We've heard a lot about the fact that the federal website for purchasing health care wasn't working well. We know that Obama had said that if you are happy with your policy you can keep it, but it turns out the ACA requires insurance companies to meet certain standards. So if you previously had some sort of rip off policy that may have been cancelled. So this means Obama lied. My sense is that these stories have been covered a lot.
What's been covered less is some of the stuff that Paul Krugman discusses related to costs. So far, as I've discussed previously, the ACA looks to be doing what it was designed to do. Reign in our out of control and unsustainable cost problem. This is leading to other positive results not often discussed. A lot of people don't know that our deficit is falling faster than it has fallen in 60 years. I told a conservative friend that after he complained about government spending recently. He just didn't believe me.
Fox News has dished up several stories from people that have been harmed by Obama Care. Turns out those stories are simply bogus. Here's one example. But my sense is that there are a lot of stories on the flip side. People that previously had no real options. Living with bumps under their skin, rashes, and just unable to do anything about it in this, the richest country in the world. Take a look at this interesting story about poor people in Kentucky finally getting some access to health services.
So costs coming down, touching stories of people with no options finally getting some options, a deficit that's falling fast. This is what the Republicans shut the government down to prevent. This is what prompted them to finally go nuclear.
They're not wrong to go nuclear. They know where this leads. Healthier people, smaller deficits, lower costs. Their credibility will take a pounding, and that's what matters most, not the lives of real people.
49 comments:
Wool over eyes again I see. Check out what George Will is saying about healthcare and do some research - start asking the working folks out there how they like losing their 'crappy' healthcare to pay double for just as crappy coverage. How about the University who recently dropped their $50 month healthcare for their students now they have to pay 3 and 4 times more. Cost redistribution is not cost savings. Charging me and my wife more for our healthcare to pay for others to have 'affordable' healthcare is not reducing costs.
I love your deficit argument - it shows exactly how far off reality you are.
2013 - the MOST collected tax income EVER. Something like $2.7 Trillion bucks. Thank the Republicans for the deficit reductions because of the sequester is the big player and oh by the way the $680 billion deficit budget is still the 5th highest budget deficit EVER! He is not paying down a damn thing and besides when you take the deficit from what 6 trillion to $20 trillion in 5 years - then your suddenly excited that Obama (not him really - more the TP holding gov't hostage thank God) has slowed deficit spending to $680 billion - really? Also I think the measuring stick starts in the 90's - because before then wasn't there pretty much a surplus?
How about a balance budget admendment then? You must be on board with that since all is good in the kingdom - right?
Look - 2014 or when ever the business portion of this train wreck hits - that is when all hell is going to break loose. Employers, doctors and insurance companies are terrified. Guys with cancer who speak up about losing their coverage because of Obama Care suddenly get audited. Tea Party folks - audited, businesses fighting Obama - audited.
Chad, I'm talking about overall health care expenditures, not the amount one particular individual, like you, pays in premiums. Overall health care costs have risen the lowest amount in 50 years, which is going a long way towards helping our deficit problem, which is largely a Medicare problem. This is a good thing, right?
So on the one hand you say the deficit improvement is thanks to Republicans but on the other this is the 5th highest budget ever. Is that thanks to Republicans?
Also - how many people remain without insurance? Isn't it true that all this mess covered only a small percentage of the uninsured.
Isn't it also true that the entire structure of the cost reduction is based on forcing young people to sign up - another words those among us who actually have the least amount of money will be forced to pay (like the university students found out) x amount for something they won't be using. You complain about student loans and those costs, but forced insurance costs are okay?
I have been hearing that the average age benchmark is way off an no one can predict the actual costs until the final numbers come in. Unfortunately I think part of the strategy was in fact the hope that insurance companies dumped people to get more numbers, but I think the big numbers are scaring the hell out of the formula.
I had my kids dentist, pediatrician and our neighbor the health insurance agent over for "The Game" and let me tell you it was enlightening! Those are the folks you need to be talking with my friend.
The consensus is that once Obama Care is fully rolled out the divide is going to be bigger and more profound as ever. The insurance companies will cater to those that make/have money - happily sending the poor into Medicare/Medicaid which is basically where they go now and doctors will do the same thing - aligning with or taking only specific insurance which basically pre-qualifies the clients as well. Our PED believes that the insurance companies are planning on matching or bettering plans for the young people who normally don't need care undermining the cost formula. Think about it - Obama wants to dictate what doctors make which they don't like, he wants to tell insurance companies how to run their business - not good. And young people will look for the cheapest possible plan. Put that in a blender and I think they might be onto something. The private market could actually do something that Gov't can not - destroy OC.
