Socialized Health Care in the USA

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ageing demographics . . . there's not really any way around that problem.

Mandatory conversion to Soylent Green at 60? "Ask not . . ." :whistling:

--Pete

[Jester]

Mandatory conversion to Soylent Green at 60? "Ask not . . ." :whistling:

Hm. There's a plan. It would certainly help fight food costs. And it would give a whole new meaning to the idea of "Going Green".

-Jester

[kandrathe]

...Oh wait, this is about socialism and not communism

<blockquote>"...the American way is not single-payer, government-controlled anything. That's a European way of doing something; that's frankly a socialist way of doing something. That's why when you hear Democrats in particular talk about single-mandated health care, universal health care, what they're talking about is socialized medicine."-- Rudy Giuliani</blockquote> <blockquote>Reasonable people can disagree over whether Obama’s health plan would be good or bad. But to suggest that it is not a step toward socialized medicine is absurd. -- Michael F. Cannon, Cato Institute (see also Obamacare to Come: Seven Bad Ideas for Health Care Reform)</blockquote>John Goodman from the National Center for Policy Analysis wrote an article, "Five Myths of Socialized Medicine", which I found insightful. The 5 myths of socialized medicine he describes are;

1. "You have a right to health care"<>
   
2. "The quality is higher"<>
   
3. "It is more efficient"<>
   
4. "We will have equal access"<>
   
5. "There will be less red tape"<>
   [st]And, it seems that even democrats are getting scared to raid the treasury for another trillion dollar spending program. The only die hard supporters that remain, are those who are blinded by their ideology. An ideology, which appears to me to be entirely socialist. The progressives are beginning to eat their own, such as MoveOn.org's ad, <blockquote>"California voters sent Senator Dianne Feinstein to Washington to fight for us. That includes fighting to pass President Obama's health care plan. A recent poll shows that 71% of California voters want a significant overhaul of the health care system now.
   
   But Feinstein has been dragging her heels, saying health care may just be too “difficult.”
   
   News flash Senator: We don’t expect you to lead just on the easy issues.
   
   Senator Feinstein, please: Fight for California. Fight for President Obama's health care reform now MoveOn.org Political Action is responsible for the content of this advertising."</blockquote>In his recent infomercial on ABC, Obama said, "Why would it drive private insurance out of business?" he said of the proposed public option. If private insurers "tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical." Well, the President forgets that the government runs things by deficit spending, which would result in bankruptcy for private companies.

[kandrathe]

That the government had a secret plot to make them unviable and drive them out of business?

Okay, but I don't think they'll believe me. Heck, I don't think I'd believe me.

Did you read Obama's book? He wrote, <blockquote>"Take the issue of fuel-efficiency standards. Had we steadily raised those standards over the past two decades, when gas was cheap, U.S. automakers might have invested in new, fuel-efficient models instead of gas-guzzling SUVs—making them more competitive as gas prices rose. Instead, we’re seeing Japanese competitors run circles around Detroit. Toyota plans to sell one hundred thousand of their popular Priuses in 2006, while GM’s hybrid won’t even hit the market until 2007. And we can expect companies like Toyota to outcompete U.S automakers in the burgeoning Chinese market since China already has higher fuel-efficiency standards than we do.

The bottom line is that fuel-efficient cars and alternative fuels like E85, a fuel formulated with 85 percent ethanol, represent the future of the auto industry. It is a future American car companies can attain if we start making some tough choices now. For years U.S. automakers and the UAW have resisted higher fuel-efficiency standards because retooling costs money, and Detroit is already struggling under huge retiree health-care costs and stiff competition. So during my first year in the Senate I proposed legislation I called “Health Care for Hybrids.” The bill makes a deal with U.S. automakers: In exchange for federal financial assistance in meeting the health-care costs of retired autoworkers, the Big Three would reinvest these savings into developing more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Aggressively investing in alternative fuel sources can also lead to the creation of thousands of new jobs. Ten or twenty years down the road, that old Maytag plant in Galesburg could reopen its doors as a cellulosic ethanol refinery. Down the street, scientists might be busy in a research lab working on a new hydrogen cell. And across the way, a new auto company could be busy churning out hybrid cars. The new jobs created could be filled by American workers trained with new skills and a world-class education, from elementary school to college."</blockquote>He clearly has a plan in mind for transforming the nations auto industry. As the chairman of the board of GM, Obama is now in the position to do that.

