backtop


Print 164 comment(s) - last by phxfreddy.. on Jan 17 at 4:52 PM

Researchers debate each other in new study; most disagree greenhouse gases are the cause.

The Japanese Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) has published a new study on the causes of Global Warming. Entitled, "Global warming: What is the scientific truth?”, the report highlights the differing views of five prominent Japanese scientists.

All but one of the scientists disagreed that global warming is the result of human activity.

Contributing to the report were Syunichi Akasofu, professor emeritus at the University of Alaska, and former director of the Fairbanks Geophysical Institute and the International Arctic Research Center, Shigenori Maruyama, professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, Kiminori Itoh, professor of Physical Chemistry at Yokohama National University, Seita Emori, head of the National Institute for Environmental Sciences, and Kanya Kusano, director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC).

While all the researchers agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal", four of the five disagreed with the claim that the primary cause of the increase was due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. The only researcher to agree with the IPCC's assertion was Emori, who is himself a member of the IPCC.

Akasofu countered with the statement, "CO2 emissions have been increasing, but the rise in air temperature stopped around 2001. Climate change is due in large part to naturally occurring oscillations". Akasofu says the earth's warming trend began prior to the industrial age, and believes much of the warming seen may simply be a natural recovery from the so-called Little Ice Age, that ended in the 17th century.

Professor Itoh attacked the temperature record itself, saying "Data taken by the U.S. is inadequate. We only have satellite data of global temperatures from 1979 onwards". Itoh, who has previously called global warming "the worst scientific scandal in history", is also an expert reviewer for the IPCC.

Dr. Kasano believes that cosmic rays, which are modulated by cycles in the strength of the sun's magnetic fields, may potentially have large-scale impacts on the earth's climate.

The report includes the data in which the researchers base their arguments, and can be publicly viewed (in Japanese) on the Internet.

 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Obama appointment
By Fnoob on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Obama appointment
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2009 9:31:34 AM , Rating: 1
All his appointments are worrisome. It's complete Chicago mob mentality brought to the nation stage.


RE: Obama appointment
By porkpie on 1/14/2009 9:43:42 AM , Rating: 3
I love his appointments. Now all we need is Al Franken in the Senate, to finally show people what all this socialist idiocy leads to. Europe tried it, then ran screaming back to free-market princicples, and so will we.


RE: Obama appointment
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 10:05:50 AM , Rating: 2
Except Europe didn't have tens of trillions in debt to deal with as we will.


RE: Obama appointment
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2009 9:50:40 AM , Rating: 2
No kidding. His new treasury appointment got busted for not paying his federal taxes and hiring illegals to clean his house.


RE: Obama appointment
By sgw2n5 on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Obama appointment
By nstott on 1/16/2009 1:57:12 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks, comrade! Signals are now coming in loud and clear!

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/spread/thumbs/Thumbs...


RE: Obama appointment
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 10:04:17 AM , Rating: 2
She doesn't just not think highly of the US. Her groups mission is to reduce the size of the economies of all world powers so that our effect on the environment will be reduced. Basically they want us back to horse and buggy. I'd say steam engines but those used primarily coal and they view coal as evil.

And yes I find that attitude terrifying. The next 4 years are going to drastically alter the US. Lets just hope they don't screw things up so bad that they can't be fixed when these idiots are gone. Of course if socialized medicine gets implemented, like Welfare and Social Security, it'll never go away. And then our generation and future generations will forever be burdened with yet another inefficient government entitlement program. Not to mention drastically worse medical care. All in the name of saying that everyone has coverage (when this is already largely the case).


RE: Obama appointment
By HinderedHindsight on 1/14/2009 10:31:39 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The next 4 years are going to drastically alter the US.


I find this a rather satisfying thought. Are you honestly of the opinion that the results of the last 8 years were really that good?

quote:
Not to mention drastically worse medical care. All in the name of saying that everyone has coverage


You seem to think there is little wrong with the U.S. health care system- The Commonwealth Fund seems to disagree with your assertion.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/newsroom/newsroom_...

"The United States places last among 19 countries when it comes to deaths that could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care, according to new research supported by The Commonwealth Fund and published in the January/February issue of Health Affairs."

"The authors also note that "it is difficult to disregard the observation that the slow decline in U.S. amenable mortality has coincided with an increase in the uninsured population"

"In contrast, mortality rates per 100,000 people in the leading countries were: France (64), Japan (71), and Australia (71)."

I do believe that France has what is considered to be socialized health care- and they seem to be doing better than us in terms of preventable deaths.

Do you care to substantiate the claim that we *will* have worse health care? It seems to me that since we are the most powerful nation in the world, and we have more money than any nation, we shouldn't be last on that list. The numbers of the uninsured should definitely not be on the rise.

I'm willing to bet, however, you'll disagree with the last paragraph just because those are things that liberals believe. Try to hide your hate for anything remotely liberal a little better next time.


RE: Obama appointment
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2009 10:39:25 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I find this a rather satisfying thought. Are you honestly of the opinion that the results of the last 8 years were really that good?

Well...if the election today was between Obama, McCain, and Bush...I'd still vote Bush.
quote:
You seem to think there is little wrong with the U.S. health care system

There are problems with it...but its still far superior to any other health care system in existence.
quote:
I do believe that France has what is considered to be socialized health care- and they seem to be doing better than us in terms of preventable deaths.

And try going to a doctor in France for a routine physical, dental exam, vision exam...even a broken arm. If you don't mind sitting room in a sling for 6 months, then France is perfect for you. After all, you probably won't die...it'll just suck.


RE: Obama appointment
By sgw2n5 on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Obama appointment
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2009 1:32:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You have obviously never been to a french hospital. Finest medical care and most advanced medical technology in the world.


Once you can actually get in the door right ?


RE: Obama appointment
By BreathingCausesGW on 1/15/2009 12:46:58 AM , Rating: 5
well that depends on what we are talking about here. If we were talking about cancer treatment, the number one medical center in the world is hands down M.D. Anderson in Houston, TX. That is not a matter of opinion.


RE: Obama appointment
By michael67 on 1/16/2009 3:05:19 AM , Rating: 1
Having bigger and better doesn't mean a lot if its only accessible to the better of and the lower class cant even get in to the door.

Here in Europe (I live in Norway and the Netherlands) there is almost no differences between rich and poor when it come to health care (*) so yes there is some waiting time one less important treatments, but when i need a lung transplant i pretty shore it just go's a quick as in the US, and i believe we pay about 50% let for our health care

Me 42j male reasonable healthy ex smoker pay about 150 euro for full covered health plan including full dental and no consulting cost for doctor's at all
And getting 6x 25 euro back on the end of the year for not seeing a doctor
(system to discourage unnecessary doctor visit's)

(*)the are privet clinics whit no wait time, usually payed by company's for management people)


RE: Obama appointment
By thepalinator on 1/16/2009 11:39:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Having bigger and better doesn't mean a lot if its only accessible to the better of and the lower class cant even get in to the door
Sure it does. It means worthless bums don't spend their whole life idle, then get to spend millions of other people's money when they need health care.

You want good medical care? Get an education and a job and pay for it yourself. Don't sit around with one hand up your butt and the other out begging for a handout.


RE: Obama appointment
By HinderedHindsight on 1/14/2009 12:43:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And try going to a doctor in France for a routine physical, dental exam, vision exam...even a broken arm. If you don't mind sitting room in a sling for 6 months, then France is perfect for you. After all, you probably won't die...it'll just suck.


There's a concept in medicine called "triage"- you might have heard of it. We practice it in the United States (when we choose to, provided that the patient has insurance)- we treat the most serious cases first.

But, even with that, one of the reasons the French medical system is considered to be better is pre-emptive care. They do not wait for their patients to get seriously ill before they're treated like in the United States, their citizens get better preemptive care than even insured people do in the United States.

quote:
then France is perfect for you


I don't like France for other reasons, I was just pointing out that they have a better health care system than we do and it is socialized. The truth is, I would rather improve conditions in the United States for everyone because I love this country, rather than do the selfish thing and move just to get what I want.


RE: Obama appointment
By Solandri on 1/14/2009 7:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, even with that, one of the reasons the French medical system is considered to be better is pre-emptive care. They do not wait for their patients to get seriously ill before they're treated like in the United States, their citizens get better preemptive care than even insured people do in the United States.

I generally don't buy the "U.S. healthcare sucks" arguments, but I agree on the above point. The U.S. system actually discourages pre-emptive care - people try to save a buck by ignoring problems unless/until they're really serious and thus cost more.

Right now, I'm of the opinion that socialized pre-emptive care (checkups, vaccinations, first aid, etc), but a free market for treatment is probably the best solution.


RE: Obama appointment
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2009 7:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
People don't think they need premptive care because we all walk around like nothing bad will ever happen to us.

Saying one system doesn't " wait for people to get seriously ill " is a bunch of fluff. It's impossible to quantify that easily. And it implies one system has a way to know when someone will get sick or not.

My plan allows me to get a physical any time I feel like it, as well as unlimited doctor visits. Basically as long as I have the rediculously cheap co-pay, I can go to the doc anytime I feel like it.


RE: Obama appointment
By jimbojimbo on 1/15/2009 3:13:49 PM , Rating: 2
Everybody has free pre-emptive care and it comes in the form of advice. Quit smoking and get off your fat ass and excercise. There. Follow that and people should on average live longer. Will people follow it? No. So do we have poor pre-emptive care or do people just not give a damn?


RE: Obama appointment
By pwnsweet on 1/14/2009 8:41:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
...but its still far superior to any other health care system in existence.


Ahahahahahahahaha!!!


RE: Obama appointment
By KashGarinn on 1/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: Obama appointment
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 10:54:35 AM , Rating: 3
So care to explain why people come from all over the world to get treatment in the US? Why doctors from Canada and Britain are coming to the US in droves?

Why? Because we allow for anyone to get care provided their ability to pay for it and what they need done can be done (ex. we have a heart for them). And already hospitals treat millions that are uninsured. Illegals are driving hospitals out of business. Because that's what it is. A business.

No one has the right to force a doctor to spend his time treating them for nothing. Especially considering the potential for lawsuits these days. In certain cities and areas of the country, certain types of doctors cannot be found. Why? Because there's no incentive to be there. Why run a hospital when you're just going to lose money?

Do you work for free? I sure as hell don't. Doctors are not volunteers. They are people who spend a huge amount of money to go to school for what they do and then spend more time training in the field to become a doctor.

I view health care as a business. Not a right. Doctors don't have to be there. In my mind they have every right to tell me to f*ck off regardless of whether I'm standing there with my arm cut of. If I can't pay them, they have no obligation to treat me. This is the way the world works. To attempt to change that through socialism does not work.


RE: Obama appointment
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Obama appointment
By corduroygt on 1/14/2009 11:54:33 AM , Rating: 2
The keyword in your post is Lawsuits. How about enacting monetary limits for malpractice lawsuits like they do in Germany? 200k for an arm, 300k for an eye, etc.


RE: Obama appointment
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 12:02:46 PM , Rating: 5
Oh you mean like Bush tried to do and was blasted for by the Democrats?


RE: Obama appointment
By whiskerwill on 1/14/2009 4:22:33 PM , Rating: 3
Trial lawyers are one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic party. As long as thats true, we'll never see a chance of tort reform.

Its a shame, because outrageous medical lawsuits are one of the biggest problems behind high medical costs.


RE: Obama appointment
By ZmaxDP on 1/15/2009 2:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
He got blasted by a lot more than just the democrats. There were bi-partisan objections to this bill, which damn well should have passed. But, that's because our lawyers have a very effective lobby while we - normal citizens - don't.