Anyway it was eye opening.
No bud - Obama and the Dems hated the sequester - they wanted to spend spend spend. The credit for only being the 5th worst deficit is only because the Rep's took away some of the credit cards.
Obama Care has not been implemented - its not really active so the lowest cost increase has absolutely nothing to do with OC. Besides the big ticket items haven't even been turned loose yet pal.
My family insurance was raised the highest amount in the 12 years my wife has been at Cintas, but I know I don't count since we are the earners.
One last point my friend - why - if OC is so awesome - have they given so many exemptions to the big Labor groups and others?
Actually I don't think the ACA is awesome. The point in your first comment is valid. Millions are still without insurance under ACA. It's an example of how Obama is owned by corporations that want profits. Single payer solves this. We know it works. It works everywhere it is tried. But that doesn't keep revenue flowing into the pockets of the lobbyists that run our government.
Yes, you do have to have everyone sign up. On this for profit system this is the only way to eliminate the pre-existing condition restriction. You can't have people refusing to pay their whole life, then they get cancer and now sign up. That would bankrupt everything. That would be like allowing people to not pay car insurance until they got in an accident.
You'd probably just tell such people that they are screwed. In other words you prefer the prior system. That's what it did. But what that system does is traps others that end up with pre-existing conditions through no fault of their own (company downsizes, you're without insurance briefly, now you develop a condition and your life is pretty much over from a financial standpoint). Also that prior system was resulting in sky high and unsustainable cost increases.
I'm with you on the wait and see mentality for costs. Yeah, this is very early. Preliminary indications look good though. You can't complain when you see lower cost increases than we've seen in 50 years. Maybe it will all explode in 2014. We'll see if this new prediction of yours holds up. I'll come back in a year and see.
Profits are a good thing FYI. Competition is an extremely good thing.
You keep mentioned cost are down - down are costs, but where is that true? I keep seeing (more and more now that the main stream media sees Obama taking a nose dive to 39% approval) articles like this continue to surface more and more.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/
While the premiums only rose 3.3% in 2013 for a truck load of reasons that your avoiding because many reasons don't fit your narrative - the out of pocket expenses rose 13.3% for the individual. Obviously that suggests people choose a larger deductible to keep their monthly payment in check and your waiving the flag of victory - see OC works to drive down costs when net net - it has done no such thing.
Well OC is now safely under the blanket of the gov't - no matter how bad it ends up, terrible the numbers turn out to be somehow they will figure out who to tax or jail or what have you to twist and turn the numbers to look okay. That is the beauty of passing bad legislation - it is forever.
To fill in the blanks for my comment about many reasons why costs by percentage have been lower.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/06/16/its-the-cost-sharing-stupid-health-care-spending-is-slowing-because-americans-control-their-own-health-dollars/
I don't particularly think profits are a good thing. Suppose you had an individual restaurant. Every waitress made $1,000,000/yr. So did every cook. So did the cashier and the bus boy and everyone that worked there. And in the end their business made zero dollars in profit (merely broke even). That's success in my view. Remember, profit is only the share of money that goes to the non-working people involved. We're conditioned to think that's the most important thing because obviously the people with all the money want to keep getting more without having to work. I prefer to see the people that actually do the work getting paid, so I don't jump up and down for high profits. Profits are money created by workers that they aren't allowed to keep. It must go to non-working people.
Your article at Forbes says premiums are going up. This is entirely plausible. Obama Care requires policies to meet certain minimum standards. Sub standard policies are eliminated. So the premiums go up, but the flip side is instead of poor people going to the ER for routine care, since they have a sub standard policy or no policy at all, they go to the doctor earlier. So premiums go up but OVERALL health care costs are rising at the slowest rate we've seen in 50 years. Now, for corporate funded think tanks like the Manhattan Institute, which has a pretty strong record of fraud in service to wealth, which is standard for right wing think tanks, this positive outcome has to be spun like it's a bad thing. It's better to have premiums go up and overall costs go down in my book. When poor people go to the ER that ends up getting paid. It's reflected in our tax rates and our prior premium hikes. This is a better way to administer care.
