Global Warming News

[keegs]

So what would be the difference, auto insurance is sold cross state lines.

I'm not an underwriter IH but states have their own insurance regulators and laws directing how insurance companies operate and how malpractice suits are handled.

There are provisions in the bills that address the issue of interstate competition that involve states agreeing to common insurance standards.

I'd add that both proposals were rejected by/under the prior republican controlled congress.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Actually, there was a reporter who spent several years investigating the rest of the industrialized world's health care systems. The simple summary, all the major ones worked better than ours at a much lower cost. All the complaints of the French system, for example, could be covered by increasing taxes to a level where health care would still cost much less than what health care costs here. But the French were not willing to do so because they received good health care. It was a very interesting hour long interview with comments from drs, patients, etc in these countries. His basic conclusion was that any system (gov. insurance/gov. health, gov. insurance/private health, private insurance/government health, private insurance/private health) worked as long as the insurance companies were all government or non-profit with government oversight.

In Germany I believe it was, most of the private non-profit insurance companies were divisions of for profit insurance companies. Everyone was required to have insurance. When asked, the insurance companies said it was a great system since they competed strongly for the clients because if you provided them with affordable good health care, they would purchase their mortgage, life insurance from the same place. The patients were happy. The drs felt underpaid.

The only system that seemed not to work was employer based health insurance with little oversight of for-profit insurance companies.

Ken

If you want a real world opinion of socialized medicine :
Google; BBC discussion of NHS funding crisis.
As you see from the comments, you can see what happens to anything that becomes "free". People use more of it, and the quality drops. If that is what you want, by all means support the current proposal.
But if you want to be able to continue get the best health care in the world, Sorry, you're going to have to pay for it.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

I'm not an underwriter IH but states have their own insurance regulators and laws directing how insurance companies operate and how malpractice suits are handled.

There are provisions in the bills that address the issue of interstate competition that involve states agreeing to common insurance standards.

I'd add that both proposals were rejected by/under the prior republican controlled congress.

Gee, does that mean competition actually leads to lower prices?

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

And now for the lastest proponent of AGW. The left welcomes no other than ***** Bin Laden. "By your friends, shall ye be known".

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

And now for the lastest proponent of AGW. The left welcomes no other than ***** Bin Laden. (APNEWS)"By your friends, shall ye be known".

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer-Don't understand where you where coming from on Democracy? My point with Medicare and Medicade is that these programs have not successfully been challenged in the courts. That leads me to believe that so far they are considered constitutional. If you have some insight that the other constitutional scholars have missed why not share it with them. I predict that even the current Supreme Court would not hear your case. Also was there any claim made in the site you criticized that has been challenged successfully on constitutional grounds. (it's easy to try to discredit the messenger) There are many things our government pursues that concern me way more than trying to assure basic medical care for everyone in the richest country in the world.


World Health Organization Studies
Ranking - USA #37
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems
Preventable Deaths
Preventable Deaths for selected countries, 1997-1998 and 2002-2003, issued 2008

I'm sure the W.H.O. is suspect since it doesn't have the professional input of our health industry lobbyists.

Loren

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer - After your Bin Laden claim - I must ask "Are you really Glenn Beck?" That claim is absurd!

Loren

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFarmer - After your Bin Laden claim - I must ask "Are you really Glenn Beck?" That claim is absurd!

Loren

Go to Drudge report follow the link to the Associated Press story.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Go to Drudge report follow the link to the Associated Press story.

And as I stated before, the only way to judge a news outlet is to measure the accuracy of their reporting. I would put Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Wall st. Journal up against New York times/Air America/Chris Matthews any time. Any takers?

 

[Pilot]

As this WAS a global warming thread, I hate to jump into an off-topic discussion, but here goes.