[kandrathe]

Hm. There's a plan. It would certainly help fight food costs. And it would give a whole new meaning to the idea of "Going Green".

You'd know it if you ate me; I'd be tough, sour, give you a headache and not settle well in your stomach.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . .

Five demerits for gratuitous troll feeding. :P

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Five demerits for gratuitous troll feeding. :P

Busted. I'll take my whooping at Atma's after a few pain killers. :)

[Jester]

Did you read Obama's book?

No, haven't gotten around to it. I'll have to, it sounds like an interesting read.

He clearly has a plan in mind for transforming the nations auto industry. As the chairman of the board of GM, Obama is now in the position to do that.

Right. He advocates fuel efficiency standards, and thinks there are opportunities in technological development to create jobs. He even believes, shockingly, that government might offer incentives to create hybrid cars.

Taking out my Cato institute decoder ring, I see that this reads "I am planning to destroy GM's finances by undermining the capitalist system! I will then use the levers of government spending to enact a hostile takeover of the company in the name of Al Gore, dark lord of Envirosocialism! Muahahahahaha!"*

It's all so clear from what he wrote.

-Jester

*actual decoded message did not include evil eco-cackling, I added that for effect.

[kandrathe]

Right. He advocates fuel efficiency standards, and thinks there are opportunities in technological development to create jobs. He even believes, shockingly, that government might offer incentives to create hybrid cars.

Taking out my Cato institute decoder ring, I see that this reads "I am planning to destroy GM's finances by undermining the capitalist system! I will then use the levers of government spending to enact a hostile takeover of the company in the name of Al Gore, dark lord of Envirosocialism! Muahahahahaha!"*

It's all so clear from what he wrote.

Well, Cato is hardly fringe. But, I find GM's latest sudden changes in direction telling. In his book, he also says that SUV's and pickup trucks have got to go.

The old saying goes; if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. If you read his book he says exactly what he planned to do, and now we watch as it unfolds before our very eyes.

On the campaign trail, he said, <blockquote>"Is a huge opportunity but we've got have leadership from Washington, the same way we had leadership when Kennedy said we're going to the moon, we want to invest what we need to make it happen and there are all sorts of spin offs benefits from that. So that's what we want to do on global warming here in the United States.

We are also, though, going have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy, and pretty soon, if their carpet footprint even approaches ours, we're goners. That's part of the reason why we've got to make the investment; we've got to lead by example. If we lead by example -- if we lead by example, then we can actually export and license technology that have been invented here to help them deal with their growth pain. But keep in mind, you're right. We can't tell them, don't grow. We can't -- drive our SUVs and you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on you know, 72 degrees at all times, and whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect that every other country's going say OK.

You guys go ahead and keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy. Even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not -- that's not leadership. That's not going to happen. And that's, by the way, why, for example, I had this big argument with Senator Clinton and McCain about the gas tax, holiday. Which was an example. That's how Washington works. It's not thinking long term. It's thinking, how do we get through the next election?

And, you know, John McCain, for him to come to Oregon as an environmental president, but his big strategy is to do more drilling and to have a gas tax holiday for three months, that's a phony solution. You know, you can't -- John McCain has consistently been opposed to fuel efficiency standards, raising fuel efficiency standards on cars. How is he going to meet any of these targets? Maybe he's imagining it the way he did imaging getting out of the war in Iraq. You know? We -- we need somebody with a plan. And who is willing to talk to the American people about these difficulties and how we're going to get through these challenges together. All right? OK. All right. OK. Over here."</blockquote>So, your know, get used to not driving your SUV because they don't make them anymore. And, you know, you don't get to have your home thermostat set at a comfortable temperature anymore. We'll just crank up the cost of energy so high that no one can afford to drive anymore, or live too far south, or too far north. Policy genius. Like I said earlier, get ready to join the third world in subsistence agriculture to get by day by day.

[Jester]

Well, Cato is hardly fringe. But, I find GM's latest sudden changes in direction telling. In his book, he also says that SUV's and pickup trucks have got to go.

