Socialized Health Care in the USA

[eppie]

The alarmists should also acknowledge that human contribution to the global levels of CO2 are minute in comparison to the entire global carbon cycle.

This is absolute nonsense. Apart from an (especially on geological timescale) enormous CO2 release because of burning of fossil fuels we also have (the last few 1000s of years started removing enormous quantities of carbon bound in plant material. We must be at an value of -30 % (guesstimate) in total plant life compared to equilibrium of a few 1000 years ago. This is very significant.
If you simply look at the total amount of carbon on our planet, and then take the amount we burn, it might seem small but the problem is that we don't let the CO2 concentration equilibrate anymore.

My view is that there are many natural processes which keep the atmospheric composition in equilibrium although they do fluctuate between extremes over geological time scales. Atmospheric CO2 has been shown to have increased by about 100ppm over the last 100 years, from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm now, and it seems to have done so very linearly.

As I replied Zenda. I finally couldn't care less about if people are 100% to blame*, or that we are talking about a fluctuation in a timescale much larger than the scale we use (human life, century whatever). The problem is that a climate change will have disastrous consequences.....so instead of blaming somebody we can work towards an answer. We know what we can do about it so we try to moderate this fluctuation, not for the sake of the planet, but just for us, humans.

*although I think we are

The largest sink of atmospheric CO2 is the ocean which sequesters carbon (carbonic acid) within sea water, over time, corals , mollusks, and other sea life use these carbonates, but also release CO2 as they fix carbon molecules.

Nope, the equilibrium is wrong here, lower pH will damage creatures that as CaCO3 for making shells, corals etc. Many people actually say that ocean acidification might be a bigger problem than temperature rise.

As the ocean temperature increases, its ability to contain CO2 decreases which may result in a vast increase in atmospheric CO2, unless there is another process that compensates. I suspect that there is also a process that benefits from the increase in ocean acidity, possible increasing the availability of calcium, and other minerals.

See plants would use CO2.....but we are also reducing their quantities.

Another process is that at great depth, CO2 condenses and forms icy hydrates on the ocean floor thus freeing sea water (esp. when extra calcium is present) to bond with more atmospheric CO2.

CO2 hydrates are quite unlikely on the sea bottom, methane is present as hydrate, but of course it also deosn't react with water.

Algaes and land based plants, have a non-linear increase in photosynthesis efficiency in the presence of greater ppm's of CO2 (up to about 1%, or 10,000 ppm which as you pointed out is toxic to animal life). Plants also seems to grow denser structures when in the presence of higher CO2 levels resulting in up to double the fixation of carbon.

Indeed, and this would work great if there wasn't a species on earth that tries its best to destroy all forrests.

Anyway, the point being here that I don't believe that we fully understand the capacity for nature to use and transform CO2.

Not fully no, but we understand enough.

Man, if we didn't have this economic crisis, and governments would put all the money they now paid to bail out banks in a big jar and use it to construct windmills, solar power stations etc. we would be well on our way to meet the CO2 goals we stated......and most of the money would be spent on peoples salaries......giving us a super healthy economy. But somehow I think we would have never done that.

[Zenda]

Like I said before, I consider myself a part of the solution, but I don't want to be ordered by my government to do that which I already do voluntarily.

Somehow I doubt that someone who uses words like 'eco-fascist' can be trusted to do voluntairily what those same 'eco-fascists' ask. Especially considering some discussions we had a while back, on consumer behaviour and energy production. People who do things voluntairily, do it quietly, without protesting the political and scientific structures that agree with them at the point in question. Not everyone supporting the Red Cross is religious, you know.

In my youth, we had priests teaching 'Katholicism' at our schools. I remember a kid questioning the purpose of going to church every sunday, saying that he could spend an hour praying at home as well. In return, the priest asked him how many hours he had already spent praying at home. I guess you know the answer. The few kids in class who did pray at home regularly never protested having to go to church.

[kandrathe]

Somehow I doubt that someone who uses words like 'eco-fascist' can be trusted to do voluntarily what those same 'eco-fascists' ask.

