Climate Change, Obama-Care, and Do We Want to Know the Truth? [Yes, there are ascertainable facts! Surprised?!]

Why do some countries fare better (in any way you want to measure) than others? One reason is the prevailing conditions, like war, poverty, political instability, natural disasters. Another is the choices the citizens make as to their leadership, their priorities, treating of each other, personal views and public sentiment. Of course, leadership matters a lot, but in a democracy isn't the people the ultimate deciders? [this is a topic requiring lots of discussion]

In order to have a reasonable discussion, logic and facts (as much as we can ascertain them) should feature prominently. Of course, we know, this is not always the case--and I may even argue, it's more rare than the reverse.

In the US, politics often is like a sport. People pick teams and consume only one source of information, disregarding anything (even valid) that falls outside their frame of mind--the preconceived f.o.m. That's why we see people still clinging to ideas that have been discredited, or are considered obnoxious, highly prejudicial, ignorant, and outdated. 

Climate change/global warming is happening and has accelerated. The problem is the alerts mostly came from the progressives first. Oh, yeah, and the scientists, who have a liberal bias--the bias the majority of educated people sport. Then we have special interests in certain industries who have been buying politicians and a campaign to doubt/deny global warming.

Here's Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who addresses this topic succinctly. 

 -------

Fake Questions to Raise Concern

There's a rumor (who cares who started it) that Mr. Lincoln is beating his wife regularly. That's terrible even by 19th century standards. So, it's good question to ask of Mr. Lincoln whether he's thought about stopping beating his wife, whether he feels remorse, and whether he treat all women in his life similarly.

In similar fashion, I hear that the EPA wants to stop our 4th of July fireworks; it wants to regulate our freedom! Libertarians complain about the government that wastes money on studying the weather on Mars, the sex lives of fruit flies, and monitors volcanoes. Humbhag. 

I also hear that we'll experience something similar to Hitler's invasion when Obama-care goes into effect.  Here's a video--actually it includes segments of the original video that raises some fake questions to alarm people, and a doctor responding to those concerns:

Is is Time for Scalia and the Conservatives to Eat Broccoli Now?

In an affirmation of federal power, the SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate and expansion of Medicaid today, but, seriously, this is not a long-term solution for our health insurance and health care delivery problems. The best approach in my opinion still is universal health care paid by the general taxes, with a public option, and measures to control the costs. That's the general principle, the details can be debated--not that they don't matter, they do, but as a society we have to form a consensus that the marketplace shouldn't be the sole arbitrator of who gets to live or die.

The political aspects of this SCOTUS decision are interesting. I think it's good news for the president as he gets his "Obama care" validated by the supreme court. The tea partiers who have argued that the federal policies strangle the states' freedom, lose another one, and the blow came from a conservative court too. Likewise for the conservative states who sued the fed government. It's becoming a settled issue that the fed has the authority to provide for health care, social security, consumer safety, scientific research, immigration policy, national highways, and electrification!

Romney and the conservatives will now campaign against this law and may get some support from their loyal base, though I don't think this will be a pivotal issue that will win extra votes. People who have a strong opinion on Obama care will not change their minds. Much of the public sitting on the fence today will accept this decision, and their ultimate view will be determined when and how this new law will be fully implemented in a few years.

The progressives would have been more motivated had this law been rejected by SCOTUS, though I'm not sure of this either. Many of them do not like the way to get most Americans insured is forcing them into private insurers while there are too many gimmicks on how to pay or how to get exceptions. I  know of some who wanted the mandate part to be thrown out, so, as governor Howard Dean argues, universal health care coverage should be provided by the state/fed via a primarily public pool of insurance. Again, if we don't curtail the rapidly escalating costs of coverage, drugs, and services, there won't be enough money eventually. Maybe that's what some conservatives want, to destroy any public safety net, and then only those who have the money can have benefits. Everything for a price....