Death rates are a poor criteria, but that's what the politicians use. There are lots of factors that enter the picture that can account for differences in death rates that are unrelated to the health care system. 3 examples: 1. The USA is a large country; we drive farther and have higher death rates on the road because of it. That adds to the total. 2. Our obesity rates are higher than most countries although in some European countries they are working hard to catch up to us. That adds to the total. 3. We have a pretty high rate of gun deaths (no, this is not meant to be an anti-gun statement; it's just a fact that we shoot each other more often than they do in many other countries). That adds to the total. None of these factors have much to do with the health care system, but they contribute to the death rate reports, which is why death rates are a bogus criteria.

A better criteria is what happens when people USE the health care system. How often do people die after they are diagnosed with cancer, have a heart attack, etc? When you look at that, our system is right up there--not the best, but not bad, either. Actually top notch for some categories. Unfortunately, these numbers are harder to find than death rates, which are easy for agencies to summarize--count up death certificates and divide by the population and multiply by 1,000.

So ignore any argument based on death rates. It isn't relevant. The quality of our system isn't bad when measured by a proper standard.

Costs are another matter. Yup, our system is expensive. We have a large share of people who pay little or nothing but are still given treatment in our emergency rooms. Who pays for them? You and I. I just heard today that a recent estimate says that this boosts our health care costs by about 25%. I don't know if that is correct; it's just what I heard today. If that's right, throw in liability issues (not only lawsuits but defensive medicine, also) which boost costs about 5% and now you are talking about 30%. Take care of those two things & we wouldn't be far off from the European countries in cost.

One more factor: I have a doctor friend who attends meetings each week with a competing health care provider from the one he works for, just to be sure he is learning as much as he can. At a recent meeting, someone was touting some new treatment. Merrill asked how much it cost, compared to what they were doing before. No one knew. There was just no cost concern among the doctors.

So, do any of our problems with health care justify a 2,000 page bill to overhaul the system? Or maybe we just need identify and to fix certain problems? Do you buy a new car because the water pump and master cylinder are both going bad or do you fix them and go on your way?

So, can we talk about global warming again?

Anyone who wants to talk health care can start a health care thread.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Agreed,
So Loren49, are you in agreement with ***** Bin Laden.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFarmer-Don't understand where you where coming from on Democracy? My point with Medicare and Medicade is that these programs have not successfully been challenged in the courts. That leads me to believe that so far they are considered constitutional. If you have some insight that the other constitutional scholars have missed why not share it with them. I predict that even the current Supreme Court would not hear your case. Also was there any claim made in the site you criticized that has been challenged successfully on constitutional grounds. (it's easy to try to discredit the messenger) There are many things our government pursues that concern me way more than trying to assure basic medical care for everyone in the richest country in the world.


World Health Organization Studies
Ranking - USA #37
The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems
Preventable Deaths
Preventable Deaths for selected countries, 1997-1998 and 2002-2003, issued 2008

I'm sure the W.H.O. is suspect since it doesn't have the professional input of our health industry lobbyists.

Loren

If I may,
The difference between a pure democracy and a Representative republic, is that in a pure democracy, majority rules, in other words 50% + 1 does whatever it wants. In a representive republic, minorities are protected.
Their rights cannot be extinguished by a majority vote.
Which one do you want to live in?

 

[Pilot]

More global warming fraud:

From The Times Online (London Times)

"The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt."

"Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists."

"The IPCC痴 report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions."

"Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: 的 became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.

"...However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: 的 don稚 have anything to add on glaciers.

"The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change. "

"...Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. "

Ah, yes, follow the money!

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

More global warming fraud:

From The Times Online (London Times)

"The chairman of the leading climate change watchdog was informed that claims about melting Himalayan glaciers were false before the Copenhagen summit, The Times has learnt."

"Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it. He failed to act despite learning that the claim had been refuted by several leading glaciologists."

"The IPCC痴 report underpinned the proposals at Copenhagen for drastic cuts in global emissions."

"Dr Pachauri, who played a leading role at the summit, corrected the error last week after coming under media pressure. He told The Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: 的 became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.

"...However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: 的 don稚 have anything to add on glaciers.

