Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Climate Change "Debate"
Collapse
X
-
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.
-
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.
Where do you get that small number from ?
Leave a comment:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
-
You keep name-dropping "Linda Sarsour" as if anyone knows who that is
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Jon Miller View PostThere 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:
-
Originally posted by Berzerker View PostIf Greenland melts - and it is melting now - seas will rise 20-25 ft.
Leave a comment:
-
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
- Likes 1
Leave a comment:
-
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
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:
-
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.
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:
-
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:
-
Originally posted by Kidicious View Post
We have too much waste. I don't see how that solves the problem.
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:
-
Originally posted by Proteus_MST View PostWell, 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:
-
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:
-
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.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: