cap and trade, stimulas1-2-? and healthcare

[Bronx33]

What do you all think of obama cramming all these things down our throat giving voters very little time to even read the stuff.

[Garcia Bronco]

Not good.

[Dukes]

You can tell he loves Capitalism, that's for sure.

[cutthemdown]

I hate the cap and trade, like making an option for people who don't currently have healthcare.

I do worry that if you get stuck in the govt healthcare plan you might not get the procedures you need authorized quickly, but I bet that in the end you will get decent care.

[cutthemdown]

The trade off will have to be less lawsuits for medical malpractice.

[Bronx33]

This shyt has got me worried it appears obama is on a mission for all the power he can muster, contact your congressmen and ask him/her if she likes her/his job.

[Bronx33]

I hate the cap and trade, like making an option for people who don't currently have healthcare.

I do worry that if you get stuck in the govt healthcare plan you might not get the procedures you need authorized quickly, but I bet that in the end you will get decent care.



Did you hear obama skirt the question about if he would seek alternative health care if one of his family was in need of medical attention outside ( his system ) he never answered.

[peacepipe]

So with cap & trade, there is a problem with setting standards by which to curb pollution.

[cutthemdown]

Did you hear obama skirt the question about if he would seek alternative health care if one of his family was in need of medical attention outside ( his system ) he never answered.

Yeah I saw that

[cutthemdown]

So with cap & trade, there is a problem with setting standards by which to curb pollution.

my problem with it is more that it will make all my energy more expensive. Obama says only 1600 over 10 yrs per American but I don't but it.

[Garcia Bronco]

cap and trade is yet another tax increase on the populace set forth by democrats and Obama. Instead of slowing spending and tightening the belt...they are jacking up what they take from EVERYONE.

[Bronx33]

cap and trade is yet another tax increase on the populace set forth by democrats and Obama. Instead of slowing spending and tightening the belt...they are jacking up what they take from EVERYONE.



It's also a monopoly for big business.

[cutthemdown]

I'm skeptical about global warming being all caused by co2, but if it is I also question cap and trade being able to curtail it. In the end the Earth will warm or cool despite a cap and trade carbon tax. Really it boils down to the govt wanting more money for more programs and endeavors.

[frerottenextelway]

What do you all think of obama cramming all these things down our throat giving voters very little time to even read the stuff.

Hope they all pass!

[cutthemdown]

Hope they all pass!

i dont think they have all the votes yet. Dems are going to fight Dems on this carbon tax because it hurts the energy producing states, the manufacturing states more then other states.

[peacepipe]

With the House preparing to vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, congressional Republicans have stepped up their efforts to smear the Democrats' cap-and-trade bill. However, Greg Sargent (http://mediamattersaction.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Ftheplumline.whorunsgov.com%2Fre publican-party%2Fgop-leaders-parting-ways-on-key-issues-with-gop-rank-and-file%2F) points out that the GOP's opposition is not only at odds with the American people, which at this point is par for the course, but also with a significant number of Republican voters. According to the Washington Post: (http://mediamattersaction.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2009%2F06%2F24%2FAR20090 62403648.html)
Debate over the cap-and-trade approach has focused on the cost to the average American. The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that cap and trade would cost the average U.S. household $175 a year in 2020, but House Republicans have pushed the message that the legislation would cost many times that and drive millions of jobs offshore.
That message has failed to sway liberal and moderate Republicans, 60 percent of whom back a cap-and-trade program, but it appeals to the party's conservative base.


http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200906250016

[peacepipe]

I was looking at my "what you can fix overnight for free book" & guess what! Health care reform, curbing pollution, the economy weren't in the book.

[Bronx33]

Hope they all pass!


lemming..

[watermock]

Obama likes regessive, invisible taxes.

Cap and trade is a shell game, and won't help climate change 1%.

[Bronco Bob]

lemming..

I voted for Obama for these very things, reducing CO2 emissions and universal health care.
So how does that make me a lemming?
They damn well better pass.

[Garcia Bronco]

I voted for Obama for these very things, reducing CO2 emissions and universal health care.
So how does that make me a lemming?
They damn well better pass.

I want reduced CO2 emissions as well, bu tthere is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. This cap and trade nonsense will hurt everyone in this country financially in the middle of a reccession. This is going to destroy Obama's presidency.

[rastaman]

I want reduced CO2 emissions as well, bu tthere is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. This cap and trade nonsense will hurt everyone in this country financially in the middle of a reccession. This is going to destroy Obama's presidency.

