Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Part of the problem with "climate change" is the way the terms are bandied about by both sides of the argument. It muddies all the discussion.

 

Geologic records clearly show the climate of the earth has naturally changed throughout its history. Throughout that history there have been periods of global warming and global cooling.

 

The controversy is over the effect of humans on those natural processes. The argument is that human use of fossil fuels is inordinately increasing CO2, a "greenhouse gas", which is causing accelerated warming of the earth. Based on this thesis, some climatologists have projected, through the use of complex computer models, predictions of the effects of this warming. The most widely reported and referenced model results are the "hockey stick" projections which predict rapid runaway global temperature after something like a 2-3 degree overall average temperature rise.

 

However, these model projections are not facts, but guesses. So they are only as good as their ability to reflect what is naturally occurring. The problem is that in order to develop these models of extremely complex natural processes, there are many assumptions about these processes that must be made. Some of these assumptions may have massive effects on what the models predict. So if these projections are to be taken as reasonably accurate, some assessment of how these assumptions affect the models is necessary. If a very small change in an assumption yields radically different results from the models, then that's a big red flag about the accuracy of the models. OTOH, if the assumption can have a wide range of values and still get essentially the same results, then one can have a much greater confidence in the models.

 

Finally, the underlying thesis has to be proven by scientific evidence. Einstein's theory of relativity was not confirmed until his predicted bending of light as it passed by the sun was observed during solar eclipses in the 1930s (I think that's the timeframe). So in the case of the theory of human caused global warming, the exact relationship between CO2 concentrations and global temperature needs to be confirmed.

 

Skeptics point to more recent global temperature data that is significantly lower than predicted at the given CO2 concentrations as an issue. Their contention is that CO2 may have less effect on global warming than is theorized. They also have concerns with the models assumptions. And in larger sense, they may have concerns about potential natural processes not reflected in the models or projections of the effects of temperature change. (For example, continental levels may rise ["float"] as sea levels rise. Also, the earth may naturally react to rising CO2 levels by increased plant activity which slow the rise in CO2 levels.)

 

Proponents usually aver "the science is settled" and seem to accept the model projections as dead certain fact. Anyone expressing concerns about those projections is ridiculed and delegitimized.

 

Perhaps the best we can hope for is some intersection and debate between the scientific skeptics and scientific proponents, so that we can come to a consensus about the most probable long term effect of global warming.

 

But beyond whatever those conclusions are, there needs to be some debate on how to change to help minimize global warming. Things like eliminating fossil fuels are likely to have a profound effect on our economy and society. So there needs to be some buy in by a super majority of society rather than imposition by governmental fiat. A key component of what we do has to be what impact our actions have overall global warming versus the displacement and change they force. If what we do has little or no impact on the overall result, then maybe the extent of any changes needs to be rethought.

 

I guess the bottom line is that if one is "right", one ought to be able to persuade those who think differently by the strength and eloquence of one's argument not by just insisting your right.

 

Take this post to the climate change thread.

[Winstonm]

Barely 2 months in and this:

CNN’s Erin Burnett Out Front on Tuesday profiled a former Donald Trump supporter who attended 45 rallies during the campaign, but no longer supports the president or his agenda.

 

Kraig Moss shadowed Trump’s campaign rallies during the 2016 election to tell the story of his son, Rob Moss, who died on Jan. 16, 2014 from a heroin/fentanyl overdose at age 24. The grieving father was a staunch Trump supporter, and was encouraged to support then-candidate Trump by his promise to help addicts struggling with addiction. Trump even reached out to Moss personally at a rally, calling him “a great father,” and assuring him, “your son is proud of you.”

 

“I’m not on the Trump trail anymore, and I’ve lost my heart,” Moss told CNN’s Elizabeth Cohen in an interview, pointing to the president’s support of the American Health Care Act, which would drop an addiction treatment and mental health mandate that covers 1.3 million Americans. Moss told Cohen he believes Rob would still be alive if he had health insurance.

