IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Our country also used to have the bad habit of trying to tell other country leaders on how they should run their country until George Bush felt diplomacy was a waste of time, and money and guns spoke louder.

I wonder how many allies we really have today compared to before the Bush era. Maybe, the Brits and Japan.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Our country also used to have the bad habit of trying to tell other country leaders on how they should run their country until George Bush felt diplomacy was a waste of time, and money and guns spoke louder.

I wonder how many allies we really have today compared to before the Bush era. Maybe, the Brits and Japan.

I don't think we have any allies - certainly not the traditional ones we usually think of. The lessons of history concerning countries that are relatively dominant and have no serious immediate rivals are fairly clear on this point - they have no reliable friends. Being "nice" is no remedy for this basic fact of human nature. It is generally more important to focus on being competitive and husbanding one's strength & power.

The world is settling in to just a few potential entities competing for dominance in the coming era - The U.S., China, the EU, and (possibly) Russia. I believe that the other parties in this game are much more intensely aware of this than are we, and it is past time for us to wake up to this fact. I think the (somewhat pissy) attitudes we see here from many of the European and Canadian posters are reflective of these attitudes.

0 Replies

georgeob, What do you think should be our political and economic strategy for the future?

0 Replies

Well start with the premise above and make the obvious conclusions.

The Islamic agitation is frankly more of a threat to Europe than the U.S. We should let them take care of it - this would be a novel and refreshing experience for them after two generations under the American umbrella.

We need to get serious about greater energy independence. That means much more nuclear power. If we try to get there with neon light bulbs, ethanol, solar & wind power we will end up freezing in the dark - and broke.

0 Replies

gerogeob, I agree 100%; Europe needs to "take care" of their share of the world problems, and the USA needs to disengage. We can't possibly be the world's police.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Well start with the premise above and make the obvious conclusions.

The Islamic agitation is frankly more of a threat to Europe than the U.S. We should let them take care of it - this would be a novel and refreshing experience for them after two generations under the American umbrella.

We need to get serious about greater energy independence. That means much more nuclear power. If we try to get there with neon light bulbs, ethanol, solar & wind power we will end up freezing in the dark - and broke.

So we should use a combination of those things AND some nuke power.

You have seen the latest solar panel prototypes and products, right:

Printable sheets of solar panels which run at 14 percent efficiency and have a cost of less then $1 a watt. These are available now from Nanosolar and can be placed anywhere someone wants. The cost is only going to drop as facilities ramp up.

Here's a prototype for a thermo-electric solar panel that would be 60% efficient and cheap to use:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4243793.html

Here's a prototype - not yet working - of an 80% efficient solar panel. It's only an engineering problem to get it working, though, and that's solvable.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1329/

It won't be long before solar is a very, very viable option. I agree that nuke plants will help balance the load. But solar will eventually be where we get most of our power.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

(not that this has anything to do with the theme of this thread)

nappy wrote :

Quote:

Sweden's economy could go belly-up tomorrow and what impact do you think it would have on this country?

Now, if the tables were turned, different story.

would effect could an economic downturn in the USA possibly have on sweden , i wonder ?
sweden's major trading partners are (in that order) :
the european union , finland , norway ... and bringing up the rear : the USA .
sweden might possible suffer from a shortage of mcdonald's burgers ? Shocked

hbg

0 Replies

Cyclo,

Popular Mechanics and other like sources have been peddling fantasies like this for years -- once it was the new carburetor for automobiles (this was before direct fuel injection) that would provide 70 mpg in the conventional Detroit buggy.

The truth is that today the newest and best wind turbines and solar panels produce power at about twice the cost of coal and three times that of nuclear power. There are indeed some low power sources for solar panels that work well for (say) automatic speed warning devices for roads. However they are not readily scalable to large outputs.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

(not that this has anything to do with the theme of this thread)

No, it doesn't, which is why I wondered at you bringing it up.

hamburger wrote:

nappy wrote :

Quote:
Sweden's economy could go belly-up tomorrow and what impact do you think it would have on this country?

Now, if the tables were turned, different story.

would effect could an economic downturn in the USA possibly have on sweden , i wonder ?
sweden's major trading partners are (in that order) :
the european union , finland , norway ... and bringing up the rear : the USA .
sweden might possible suffer from a shortage of mcdonald's burgers ?
hbg

This is what Sweden's prime minister had to say yesterday in discussing the US elections:

Quote:

...he was also critical of the more protectionist trade stance favoured by both Obama and Hillary Clinton. Reinfeldt said he shared John McCain's free trade line but was less impressed by the Republican candidate's plans for tax cuts and a swelling of the defence budget. Any increase in the US budget deficit would have a negative impact on the Swedish economy, he said.