Where I work premiums are going up a bit, but it's not unlike what's been going on as long as I've been working here. That's because the policy my employer provided allowed me to go to the doctor when I was sick, etc. In other words, it was not considered a sub standard policy. Obviously if you are moving from a piece of crap policy to something decent it will cost more, but overall it's an improvement over what existed before in terms of overall costs to Americans.
It's still not sinking in for ya - every waiter, waitress, line cook, engineer, salesman in this United States can venture out on their own - individually or as a group and start their own business handing out salaries and cash in any way they want. Profits are a great great thing - CEO's making $10 mil a year is a great thing - that means the industry - whatever the industry can support new competition. I would be scared if CEO's and Presidents of companies salaries where lets say $100k at Ford.
Problem being the Left is so lazy it's easier to point and take versus work and make.
So you and Obama are the folks who get to determine what policies are good and or bad - your the arbiter of people's health. For you it's awesome that a 'crap policy' that can be afforded today is dropped and a new more comprehensive coverage is FORCED on them at a cost they can not afford. Awesome plan.
Your answer to everything out there against your narrative is that they are tied to right wing think tanks or profits - not that the data is wrong, but it's skewed due to their position?
Your still missing the points being made by our medical field - the doctors - the manufacturers - the drug companies - your just not listening to them tell you and the left that the level of care WILL be reduced when Gov't dictates costs. It's simple math Jon - simple logic here my friend. If doctor A is only allowed to make B for said visit and his costs are Y and they all don't add up then they put assistants on the welfare train, they buy second rate equipment, they buy cheaper needles and lower quality (cheaper) version of medicine to turn a profit or they simply quit.
That ripple effect continues right down the supply hair - Stryker has already laid off 10% of their work force with another 10% scheduled in 2014 when OC kicks in full. Name the medical supplier and I will show you a company shrinking because of OC.
And by the way - Fox article today outlined what I mentioned before. Of the six states taking about enrollment - the average age is WAY WAY off of where it needs to be to balance the 'original lie' by Obama that we would all save $2,500 per household.
Scientists predictions wrong by a mile, but they are forgiven. Obama/Left said oh the healthcare will cost only $850 billon - off by double, you vpcan keep your HC/Doctor - lie, lie lie and lie, but the Manhattan Institute should be discarded - c'mon JC.
You need to make some calls to the working people I work with - fab shops, guys/gals that get their hands dirty and ask them how much they like OC. Your liable to get your head taken off by mentioned gene frauds name.
I have dozens and dozens of examples I could share with you - hundreds if you add up all our sales guys in the field of horror stories of this mess. To you it's great - pull the majority down two or three notches to the level of the poor.
The 18-34 demographic hates OC - where are they going to find the extra money? Men of that age make 1.8 visits per year - this entire house of cards is to FORCE that group to pay. Over 60% in a recent poll of that demographic said they are paying the fine and moving on.
Here is what I don't get Jon and I am being very serious - you can organize the Left, you can start an insurance company, you can put together a network of doctors who all believe as you do. Without law, without force you can offer the same coverage as OC for everyone or ore specifically the poor. It may cost you and the earners who also believe as you do 10-15% of your wages, but it can be done. Why force everyone?
Chad, I'm saying suppose a few people started their own restaurant, each was paid a million in salary, and they showed no profit. Is this failure?
Regarding sub-standard policies, the idea is if people don't have a policy that actually covers them then they go to the ER and get treatment. That's about the most inefficient way to go about it. They can't pay, so the taxpayer does, or insurance companies increase their rates and the rest of us pay. If you want to eliminate the pre-existing condition exception you have to mandate that everyone gets a policy that does meet certain minimum requirements. It's not enough to say you can buy a crap policy, because then they buy a crap policy until they get really sick, and then they upgrade to something decent. It doesn't work. If you have a different means of eliminating the pre-existing condition exception tell us what it is.
Take your simple math about how government involvement causes problems and tell it to France, Germany, the UK, and all the other nations that provide better care than we do for less money. A lot less money. Your equations may work in your head, but take a look at the real world.
Go ahead and complain that Obama lies. I don't deny it. He's biased. He's pushing an agenda, like the Manhattan Institute. That's why I don't cite Obama as a credible source, and you shouldn't cite the Manhattan Institute.