 

“I believed everything he said,” Moss said. “Now I don’t believe he was true in his word when he was speaking. I think he was looking for votes, to be honest with you.”

 

“It’s not at all what Mr. Trump promised everybody he was going to provide for us,” he added. “I feel that now—anger, I feel hurt inside.”

 

Frankly, I am surprised his approval rating is still as high as 37% - must be polling in Russia, too.

[helene_t]

mods please move climate change nonsense to the climate change thread

[Zelandakh]

Compared to Flat-earthers, Trump--supporters might be on less firm ground :) but there are probably more of them.

You might think so but it is actually much easier to disprove the average alternative fact than that the Earth is not flat. It is actually the case that one of my team mates is a believer that the world is flat (the Bible says it so it must be true) so I have looked into this a little. Assuming you do not have personal access to a satellite, how would you go about disproving it?

[jogs]

You keep saying this, and I keep not understanding it. Poor people can't afford that $5,000. If they get sick, they'll have to choose between going to the doctor and buying food or paying rent.

Pre 2008 the truly poor are entitled to free medicaid. These would still receive free medicaid under my plan. I'm really speaking of the working poor. 18-40. Do these people really need that much healthcare? Under Obamacare the bronze plans had a $5000 deductible. My plan would have the same $5000 deductible only there would be no monthly premiums.

The Ryan plan will subsidize health insurers by $100B a year. That $100B can now go directly to state medicaid.

 

Nothing should be written in stone. In Healthy San Francisco every member's co-pays is dependent on his income and finances. There is no reason to have a fixed formula. The plan should be flexible depending by how much the taxpayer is willing to subsidize the working poor towards the cost of their healthcare.

[mikeh]

You might think so but it is actually much easier to disprove the average alternative fact than that the Earth is not flat. It is actually the case that one of my team mates is a believer that the world is flat (the Bible says it so it must be true) so I have looked into this a little. Assuming you do not have personal access to a satellite, how would you go about disproving it?

Stand on the top of a hill overlooking the ocean and watch ships come and go. Guess what? It is not possible to explain why we see the tops of ships appearing first, as they come closer, nor why we see the tops disappearing first without deducing that there is at least local curvature.

 

Once we have local curvature, repeat or rely on the observations of others, and lo and behold, there is local curvature EVERYWHERE there is a large body of water. Pretty tough to explain all those local curvatures, all in the same direction, and preserve a flat earth. Of course, this was well known many years before the bible was assembled: I forget the name of the Greek who calculated the diameter of the earth back then, but it is historical fact, and only the gullible fall for the myth that, for example, Columbus was defying conventional wisdom when he set said for what he mistakenly thought was India.

 

Now, if one is landlocked, and in mountainous country, and unable or unwilling to climb the highest local peak, it become a more complex challenge:)

[jogs]

Healthcare is not a right. If it were, citizens would be demanding bells and whistles we can't afford. It is in the government's best interest to provide some minimal healthcare for its citizens.

Maybe it is time for free physicals and free flu shots.

[kenberg]

Healthcare is not a right. If it were, citizens would be demanding bells and whistles we can't afford. It is in the government's best interest to provide some minimal healthcare for its citizens.

Maybe it is time for free physicals and free flu shots.

 

An old observation ,might be useful. Jefferson claimed that certain truths were self-evident. Lincoln, in the Gettysberg Address, asserted that we were "dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal". The point being that Lincoln did not claim this was self-evident or even true, but rather that we have chosen this as a fundamental principal.

 

I am more aligned with Lincoln. We choose our destiny, to put it somewhat dramatically.

 

We are in the midst of deciding what we accept as an obligation to our fellow Americans. We can rarely present anything as a pure moral obligation and get broad acceptance. Concern for others is not a myth, but an appeal to self-interest can help get a lot of votes. If we start with the desire for a strong nation, it follows that a healthy nation would be a good idea. So I think a reasonable plan can gain acceptance.

[Winstonm]

Healthcare is not a right. If it were, citizens would be demanding bells and whistles we can't afford. It is in the government's best interest to provide some minimal healthcare for its citizens.

Maybe it is time for free physicals and free flu shots.

 

Perhaps someone who lives in these countries can help explain this, but I do not think the populations of the industrialized countries who provide healthcare for all their citizens finds the people demanding bells and whistles.

[Cyberyeti]

Perhaps someone who lives in these countries can help explain this, but I do not think the populations of the industrialized countries who provide healthcare for all their citizens finds the people demanding bells and whistles.

 

No, and also private medicine works alongside the overstressed NHS here in the UK, it gets you seen faster, and can get you seen at times more convenient for you.

 

There is also a wide variation across Europe. A friend of mine in the Netherlands has just been diagnosed with something which dictates seeing an specialist who is not a doctor which is not free there, but would be here.

[mike777]

There are the usual concerns over a single payer system for the entire USA.

 

How do we pay for it?

Will it stifle innovation?

We will never be able to destroy and replace it when it fails. In fact single payer systems seem to be rewarded with more money, more power, more whatever when it does fail.

 

A market driven or capitalist system of health care has it faults but the great part is it allows for destruction and replacement when it does fail.

 

If nothing else see the current debate about destroying the current market/insurance company system of health care and replacing it with single payer. Destroying single payer does not seem to be an option in the UK or Netherlands any more then destroying medicare or the VA system in the USA.

 

 

I should add that despite years of discussion of this issue the vast majority of America and perhaps posters here in the USA don't fully understand how single payer or for that matter medicare works in with the rest of the health care industry including such basic issues as office furniture, medical supplies and equipment, maintaining of buildings...garbage and janitor stuff...all the non doctor issues when it comes to health care.some where someone pays for all of this stuff...not just the doctor's bill.

 

Health care is also for paying the garbage man as well as fixing the roof and cutting the grass. this stuff aint free

 

-----------------

 

 

With all of the above said perhaps one partial solution will be robots, very very smart robots.

[PassedOut]

Health care is also for paying the garbage man as well as fixing the roof and cutting the grass. this stuff aint free

They have those expenses everywhere. Without single payer, US health care is also paying for redundant salaries of insurance company executives and employees, for insurance marketing costs, for insurance bureaucrats approving or disapproving treatments prescribed by physicians, and for insurance company profits.

[barmar]

Healthcare is not a right. If it were, citizens would be demanding bells and whistles we can't afford. It is in the government's best interest to provide some minimal healthcare for its citizens.

Maybe it is time for free physicals and free flu shots.

No one claims that unlimited health care is a right, just a certain baseline amount.

 

There is one way in which market-driven insurance can improve overall health and reduce healthcare costs. If people live healthier lives, they'll get sick less, and insurance companies will have to pay out less. So they have an incentive to try to get their customers to exercise, eat better, get regular checkups, etc. Most of my insurance policies have had health club reimbursement, for instance. It's far more cost effective for them to pay these up-front costs than pay for the medical costs later when people get sick.

 

Of course, there's no reason why a single-payer system can't also provide these reimbursements and subsidies, for the same reason. There just won't be competition between different insurers, looking for the best way to minimize their costs.

[barmar]

mods please move climate change nonsense to the climate change thread

Seems like the tangent has fizzled out, I'm not going to bother.

 

But your request did keep me from responding.

[mike777]

No one claims that unlimited health care is a right, just a certain baseline amount.

 

There is one way in which market-driven insurance can improve overall health and reduce healthcare costs. If people live healthier lives, they'll get sick less, and insurance companies will have to pay out less. So they have an incentive to try to get their customers to exercise, eat better, get regular checkups, etc. Most of my insurance policies have had health club reimbursement, for instance. It's far more cost effective for them to pay these up-front costs than pay for the medical costs later when people get sick.

 

Of course, there's no reason why a single-payer system can't also provide these reimbursements and subsidies, for the same reason. There just won't be competition between different insurers, looking for the best way to minimize their costs.

 

 

Of course if health care is a right, something we all are entitled to no matter what, citizens will of course demand bells and whistles at the very least.

