "can compel all the residents of the states"
It seems to me the way to handle it would be to set a minimum standard of coverage and a maximum payout and then issue a mandate (preferably funded, but even if not..) that each state had to insure that level of coverage for its citizens.
Pretty much sounds exactly like Canadian healthcare. And I agree with you, that would be far more sensible.
5) This is an improvement over the decisions about life or death being about share prices and executive bonuses. I don't want it to even remotely cross the mind of anyone with a say in my health care that they might possibly make more money if they leave me sick.
No, it isn't. Switching from a death panel of fatcat execs to a death panel of conniving bureaucrats is not remotely better. More importantly, pretending that it actually is better is preventing us from doing something real to fix this problem.
I don't want it to even remotely cross the mind of anyone with a say in my health care that they might possibly make more money if they leave me sick.
Then why are you okay with it in the hands of the government? You are out of your mind if you think politicians wouldn't gladly put a squeeze on the funds supporting your healthcare if it meant they could afford some other program that benefitted their career or state. It goes something like this: "I need to fund this education bill, or this clean air act, or this iraq war...death panel, find me 10 million dollars in cuts." Don't believe me? Look at the sequester. Find that sensible?
Everybody who is a part of the health system, from patients to doctors to hospitals to insurance companies to suppliers are all guilty of creating an amazing modern healthcare system that nobody can afford.
You forgot to include "government" in your list there.
You are cynical and wrong about Republicans. We do believe it's a bad idea. My insurance premiums haven't budged in 5 YEARS, and this year they're scheduled to nearly double (~90% jump). I can see when a bill doesn't do a damn thing to attempt to curtail costs while simultaneously raising expenses on all participants in the industry. It's not that hard.
Yes! Americans are generally lazy overeaters, poor AND rich. This is well documented -- just look at the portion sizes in US vs Europe (http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20030822/french-secrets-to-staying-slim).
They eat what's available to them in their budget which is usually overly processed unhealthy food.
I get that that's a common talking point, but I've never seen it played out in reality as a primary driving factor. I'm sure it's probably a contributing factor (in rich people's diets as well), but I simply refuse to believe it's the sole, or even the primary, reason. Every time I see an article trying to chalk up obesity to "cheap food", it always comes with a correlary of "excessive eating" and "poor exercise". Just look at this Mexico report (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592714/mexico-takes-title-of-most-obese-from-america/):
To quote:
That wasn't so much a problem in past generations, when most Mexicans lived on the land, worked hard physical labor and couldn't afford a daily feast.
But the more sedentary lifestyles, combined with the ability to eat as if it were a party most days, has helped lead to the country's girth growth.
There are plenty of healthier choices like broth-based soups, fresh fish, salads, vegetables and fruits. But those tend to be more expensive for the Mexican poor and working class. And the heavier fare is just so good.
Many here also blame the popularity of US fast food restaurants and junk food snacks, which have spread rapidly since the opening of the local economy to global marketers in the early 1990s.
Urban Mexicans wolf down pizza, hamburgers and deep-fried chicken with abandon. Relatively cheap chips, cookies and sugary soft drinks pack the shelves of the convenience stores and mom-and-pop groceries that are as common here as cacti, even in poor rural towns and villages.
What that tells me is that poor people can afford far more food than they could historically, and as a result, they're eating much more food. Similarly, their lifestyles are far less active. But why blame the culture when you can blame evil corporations?
Here's how it works: Urbanization leads to new, more sedentary types of jobs, as more people start slinging expense reports instead of hay bales. And as more women move into white-collar work, they have less time for cooking and rely more heavily on prepared food, which tends to be less healthy. Children, too, don't play outdoors as much and spend more time sitting.