RE: Obama appointment
By HinderedHindsight on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Obama appointment
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 4:11:43 PM , Rating: 5
I said DOCTORS are coming in droves. Not patients. But yes Canadians and people from Europe come to the US for health care because they are unable to receive it in their country.

And of course American's go to Canada for drugs. Canada has socialized medicine so the government sets the prices for drugs. Regardless of what it cost the company that developed it to do so. Drug companies have to make money off their drugs. So since they can't make money in Canada or Europe, they charge us Americans more. If America adopts socialized medicine with government mandated drug prices, expect the number of new drugs coming onto the market to fall drastically. Why make and sell drugs if you can't make money off them?

Also what motivation will there be to people to become doctors? To spend $200,000..$300,000...$400,000 to become a doctor when the government is going to mandate what you can get for your services when you finally become a doctor.

And if nothing else, where is the money for socialized medicine going to come from? Without the "stimulus" package currently on the table, the country is looking at a $1.2 TRILLION dollar debt. The "stimulus" package is another $800 BILLION. Social Security is tens of TRILLIONS of dollars in the hole. Government pensions put us under several more TRILLION. And you want to add another massive, bloated, inefficient government system to all that? One that will put this country on the line for TRILLIONS more. Not only that, but they want to cover illegal aliens under the plan too. Which means not only will you be waiting in line for health care with all the other citizens. But millions of illegal aliens as well.

So you really want to pay for all that huh? And that's just ONE thing Obama wants to do. Now add in his world poverty legislation that will give away another $750 BILLION. His desire to give citizenship to illegals(which will just give them greater access to federal assistance thus drastically increasing government payouts even further). His desire to cap carbon emissions which will result in more unemployment and higher prices.

Yeah this sounds like a dream world.


RE: Obama appointment
By ZmaxDP on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Obama appointment
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2009 10:35:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
While I do think that having illegally entered our country should have some consequence, I just can't think of a single feasible way to accomplish that.


It's called deportation. You might want to look it up, cause it used to work pretty good in the past back when we actually cared about the laws.

quote:
I don't understand why so many conservatives are so xenophobic,


I take offense to that actually. It has nothing to do with race. I'm third generation Italian, thank you very much. And my Grandparents sure as shit didn't swim here or sneak over here on a makeshift raft.

The fact that you put quotes around the word illegal tells me I'm wasting my time. They are illegal, they are breaking the law, and they ARE a huge burden on this country.

quote:
We can do a far better job as a country tracking, taxing, and regulating immigrants if they are legal.


I agree. Now why you wasted the next 400000 words pulling statistics out of your ass and making up crap to excuse illegals is whats got me.

Amnesty won't make them legal. Amnesty is about as Constitutional as child rape.


RE: Obama appointment
By ZmaxDP on 1/15/2009 2:37:54 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, child rape eh? Aren't you just a little extreme...

You try deporting somewhere between 7 and 20 million people. How much money do you think that will cost? How many employers will open their business and find they don't have enough employees to function. Depending on the time of year you might just leave millions of dollars of crops rotting too. What a great idea that is. Of course, if we just deport them and leave the system we have alone, they'll just cross back over and we can wash-rinse-repeat till we're all broke...

Second, xenophobic doesn't mean racist. If you're going to object to the word I used, then at least know what it means: an irrational fear of the strange or foreign. You could be Hispanic, Black, Greek, or Iranian for all I care, it doesn't mean you're not xenophobic.

Your grandparents and mine all immigrated legally in a time where the US was actually opening it's borders to a huge number of immigrants. At the time if you could make it here (by sea or by land) all you had to do was make it to an immigration office like Ellis island and you were in. Contrast that with the situation we're in now. While I'm glad your family and mine immigrated legally, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have immigrated illegally if we'd had the same immigration policies back then that we do now.

For someone who claims illegal immigrants are a "huge burden on this country" you sure didn't take much time disagreeing or providing a dissenting opinion to a single one of the points I made above. Instead, you suggest an inane "solution" that no one familiar with the actual situation thinks will work, you then incorrectly accuse me of calling you a racist, and then dismiss my points because I put "Illegals" in quotes? Way to make your point.

I put "Illegals" in quotes because these are actually PEOPLE who's residency status is illegal. Calling them "Illegals" is just silly, but has nothing to do with the points I was making.

As for pulling statistics out of my ass... Where one of my points was based on personal opinion or experience I was quite clear to point that out. Otherwise, my statistics came from the same place yous do - internet searches. I was lazy and didn't feel like providing hyperlinks amongst my 4000 words because you have google too. Use it.

Estimates on illegal immigrants range from 7 to 20 million, estimates on the uninsured start at around 44.8 million and go up. If you think those statistics are coming from my anus, I suggest you find dissenting ones to prove it.

If declared by the congress for illegal immigrants currently residing in our country, then Amnesty IS legal. If not, then it isn't. We have this thing called a government, if they decide it is legal then it is. Deal with it. At least for now, you probably don't have to worry about it on this issue. No one in our government has the balls to take this on so instead we're probably going to end up with an immigration reform that costs billions to get started, even more to enforce, and still won't work because the manpower required to actually keep people from illegally immigrating to the US given the current state of Central and South American economies is significantly larger than if you combined every single branch of our military into one homeland security force. Where are you going to find the people, and how are you going to pay them? Answer that.


RE: Obama appointment
By ZmaxDP on 1/15/2009 2:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
I have an idea, maybe we can hire all the illegal immigrants you want to deport to patrol the borders...


RE: Obama appointment
By BreathingCausesGW on 1/15/2009 6:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have ancestors on my father's side that came over on the Mayflower and ancestors on my mother's side that founded Jamestown. Its hard to be more of a native American than that. However, they were still immigrants. I get that and am not closed to legal immigration by any means. But to be cliche, money does not grow on trees. The US does not have an endless supply of resources or funds. Continuing to provide health care and govt assistance to illegal immigrants while leaving leaving immigration unchecked is unsustainable. And to a lesser degree, even legal immigration can harm the economy if it sufficiently large enough, given the time frame. I understand where you are coming from but I dont understand how you can ignore reports like this:

"Although native-born Americans account for the majority of the uninsured – about three-fourths of the total – the institute’s study found that between 1998 and 2003, immigrants represented 86% of the growth in the number of people lacking insurance.

That was a sharp jump from the period between 1994 and 1998, when immigrants had accounted for about a third of the increase in the number of uninsured"
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jun/14/nation/na-...

"The report said one out of every four uninsured people in the United States is an immigrant; almost half of immigrants either have no insurance or have it provided to them at taxpayers’ expense; and in some hospitals, as much as two-thirds of total operating costs are for uncompensated care for illegal aliens.

It also said that hospitals near the U.S.-Mexican border reported losses of almost $190 million in unreimbursed costs for treating illegal aliens in 2000, with an additional $113 million in ambulance fees and follow-up services; and that the increase in uncompensated care for immigrants has forced some hospitals to reduce staff, increase rates, cut back services and close maternity wards and trauma centers. "
http://www.amren.com/news/news04/02/26/healthcare....

"It's no coincidence that most of the areas hardest hit by the foreclosure wave -- Loudoun County, Va., California's Inland Empire, Stockton and San Joaquin Valley, and Las Vegas and Phoenix, for starters -- also happen to be some of the nation's largest illegal alien sanctuaries. Half of the mortgages to Hispanics are subprime (the accursed species of loan to borrowers with the shadiest credit histories). A quarter of all those subprime loans are in default and foreclosure.
...A July report showed that in 7 of the 10 metro areas with the highest foreclosure rates, Hispanics represented at least one-third of the population; in two of those areas -- Merced and Salinas-Monterey, Calif. -- Hispanics comprised half the population.
... For the last five years, I've reported on the rapidly expanding illegal alien home loan racket. The top banks clamoring for their handouts as their profits plummet, led by Wachovia and Bank of America, launched aggressive campaigns to woo illegal alien homebuyers. The quasi-governmental Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority jumped in to guarantee home loans to illegal immigrants. The Washington Post noted, almost as an afterthought in a 2005 report: "Hispanics, the nation's fastest-growing major ethnic or racial group, have been courted aggressively by real estate agents, mortgage brokers and programs for first-time buyers that offer help with closing costs. Ads proclaim: "Sin verificacion de ingresos! Sin verificacion de documento!" -- which loosely translates as, 'Income tax forms are not required, nor are immigration papers.'"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/...

"This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
* Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
* Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion)."
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html


RE: Obama appointment
By ZmaxDP on 1/15/2009 7:27:22 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent post! Finally someone with facts (which is a criticism of myself as well - it is hard to do a fact search at work - takes some time you know)...

I am not ignoring reports like that at all, and I am not in any way in favor of the status quo. We need MAJOR change to our immigration policy - I just don't think there is any realistic way to get the people already here out. Yeah, we can catch a few of them, but not nearly enough to even make a blip. There were something like 10,000 border patrol agents nationally. If these agents were to leave the borders unguarded and focus on apprehending illegal aliens already in the US, and each agent caught one illegal alien every day, it would only take about 2000 days or roughly 5 and a half years just to catch those already in the US. People who say "deport them" or "arrest them" have no real understanding of the numbers involved or the money involved. If we catch someone in Iowa and want to deport them we have to pay their transportation and housing expenses incurred for that trip. If they get sick on the way we have to pay for treatment. That is part of our immigration laws currently. If you just guessed that each trip costs us 200 bucks (I know it costs way more than that) you just spent 4 billion just transporting people. Add to that the costs of the agent's time, the paperwork, the legal crap they have to go through. The border patrol estimates that each deportation costs on average between 1000 and 3000 dollars. Now you're looking at 40 billion give or take 20 billion. We all know how efficient the government is!

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/rep...

Now, the first two documents you linked aren't clear if they are specifically referring to illegal only or legal and illegal immigrants. However, for the sake of the argument I'll assume it is just illegal. So, if the statement is that the uninsured are causing the problem, and only one in four are illegal immigrants, then illegal immigrants are only 1/4th of the problem. The REAL problem is our healthcare system!

Obviously, hospitals that are in an area where a majority of the population is made up of illegal immigrants (or where the border is close enough that people can "visit" the US for free healthcare) are going to have a disproportionate challenge with illegal aliens straining their bottom line. But to assume that a hospital in El Paso and a hospital in Daton, OH have the same problem is absurd, and not what you're suggesting anyway. If illegal aliens were the problem, you'd only see hospital closures in areas where illegal alien populations were the highest. However, there are hospital closures occurring all over the US. The problem is the uninsured, and we need a health care system that SOMEHOW deals with the uninsured more effectively.

The last two are very interesting...

The first makes a very misleading statement at the start: Half of the mortgages to Hispanics are subprime (the accursed species of loan to borrowers with the shadiest credit histories). A quarter of all those subprime loans are in default and foreclosure." There is a lot of analysis missing from this statement! For starters, how many of the Hispanics with sub-prime loans were illegal immigrants? Second, while it states that a quarter of all those subprime loans are in default, it doesn't say if it is a quarter of the Hispanic's sub-prime loads are in default, or if a quarter of the total are in default. What about illegal immigrants that aren't hispanic? This article takes a bunch of coincidental facts to argue that Illegal Aliens are the root of the mortgage meltdown. It's a little tenuous. Bank of America actually tracks loans to illegal aliens separately and issued a report a few months ago (I can't fund it on google right now - if I do I'll post the hyper-link in a response) showing that their loans to illegal aliens in California were actually their lowest default loans in that state. It was reported on NPR so maybe you can find it there (no luck yet).

