Energy, Climate Change, Healthcare
March 13th 2009 18:17
These were three issues mentioned in a recent comment that should be addressed.
Let me quickly address all three.
Energy
Remove the offshore drilling limits. Not only would that increase the flow of oil, but natural gas is also retrieved during the process of drilling. We could then greatly increase the supply of natural gas, reducing the cost of energy and providing a cleaner fuel for our cars. Natural gas is the one, the only, fuel which car technology is ready to use, gets similar performance out of them and reduces pollution output (unlike Ethanol which reduces food for around the world and put out three times the carcinogens of oil).
Start building nuclear plants. They provide most of Europe's electricity (one of the things Europe does right, I know I've been hard on them). If we reacted to all things like we did to the two accidents compared to the millions of safe operating hours around the world cars, playgrounds, and a bunch of other things would be illegal. As to the argument about the waste, there are ways to reprocess that. Not only that, but maybe we'd have fusion reactors, with substantially less waste, if the industry was allowed to flourish and seek new technologies.
Democrats have crushed both of these, with GOP help. Amount of oil spilled during Katrina and Rita together by drilling rigs in the gulf: ZERO.
Climate Change
It's not human caused. Get over it. We can't do anything about it. As I've documented before, the press and "scientists" were screaming in the 1970s that the next ice age would be here by now and we'd be starving. There were numerous novels written about it. A Newsbusters post perfectly lays out how the approximately 30 year cycle has been noted by the New York Times for the last 150 years.
In fact, many, many scientists have pointed out correctly that the earth has been cooling for the last decade. Spokane got 89 inches of snow this year, the most since . . . wait for it . . . 1968! Wow, in the middle of the "Global Cooling Crisis". Yes, back in the 70s it was blamed on . . . carbon dioxide. The scientists who say climate cycles are not man caused are increasing in number. There were 30,000 on a petition years ago. Now the voices are rising. Al Gore won't even debate anybody now and has had to take slides out of his presentation because they've been debunked.
One other clue that it's not man-caused: because we've started cooling and having noticeably cooler winters, a very Orwellian change has been made from calling it "Global Warming" to calling it "Climate Change" so that all strange weather can be blamed on man, not just warming since warming has stopped . . . for thirty years. We should start warming up again around 2030. I personally liked the warmth, but oh well, get out the parkas and get ready for the warnings about how man is causing the next ice age.
Carbon dioxide is not only not a pollutant, but plants need it to survive. We breath it out without killing ourselves. And as the Newsbuster's post proves, we've had these cycles since before the industrial age.
Healthcare
We could "fix" healthcare with three simple steps:
1. Tort reform: Make it so the loser pays all costs of the suit, no matter who loses. Put caps on the awards against doctors for honest mistakes. Right now, almost half of the operating expenses for doctors and medical facilities is liability insurance. Strengthen the accreditation rules for becoming a doctor and keep better track of the bad ones to balance these changes.
2. Allow individuals to shop for insurance across state lines. Right now only corporations can do this. This would increase competition and also increase the speed with which step 3 happens.
3. Remove all the "minimum coverage" laws in the states. Many young people that can afford insurance don't buy it because they don't think they should have to pay for coverage that includes accupuncture and massage therapy. Massachusetts of all places took away all their coverage rules, insurance costs fell like a rock and the number of uninsured with it. Let people shop for the insurance coverage they want. Make a-la-carte insurance legal so people can buy just emergency room coverage to expensive monthly unnecessary test coverage.
Just how crazy are the politicians right now? A doctor in New York has a plan in his office where for $79 a month all visits and treatments offered by his fairly comprehensive clinic are covered. He has a lab and doctors of varying specialties. New York is trying to shut down his plan. Seriously. Why? They consider the $79 a month payment plan insurance and therefore they say he's doing it illegally. A payment plan is insurance?
Everywhere, that's right, everywhere, healthcare has been taken over by the government there are waiting lines for needed surgery, effective drugs and treatments banned because of cost, people denied care for age or lifestyle, doctors and clinics forced to provide care against their religious and moral objections, and rapid increases in taxes to pay for the increasing costs. The one I heard about on the radio today is that the U.K. system will not provide drugs for macular degeneration until you are blind in one of your eyes, since you only need one. Then, when you lose one of your eyes, you can start getting the medicine you need to keep your other one. It's no wonder that people from all over the world that can afford it fly to the U.S. for care.