Your carbon consumption has to go down. As he quite rightly points out, the US (and all the first world, really) is producing vastly more carbon emissions than is their proportional share. People driving cars that are larger and less efficient than they need is a serious part of the problem. If a carbon tax with teeth is ever implemented, and I think that it really should be, then any company stuck without a line of smaller, fuel efficient vehicles is going to get hammered. This is just the first baby steps towards an ecologically responsible economy, that doesn't just go on generating more and more carbon until we're all starring in a Kevin Costner movie. And not the heartwarming one with the baseball field, either.

If you don't like it, that's democracy. Elections have consequences.

And, you know, you don't get to have your home thermostat set at a comfortable temperature anymore. We'll just crank up the cost of energy so high that no one can afford to drive anymore, or live too far south, or too far north. Policy genius. Like I said earlier, get ready to join the third world in subsistence agriculture to get by day by day.

"Honey, have you looked at this heating bill? It's outrageous!"

"I bet it's that darn carbon trading scheme. Well, we'll have to do something about this."

"I know! Let's take up backbreaking subsistence agriculture and earn five hundred dollars a year!"

"I suppose we have no other choice, what with this heating bill and all."

Maybe you can make a political ad out of it.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Elections have consequences.

You mean like WWII? Yes, they do.

"Honey, have you looked at this heating bill? It's outrageous!"

There is a portion of the electorate in Minnesota that needs energy assistance already. Now, double it, and cut the number of tax payers by 20%. In my state, when we run out of energy we die. Rather than die, we move south. I'm very much a pessimist here, but I see the dire down side of a government that forces the price of basic necessities (like food, and fuel) much, much higher.

FiveThirtyEight did an analysis of the CBO numbers state by state. Minnesota drops in the middle or residential CO2 due to our forward thinking on wind power, but Alaska is hit hard due to their need to use air planes to get around.

On the other side of the argument, Greenpeace has come out against Waxman-Markey as well.

You scoff at Cato, well here is Brookings (saying the same thing.) "reduce the level of U.S. GDP by around 2.5% relative to what it otherwise would have been in 2050" and "reduce employment levels by 0.5% in the first decade, with large differences across sectors" By 2050, the employment losses might amount to over 7 million jobs.

[Jester]

You mean like WWII? Yes, they do.

Godwin!

There is a portion of the electorate in Minnesota that needs energy assistance already. Now, double it, and cut the number of tax payers by 20%. In my state, when we run out of energy we die. Rather than die, we move south. I'm very much a pessimist here, but I see the dire down side of a government that forces the price of basic necessities (like food, and fuel) much, much higher.

Yeah, the people of Minnesota are right on the edge, earning more than something like 99% of the global population, and one of the higher income states in the Union. I'm sure the place will be a barren wasteland after cap-and-trade, as millions line up to move to Florida, leaving Canadian mercenaries to scavenge amongst the abandoned wastes.

Or, alternately, people will kvetch about higher energy bills, and things will proceed more or less normally.

Can we maybe file this one in the predictions drawer?

FiveThirtyEight did an analysis of the CBO numbers state by state. Minnesota drops in the middle or residential CO2 due to our forward thinking on wind power, but Alaska is hit hard due to their need to use air planes to get around.

Nate's analysis looks pretty good, as usual. Seems about what I'd expect, with a couple of weird outliers (Louisiana? Maine?) but generally reflecting the impact I'd thought: a modest increase in energy prices across the board, but nothing particularily shocking. It's a few hundred dollars a year per household, unless you're in Alaska.

As for Alaska, I don't feel all that terrible about the state that pays people a dividend to live there. If you want to live in the frozen north, and burn carbon fuels to do so, I expect you to pay the price for it. The atmosphere doesn't take into account where you live, only what you choose to burn.

On the other side of the argument, Greenpeace has come out against Waxman-Markey as well.

The entire raison d'etre of Greenpeace is to be the radical environmental voice that never gives an inch, so of course they don't like this. However, they do have a point here. This is weak tea, a first step in reducing emissions, not a solution.

You scoff at Cato, well here is Brookings (saying the same thing.) "reduce the level of U.S. GDP by around 2.5% relative to what it otherwise would have been in 2050" and "reduce employment levels by 0.5% in the first decade, with large differences across sectors" By 2050, the employment losses might amount to over 7 million jobs.