You see, it's not that they can't afford to eat more healthy or exercise more...they probably could. They simply choose not to. In the past, they couldn't afford to eat much, so they had hunger pangs, but dealt with the hunger and stayed thin. Now they can afford to eat, so they trade hunger for obesity instead of "hunger pangs + healthy eating". It's the exact same reason people have such a hard time dieting and keeping weight off: because the regimented life of denying one's self tasty foods isn't very compelling, so they always go rushing back to the sweets. Pumping more money into the system doesn't change that -- people will still follow the course of least resistance (or should I say "cheapest resistance"). Only "sin taxing" unhealthy foods would do any good.
I think the stock price will take a real beating since everyone seems to assume Apple will come up with the next must-have iDevice with huge margins.
Except that's not true. Current and future valuations of Apple (P/E and forward P/E) are both in the same range of 11-12, which is at or below the industry average. That means the market expects them to not grow at all in the next year. The stock price has already taken a huge beating -- that's why people are calling it oversold.
You really can't blame people for voting in the way that rationally maximises the influence over the outcome. Blame the voting system, not the voters, for the fact that there's two entrenched parties with a hair's breadth of policy distance between them.
Bullshit. "voting in the way that rationally maximises the influence over the outcome" cements the existing voting system and guarantees long-term dysfunction. It's picking short-term gratification over long-term results, just as all the politicians do. I fault the politicians that do it and I fault the voters that do it. If people truly believed the voting system was broken, they'd spend the next 5-10 years voting third party, whether or not those people won, to simply change the dialogue and/or build the support for real change.
Mod parent up. Most people enter politics to "make the world a better place", they genuinely want to make a difference.
Cite? I find it very hard to believe this, considering the fact most politicians are ungodly rich, yet seem more concerned with doing whatever it takes to keep their jobs rather than doing what they believe is "right" (both Republicans and Democrats).
Only in theory, not in practice. Without ranked voting, a vote for a 3rd party candidate is effectively a vote against whoever your second choice is
Not true. Entirely dialogues have shifted because of the "silent minorities". Ron Paul, having not won a single presidential primary, managed to create substantial schisms in the Republican mainstream platform. This is true, whether you agree with him or not. To stand up and be counted is never a wasted vote, even if you don't "win immediately".
I find it absolutely hilarious that you've pretty much lumped all Libertarians and Constitution party into the "generic Republican platform", yet see some kind of silver lining in the Green party that somehow separates it from "generic Democrat platform".
Cheaper. Saying it three times because the cost difference is immense.
How do you figure? Most airlines can barely stay profitable because of the economics of air travel. And according to the paper, due to the solar powering, this thing will have barely any operational costs (obviously the bulk would go to upkeep and maintenance). Fuel (particularly jet fuel) ain't cheap, and planes are exposed to the elements (read: more maintenance), and weather is an issue (which Hyperloop is immune to).
Faster. Planes put bullet trains to shame.
Howso? Commercial airlines don't travel much faster than the Hyperloop (~500-600 mpg cruising speed). Supersonic travel in a commercial jetliner isn't economical.
More flexible. Any airport in range of the fuel VS a linear track forwards and back.
Why is this relevant? Most long-distance travel in a given country occurs between a handful of major hubs. At any rate, if what you said was true, why do we still use rail?
More reliable.
Somewhat true, somewhat false. The already mentioned "weather effects" are a nod in favor of Hyperloop. The question is how often one of these shuts down (which doesn't seem like it would happen often given the fact it's battery powered and 90% of the trip is spent coasting). More than likely there would be plenty of juice stored up in the system to safely get people through the tube, and at best the system would simply be unusable for the duration of the outage (but honestly, how different is this than an airport delay or a flight cancellation due to weather?). Additionally, an airplane is a _far_ more complex system than the one he is intending here, so reliability and maintenance cost likely favor the Hyperloop.
Less infrastructure/Less land usage
Both reasonable points. Though the gains from this 5th mode of transportation seem well worth the tradeoff. At the very minimum, it gives a viable means of long-distance travel during extended inclement weather. The long-term cost savings favor the Hyperloop (since the bulk of the cost is the upfront commitment).