I didn't find the report I was looking for, but these articles speak to some of the numbers - they've got just as much bias as the one you posted, but in the inverse direction. But, the numbers are there...
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/06/local/me-i...
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/6/...

Also, I have searched for an ITIN loan (what people without an SSN and thus not citizens must use) that is also a sub-prime or interest only loan and I can't find a single one. Most require 20% down at minimum. So, while 1/2 of all sub-prime loans may be owned by hispanics - those hispanics would appear to be US Citizens, not illegal aliens.

The last report I read some of a few years ago, and it has three major flaws. First, it assumes in it's analysis of "what if amnesty is granted" that there are no other changes to immigration policy or entitlement programs. Clearly, this is not what anyone is proposing. Second, it completely ignores the costs of apprehending, processing, and deporting or otherwise enforcing the current laws. Add the costs of training, hiring, and supporting the number of agents required to do so, plus the costs of actually processing the deportees and you'll far exceed the 10 million dollar deficit. Third, it myopically looks at the household tax equation and ignores any business stimulus they provide as well as any business related profits and generated taxes that come as a result of their labor - it does so because that is exceptionally hard to calculate. It also completely fails to account for the costs to businesses as a result of losing employees and reducing the low-wage workforce by up to 20 million people. It also doesn't consider that a substantial number of illegal immigrants would experience pay increases adding to the tax increase once becoming legal citizens. All this report covers is the direct tax and cost balance to the federal government based on current conditions and regulations, not to the economy as a whole.

Unfortunately, no such study exists. Why? Because no one is willing to fund a study that might not support their position. Instead, people fund studies to look at a portion of the data that they know will prove their point.


RE: Obama appointment
By ZmaxDP on 1/15/2009 7:39:23 PM , Rating: 2
Also, the original response to my post didn't both asking what I meant by Amnesty at all. All Amnesty means in this sense is that we're granting forgiveness (a pardon) for the offense of illegally entering the US. I never said I wanted to make all 20 million of them US Citizens, I never said I wanted to give them all the benefits of a US Citizen. For some reason, people hear "Amnesty" and think it automatically means make them a citizen. Wrong...

I would personally like to see a significant overhaul to the guest worker program which actually allows a sufficient volume of immigrants to work in the US for a sufficient amount of time. We need to make a program that is actually attractive to potential workers so that they want to work legally. We couple that with better enforcement of workplaces, and figure out a way to actually monitor the agricultural industry's use of illegal aliens. The programs we have now don't make sense, and there are so few slots that we actually NEED illegal immigrants to keep things running. I would like to see those millions of illegal immigrants living in the US funneled into that program with no penalties and just the basic entry fees as long as they did it within 6 months of the program becoming available. After that, there are penalties for anyone in the future and increased enforcement will have a lot less illegal aliens to track down.

Just thought since no one bothered to ask that maybe I should elaborate...


RE: Obama appointment
By BreathingCausesGW on 1/16/2009 1:40:55 AM , Rating: 2
how bout we just make all the welfare free-riders do the unskilled labor currently done by illegal immigrants? I really see no downside to this.


RE: Obama appointment
By ZmaxDP on 1/16/2009 11:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
Make them? As in slavery? Now that's an interesting idea... I don't know that you're going to get much support on this one.


RE: Obama appointment
By thepalinator on 1/16/2009 11:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Make them? As in slavery?
Make them as in, "if you want benefits, you work for them". Their choice.

The real slavery is what we have now, where the government forces me to pay the bills of all these people. Do I have a choice? No.


RE: Obama appointment
By BreathingCausesGW on 1/16/2009 1:37:42 AM , Rating: 2
this just came out and thought it was relevant:
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=31691...

I am aware that the first one does have some ambiguity. I couldnt find the article i was looking for either.

Come to Texas Children's Hospital in Houston and you will see the problem. On a saturday, you can expect to be in the waiting room in the emergency room for about 12hrs on average. It may not be anymore, but not that long ago the number 1 McDonalds in terms of revenue generation was inside TCH. THAT is the problem. little kids have their happy meal and the toy room, so their perfectly happy waiting around all day. Thats why you see people in the ER because their child sneezed or because it has an earache. If you make the ER a place where people dont want to be, then maybe they wont go their unless it really is an emergency. Family doctors/ pediatricians can handle a lot of the minor nosense people go to the ER for.


RE: Obama appointment
By ZmaxDP on 1/16/2009 11:35:01 AM , Rating: 2
For the most part, it is talking about mortgages to legal Hispanic immigrants - only at the end is it talking about ITIN loans, and you'll notice it doesn't say they are defaulting at higher rates - because they aren't. It says there is a risk of them defaulting - which is true of every single mortgage in this country.

As for Hispanics and other immigrants having higher default rates on home mortgages, that's a no brainer. Actually, it is shocking how low the default rates are on ITINs. The reason ITIN defaults are so low is that the terms on those loans are very strict. For the rest, first generation immigrants on average have much lower incomes than second, third, or fourth generation immigrants to the US. There is a direct relationship between the cost of a home and the income required to safely support that payment - and the lower your income the less house you can get. The problem with sub-prime loans is that the original payments were just a fraction of the eventual payment after the adjustment. This meant that lenders were qualifying people who clearly couldn't afford the eventual payment based on the amount of the initial payments. Not surprising that these loans have a much higher delenquency rate of 8%-13%. However, neither this article nor any others I've seen have any numeric evidence to support that hispanic immigrants have a higher default rate than other sub-prime borrowers. While Hispanics may have taken out 40% of the sub-prime loans, the other 60% were taken by whites, and other groups. Interestingly, Hispanics make up more than 40% of the first generation immigrant population in the us, so I don't see any statistical reasoning to suggest Hispanics used sub-primes more than other immigrant populations. I just don't understand why these articles single out an ethnic immigrant group when there doesn't appear to be any factual data to support that they are behaving any differently. Also, to infer that illegal immigrants are part of this group when ITIN loans are clearly not sub-prime and aren't defaulting is a little irresponsible for a reporter to do.

And, once again, I am the first person to say our healthcare system is broke. My entire objection was blaming this on illegal immigrants as if they were the main cause of the current failures in the system across the entire country. What you're talking about is common in all 50 states, whether they have high illegal immigrant populations or not. I'll say it one more time, we have to figure out how our healthcare system is going to treat the uninsured. Until we do, we're going to be stuck in this same situation.


RE: Obama appointment
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/15/2009 6:38:36 PM , Rating: 2
“Your grandparents and mine all immigrated legally in a time where the US was actually opening it's borders to a huge number of immigrants. At the time if you could make it here (by sea or by land) all you had to do was make it to an immigration office like Ellis island and you were in. Contrast that with the situation we're in now. While I'm glad your family and mine immigrated legally, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have immigrated illegally if we'd had the same immigration policies back then that we do now.”

Wow, if your grandparents are still alive I highly suggest you talk to them about the immigration issues/troubles they had coming to this country. You make it sound like a cake walk. Not the case at ALL. First thing, reason the borders are button down today is because the government knows we have too many illegal immigrants in the country. You do realize there are thousand of highly skilled and educated people, who have learned English, and are ready (studied) to take the test to become US citizens; however we can not let them in because of the illegal immigrant problem… Sad isn’t it, the people we as a society want here are blocked and the people we do not want here (law breakers) we are allowing to stay.

Now I talked to my Grandfather who came here around 1920’s. He was a skilled laborer (tailor – from Austria), oldest brother of I believe 5 boys. He came here first in order to make a home and bring his brothers over one by one. To come to the US by boat he had to first have these things: Know the language (not an expert, just enough to get by), have a sponsor (a person already living in the USA that was to assure him a job and take responsibility for the immigrant), a job lined by that person (most of the time an immigrant would be come an indentured servant to the sponsor) in grandfathers case he has to work for 7 years on the railroad with no pay – wages paid for transport over the ocean, food, drink, and lodging while working. He told me he netted about 2 cents every week after all was said and done, which would be about $2.50 today’s money. Once this was lined up he had to wait for a letter from the US government saying come on over. Then he could get on the ship and head for Ellis Island (where his name is now etched into some monument with about a million other immigrants’ names). Once at Ellis Island, he had to spend a week there filling in forms and taking tests. The tests were main health tests. If you had any sort of sickness say a cold or flue that you picked up on the boat ride over the ocean you were denied access and shipped back to Europe, no refund. If the guy you were talking to did not like you, he could refuse you and back to Europe you went, no refund. There are several other stages I’m forgetting (he died 10 years ago so can not ask for the details again). However, after he landed here and worked off his indentured servant time of 7 years, he then started earning money to bring his brothers over. By the time he had enough money for the first brother (which was not long) the US government had stopped allowing any more immigrants in from Austria. See, each country had a quota number of people that were allowed in… Say one year might be 10,000 Austrians, 30,000 Irish, 70,000 Italians and so on the next year might be 0 Austrians, 40,000 and 10,000 Italians. I idea was to keep a balance flow of different nations coming into the US – so not to become to one type of country. This of course is not done today, because the government is not controlling the influx of people… There are illegals’ hopping over the boarders and therefore messing up the “balance” so they have to just deny would be legal immigrants that have filled out the paper work, done everything asked of them to come to the USA and live – They are the ones just like our grandparents and they can not come in, because of the illegal immigrants you want to give amnesty to.


RE: Obama appointment
By ZmaxDP on 1/16/2009 11:09:45 AM , Rating: 1
"You do realize there are thousand of highly skilled and educated people, who have learned English, and are ready (studied) to take the test to become US citizens; however we can not let them in because of the illegal immigrant problem…"

The illegal immigrant problem isn't why we have such low quotas of people allowed into the US. The reason we don't allow enough people legally into the US is protectionist policies voted on by our elected officials that have been in place in one form or another since the immigration wave of the early 1900s. The reason we have so many illegal aliens is that the actual demand for them is far far higher than the amount the quotas allow in.

You want to know how many vistas were granted in the last 10 years? (not work or school vistas, those aren't permanent)
http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY07AnnualReportTa...
Mexico - 553,162
India - 257,740
China - 279,187
Philippines - 326,420
These are the four largest blocks. In ten years we allowed a little over 4 million people to come live in the US (4033775 to be precise). Before our current recession, we were hovering between a 3 and 4 percent unemployment rate. Most economists target 6% unemployment as a healthy level for an economy. Most didn't even think it was possible to get much below that until we did it. I don't think we have a glut of workers out there on the market even now. Most of the people left unemployed by this recession aren't low wage earners anyway. It isn't like a former stock broker is competing for a job against illegal immigrants anyway. So, once again, were we to successfully deport all 20 million Illegal immigrants in the US, it would only take us almost 50 years to replace them at the rate we're letting people into the US currently.

Sad isn't it, there are millions of highly skilled and educated people living in our country illegally contributing to our society and paying taxes but we're too dumb to allow them to become citizens.

As for the trials of immigrants coming here from over seas, I never said it was easy to get here, I only said once you got here you were virtually guaranteed to get in. Yes there were quotas, but they weren't strictly followed (we didn't have computers back then you might remember and Ellis Island wasn't the only place people could come into the country at, how do you think they instantly communicated when that 30,000 mark was reached?). Also, there were millions upon millions who didn't immigrate legally back then either (the quota was met, they were sick at the immigration office, etc...) and once in they could wait a year and go back through the line, or use another means of becoming a citizen. Heck, politicians in the early 1900s in Chicago and quite a few other large cities would round up thousands of illegal immigrants and get them processed to become citizens so they would vote for them. It was a great way to get elected. So, it isn't like illegal aliens are a new phenomenon.


