A Modest Proposal

[Arkady]

You don't get it. EVERYONE in America uses nuclear/hydro/coal power because it's ALL interconnected. You can't trace electrons to determine THIS one came from coal and THAT one came from a nuke.

You don't understand. It's not a matter of tracing electrons. It's a matter of tracing transactions. Electricity is bought at wholesale from producers. We know which producers' electricity was bought to serve electric customers in Massachusetts.

If the fate of the planet is in the balance then you DO need to give them up.

The planet is fine. It's a vast chunk of rock we couldn't hurt if we tried. The question is quality of life for human beings. We need to reduce emissions in a systematic way to preserve decent quality of life. I've laid out a plan for doing so. You have no better alternative, and no decent counter-argument to the science, so you're trying to stick with the ad hominem attacks. But, obviously, they're entirely beside the point. Even if I were the biggest hypocrite on the planet, that wouldn't make one iota of difference to either the science or the quality of the solution I'm proposing. Try to focus, little one.

Your tweak slows or stops technology that will save poor parts in Africa and Asia from starvation and disease which are happening right now for sure not maybe/maybe not in 10 years from now.

My tweak allows for a higher long-term rate of technological progress than foregoing the tweak and inviting a crisis that will do far more to derail the global economy than my tweak will. I'm advocating buying the ounce of prevention rather than the pound of cure.

Your tweak slows technology that will sequester CO2 to our hearts content over the entire planet

No. Very obviously, the cap-and-trade system I'm advocating will SPEED the arrival of sequestration technology, if that technology proves to be the most cost-effective solution, because it creates the economic incentive to develop it (which doesn't exist as long as carbon costs can be externalized). Think it through. You have clearly not made even the slightest effort to grapple with this issue.

 

[Arkady]

What you don't see, of course, is that you are faith-based, more so than almost anyone I know.

No. As you're aware, I'm far less faith based than just about anyone here. My arguments are rooted in science and numbers. I don't just assert things blindly, the way you do, based on some devotion to a particular quasi-religious liturgy (regulations are evil, therefore if the problem would call for regulations, you have faith the problem doesn't exist). I start with the evidence and work from there. It's the opposite of faith.

 

[marvin martian]

No. As you're aware, I'm far less faith based than just about anyone here. My arguments are rooted in science and numbers. I don't just assert things blindly, the way you do, based on some devotion to a particular quasi-religious liturgy (regulations are evil, therefore if the problem would call for regulations, you have faith the problem doesn't exist). I start with the evidence and work from there. It's the opposite of faith.

No, it's precisely faith that drives your diet, sexual practices, personal appearance and public behavior. Thankfully, we live in a society that isn't run by people like you, so you're free to continue to exercise your religious customs.

Also, note that (as usual) I quoted your entire post, rather than dishonestly editing it as you do mine. Let's see if you can tell which part of your post my response is addressing. Care to guess?

 

[Arkady]

Negative

https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/nyc-subway-delays-return-vengeance-monday-night-commute

Thanks for proving you're full of it............

In what way to you think what you posted contradicts what I said?

 

[Arkady]

No, it's precisely faith that drives your diet, sexual practices, personal appearance and public behavior.

No. Faith plays no part in any of those things. You realize that, of course, but in case anyone else in the thread doesn't, here's a simple way of spotting the difference:

Could my behaviors on such topics be altered by new scientific discoveries? If they're faith, no. For example, someone who has sworn off drinking alcohol for religious reasons isn't going to change just because a definitive meta analysis of studies on alcohol consumption firmly establishes that small amounts of alcohol are good for you. The science is immaterial to them, because the science never led them to that abstinence in the first place. They don't drink alcohol because they believe an invisible man who lives in the sky told them not to. That's faith.

By comparison, consider one of my behaviors: for example, driving a hybrid. What if there were a definitive meta-analysis on the scientific literature on the environmental impact of hybrids and it concluded clearly that, on balance, hybrids cause more harm to the environment than they avoid, once you factor in all the extra chemicals involved, etc. Would I continue buying hybrids? Nope. The science on the topic influenced me to buy in the first place, and if the science ends up going the other way, on balance, I'd alter my behavior. I don't have faith that some invisible man in the sky has told me to buy hybrids.