So what's the right way to do it?

[elsid13]

I want reduced CO2 emissions as well, bu tthere is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. This cap and trade nonsense will hurt everyone in this country financially in the middle of a reccession. This is going to destroy Obama's presidency.

It by far the best idea to solve this problem. It removes the "free rider" issue of a public good and create a market place solution. Those industries that will struggle are those that inefficient in the first place and have failed to reinvest in themselves to continue to stay up to date. The biggest problem is that the Federal Government is giving the permit allocation away for free instead of charging for them.

[spdirty]

So what's the right way to do it?

incentives rather than punishment.

In other words, give companies tax credits and tax breaks rather than taxing the shlt out of em for not doing what you want them to do. You make it tough for big business to do business, they will say "**** you then, Im moving out of this country."

Which of course results in job losses which gets more people praying to the government for help which then gives the gov't more power and control over our lives which is exactly what they want from the start.

Its what the morons in this country voted for though, dems have a mandate to do this shlt, so whatever.

[spdirty]

This shlt passes, and some dumb schmuck who voted for Obama gets laid off cuz the company they work for can't afford to do business here anymore, Ill laugh in their face and tell em to enjoy the soup line. Then ask em how that hope and change is workin out for em. Idiots. I dont care anymore. So long as me and my family get through this shlt, the hell with everyone else who voted for Obama or voted for McCain in the primaries and caucuses.

[spdirty]

Obama likes regessive, invisible taxes.

Cap and trade is a shell game, and won't help climate change 1%.

It isnt about climate change, its about power and control.

[Meck77]

All I can say is thank God for Ron Paul. His organization gave me a heads up on HR2454 Cap n Trade bill. I already called Salzar's office to voice my opposition to the bill. (202) 225-4761 Direct or you can call the switchboard at 202-224-3121. The lines have been flooded.

Obama is a LIAR. Plain and simple. He's taxing the hell out of the middle class.

[peacepipe]

incentives rather than punishment.

In other words, give companies tax credits and tax breaks rather than taxing the shlt out of em for not doing what you want them to do. You make it tough for big business to do business, they will say "**** you then, Im moving out of this country."

Which of course results in job losses which gets more people praying to the government for help which then gives the gov't more power and control over our lives which is exactly what they want from the start.

Its what the morons in this country voted for though, dems have a mandate to do this shlt, so whatever.we had 8 years of that & IT DID NOT WORK.

[Dukes]

All I can say is thank God for Ron Paul. His organization gave me a heads up on HR2454 Cap n Trade bill. I already called Salzar's office to voice my opposition to the bill. (202) 225-4761 Direct or you can call the switchboard at 202-224-3121. The lines have been flooded.

Obama is a LIAR. Plain and simple. He's taxing the hell out of the middle class.

I thought posting phone numbers on this site will be grounds for a ban?

[Dukes]

we had 8 years of that & IT DID NOT WORK.

So your saying the World Economy collapsed because companies were given tax breaks? Ok gotcha.

[cutthemdown]

we had 8 years of that & IT DID NOT WORK.

Actrually Bush tried some cap and trade also. In the EU they have a cap and trade already in place. Problem is it hasn't reduced CO2 output on bit. Really the energy producers just add the increase to the bills of the people they supply. Really it's that simple for them because they know you have to buy fuel and electricity.

So when your electric bill goes up you really can't do anything about it. Then in 10 yrs when you find out it did nothing for your precious environment you will be upset.

I am all for cleaning up the environment, but IMO Co2 isn't what we should focus on.

[DBruleU]

So your saying the World Economy collapsed because companies were given tax breaks? Ok gotcha.

In Liberal world, yes. Morons.

[cutthemdown]

In Europe they have cap and trade but the first phase failed because they set the limits on the CO2 way too high. All the companies ended up with excess credits to sell and it drove the price of the credits down. That allowed a few big polluters to by them up cheap, keep spewing co2.

In the end people paid more for energy, but the profits of energy producers went up as well. Also co2 output reached new highs as the economies of Europe kept spewing co2, like any economy does.

So the question then becomes is the govt willing to set the co2 limits low enough to make a difference. If they aren't is it worth trying? If they are how much is it really going to cost joe taxpayer.

Also will the states that produce energy have to bear more of the costs?

This will probably pass the house, but the Senate it may stall.