RE: Obama appointment
By ironargonaut on 1/14/2009 11:35:37 PM , Rating: 3
"Amenable Healtcare" thats a subjective term. Do you even read the articles you post? Wow, US sucks because an organization that want universal health care writes a questionable study that is published in a no name magazine. Read the Newsweek article. It says they are going south for ELECTIVE procedures. If I lived in France would they pay for a facelift? Comparing elective and necessary procedures is apples and oranges. Why is medicine cheaper in Mexico. No insurance, nurses and doctors get paid much less and unlike the US hospitals they don't have to provide emergency care for anyone who comes through the door. Not to mention more lax gov't oversight. Got cancer? Like my nephew.

Go to Tijuana . There's a clinic that will sell you the cure to all cancer's. For some reason the FDA won't let them work in the US.

My nephew had the worse health insurance in my state. (hint it was provided by state) He got a brain MRI the day after he was diagnosed. Since the cancer is very rare I have heard stories from many in Socialized medicine states. One in Great Britian had to argue and wait 8 months after he had symptoms before he could get an MRI. He had already had the cancer for over a year. Yet according to you GB is better at preventive health care. I say BS. GB is so good there own study found many were pulling there own teeth because they couldn't get into a dentist. I am sure that prevents problems.
quote:
This is a moot point. People are advocating a health care system which does not reject even insured people for what an insurance case auditor claims as "a previously existing condition" which insurance is not responsible for in spite of the fact that they are paid to be responsible for it. The free market system of health has failed to bring us this or better care.
.

Oh really. Then how come when I got guardianship of my nephew he was instantly covered for all conditions? With my health plan any preexisting condition for me is fully covered after six months. This is simply to prevent people from not having or getting the cheapest insurance possible then switching as soon as they get sick. I believe it is already a federal law that all insurance must do this. So, your arguement does not hold water.

quote:
There might be some rich people in other countries coming here, but the prohibitive costs of our health care system rules out these "droves" you speak of by default.


Not true. At one point hospitals in Canada were flying pregnant women to small towns in Montana to deliver because they did not have enough beds and doctors. I have read many articles about people spending there nest egg to get scans done in US because they did not want to risk the wait in Canada. Trust me I know. An early scan can be the difference between life and death. And, they were/are prevented by law from having private insurance.

I spent at least $35K for medical care for my nephew out of my own pocket on experimental treatments for his terminal cancer. And, even I don't want gov't health care and I don't blame the insurance company. I am not rich even by Obama's standard's.


RE: Obama appointment
By HinderedHindsight on 1/15/2009 1:17:13 AM , Rating: 1
I feel the need to respond because you do bring some genuinely good points to the table.

quote:
Comparing elective and necessary procedures is apples and oranges. Why is medicine cheaper in Mexico.


First of all, reread my post- the reason why I brought up that Newsweek article was not to compare electoral procedures to necessary procedures, but it was in response to the idea that people come only to America in droves for medical care. If you want further evidence, look at the cancer patients from the United States who go to Germany for treatment.

quote:
Then how come when I got guardianship of my nephew he was instantly covered for all conditions?


You must have very good insurance- not all Americans have this- especially not the thousands of people who have been laid off in the last several months. As I mentioned before, this is a fundamental flaw of the system- if people are unemployed, there is a high degree of certainty that they aren't insured and can't afford it. This isn't a personal failing of theirs, or even insurance companies, it's a flaw in the way the market works.

quote:
This is simply to prevent people from not having or getting the cheapest insurance possible then switching as soon as they get sick.


This is a wonderful point, and I'm surprised it took this long for someone to bring it up. It is definitely not right that some people wait until they are sick, then try to turn on insurance like a magic switch, and laws should be in place to prevent this.

However, there are plenty of cases of people who have been paying into their premiums for years, and getting rejected treatment. If we want to talk about things we have "heard"- I personally know a woman who had a miscarriage, she did not drink or smoke, or do drugs. She was covered by her employers health plan for years. Yet the insurance company made her pay for her own D&C terming the miscarriage as a preexisting condition.

quote:
At one point hospitals in Canada were flying pregnant women to small towns in Montana to deliver because they did not have enough beds and doctors. I have read many articles about people spending there nest egg to get scans done in US because they did not want to risk the wait in Canada. Trust me I know. An early scan can be the difference between life and death. And, they were/are prevented by law from having private insurance.


Canada is often pointed to as a case where socialized medicine doesn't work- however, this is not necessarily a failing of socialized medicine itself.

Canada is on the brink of what has termed as a crisis in human resources. They're facing an aging and retired workforce, and not enough educated youth to replace them. They've passed new laws accelerating the naturalization process for educated immigrants, but this cannot mitigate the fact that places like Alberta have an over centralized population and they simply cannot produce/import enough doctors to keep up with demand for services. It is well documented that Canada has been imported large numbers of nurses from the Philippines and India.

This is not a failure in the Administration by the government, but rather an issue of supply and demand. Having private insurance would not help this situation. In fact, private insurance might make the situation worse, as the cost of health care might skyrocket due to the human limitations of the health care system.


RE: Obama appointment
By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2009 11:00:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You seem to think there is little wrong with the U.S. health care system- The Commonwealth Fund seems to disagree with your assertion.
The Commonwealth Fund exists for a single purpose -- to promote socialized health care in the US. It's hardly a surprise they rate nations with socialized medicine higher.

For a small dose of reality, the term "medical tourism" is nearly unknown to most Americans. To Europeans, its a well-known practice of fleeing your own nation's "free" health care system, to pay thousands of your own money to receive care you couldn't get at home.


RE: Obama appointment
By omgwtf8888 on 1/14/2009 11:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
We as a country need to separate health care from health insurance. Health insurance redirects funds from direct care providers (doctors, nurses, hospitals)to administration and consultants. It is the reimbursement schemes that the government has created that have largely screwed up health care pricing. We need to employ technology to remove the haze from health care reimbursement. What is needed is a reimbursement system that removes middle men from the equation and gets the dollars into the pockets of the practitioners. We have the best health care in the world, our problem is how we pay for it.


RE: Obama appointment
By thepalinator on 1/14/2009 11:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
You pay for healthcare by working for it. If you tell everyone in the country they're entitled to free food, housing, education, healthcare, and everything else, how many are going to want to spend their lives going to school and working?


RE: Obama appointment
By Guyver on 1/14/2009 12:10:48 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you trying to be logical when you know liberals are emotional? :)


RE: Obama appointment
By HinderedHindsight on 1/14/2009 12:58:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
For a small dose of reality, the term "medical tourism" is nearly unknown to most Americans.


Sorry to burst your dose of reality, masher, but people in Texas have been known to go to Mexico for medical treatment. Medical tourism well known here, and it started with people hopping into Canada to get drugs.

European medical tourism is a common thing, but its only common in as far as the practice. This is largely due to the sophistication of technology in the home country, not necessarily an indication of the quality of care in the destination country. Germany receives a large number tourists for medical purposes from the US, Canada and Britain as well because they have sophisticated technology, and are on the cutting edge of cancer research and treatment. And they have lower prices compared to the U.S.

This is not to say that America does NOT have sophisticated technology, nor is it to say that it is not a destination for medical tourism. It largely depends on the traveler's financial situation, the treatment they need, their ability to gain a VISA to the destination country, and get treatment in that country. The fact that people come here from Canada and Britain is more of a function of the traveler's ability to get here and the treatment they need rather than an indication of our quality.


RE: Obama appointment
By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2009 1:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
You've forgotten one tremendous difference. No one goes to Mexico to get better care, they do it to save money.

In socialized systems, though, medical tourists are willing to pay extra, to get services that in their own nation are either wholly unavailable, or of poor quality.

Of the top 25 hospitals in the world, 24 of them are in the USA. I think that says something about quality of health care:

http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp


RE: Obama appointment
By jbartabas on 1/14/2009 1:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of the top 25 hospitals in the world, 24 of them are in the USA. I think that says something about quality of health care:


Did you only read what you linked to?!? Or you just pick the first result in your 10s Google search ...

From their website:
Methodology:

2. Ranking purpose and target groups. Webometrics Ranking is measuring the volume, visibility and impact of the web pages published by Hospitals, with special emphasis in the scientific output (referred papers, conference contributions, pre-prints, monographs, thesis, reports, …) but also taking into account other materials (courseware, seminars or workshops documentation, digital libraries, databases, multimedia, personal pages, …) and the general information on the institution, their departments, research groups or supporting services and people working or attending courses.
[...]
As it has been already commented, the four indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows:

Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead. For each engine, results are log-normalised to 1 for the highest value. Then for each domain, maximum and minimum results are excluded and every institution is assigned a rank according to the combined sum.
Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead. For each engine, results are log-normalised to 1 for the highest value and then combined to generate the rank.
Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Microsoft Excel (.xls), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google and merging the results for each filetype after log-normalising in the same way as described before.
Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.


RE: Obama appointment
By HinderedHindsight on 1/14/2009 2:36:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No one goes to Mexico to get better care, they do it to save money.


I didn't forget that difference, I merely didn't see a need to address it. I completely agree that people cross the border to save money. That speaks volumes about the quality of the entire medical care system in the United States. If patients can be denied care because insurance doesn't want to pay for it, it's a big issue, and I think that's a huge component of our *entire* medical care system. An even bigger issue is this: in a failing economy where people are getting laid off, and jobs aren't being created, how effective can a health care system be when people can't afford care on their own? This is a fundamental flaw.

Sure, in a black and white world where everyone can get employment, and insurance companies do not deny claims to save costs, our health care system *would* be the best*

quote:
Of the top 25 hospitals in the world, 24 of them are in the USA


Bravo, masher, you failed an attempt to cleverly twist the subject of the argument. I'm not arguing the quality of the technology or even the quality of the doctors. Hospitals in the United States are of course top notch. No one argued otherwise I'm talking about the availability and the quality of care that the entire system provides, which includes the insurance companies.

In a perfect system where everyone who buys insurance gets care, then we would have a great health care system with no faults. Unfortunately, the insurance companies- the entities which determine who gets health coverage and at what price, and even *IF* they get treatment after they've paid- are a major obstacle.

It seems *you've* forgotten the tremendous difference between a health care system and a hospital. Quality of care doesn't begin and end at the hospital, it begins at the insurance company and in some cases ends there as well. You're arguing a completely different point, or in the very least misunderstood my own.

quote:
In socialized systems, though, medical tourists are willing to pay extra, to get services that in their own nation are either wholly unavailable, or of poor quality.


Of course they do- and I agree with that comment. Where I disagree with you is the criterion on which they select the United States. If a cancer patient in Britain has a visa to both the U.S. and Germany, and treatment is higher end and cheaper in Germany, it is safe to say that patient will go to Germany.

What I think speaks even more fundamentally to my point is the fact that Canadians and United States citizens go to Germany for care- they're willing to go to the extra cost of traveling further away from a country with the best hospitals, as you've pointed out, to get care. And it is easier for a Canadian to cross an American border than it is for them to get into Germany. It's the prohibitive cost of admission, and the willingness to provide services to paying insurance customers that drive Americans to Germany.


RE: Obama appointment
By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2009 2:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure, in a black and white world where everyone can get employment [our] health care system *would* be the best"
And when someone cannot get employment, you would force others to pay their bills? That's no more than slavery. The fact that the wage slave may have a higher income than his jobless master doesn't change this basic fact.