"The Himalayan glaciers are so thick and at such high altitude that most glaciologists believe they would take several hundred years to melt at the present rate. Some are growing and many show little sign of change. "

"...Dr Pacharui has also been accused of using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. "

Ah, yes, follow the money!

Great Post,
Did you happen to see the link in the story to "The Green Rich" about where Warren Buffett, Bill Gates et al are putting their money.
Bill Gates is investing in a company called Sapphire Energy that is working on producing crude from algae.
Think of the possibilities of that!
The interesting part of the story is that the company was started by scientists who saw that ethanol was not the answer to our needs. So who was pushing ethanol production? Politicians from corn growing states?
As I said before the most efficient way to "allocate scarce resources with alternative uses" is the free market. And that applies to AGW(If it exists) and health care.(Sorry!)

 

[Pilot]

Yes, the biofuel from algae research has been going on for some time now. Haven't seen much on it lately, but earlier it seemed to have great potential. What they are looking for is to genetically engineer the algae to get it to produce more fuel for less input and in a shorter time. And they will do research on what inputs are needed, fertilizer or whatever to maximize output at the lowest cost.

Then I suspect there will be those who will want to market "organic" biofuel no genetic engineering, no inputs other than pure water and pure sunlight from the unpolluted high peaks of the Andes.

On the serious side, I do have hopes for fuel from algae. I had expected some breakthroughs by now, but so far, the research plods along.

 

[dave1949]

Yes, the biofuel from algae research has been going on for some time now. Haven't seen much on it lately, but earlier it seemed to have great potential. What they are looking for is to genetically engineer the algae to get it to produce more fuel for less input and in a shorter time. And they will do research on what inputs are needed, fertilizer or whatever to maximize output at the lowest cost.

Then I suspect there will be those who will want to market "organic" biofuel no genetic engineering, no inputs other than pure water and pure sunlight from the unpolluted high peaks of the Andes.

On the serious side, I do have hopes for fuel from algae. I had expected some breakthroughs by now, but so far, the research plods along.

Saw a program about this on the History Channel this week. They have a power plant in AZ where they capture the CO2 from the stacks and use it to feed algae, which in turn can be used to make fuel and a couple other things. They are in the pilot/development stage now but are expanding that. They said, for the power plant in the show, it would have to surrounded by 2000 acres of algae 'farms' to totally utilize the CO2 available - using their current technology.

The AZ sunshine helps no doubt. They do run cooling tubes through the algae soup to keep the mixture at the optimal algae growth range.

But they are gaining confidence it is a net energy producing technique, plus some useful by-products, and reduces CO2 emissions at the same time.
Dave.

 

[dave1949]

If I may,
The difference between a pure democracy and a Representative republic, is that in a pure democracy, majority rules, in other words 50% + 1 does whatever it wants. In a representive republic, minorities are protected.
Their rights cannot be extinguished by a majority vote.
Which one do you want to live in?

Good Morning,
There are some minorities who would argue that is not the way it is actually working out for them . That's a touchy subject, but there are other examples that do bear out your point.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Good Morning,
There are some minorities who would argue that is not the way it is actually working out for them . That's a touchy subject, but there are other examples that do bear out your point.
Dave.

You are ,of course referring to Republicans?
Sorry, couldn't help it!

 

[dave1949]

You are ,of course referring to Republicans?
Sorry, couldn't help it!

Good one. LOL
Nah, there's nothing 'touchy - feely' about your average Republican
Dave.

 

[turbo36]

And as I stated before, the only way to judge a news outlet is to measure the accuracy of their reporting. I would put Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Wall st. Journal up against New York times/Air America/Chris Matthews any time. Any takers?

I accept the Wall Street Journal as a legitimate News Source ( with an agenda to promote their political leanings) The rest of you sources are just entertainers.

Rush has many times freely admitted that his is an entertainer and that he does not have to live by what hew preaches. IE: multiple divorces, drug addiction etc, etc.

Glenn Beck is so credible

Leaked video: Glenn Beck 爽ses Vicks to cry on cue | Raw Story