I don't really see why Repubs so upset though. Obama making big changes, if they don't work Repubs can use that in election.

One thing for sure in 4 yrs we will have more co2 then we do now. So regardless the cap and trade won't be an early winner for Obama.

I really believe, he believes it's important for the Earth.

[Garcia Bronco]

So what's the right way to do it?

That's the million dollar question. I just know it's not right to raise energy costs in the middle of a reccession. The only way to truly reduce Co2 is more plant life and trees. Guess what they use to live and grow besides water and sunlight?

[cutthemdown]

That's the million dollar question. I just know it's not right to raise energy costs in the middle of a recession. The only way to truly reduce Co2 is more plant life and trees. Guess what they use to live and grow besides water and sunlight?

Carbon sinks IMO are the technology to invest in. Not just regular plants that eventually die and then release carbon, but the algae based ones that never die and release there carbon.

Since even the Al Gores will admit that even with American co2 cuts, and EU cuts, overall Co2 will be going up over next 50 yrs, investing money in ways to eat that co2 seems more prudent then a tax on the co2.

Now if govt says all the tax will be used to promote the environment, carbon sinks, national parks, global warming type techs in car batteries, electric trains, etc etc it would maybe help. We all know though they will spend it on things other then the environment.

I don't like the cap and trade scheme. Seems to me it just creates another way for a trader to get rich. They will now get rich with co2 carbon credits and in the end co2 will still go up. It's like a tax on the very air we exhale and we will pay the price. All the money will end up in credit traders and the govt hands.

[cutthemdown]

Garcia, also more like the trillion dollar question. We are spending a ton of money on things that emit less co2, but india and china will make up for it and then some.

The only thing that really gets my interest is a way to have our cars not run on oil. It would be great to diminish the amount of money the countries hostile to us make.

Maybe that is the real reason American govt wants to go electric cars. If Americans gas tanks not tied to gas prices, it will free up America to bomb the crap out of Iran in 4-5 yrs before they have a nuke.

Maybe thats why Obama was the chosen one. A charasmatic liberal that will make Americans buy into going green. Then in 8 yrs when a repub takes over he will have Americans not needing gas and he can bomb the **** out of Iran.

[Bronx33]

Well i they added another 300 pages to the cap and trade :rofl: i wonder whos going to read it before the vote to make sure they are informed. Cap and trade hasen't worked anywhere yet obama and the blind chimps want to cram in our asses sideways.

[Bronx33]

It isnt about climate change, its about power and control.


Exactly is a power grab plain and simple.

[Bronx33]

Actrually Bush tried some cap and trade also. In the EU they have a cap and trade already in place. Problem is it hasn't reduced CO2 output on bit. Really the energy producers just add the increase to the bills of the people they supply. Really it's that simple for them because they know you have to buy fuel and electricity.

So when your electric bill goes up you really can't do anything about it. Then in 10 yrs when you find out it did nothing for your precious environment you will be upset.

I am all for cleaning up the environment, but IMO Co2 isn't what we should focus on.



The problem is obama has zero proof that human are responsiable for CO2 emissions their are nobel prize winning scientists that say it's a natural cycle their are respected college professors that have studied this and have found zero proof human are the cause. Yet obama is going to tax us to fix a problem he has no proof on it's totally pathetic from all points of view iam discusted in this administration and it's gall to propose this crap.

[Spider]

What do you all think of obama cramming all these things down our throat giving voters very little time to even read the stuff.

LOL I see you are another sucker ...........
Senate Panel Hears of Health Insurers' Wrongs
Ex-Insider Testifies to 'Fear Tactics'

TOOLBOX
Resize
Print
E-mail
Yahoo! Buzz
ad_icon
COMMENT
418 Comments | View All »
POST A COMMENT
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Why Do I Have to Log In Again?
Log In Again?
CLOSE
We've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Discussion Policy
Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem.
Discussion Policy
CLOSE
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging
» Links to this article
By David S. Hilzenrath
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 25, 2009

Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid, according to a report released yesterday by the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee.
This Story

*
Senate Panel Hears of Health Insurers' Wrongs
*
States Assert Place in Health-Care Debate
*
53 Indicted in Medicare Fraud Sting

The report was part of a multi-pronged assault on the credibility of private insurers by Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). It came at a time when Rockefeller, President Obama and others are seeking to offer a public alternative to private health plans as part of broad health-care reform legislation. Health insurers are doing everything they can to block the public option.