Having the populace commit to a common cause -- roads, national defense, etc -- is one thing. Reaching into one person's wallet for the benefit of another is quite a different matter.

quote:
Hospitals in the United States are of course top notch. No one argued otherwise I'm talking about the availability and the quality of care
Let's be honest here. The availability is the real issue with which you -- and other proponents of socialized medicine -- have a problem.


RE: Obama appointment
By HinderedHindsight on 1/14/2009 3:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Let's be honest here. The availability is the real issue with which you


When was I dishonest? Availability is always an issue when it comes to health. If we remove availability from the health care debate, then the entire basis for your point regarding medical tourism collapses. At that point we cannot argue the lack of availability of treatment methods provided to Canadians, nor can we argue the lack of available coverage provided to Americans, and the argument becomes all about who can treat a case of the sniffles better among their own citizenry, which you must admit, is kind of a dry and meaningless debate.

quote:
And when someone cannot get employment, you would force others to pay their bills? That's no more than slavery. The fact that the wage slave may have a higher income than his jobless master doesn't change this basic fact.


Are you only capable of changing the direction of a debate in order to make a point? Are you telling me that there are slave doctors in France, being forced to work to treat others so they don't have to pay a medical bill or pay for insurance? Do me a favor and ask a French doctor if he feels like a slave.

The entire insurance system is premised on the idea of "others" paying the bill, otherwise known as shared liability. You pay into the system *in case* you get sick, but if you don't, your money then goes to help pay for Joe's cancer treatment (if he pays for insurance). But, if the insurance company then needs to protect its bottom line, it might tell Joe to go without anesthesia for the surgery he needs, or it might stick Joe with the bill for treatment altogether claiming it was a preexisting condition that they aren't responsible for.

No one is asking anyone else to foot a medical bill. Right now, insurance companies continually raise rates because of the uninsured. When an uninsured person claims bankruptcy because they needed treatment, and the hospitals can't recoup costs, their costs go up, which affects the cost, treatment and coverage provided to the insured. If the entire country, however, paid into a nationally managed insurance system which didn't have the ability to deny coverage because of preexisting conditions, it would lead to a healthier and more productive work force, which benefits a free market economy, and the cost of providing health care would be streamlined. It's just an expanded idea of the current insurance system that isn't subject to the whims of a claims auditor or the bottom line perspective of a business. The current system promotes class-ism in terms of health care coverage.


RE: Obama appointment
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 4:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
You want to know what the difference between our current health care system and socialized health care is?

Four words.

I have a choice.

If I don't like one provider, I can switch to another. If I don't like how much I'm paying, I can attempt to find a better plan. If my plan doesn't cover enough, I can pay more and get better coverage.

With socialized medicine, I don't have any choice.


RE: Obama appointment
By Dreifort on 1/14/2009 5:03:18 PM , Rating: 2
Democrats loathe that their citizens have the ability to make financial or health decisions. They can't stand to watch ppl make decisions they don't agree with.

They've done all they can do create and promote an unbalanced political system. Their next target is our financial system...don't like that it is "balanced" in the fact rich ppl exist.

It's not so much socialism sneaking up on us, it's their attempt to destroy our founding fathers base foundation of diversity (even if it may be rich/poor or liberal/republican/whig or black/white. And don't get all anti-slavery with the last example. Our founding father's believed every man had a voice -- at that time they looked upon slavery as a legitimate transaction (right or wrong).

Democrat's want total control, they don't believe in opposite views or ideas. Otherwise, why go OUT of their way to fun and campaign for 2 elections that would given them total congressional power (MN and GA senatorial races).

And republicans have become guilty of this mentality too in recent yrs. It's either my view or you're wrong crap.

This is exact same mentality environmentalist and IPCC members, etc have today.


RE: Obama appointment
By retrospooty on 1/14/2009 5:44:27 PM , Rating: 2
Uh... that is NOT the plan. You know nothing about what OPbama's plan is, you just spout garbage.

If you want to keep your plan, or change to any plan you like, you are free to do so. There is absolutely NOTHING in Obama's plan that takes that away from you, tool.


RE: Obama appointment
By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2009 4:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
> " Availability is always an issue when it comes to health"

The very best of health care is always readily available in the US. Only when you redefine the term to mean "it's available and someone's given me the money to pay for it" that the issue even arises.

That redefinition changes the debate from one about medicine to one about political-economic systems. If you want to debate whether or not socialism is preferable to capitalism, debate it honestly. Don't use medical care as a proxy for the real issues you want to advance.


RE: Obama appointment
By HinderedHindsight on 1/14/2009 4:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The very best of health care is always readily available in the US. Only when you redefine the term to mean "it's available and someone's given me the money to pay for it"


Fun- now we're playing with definitions. I can play too. The basic idea you refer to when you say "available and someone's given me the money to pay for it" is accessibility to people of varying income levels.

Look up the definition of "available" and you will find the term "accessible" as one of its definitions.

I haven't redefined anything. Availability implies accessibility. You can't say something is available if it isn't accessible due to certain criteria. You are the one redefining the term available to mean "under specific circumstances".

quote:
Don't use medical care as a proxy for the real issues you want to advance.


And of course now the attacks begin because you're failing to make your points.

Personally, I'm a proponent of a managed market economy, this is much different than socialism. It is partially my fault for not making that clear. But, I do take issue with you reinterpreting my argument in favor of a nationalized system as some kind of broader argument for socialism. Yet again, you are attempting to divert the discussion from its original standing (the functionality of the American health care system) to indirectly calling me a socialist. You are forgiven if this was not your intent, but it is mildly difficult not to read it that way.

With that said, my use of the French health care system as an example was really to show that it could work, and so far, they've had no large scale revolts against it, and it has been shown to be functional, and moderately successful model especially when it comes to preventable deaths and quality of health.

But on top of that, a nationalized health plan does not have to stand alone, and can have free market alternatives for those who need/want better. It has been shown that better preemptive care can lead to long term savings medically. And even if you are an advocate for free market solutions, a nationalized offering can be seen as yet another competitor in the free market, helping to manage the costs and increasing the benefit offerings by insurers by using the very same free market principles of competition which you claim to support. Additionally broader health care coverage can only assist a free market economy through a more productive workforce.

The truth is, we already live in a managed market economy. It's this stubborn idea that somehow anything that manages the market further (and introduced by the government) is automatically socialism.


RE: Obama appointment
By Guyver on 1/14/2009 1:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
People from here go to Germany because they practice alternative / experimental forms of medicine that would otherwise be banned in the U.S.

Case in point Farrah Fawcett went to Germany to do what I think was rectal cancer treatment. The procedure used aborted fetal tissue or some sort of embryonic tissue. I'm not exactly sure on the specific experimental procedure, but it's in that general area.


RE: Obama appointment
By William Gaatjes on 1/14/2009 5:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
Does medical tourism not have something to do with the experimental therapies that medical staff do not feel save to perform in the native country ? That usually is not an issue of money but more an issue of medical specialized people in the native country finding certain treatments just too experimental and risky.


RE: Obama appointment
By Fnoob on 1/15/2009 9:06:58 AM , Rating: 2
45+ replies.... but somehow 'not worth reading'?

Methinks folks here often confuse 'agree/disagree' with 'worth reading/not worth reading'.


all about power (& control)
By Dreifort on 1/14/2009 8:54:11 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The only researcher to agree with the IPCC's asserting was Emori, who is himself a member of the IPCC.


Someone mentioned this in the Prius thread, but it's reinforced with the above quote. It's not about WHAT is the right or wrong answer. It's about WHO has the answer.

IPCC just wants power. And anyone who seeks to control Mother Nature with global warming threats is doing the same (albeit gov't or private institutions).




RE: all about power (& control)
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2009 8:58:58 AM , Rating: 2
I think all the global warming environmentalists, including the IPCC and US democrats, are getting very worried that the majority of people don't give two craps about it. If it means they have to sacrifice and pay more for the liberal agenda, then no one wants it....and for good reason.

They are trying to guilt us with everything they have: your killing the planet, the resources are going to be gone soon, your baby will have asthma, hurricanes will take your house, your coastal house will be gone, and last but not least....just do it because its a good thing to do (or so they think)!


RE: all about power (& control)
By Tsuwamono on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: all about power (& control)
By Dreifort on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: all about power (& control)
By wvh on 1/14/2009 4:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
You can drive your SUV if you pay for all suffering smog causes to others, such as cancer and asthma. See, I don't care so much about the whole global warming discussion. But pollution is real.


RE: all about power (& control)
By whiskerwill on 1/14/2009 5:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
My neigbhor drives his Honda Civic over 100,000 miles a year. I drive my Expedition (yep thats a SUV) about 9,000 miles a year. Since he's generating a lot more pollution than I am, how about we ban his car first?


RE: all about power (& control)
By William Gaatjes on 1/14/2009 5:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
Why does your neighbor drive so many miles and why do you drive less ?


RE: all about power (& control)
By Dreifort on 1/15/2009 11:06:51 AM , Rating: 2
because in America we have a thing called 'choice'.

I can choose to fly to California or drive. I can choose to buy an SUV or Prius.

Well, at least I use to be able to....see what Obama's administration does to limit my choices. :(


By William Gaatjes on 1/15/2009 12:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
because in America we have a thing called 'choice'.


Do not think i am attacking. I was just wondering why his neigbour drives so many miles. The 9000 miles the poster drives a year seem to be normal home to work, work to home miles. I was thinking that his neigbor may be a salesman or something like that. Why are most of you people so incredibly hostile ?


RE: all about power (& control)
By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2009 9:26:48 AM , Rating: 5
> "the fact is doing what they ask saves you money..."

If you think all that's being asked is to change light bulbs and drive a smaller car, you're mistaken. Cap-and-trade legislation and Kyoto-style mandates don't save money. They cost enormous sums. The IAE estimated last year that emission reduction would cost $47 trillion dollars-- just to get started.

Furthermore, such measures result in a permanent increase in the cost of energy, and everything which depends on it. . . which is pretty much every product, good, and service produced.

There is no reputable economist or major government body that doesn't admit that large-scale emission reductions will have severe economic impacts.


By darklight0tr on 1/14/2009 9:34:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Furthermore, such measures result in a permanent increase in the cost of energy, and everything which depends on it. . . which is pretty much every product, good, and service produced.


Right now energy costs (electrical and natural gas) are skyrocketing as it is, so that is the last thing we need. Now, if we could actually build some modern nuclear power plants...but of course the psychos would derail that.


RE: all about power (& control)
By reader1 on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: all about power (& control)
By gumdrop on 1/14/2009 9:55:52 AM , Rating: 5
The Iraq war was estimated to cost $50 billion and it cost ten times that. (like all government estimates)

If the gov. is estimating $47T ($47,000 billion) for global warming, how much do you think its actually gonna cost us?


RE: all about power (& control)
By reader1 on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: all about power (& control)
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 10:40:37 AM , Rating: 1
Fools like you are hurting the environment far more by advocating for technologies that use many toxic chemicals and the products are made in China which has no pollution controls. You make it impossible through high taxes and other overzealous regulations for those products to be made in the US or Europe which has stricter controls.


RE: all about power (& control)
By danrien on 1/14/2009 11:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
so you are for government regulations, or against them? surely, if these products were being made in the us, with the stricter controls in place making the products more expensive, you wouldn't complain about those, would you?


RE: all about power (& control)
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 12:00:43 PM , Rating: 1
I don't mind basic regulations saying that there shouldn't be black, acrid smoke billowing out of factories and power plants.

But I'm against carbon taxing and the like.