Brookings supports cap and trade. Cato does not. How are they saying the same thing?

Where do you get the 7 million figure from?

Half a percent employment in the first decade amounts to what, maybe 700,000 unemployed? Those jobs will be disproportionately lost in sectors heavily reliant on carbon emissions, for obvious reasons. The sooner the economy transitions away from those activities, the less unemployment it will create in the long run. But this is an acceptable price to pay.

2.5% of 2050 GDP is not a lot of money, considering. For the cost of stabilizing carbon emissions, that seems perfectly fine. Frankly, I'd still be in favour of it if it cost 25% of 2050 GDP; at 1/10th of that, it seems kind of like a bargain. Compared with the damage that even a 2.5 Celsius rise in global temperatures would cause, it's peanuts. Even that would be nothing compared with an apocalyptic 6% temperature rise. There is simply no GDP percentage to describe the impact, which would be nothing less than the total collapse of the global economy as we know it. But that's what we might be looking at, worst case scenario, if we just keep tossing greenhouse gases up indiscriminately, whining all the while about energy costs and economic damage.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

2.5% of 2050 GDP is not a lot of money, considering. For the cost of stabilizing carbon emissions, that seems perfectly fine. Frankly, I'd still be in favour of it if it cost 25% of 2050 GDP; at 1/10th of that, it seems kind of like a bargain. Compared with the damage that even a 2.5 Celsius rise in global temperatures would cause, it's peanuts. Even that would be nothing compared with an apocalyptic 6% temperature rise. There is simply no GDP percentage to describe the impact, which would be nothing less than the total collapse of the global economy as we know it. But that's what we might be looking at, worst case scenario, if we just keep tossing greenhouse gases up indiscriminately, whining all the while about energy costs and economic damage.

I guess the big difference that I see is that the Obama camp, to which you belong, is engaging in self sabotage on the present GDP and employment in the hopes that the changes will avert the ecological apocalypse forecast by only a radical fringe of climatologists. Now, that the average climate is changing is a no brainer. I've seen no consensus that indicates that curbing the human contribution of world CO2 emissions (a few percentage points) will do anything significant. Everything I've read indicates that sequestering carbon would best be done by working to reverse desertification, and return more of the environment to grasslands and forests. But even then, it would be hundreds of years before we would reverse the damage done by 200 or 300 years of intensive agriculture and industrialization. Should we do nothing? Of course not, but should we drive ourselves into a current crisis in a Pyhrric attempt to avert the possibility of a future climate crisis? The sky is falling, and a piece of it landed on my head. Meanwhile, Foxy Loxy, who happens to own the carbon offset business is getting fat and rich at our expense. So, paint me skeptical of buying into the whole eco-indulgence business.

That said, the ecologist in me is dead set against burning coal, and excessive pollution from internal combustion engines. I'm willing to change my vehicle for one that does not pollute, and I'm willing to help my energy grid transform to clean sources, but why do we need to do this in a way that is so very punitive? Surely there is a way to do this that is not so authoritarian.

You don't understand my pessimism, but you have also not responded to my concerns about a supply chain that is designed and predicated on cheap energy. The perturbations of energy costs will have dramatic effects (meaning shortages and high prices) for staples and commodities. For example, New Yorkers are used to eating fresh vegetables, and yet no vegetables are grown very near to the consumers. I just don't think this has been very well though through, as is typical of the idiots in DC. Couple that with the one size fits all approach to federal policy and you are futzing around with peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe you think it is OK for the government to do that to its people, but I do not.

This reeks of totalitarianism to me.

<blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>Cult of personality is “…when a country’s leader uses mass media to create a heroic public image through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships. A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders.”</blockquote>

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . as is typical of the idiots in DC.

No. The idiots are out. They lost the election.

Idiocy? Idiocy is continuing the failed policies of the past and expect then to work this time around. Obama's ideas might work, they might not. But at least, if they're mistakes, they're new mistakes.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

No. The idiots are out. They lost the election.

Actually, I think we all lost the election.

Idiocy? Idiocy is continuing the failed policies of the past and expect then to work this time around.