You complain that what I'm suggesting is a system that is forced. But to answer your question in a serious way, I honestly think you don't consider what actually works. You have this notion of freedom and you're prepared to drive off a cliff and kill the whole family just to sustain it. Maybe on global warming you can see that total freedom can't be permitted, because your ability to be free affects others. And I say that's true in health care. "Just let everyone do what they want" and allow insurance companies to lobby, rip us off, and leave millions in a position where they can't afford care actually kills people. 45K per year. Total freedom would be a great thing, but the kind of freedom you advocate actually leads to a lot of death and suffering. I don't necessarily want big government, but I'm viewing it as a choice between bad alternatives. I'm advocating the least bad system, one that doesn't have us on an unsustainable cost path, producing overall bad outcomes.
Absolutely not a failure and that sounds a lot like small businesses all over the country - minus the million dollars per person the company I work for does this - we attempt to damn near empty the coffers at the end of the year - profit sharing throughout the entire company except for the Pres/Owner - he takes nothing. Yes it is a play against taxes/taxable profits especially in Illinois - we attempt to give them as little as a possible and being very profitable at years end is not a good thing so as a company bonuses are handed out each year that we show profitability.
I would be in favor and support it if 100 Wal Mart employees started Employee Mart at an adjacent building reaching out to all the vendors, to be self financed (no investors) and to compete against the Walton's. As a matter of principal Jon - all things equal I would shop at Employee Mart over Wally World especially if they paid their employees the way that my company does. We do that today - I shop at the local IGA or Dorothy Lane Market for most of our food because the owners live in my town. Is Wally World cheaper - yep, but the money stays in town and they offer additional services/special things that Wally can't/won't. They hire better butchers, they pay attention to the customers needs and its a relationship when we walk through the door. The Manager and employees seem to be happy and well paid.
So what's your point?
The freedom I advocate leads to death and suffering? Try explaining that one while making any sense at all.
It's totally mind boggling and very sad that you attempt to tie death and suffering to my beliefs in individual responsibility and personal freedoms. No one - not even the most Libertarian person I know wants no Gov't, this is a nation of laws and we need laws.
It's a shame on many levels that you hold me financially responsible for my family, my community and then for people who care nothing about my freedoms and who's action I can not change - actions that I am not allowed to change. You want me to care two shits about their freedom when you have absolutely no interest in holding them responsible for their actions?
Your a scary man sir.
Just because a human being is born into this world and they take their first breath of the very same oxygen we share does not tie me financially to that person for all their life. If that is the case then the very moment they need something from me - the moment they take a piece of my freedom - then they should forfeit certain freedoms so until that happens I am not interested in the suffering you talk about - it is self inflicted suffering.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oM-n_UPO8-c&feature=youtube_gdata_player
He has been predicting results for years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cND195pHO3U&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Apologies in advance for being a little salty, but its tough to have an honest discussion when you think that my position or the position of the Right wants people to suffer or bad things to happen because it just so far from the truth that it is a bit silly.
Basic Laws are put in place to protect common freedoms we all get to share in the US and they are needed. A basic form of gov't is the same - from the Federal gov't side the Constitution tells them what they can and can not do - what is being done with Soc Sec/Education and now Health Care was never supposed to be controlled by a federal gov't - regardless of the results. Like in Mass. each State should be responsible for their own health care and if the citizens deem they can setup Soc Sec and they can run the states education for public schools - not the Federal Gov't.
There is the point sir. One size does not and will not ever fit all.
Like Wilkow points out - there is no way that on average the person who is indoctrinated into Soc Sec and Health Care will ever ever ever see a return on their investment. For healthcare they will pay in all there working life then when it comes time for the liver transplant at age 65 - it will be denied by gov't because it is a better plan to give that liver to the 20 year old who is just starting to pay.
Again I go back to a simple idea - if a gov't idea is good enough it should be able to stand on its own. No forced participation.
Sorry Chad I'm not ignoring you just got a little busy I'll get back to this.
In response to your first comment, what's my point? My point is profit is overvalued. Showing profit doesn't necessarily imply a good thing.
Total freedom obviously leads to death and suffering. If you are totally free to pollute our rivers and streams for instance this can easily kill. This is why total freedom is not a good thing. That seems pretty uncontroversial to me, I don't know how you can say that it makes no sense to you.
Those are some seriously out there right wing rants. Bashing immigrants, gays. Just a generally hostile guy, outraged at the notion that some of his hard earned money might be used to feed a hungry child. Pretty sad. And unnatural. I don't think people naturally feel that way about malnourished children. If you see a kid that's hungry, even if his parents were irresponsible, you don't feel the urge to feed him? We have the means to do it and we should, even though the parents made bad choices.