And no I wouldn't complain about the higher prices. I'm not a Walmart shopper who seeks to get things at the lowest dollar cost regardless of quality.

Higher prices could also be controlled if our government wasn't so intent on increasing the minimum wage every few years. All it ever does is cost people jobs and raise prices. They've had it go up every year for the past 3 years. They do it to say "we're helping people earn more money".

In reality your employer either fires you, reduces your hours (same money in less time), or raises prices. The fired option means you make nothing and its harder to get a job because there's more unemployed and less incentive to hire. The reduced hours option means you might have more free time to get another job but you'll have a hard time finding one. And the raised prices option means people spend less which ultimately ends in companies letting go people as their profits fall.


By William Gaatjes on 1/14/2009 5:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
I am also against carbon tax and carbon credit's. Those are sure just scam's.

quote:
Higher prices could also be controlled if our government wasn't so intent on increasing the minimum wage every few years. All it ever does is cost people jobs and raise prices. They've had it go up every year for the past 3 years. They do it to say "we're helping people earn more money".


Do you mean inflation compensation ?


RE: all about power (& control)
By Clauzii on 1/14/2009 10:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it already went past the 10 times:

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home


By BreathingCausesGW on 1/15/2009 1:00:22 AM , Rating: 2
you think the invasion of Iraq is what hurt us?? That amount of money is trivial, even more so when you look at all these stupid Keynesian big govt bailouts this year. "Only government can stimulate this economy" give me a break! the government has an impressive record for consistent failure with intervention and efficient allocation of resources.

“The total value of the bailouts undertaken by the federal government in 2008 now exceeds the combined cost of every major war the United States has ever engaged in, according to a comparison of war costs calculated by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) and the value of the bailouts as calculated by Bloomberg News or Bianco Research.

According to CRS, all major U.S. wars (including such events as the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but not the invasion of Panama or the Kosovo War), cost a total of $7.2 trillion in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars.

According to Bloomberg, the federal government has made commitments worth a total of $8.5 trillion in the bailouts of 2008. That includes actual expenditures as well as loan and asset guarantees.

Bianco Research puts the total value of the bailouts at $8.7 trillion.

The $296 billion spent on World War II, America’s most expensive war, would be $4.1 trillion adjusted to today’s dollars, according to the CRS report from June."

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx...


RE: all about power (& control)
By sgw2n5 on 1/14/2009 11:32:17 AM , Rating: 3
Likewise, there is no reputable economist or major government body that thinks that a simple reduction in consumption would be a bad thing.

Why is it that neo-conservatives have such a difficult time being, well, conservative?


RE: all about power (& control)
By thepalinator on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: all about power (& control)
By sgw2n5 on 1/14/2009 11:50:49 AM , Rating: 2
Woah there Tupac, I didn't say anything about the proposed climate change cap and trade bill, simply a reduction in consumption.

You know, being "conservative" and whatnot.

AGW is probably not happening, and if global climate change (or whatever they are calling it now) is real, it is very likely that humans cannot modulate this phenomenon anyway.

Regardless, I see nothing wrong with reducing exhaust outputs or turning off lights if that is what a person WANTS to do, but it should not be legislated.


By William Gaatjes on 1/14/2009 6:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regardless, I see nothing wrong with reducing exhaust outputs or turning off lights if that is what a person WANTS to do, but it should not be legislated.


I see nothing wrong too.

Let's pretend another ice ages starts because the ocean currents are really off now or that yellow stone starts belching. Not important if it s a human cause or a natural cause. We sure will need all the efficiënt technology we can get. Nothing wrong with being on the save side.
Nothing wrong with making progress. We make it only more easy for ourselfs. It is the story of the ant and the grashopper.


RE: all about power (& control)
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 12:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe because conservatism has nothing to do with consumption.


RE: all about power (& control)
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: all about power (& control)
By EidolWays on 1/14/2009 9:37:30 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
we are running out of resources(fossil fuels anyway)

We may be running out of oil, but we will never actually completely run out. Why? Simple. What's left will be so hard to find or extract that no one will bother. In the meantime, as supplies truly dry up (and production has thus far kept up with worldwide demand, yes?), the price will rise and we will be forced to seek alternatives. This is the way it works for any natural resource. This is hardly reason, however, to seek to hand out fines, regulations, and "denier!" labels. The market will work itself out as it does when unimpeded by well-meaning or well-bribed politicians. Life will go on, believe it or not.

quote:
alot of kids do have asthma that live in cities
"That live in cities" is, of course, the key phrase here. You're positing that current cars pollute heavily and, so, befoul the air in the city, which in turn causes respiratory problems in humans, especially younger children. I'll readily agree with that, as I've also heard such. Again, forcing automakers or consumers away from what is affordable and currently viable may yet again be a poor decision. For instance, how many people move away from cities because of the poor air quality? If you suddenly decide to force cars to be more efficient, you may get your wish, but if the air quality of a city improves because of it, you may get more drivers staying in the city. Thus, you get more efficient and clean cars, but you also get more cars period. Would this also happen if cars were to improve over time? Of course. But which is more harmful? Forcing it or letting it happen?

quote:
before so if you live in a hurricane prone area there is a good chance it will "take your house"

Actually, until about the mid-1990s, Atlantic hurricane frequency was on a downward trend. I'm not sure about the late 90's, but it's just been in the past few years to a decade that the levels seen have really been above what was expected/predicted.

quote:
And i fail to see why being more efficient is a bad thing?
It's not, and I doubt anyone here would argue that it is, either. What myself and others will argue is that forcing - through legislation - the use of more-expensive and less-tested technology for the sake of efficiency is a poor way to go about it.

quote:
Why would we want to use a 100 watt bulb when we can use a 14 watt bulb with the same brightness
Because when you break a CFL bulb, you have to be worried about mercury. Not so with an incandescent bulb.

quote:
why would we drive a car with 10 mpg when we can drive one with 50?
Because that car that gets 10mpg will be infinitely more fun to drive than the one that gets 50. What gets 10 mpg these days? V8's and V10's. What gets 50 these days? Priuses and other hybrids or high-efficiency vehicles that have the get-up-and-go of a dead fish. Will future tech help this? Sure. But for now, let me choose what I want to drive, please.


RE: all about power (& control)
By porkpie on 1/14/2009 9:40:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
why would we drive a car with 10 mpg when we can drive one with 50?
Why use a computer that uses 400 watts when you can use one that uses 20?

Hey, Tsunonomo, do you ever use anything but an ultra-efficient Netbook? Hypocrite.


RE: all about power (& control)
By Clauzii on 1/14/2009 10:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
But we sure can try - one thing at a time.


RE: all about power (& control)
By inighthawki on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: all about power (& control)
By porkpie on 1/14/2009 12:30:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you could get the same computer and same performance in 20W compared to 400W, you would be stupid not to
And when someone makes a 20 horsepower car that gives me the same acceleration, power, and handling of my 400hp Z06, I'll buy one.


RE: all about power (& control)
By inighthawki on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: all about power (& control)
By JediJeb on 1/14/2009 3:01:26 PM , Rating: 2
But the output performance is as essential as the input performance. 20W versus 400W computer, if they have the same performance is acceptable, but if the 20w computer can only run a text based operating system and you want to watch a video on it, then you would use the 400W one that was capable of doing what you want to do.


RE: all about power (& control)
By inighthawki on 1/14/2009 4:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
But that's entirely my point, and i think i was misunderstood.
Or maybe I misunderstood the point of the original poster, but my logic is that if both cars are the same except for gas mileage, 50mpg is ALWAYS better than 10mpg, in the same sense that 20W is ALWAYS better than 400W (same pc performance).


RE: all about power (& control)
By mdogs444 on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: all about power (& control)
By Black69ta on 1/14/2009 10:59:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And i'm sure some do who live the most remote parts of the world. Next, you'll tell me that the AIDS virus is more easily contracted by those who use LG cell phones instead of Motorola's.


Actually I think that that would be opposite since Motorola has those " Hello Moto" commercials. And the LG Shine has a guy pissin' off his girl, so he ain't gettin any soon.

But in reality I bet it the iPhone's because they think they are too good to catch it and even if they were exposed, their SUPERiPhone would save them.


RE: all about power (& control)
By sgw2n5 on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: all about power (& control)
By ekv on 1/14/2009 4:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, I kind of feel the same way when Al Gore or Michael Moore opens their pompous mouths. Or Katie Couric. Or Dan Blather, er Rather. Keith Olberman. Etc. Talk about grandiose lifestyles. LOL

I was shocked the first time I heard Rush Limbaugh say "I am equal time." No more. Now the Democrat controlled do-nothing congress is threatening to bring back the Fairness Doctrine in order to control and meddle with conservative talk-show broadcasts. Why, when something like 90% of print and TV reporters are registered Democrats? Like the Liberal viewpoint is under-represented, or something stupid like that. Doesn't congress have better things to do, like: stopping Killer Bees, or Fire Ants, or Snakehead Fish, or reform Social Security so it doesn't go bankrupt, or how about telling us where the $350 billion went. The Democrats just spent it and not one of them can say where it went. Etc. What a bunch of jokers.

Maybe I'm just pounding a nail that's already driven, but I haven't found many places where AGW can be discussed, except where you have to turn your brain off and repeat the almost religious fanaticism surrounding Al Gore's baby. "Climate change is unequivocal and caused by humans." Over and over. Oy Vey

Which is to say, I think M. Asher is doing a fairly credible job of reporting the news. News that you certainly won't hear from a Major Media source.


RE: all about power (& control)
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 9:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
There is nothing wrong with conservation or working to reduce waste. But it should not be at the expense of personal freedom to choose what you want to buy.

quote:
hurricanes are more frequent now then before so if you live in a hurricane prone area there is a good chance it will "take your house"


Hurricanes are no more frequent now than they were in the past. We had a few years of heavier activity, and a few years of relatively little activity in the past decade. Remember that word "cycle"?

Global warming alarmists loved Katrina happening. They were like "SEE! WE WERE RIGHT! HURRICANES ARE GETTING WORSE!" In reality though Katrina really wasn't even that powerful of a hurricane. It only caused so much damage because the levees broke.

quote:
driving your car around all over the place for no reason


And what's wrong with people going out? Are we supposed to sit at home unless we have a specific purpose for going out? But thanks to higher fuel prices last year and now the economy, yes people are going out less and staying home more. Happy?


RE: all about power (& control)
By Guyver on 1/14/2009 11:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
Tree Huggers just have a real problem if you suggest the sun may potentially play a bigger role in global climate than man does (if man does at all).

They don't really have an explanation over why other planets in our solar system are warming up nor do they care.

If CO2 is THAT bad because it's a green house gas, then I suppose we need to outlaw water vapor since it's also a green house gas and in greater abundance than CO2.

Whatever happened to the hole in our ozone debacle? It died off when it was discovered that Mars had a hole in its atmosphere too.

Treehuggers don't seem to be interested in a big picture view of things. They want to shove their lifestyle down everyone's throats and if we don't hold hands and sing along, then they'll use the force of government to do so.

Green Communists. :)


RE: all about power (& control)
By Guyver on 1/14/2009 12:03:43 PM , Rating: 2
I love the use of child propaganda. Aside from I don't know where you get hurricanes being more frequent because mankind has some significant play on this, I don't see how you can honestly say going green is cheap.

Going green serves to make certain companies who lobby for it, to become richer. You do realize that the profit margin on incandescent light bulbs are tiny compared to CFL bulbs? And that CFL bulbs contain mercury?