No. You can trust me. I grew up in a wilderness, and throughout my entire life I have worked with groups that spend countless hours cleaning up trash, planting trees, reclaiming wilderness, etc. I do it because it is the right thing to do, not because I'm ordered to do it by some politicians who burn more fossil fuels in a week than I do in a year.

[Jester]

No. You can trust me. I grew up in a wilderness, and throughout my entire life I have worked with groups that spend countless hours cleaning up trash, planting trees, reclaiming wilderness, etc. I do it because it is the right thing to do, not because I'm ordered to do it by some politicians who burn more fossil fuels in a week than I do in a year.

Your carbon footprint must be tiny, if anyone (even the much-maligned Al Gore) burns fifty-two times more fossil fuels in a year than you do. Do you not drive? Is your home heated with solar or geothermal?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Your carbon footprint must be tiny, if anyone (even the much-maligned Al Gore) burns fifty-two times more fossil fuels in a year than you do. Do you not drive? Is your home heated with solar or geothermal?

It is as tiny as I can make it. And, I know I can make it smaller. But, then again, I don't fly from DC home to San Francisco every weekend either.

[Jester]

It is as tiny as I can make it. And, I know I can make it smaller.

That would be a contradiction, no?

But, then again, I don't fly from DC home to San Francisco every weekend either.

Maybe they should disband Washington, DC? Or force all Senators, Congressmen, and state officials to live in Washington? There are some jobs that need to be done, and require a lot of travel. It's kind of tough to get around that one.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

That would be a contradiction, no?

I would like to convert my heat to a geothermal heat pump system, but I cannot afford to buy the infrastructure. So, no. It is as tiny as I can make it. But, I do know that (with some funding) I could make it smaller.

Maybe they should disband Washington, DC? Or force all Senators, Congressmen, and state officials to live in Washington? There are some jobs that need to be done, and require a lot of travel. It's kind of tough to get around that one.

Or, maybe they car pool, or fly coach like the rest of us.

[Jester]

Or, maybe they car pool, or fly coach like the rest of us.

Carpool from DC to San Fran every weekend? That would take more than the whole weekend. Flying coach or first class doesn't matter a hill of beans for carbon footprint, although taking a private jet is probably more than your average Senator or Congressman needs.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Carpool from DC to San Fran every weekend? That would take more than the whole weekend. Flying coach or first class doesn't matter a hill of beans for carbon footprint, although taking a private jet is probably more than your average Senator or Congressman needs.

I think they pack more people into coach, so doing away with luxury seating would increase the density in the plane and reduce more of the carbon footprint. They could suffer and return to their districts less, or sure, make Congress a video conference.

Also, I meant carpool (or take the train) for the ones that live close enough to drive. I drive to see my mom in Arkansas about once or twice a year, and its a 13 hour drive. It actually takes longer to fly to her house now with all the security checks and preflight crap, so driving is faster and takes less fuel. It also means I have to drive, but hoisting my families luggage around is not much fun either.

My rough calculations are that it takes about 3,337 lbs CO2 to fly there with my family and it takes about 24 gallons of gas to drive there at 25 lbs of CO2 / gallon or 600 lbs of CO2 total.

[eppie]

My rough calculations are that it takes about 3,337 lbs CO2 to fly there with my family and it takes about 24 gallons of gas to drive there at 25 lbs of CO2 / gallon or 600 lbs of CO2 total.

In the in flight magazines of some carriers they show the fuel/per seat per km. I believe on average it was around 35 ml per km/seat (for a ful plane) This would mean around 28 kmter. Travelling alone would give you roughly the same CO2 exhaust fro flying as for driving an (for todays standards) efficient car. Of course depending on where you have to be and if the road is curvy and or hilly.

[kandrathe]

In the in flight magazines of some carriers they show the fuel/per seat per km. I believe on average it was around 35 ml per km/seat (for a full plane) This would mean around 28 kmter. Traveling alone would give you roughly the same CO2 exhaust fro flying as for driving an (for todays standards) efficient car. Of course depending on where you have to be and if the road is curvy and or hilly.

That may be true. The distance is about 760 miles. The problem is that there is no direct flight to this little town in the middle of Arkansas, so I need to fly to either Memphis or Dallas, then take a turbo prop to Fort Smith, and then still rent and drive a car for the last 100 miles. It seemed to me that flying produces about 3 lbs of CO2 per mile, and driving produces about 1 lb of CO2 per mile. Of course, occupancy and variables in efficiency will adjust that up or down.

[--Pete]

Hi,

The distance is about 760 miles.

If you flew in a decent twin engine private plane, you could do that, almost, in less than the two hour time that airport security asks. There are small airports everywhere. I'd bet that you could find someone who'd be happy for the hours if you bought the fuel. Or start working on your own ticket -- become an IP, and you can add that to your avocations.:)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Or start working on your own ticket -- become an IP, and you can add that to your avocations.:)

I've always wanted to do it. My college room mate did, and he takes off (literally) with his family every other weekend to places all over the US and Canada.

[kandrathe]

The battle continues between the Obama administration sycophants like Pelosi, and the blue dog democrats. The 55 budget conscious blue dog democrats in the house are holding out for a bill that does not further increase our bloated deficit, but I'm not sure how they feel about the tax surcharge on the "rich". In this context, "rich" means different things depending on whether it is empty promises made from behind podiums (tax those who earn more than $1M), or what is printed in the actual bill ($350K). Which actually adds the additional burden to those small business owners who already are carrying the heavy load of paying for part of their employees health care costs.

[Alram]

[DeeBye]

This joke makes no sense whatsoever, or is that the point?

[kandrathe]

This joke makes no sense whatsoever, or is that the point?

It's the whole redistribution of wealth thing. The US takes money from the successful working class to give to the welfare and less successful working class. The wealthy class really never need to work, so they only pay taxes on their declared income within the US, which might occur if they happen to need to sell something. When you are really wealthy, you usually only need to pay taxes when you want to pay taxes. This is why I prefer to describe the US as broken up into the welfare class, the working class, and wealthy class.

I see it more like a slave galley with three decks. The middle tier does all the rowing and they don't have much voice in how hard or where they are going, the lower level lives by the trickle down theory, they don't have to work, but exist on the dropped crusts of bread from above, and the upper tier gets to sit in the sun and fresh air and get carted around for free.

The joke then goes on to say that the US is now looking to pay for health care for those who don't have it by taking it away from those who already have it (both private insurance and Medicare). Which is what the current house bill proposes to do, and replacing it with another "well" run government plan which you will be forced onto if you should ever find your private insurance lapses (such as if you are out of work for more than a few months and fall off of COBRA). It also has a provision that stipulates that once you are on the public plan, you can no longer opt for a private plan, so it's designed as a one way road to socialism.

Wealthy people sometimes hold actual jobs because they want something to do with their lives, but they really wouldn't need to do it. Like Warren Buffet, he earns about $100K from BH, but he's worth some where around $44 billion. He's 79 years old, so if he lives to 100 he could spend $5.74 million per day for the remainder of his life. He also still gets issued a Social Security check from the government and is eligible for reduced cost medical care under the Medicare program.

So, there are many people who choose not to pay $6000 per year for normal health insurance, and instead carry a catastrophic health insurance with somewhere around a $5000 deductible. Meaning, if they don't get sick they save the difference.

[Jester]

This joke makes no sense whatsoever, or is that the point?

I'm reminded of Mallard Fillmore.*



It's hilarious!

-Jester

*yes, I know, not actually Mallard Fillmore. Tip 'o the hat to Jon Stewart.

[DeeBye]

It's the whole redistribution of wealth thing. The US takes money from the successful working class to give to the welfare and less successful working class.

[Zenda]

It's the whole redistribution of wealth thing.

Maybe it needs to be a redistribution of food thing :mellow:

Obesity costs US health system $147 billion