More like insanity, but I hear you.

Obama's ideas might work, they might not. But at least, if they're mistakes, they're new mistakes.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the past, however, I'm not seeing the "Change" other than trading one set of smug "in your face" politicians for another. Am I joyfully clapping about losing my standard of living, and being taxed higher to boot? No, I don't get it. But, I can see why the anti-America crowd will rejoice in our being made miserable.

I still don't understand why you might believe a lawyer and junior Senator from Chicago has all the answers to solve; the auto industry, health care, the economy, world peace and the environment (did I miss anything? I'm sure I did). It is certain the last guy did not, but I'm not buying the Obamamania t-shirt just yet.

I'm reacting to thousands of pages of legislation coming out of committee, and being presented for floor votes with very limited or no debate in the same day to 1) prevent the "People" and the opposition from getting a chance to understand the bill, 2) prevent any opposition to gain traction within the press, and 3) prevent anyone knowledgeable about the topic to crunch the numbers to determine errs. It's insane to claim this is the intent of our deliberative form of government.

[Concillian]

It certainly isn't efficient. If it was, you'd either have far cheaper care, given how mediocre the US' health stats are, or far better outcomes, given how ludicrously much you spend on health care.

-Jester

I don't think all the cost can be associated with the insurance system... Drugs are a very large slice of the total healthcare cost pie, and prescriptions cost more in the US than anywhere else, likely due to the strictest regulations of anywhere else. Nobody ever goes back and removes red tape that isn't needed anymore, and the US has regulated themselves into a corner in the event of a recession. It's not just a healthcare thing with that, it's EPA / CARB regulations, other permitting and enviromental impact processes, etc...

[Jester]

I guess the big difference that I see is that the Obama camp, to which you belong, is engaging in self sabotage on the present GDP and employment in the hopes that the changes will avert the ecological apocalypse forecast by only a radical fringe of climatologists.

This is not even close to true. The mainstream of climate science is pretty much unanimous on the idea that carbon emissions are warming the planet. The earth is almost certainly going to warm by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, if we just stop producing carbon right this instant, to 4-6.5 degrees, if we continue increasing our emissions without any check whatsoever. Even the middle range, 2 or 3 degrees, would have a *severe* impact on many aspects of global climate, from water level to rainfall to the viability of agricultural land. The 4 to 6 range would, as I said, completely collapse our current economic patterns. Billions would be displaced. Borders would have to be redrawn. Every major coastal city would be wading in 5 feet of water.

The 'radical fringe' are the climate change denialists, and they are notable in that very few of them are actually climatologists (as opposed to, say, moonlighting string theorists). Those who are in the field may be optimistic or pessimistic about the degree and impact anthropogenic climate change, but almost none who will tell you it isn't happening. Those who do are almost inevitably on the payroll of polluting industries.

Now, that the average climate is changing is a no brainer. I've seen no consensus that indicates that curbing the human contribution of world CO2 emissions (a few percentage points) will do anything significant.

That study tells you precisely the *opposite* of what you're claiming. It's saying that whatever we pollute now will stick around until our children's children's children's children's children are a distant historical memory! Business as usual isn't just stupid for *us*, it's stupid for our entire *species* for a millennium to come!

From your link:

“Our study convinced us that current choices regarding carbon dioxide emissions will have legacies that will irreversibly change the planet,” said Solomon, who is based at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo. (Italics mine)

Amen.

Everything I've read indicates that sequestering carbon would best be done by working to reverse desertification, and return more of the environment to grasslands and forests. But even then, it would be hundreds of years before we would reverse the damage done by 200 or 300 years of intensive agriculture and industrialization.

Forest sequestration is a generally poor mechanism. Forests burn, thereby tossing more carbon back up into the atmosphere. The more forest, the more this happens. They are a part of the carbon cycle, not outside it. They are also very, very slow: using them to sequester carbon wouldn't take hundreds of years, it would take millions. But yes, reversing the damage caused by carbon emissions is going to be long, and it's going to be hard.

Should we do nothing? Of course not, but should we drive ourselves into a current crisis in a Pyhrric attempt to avert the possibility of a future climate crisis? The sky is falling, and a piece of it landed on my head. Meanwhile, Foxy Loxy, who happens to own the carbon offset business is getting fat and rich at our expense. So, paint me skeptical of buying into the whole eco-indulgence business.