At a committee hearing yesterday, three health-care specialists testified that insurers go to great lengths to avoid responsibility for sick people, use deliberately incomprehensible documents to mislead consumers about their benefits, and sell "junk" policies that do not cover needed care. Rockefeller said he was exploring "why consumers get such a raw deal from their insurance companies."

The star witness at the hearing was a former public relations executive for major health insurers whose testimony boiled down to this: Don't trust the insurers.
ad_icon

"The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable -- publicly accountable -- health-care option," said Wendell Potter, who until early last year was vice president for corporate communications at the big insurer Cigna.

Potter said he worries "that the industry's charm offensive, which is the most visible part of duplicitous and well-financed PR and lobbying campaigns, may well shape reform in a way that benefits Wall Street far more than average Americans."

Insurers make paperwork confusing because "they realize that people will just simply give up and not pursue it" if they think they have been shortchanged, Potter said.

Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.) questioned the government's ability to make matters clearer, saying federal regulation of mortgage disclosures has made the documents that borrowers encounter in real estate transactions "hopelessly complicated."

Potter's successor as spokesman for Cigna said the company strongly disagrees "with the suggestion that, motivated by profits, the insurance industry has deliberately attempted to confuse or unfairly treat covered individuals."

"At CIGNA we are committed to improving the current system," spokesman Chris Curran said by e-mail.

The report released yesterday alleges that insurers have systematically underpaid for out-of-network care. The issue had been brought to light previously in litigation, committee hearings and other investigations, including a probe by New York Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo. But as politicians and interests groups clash over the current effort to overhaul the nation's health-care system, it took on new relevance.

Cuomo described it last year as "a scheme by health insurers to defraud consumers by manipulating reimbursement rates."

Many Americans pay higher premiums for the freedom to go outside an insurer's network of doctors and hospitals. When they do, insurers typically pay a percentage of what they call the "usual and customary" rates for the services. How insurers determine the usual rates had long been opaque to consumers and difficult if not impossible for them to challenge.

As it turns out, insurers typically used numbers from Ingenix, a wholly owned subsidiary of the big insurer UnitedHealth Group. Ingenix had an incentive to produce benchmarks that low-balled usual and customary rates and shifted costs from insurers to their customers, the report said.

Ingenix got its data from the same insurers that bought its benchmark information, the report said. Insurers that contributed information to Ingenix often "scrubbed" their data to remove high charges, and Ingenix further manipulated the numbers, removing valid high charges from its calculations, the report said.

Cuomo found that insurers under-reimbursed New York consumers by up to 28 percent, the report said. A dozen insurers have reached settlements agreeing to change their practices; UnitedHealth agreed to the largest payment, $50 million, to help a nonprofit organization set up a new database to replace Ingenix.

In March testimony to Rockefeller's committee, UnitedHealth chief executive Stephen J. Hemsley said UnitedHealth stands by "the integrity of the Ingenix data."

Ingenix performed an important function, Hemsley said, because paying whatever doctors charge "is simply not economically tenable."

[Bronx33]

huh iam the sucker? they reported they added 300 pages today ( too cap and trade) and are voting tonight i simply stated ( they are givin no time to read the ****er) but still cast a vote kinda like they did with the stimulas package you know that complete waste of money which we couldn't afford. (nice job quoting a blog btw)

[elsid13]

huh iam the sucker? they reported they added 300 pages today ( too cap and trade) and are voting tonight i simply stated ( they are givin no time to read the ****er) but still cast a vote kinda like they did with the stimulas package you know that complete waste of money which we couldn't afford. (nice job quoting a blog btw)

You do realize that they have staffers that go through all the documents and provide an executive highlights of each section and lawyers/policy analyst that are also pouring over it for data. Additions are not just magically add at committee, they are carefully staffed by the both the professional and personnel staffers.

[Bronx33]

You do realize that they have staffers that go through all the documents and provide an executive highlights of each section and lawyers/policy analyst that are also pouring over it for data. Additions are not just magically add at committee, they are carefully staffed by the both the professional and personnel staffers.




I guess they didn't highlight the 9000 peices of fat in the stimulas package i guess. :spit:

[elsid13]

I guess they didn't highlight the 9000 peices of fat in the stimulas package i guess. :spit:

What make you think that they didn't know were the monies went and didn't agree.

[DBruleU]

What make you think that they didn't know were the monies went and didn't agree.