That is the future of American healthcare if the government takes it over. Doctors will stop practicing for financial and moral reasons. Hospitals will close for the same reasons, especially religious sponsored ones. And pushing it? One of the former presidents pushing it doesn't even realize an embryo has ALREADY BEEN FERTILIZED.
People are so deluded as to think that our government (that pays the Postmaster General over $800,000 a year to run the Post Office into insolvency, pays $30,000 for toilets, has bankrupted Social Security, has a tax cheat as head of the IRS and chariman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has not been able to stop 31% Medicaid fraud, etc.) can do better than all the other countries that have tried government healthcare. Where is the evidence that it can work here when it has failed everywhere else?
You can support my blogging even more by buying my book at Author House. Unlike liberals, this is the only fantasy world I live in
Let me quickly address all three.
Energy
Remove the offshore drilling limits. Not only would that increase the flow of oil, but natural gas is also retrieved during the process of drilling. We could then greatly increase the supply of natural gas, reducing the cost of energy and providing a cleaner fuel for our cars. Natural gas is the one, the only, fuel which car technology is ready to use, gets similar performance out of them and reduces pollution output (unlike Ethanol which reduces food for around the world and put out three times the carcinogens of oil).
Start building nuclear plants. They provide most of Europe's electricity (one of the things Europe does right, I know I've been hard on them). If we reacted to all things like we did to the two accidents compared to the millions of safe operating hours around the world cars, playgrounds, and a bunch of other things would be illegal. As to the argument about the waste, there are ways to reprocess that. Not only that, but maybe we'd have fusion reactors, with substantially less waste, if the industry was allowed to flourish and seek new technologies.
Democrats have crushed both of these, with GOP help. Amount of oil spilled during Katrina and Rita together by drilling rigs in the gulf: ZERO.
Climate Change
It's not human caused. Get over it. We can't do anything about it. As I've documented before, the press and "scientists" were screaming in the 1970s that the next ice age would be here by now and we'd be starving. There were numerous novels written about it. A Newsbusters post perfectly lays out how the approximately 30 year cycle has been noted by the New York Times for the last 150 years.
In fact, many, many scientists have pointed out correctly that the earth has been cooling for the last decade. Spokane got 89 inches of snow this year, the most since . . . wait for it . . . 1968! Wow, in the middle of the "Global Cooling Crisis". Yes, back in the 70s it was blamed on . . . carbon dioxide. The scientists who say climate cycles are not man caused are increasing in number. There were 30,000 on a petition years ago. Now the voices are rising. Al Gore won't even debate anybody now and has had to take slides out of his presentation because they've been debunked.
One other clue that it's not man-caused: because we've started cooling and having noticeably cooler winters, a very Orwellian change has been made from calling it "Global Warming" to calling it "Climate Change" so that all strange weather can be blamed on man, not just warming since warming has stopped . . . for thirty years. We should start warming up again around 2030. I personally liked the warmth, but oh well, get out the parkas and get ready for the warnings about how man is causing the next ice age.
Carbon dioxide is not only not a pollutant, but plants need it to survive. We breath it out without killing ourselves. And as the Newsbuster's post proves, we've had these cycles since before the industrial age.
Healthcare
We could "fix" healthcare with three simple steps:
1. Tort reform: Make it so the loser pays all costs of the suit, no matter who loses. Put caps on the awards against doctors for honest mistakes. Right now, almost half of the operating expenses for doctors and medical facilities is liability insurance. Strengthen the accreditation rules for becoming a doctor and keep better track of the bad ones to balance these changes.
2. Allow individuals to shop for insurance across state lines. Right now only corporations can do this. This would increase competition and also increase the speed with which step 3 happens.
3. Remove all the "minimum coverage" laws in the states. Many young people that can afford insurance don't buy it because they don't think they should have to pay for coverage that includes accupuncture and massage therapy. Massachusetts of all places took away all their coverage rules, insurance costs fell like a rock and the number of uninsured with it. Let people shop for the insurance coverage they want. Make a-la-carte insurance legal so people can buy just emergency room coverage to expensive monthly unnecessary test coverage.
Just how crazy are the politicians right now? A doctor in New York has a plan in his office where for $79 a month all visits and treatments offered by his fairly comprehensive clinic are covered. He has a lab and doctors of varying specialties. New York is trying to shut down his plan. Seriously. Why? They consider the $79 a month payment plan insurance and therefore they say he's doing it illegally. A payment plan is insurance?