How many people do you believe will actually properly dispose of a CFL bulb? Or do you suppose it will simply go in the trash and ultimately into a landfill where the mercury could leach its way in to drinking water. Hooray for the green movement!

BTW, I think by 2012 you cannot buy incandescent light bulbs anymore. You will only be able to buy CFL or LED bulbs. Hopefully LED bulbs will advance fast enough to be a worthy replacement before we poison our lands with mercury in order to be friendly to our environment.


RE: all about power (& control)
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 3:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
They're already banning them in Europe and the UK.


By BreathingCausesGW on 1/14/2009 2:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
As someone already noted, the more energy efficient CFL bulbs contain mercury which poses serious threats if broken or disposed of improperly.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story...

And to answer your question about the Prius, the issue is pretty much the same; toxic chemicals in batteries. Up to this point, the Prius and most hybrids use NiCd batteries.
1) The Prius' battery contains nickel, which is mined in Ontario Canada. The plant that smelts this nickel is apparently nicknamed "the Superstack" because of the amount of pollution it puts out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution.
2) That smelted nickel then has to travel (via container ship) to Europe to be refined.
3) It is then to China to be made into "nickel foam," a process which may also have undesired environmental effects.
4) Then its shipped to Japan for final assembly
5) And finally, its shipped (again, via container ship) to the United States.

Now, I know that there has been much debate about whether this actually makes the H2 more eco-friendly than the Prius, and I am not attempting to make that argument. But one thing you cannot argue is that every one of those steps in the production process do happen and they have real effects. While there is debate about GHG emissions, there is zero debate that nickel smelting, and battery acid are toxic and extremely detrimental to the environment. Pollution and GHGs are not synonymous. The former can and should be limited as much as possible, while the latter may, or may not, have any harmful effects. The negative environmental impacts associated with improper disposal of these batteries is just as important an issue as the production process, as with these CFL light bulbs.
Lithium Ion batteries are "less bad" but as of right now, the technology is not there yet. In order to use lithium ion batteries, the last est. i read said it would have to cost close to $20,000 for just the battery alone. That is what I mean when i say the tech is not there yet.


RE: all about power (& control)
By bigjaicher on 1/15/2009 1:15:43 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, but they blame all of those events singularly on human caused global warming. According to the most intelligent teacher I've ever had, things are always multi-causal.

quote:
And i fail to see why being more efficient is a bad thing?


Being efficient is a great thing. I love efficiency, as it makes things cost less. However, if it's really that much more efficient, then the market's demand for it would increase while the inefficient would decrease, resulting in the incandescent light bulb going out of business.

Is that happening? No. If it's really that great, then it should buy itself, not rely on bans on incandescents or "tax credits" that reduces financial motivation to improve the technology.

Oh, and regarding the driving a car with better gas mileage.
Let's say a person already owns outright a car that gets, say 21 mpg. He sees the option to buy a Ford Focus, costing $14,995 and having up to 35 mpg (source:fordvehicles.com). He knows that he will drive around 40,000 miles in the next two years. Assuming that gas prices are at an average of $2.50 per gallon, how much money will he save by buying the Ford Focus over his current car? (yes, it is a math problem).

Current Car (21 mpg): Cost to buy (0) + 40,000 mi * gal/mi (1/21) * $2.50/gal

Ford Focus (35 mpg): Cost to buy ($14,995) + 40,000 mi * gal/mi (1/35) * $2.50/gal

Cost with Current Car: $4761.91
Cost with Ford Focus: $17812.15

Does this really save you that much money?
If 40,000 mi is at a constant, the cost of gas must be a whopping $19.68/gal for them to be equivalent.
If $2.50/gal is at a constant, then the miles traveled must be 314,895 miles for the costs to be equivalent.
If you decide to change it so that the price of gas is $5/gal, you would still have to drive 157,447.5 miles to make buying the Focus worth your time.

You can play around with those equations if you'd like. Now, if you're buying a new car and a person would like to buy a truck with lower gas mileage and the profit margin for the company is much higher for that than with these sedans, shouldn't they be allowed to sell them (especially since they are in dire need of profit)?

Their suggestions are great, turning them into laws that force it to be unprofitable for both the consumer and the companies (or as some say, Main Street and Wall Street) is not.

I am not "so damn hard headed," it's just that I actually know my numbers.


Surprising...
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2009 8:53:56 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The only researcher to agree with the IPCC's asserting was Emori, who is himself a member of the IPCC .

Why does this NOT surprise me in the least? 4 out of 5 scientists must be wrong!




RE: Surprising...
By Bobington on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Surprising...
By grenableu on 1/14/2009 9:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
You fail. I have NEVER met a doctor who didn't believe in chemotherapy, and I've met hundreds who weren't oncologists.

You also forgot that one of the scientists who DISagrees is also with IPCC.


RE: Surprising...
By Bobington on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Surprising...
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 9:54:20 AM , Rating: 2
You realize that by saying that man-made global warming doesn't exist, these scientists close themselves off to a HUGE pool of funding that goes towards proving that it does exist.

So in this instance where the majority disagreed with the current "widely accepted" theory, a proper analogy would have been that most oncologists don't believe in chemotherapy.


RE: Surprising...
By rikulus on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Surprising...
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 10:42:22 AM , Rating: 2
Governments have far more money than corporations. And nearly all major governments are spending billions in pro-GW research. There is far more money to be had by supporting man made global warming.


RE: Surprising...
By chick0n on 1/14/2009 11:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
Which government are we talking about?

Japan? maybe

US ? Are you smoking?


RE: Surprising...
By Avitar on 1/14/2009 2:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
NORWAY, Germany, ...


RE: Surprising...
By onelittleindian on 1/14/2009 10:51:51 AM , Rating: 5
Whoa, whoa. You are entirely wrong. The oil companies used to give a few million to groups which didn't support global warming, but they stopped that several years ago due to all the environut outcry.

On the other hand governments have spent $40 billion on global warming. You cant even ask for a grant in the EU for climate research unless the thesis supports global warming. And lets not forget the hundreds of billions that groups like Greepeace and the Sierra Club are spending. Even the oil companies themselves are getting in. BP is giving $2M a year to one PRO-WARMING group (The Carbon Mitigation Initative). That's TWICE as much as they ever gave to any anti-warming group.

Oh, and then there's all the people making millions (and who stand to make billions) off these nutty carbon trading schemes. They're funding global warming like mad also. All the huge companies making billions on biofuels are funding it also, people like Archer Daniels Midland, who are getting rich off government ethanol mandates.


RE: Surprising...
By robinthakur on 1/14/2009 11:41:41 AM , Rating: 4
On the contrary, there's grown up a big industry around global warming (or should that be global cooling...errr or climate change) including journalists, carbon consultants as well as legislation being passed and the scientific research community which survives out of grants provided to prove hypotheses. I agree with clearing up and reducing pollution of the land and sea, but the whole climate change bandwagon is staggering in its duplicity and the fact that they expect everyone to be so stupid as to believe their bold-faced lies. The whole thing taps into a movement which seeks to limit our individual freedoms and extract more tax through stealth on carbon payments, fuel taxes etc. All in all a great and practically unlimited sources of revenue for our government. Some day soon, the scientific community will wake up with egg on its face when people realise that they've been swindled by science (in general) and their governments into a state of needless fear.

The whole way this research is funded need to be reviewed so that the interpretation does not subvert the facts of the matter and that limitations in the amount of data are made obvious so they don't go on frightening the public needlessly. The idea that humans can affect the planet in any meaningful way is frankly ridiculous. We are mere insects crawling about on the surface.


RE: Surprising...
By garbageacc3 on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Surprising...
By whiskerwill on 1/14/2009 4:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "you don't think that putting billions of tons of CO2 and other GHG into our atmosphere would affect it?"
When nature puts 28,000 times as much GHG into the air as we do, I'll take my chances.

quote:
some day, you'll wake up and find your house under water cause all the fucking ice melted
With the ocean only going up 0.2 cm a year, again I'll take my chances. Maybe in 5,000 years it'll be a problem.


RE: Surprising...
By bodar on 1/14/2009 4:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
Argumentum ad... wait, how do you say "impotent rage" in Latin? Now quiet down, the adults are talking here.


RE: Surprising...
By dgingeri on 1/14/2009 12:53:09 PM , Rating: 5
1. yes, there is far, far more spent on global warming research to show that it is our fault. So, many scientists push for it to be true. The scientific method has been thrown out the window on this and many other subjects because of the money available for certain points of view. the integrity of the scientific establishment has been totally corrupted.

2. there are 3 things, pointed out in this study, that the global warming pushers set as constant in their models that are anything but constant: solar radiation, solar wind, and cosmic rays. (I admit, I never considered the cosmic rays portion myself.) All of which are up over the last 30 years of recording, and all of which are now on their way back down over the last 5 years.

Solar radiation alone would be half of the recent warming, and many astronomers are saying that it will be dipping below normal levels over the next 10-20 years, and may stay there for 60 more.

Solar wind has been up, and what happens when you send plasma over a magnetic item (like the earth)? It warms up.

Our exposure to cosmic rays has also gone up, but will be going down again soon. While I'm not sure of the level of impact this will have, I'm sure it does have its own contribution.

3. The global warming pushers have always shown their precious data starting in the early 1800's. They say this is because that is when the industrial revolution started, but this also happens to be the lowest part of the little ice age. (For those that don't know, this includes a year when it showed in Virginia in July.) I don't know about you, but I would prefer to not return to that time period, of rampant plagues, famine, failing crops, short growing seasons, etc.

For once, I would like to see them use a comparison dating back to the 700-900AD time, which was known for wines from Scotland being as good as French wines, long growing periods, rampant population growth, and general good times.

4. for those saying that the glaciers have been there "for tens of thousands of years", I have one thing to ask: Why are they finding artifacts of viking settlements reaching far into Greenland under those glaciers? Didn't the Vikings have many settlements in Greenland back in the 750-900AD time period? How is it those glaciers have human artifacts beneath them if they supposedly predated human civilization?

5. Earth has seen many times much warmer than this, with the sea levels much higher (many pre-christian cities in the middle east were port towns that are now 2-3 miles away from the coast) yet civilization has survived, nay thrived, in those times.

I'm all for global warming. I say bring it on. (I hope it will come, instead of the global cooling some are predicting.) We'll be in better shape for it. Longer growing seasons, more farmable land, more food production, more sunny days. Even if it is our fault, we will certainly benefit from it.


RE: Surprising...
By dgingeri on 1/14/2009 1:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
I keep getting down rated on this one.

What's the matter? Do people have a hard time actually looking at FACTS instead of the propaganda the supposed scientists (high priests of the new wide spread religion) have to give?


RE: Surprising...
By teckytech9 on 1/14/2009 8:16:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The global warming pushers have always shown their precious data starting in the early 1800's.

Actually, some data is based on drilling very deep ice core samples in the Antarctica regions.

Its known that atmospheric CO2 levels are now the highest in 800,000 years. Too must CO2 is putting the Earth out of balance and this Global Cooling and Global Warming phenomena may just occur naturally at alarming intervals. I truly enjoy Indian Summers in February, where a beach goer can bask in the 90's sun for a few days and then back to an Arctic freeze, the next.


RE: Surprising...
By FITCamaro on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Surprising...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2009 9:45:10 AM , Rating: 1
lol

" Im CEREAL ! SUPER DUPER CEREAL !! ManBearPig is REAL !! "


RE: Surprising...
By FITCamaro on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Surprising...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2009 9:53:39 AM , Rating: 1
huh ?

We've never been enemies. I just take exception to people happily cheering when my home town gets wrecked.