 

Citizens will of course demand something more, much more than the lowest standard of care

[jogs]

 

If nothing else see the current debate about destroying the current market/insurance company system of health care and replacing it with single payer. Destroying single payer does not seem to be an option in the UK or Netherlands any more then destroying medicare or the VA system in the USA.

 

 

Single payer makes no sense(medicare is single payer). Cost of living is much greater in large cities than rural regions. There should be a tiered payout system based on cost of living of the region.

[mike777]

Single payer makes no sense(medicare is single payer). Cost of living is much greater in large cities than rural regions. There should be a tiered payout system based on cost of living of the region.

 

 

that seems fair and just ...if you want to live in an expensive area you should get more, much more more from the government than those who live in cheap areas. For example I noted my brother in law flew across country to the Cleveland Clinic which is more expensive than where he lives....it seems fair the govt pay more, much more.

[Zelandakh]

Stand on the top of a hill overlooking the ocean and watch ships come and go. Guess what? It is not possible to explain why we see the tops of ships appearing first, as they come closer, nor why we see the tops disappearing first without deducing that there is at least local curvature.

Sounds easy, right? The problem is that the Earth's surface is subject to various atmospheric effects that can easily pollute the results. The classic is the famous Bedford Level experiment. Sadly, your method might just as easily "prove" the Earth to be flat rather than spherical. You can do better than this though. Direct sea level observations are generally problematic, so think about how else you might produce a result that is incompatible with a flat Earth.

[mike777]

Sounds easy, right? The problem is that the Earth's surface is subject to various atmospheric effects that can easily pollute the results. The classic is the famous Bedford Level experiment. Sadly, your method might just as easily "prove" the Earth to be flat rather than spherical. You can do better than this though. Direct sea level observations are generally problematic, so think about how else you might produce a result that is incompatible with a flat Earth.

 

hang a plum line?

[Al_U_Card]

Seems like the tangent has fizzled out, I'm not going to bother.

 

But your request did keep me from responding.

See what havoc climate change (discussion) can cause? Oh, the humanities! ;)

[blackshoe]

A typical example. The government persuaded us that nuclear power was cheap and safe. "Coal-miners suffer worse exposure to radiation than nuclear-power station staff". We weren't told about nuclear melt-downs (e.g. Windscale). Or that the main purpose was to breed Plutonium from Uranium, for bombs. (Hence the potential of Thorium as a nuclear fuel was ignored). Nuclear-power still deserves serious consideration but it's better to base opinion on fact.

If I remember correctly, almost all of the Plutonium produced in commercial nuclear power plants is consumed as fuel. Interest in the nuclear industry (and political support for it) in thorium based power plants has increased over the last decade or so.

[blackshoe]

Some people who can trace their ancestry to the Mayflower are real jerks.

From what I've read, some of the people who were on the Mayflower were real jerks. The whole "my ancestors came over on the Mayflower" thing just made it worse. Some people just have to look for ways to show they're somehow "better" than everybody else. Got news for those people: they ain't. B-)

[alok c]

Sounds easy, right? The problem is that the Earth's surface is subject to various atmospheric effects that can easily pollute the results. The classic is the famous Bedford Level experiment. Sadly, your method might just as easily "prove" the Earth to be flat rather than spherical. You can do better than this though. Direct sea level observations are generally problematic, so think about how else you might produce a result that is incompatible with a flat Earth.

Measure the distance between two fixed posts sufficiently apart thru air (theodolite,laser) & along ground (chainage) & see the difference.

[Trinidad]

Healthcare is not a right. If it were, citizens would be demanding bells and whistles we can't afford. It is in the government's best interest to provide some minimal healthcare for its citizens.

Maybe it is time for free physicals and free flu shots.

Ah! The "you give them one finger, they take your whole hand"-argument.

 

[sarcasm on]

Of course, these Scandinavian girls are so good looking because of their unlimited access to free cosmetic surgery.

{Sarcasm off]

 

Rik

[Zelandakh]

hang a plum line?

What are you observing for with the plumb line? There is a technique in this area but I do not think you have it just yet.