I recently posted on hear regarding the current Health Care and Climate Change policies. And I want to tell you now that I did speak to soon.

I apologize to all for that.

I have recently found more information on the subject, and will be posting here as soon as a am able to write up a summary.

Again. Please ignore may claims against the Health Care and Climate Change bills, as they were not fully informed.

Apologies again, I previously referred to an attempt to post on another site regarding solar panels and “freakonomics” where the word “hypotheticals” was used profusely, which was not accepted… I think rightfully so. But it is a general rant on the climate and health care issues:

- begin post -

Great article. I too would like to say what a relief it is to hear a reasonable and entertaining voice on the topic.

I can’t help but notice however that the conclusion here too, consists of a lot of hypotheticals. So I would like to pose a different question, that being the two paragraphs below, and I apologize to the author and the new visitors of what seems to be an old post for the inappropriately long nonsense that came forthwith.

Why are we even considering taxing – so heavily – based on hypotheticals? And by hypothetical, I mean you couldn’t get 50 people in a room to agree on any of this, that had a reputation, could pass a lie detector, and a psych screen.

If this is an honest debate, should we not also consider the following hypothetical: Assuming there is a problem, it is perfectly possible that the solution could arise from Research and Development that would otherwise NOT occur under the proposed, imposed, economic slowdown.

I don’t think this type of speculation has any place in peace time legislation (or but – is it peacetime huh?). Leave the what if’s, should I sign it/press it, for the executive and a real emergency. This place can only survive on rational policy, obviously… unless we are just super lucky, or had a great foundation?

No wait. I simply can not believe that this danger is so immense and catastrophic, yet we cannot even measure it coming? What happened to conclusions based upon repeatable measurements? what is it, a 10th order effect? This planet has been around for ~4,5 billion years and for the last ~2.5 billion, amidst much larger changes in atmospheric concentrations, it has been doing ‘its thing’ just fine. This includes an ice age every now and then, smashing continental plates, magnetic pole shifts, and so on. Is it not a little pretentious to default to the idea that we can turn this place on its head in a blink of its eye?… without nukes.

And somehow, in what, 10-20 years, some fluctuation is going to appear without warning and not subside? The climate system will start darting off (some discontinuity I suppose? whats the physical model for this again? and why has mother nature been hiding it?) to some far off stasis, never to return while we will burn up, having had no prior measurable indication (none found yet: check) and no recourse but to pay to the gods? For crying out loud, its getting colder. While we do know something about the long CO2 lifetime, is it not reasonable to come to some agreement as to what effect must be observed before we bring the wheels of industry and productivity to a screeching halt. Can we at least see a cute animation or two before we fork over the trillions?

I wonder if this is not just a new form of sacrifice, for people lacking a core substance in their lives or something. But it doesn’t matter; I don’t think we should buy in yet. A hypothetical is not science, not a truth, not a principle, and when I hear talk of potentially sinking trillions for one, I get sick to my stomach; what is going on. Its not even in the same ballpark as CFC’s and the O^3 holes (I’m not implying they have anything to do with Al’s missing ice). The best science yet is still the thermometer “in my backyard”, and not some prized, massaged model or appropriately weighted data set.

It was magically colder this year – and last and last – and I hear it might have an interesting correlation with the sun cycle, or not; unfortunately I have not managed to catch any of the media, I mean experts, coming to any conclusion on that either; see lots of “what if’s” though. Heck, here is a real bonehead one: what about the trees, where is the silly little study showing the max capacity of trees, that they will not flourish under increased CO2, and that their restoring contribution will most likely be negligible. And what if the excursion was bounded? I am a lazy citizen and google sucks now. But seriously, what if it would rise at most 2 degrees?… 2 trillion for 2 degrees?… could be a boom… modicum of certainty, anyone?

– Trillions people… Its cold… seriously, what is going on in this country.

PS: I like to think the solution to this and most other things is education. That simple really. — Side note: We don’t know the ‘Green Age’ is prophesied right? We understand in this universe and on earth, nuclear power may end up being our best option, right? I’m only stating a hypothetical here — Nonetheless, Invest in education, I don’t think I need to argue that the long term survival of a democracy lies in the people. Its like your #4 hitter in baseball stars, just beef him up, it always pays. So, if you are not sure about voting on that big state project, place a vote for the future instead, and sleep better; for it will be that much less likely they will attempt something later on, like trying to swipe half your medicare budget while proclaiming it will be recovered from waste.