(I guess Swedish protectionism is ok, though)

0 Replies

Sorry nappyhead, didn't mean to sidestep the question.

www.citynews.ca/news/news_18771.aspx - 125k

The article acknowledges that it has some leanings towards the right which may have biased the statistic outcomes.

Also, I really don't know what the article refers to when it says:

'But the Canadian score plunged in areas such as waiting times for treatment, range of services available, ready access to new drugs and some diagnostic tools, and the legal rights of patients.'

No waiting times here for surgery OTHER than elective surgery. And why should elective (non-emergency) surgery take precedence over an emergency or a person who has more serious problems?

Range of services available? Europe has over 400 million people and cannot claim to be as large a country (we have 6 time zones) or remote as most people are in Canada. We just don't have roads to every little hamlet in Canada; Europe cannot claim that difficulty. Many places here are either fly-in or boat accessible. How do you serve someone who lives in a town of 200 people, with no doctor within 50 miles and 8 hours from the nearest small town, like I did for a few years in northern BC? They helicopter people out if it's an emergency (weather permitting). We're dealing with a different climate in many areas (arctic), 30 million people in the entire country, and our doctors do an excellent job of providing care to not only city dwellers but those in the Yukon, NWT, and other remote areas. This is like comparing the medical services of a giant city such as Los Angeles to a remote village in South Dakota. Perhaps a comparison with Australia/Canada would be more enlightening.

Ready access to new drugs? Maybe we want to see what these new drugs do before we use patients as guinea pigs. I question how this 'study' came up with this. I've been in the medical field for years; I am familiar with the PDR and we have no lack of drugs here. That is no indication, though, of a healthy society. We would do better to become more knowledgeable of acupuncture, herbs and a holistic approach to illness, not mask it with drugs.

Some diagnostic tools? Which ones? Did they check out the giant health centres in Alberta and British Columbia and the teaching hospitals there? Rolling Eyes

My previous post has a link to all of the medical inventions by Canadians. Quite impressive. We are the ones coming up with the 'diagnostic tools'.

Legal rights of patients....they will have to spell that one out; it makes no sense. I see no difference between the legal rights here and in the States (where I used to live) except that I can get a copy of anything I want from MY medical records without a hassle, only my signature. I can also request to see a specialist from any other province at no cost to me. We have Ombudsmen here as well if there is a question about patient rights.

0 Replies

As I understand it, Spain now uses solar power to heat water to generate their electricity, so solar power use isn't limited to panels.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

As I understand it, Spain now uses solar power to heat water to generate their electricity, so solar power use isn't limited to panels.

i doubt that. solar power doesn't produce enough heat to boil water. they may use it as a source of hot(ish) water, but that would be about it. it definitely couldn't generate the vapor pressure required to turn a turbine. the only other way to generate electricity from it would be from the peltier effect, but that would also require them to cool one side of a device (which takes power) - and it still wouldn't generate that much.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
As I understand it, Spain now uses solar power to heat water to generate their electricity, so solar power use isn't limited to panels.

i doubt that. solar power doesn't produce enough heat to boil water. they may use it as a source of hot(ish) water, but that would be about it. it definitely couldn't generate the vapor pressure required to turn a turbine. the only other way to generate electricity from it would be from the peltier effect, but that would also require them to cool one side of a device (which takes power) - and it still wouldn't generate that much.

I once set a piece of wood on fire using solar power and a magnifying glass.

I think your thinking is rather limited/narrow.

0 Replies

When we were kids, we used to burn wood with a magnifying glass. In many parts of the world, it gets hot enough to fry an egg on the sidewalk.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

As I understand it, Spain now uses solar power to heat water to generate their electricity, so solar power use isn't limited to panels.

I don't think that was the program. In 2000 Barcelona passed a law that all new buildings had to have a system where domestic hot water (i.e. hot water used at a faucet) was generated using solar power. Perhaps that is what you were thinking of?

"The City of Barcelona has been the pioneer for Solar Regulations in Europe. The first Solar Ordinance entered in force in 2000 and required that a certain share of the domestic hot water demand is covered by solar thermal, in new buildings and those undergoing major renovation.

The implementation led to a dramatic increase in the use of solar thermal, thereby also stimulating the voluntary market in non-obliged buildings. The regulation enjoyed wide support in the public opinion and decision makers. Therefore, the revision approved in 2006 increased the number of obliged buildings and improved the procedures, architectural integration as well as quality requirements.

As a part of the Solar Thermal Action Plan, developed within the K4RES-H project coordinated by ESTIF, the Barcelona Energy Agency published an analysis of the lessons learned during the implementations of the barcelona solar regulation:"

http://www.estif.org/262.0.html

There are a few other similar programs mentioned at that link. But generating electricity from a solar water system would be much more complex. Can't find any reference to an electrical generation mandate anywehere.

0 Replies

The use of solar collectors to heat water for domestic use is efficient and economical. There are no conversion losses involved in transfoming mechanical energy to electrical, and then to heat as is the case with electrical water heaters. This more than compensates for the losses in the solar collectors themselves.

This is indeed an area in which we could quickly lower both net cost and demand for electrical power.

0 Replies

Quote:

The truth is that today the newest and best wind turbines and solar panels produce power at about twice the cost of coal and three times that of nuclear power.

Sorry but this is untrue. The newest solar panels run in at less then a dollar a watt - directly competitive with Coal. As they are printed on a plastic substrate, they are flexible and can be affixed to almost anything.

http://www.nanosolar.com/

Nuke, I agree, is necessary to balance the load. But don't knock solar. And while Popular mechanics may have been wrong back in the day, we really are seeing cars now which achieve those efficiencies. For you to simply pooh-pah new technological advances in solar and wind is ridiculous; the area has much more room to grow then Fission does.

Now, Fusion - let's talk about getting a fusion plant up and running!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
The truth is that today the newest and best wind turbines and solar panels produce power at about twice the cost of coal and three times that of nuclear power.

Sorry but this is untrue. The newest solar panels run in at less then a dollar a watt - directly competitive with Coal. As they are printed on a plastic substrate, they are flexible and can be affixed to almost anything.

A watt is a unit of power, not energy. Nuclear plants generate electrical energy at a cost of about 6.5 cents per KW-HR (that is 1000 watts for one hour). "... a dollar a watt" would be very expensive indeed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nuke, I agree, is necessary to balance the load. But don't knock solar. And while Popular mechanics may have been wrong back in the day, we really are seeing cars now which achieve those efficiencies. For you to simply pooh-pah new technological advances in solar and wind is ridiculous; the area has much more room to grow then Fission does.

Now, Fusion - let's talk about getting a fusion plant up and running!

Nuclear power is necessary if we are to displace more than about 5% of our fossil fuel energy production in the next decade. Today solar power is less than 2% of our energy production. Advocates promise to double that in about ten years. You can do the arithmetic yourself.

I am not neglecting technological advances in solar power - I am accepting the forecasts of its advocates. The problem is with the numbers.

The stuff you cited in Popular Mechanics about solar power is a fantasy - just as was the garbage they printed decades ago.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
The truth is that today the newest and best wind turbines and solar panels produce power at about twice the cost of coal and three times that of nuclear power.

Sorry but this is untrue. The newest solar panels run in at less then a dollar a watt - directly competitive with Coal. As they are printed on a plastic substrate, they are flexible and can be affixed to almost anything.
A watt is a unit of power, not energy. Nuclear plants generate electrical energy at a cost of about 6.5 cents per KW-HR (that is 1000 watts for one hour). "... a dollar a watt" would be very expensive indeed.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nuke, I agree, is necessary to balance the load. But don't knock solar. And while Popular mechanics may have been wrong back in the day, we really are seeing cars now which achieve those efficiencies. For you to simply pooh-pah new technological advances in solar and wind is ridiculous; the area has much more room to grow then Fission does.

Now, Fusion - let's talk about getting a fusion plant up and running!
Nuclear power is necessary if we are to displace more than about 5% of our fossil fuel energy production in the next decade. Today solar power is less than 2% of our energy production. Advocates promise to double that in about ten years. You can do the arithmetic yourself.

I am not neglecting technological advances in solar power - I am accepting the forecasts of its advocates. The problem is with the numbers.

The stuff you cited in Popular Mechanics about solar power is a fantasy - just as was the garbage they printed decades ago.

$1 per watt is the production cost for the power generation plant, as far as I can tell. Once the unit is created, the price per watt for solar is close to zero! And that's counting upkeep. Coal on the other hand...

Maybe we would see more of these plans become reality if we invested in them a little heavier then we currently do. It would be a better use of our money then wasting it on wars, which produce no energy whatsoever.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

When we were kids, we used to burn wood with a magnifying glass. In many parts of the world, it gets hot enough to fry an egg on the sidewalk.

You're right, you can use giant (and i mean GIANT) parabolic mirrors to focus light into a steam engine and it will produce power, but these devices take up huge amounts of space (they're about 27' in diameter).

my bad.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know