See the difference? Of course you do. You just enjoy being a troll.

 

[marvin martian]

No. Faith plays no part in any of those things. You realize that, of course, but in case anyone else in the thread doesn't, here's a simple way of spotting the difference:

Could my behaviors on such topics be altered by new scientific discoveries? If they're faith, no. For example, someone who has sworn off drinking alcohol for religious reasons isn't going to change just because a definitive meta analysis of studies on alcohol consumption firmly establishes that small amounts of alcohol are good for you. The science is immaterial to them, because the science never led them to that abstinence in the first place. They don't drink alcohol because they believe an invisible man who lives in the sky told them not to. That's faith.

By comparison, consider one of my behaviors: for example, driving a hybrid. What if there were a definitive meta-analysis on the scientific literature on the environmental impact of hybrids and it concluded clearly that, on balance, hybrids cause more harm to the environment than they avoid, once you factor in all the extra chemicals involved, etc. Would I continue buying hybrids? Nope. The science on the topic influenced me to buy in the first place, and if the science ends up going the other way, on balance, I'd alter my behavior. I don't have faith that some invisible man in the sky has told me to buy hybrids.

See the difference? Of course you do. You just enjoy being a troll.

You would continue buying hybrids as long as doing so continues to be a way for you to engage in virtue signaling. Just as you adhere to the other tenets of your faith (diet, sexual, dress, etc.) as a means of displaying your piety. The church of global warming tells you not to have too many children, not to eat meat, not to drive a certain type of car, not to wear a certain type of cloth, and you do it, unthinkingly.

Also, note that (as usual) I quoted your entire post, rather than dishonestly editing it as you do mine. Let's see if you can tell which part of your post my response is addressing. Care to guess?

 

[middleview]

I had plans to buy a new car. But since I insist on doing so in cash and I'm not quite where I want to be with emergency reserves, I've instead decided to postpone that purchase and get another year out of my existing car. It's already getting a little creaky, so I'll need to get it in for some routine maintenance. That is a good model for how we should handle the latest Obamacare reform implosion. It looks like we won't be getting that shiny new model any time soon, so it's time to do some routine maintenance on what we have. To do otherwise would be like refusing to even change the oil on your current car, in hopes it'll blow up and your wife will have to agree to replace it.

Donald Trump has vowed to give us an Obamacare replacement that will insure everybody, with no cuts to Medicaid, and no loss of coverage for anyone, so that nobody will be worse off financially. It'll be great, trust me! Three rushed attempts by the Republicans, all of which would have drastically reduced coverage and left a great many people in worse financial conditions, have failed. So, the Republicans should step back and take some time to come up with something that at least tries to make good on the promises. Actually debate the matter. Solicit good ideas. Come up with something that's actually an improvement. In the meantime, they should cooperate with the Democrats in tuning up the existing system.

Specifically, I'd recommend the following fixes:

(1) Raise the tax for those who don't get coverage, and pad the subsidies for those who have trouble paying. This would stabilize the individual market in the few states where it isn't already stabilized, while lowering premiums (by moving more healthy people into the market). If Trump and the Republicans eventually come up with something even better than Obamacare, great, but in the meantime we have a decent and stable system.

(2) Alter the laws that prevent the negotiation of drug pricing by the government. Right now drug prices in the US are much higher than in other wealthy nations. That's a pretty easy fix and it's something Democrats want to see and that Trump called for during the campaign.

I'm not certain of it, but I thought the provision that disallowed negotiation for drug prices was already dropped in the early days of the Obama administration.

I've proposed this in the past, but thought I'd bring it up again, because one thing that has to change is the liability the insurance companies face with an aging population and the increase in cancer, Alzheimer's, MS, diabetes and other ailments.