Surface temperatures are the only thing alarmists have ever used int he past, so why shouldn't we focus there? More importantly, the pause in surface temperature increase is proven. The claims of ocean temperature sinking and "well, we just haven't haven't waited long enough yet" are all suggestions and/or projections. The papers are scientists best guessing as to why surface temperatures have stopped rising -- they aren't proof as to it not occurring.. The fact you can't admit that is a shame and just shows your bias. Hell, paper #2 is labeled "Recent pause in global warming"!
Sure that's great if they want to splurge for $8 at subway twice a day, but that's quite a bit of money.
$8 a meal? What subway are you eating at? "Five dollar footlongs" (and that's for the _large_ subs). Many franchises also do the "6 inch sub + side + drink" for $5. Heck, if you wanted to get really cheap, I believe the 6 inch meatball sub is only $3.50.
If you wanted to do subway twice a day, you could buy a $5 footlong in the morning, eat half of it now and half of it later (that's effectively $2.50 per meal, not counting a drink, which could be "free water"). For the non-obese, a 6-inch sub is _plenty_ big for a "meal" -- throw in 3 cookies for a dollar if not, and the "footlong as 2-meals" price becomes $6, or $3 a meal. This kind of budgeting (and dieting) is possible -- just because they don't do it doesn't mean it's fiction. It takes active effort, and a good deal of extra spending, to become obese.
Remember the whole, "spreading democracy to the Middle East" justification for the Iraq war. Whether or not that was the goal is irrelevant: the point is that most people here thought it was an worthwhile thing to do.
Because they are imbeciles
So you honestly think Iraq would be better off today under Saddam than their current status?
You simply don't seem to grasp what a massive intervention that is.
Of course I do. But nobody's proposing that except deniers.
Not true. The US has made great strides in CO2 (we're at like 1990s levels right now), but the green movement would have you believe we've done nothing. In addition, the vehicle that has led the charge to lower CO2 output (natural gas conversion + fracking) they're trying their best to squash at every opportunity. Therefore, I disagree with your claim that "baby steps" is an acceptable measure for global warming alarmists. They want damn near full and rapid conversion to solar (or other renewables), and will accept little else.
Wasn't Medicare (1965) supposed to bring about a socialist dictatorship?
Isn't it? Medicare/Medicaid accounts for ~21% of our total government spending so far, and that's not counting Obamacare, which was created to address deficiencies in the existing programs. Tack that on and it boosts our total annual govt spending on healthcare to about ~26% of all our tax dollars. At what point of government control does the healthcare industry become a socialist dictatorship? Feels like one to me (and my paycheck).
*blink* How is it bunk? The very article you linked to acknowledged there is a pause:
Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013. This has prompted speculation that human induced global warming is no longer happening, or at least will be much smaller than predicted. Others maintain that his is a temporary pause and that temperatures will again rise at rates seen previously.
The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions:
Seriously, do you alarmists actually read the stuff you link to?
For the vast majority, being poor isn't a "mistake". It's not always possible to live the healthiest lifestyle without money.
I've heard this argument before and it's bullshit. From a nutrition standpoint, you might be correct. But from a caloric standpoint, it's full of it. If what you said was true (that poor people can't afford food), they shouldn't end up obese, EVER. Even if the only thing they can afford is McDonalds, nothing is stopping them from getting a McDouble and a small orange juice rather than 3 Big Macs, a Large Fry, and a supersized Coke. Being obese is a choice (with an exception for those genetically disposed, which are in the minority). Or a 6 inch sub on wheat at Subway instead of a footlong on white with 3 cookies. Jared Fogle lost 200 pounds on a diet of nothing but Subway subs, and that's far from the healthiest food around (and it's certainly not that expensive).
Health care is a very complicated system so it will require a complicated bill.