In reality, the recoverability of the $5 x 10^11 of said fraudulent activity has not even been addressed, as if it’s as good as in the bank. Doesn’t matter that this is being used to fund half of the deficit neutral behemoth bill right? or that nothing even approaching this amount has EVER been recovered from waste in any program anywhere, ever. And you can throw up as many hockey stick plots you want, for it is getting colder, unfortunately I know. But, seriously my fellow educated Americans, what is a thinking man suppose to do? Where does it end?.

But alas, choosing education over public expansion projects is not the easiest thing to do. There is no immediate return. Its not cheap. Its not for YOU and not for today, but for your children, and Tomorrow’s society, who will have to subsidize them otherwise. And that means you, if you are lucky enough to be there. Now that’s a bonafide sacrifice and comes with high probability payout. And for all you know, your child or possibly one in Madagascar, will change the world with his creativity.

And to bring this home, I am reminded why this whole ‘bending the curve’ baloney is just crazy. Wise is he who bets on, not against, the human spirit. Stephen Hawking was only supposed to live how long? and did what? I don’t know of any exam or questionnaire that could measure his lion-sized heart or potential at any stage in his life. And, since all people are equal, we must extend this to all. Ask yourself what the lowering of the upper end of the cost curve means. It means paying less for medical services for people in their later years than is paid out now.

Now they have a nice “Truth” made up hear for ya, if you want, you can believe that this will work because of increased efficiency. Their obscure idea is to ‘improve’ the system by paying only for an outcome (plus more waste elimination!) thus reducing those pesky unnecessary procedures. Of course, Ill believe that when I see it. Inevitably, they will be unable to provide the same amount of care. Funny thing here is, both manifestations seem to agree that you, the lucky in medicare, WILL have less procedures; one just claims those particular procedures will be ones which you don’t, or I guess ‘won’t', really need; which, again, I’ll believe when I see it.

I can’t help but sometimes see the proposed Health Care and Climate Crack as two heads of the same beast. Neither involves science or reasoning, only the proliferation of an unchallenged set of “Truths”. The only reasonable function of a 2000 page bill is to be intractable, so that no real debate on it could ever take place, and another set of more convenient “Truths” can be messaged, as needed.

Remember this problem is supposed to be about temperature change. I hope that the science of temperature change is not neglected in the pursuit of the science of CO2 change and proprietary computer modeling, not that they are not intimately related. I mean that these models should perform fair in predicting NON-catastrophic events, and have stability NOT requiring magic parameters. A crucial property here is continuity, meaning that the same program that predicts disaster in a hypothetical world, to be at all believable, should predict to some approximation, what we know to be correct in ours.

And for those who did NOT get the news flash, cause you probably won’t hear it elsewhere:

[Solar panels are NOT green] —- they may only be greenER, than something else, technically.

They may have zero carbon footprint, if we neglect fabrication and waste — whose counting anyway. Yet, as if to deprive full redemption, the mere act of exposing a solar panel to the sun, results in global warming.

- end post -

On that note, I still haven’t figured out how you grant one’s health as a right, and not their nourishment… or is that somewhere buried in the founding docs too.

americans who were born and came into adulthood before the Big Ag takeover after WW2 are of longer or the same life expectancy than comparable canadians/brits/etc.

american health is damaged by a food supply full of processed crap that is government funded. the solution is of course not more government funding for poor-quality health insurance (never actual CARE).

but whatever, this was all a power grab. we’ll never go back to a healthier food supply and we might just get stuck with another massive entitlement.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153583

One would like to think that one’s own health is a matter of personal choice and responsibility, not the machinations of a bureaucracy.
The problem with being healthy is that one lives longer and that will cost more. Better health care is self-defeating if financial reconing is the gain. The cost of health care in the U.S. would be a load less if the feds issued vodka and cigarettes to lower longevity.
Keep up the good work Goy and all. . .
There is still room for good reason.

http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/

This is categorically false. ER services are never ‘free’.

First of all SOMEONE has to absorb the expense of unpaid ER treatment. This unpaid expense drives up the cost of routine health care for the rest of us who DO pay for the services we receive.

Second, EMTALA statutes only require treatment regardless of ability to pay when the illness or injury is life-threatening. And even then, the only services that must be rendered are those necessary to stabilize the patient. Simply going to an ER doesn’t qualify the patient for ‘free’ care. In fact, ERs nationwide are overrun with non-emergency cases precisely BECAUSE people keep repeating the lie that ER services are “free” if you just claim you can’t pay for them.

This is a big part of the national mindset that has to change if we’re ever going to get routine health care costs back down into line with the rest of our routine costs of living.