"So if you previously had some sort of rip off policy that may have been cancelled"
The fact remains that so many have been happy with their coverage (not "rip off") and Obamacare is forcing them to lose it.
----------
Chad said: "Thank the Republicans for the deficit reductions because of the sequester"
Thank the Republicans for the defecit starting to go down, and for ending the jobs killing "stimulus" packages.
----------
Jon said: "outraged at the notion that some of his hard earned money might be used to feed a hungry child."
Not really. The main outrage is that our rulers steal from us while claiming to want to help the poor. Then they line their pockets and pay off their cronies. The best way to help the poor is to help the poor, not help yourself.
Obama is not "owned by corporations". That is a baseless conspiracy theory. He has proved himself to be a hardline left-fascist because he HAS said that his first choice is single-payer: a total monopoly in which the rulers decide and the patients do not.
Profits should never be under valued IMO - they are the engine to creation and great things. It also breeds evil as well, but net net it is a great thing.
You proved my point - no one advocates the total freedom that your trying to lay at my feet. We are nation of laws - laws to protect our freedoms and they are very much needed. Where those laws stop or how they are born are topics we are trying to discuss.
So when you think that the end game is total destruction by freedom then it is very difficult to have a meaningful discussion with you.
About the bashing - that is to easy of a target. That is a cop out to an honest discussion. No one wants a child to go hungry, but at some point and time if one side is not willing to address the actual root cause then numbness sets in and the distain (not hatred) encompasses the child and or the situation as well. Another words if I step up and say that I will feed 1 child not my own from now until they turn 18 and we find enough willing people to all do the same and we end child poverty tomorrow - what happens when an entirely new recipient group adds an entirely new army of un-fed children? Are we supposed to smile, wave our hat and add a second then a third child to the mix?
You want social programs to work and so do we. For the Right it is a ROI situation - we'll give a percent or two, but stop the bleeding - if a certain amount of freedom must be taken from someone - then make sure it is taken first and foremost from the person who is infringing on other peoples freedom.
A little late to this but I think this article (click here) does a great job of addressing Paul Krugmans points.
dmarks
["He has proved himself to be a hardline left-fascist because he HAS said that his first choice is single-payer: a total monopoly in which the rulers decide and the patients do not."
Not true : hard line left-fascist
Mixes contradictory terms.
Secondly Preferring single payer does
not mean one option. In fact it uses Capitalist concepts i.e. Big Purchaser= best bulk by strategy e.g. cheapest price per unit. the beneficiaries are the Govt share holders n.e. the people.
Take for example sake the Australian model... the Govt negotiates a rebate level for each service.
It is them up to the private Insurance Companies to offer above and beyond coverage for extras service levels etc i.e. your own Dr, a private room, choice of private or public hospital and speed of attention in 'non life threatening' issues.
e.g. you want a nip and tuck plastic surgery your private insurance co determines how much they will rebate.
In the public system you'd wait years for such a trivial (discretionary) procedure.
In Aus there are no less than 20 HMO insurance companies offering a overwhelming list of options and packages. There are additionally 4 companies (I know of) that will broker the best deal/options for you and yours. To ensure every one who can afford it takes out private insurance the government offers tax rebates towards the insurance premiums and taxes people more if after 30years of age don't(this helps pay for their extra use of the public system). Also note that the later you join up after 30 the higher your premiums are than otherwise would be . Because I came late to Aust I pay 15% more for my premiums that a long term payer would. At my age I'm likely to use more expensive services.
I can change HMO when ever I choose (conditions being equal)
Here you'd have a political blood bath if you tried to change the system.
The big + is that no citizen is denied health care.
Most practices can and do choose to have a mix of private and Govt rebate only patients. Low income pensioners, unemployed etc are issued with a health card for rebate only service.
Practitioners can choose their level of fees etc. i.e. govt rebate+ HMO difference and even user out of pockets.
NB Chad, no HMO insurance co has gone broke or stopped operating in the field.
HP, that looks like something that might have been written by the president of a right wing Koch funded think tank.
I am not understanding. Does that mean that the article which cites many credible sources and contrary data should be discarded because of his affiliation with an opposite view of the Far Left Economist?
Jon,
It does. Full of facts and citations. Just the way that annoys you. :-)
You can argue with a corporate PR agent, and he'll have facts at his disposal. But he's always getting it wrong in favor of his company. Arguing with him is fine if you find it entertaining or if you have free time, which I sometimes do, but he's really not trustworthy and certainly not a credible source.
Next time I'll try to stick to linguists, youtube videos,and journalists for my sources.
