Cicerone Imposter's link tells us that 15.6 percent of Americans are not covered by Health Insurance.
But his link also tells us that part of the reason for this is sluggish job growth and high unemployment levels.
That is false.
The Unemployment level at this time is 5%. This is lower than what the economists call the Natural Rate of Unemployment.
But, how do we solve the problem.
CI's link suggests that Congress has to act to save the SCHIP funds.
Then, of course, hundreds of people must write to Congress to save the SCHIP funds.
And if they are not saved?
Let's go back to Hillary Rodham Clinton's suggestion that we begin to adopt policies which will lead to Socialized Medicine. The fact that 15.6 % of people are uninsured is intolerable( even though anyone who goes into a hospital who needs care will get it) so we must adopt a system which will give everyone the FINEST of medical care. Right now, our medical care stinks--I know that thousands of people come to the US everyyear to places like the Mayo Clinic because we have the best medical system in the world but still--15.6% of people are uninsured---
What about Canada. No one in Canada goes without Medical Care--
Let's look at Canada's system--IT STINKS---
"The Supreme Court of Canada issued an opinion this year that, in effect, CANADA's vaunted public health care system PRODUCES INTOLERABLE INEQUALITY.
Now, If there is anything I know for certain, I do know that our vaunted professors in places like Yale and Berkeley will NOT ALLOW "INTOLERABLE INEQUALITY" to exist.
But why did the Canadian courts find that Canada's Public Health system produces intolerable inequality?
l. A Canadian named George Zeliotis of Quebec was told in 1997 that he HAD TO WAIT A YEAR FOR A REPLACEMENT FOR HIS PAINFUL ARTHRITIC HIP---HE GOT PUT ON THE WAITING LIST--HE GOT MAD AND HE GOT EVEN MADDER WHEN HE WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS AGAINST THE LAW TO PAY FOR A REPLACEMENT PRIVATELY.
I don't think that CI understands that when a good( health care) is made available to all for nothing, that "good" becomes much more difficult to get.
As the Cheif Justice of Canada said in the ruling--"Access to a waiting list is not access to health care"
There are only two ways to allocate any good or service: through prices, as is done in a market economy,or lines dictated by government, as in Canada's system.
We still have the best medical care in the world.
I am sure that CI cannot explain why Hillary's plan did not fly. After all, Bill Clinton was president then, was he not?
The Red Cross accuses the US of torture in Guantanamo, says CI.
The Pentagon denied the charges. When this is adjudicated, guilt or innocence will be shown. In the meanwhile, left wing attempts to malign the US will be fruitless. A charge is not a finding.
I really don't know where Cicerone Imposter gets his information about poverty. My readings do not correspond with his data. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review on Sept. 1st 2005--
"ALLEGHENY COUNTY WAS ONE OF ONLY FIVE COUNTIES NATIONALLY WITH POPULATIONS OF MORE THAN ONE MILLION THAT EXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN POVERTY IN 2004, ACCORDING TO A STUDY RELEASED TUESDAY BY THE US CENSUS BUREAU"
"Pennsylvania was one of ONLY SEVEN STATES TO SHOW INCREASES IN THE POVERTY RATE IN 2004"
That means, of course, that FORTY THREE STATES EITHER HAD NO INCREASE OR HAD A LOWERING OF POVERTY RATES.
Cicerone -- this presumably is a thread about Global Warming. I accept your wish to paste a lot of entirely unrelated and out-of-context stuff you find in your wanderings on the web. However why not do it on a separate thread you can easily create for the purpose?
On US poverty levels, you must refer to the US census bureau's analysis and report - not one county in the US.
cicerone imposter wrote:On US poverty levels, you must refer to the US census bureau's analysis and report - not one county in the US.
Deadcat ain't too good at the big picture kinda thing!
Mortkat wrote:I really don't know where Cicerone Imposter gets his information about poverty. My readings do not correspond with his data. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review on Sept. 1st 2005--
"ALLEGHENY COUNTY WAS ONE OF ONLY FIVE COUNTIES NATIONALLY WITH POPULATIONS OF MORE THAN ONE MILLION THAT EXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN POVERTY IN 2004, ACCORDING TO A STUDY RELEASED TUESDAY BY THE US CENSUS BUREAU"
"Pennsylvania was one of ONLY SEVEN STATES TO SHOW INCREASES IN THE POVERTY RATE IN 2004"
That means, of course, that FORTY THREE STATES EITHER HAD NO INCREASE OR HAD A LOWERING OF POVERTY RATES.
The poverty rate in 2004 remained significantly higher than in 2001, the year of the recession. The number of people in poverty increased from 32.9 million in 2001 and 35.9 million in 2003 to 37 million in 2004. The poverty rate rose from 11.7 percent in 2001 (and 12.5 percent in 2003) to 12.7 percent in 2004. The rise in poverty in 2004 is particularly disturbing because 2004 represented the third full year of the economic recovery.
Quote:The poverty rate in 2004 remained significantly higher than in 2001, the year of the recession. The number of people in poverty increased from 32.9 million in 2001 and 35.9 million in 2003 to 37 million in 2004. The poverty rate rose from 11.7 percent in 2001 (and 12.5 percent in 2003) to 12.7 percent in 2004. The rise in poverty in 2004 is particularly disturbing because 2004 represented the third full year of the economic recovery.
Contrary to the impression left by a Census official today, this three-year poverty trend is not typical for recoveries.
In no other downturn over the past 45 years did poverty increase between the second and third full years of the recovery.
In all other downturns except that of the early 1990s, the poverty rate by the third year of the recovery was at or below the poverty rate in the recession year itself. In 2004, by contrast, the poverty rate was a full percentage point higher than in 2001, the recession year. [3],[4]
This recovery stands out (as does that in the early 1990s). Three years of economic growth did not improve the circumstances of low-income Americans.
[...]
Source:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Back to Global Warming: after a rainy and rather warm Christmas Eve, it will get colder tomorrow and with snow on the second Christmas holiday (Boxing Day) we are back to reality.
You guys are only talking about economic poverty and, the way things are going right now, pretty soon you're not gonna have anything to talk about.
You ought to start talking about spiritual poverty. If memory serves, something like 55 million losers actually voted for John the f'ing gigolo Kerry to be president a year and a month ago. Now, THAT's poverty, and it's poverty which is clearly not going to dissipate or go away in a year or two. It's poverty with a future.
Walter, You always have that testy habit of using facts in your posts!
Awaiting the inevitable "minor or trivial dissent", as the glaciers march uphill.
What then do you propose to do about it?
georgeob1 wrote:What then do you propose to do about it?
A good start would have been the Kyoto accord.
Anon
Anon-Voter wrote:
A good start would have been the Kyoto accord.
Anon
Nonsense. It would have accomplished nothing of significance with respect to the "problem". Its side effects on the major economies of the world would have significantly diminished mankind's abilit5y to develop the needed new technologies and methods for the future.
george
Before getting to the step of doing something about it, we have had to traverse a very long period where any "it" was even admitted. Partly, that was a matter of intellectual prudence within the scientific community in the face of a new idea for which the evidence had yet to sufficiently accumulate. But that is not the whole story, nor even the most important part of the story of this delay.
The Texas Republican party has (or did until a year or two ago but may still have) a platform plank which held that (paraphrased from memory) "global warming is not happening and the claims that it is are built entirely upon junk science."
Now, just what the hell is a complex scientific question doing sitting in the middle of a state party platform??? I mean, they didn't have another plank on plate tectonics expressing dismay at the 'hot spot under Hawaii' theory.
The energy industries have set up and/or funded some 300 anti-global warming bodies to obfuscate scientific findings and to cast doubts in the publics' mind regarding the problem. And they've done it for all the wrong, immoral reasons. Political bodies deeply connected to these industries have acted as corporate cronies and agents in the service of those industries.
THAT needs to be fully confronted now because they are continuing, and be counted on to continue, to act in the manner they have previously, at least for the most part. At the very least, they now have to redeem their shameful behavior prove themselves worthy of any citizen's trust.
Until they do, as we now move into trying to figure out what the fukk to do with decreasing time available, the rest of us simply cannot rely upon their input.
georgeob1 wrote:Anon-Voter wrote:
A good start would have been the Kyoto accord.
Anon
Nonsense. It would have accomplished nothing of significance with respect to the "problem". Its side effects on the major economies of the world would have significantly diminished mankind's abilit5y to develop the needed new technologies and methods for the future.
That is a dandy example of 1984 Newspeak you have going there. It would have made humanity start looking for ways to cut down radically on the carbon dioxide and pollutants being flushed into the atmosphere. It would in fact have demanded that "new technologies and methods for the future" be developed instead of the current state of allowing even greater amounts of the same being released now! The rest of the world voted for it mostly, except of course, for us!
Anon
Blatham,
There are a number of versions out there about just what "it" might be. They vary quite significantly, both qualitatively and by degree. Some versions most assuredly are NOT supported by science. This notably incliudes the "tipping point" conjectures which are a part of a piece you posted here a few pages back. Alternatively there is Thomas' vierw that greenhouse gas-induced warming is real, but, owing to its slow buildup and small extent, simply not worth fixing. To which version do you adhere?
Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty because he saw it as a remedy far worse than the problem it purported to fix. He was clear that it would have devastating effects on the U.S. economy and would do nothing significant to arrest the accumulatiuon of greenhouse gases in the atmosphers. I believe the vast weight of the evidencve, both in atmospheric science and in economics is with him on these points.
To whom would you restrict the discussion of "complex scientific questions". Whom else besides the elkected legislatures of our states would you exclude from such discussions? What are your own qualifications for discussing it? Given the very dramatic and authoritarian government actions being advocated by some for the containment of whatever version of global warming motivated them, I believe it is entirely appropriate that the people's legislators take and express their positions on the subject.
A few pages back I attempted to turn this discussion to a consideration of the tradeoffs between authoritarian and free, adaptive solutions to this and other like problems, noting that historically the authoritarians have a rather bad track record. Unfortunately, there was no response. However I believe that is the real issue here.