You don't advocate doing nothing, just not doing anything that costs money. Or takes effort. Or in any way violates peoples' right to live where they want, how they want, doing whatever they want, regardless of consequences. You got a better plan than cap and trade? One that avoids the problems you find so critical, but also solves the environmental problem at hand? I'd love to hear it.

A current crisis would be a trivial price to pay to prevent a future one, if the current crisis is merely economic, but the future one is environmental. We must all do what it takes to get our carbon emissions down. If we don't, the results will be anywhere from painful to catastrophic, for generation after generation to come. You can laugh about the sky falling and foxy loxy*, but there are plenty of other fables that apply here, and quite a few of them end with us freezing to death, or getting eaten by wolves.

That said, the ecologist in me is dead set against burning coal, and excessive pollution from internal combustion engines. I'm willing to change my vehicle for one that does not pollute, and I'm willing to help my energy grid transform to clean sources, but why do we need to do this in a way that is so very punitive? Surely there is a way to do this that is not so authoritarian.

We'll ask the coal industry very, very nicely if they wouldn't mind not burning coal anymore. And if they say no, we'll ask them again, but this time we'll wag our finger at them. This sounds less like a plan, and more like a parody of the United Nations.

Cap and trade is as non-punitive as it gets. You buy carbon credits. It uses the market to allocate scarce resources. It's as libertarian as an environmental program is going to be. How else are you going to get people to stop doing what they're doing? It's either an incentive or a ban, and between the two, I know which looks less authoritarian.

You don't understand my pessimism, but you have also not responded to my concerns about a supply chain that is designed and predicated on cheap energy. The perturbations of energy costs will have dramatic effects (meaning shortages and high prices) for staples and commodities.

As carbon prices go (slowly) up, rational agents will see this, and begin consuming less of it. This applies at all parts of the chain. Power plants will be built to produce less, or zero, carbon emissions. Transportation will shift either to lower carbon options like rail, or to more carbon-efficient cars and trucks. Supply networks will shrink slightly, as transportation costs go up, then expand again as more efficient transport becomes available.

The net result will be a reduction in GDP, and a more carbon-efficient economy. I'm not some crazy ecotopian who believes that there are super-efficient technologies being held down by the man that will save our economy as soon as the evil oil companies are out of the way. Nor do I believe in retreating to the backwoods and abandoning our civilization. But there are sacrifices that have to be made here, and if that means being slightly poorer, then that's just the reality.

For example, New Yorkers are used to eating fresh vegetables, and yet no vegetables are grown very near to the consumers. I just don't think this has been very well though through, as is typical of the idiots in DC. Couple that with the one size fits all approach to federal policy and you are futzing around with peoples lives and livelihoods. Maybe you think it is OK for the government to do that to its people, but I do not.

They grow fresh vegetables in Southern Ontario. That's not that far away. Plus, if you just got rid of the absurd amount of protectionism on your agricultural products, you could just ship vegetables to New York from Africa, at a relatively low carbon cost.

People will have to change. This is not going to be painless. If there was a painless solution, we would have done it by now. If we act soon, we may be able to use less painful methods, like cap and trade, to wean ourselves off of the carbon economy. If we leave it, we'll be stuck with the results for a thousand years, and will require much more draconian measures in the future.

This reeks of totalitarianism to me.

Everything reeks of totalitarianism to you.

-Jester

[Jester]

I don't think all the cost can be associated with the insurance system... Drugs are a very large slice of the total healthcare cost pie, and prescriptions cost more in the US than anywhere else, likely due to the strictest regulations of anywhere else. Nobody ever goes back and removes red tape that isn't needed anymore, and the US has regulated themselves into a corner in the event of a recession. It's not just a healthcare thing with that, it's EPA / CARB regulations, other permitting and enviromental impact processes, etc...

I suppose that's an important part of the question. Is it the case that the US is picking up the slack for other countries' drug subsidies? Shouldering the burdens of R and D, and then passing on those costs to the US consumer? Or are they given market power by government regulation, which they then use to soak the market for all they can get?