RE: Surprising...
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 9:59:48 AM , Rating: 2
I was not cheering it. It was a tragedy. What got me upset regarding it was how the majority of the people who lived there expected the government to take care of them while it also paid to rebuild everything. Then blamed Bush for it happening.

I lived in Florida for 17 years. I am no stranger to hurricanes. I was in Melbourne, FL at college when the 3 hurricanes of 2004 rolled through. Many people's homes were destroyed.


RE: Surprising...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Surprising...
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2009 10:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
Differences of opinion coming from different parts of the country. Makes no matter, none of us are going to change what happened.


RE: Surprising...
By gregpet on 1/14/2009 10:41:22 AM , Rating: 3
New Orleans is a joke - if it wasn't such a corrupt city & state the mayor and governor would have been held responsible for their inept response (why didn;t they call for a mandatory evac??). Stop crying for the Feds to bail you out. I don't hear Galveston & Houston demanding handouts! Oh yeah, they are functioning, responsible and civil societies.


RE: Surprising...
By inighthawki on 1/14/2009 12:18:06 PM , Rating: 1
Everyone has full rights to their opinion and nobody has a right to tell them to stop or not. If they want to say something and you don't like it, ignore it, it's that simple. You don't have to keep responding back and forth into a giant flame war or anything. Why can't we just respect others' opinions?


RE: Surprising...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2009 4:57:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why can't we just respect others' opinions?


Kind of hard to respect the opinion of "good riddance nig#$@!, should have known not to live below sea level in the first place " which is basically what they were saying.

People on the Internet act like their opinions are sacred rights free from rebuttal. They are not. They can only get away with it because it's all text on a screen without fear of social ickyness or physical harm. All opinions can't, and shouldn't, be respected. Some people have to be right, and some people wrong, or this world simply wouldn't make any sense.


RE: Surprising...
By inighthawki on 1/14/2009 5:04:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Kind of hard to respect the opinion of "good riddance nig#$@!, should have known not to live below sea level in the first place"

Then ignore it, very easy to do. You must respect the opinion itself, not the insulting or disliked words behind them. The words can be disrespectful, but everyone's opinions must be taken into account.

quote:
People on the Internet act like their opinions are sacred rights free from rebuttal.

Free from rebuttal? Maybe not, but they have full rights to say anything they please about anyone or anything they like.

quote:
All opinions can't, and shouldn't, be respected.

I disagree. Even if you don't like the person or what they say, everyone should respect everyone's viewpoints whether they agree or not. When you stop respecting another person's opinion is when you disagree so much that you don't like it. You cannot put personal feeling in front of freedom of speech.

quote:
Some people have to be right, and some people wrong, or this world simply wouldn't make any sense.

True, but only when there is factual information. Nobody's opinion can be wrong. Information, however, can be.


RE: Surprising...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: Surprising...
By Gzus666 on 1/14/2009 5:31:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm trying to think of who you remind me more of. My mother or my third grade teacher.


People you should have listened to but didn't? That list would go on all day.

Couldn't resist, I'm here all night.


RE: Surprising...
By Kwestyuns on 1/14/2009 11:03:26 AM , Rating: 1
I couldn't find the post again.. but whoever said that hurricanes were in a downward trend until the mid 90's doesn't know what he's talking about. I was born and raised here in Florida, and after a few years in the military, now have a job in Florida. I lived through Hurricane Andrew. I lived through sitting in a bathroom in the middle of a house with 8 other people for 14 hours while my Dad and Uncle held the door shut the entire time only to emerge from the bathroom to see everything within 75 miles of me destroyed. (I lived in Homestead, FL right on the Everglades border) I also lived there for 2 months with no electricity running off of genators and living in a tent and then later an RV while my dad fixed our house back up and we got to move back in to it a year later, and i distinctly remember that being before the mid 90's. (Note: I'm not bitching, I live in Florida... I expect hurricanes.)

Yes, we could've left, but I was a kid at the time and I didn't have a say in the matter, but thats not the point of this. The point is, aside from Katrina, all of our major hurricanes pretty much started in the late 70's (arguably in the early 60's) and have held a pretty steady trend since. I've been through about 16 hurricanes (maybe more, maybe less) in my life, and I will go through many many more. Whether we cut emissions and make this fictitious global warming thing go away, or whether we continue to 'miraculously' bake our own planet.

This so called global warming isn't going to affect whether I have to sit through a few extra hurricanes next year or not. Nature is going to do that for me.


RE: Surprising...
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 11:52:32 AM , Rating: 2
One extremely severe storm in the 90s doesn't say that the entire period was extremely active. He was saying that in the 90s there was fewer storms than normal.

I drove through Miami after Andrew when I was a kid. I remember looking out the window from the highway and seeing flattened houses and buildings as far as the eye could see.


RE: Surprising...
By ang sang on 1/14/09, Rating: -1
RE: Surprising...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2009 10:17:01 AM , Rating: 5
I lol'd reading this.

But wait, according to you guys we made that hurricane right ? So were we paying ourselves back ? :P


RE: Surprising...
By mdogs444 on 1/14/2009 10:20:19 AM , Rating: 5
I wonder what kind of debt those Tsunami people had to pay back? Must have been a hefty price for the damage done by those straw homes and mud roads.

Ang Sang, please inform me where you live, I'll be sure to send a hurricane your way so you can pay back your debt.


Maybe this is a good ego check for science
By SilentSin on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
By FITCamaro on 1/14/2009 10:09:20 AM , Rating: 3
You're speaking like a rational person who's exercising basic common sense....BLASPHEMY!


RE: Maybe this is a good ego check for science
By m104 on 1/14/2009 10:25:35 AM , Rating: 3
The claim that cosmic rays - originating from galactic collisions - could be causing the global warming has been presented by a danish scientist about 5-6 years ago. I've always thought his argumentation was just as valid (if not even more) as that of the "CO2 believers". The models he presented back then showed very precise correlations between temperature and galactic collisions during the past thousands of years. Apparently more ppl are begginning to ackknowledge that explaniation now (I've never heard anyone else but that danish scientist mention cosmic radiation).

I very much agree with you that nothing should be presumed "the single cause" to global warming - at least not until verified wihout any uncertainties.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/14/2009 10:57:48 AM , Rating: 3
Doesn't seem like such a breakthrough to me. I know I'm no scientist, but I think it's a no brainer that this huge fireball in the sky, which we depend on to warm our atmosphere, has something to do with our temperatures.

Go figure :)


By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2009 11:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
That scientist was Henrik Svensmark, and he's been promoting the theory for over 10 years now. There's actually a large number of scientists who today believe GCRs have at least some effect on climate -- Usoskin, Shaviv, Soon, etc.


By BreathingCausesGW on 1/14/2009 3:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
I would love to see someone present the correlation of cosmic rays and climate changes superimposed on correlation of solar spots and climate changes and see if there is any endogenous correlation of the two variables together and climate changes.


By Bobington on 1/14/2009 11:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
"I heard the Jury's still out on science"

-Gob Bluth


By reader1 on 1/14/2009 9:16:33 AM , Rating: 4
There are only two ways to stop the environmentalists:

1) Prove humans can't significantly alter the climate.

2) Convince people that increasing pollutants is better for human society than decreasing them.

Neither of these things will happen.




By Dreifort on 1/14/2009 9:24:12 AM , Rating: 3
forgot option 3) Ignore them.


By grenableu on 1/14/2009 9:30:59 AM , Rating: 3
CO2 isn't a pollutant, man.


By Guyver on 1/14/2009 11:59:18 AM , Rating: 3
The environmentalists haven't proven that humans can significantly alter the climate.

No one has proven it one way or the other.

They also use climate models which go on the ASSUMPTION that CO2 is the cause. Has anyone ever proven this to be the case?


heh
By seamonkey79 on 1/14/2009 9:11:07 AM , Rating: 3
Funny, especially since until we started getting sat data in 1979, 'scientists' were arguing that the planet was cooling.




RE: heh
By lenardo on 1/14/2009 10:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
that is because we Were cooling--sorta.

look at the mean global temperature charts by nasa, they go back to the 1880's

they show Distinct trends that take place over (2 to 3)decades long time lines:

cooling then warming then cooling then warming then cooling then warming (first trend recorded was a cooling trend which is why i started with cooling)

the 70's was during a Cooling trend which ended in the 80's
we are currently in a warming trend- actually we should be approaching the end of the warming trend and entering a cooling trend. we are ~2 decades into a warming trend.

the data is right there, look it up.

temp vs mean .. it usually goes 2 or 3 decades of cool to 2 or 3 decades of warm, etc.

if for 50-60 YEARS(so that we would- most likely- have a complete warm/cool cycle) we turned all electronics off and went back to pre-industrial society - fires/water wheels/horse and carriage etc. no powerplants, cars, etc, we shut off EVERYTHING manmade;

the climate would STILL change.

of course if this coincided with the start of the cooling trend...guess what the headlines would be for the first 10-25 years or so

manmade global warming proved!!!


RE: heh
By Guyver on 1/14/2009 11:56:40 AM , Rating: 2
It's my understanding that from the start of the Industrial revolution to the 70s, we had a cooling trend. Then when the 70s hit (and our first major oil crisis) we had a warming trend even though oil consumption curbed sharply.


RE: heh
By masher2 (blog) on 1/14/2009 12:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
Note quite. According to most proxies, the earth began warming around 1750, a trend that continued until somewhere around 1950. There was a cooling trend for about 25-30 years, depending on dataset, then warming up until the 1998-2001 timeframe, again depending on dataset.

Since 2001, we've been on a slight cooling trend. The dominant trend over the past 250 years, however, has still been warming. Over the past 5,000 years, though, the trend is cooling -- the Holocene Optimum, for instance, was much warmer than we are today.


RE: heh
By Guyver on 1/14/2009 12:08:46 PM , Rating: 2
I should have said from the 40s to the 70s we had a cooling trend.


First the guy from Mexico now this?
By Bobington on 1/14/09, Rating: 0
RE: First the guy from Mexico now this?
By darklight0tr on 1/14/2009 9:24:06 AM , Rating: 2
...except that he isn't the author.


By Bobington on 1/14/2009 9:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
I really should check who I'm trolling before posting.


2 things
By Screwballl on 1/14/2009 11:01:40 AM , Rating: 2
1) Google translator to the rescue: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F...

2) Weather, temperature changes and everything related globally has had its lows and highs billions of years before man even roamed the earth. Also if it starts to get off balance, the planet makes needed changes... increased CO2 means plants grow faster and absorb more CO2 around the globe... lower CO2 means they glow slower. There is a direct relation between growth speed of plants and the CO2 and nitrogen in our atmosphere.
There was a long term study (15+ years) studying trees planted in New York City along heavy traffic routes and ones planted outside of the city in an open field. The trees in the city were healthier and grew much faster and absorbed much more CO2 than those growing out in "nature". The trees within the city had grown to 90% of its full size within 12 years versus the ones outside the city were still less than 50% at the end of the 15 year testing cycle.




The Model, the model, the model....
By RoberTx on 1/15/2009 2:17:14 AM , Rating: 2
It is absolutely impossible for most of us to make an informed decision on this issue because factions from all sides involved in the argument are lying about so much. The news media makes no attempt to sort fact from fiction. I now this much though, the scientific community has shouted fire in a crowded theater. There had damn well better be a fire, Poindexter. There had damn well better be a fire.




By phxfreddy on 1/17/2009 4:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
......but the taxes on everything are still coming.

Democrats. Never met a tax they did not like.




"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki