In 100 years when we're all gone, I wonder how the right and the media is going to "both sides" the climate crisis. Somehow, they'll still convince 30% of the public they were the ones trying to do something about it. I'd have more respect for the general position of this among conservatives if they just said "I'll be dead and I don't really care" because that's what it basically boils down to, instead of this idea that 90%+ of scientists who study climate are engaged in some kind of conspiratorial plot with Democrats. You don't need to be a scientist to see what's going on. The polar ice caps have melted more in the last 20 years than in the last 1000. They melt, and sea levels rise. We were warned long ago. We choose to do nothing. That's all there is to it:
You keep saying that its going to cost a lot of money to implement a healthcare plan, but all the evidence suggests otherwise. Literally every other country pays LESS THAN WE DO on healthcare. Why would adopting one of their cheaper systems cost us MORE money? You want to take a stab at explaining that?
One thing I'd add is that @Balrog99 's situation where his company pays 100% of his health insurance is highly unusual in the US. I have a high-paying job with a good company and I chip in around $250/month. My wife's job is much the same. Even if our companies don't pass on any of their savings to us, a hypothetical tax increase would have to be more than $500/month before it would be a net loss to us. Since $34 Tylenol capsules would be a thing of the past, I don't see that happening.
It kinda depends on how you define it. A public option or a single payer healthcare system would decrease overall costs because the profit incentive would be more or less gone, but the government would be paying the bill and therefore the payment would come in the form of a tax. I think focusing on the increased cost to the government is a narrow way of looking at it, though, since the main reason healthcare is so expensive is simply because the system is dominated by privately owned healthcare providers who make money by keeping costs high. The important thing is what the average American would be paying, and that would invariably be less if we had the choice of picking a provider that didn't need to steal our money.
This "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" and "earn everything you get" mentality has become so ingrained of the psyche of this country that it now even applies to whether your deserve to KEEP LIVING or not. The way the right talks about this issue of single-payer, you'd think we were advocating giving everyone a free Rolls Royce. Health care is not like ANY other issue. You can't go without it. It's not like choosing to not go to the movies to save money or forgoing eating at a restaurant for 6 months. If you (or especially your kid) get sick, you HAVE to go to the doctor. It's not an option. One or two visits can completely wreck your finances. Without insurance, even a mildly prolonged health issue can literally bankrupt you. No amount of belt-tightening or prudent financial management will save you in that situation.
I work for a company that's heavily into fossil fuels. My company along with most, if not all, fossil fuel companies are getting on board with sustainability. If you think that's because they give a shit about global warming I think you're mistaken. They're petrified by the fact that we may be burning their profits up in our automobiles. Almost all of our advanced technology is either directly or indirectly tied into oil in one way or another. The fact that may be a finite resource is just occurring to them now. Low oil prices is their worst nightmare and don't think for one minute that that isn't quite possibly behind the 'global warming' scare that the media is feeding us. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by nature, but I've been seeing the handwriting on the wall for at least the last 10 years or so. Sustainability is very likely good for the environment without doubt, but be sceptical about the cost because I think we're being sold a bill of goods...
My thoughts on the matter:
1. We can make oil. It's very inefficient, because we have to put more energy into the reverse of the combustion reaction than it released when it went through the combustion reaction spontaneously (in chemical terms). And there's a LOT of energy released, it's WHY we use it, energy density. Like skiing down a hill, and then having to trudge back to the top without a ski lift. Our nuclear aircraft carriers are experimenting with using the waste energy to produce jet fuel.
2. We're always going to need oil, because as you pointed out, all (not almost, ALL) of our technology uses it. Everything we've done in the last 130 years has been because of oil. We'd have to go back to steel and coal. No plastics, no advanced medicines, MUCH simpler chemistries because almost the entire fields of organic and biochemistries start with raw ingredients from oil.
3. It would actually be in the interests of fossil fuel companies to have limited production in the name of sustainability/ecology, as that would decrease supply. Without some demand shift of some sort to alternatives,
You keep saying that its going to cost a lot of money to implement a healthcare plan, but all the evidence suggests otherwise. Literally every other country pays LESS THAN WE DO on healthcare. Why would adopting one of their cheaper systems cost us MORE money? You want to take a stab at explaining that?
It's a fallacy.
Because the GOVERNMENT will be spending "their" money and not them, they feel robbed.
Basically, we spend what, 1.8 trillion or so in healthcare nationally? Presume adding 1.6 trillion to the government costs cut healthcare by 200 billion. Those numbers are pulled out of the air, but I they sound about right.
One thing I'd add is that @Balrog99 's situation where his company pays 100% of his health insurance is highly unusual in the US. I have a high-paying job with a good company and I chip in around $250/month. My wife's job is much the same. Even if our companies don't pass on any of their savings to us, a hypothetical tax increase would have to be more than $500/month before it would be a net loss to us. Since $34 Tylenol capsules would be a thing of the past, I don't see that happening.
I've got (relatively) decent health insurance through my employer. I'd happily toss it away to not have to deal with co-pays, referrals, and insurance premiums. Then, it would be great to know that my kids won't have to deal with this same insurance middle man bullshit that I've had to.
It'd be nice to be able to work at a job where "What's the health insurance situation?" wasn't one of the primary motivations. You might even get to do something you are good at instead of something you HAVE to do for the health insurance.
One thing I'd add is that @Balrog99 's situation where his company pays 100% of his health insurance is highly unusual in the US. I have a high-paying job with a good company and I chip in around $250/month. My wife's job is much the same. Even if our companies don't pass on any of their savings to us, a hypothetical tax increase would have to be more than $500/month before it would be a net loss to us. Since $34 Tylenol capsules would be a thing of the past, I don't see that happening.
I've got (relatively) decent health insurance through my employer. I'd happily toss it away to not have to deal with co-pays, referrals, and insurance premiums. Then, it would be great to know that my kids won't have to deal with this same insurance middle man bullshit that I've had to.
It'd be nice to be able to work at a job where "What's the health insurance situation?" wasn't one of the primary motivations. You might even get to do something you are good at instead of something you HAVE to do for the health insurance.
I tend to agree with you. I'd like an honest assessment of what it will cost. I'd also like to make sure that 'everybody' pays into it. No free rides unless there are circumstances that justify it. Below poverty income shouldn't mean free. Even if it amounts to only a pittance, everybody should contribute. I could get behind something like that...
Edit: Maybe if the government ran the system something could be done about hypochondria also. There are way too many people taking drugs that they don't need. Would psychological care be under the healthcare umbrella?
One thing I'd add is that @Balrog99 's situation where his company pays 100% of his health insurance is highly unusual in the US. I have a high-paying job with a good company and I chip in around $250/month. My wife's job is much the same. Even if our companies don't pass on any of their savings to us, a hypothetical tax increase would have to be more than $500/month before it would be a net loss to us. Since $34 Tylenol capsules would be a thing of the past, I don't see that happening.
I've got (relatively) decent health insurance through my employer. I'd happily toss it away to not have to deal with co-pays, referrals, and insurance premiums. Then, it would be great to know that my kids won't have to deal with this same insurance middle man bullshit that I've had to.
It'd be nice to be able to work at a job where "What's the health insurance situation?" wasn't one of the primary motivations. You might even get to do something you are good at instead of something you HAVE to do for the health insurance.
I tend to agree with you. I'd like an honest assessment of what it will cost. I'd also like to make sure that 'everybody' pays into it. No free rides unless there are circumstances that justify it. Below poverty income shouldn't mean free. Even if it amounts to only a pittance, everybody should contribute. I could get behind something like that...
Edit: Maybe if the government ran the system something could be done about hypochondria also. There are way too many people taking drugs that they don't need. Would psychological care be under the healthcare umbrella?
I would think it would be covered.
I agree 'way too many people taking drugs' though at first my inclination would be to focus on doctors as the root cause.
It's the doctors pushing the drugs on behalf of drug makers that's the major cause. Sure once people are hooked then it's them that are a problem and they can be hypochondriac or whatever to get their fix.
Here in the US the culture is you go to the doctor and say 'my foot hurts' or whatever and they'll write you a prescription for opiods and send you away. I've got healthcare in other countries with socialized medicine, it wasn't like that. In this European country if you go in an say your foot hurts they would say take it easy and get out of here. It could be a problem lol in that your foot could be practically hanging out of the socket and they'd just tell you to tough it out.
But if you could convince the doctor that hey my foots hanging off and I really need something then they'd write you a prescription (and it'd be cheap) but they often would go the other way and not prescribe or give anything for pain. The expectation of society seemed to be to tough things out and your body is capable of healing itself to a great degree. Here in the US they just hand out drugs like candy.
Trump just basically told the most outspoken group of freshman Congresswomen to "go back to Africa", even though only one of them was actually born outside this country. And it really shouldn't shock anyone. This childish "love it or leave it" mentality has been rampant on this side of the aisle for decades, to the point where I was told to do so during the Bush Administration, and I was born in Minnesota. If you have any doubts about what the main undercurrent of this whole Presidency is, you shouldn't.
One thing I'd add is that @Balrog99 's situation where his company pays 100% of his health insurance is highly unusual in the US. I have a high-paying job with a good company and I chip in around $250/month. My wife's job is much the same. Even if our companies don't pass on any of their savings to us, a hypothetical tax increase would have to be more than $500/month before it would be a net loss to us. Since $34 Tylenol capsules would be a thing of the past, I don't see that happening.
I've got (relatively) decent health insurance through my employer. I'd happily toss it away to not have to deal with co-pays, referrals, and insurance premiums. Then, it would be great to know that my kids won't have to deal with this same insurance middle man bullshit that I've had to.
It'd be nice to be able to work at a job where "What's the health insurance situation?" wasn't one of the primary motivations. You might even get to do something you are good at instead of something you HAVE to do for the health insurance.
I tend to agree with you. I'd like an honest assessment of what it will cost. I'd also like to make sure that 'everybody' pays into it. No free rides unless there are circumstances that justify it. Below poverty income shouldn't mean free. Even if it amounts to only a pittance, everybody should contribute. I could get behind something like that...
Edit: Maybe if the government ran the system something could be done about hypochondria also. There are way too many people taking drugs that they don't need. Would psychological care be under the healthcare umbrella?
If you want ‘everyone’ to pay for it, then make it part of a sales tax.
Have that tax higher on products (sugar, tobacco, alcohol) that are known to cause health problems, (Canada has a 18.475 cent tax per cigarette) to not only help with healthcare costs associated with them but also limit their use.
@Balrog99 Studies have already been done that show what the cost would be, they've even been linked in this descussion in the past. Multiple times. We HAVE gone over this in detail multiple times. But that hasn't even slowed you down asking for proof and explanation. You also keep claiming that people keep saying it will be free. Literally no one has said this here.
@Balrog99 Studies have already been done that show what the cost would be, they've even been linked in this descussion in the past. Multiple times. We HAVE gone over this in detail multiple times. But that hasn't even slowed you down asking for proof and explanation. You also keep claiming that people keep saying it will be free. Literally no one has said this here.
In fairness, I see good ideas from you'all but I haven't seen anything in writing from the government yet. I don't trust the government until I see the details...
@Balrog99 My point is that we HAVE posted studies in writing before here, and you've just ignored them.
I don't care about studies. Studies aren't laws. Not to mention for every 'study' showing how great such and such idea is by the left, there's another 'study' about how that idea is terrible by the right (and vice versa). Studies are done by people with biases.
Show me a bill in writing or at least let there be some kind of debate in Congress where we the people can see the negotiations. It'll never happen because neither party will ever compromise in the current climate...
Trump just basically told the most outspoken group of freshman Congresswomen to "go back to Africa", even though only one of them was actually born outside this country. And it really shouldn't shock anyone. This childish "love it or leave it" mentality has been rampant on this side of the aisle for decades, to the point where I was told to do so during the Bush Administration, and I was born in Minnesota. If you have any doubts about what the main undercurrent of this whole Presidency is, you shouldn't.
It's a bit of a low blow, but I couldn't help smiling at Trump's description "So interesting to see 'progressive' Democrat congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world" given that 3 of the 4 people he's talking about come from the US .
Trump just basically told the most outspoken group of freshman Congresswomen to "go back to Africa", even though only one of them was actually born outside this country. And it really shouldn't shock anyone. This childish "love it or leave it" mentality has been rampant on this side of the aisle for decades, to the point where I was told to do so during the Bush Administration, and I was born in Minnesota. If you have any doubts about what the main undercurrent of this whole Presidency is, you shouldn't.
It's a bit of a low blow, but I couldn't help smiling at Trump's description "So interesting to see 'progressive' Democrat congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world" given that 3 of the 4 people he's talking about come from the US .
It's not a bit of a low blow - it had nothing to do with anything.
It's not a blow it's just low. He's a disgusting racist. For context, His wife illegally overstayed on a work visa and he somehow rigged an Einstein visa for her despite her qualifications being "model" and she worked illegally to boot. And we're supposed to believe he's acting in good faith.
Then she had an anchor baby and brought her family over through chain migration. And shortly after the baby, Baron, was born Trump had unprotected sex with a adult film star for money. Then he particated in a felony campaign finance violation to pay her (Stormy Daniels) off. His lawyer is in prison for this right now.
If you take him seriously you are a fool. He's fooling you. He's a con man, always has been.
@Balrog99 My point is that we HAVE posted studies in writing before here, and you've just ignored them.
I don't care about studies. Studies aren't laws. Not to mention for every 'study' showing how great such and such idea is by the left, there's another 'study' about how that idea is terrible by the right (and vice versa). Studies are done by people with biases.
Show me a bill in writing or at least let there be some kind of debate in Congress where we the people can see the negotiations. It'll never happen because neither party will ever compromise in the current climate...
As someone who claims to be a scientist, you should know better than to demand something be unbiased. Bias is universal and everyone has it, one of the first things I was taught at university is that bias can not be eliminated, only reduced. As for "biased" studies, at least one high profile study that discovered how much cheaper a new healthcare system would be, came from a very large conservative firm. Bias can only color the evidence, not remove it. Any study that follows proper methodology should be trustworthy, bias be darned.
As for your compromise comment. The Democratic party has shown many times that they are willing to compromise, (Look at Obama's entire presidency.) its the Republican party that has stonewalled and tried to block any kind of progress, CONSISTENTLY. "Both sides" requires so many mental gymnastics to justify as to be ridiculous.
@Balrog99 My point is that we HAVE posted studies in writing before here, and you've just ignored them.
I don't care about studies. Studies aren't laws. Not to mention for every 'study' showing how great such and such idea is by the left, there's another 'study' about how that idea is terrible by the right (and vice versa). Studies are done by people with biases.
Show me a bill in writing or at least let there be some kind of debate in Congress where we the people can see the negotiations. It'll never happen because neither party will ever compromise in the current climate...
As someone who claims to be a scientist, you should know better than to demand something be unbiased. Bias is universal and everyone has it, one of the first things I was taught at university is that bias can not be eliminated, only reduced. As for "biased" studies, at least one high profile study that discovered how much cheaper a new healthcare system would be, came from a very large conservative firm. Bias can only color the evidence, not remove it. Any study that follows proper methodology should be trustworthy, bias be darned.
As for your compromise comment. The Democratic party has shown many times that they are willing to compromise, (Look at Obama's entire presidency.) its the Republican party that has stonewalled and tried to block any kind of progress, CONSISTENTLY. "Both sides" requires so many mental gymnastics to justify as to be ridiculous.
It's precisely because of my scientific (and psychology) background that I distrust studies. Ideally both sides would agree to hash together some kind of plan. Unfortunately, I think you're probably correct about the conservatives stonewalling. The only way we're going the get universal healthcare is if the Republicans fade into the background again like they did after Watergate (not sure when or even if that's likely to ever happen). That scenario also assures that compromise won't happen, since they won't have a say in the final product. Sad...
Journalist Greg Palast On (GOP) Stealing Elections
-Gregory Allyn "Greg" Palast (born June 26, 1952)[1] is an author and a freelance journalist who often worked for the BBC and The Guardian. His work frequently focuses on corporate malfeasance but has also worked with labour unions and consumer advocacy groups.
The current situation at the border isn't even about illegal immigration for the most part. It is about purposefully closing points of entry for asylum and forcing those who were coming to do so to either be stranded in the middle of nowhere or cross elsewhere, where they are then rounded up, and separated from their children on purpose, sometimes permanently. Most of them are coming from El Salvador and Honduras, whose civilian crime rights are among the highest in the world. They are fleeing what they view as certain death for their children, caused in no small part by our "anti-Communist" policies in South America in the 1980s. Moreover, when Obama sent those national guard troops (which was mentioned in this forum multiple times when it happened, as was the fact Bush did it) it was NOT to begin a military construction project on something that wasn't approved or funded by Congress. Apples and oranges. MOREOVER, you will clearly hear Obama in that video talking about the need to punish BUSINESSES who hire illegal immigrants as the primary problem. Trump doesn't just not care about businesses that do so, he himself has employed them in massive numbers.
And while we're at it, let's focus on how the banality of the evil of these border patrol agents. Here is a story about a family that fled from (shock!!) Honduras for the exact reasons I mentioned. Read as a border patrol agent turns into the Joker from the Dark Knight on a 3-year old child. The guy who did this can rot in hell, as can anyone who stood by watching it. The border patrol and ICE have become flat-out monstrous organizations:
At a Border Patrol holding facility in El Paso, Texas, an agent told a Honduran family that one parent would be sent to Mexico while the other parent and their three children could stay in the United States, according to the family. The agent turned to the couple's youngest daughter — 3-year-old Sofia, whom they call Sofi — and asked her to make a choice.
"The agent asked her who she wanted to go with, mom or dad," her mother, Tania, told NPR through an interpreter. "And the girl, because she is more attached to me, she said mom. But when they started to take [my husband] away, the girl started to cry. The officer said, 'You said [you want to go] with mom.' "
@Balrog99 So, your time as a scientist, has made you distrustful of the scientific method? Because that's what studies are, its application of the scientific method to investigation. Maybe you should stop assuming what you want to believe is correct, and actually use some of that alleged scientific training to do some actual investigative work.
William Barr has decided not to bring Federal charges against Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer connected to the death of Eric Garner, the guy standing on the street corner selling cigarettes who was "allegedly" placed in a choke hold and died as a result of it. A New York grand jury had also previously failed to bring charges against Mr. Pantaleo (back in 2014) but the NYPD, itself, will bring departmental charges against him.
William Barr has decided not to bring Federal charges against Daniel Pantaleo, the NYPD officer connected to the death of Eric Garner, the guy standing on the street corner selling cigarettes who was "allegedly" placed in a choke hold and died as a result of it. A New York grand jury had also previously failed to bring charges against Mr. Pantaleo (back in 2014) but the NYPD, itself, will bring departmental charges against him.
Same NYPD that let Jeffrey Epstein, a child predator, SKIP 34 court-ordered check-ins. So it's instructive to know their priorities are killing people for selling loose cigarettes rather than making sure they keep minimal tabs on pedophiles.
If I were a billionaire then I could buy both more and better justice than you could.
edit/add: Speaking of billionaires, I think Abigail Disney was being trolled. According to a CNN article, the median Disney employee makes $46,127 but she had received a message from an employee that they "have to go home and forage for food in other people's garbage". *I* make about that much--these days--and I don't have to forage for food through the garbage, so whoever sent her that message was probably lying. Unless they live in California, of course, where $46,127--which is higher than the magical $15 per hour often cited--simply isn't enough, unless you live by yourself in an efficiency. What I really suspect with this story is an internal power struggle at the company, Ms. Disney vs Bob Iger.
@Balrog99 So, your time as a scientist, has made you distrustful of the scientific method? Because that's what studies are, its application of the scientific method to investigation. Maybe you should stop assuming what you want to believe is correct, and actually use some of that alleged scientific training to do some actual investigative work.
I'm distrustful of the conclusions, not the scientific method itself. Any far reaching conclusions that can't be proved in a lifetime cannot be verified.
Climate science isn't chemistry or physics. In those sciences, you have to perform multiple experiments by different laboratories in order to prove your hypothesis. Climate science is more based on models and assumptions than any classical scientist could ever get away with in their laboratory.
I actually view it more akin to a religion in that every time there's a bout of bad weather now it's blamed on climate change. Kind of like every time something bad happens, religious fundamentalists blame it on the nation being 'sinful'. Both are saying we need to change our ways in order to save the world, one just involves God...
Comments
@Balrog99
You keep saying that its going to cost a lot of money to implement a healthcare plan, but all the evidence suggests otherwise. Literally every other country pays LESS THAN WE DO on healthcare. Why would adopting one of their cheaper systems cost us MORE money? You want to take a stab at explaining that?
This how the NHS is funded in the UK: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/how-nhs-funded
My thoughts on the matter:
1. We can make oil. It's very inefficient, because we have to put more energy into the reverse of the combustion reaction than it released when it went through the combustion reaction spontaneously (in chemical terms). And there's a LOT of energy released, it's WHY we use it, energy density. Like skiing down a hill, and then having to trudge back to the top without a ski lift. Our nuclear aircraft carriers are experimenting with using the waste energy to produce jet fuel.
2. We're always going to need oil, because as you pointed out, all (not almost, ALL) of our technology uses it. Everything we've done in the last 130 years has been because of oil. We'd have to go back to steel and coal. No plastics, no advanced medicines, MUCH simpler chemistries because almost the entire fields of organic and biochemistries start with raw ingredients from oil.
3. It would actually be in the interests of fossil fuel companies to have limited production in the name of sustainability/ecology, as that would decrease supply. Without some demand shift of some sort to alternatives,
It's a fallacy.
Because the GOVERNMENT will be spending "their" money and not them, they feel robbed.
Basically, we spend what, 1.8 trillion or so in healthcare nationally? Presume adding 1.6 trillion to the government costs cut healthcare by 200 billion. Those numbers are pulled out of the air, but I they sound about right.
In a rational world, people would do that.
I've got (relatively) decent health insurance through my employer. I'd happily toss it away to not have to deal with co-pays, referrals, and insurance premiums. Then, it would be great to know that my kids won't have to deal with this same insurance middle man bullshit that I've had to.
It'd be nice to be able to work at a job where "What's the health insurance situation?" wasn't one of the primary motivations. You might even get to do something you are good at instead of something you HAVE to do for the health insurance.
I tend to agree with you. I'd like an honest assessment of what it will cost. I'd also like to make sure that 'everybody' pays into it. No free rides unless there are circumstances that justify it. Below poverty income shouldn't mean free. Even if it amounts to only a pittance, everybody should contribute. I could get behind something like that...
Edit: Maybe if the government ran the system something could be done about hypochondria also. There are way too many people taking drugs that they don't need. Would psychological care be under the healthcare umbrella?
I would think it would be covered.
I agree 'way too many people taking drugs' though at first my inclination would be to focus on doctors as the root cause.
It's the doctors pushing the drugs on behalf of drug makers that's the major cause. Sure once people are hooked then it's them that are a problem and they can be hypochondriac or whatever to get their fix.
Here in the US the culture is you go to the doctor and say 'my foot hurts' or whatever and they'll write you a prescription for opiods and send you away. I've got healthcare in other countries with socialized medicine, it wasn't like that. In this European country if you go in an say your foot hurts they would say take it easy and get out of here. It could be a problem lol in that your foot could be practically hanging out of the socket and they'd just tell you to tough it out.
But if you could convince the doctor that hey my foots hanging off and I really need something then they'd write you a prescription (and it'd be cheap) but they often would go the other way and not prescribe or give anything for pain. The expectation of society seemed to be to tough things out and your body is capable of healing itself to a great degree. Here in the US they just hand out drugs like candy.
If you want ‘everyone’ to pay for it, then make it part of a sales tax.
Have that tax higher on products (sugar, tobacco, alcohol) that are known to cause health problems, (Canada has a 18.475 cent tax per cigarette) to not only help with healthcare costs associated with them but also limit their use.
In fairness, I see good ideas from you'all but I haven't seen anything in writing from the government yet. I don't trust the government until I see the details...
I don't care about studies. Studies aren't laws. Not to mention for every 'study' showing how great such and such idea is by the left, there's another 'study' about how that idea is terrible by the right (and vice versa). Studies are done by people with biases.
Show me a bill in writing or at least let there be some kind of debate in Congress where we the people can see the negotiations. It'll never happen because neither party will ever compromise in the current climate...
Trump tweets racist attacks at congresswomen
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/07/14/politics/donald-trump-tweets-democratic-congresswomen-race-nationalities/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/
It's a bit of a low blow, but I couldn't help smiling at Trump's description "So interesting to see 'progressive' Democrat congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world" given that 3 of the 4 people he's talking about come from the US
It's not a bit of a low blow - it had nothing to do with anything.
It's not a blow it's just low. He's a disgusting racist. For context, His wife illegally overstayed on a work visa and he somehow rigged an Einstein visa for her despite her qualifications being "model" and she worked illegally to boot. And we're supposed to believe he's acting in good faith.
Then she had an anchor baby and brought her family over through chain migration. And shortly after the baby, Baron, was born Trump had unprotected sex with a adult film star for money. Then he particated in a felony campaign finance violation to pay her (Stormy Daniels) off. His lawyer is in prison for this right now.
If you take him seriously you are a fool. He's fooling you. He's a con man, always has been.
As someone who claims to be a scientist, you should know better than to demand something be unbiased. Bias is universal and everyone has it, one of the first things I was taught at university is that bias can not be eliminated, only reduced. As for "biased" studies, at least one high profile study that discovered how much cheaper a new healthcare system would be, came from a very large conservative firm. Bias can only color the evidence, not remove it. Any study that follows proper methodology should be trustworthy, bias be darned.
As for your compromise comment. The Democratic party has shown many times that they are willing to compromise, (Look at Obama's entire presidency.) its the Republican party that has stonewalled and tried to block any kind of progress, CONSISTENTLY. "Both sides" requires so many mental gymnastics to justify as to be ridiculous.
It's precisely because of my scientific (and psychology) background that I distrust studies. Ideally both sides would agree to hash together some kind of plan. Unfortunately, I think you're probably correct about the conservatives stonewalling. The only way we're going the get universal healthcare is if the Republicans fade into the background again like they did after Watergate (not sure when or even if that's likely to ever happen). That scenario also assures that compromise won't happen, since they won't have a say in the final product. Sad...
-Gregory Allyn "Greg" Palast (born June 26, 1952)[1] is an author and a freelance journalist who often worked for the BBC and The Guardian. His work frequently focuses on corporate malfeasance but has also worked with labour unions and consumer advocacy groups.
Broken Record...
( I do not condone or agree with the owner of this video.)
And while we're at it, let's focus on how the banality of the evil of these border patrol agents. Here is a story about a family that fled from (shock!!) Honduras for the exact reasons I mentioned. Read as a border patrol agent turns into the Joker from the Dark Knight on a 3-year old child. The guy who did this can rot in hell, as can anyone who stood by watching it. The border patrol and ICE have become flat-out monstrous organizations:
At a Border Patrol holding facility in El Paso, Texas, an agent told a Honduran family that one parent would be sent to Mexico while the other parent and their three children could stay in the United States, according to the family. The agent turned to the couple's youngest daughter — 3-year-old Sofia, whom they call Sofi — and asked her to make a choice.
"The agent asked her who she wanted to go with, mom or dad," her mother, Tania, told NPR through an interpreter. "And the girl, because she is more attached to me, she said mom. But when they started to take [my husband] away, the girl started to cry. The officer said, 'You said [you want to go] with mom.' "
https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/741721660/follow-up-what-happened-after-a-border-agent-asked-toddler-to-pick-a-parent?utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social
Same NYPD that let Jeffrey Epstein, a child predator, SKIP 34 court-ordered check-ins. So it's instructive to know their priorities are killing people for selling loose cigarettes rather than making sure they keep minimal tabs on pedophiles.
edit/add: Speaking of billionaires, I think Abigail Disney was being trolled. According to a CNN article, the median Disney employee makes $46,127 but she had received a message from an employee that they "have to go home and forage for food in other people's garbage". *I* make about that much--these days--and I don't have to forage for food through the garbage, so whoever sent her that message was probably lying. Unless they live in California, of course, where $46,127--which is higher than the magical $15 per hour often cited--simply isn't enough, unless you live by yourself in an efficiency. What I really suspect with this story is an internal power struggle at the company, Ms. Disney vs Bob Iger.
I'm distrustful of the conclusions, not the scientific method itself. Any far reaching conclusions that can't be proved in a lifetime cannot be verified.
Climate science isn't chemistry or physics. In those sciences, you have to perform multiple experiments by different laboratories in order to prove your hypothesis. Climate science is more based on models and assumptions than any classical scientist could ever get away with in their laboratory.
I actually view it more akin to a religion in that every time there's a bout of bad weather now it's blamed on climate change. Kind of like every time something bad happens, religious fundamentalists blame it on the nation being 'sinful'. Both are saying we need to change our ways in order to save the world, one just involves God...