Whatever it is, you're certainly right that drug costs are a very large portion of the problem. I wish I understood that element of things better. I suspect you're right, that the regulatory environment is a major problem, although I think the larger issue is some kind of agency problem between drug companies, insurers, and the government, which is somehow frustrating the market pricing mechanism for drugs. But it would take someone who knows a lot more than I do to sort out that mess and find out exactly what is ratcheting up costs so high.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

This is not even close to true.

Ok, show me the consensus of climatologists that are predicting global ecological apocalypse.

The mainstream of climate science is pretty much unanimous on the idea that carbon emissions are warming the planet.

And, I did not dispute that.

The earth is almost certainly going to warm by about 0.5 degrees Celsius, if we just stop producing carbon right this instant, to 4-6.5 degrees, if we continue increasing our emissions without any check whatsoever. Even the middle range, 2 or 3 degrees, would have a *severe* impact on many aspects of global climate, from water level to rainfall to the viability of agricultural land. The 4 to 6 range would, as I said, completely collapse our current economic patterns. Billions would be displaced. Borders would have to be redrawn. Every major coastal city would be wading in 5 feet of water.

This is unsubstantiated, and what is happening is an uncontrolled experiment with our environment, but predicting the results is extremely dubious.

The 'radical fringe' are the climate change denialists, and they are notable in that very few of them are actually climatologists.

To deny that CO2 has no influence on the environment is ludicrous, but I think we have also reached near the saturation point where additional CO2 condenses from the atmosphere more rapidly. Water vapor seems to have a larger impact overall on increasing global temperature.

Those who are in the field may be optimistic or pessimistic about the degree and impact anthropogenic climate change, but almost none who will tell you it isn't happening. Those who do are almost inevitably on the payroll of polluting industries.

Agreed. And, many on the "chicken little" side are reaping large grants as well.

That study tells you precisely the *opposite* of what you're claiming. It's saying that whatever we pollute now will stick around until our children's children's children's children's children are a distant historical memory! Business as usual isn't just stupid for *us*, it's stupid for our entire *species* for a millennium to come!

No. It say exactly what I'm saying. We cannot turn this bus around on a dime, so let's *all* get together to apply the brakes (in a safe manner that doesn't get anyone killed). Having the US stop would be great, as long as the CO2 production isn't displaced to Asia. THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN. World consumption is like a big gas bag, so a prod in one place creates a bulge somewhere else.

Forest sequestration is a generally poor mechanism. Forests burn, thereby tossing more carbon back up into the atmosphere. The more forest, the more this happens. They are a part of the carbon cycle, not outside it. They are also very, very slow: using them to sequester carbon wouldn't take hundreds of years, it would take millions. But yes, reversing the damage caused by carbon emissions is going to be long, and it's going to be hard.

So, then there are no forests in your ideal world? I like trees, and I've lived in forests my entire life. They only burn when people don't take care of them by either lighting them on fire themselves, or by not clearing enough of the debris from storm damage.

You don't advocate doing nothing, just not doing anything that costs money. Or takes effort. Or in any way violates peoples' right to live where they want, how they want, doing whatever they want, regardless of consequences.

Thank you for putting words into my mouth. No, this can all be done in a way that achieves the same result without causing people to suffer.

You got a better plan than cap and trade? One that avoids the problems you find so critical, but also solves the environmental problem at hand? I'd love to hear it.

I think Maria Cantwell has some good ideas on "Cap and Dividend". It would make sense to have CO2 emitters pay into an ecological fund according to their output. Since it is a new thing, I would start with a small amount to see how it affects the economy, then increase the rate at a rate that achieves the ultimate goal. But, it gives you the ability to move it up or down as needed to keep the screaming to a minimum. That fund could be used as an incentive to consumers to reduce consumption, provide grants for new technology, or other GDP enhancing uses.

A current crisis would be a trivial price to pay to prevent a future one, if the current crisis is merely economic, but the future one is environmental.

An economic crisis will become environmental if it is bad enough.

We must all do what it takes to get our carbon emissions down. If we don't, the results will be anywhere from painful to catastrophic, for generation after generation to come. You can laugh about the sky falling and foxy loxy*, but there are plenty of other fables that apply here, and quite a few of them end with us freezing to death, or getting eaten by wolves.