1. Establish a pool that pays 100% of the medical care for the top 10 most expensive diseases.

2. The pool would be contributed to by insurance companies based on the number of policies they have and their contribution would be 40% (make up a number) of the total cost and taxpayers would cover the remainder. In return for participation in the pool the contribution to it would be pre-tax money. We'd need some mechanism to make sure the insurance companies don't reap a windfall...like maybe an excess profits tax, which would also fund the pool....

We should also do something to help members of the military transition into medical fields if their MOS was related to medicine in some way. A medic should be able to easily move into a nursing field or into an EMT job. We need more medical field workers to help bring down costs.

We must make the administrative load the doctors pay for a lot lighter. Many refuse Medicaid patients simply because of the paperwork.

 

[middleview]

One day, when a new car becomes the "right for all of the day" in the eyes of you libs, when you convince 50% of the people that they have a right to good dependable transportation, it isn't just for the evil rich who can afford to purchase it on their own, one day when THAT comes to pass you can just vote to have the government raise the tax for those who don't buy a car, and pad the subsidies for those who have trouble paying for one on their own!

Oh happy days again!

There are alternatives for those who cannot afford a car. There are no alternatives when it comes to those people who cannot afford medical care unless it has to do with safety net programs like Medicaid.

We aren't talking about commodities that would be nice to have. We are talking about life and death...and a huge number of those lives are children.

 

[Dawg]

No. As you're aware, I'm far less faith based than just about anyone here. My arguments are rooted in science and numbers. I don't just assert things blindly, the way you do, based on some devotion to a particular quasi-religious liturgy (regulations are evil, therefore if the problem would call for regulations, you have faith the problem doesn't exist). I start with the evidence and work from there. It's the opposite of faith.

Liberalism is your faith
I hear there is a special HELL for liberalism and terrorism

 

[Capitalist]

They don't worship the Earth. Most of them don't give a shit about the Earth, that's just a cover story to delude themselves into thinking they're trying to destroy our freedom to "save the planet". They worship left-wing authoritarian government and money. If you have any doubts, look at the Paris Accords. They hamstring the American economy and our freedoms while doing absolutely nothing to effect some of the world's largest polluters.

The Al Gores and Leo DiCaprios of the world are laughing their asses off at useful idiots like @Arkady, who are out there preaching the gospel while the high priests enjoy their air-conditioned mansions, yachts, and private jets. It's the classic cult scenario. The easily-duped members give up their worldly possessions and their women, while the leader lives in a mansion, drives a Rolls Royce, and has a nice harem comprised of the former wives of his flock.

Well, you're right I should have been more specific:

The high priests worship authoritarian government.

The useful idiots worship the Earth. Government is their evangelist.

 

[Capitalist]

You don't understand. It's not a matter of tracing electrons. It's a matter of tracing transactions. Electricity is bought at wholesale from producers. We know which producers' electricity was bought to serve electric customers in Massachusetts.



The planet is fine. It's a vast chunk of rock we couldn't hurt if we tried. The question is quality of life for human beings. We need to reduce emissions in a systematic way to preserve decent quality of life. I've laid out a plan for doing so. You have no better alternative, and no decent counter-argument to the science, so you're trying to stick with the ad hominem attacks. But, obviously, they're entirely beside the point. Even if I were the biggest hypocrite on the planet, that wouldn't make one iota of difference to either the science or the quality of the solution I'm proposing. Try to focus, little one.



My tweak allows for a higher long-term rate of technological progress than foregoing the tweak and inviting a crisis that will do far more to derail the global economy than my tweak will. I'm advocating buying the ounce of prevention rather than the pound of cure.



No. Very obviously, the cap-and-trade system I'm advocating will SPEED the arrival of sequestration technology, if that technology proves to be the most cost-effective solution, because it creates the economic incentive to develop it (which doesn't exist as long as carbon costs can be externalized). Think it through. You have clearly not made even the slightest effort to grapple with this issue.

So what you're saying (by omission) is that I got internalization exactly right.