Everywhere, that's right, everywhere, healthcare has been taken over by the government there are waiting lines for needed surgery, effective drugs and treatments banned because of cost, people denied care for age or lifestyle, doctors and clinics forced to provide care against their religious and moral objections, and rapid increases in taxes to pay for the increasing costs. The one I heard about on the radio today is that the U.K. system will not provide drugs for macular degeneration until you are blind in one of your eyes, since you only need one. Then, when you lose one of your eyes, you can start getting the medicine you need to keep your other one. It's no wonder that people from all over the world that can afford it fly to the U.S. for care.
That is the future of American healthcare if the government takes it over. Doctors will stop practicing for financial and moral reasons. Hospitals will close for the same reasons, especially religious sponsored ones. And pushing it? One of the former presidents pushing it doesn't even realize an embryo has ALREADY BEEN FERTILIZED.
People are so deluded as to think that our government (that pays the Postmaster General over $800,000 a year to run the Post Office into insolvency, pays $30,000 for toilets, has bankrupted Social Security, has a tax cheat as head of the IRS and chariman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has not been able to stop 31% Medicaid fraud, etc.) can do better than all the other countries that have tried government healthcare. Where is the evidence that it can work here when it has failed everywhere else?
You can support my blogging even more by buying my book at Author House. Unlike liberals, this is the only fantasy world I live in
| 50 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by NoaIzumi
Fine Politics
Anime Bottle
If by "zero", you mean 10,000 barrels, I agree.
Really Long Link
"We could then greatly increase the supply of natural gas"
That's not exactly true, either. Yearly production in the US alone is 19 trillion cubic feet. Expected additional production from offshore drilling is thought to be 600 billion cubic feet per year, or around 3% of that.
Really Long Link
Although I'm totally with you on nuclear plants.
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Marriage Bits
As far as Natural Gas, so what if it's just a 3% increase? It's still more, and it still provides the additional gas we need to start putting it in cars as well. The point is that we have far more natural gas than oil, and we can produce it domestically. If we do nuclear, we will need less natural gas for electricity, freeing more up for cars.
So I stand by that.
Comment by Andrew Biviano
Energy:
Your ideas should be considered, but I have seen no one suggest that they solve all, or even most, of the problem. The risk your suggestions pose is that they could do more harm than good and also distract us from other solutions.
Offshore drilling is not going to end our dependence on foreign oil. We use way more oil than we possess. You have also heard that it would take up to ten years for the drilling to increase the oil supply, and that it would increase it a very small percentage. I think T. Boone Pickens’s idea of switching to natural gas in our cars and trucks is very intriguing and should be a part of the plan. My opposition to offshore drilling is not that it is bad per se, but rather that it misleads people into thinking that it solves our problems and it keeps us on the same track that has proven unsuccessful.
Nor are nuclear plants going to solve the problem. They could help. They seem to operate safely, with Europe as an example. But there are two big problems. The first is their enormous cost, especially compared to alternative ways to create energy, such as wind, solar, etc. The bigger problem is that they are politically radioactive. (Pun intended). There are so many adamant opponents to this plan, and no one wants it in their state, so it will take a herculean feat and billions of dollars to do this. This would be justified if nuclear was our only solution, but it’s not. Maybe private industry can get it done, but I don’t think the government should go there right now.
The approach with the best upside is increased efficiency, which if done correctly would make many other approaches unnecessary. This is not even conservation, no sweaters required. It would save more energy than any other method would create. We already have the technology. It has no environmental cost. It would create an enormous amount of jobs doing the retrofitting, all of which would be done here as opposed to India. There is no one against it, as far as I’ve seen.
Another approach is wind and solar, which again have much less downside than oil and nuclear and don’t even need to invoke the climate change debate. They also create jobs. So I don’t think that your ideas are bad, only that there are other good ideas which our government is wisely considering.
CLIMATE CHANGE:
I can’t understand how you can criticize others for saying the scientific debate is over, and then assert that the debate is over. You seem to be as certain as Al Gore, and tell us we should “get over it,” even though, at best, the debate is ongoing. You say that scientists with your view are increasing, but is it unanimous? How do you explain all of the scientists who think it is man made – are they just idiots? I don’t recall you getting an advanced science degree, so you can’t independently verify any studies, so you just believe those who support your conclusion and notice recent local weather. (“It snowed a lot in Spokane – case closed! Ice caps are irrelevant!”). Thanks, but I’ll at least keep my mind open about it.
More shockingly, you seem to think that carbon emissions are a good thing? You equate the carbon dioxide we exhale to that produced by burning coal and oil? So the people who wear masks when working in these power plants are actually depriving themselves of extra healthy air? Is smoking good for us too? Are you nuts?
Plants get by fine on the carbon dioxide produced when animals exhale. They have not started doing better since the industrial revolution. Look at the statistics of the hundreds of thousands of deaths directly attributed to air pollution in places like China and India, with their many coal plants. Or England at the start of the industrial revolution. Or talk to a coal miner. Or study acid rain. Or maybe try sucking air from your car’s exhaust pipe. Then come back and state with your absolute certainty that it’s “not a pollutant.” Wow.
Health Care:
This is actually a subject I studied in law school, so I know a thing or two about it. There are so many things that are being overlooked that I don’t think I can fit it all in.
You have obviously not thought through your tort reform idea. If an entirely legitimate med mal claim goes to trial and the plaintiff loses, they are not only medically damaged but now owe perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, which they likely don't have. You suggest that only wealthy people can file suit? Or that we give your house to the defense lawyers if you were told by an expert that you were the victim of malpractice, but the jury disagrees? Have you also considered that juries would start finding for plaintiffs more often once they realize that the alternative would be that on top of losing their loved one they would now lose everything they own?
There are a number of issues that would be created by your plan to deregulate insurance, too many to go over, they have all been explained before. I'm not saying it should not be a part of the plan, but it certainly wouldn't fix everything as you suggest.
Third, you have to stop implying that our only choices are the status quo or the european model. It's untrue. One of the benefits of doing this last is that we can actually study other systems, pick out the best parts and leave the rest. You'll notice that Obama's plan does not make the U.S. an insurer for everyone. It offers people to buy into the same cafeteria health care plan that I and other federal employees have. It is a lot like the Massachussets approach in many ways.
Fourth, the scary scenarios you present with government health care are the same ones that crop up constantly with for-profit insurers. Have you never heard of people being told by an insurance company that it won't cover a treatment? Or claims being denied because of pre-existing conditions? And you think we should deregulate more?
I have to stop, I could write all day. Just consider this:You seem to think that "only" 8 million people with coverage is not a big deal. But this includes two of your siblings, both of whom work full time for employers that don't offer health care. Buying insurance on their own would cost more than their housing costs and is simply out of reach. Each is one serious illness or injury away from bankruptcy or home foreclosure, leading to a worsening of this economic crisis. And taxpayers would pay for their care anyway after they are bankrupt. (The US pays more per capita for health care than any other country, and still doesn't provide coverage to everyone). And your solution is that your siblings essentially waive their right to be compensated for malpractice (and risk paying costs), and be given the ability to buy really crappy coverage from across state lines? That's it?
Next time I'll write about the societal costs that go into this completely wasteful system we have, but just ponder the human costs for now.
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Marriage Bits
Many insurance companies offer catastrophic insurance for less than $50 a month, to handle a major illness.
I know, I've been uninsured recently. If our siblings are only finding insurance "more than their housing costs" than they should contact me to help them find these great programs.
And yes, I know the private insurance system has been imperfect. Doesn't mean the government will do better. It's much easier to fight a health insurer in court, than the government.
I'm for keeping the regulations regarding pre-existing conditions, but I'm for removing the rules that ALL INSURANCE POLICIES must cover things needed or used by a small percentaget of the population. Why should every policy cover accupuncture if it increases the cost of the insurance for every potential buyer.
Perhaps health insurance in Washington is so expensive because of the minimum coverage rules, coverage for things our siblings don't need to have coverage for. Those are the rules that push things up. In Massachusetts they took off those rules and the cost of insurance went down and the number of insured went up.
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Marriage Bits
Tell me, with China increasing their carbon output dramatically over the last ten years, the U.S. not participating in the Kyoto treaty and overall world carbon output increasing the last decade, how come the average world temperature has cooled every year for the last ten?
Comment by Andrew Biviano
What I don't get is why you're debating a proposal that doesn't exist. No one is advocating a system in which the government is the sole provider and single payer. The actual plan is that the government would give our siblings a chance to buy into one the dozens of PRIVATE health care plans that I have access to. Their insurer would be Blue Cross, not Uncle Sam. What is wrong with that? And what is wrong with helping and giving an incentive to people to buy into those plans by making it a sliding scale cost? The government already assists you and I in getting health insurance by not taxing the compensation we receive in the form of health benefits. (A major subsiby and redistribution). The health care assistance Uncle Sam would give our sister would probably be less than the subsidy he currently gives to both of us.
On climate change, your words were: "It's not human caused. Get over it. We can't do anything about it." Sounded pretty definitive to me. I'm glad that you have changed to leaving open the possibility.
Even if you don't feel a catastrophe is impending, there is no question that pollution is bad. I'm sure you've seen the haze and smog over L.A. We saw what Beijing had to do to let Olympians breathe. I can't believe I even need to make this argument. I think you're pretty much alone in saying it's not a bad thing.
As to the solution, I must admit that I am almost shocked by your objection to the cap and trade proposal. It is the free-market based solution that conservatives have been pushing as an alternative to the more heavy-handed approach of absolute carbon limits. It creates incentives for the marketplace to solve the problem, for entrepreneurs to find a way to provide the same amount of energy without pollution. Yes, it makes polluting more expensive, and that is precisely the point, because polluting imposes a cost on the rest of us. But right now it is so much cheaper to pollute than to make clean energy that the change won't happen on its own.
We have the same incentives in place everywhere -- we use tax incentives to encourage giving to charity, investing in the stock market, getting married, having kids, buying a home, or buying a hybrid. I can't see how using the same approach to encourage people to find develop cleaner energy is so extraordinary.
And your worry that it will "bankrupt the energy industry?" I don't see how that's possible. It is an industry with never-ending consumer demand. It will transform the energy industry, yes. Certain portions of the industry, like coal plants that don't adapt to the times, will close their doors. But there will always be an industry and billions will be made. Why do you think T. Boone Pickens has jumped into the wind industry? And it couldn't possibly bankrupt America to create a system where we actually pay Americans for our energy instead of send the largest transfer of wealth in history overseas.
Comment by NoaIzumi
Fine Politics
Anime Bottle
I'm afraid you may be repeating those MSM talking points again. According to NASA, 2005 was the warmest year ever recorded, worldwide, with 2007 tied with 1998 for second. Another institution whose name escapes me ranks 1998 is the warmest with 2005 just below it, but their measurements don't show a steady decline either. 1998 had a temperture spike thanks to a strong El Nino, so temp went way up, fell back down, and increased again after that for the next few years. It's possible temps have plateaued since 2005, but we can't draw a conclusion from a three year window.
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Marriage Bits
The Chinese weren't suffering in Beijing from carbon dioxide, they were suffering from carbon MONoxide and the other pollutants from burning gasoline and all the other sprays and pesticides and everything else. It's not the carbon that was doing it, it was ALL pollution.
And no, cap and trade is not free market, because the caps are set by the government, the money is collected by the government and then given to traders (oh yeah, traders have nothing to do with our current situation). The government will pick the winners and losers based on campaign contributions. Meanwhile, it's a tax on ALL OF US as we pay it in higher energy costs. It basically sucks money out of the pockets of every American, from richest to poorest, into the energy producers, who then pay it to the government, who turns around and lets their favored corporations make money on swapping it. We pay, traders that make commissions on the credit paper being swapped get rich. Not my idea of free market.
US Satelites show world's temperature declining since 1998.
Or how about this one showing the steady rise in carbon contrary to the drop in temperatures.
I'm not pro-pollution, I just feel carbon dioxide has been wrongly accused here.
Comment by NoaIzumi
Fine Politics
Anime Bottle
Comment by Andrew Biviano
Any suggestions on how to combat air pollution? Do you know of a way that imposes no financial burden on polluters?
Do you see carbon dioxide as the only threat that people are concerned about? And you feel stronger about defending carbon dioxide's good name than about protecting our environment? Well, I'm glad you have a soft spot for something.
You already know for sure that the cap and trade system will be based only on campaign contributions? And you see no possibility that consumers will actually avoid the increased prices by turning to cleaner, and now cheaper, alternatives?
And the English guy's blog is a more reliable scientific source than NASA? Let me guess -- it's because NASA only hires hippies and is part of the vast left wing conspiracy, right?
Comment by Anonymous
Read this and decide if you still want to put an extra $3800 a year on average onto American households to "stop global warming".
And yes, many carbon credits have been presold to lobbyists. Al Gore's personal wealth has increased dramatically from government credits already, since he owns a "carbon credit company" that sells the credits.