Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate Change "Debate"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kidlicious
    replied
    It was funny when Chernobyl Miniseries was on. People were saying that it should how bad the USSR was, but Climate Nazis got mad because it was intended to be leftist propaganda.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by Dauphin View Post

    I think your numbers are out by a factor of 200. I.e., 10,000 not 2 million, assuming the melt off was 260 cubic km.
    The numbers are from Ã…rhus Universitet (second largest in Denmark) and pretty solid - wiki even say that it's 2,850,000 km3
    Where do you get that small number from ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Dauphin
    replied
    Originally posted by BlackCat View Post

    Current Greenlandic meltoff surplus is something like 260 billion tons of ice a year - approximately 260 cubic kilometers. Problem is that there are 2 million of those that need to melt to get those 20-25 ft.
    I think your numbers are out by a factor of 200. I.e., 10,000 not 2 million, assuming the melt off was 260 cubic km.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Women's March reject

    Leave a comment:


  • giblets
    replied
    You keep name-dropping "Linda Sarsour" as if anyone knows who that is

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
    There is decades of evidence both from the US and from around the world, that this is not the regime we are in and not the regime we would enter if we taxed at the level of any of the mainstream presidential candidates propose (Warren, Sanders, et al.).

    JM
    Well Bernie Sanders put Linda Sarsour on his campaign. Warren is probably wondering why she didn't do that first. You think these people don't want to tax the middle class? They want to tax you and do a lot more than that. I mean that's why we constantly here about all this BS about concentration camps. It's so obvious.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by Berzerker View Post
    If Greenland melts - and it is melting now - seas will rise 20-25 ft.
    Current Greenlandic meltoff surplus is something like 260 billion tons of ice a year - approximately 260 cubic kilometers. Problem is that there are 2 million of those that need to melt to get those 20-25 ft.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Miller
    replied
    There is decades of evidence both from the US and from around the world, that this is not the regime we are in and not the regime we would enter if we taxed at the level of any of the mainstream presidential candidates propose (Warren, Sanders, et al.).

    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post

    If no one had to consume, most people will be getting negative interest rates. The 6% or 8% is because of the abnormally high growth rates and because most people do not have the choice not to consume (so those who have a choice can get higher returns).

    I know that this is what is taught in right-wing economics 101 but it doesn't make sense in any basic model of the global economy.

    JM
    There are many hidden taxes. The working people end up paying a lot more than you realize. When you tax the rich, or especially corporations, you put a hidden tax on the poor. There is no way you can avoid hurting the poor with taxes. Idk why you call this right wing economics when many on the left understand this. It's the establishment that pushes the myth that you can just tax the rich and the poor can benefit. It doesn't play out that way anywhere. In every economy the working class pays at least some of the bill. It's just that it doesn't show up in the numbers.

    When a working class individual has no money to invest for retirement that means that what they consume is more valuable to them than retirement, because they can't think about retirement. So it is worth more. Now if the government imposes a cost on them indirectly (that is that it affects them indirectly) then the loss they incur is much more than losing stocks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon Miller
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post

    Um yes it is. When you don't consume you save. Those savings are compounded. Consumption is a choice. When you chose to consume it's because it's more valuable to you than making compound interest.
    If no one had to consume, most people will be getting negative interest rates. The 6% or 8% is because of the abnormally high growth rates and because most people do not have the choice not to consume (so those who have a choice can get higher returns).

    I know that this is what is taught in right-wing economics 101 but it doesn't make sense in any basic model of the global economy.

    JM

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Medicare for all would have the central government set prices. Right now prices are negotiated threw a third party, which is waste. The thing is that if the Ds get this passed and the Rs oppose it then the Rs are going to say that prices increased, just like Obamacare (they promised to decrease cost). There is going to be pressure to cut costs. So on an individual basis they would try to set the price appropriately, but under political pressure they will set the price too low. That will create shortages that will become ingrained into the system.

    Leave a comment:


  • Proteus_MST
    replied
    Originally posted by Kidicious View Post

    We have too much waste. I don't see how that solves the problem.
    It may do so:

    1. Leaner administrations
    According to all I have been reading read your hospitals, doctors and insurance agencies have a huge administration overhead.
    The insurance agencies in order to negotiate prices with individual hospitals,
    the hospitals and doctors, in order to calculate for each patient and each individual position on the bill, how much it wioll cost with the insurance the patient has ...
    and also in order to deny a patient certain treatments beforehand because his insurance doesn't pay for them.

    This all isn't present in germany. All insurances (including the private ones) cover all hospitals and doctors in the same way.
    What the hospital can bill for a certain trreatment is always the same regardles of hospital or insurance agency where you are.
    As a result, our hospital/doctor/insurance administrations are much leaner than those in the USA.
    Less money spent on accountants -> more money available for the actual care of the patients.

    2. You usually stay for your lifetime withg the same insurance agency
    If you change your employer you take your insurance with you, there are no employer specific insurance (and therefore also no need to stay with a job you don't want just because of the health insurance the employer provides). And your next employer has to pay half of your insurance primaries just like your previous one did.

    This actually has a profound effect for you as well:
    As the insurance agencies see you as a long term investment, they will proivide you with a broiad range of medical checkups (depending on age).
    Because an insuree whose illnesses/health problems are detected early on, doesn't cost them as much as an insuree whose diseases/health problems stay undiagnosed for a long time (due to them becoming worse and harder to treat over time)

    Contrast with the US system where people (also due to co-pay, which doen't exist in this form in germany) are actually encouraged to not go to the doctor and instead treat their symptomes witrh cheap opioids.

    This means, a system like in germany also may reduce the downtime of employees in which they cannot work (or the employees who drop out of the job market either due to having been killed due to waiting too long for a treatrment of an illness, or becoming disabled to to it)

    It may also reduce your opioid crisis. Due to doctoral visits being free atr the point of delivery, people are encouraged to visit a doctor, instead of "treating" the symptomes via self-administered opioids

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Proteus_MST View Post
    Well, germany combines both worlds.
    Every adult person has to nhave a health insurance and there are 2 types of health insurances:
    1. Statutory Health Insurances which need to take everyone regardless of precondition (and whose basic primaries are fixed to 14.6 %of your income of which half your employer has to pay (and which is fixed to 800 € / month maximum ... so people earning a lot of money have an advantage)
    2. Private Health insurances, which offer complete health insurances (and are free with rgards to whom they take and which they demand) and also supplementary insurances in order to beef up statutory health insurances.

    So far our system works well.
    Maybe something that would be a good model for the USA as well (as it has more similarities to the US system than Single Payer Healthcare systems tlike the british NHS)
    We have too much waste. I don't see how that solves the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • Proteus_MST
    replied
    Well, germany combines both worlds.
    Every adult person has to nhave a health insurance and there are 2 types of health insurances:
    1. Statutory Health Insurances which need to take everyone regardless of precondition (and whose basic primaries are fixed to 14.6 %of your income of which half your employer has to pay (and which is fixed to 800 € / month maximum ... so people earning a lot of money have an advantage)
    2. Private Health insurances, which offer complete health insurances (and are free with rgards to whom they take and which they demand) and also supplementary insurances in order to beef up statutory health insurances.

    So far our system works well.
    Maybe something that would be a good model for the USA as well (as it has more similarities to the US system than Single Payer Healthcare systems tlike the british NHS)

    Leave a comment:


  • Kidlicious
    replied
    Originally posted by Aeson View Post

    As I said, public or private. We can do it enforcing antitrust law already on the books. The healthcare and health insurance industries are abusing market power, price fixing, and a whole host if other waste/corruption issues.
    But we have to deal with the reality that right now Medicare for all is what they are trying to push. That's going to actually be Medicare for none. The fact that they are lying right off the bat should tell you something. This is all for votes and for power. It's not to save the earth or to save lives. They are going to try to keep costs down so that it doesn't blow up in their face.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X