Hispanic: It does somehow seem like a convenient way for some people to dismiss difficult and challenging facts without actually doing any sort of thinking to challenge them. And to them it is bad when the think tanks receive some funding from the Koch brothers (who use their Constitutionally protected free speech rights to advocate for the interests of the people) and good when George Soros uses his rights to advocate for more and more power for those who rule over us.
You'd be wise to rely on the world's top public intellectual or credible journalists. Relying on those with a proven track record of fraud on behalf of corporate profits (climate change denial, tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer) is unwise.
Interesting that you mentioned a track record.
A quick Google search of Krugman uncovers waves of inconsistency and incorrect statements, miss leading facts and being wrong a lot. When one of his guesses hit - good gravy he makes sure everyone knows and makes as much money as he can because of being right once in a while. Not entirely sure he is batting .500 in his career to be honest. Meanwhile - since he never ran a business to my knowledge - he also profits endlessly on the assumptions (not actual experience in business) to make even more money. Playing up to the crowd.
Scientist? Again - how far off are they allowed to be on Climate Change before they can be called out onto the carpet? The first Scientist/Champion for Global Warmer told us we would be on fire now and oceans would be gone?
A similar toned down version was sold to the world for a decade until the latest report comes out and it was a big oops. Results are not following predictions, but wait - we are still 100% (actually 95%) sure that we are right so please send your check to PO Box 205 - You are a Sucker, USA.
Please see -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html
I mean look - they just are now realizing and admitting the following;
"Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at it’s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: “'Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”
Chad: Those who peddle the discredited global warming theories are very deeply into power and profit. They only want people to think that the skeptics and other informed scientists are all being paid to question baseless hoaxes.
One prime example is Albert W. Gore Jr. the man who lost the 2000 Presidential election. He has made himself very rich on the global warming scam. Then there are those involved in "greenscam (Solyndra, etc) where ObamaCo shovels billions into the wallets of hucksters and funding factories in China.
Also don't forget that the main "evidence" and case for global warming came from East Anglia. The shamster, Michael Mann, was caught faking the case. Basing it on fiction. His reaction was to sue those who told the truth, and to treat the scientific facts like corporate secrets. Which they are, in a way: the case for global warming is based on avarice and greed of those who destroy science in order to get rich and powerful.
Agreed - Dmarks - Jon and I have engaged in several versions of this discussion in the past. The scientific community is enjoying nearly unlimited funding during the Global Warming era. They need the data to work and by God they will make it fit - they will discard what ever evidence hurts the narrative.
With that said - I think you will agree that collecting honest data, evaluating cause and affect on nature, making sure this wonderful resource we use (earth) is not destroyed is important evidence to collect.
Chad said: "The scientific community is enjoying nearly unlimited funding during the Global Warming era"
I disagree with your use of "scientific community." Those who cook their science to follow the approved dogma of the ruling elites get the funding.
But overall you have an excellent point. The funding comes from the rulers, who take it from the people at gunpoint to fund their pet projects that have absolutely nothing to do with the legitimate duties of government under our Constitition.
". They need the data to work and by God they will make it fit - they will discard what ever evidence hurts the narrative."
"By God" is right. In an ironic way. The global warming hoax industry is one of faith and corruption. Much like, say, the Vatican operations of the Middle Ages. There are even examples of the global warming faithful wanting freethinkers persecuted as heretics:
this article
"The idea that ‘climate change denial’ is a psychological disorder – the product of a spiteful, wilful or simply in-built neural inability to face up to the catastrophe of global warming – is becoming more and more popular amongst green-leaning activists and academics."
This is exactly how the Vatican treated heretics back then, and how socialist governments of the 20th century (and lingering North Korea) treated those who questioned socialism.
Another example of this persecution is found in the policies of the IRS under Obama, which seek to harass people and deny non-profit status of organizations if people in these organizations speak out against the ruling order.
More on this comment from Chad: "With that said - I think you will agree that collecting honest data, evaluating cause and affect on nature, making sure this wonderful resource we use (earth) is not destroyed is important evidence to collect."
Exactly. There are real and dangerous pollutants, such as sulfuric acid and mercury, that need to be controlled. Attention to these has actually been scaled back due to attention on a harmless substance: carbon.
Krugman was right about how fueling housing purchases in 2003 would pull us out of recession, right in saying in 2006 that it had gone too far and had created a bubble that could seriously harm our economy, continued the warnings in 2008 as he was ridiculed by conservatives for being too doom and gloom, right that the austerity response in Greece, Spain, and Ireland was the wrong approach as he was ridiculed by conservatives, went out on a limb calling out the inflation hawks big time, who claimed enormous inflation was coming, right that Obama's stimulus was too small to really pull us out, but it was better than nothing.
A university study contrasted something like 12 popular pundits and their predictive ability. Krugman came out on top. Sure, if you act as a pundit writing twice weekly columns for decades you'll get it wrong sometimes. But he's way in front of right wing think tanks, telling us we'll be greeted as liberators in Iraq, how deregulated finance will help the economy enormously, how Clinton's tax hikes will crash the economy and Bush's tax hikes will lead to prosperity, tobacco is good for you, etc.
I already explained to you how corrections at the poles show that the climate models now look better than before. I'll still put my money on scientists over Koch PR agents.
So if (by way of my investment portfolio) I can prove that I felt the same as Krugman about a market segment without knowing who Krugman even was at the time then I can pass as an economist?
I predict the cost of fuel will go up! At so e point I will be right too.
What again with the Over the top absolute conclusions.
Yes gents, there are scientific illiterate emotionally driven individuals on both sides of the debate.
The claim that there is a condition that defines the denier is well over stated (at best it's a 2.5-3 out of 10)
As I quoted some time back this all traces back to a research paper that concludes that there is a statistical significance between a specific genetic situation and those who tend to have a potentiality towards religion and belief structures.
Sorry Chad it's not gobbledy gook just stating the fact in their entirety. That means of those they tested a statistically significant number showed this genetic factor. What it doesn't mean is that it explains all or even most deniers' thinking. It is way more complicated one needs to take into consideration are other genetic factors that may or may not counter the arrangement, there may be other genetic combinations that can result in similar traits.... then there is conditioning and or circumstance.
Yes it's still worthy of note but what it isn't is an absolute Nothing ever is!
What you are seeing is the unreliability of taking journalists literally it's a combination of 'whispers and ignorance'.
BTW the original paper was written by a Genetic Behavioural Psychologist researcher not a clinical one. The latter helps people neuroses. (fears phobias) and behavioural modification.
Now let's try to explain why a geologist or any singular (and or discipline) scientist can't reasonably disprove AGW (sic)
Simply put they are either aren't comparing apples with apples or they are dealing with a very small part of the conclusion.
e.g. A geologist will tell you There has been Global warmings before......True But the conditions that determines weather/climate were vastly different than today.
The factors that effect weather/climate are never exactly from one day/decade to the next much less when it comes to multiples like centuries, 1000's, or millions of years... they are constantly changing. The greater the distance in time the less precise/applicable the comparisons are.
In the often quoted 300million year AGW:
a> The world's spin was way faster. A day was sub 18 hrs long. The year was 241 days long
b> the moon was very much closer, the combined gravitational effect of it and the sun would have been much more dramatic to the earth. The equinox tides are calculated have been about 1-3 miles as opposed to today the max ( in a bay in Canada) is between 40-50 feet. Clearly this would have changed the factors that effect the weather/climate.
c> The Sun was much smaller and cooler.
d> The location of the land masses would have been very different (tectonic plate movement). Antarctic/Australia etc were still together forming Gondwana tropical super continent.
e> Clearly sea currents would have been very different. All of these amongst other influences would have driven a totally different climate. Different refection (albedo effect), rainfall patterns either more evenly spread or less. Either way that would have effected the climate.
None of this is taught in detail to any one discipline. Climate restructuring or specifics like these are irrelevant to geologists their concern is largely the crust, it's structure and composition
Plate tectonics isn't a smooth or constant. It is influenced by a myriad of things from the alternating magnetic polarity, because it effects the earth's magma flows, volcanoes, earth quakes. It can even be influenced by the weather. Vulcanologists now recognised that floods can wash away top soil reducing the dampening effect of the soil's weight on slowing/stopping the movement between two sides of a fault and containing gas trapped in the crust preventing it from fracturing (creating a weakness for other forces to exacerbate new volcanoes.) Recent research has show in one part of Peru, within 2 years after every major flood a major earth movement occurs.
Added to this there are subducted undissolved pieces of the original continent Rodinia moves independent. under the crustal plates that can cause under sea quakes (where the crust is thinnest)/ tsunamis, new volcanic openings and significant height movements up or down in the crust particularly in coast lines.
Volcanoes clearly effect the atmosphere and therefore the weather/climate.
Let's be clear there are many imponderables about ACC and the detail Quantum or timing of the effects.
What I've written here is a synopsis 20+ different disciplines (100s of thousands research measurements and testing. 10 of thousand researcher and scientists) and more specialisations.
Keep in mind never before has there been so many scientists all with their own interest opinions, and growing daily, much less that being involved in any other project. The fact that they have arrived at a general consensus of relevant disciplines, speculations renders the notion of that many conspirators in a grand conspiracy utterly preposterous. All one has to do is look at say the Congress of United States to see how hard a consensus even among the same party is.
All this together renders a minority of dissenting single discipline scientist or from unrelated fields influencing basically scientifically illiterate, selfish populous in denial as ludicrously unrealistic.
Jon,
What do you think of this President?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/uruguay-president-jose-mujica
I'm researching him now!
Of course I love what I've been hearing. Not sure if your article said it, but I think he gives away most of his salary, lives in his shack rather than the presidential palace. Similar things with Pope Francis, right? The guy's actually moving in a Christian direction, likewise living in the guest quarters, driving a Ford Focus. I think the example they are setting is doing great things. Excessive consumption is unnecessary, doesn't make you happier, and harms the world. Hopefully more will emulate these people.
He lives in an old one bedroom farm house with his acting vice president wife...he drives an old VW Beetle. and has only two police guards at his gate!
Naturally the righties point to his Robin Hood communist days and they whinge about his his failings but 3% growth rate etc isn't to be sneezed at.
He recycles every thing too
He lives in an old one bedroom farm house with his acting vice president wife...he drives an old VW Beetle. and has only two police guards at his gate!
Naturally the righties point to his Robin Hood communist days and they whinge about his his failings but 3% growth rate etc isn't to be sneezed at.
He recycles every thing too
"Naturally the righties point to his Robin Hood communist..."
Would you praise someone with, say, an extensive Nazi past, if they lived frugally now?
Dmarks,
False equivalence not even close analogy.
What part of 'robin hood' giving money and food to the poor don't you understand? Even the founding fathers didn't do that! The nazi's certainly didn't do that either.
Oh yes, you mean von Braun and his fellow nazi rocket scientist's the same ones who were behind US dominance of missile/Rocket technology.
BTW I'm not saying he's perfect or even a role model. Nor am I sanctioning his methods of the past.
Merely that some of his current practices/ideals are worthy of note. Jon admires ascetics.
And that righties live in a bubble of extremes (absolutes).
It's the same as Mandela was a communist and member of a 'terrorist( revolutionary) organization. Unlike the righties' and their binary (on steroid) judgemental/thinking (which in practical terms is naive and hypercritical)
I accept two human immutables nobody is perfect and circumstances(which side you're on)/Culture(subjective filtering) determines right and wrong.
Dmarks,
False equivalence not even close analogy.
What part of 'robin hood' giving money and food to the poor don't you understand? Even the founding fathers didn't do that! The nazi's certainly didn't do that either.
Oh yes, you mean von Braun and his fellow nazi rocket scientist's the same ones who were behind US dominance of missile/Rocket technology.
BTW I'm not saying he's perfect or even a role model. Nor am I sanctioning his methods of the past.
Merely that some of his current practices/ideals are worthy of note. Jon admires ascetics.
And that righties live in a bubble of extremes (absolutes).
It's the same as Mandela was a communist and member of a 'terrorist( revolutionary) organization. Unlike the righties' and their binary (on steroid) judgemental/thinking (which in practical terms is naive and hypercritical)
I accept two human immutables nobody is perfect and circumstances(which side you're on)/Culture(subjective filtering) determines right and wrong.
Dmarks - welcome to the twilight zone that is Ex's world - it's an interesting ride, but generally very uninformative. You were ale to bring out many of his hot button responses in one small sentence - great job and good start my friend.
You even brought out the 'righties live in the bubble of extremes (absolutes)". - impressive to get the ire with one pointed question.
In regards to the Uruguay Prez - finally a Liberal/Socialist who lives what he says. I certainly disagree with his views, but respect a guy who is actually is livimg and doing what he wants from others. I know Ex and Jon are not donating 90% back to the needy, George Soros certainly isn't, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried certainly are not but they stand a the ready to take from everyone else for the 'greater good' since they know far better than any conservative how to use their money.
Sounds like Uruguay may be a good place to live out the rest of your years JC and EX?
Post a Comment