Spaceflight is very complicated as well, yet we don't have political bills to make sure they're doing it right. I reject your notion that simply because a task is complicated, it requires complicated legislation to handhold people through the process.
Just to be clear on your position: You believe that it's better for us to keep funding (expensive) emergency care rather than (cheap) preventative care, poor people that can't afford that should just die (because they're just lazy for being poor), and anyone who has any medical condition has it because of something they did to themself.
No, to be clear on my position, I believe that everyone, poor or rich, stupid or brilliant, should be responsible for their mistakes. That means if someone wants to live a life of sloth and abuse to their body, they should end up paying the lion's share of the medical bills. In the same vein, if someone wants to life a life of greed and recklessness, they should be financially ruined when their company (or their derivatives) go south.
In regards to healthcare specifically, I have no issue covering emergency care or catastrophic care, because it covers more unforeseen acts of god (car accidents, stabbings, cancer, whatever). I have more issues with blanket coverage that could target anything from childcare to cosmetic surgery to viagra. To be more specific to the statistics actually observed in our healthcare expenses, cardiac conditions are a number one driver of US healthcare expenses. Cardiac conditions are not frequently genetic dispositions, but more often a result of poor diet and/or exercise. So why should the taxpayers be forced to subsist these irresponsible lifestyles? I'd sooner pay a tax for healthy food subsidies.
Wouldn't it be nicer if people weren't tied to an employer for health insurance (and not at their mercy)?
I entirely agree. Did you know that healthcare tied to employment came about as a result of government legislation? The Stabilization Act of 1942 which restricted wages led to healthcare benefits via employment. A companion bill in 1943 and 1954 made employer contributions a tax break to cement the practice. Everything we've done since then has served to deal with the clusterfuck results of tying employment to healthcare (such as the 1996 HIPPA regulation). Wouldn't it be nice if the government stopped fucking with our healthcare and left it in the hands of the people that it actually affects? (namely, WE, the people). I might add that it's rather ironic that the bill you support (Obamacare) does nothing to cut this tie between employment and healthcare, instead further cementing us into the system.
How about the poor person that gets injured in a hit and run?
You do realize that is catastrophic care, yes?
The crazy libertarian view may seem nice if everyone is able to provide for themselves, but in our reality, corporations are always trying to screw people out of their money so not everyone can afford to pay the high costs of hospital care.
Except that the libertarian view isn't crazy when viewed against the full backdrop of history, or when all factors are taken into account. In fact, corporations wouldn't be able to screw people out of their money if it weren't for all the backdoor price negotiation. That shit wouldn't exist with price transparency and direct consumer costs. Do you remember the days when you would pay the doctor directly? Rather than an insurance entity? I certainly do.
Slashdot Mirror
You believe that? On a state level, I might agree with you. On a federal level (where this program is implemented), unless you're in a swing state, you're deluded as to what level of influence you have on your elected officials.
Healthcare has never been denied. EMTALA assured that. All Obamacare does is give people a blank check to do whatever they want, necessary or not. Wanna see how that plays out? Look at Massachusetts, where everyone goes to the most expensive hospitals to get their healthcare, caus' why not when it's "free"? (http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2013/08/report-mass-residents-pay-more-get-less-from-health-insurance/). So long as people don't feel the cost of heatlhcare, it will always be ludicrously expensive.
In '96, I did. In '92 I was too young to vote. I was actually much more of a Democrat back in those days.
It's not the same program, it merely shares similarities. Small details matter. The Heritage Foundation envisioned a program that was far less intrusive and more state-controlled. Additionally, the Heritage Foundation's plan was released a long time ago (early 90s) and long before the failure of Romneycare in Massachusetts played out. Why should we implement something federalwide that we know doesn't work? (http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2013/08/report-mass-residents-pay-more-get-less-from-health-insurance/)
Just because it's harder to stay thin doesn't mean it's impossible to stay thin. Sure, we may not be do physical labor all day for our jobs, but a half hour to an hour of cardio per day (perhaps while watching our favorite TV show) is not unreasonable. Similarly, denying ourselves some of our favorite snacks once and awhile to cut down on calories is also not hard. The average American is unwilling to even take the smallest steps. That's my point. They are obese because they choose the path of least resistance, not because it's forced on them.
But I don't entirely believe they don't sell as well merely because they're expensive. There's lots of cheap and filling foods out there. Hell, you can get a 5 pound bag of carrots at Shoprite for $5. And that's not even using coupons. People want sweets because they enjoy sweets.
Life isn't that simple. For instance, Switzerland is very lax on gun control, and has very low crime. Yet there are plenty of other locations with lax gun control and high crime. Many problems are cultural, and can't merely be legislated away. Healthcare is one of these. Simply adopting a European system is not going to magically introduce cost controls into our system. It merely shifts costs from the industry and the consumer to the government (which is then foisted back on the consumer in the form of taxes). We need a solution that lowers costs, not simply changes who pays for the ridiculously high costs.
Funny, I have the same solution for obesity.
I'd argue there's a mighty thin line between "don't have the power to" and "do it or we'll do it for you".
There's also a mighty thin line between "can't compel the states" and "can compel all the residents of the states"
Pretty much sounds exactly like Canadian healthcare. And I agree with you, that would be far more sensible.
No, it isn't. Switching from a death panel of fatcat execs to a death panel of conniving bureaucrats is not remotely better. More importantly, pretending that it actually is better is preventing us from doing something real to fix this problem.
Then why are you okay with it in the hands of the government? You are out of your mind if you think politicians wouldn't gladly put a squeeze on the funds supporting your healthcare if it meant they could afford some other program that benefitted their career or state. It goes something like this: "I need to fund this education bill, or this clean air act, or this iraq war...death panel, find me 10 million dollars in cuts." Don't believe me? Look at the sequester. Find that sensible?
You forgot to include "government" in your list there.
Insurance is by definition risk-pooling.
You are cynical and wrong about Republicans. We do believe it's a bad idea. My insurance premiums haven't budged in 5 YEARS, and this year they're scheduled to nearly double (~90% jump). I can see when a bill doesn't do a damn thing to attempt to curtail costs while simultaneously raising expenses on all participants in the industry. It's not that hard.
Yes! Americans are generally lazy overeaters, poor AND rich. This is well documented -- just look at the portion sizes in US vs Europe (http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20030822/french-secrets-to-staying-slim).
I get that that's a common talking point, but I've never seen it played out in reality as a primary driving factor. I'm sure it's probably a contributing factor (in rich people's diets as well), but I simply refuse to believe it's the sole, or even the primary, reason. Every time I see an article trying to chalk up obesity to "cheap food", it always comes with a correlary of "excessive eating" and "poor exercise". Just look at this Mexico report (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592714/mexico-takes-title-of-most-obese-from-america/):
To quote:
What that tells me is that poor people can afford far more food than they could historically, and as a result, they're eating much more food. Similarly, their lifestyles are far less active. But why blame the culture when you can blame evil corporations?
If you want to know what's really going on, look here: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/as-countries-get-richer-they-trade-hunger-for-obesity/277930/
You see, it's not that they can't afford to eat more healthy or exercise more...they probably could. They simply choose not to. In the past, they couldn't afford to eat much, so they had hunger pangs, but dealt with the hunger and stayed thin. Now they can afford to eat, so they trade hunger for obesity instead of "hunger pangs + healthy eating". It's the exact same reason people have such a hard time dieting and keeping weight off: because the regimented life of denying one's self tasty foods isn't very compelling, so they always go rushing back to the sweets. Pumping more money into the system doesn't change that -- people will still follow the course of least resistance (or should I say "cheapest resistance"). Only "sin taxing" unhealthy foods would do any good.
Except that's not true. Current and future valuations of Apple (P/E and forward P/E) are both in the same range of 11-12, which is at or below the industry average. That means the market expects them to not grow at all in the next year. The stock price has already taken a huge beating -- that's why people are calling it oversold.
Bullshit. "voting in the way that rationally maximises the influence over the outcome" cements the existing voting system and guarantees long-term dysfunction. It's picking short-term gratification over long-term results, just as all the politicians do. I fault the politicians that do it and I fault the voters that do it. If people truly believed the voting system was broken, they'd spend the next 5-10 years voting third party, whether or not those people won, to simply change the dialogue and/or build the support for real change.
Cite? I find it very hard to believe this, considering the fact most politicians are ungodly rich, yet seem more concerned with doing whatever it takes to keep their jobs rather than doing what they believe is "right" (both Republicans and Democrats).
Not true. Entirely dialogues have shifted because of the "silent minorities". Ron Paul, having not won a single presidential primary, managed to create substantial schisms in the Republican mainstream platform. This is true, whether you agree with him or not. To stand up and be counted is never a wasted vote, even if you don't "win immediately".
I find it absolutely hilarious that you've pretty much lumped all Libertarians and Constitution party into the "generic Republican platform", yet see some kind of silver lining in the Green party that somehow separates it from "generic Democrat platform".
How do you figure? Most airlines can barely stay profitable because of the economics of air travel. And according to the paper, due to the solar powering, this thing will have barely any operational costs (obviously the bulk would go to upkeep and maintenance). Fuel (particularly jet fuel) ain't cheap, and planes are exposed to the elements (read: more maintenance), and weather is an issue (which Hyperloop is immune to).
Howso? Commercial airlines don't travel much faster than the Hyperloop (~500-600 mpg cruising speed). Supersonic travel in a commercial jetliner isn't economical.
Why is this relevant? Most long-distance travel in a given country occurs between a handful of major hubs. At any rate, if what you said was true, why do we still use rail?
Somewhat true, somewhat false. The already mentioned "weather effects" are a nod in favor of Hyperloop. The question is how often one of these shuts down (which doesn't seem like it would happen often given the fact it's battery powered and 90% of the trip is spent coasting). More than likely there would be plenty of juice stored up in the system to safely get people through the tube, and at best the system would simply be unusable for the duration of the outage (but honestly, how different is this than an airport delay or a flight cancellation due to weather?). Additionally, an airplane is a _far_ more complex system than the one he is intending here, so reliability and maintenance cost likely favor the Hyperloop.
Both reasonable points. Though the gains from this 5th mode of transportation seem well worth the tradeoff. At the very minimum, it gives a viable means of long-distance travel during extended inclement weather. The long-term cost savings favor the Hyperloop (since the bulk of the cost is the upfront commitment).
Surface temperatures are the only thing alarmists have ever used int he past, so why shouldn't we focus there? More importantly, the pause in surface temperature increase is proven. The claims of ocean temperature sinking and "well, we just haven't haven't waited long enough yet" are all suggestions and/or projections. The papers are scientists best guessing as to why surface temperatures have stopped rising -- they aren't proof as to it not occurring.. The fact you can't admit that is a shame and just shows your bias. Hell, paper #2 is labeled "Recent pause in global warming"!
$8 a meal? What subway are you eating at? "Five dollar footlongs" (and that's for the _large_ subs). Many franchises also do the "6 inch sub + side + drink" for $5. Heck, if you wanted to get really cheap, I believe the 6 inch meatball sub is only $3.50. If you wanted to do subway twice a day, you could buy a $5 footlong in the morning, eat half of it now and half of it later (that's effectively $2.50 per meal, not counting a drink, which could be "free water"). For the non-obese, a 6-inch sub is _plenty_ big for a "meal" -- throw in 3 cookies for a dollar if not, and the "footlong as 2-meals" price becomes $6, or $3 a meal. This kind of budgeting (and dieting) is possible -- just because they don't do it doesn't mean it's fiction. It takes active effort, and a good deal of extra spending, to become obese.
So you honestly think Iraq would be better off today under Saddam than their current status?
Not true. The US has made great strides in CO2 (we're at like 1990s levels right now), but the green movement would have you believe we've done nothing. In addition, the vehicle that has led the charge to lower CO2 output (natural gas conversion + fracking) they're trying their best to squash at every opportunity. Therefore, I disagree with your claim that "baby steps" is an acceptable measure for global warming alarmists. They want damn near full and rapid conversion to solar (or other renewables), and will accept little else.
Isn't it? Medicare/Medicaid accounts for ~21% of our total government spending so far, and that's not counting Obamacare, which was created to address deficiencies in the existing programs. Tack that on and it boosts our total annual govt spending on healthcare to about ~26% of all our tax dollars. At what point of government control does the healthcare industry become a socialist dictatorship? Feels like one to me (and my paycheck).
*blink* How is it bunk? The very article you linked to acknowledged there is a pause:
Seriously, do you alarmists actually read the stuff you link to?
I've heard this argument before and it's bullshit. From a nutrition standpoint, you might be correct. But from a caloric standpoint, it's full of it. If what you said was true (that poor people can't afford food), they shouldn't end up obese, EVER. Even if the only thing they can afford is McDonalds, nothing is stopping them from getting a McDouble and a small orange juice rather than 3 Big Macs, a Large Fry, and a supersized Coke. Being obese is a choice (with an exception for those genetically disposed, which are in the minority). Or a 6 inch sub on wheat at Subway instead of a footlong on white with 3 cookies. Jared Fogle lost 200 pounds on a diet of nothing but Subway subs, and that's far from the healthiest food around (and it's certainly not that expensive).
Spaceflight is very complicated as well, yet we don't have political bills to make sure they're doing it right. I reject your notion that simply because a task is complicated, it requires complicated legislation to handhold people through the process.
No, to be clear on my position, I believe that everyone, poor or rich, stupid or brilliant, should be responsible for their mistakes. That means if someone wants to live a life of sloth and abuse to their body, they should end up paying the lion's share of the medical bills. In the same vein, if someone wants to life a life of greed and recklessness, they should be financially ruined when their company (or their derivatives) go south.
In regards to healthcare specifically, I have no issue covering emergency care or catastrophic care, because it covers more unforeseen acts of god (car accidents, stabbings, cancer, whatever). I have more issues with blanket coverage that could target anything from childcare to cosmetic surgery to viagra. To be more specific to the statistics actually observed in our healthcare expenses, cardiac conditions are a number one driver of US healthcare expenses. Cardiac conditions are not frequently genetic dispositions, but more often a result of poor diet and/or exercise. So why should the taxpayers be forced to subsist these irresponsible lifestyles? I'd sooner pay a tax for healthy food subsidies.
I entirely agree. Did you know that healthcare tied to employment came about as a result of government legislation? The Stabilization Act of 1942 which restricted wages led to healthcare benefits via employment. A companion bill in 1943 and 1954 made employer contributions a tax break to cement the practice. Everything we've done since then has served to deal with the clusterfuck results of tying employment to healthcare (such as the 1996 HIPPA regulation). Wouldn't it be nice if the government stopped fucking with our healthcare and left it in the hands of the people that it actually affects? (namely, WE, the people). I might add that it's rather ironic that the bill you support (Obamacare) does nothing to cut this tie between employment and healthcare, instead further cementing us into the system.
You do realize that is catastrophic care, yes?
Except that the libertarian view isn't crazy when viewed against the full backdrop of history, or when all factors are taken into account. In fact, corporations wouldn't be able to screw people out of their money if it weren't for all the backdoor price negotiation. That shit wouldn't exist with price transparency and direct consumer costs. Do you remember the days when you would pay the doctor directly? Rather than an insurance entity? I certainly do.