Is there a fable about a fake crisis? The problem we have is converting from using fossil fuels to other cleaner energy sources, which only needs some time and incentive. Driving the economy to ruin is one way to bring about change, but I think there is a nicer way to do it.

We'll ask the coal industry very, very nicely if they wouldn't mind not burning coal anymore. And if they say no, we'll ask them again, but this time we'll wag our finger at them. This sounds less like a plan, and more like a parody of the United Nations.

Did I say that?

Cap and trade is as non-punitive as it gets. You buy carbon credits. It uses the market to allocate scarce resources. It's as libertarian as an environmental program is going to be. How else are you going to get people to stop doing what they're doing? It's either an incentive or a ban, and between the two, I know which looks less authoritarian.

Incentives, right? Here is an idea; lets get a coalition of scientists and auto engineers to declare "THE" replacement for the internal combustion engine, then obsolete gasoline and diesel engine over the next 20 years. Then, lets have a program where home owners and landlords can assess the energy efficiency of every residence, and create a means to develop a plan to convert homes to higher efficiency. Let's create an incentive that rewards people who consume the least amount.

As carbon prices go (slowly) up, rational agents will see this, and begin consuming less of it. This applies at all parts of the chain. Power plants will be built to produce less, or zero, carbon emissions. Transportation will shift either to lower carbon options like rail, or to more carbon-efficient cars and trucks. Supply networks will shrink slightly, as transportation costs go up, then expand again as more efficient transport becomes available.

That is not always possible. The result is less product at higher costs. <blockquote>"Half the vegetables and 95 per cent of the fruit eaten in the UK comes from beyond our shores. Increasingly, it arrives by plane - and air travel gives off more CO2 than any other form of transport. Agriculture and food account for nearly 30 per cent of goods trucked around Britain's roads and, according to a Government report in 2005, the resulting road congestion, accidents and pollution cost the country £9bn a year."</blockquote>

The net result will be a reduction in GDP, and a more carbon-efficient economy. I'm not some crazy ecotopian who believes that there are super-efficient technologies being held down by the man that will save our economy as soon as the evil oil companies are out of the way. Nor do I believe in retreating to the backwoods and abandoning our civilization. But there are sacrifices that have to be made here, and if that means being slightly poorer, then that's just the reality.

Do you think this was the *change* that people wanted from Obama? To be poorer?

They grow fresh vegetables in Southern Ontario. That's not that far away. Plus, if you just got rid of the absurd amount of protectionism on your agricultural products, you could just ship vegetables to New York from Africa, at a relatively low carbon cost.

I'm not a "food miles" adherent, but there is benefit in measuring the total carbon foot prints for growing food, whether they be from Ontario or Africa.

People will have to change. This is not going to be painless. If there was a painless solution, we would have done it by now. If we act soon, we may be able to use less painful methods, like cap and trade, to wean ourselves off of the carbon economy. If we leave it, we'll be stuck with the results for a thousand years, and will require much more draconian measures in the future.

As the NOAA study indicates, we are stuck with the existing and near term environmental damage for the next thousand years. The question is how quickly can we turn around the entire world's behavior. I'd say using honey, rather than vinegar will work better.

[Jester]

I'll deal with most of this later. We've reached the point where bifurcation has descended into chaos.

One comment: You complain there is no consensus on global warming, and link me to Steven Milloy, a notorious industry stooge, and nothing even resembling a climatologist. If you're relying on him for your information, no wonder you have a strange view of what's scientific consensus and what isn't. This is a man *paid to lie to you*.

If you want actual climate scientists, I'd start at realclimate.com. If you're looking for the "NASA" of climate change, here they are: some of them actually work for NASA itself, among other institutions.

From there, the IPCC reports are widely available, and pretty much straight down the mainstream of climate science. No hysteria, no imminent apocalypse, just the simple facts: it is overwhelmingly likely that if we do not substantially cut our carbon emissions, the planet will warm between two and six degrees over the next century, with profound (and negative) impact on the environment.

If you don't like that, try the meta-studies. They all show more or less the same thing.

And if you don't like that, keep listening to Steven Milloy. I'm sure he'll be more than happy to keep selling you a load of crap.

-Jester