And you lied.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

To take one specific example, imagine a harrowing scenario for Japan's healthcare system. Faced with their demographic crisis (an average age far above ours, with the corresponding healthcare costs) imagine if their per capita healthcare spending were to rise swiftly by 50% and their life expectancies were to plummet by a full two years. I know, that kind of apocalyptic scenario is a little unrealistic in light of the relatively manageable problems they have today, but just play along for the sake of argument. Where would they be after that unprecedented short-term explosion of healthcare costs and collapse in public health outcomes?

Well, where they'd be is that they'd have a system that was STILL costing a third less than ours, while still producing lifespans 2.4 years longer than ours. The US's system is the "post-apocalyptic" one. Even imagining fairly absurd crises for countries like Japan doesn't leave them in as bad a situation as we are today. And that's even AFTER Obamacare, which helped the US crawl a couple spots up the international life expectancy rankings while slowing the pace of our healthcare spending growth. Before Obamacare, we compared even more unfavorably to other countries.

Lord knows I'm not suggesting our health care system is perfect, or on a sustainable path. But if you are going to fix it, for the long term, without effing up the economy, you should probably not be looking to the very nations whose systems are in "crisis" and whose economies have been stagnating worse and for longer than ours. Unless, of course, that is the outcome you desire (and with you, I don't doubt for a moment that it is).

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Yes, we've done an excellent job expanding health insurance coverage in multiple ways, including government insurance. I wouldn't call it an unqualified success, but it's clearly been a HUGE improvement over the bad old days before Obamacare.

So then, why didn't they sell it as a huge expansion of Medicaid?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

If you want to extend the analogy that way, then it would be more like a public street system. The majority of people support the public street, but a vocal minority want to move to a system where there are only unregulated private streets with whatever tolls the owners feel like charging. Currently, the minority don't have the votes for that. But, in the meantime, the question is whether we should keep filling the potholes and doing other upkeep on the public streets, using public funds, or should we neglect them, in hopes that they'll fall apart so badly that any alternative, no matter how ugly, will look good by comparison? I'd say let's keep them well-maintained. If someone comes up with a better alternative in the future, great, but in the meantime, we'll have something decent.

Not really - the roads are something we can all use more or less equally. Your health care isn't...

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Yeah because if there is one thing the private market is just itching to do is to insure old people. So Japan and Europe represent the exact problem the private market will not solve. Canada's problem is one the private market definitely won't solve because it's based upon better quality coverage for some over others.

So their system sucks but that's the system you want for us. No wonder we all think you lefties have lost your frigging minds...

 

[Spamature]

So their system sucks but that's the system you want for us. No wonder we all think you lefties have lost your frigging minds...

No they were saying they wanted to improve their system. They sure as hell weren't saying they wanted to switch to ours or that they believed it to be superior to theirs.

 

[Arkady]

You would continue buying hybrids as long as doing so continues to be a way for you to engage in virtue signaling.

Virtue signaling isn't the goal; protecting the environment is. Why do you suppose I don't care about the anti-GMO movement, despite it being embraced by many liberals, in a way many would dismiss as virtue signaling? Simple: the science isn't there to support that anti-GMO position. As you know, I am guided by science, not faith. And that's why I would stop buying hybrids if the science came out the other way.

 

[Arkady]

So what you're saying (by omission) is that I got internalization exactly right.

And you lied.

No. You misunderstood. Try rereading.

 

[Arkady]

Lord knows I'm not suggesting our health care system is perfect, or on a sustainable path. But if you are going to fix it, for the long term, without effing up the economy, you should probably not be looking to the very nations whose systems are in "crisis" and whose economies have been stagnating worse and for longer than ours. Unless, of course, that is the outcome you desire (and with you, I don't doubt for a moment that it is).

Those nations pay much less for much better results. They may be in crisis relative to their own high standards, but it's a crisis that's head and shoulders better than anything we´ve ever had.

 

[Capitalist]

No. You misunderstood. Try rereading.

No. What part did I misunderstand? Try re-lying.