You're right. They all knew that millions of dollars were going to help put in road crossings for freaking turtles. How stupid are we now?

[Spider]

huh iam the sucker? they reported they added 300 pages today ( too cap and trade) and are voting tonight i simply stated ( they are givin no time to read the ****er) but still cast a vote kinda like they did with the stimulas package you know that complete waste of money which we couldn't afford. (nice job quoting a blog btw)

No the point was , we are getting ****ed by everyone , at least with the government , we get disclosure , we have to pay taxes any way , might as well get healthcare for the ****ing we take ....With insurance companies we dont even get a kiss ..........will it be perfect ? nope nothing ever is , but I wont have to **** a brick when ever one of my kids get sick

[frerottenextelway]

The problem is obama has zero proof that human are responsiable for CO2 emissions their are nobel prize winning scientists that say it's a natural cycle their are respected college professors that have studied this and have found zero proof human are the cause. Yet obama is going to tax us to fix a problem he has no proof on it's totally pathetic from all points of view iam discusted in this administration and it's gall to propose this crap.

What?

That is the one part of equation that is most established. We can literally measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and can literally differentiate fossil fuel CO2 from natural occuring CO2.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

[watermock]

This will be the final nail in the coffin for American industry. Ya think China's gonna sign this crap?

[cutthemdown]

We really could be screwed if this energy bill goes through. I think its a bad piece of legislation that will do nothing for global warming, will do nothing for the environment.

I'm all for getting off oil, but this co2 thing is a boondoggle.

[watermock]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/5000/5865/chinsmog_tmo_2005253_lrg.jpg.

[watermock]

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/earth/Atmosphere/images/aerosol_pollution_china_mid.jpg.

[Bronco Bob]

Actrually Bush tried some cap and trade also. In the EU they have a cap and trade already in place. Problem is it hasn't reduced CO2 output on bit. Really the energy producers just add the increase to the bills of the people they supply. Really it's that simple for them because they know you have to buy fuel and electricity.

So when your electric bill goes up you really can't do anything about it. Then in 10 yrs when you find out it did nothing for your precious environment you will be upset.

I am all for cleaning up the environment, but IMO Co2 isn't what we should focus on.

The industry tools used the same scare monger tactics when they tried to
pass legislation to cap and trade SO2 emissions. Guess what, it passed
anyway, SO2 emissions are down, and electricity is actually cheaper now.

[El Guapo]

I'm skeptical about global warming being all caused by co2, but if it is I also question cap and trade being able to curtail it. In the end the Earth will warm or cool despite a cap and trade carbon tax. Really it boils down to the govt wanting more money for more programs and endeavors.

I just read an article this morning that stated that MIT found that this so called "global warming" is part of earth's cycle, not really induced by man.

I also heard, in regards to this bill, that all energy related stuff (gas, electric, etc) will double in price as a hidden tax on America. In the mean time, Pelosi, Al Gore, GE and others will gain an immense amount of wealth due to their current investments in "green" companies. Way to look out for Americans.:wave:

[Bronco Bob]

I just read an article this morning that stated that MIT found that this so called "global warming" is part of earth's cycle, not really induced by man.



Where did you read it? The Petroleum and Coal Industry Weekly Journal?

[Dukes]

Where did you read it? The Petroleum and Coal Industry Weekly Journal?

It certainly wasn't liberalwackjobs.com

[Bronco Bob]

It certainly wasn't liberalwackjobs.com

Or any legitimate scientific publication, for that matter.

[Bronx33]

What make you think that they didn't know were the monies went and didn't agree.


What's make you think they even saw them all i know is i heard mike rosen list off several stupid places stimulas money went not the mention several banks that refused the money ( cause they didn't need it (http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20090222-BIZ-902220323))

all i know is the defict is larger now, why? it seems obabma want's to control the banks after they accept the cash.

[frerottenextelway]

incentives rather than punishment.

In other words, give companies tax credits and tax breaks rather than taxing the shlt out of em for not doing what you want them to do. You make it tough for big business to do business, they will say "**** you then, Im moving out of this country."

Which of course results in job losses which gets more people praying to the government for help which then gives the gov't more power and control over our lives which is exactly what they want from the start.

Its what the morons in this country voted for though, dems have a mandate to do this shlt, so whatever.

Then put tariffs on the goods they're shipping back over here, that'll keep them from moving overseas. People (not u specifically) are so scared of protectionism and would rather protect transnational coperations instead.

[W*GS]

I just read an article this morning that stated that MIT found that this so called "global warming" is part of earth's cycle, not really induced by man.

Reference?

[Dukes]

Or any legitimate scientific publication, for that matter.

Probably not.

[Bronx33]

Reference?



http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39973/113/

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/02/new_research_from_mit_scientis.html

http://globalchange.mit.edu/

ect
ect
ect

[Bronco Bob]

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39973/113/

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/02/new_research_from_mit_scientis.html

http://globalchange.mit.edu/

ect
ect
ect

The Washington Post article contradicts your claim about what the MIT
scientists said. So does the MIT website.

New research from MIT scientists shows that in the absence of stringent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,
21st century climate change may be far more significant than some previous climate assessments had indicated.

The new findings, released this month by MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change,
showed significantly increased odds that by the end of the century warming would be on the high end of
the scale for a so-called "no policy scenario" as compared with similar studies completed just six years ago.
The main culprits: the cycling of heat and carbon dioxide in the climate system are now better understood
and projections of future greenhouse gas emissions have increased.

Also there is an update at the bottom of the TG Daily article that indicates
the methane may have come from melting Siberian permafrost. Guess
what? Global warming predicts the melt of the permafrost. Which will
release methane into the air. Which will increase global warming. So far
from a natural even, this is something we have a direct hand in.


UPDATE: October 31, 2008, 05:52am:
Several comments suggest a massive 2007 Siberian permafrost melt accounts for the observed increases in atmospheric methane.

[barryr]

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39973/113/

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/is-global-warming-part-of-earths-natural-cycle-mit-team-says-yes.html

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/02/new_research_from_mit_scientis.html

http://globalchange.mit.edu/

ect
ect
ect

Nah, as typical any website that doesn't go along with the company line that man is causing global warming isn't considered legit and any scientist who doesn't support the theory is a whackjob who knows nothing despite their credentials and years of study. But that great scientist Al Gore knows it all though.

[barryr]

Even the politicians aren't reading what they're voting on. Just pass it through and see what happens. So nice to play with other people's money and lives and decide to use systems that have yet to prove successful anywhere in the world. But what do you expect from a bunch of lawyers, who make up the vast majority of our politicians, making business decisions who have never run a business in their lives? It's like having a dentist giving you a prostate test.

[El Guapo]

Darn if I can't seem to find that article I mentioned above. I'll keep (casually) looking over the next couple of days...

[El Guapo]

Here it is.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102031

I do apologize as it's not MIT making the claim, rather an individual who attended MIT. :D

[Garcia Bronco]

And now there are reports of the EPA supressing information. Looks like Obama might get snagged on it.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, Garcia, read the article I posted.

[El Guapo]

Here's some more on Cap and Tax:



The mammoth 1,500 page cap-and-trade bill passed quietly in Congress on Friday amidst the talk of health care and the death of a pseudo-pop star. Most members of the 111th Congress never read the bill which includes the largest tax increase in American history.

Once the Senate takes up the bill after the summer break, staffers are expected to unearth regulations that could place a stranglehold on all U.S. businesses causing massive new taxes.

Speaker on the House, Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. scrapped together just enough votes (219-212) to get the cap-and-trade legislation to the Senate. Speaker Pelosi set herself up on this bill as the creator of “jobs, jobs, jobs.” This bill won’t allow the placement of solar panels in California’s Mojave Desert or wind turbines in the waters off the Kennedy compound.

Republicans quietly let the Democrats have this so-called victory. Looking forward to the 2010 elections, the Republican Party will be able to enlighten the public on the woes of the Waxman/Markey global warming bill.

Proponents of the bill need to look no further than Spain, where the cap-and trade concept has sent unemployment to the 20 percent mark and with every one “green job” created, they have lost 2.2 jobs. Not exactly a success story.

more here;
http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m6d29-Cap-and-tax-passes-quietly-in-Congress

[Bob]

What do you all think of obama cramming all these things down our throat giving voters very little time to even read the stuff.

Its not good, but what concerns me much more are those voting on bills they dont even have time to read -- that is not good for anyone right left or middle...look at the first TARP bill -- it was such an emergency that they didnt have time to read the bill, and now many months later most is not spent?

[cutthemdown]

The Washington Post article contradicts your claim about what the MIT
scientists said. So does the MIT website.

New research from MIT scientists shows that in the absence of stringent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,
21st century climate change may be far more significant than some previous climate assessments had indicated.

The new findings, released this month by MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change,
showed significantly increased odds that by the end of the century warming would be on the high end of
the scale for a so-called "no policy scenario" as compared with similar studies completed just six years ago.
The main culprits: the cycling of heat and carbon dioxide in the climate system are now better understood
and projections of future greenhouse gas emissions have increased.

Also there is an update at the bottom of the TG Daily article that indicates
the methane may have come from melting Siberian permafrost. Guess
what? Global warming predicts the melt of the permafrost. Which will
release methane into the air. Which will increase global warming. So far
from a natural even, this is something we have a direct hand in.


UPDATE: October 31, 2008, 05:52am:
Several comments suggest a massive 2007 Siberian permafrost melt accounts for the observed increases in atmospheric methane.


Which only proves that if it is the reason we can't do it unless CHina and India do it as well. Tell what good it does to tax people so they will make less co2, when everyone admits it will go up over next 50 yrs regardless because China and India, and even Indonesia are increasing by huge amounts?

Smart would be to invest in technology that will scrub co2. Carbon sinks are the only thing that IMO sounds like it would work. A cap and trade won't work.

What would be better is telling the big co2 producers you have to invest so much a yr into carbon sinks. Instead money goes to govt who will spend it on many different things.

To make a change people like Gore need to do more then by some credits and think that really helps. You have to not fly all over the place and not suck energy into your home like a black hole.

If everyone does it like gore then we end up with a huge tax, but still co2 going up. How does that make since when in the EU right now as we speak it isn't working?

What probably happens is energy producing states fight for exemptions or high limits on the co2 before credits needed and the whole energy bill a big mess.

We need to think this through a little more before we rush into a bad energy bill.

[Atlas]

What do you all think of obama cramming all these things down our throat giving voters very little time to even read the stuff.

I have great health care, but I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes in the short term to fix this ****er. By 2020 they are saying 1/4 of the total GNP is going to be healtcare.

[cutthemdown]

I have great health care, but I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes in the short term to fix this ****er. By 2020 they are saying 1/4 of the total GNP is going to be healtcare.

I think trying to get everyone healthcare makes about 300 times more since the taxing of co2.

[cutthemdown]

I have great health care, but I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes in the short term to fix this ****er. By 2020 they are saying 1/4 of the total GNP is going to be healtcare.

What if your healthcare folded and you have to go govt, but it wasn't as good, but the rest of country that didn't have anything at least has it now, even though its mediocre.

Would you be ok with that for the good of the country overall?

[cutthemdown]

IMO as the tax hits the HMO and PPO people many businesses would maybe just decide to end there programs and send all of the employees to the govt plan. I mean if its cheaper, and your are young, and your company offers insurance, but you get taxed on it, wouldn't the smart move for a young person who is healthy be to go with govt and take the bennies in extra salary?

Also if taxing health care bennies is what will pay for much of it is that sustainable if people can just switch to the govt plan?

Seems like Congress just passes everything without even reading the bills. I heard most of them didn't read the stimulus, and now most of the dems who voted for the energy bill also admit they didn't read the thing either?

Is this how they have been doing it in congress all along? and if so why do we even pay these people.

Maybe the only salaries that should get capped in America are govt salaries. Seems like the govt employees are the most lazy and overpaid if you ask me.

[Bronx33]

I have great health care, but I wouldn't mind paying more in taxes in the short term to fix this ****er. By 2020 they are saying 1/4 of the total GNP is going to be healtcare.


Ask the canadians how socialized medicine is working out.


A critically ill premature baby is moved to a U.S hospital to get the treatment she couldn't get in the system we're told we should emulate. Cost-effective care? In Canada, as elsewhere, you get what you pay for.

Ava Isabella Stinson was born last Thursday at St. Joseph's hospital in Hamilton, Ontario. Weighing only two pounds, she was born 13 weeks premature and needed some very special care. Unfortunately, there were no open neonatal intensive care beds for her at St. Joseph's — or anywhere else in the entire province of Ontario, it seems.

Canada's perfectly planned and cost-effective system had no room at the inn for Ava, who of necessity had to be sent across the border to a Buffalo, N.Y., hospital to suffer under our chaotic and costly system. She had no time to be put on a Canadian waiting list. She got the care she needed at an American hospital under a system President Obama has labeled "unsustainable."

Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit reports Ava's case is not unusual. He reports that Hamilton's neonatal intensive care unit is closed to new admissions half the time. Special-needs infants are sent elsewhere and usually to the U.S.

In 2007, a Canadian woman gave birth to extremely rare identical quadruplets — Autumn, Brooke, Calissa and Dahlia Jepps. They were born in the United States to Canadian parents because there was again no space available at any Canadian neonatal care unit. All they had was a wing and a prayer.

The Jepps, a nurse and a respiratory technician flew from Calgary, a city of a million people, 325 miles to Benefit Hospital in Great Falls, Mont., a city of 56,000. The girls are doing fine, thanks to our system where care still trumps cost and where being without insurance does not mean being without care.

Infant mortality rates are often cited as a reason socialized medicine and a single-payer system is supposed to be better than what we have here. But according to Dr. Linda Halderman, a policy adviser in the California State Senate, these comparisons are bogus.

As she points out, in the U.S., low birth-weight babies are still babies. In Canada, Germany and Austria, a premature baby weighing less than 500 grams is not considered a living child and is not counted in such statistics. They're considered "unsalvageable" and therefore never alive.

Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world — until you factor in weight at birth, and then its rate is no better than in the U.S.

In other countries babies that survive less than 24 hours are also excluded and are classified as "stillborn." In the U.S. any infant that shows any sign of life for any length of time is considered a live birth.

A child born in Hong Kong or Japan that lives less than a day is reported as a "miscarriage" and not counted. In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby is not counted as a baby if it is less than 30 centimeters in length.

In 2007, there were at least 40 mothers and their babies who were airlifted from British Columbia alone to the U.S. because Canadian hospitals didn't have room. It's worth noting that since 2000, 42 of the world's 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 pounds) were born in the U.S.

It must be embarrassing to Canada that a G-7 economy and a country of 30 million people can't offer the same level of health care as a town of just over 50,000 in rural Montana. Where will Canada send its preemies and other critical patients when we adopt their health care system?

As we have noted, in Canada roughly 900,000 patients of all ages are waiting for beds, according to the Fraser Institute. There are more than four times as many magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) units per capita in the U.S. as in Canada. We have twice as many CT scanners per capita.

Expensive? Wasteful. Just ask the Jepps or the parents of Ava Isabella Stinson.


Canada, Great Britain, Finland and Spain are running from it and it's proven not to work yet obama wants us to try it. :spit:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/healthcare/socialized.html

[Bronx33]

IMO as the tax hits the HMO and PPO people many businesses would maybe just decide to end there programs and send all of the employees to the govt plan. I mean if its cheaper, and your are young, and your company offers insurance, but you get taxed on it, wouldn't the smart move for a young person who is healthy be to go with govt and take the bennies in extra salary?

Also if taxing health care bennies is what will pay for much of it is that sustainable if people can just switch to the govt plan?

Seems like Congress just passes everything without even reading the bills. I heard most of them didn't read the stimulus, and now most of the dems who voted for the energy bill also admit they didn't read the thing either?

Is this how they have been doing it in congress all along? and if so why do we even pay these people.

Maybe the only salaries that should get capped in America are govt salaries. Seems like the govt employees are the most lazy and overpaid if you ask me.

It'a all about the power grab...

[Bronx33]

Make it optional????

http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/294558.php

A state House panel voted Tuesday to allow Arizonans to vote to opt out of any new national health-care plan adopted by Congress.
HCR 2014 would constitutionally overrule any law or regulation compelling an individual or company to participate in any health-care system. That would bar not only mandatory enrollment but any fines against those who refuse to enroll.
It also would guarantee individuals would have the right to buy health-care services above and beyond anything provided by the government or private insurance. And it would bar the government from penalizing doctors who provide, and charge for, those services.

[Bronx33]

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/1/votes/477/


Find out how your state senator voted on cap and tax and tell em they lost your 2010 vote.

[Dukes]

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/111/house/1/votes/477/


Find out how your state senator voted on cap and tax and tell em they lost your 2010 vote.

I can already tell you how Co Senators voted without even checking the link.

[Bronx33]

Read and pass it along (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1439168571/?tag=googhydr-20&hvadid=3626106345&ref=pd_sl_36vyyexs7j_b)

[Bronx33]

I can already tell you how Co Senators voted without even checking the link.


I wasn't reffering to colorado senators but merely giving the link to others that don't know how their senators voted in their own states. :thumbsup: