I think you make a very good point. I share your opinion that the 'global warming' hype is probably more about consolidating power than about saving the Earth. After all, since when were governments and politicians ever so noble?
I think staunch belief in the need for correction to 'global warming' is arrogant. The Earth has been around for billions of years, humans just a mere fraction of that time. We have no basis of comparison for what could be a natural cycle of the Earth that takes place over thousands or even millions of years. Nature, just like human beings is dynamic. Isn't arrogant to assume that data, collected for less than 50 or so years, can be relied on to determine without a doubt something on such a large scale? As you point out, things that were supposedly "scientifically proven" ten years ago are now being refuted by further scientific evidence.
Let me be clear, I am not against conservation and diversification. I think it's usually good to try to protect our environment and diversify our energy sources. What concerns me is that the move seems to be towards putting political policies over the rights of human beings.
Real News-Which poll says that 99.9% of Canadians and Europeans love their single-payer system? Was it conducted by Bert and Ernie?
The fact is that many Canadians come to the U.S. to obtain health care. This is due to the long waiting periods to obtain routine care. Take a look at how the single payer system has worked out in Massachusetts--not at all.
I'll give you some real statistics. A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 80% of Americans are satisfied with their current health insurance.
Personally, I think some health care reform is probably warranted, but this large scale overhaul will only make things worse for those who are disadvantaged.
I recommend anyone concerned actually read the proposed bill, many parts of it don't actually have much to do with getting health care to the disadvantaged.
If we want to change the health care industry for the positive, then let's stop supporting legislation that gives Pharmaceutical companies an unfair advantage. The health care reform being proposed by many Democrats and the President is exactly the type that will enable the pharmaceutical companies to further run our lives. This legislation would allow the government to set standards for treatment of illness. Are we all naive enough to believe that the corporate lobby of our representatives won't play a major role in determining the standards? Pharmaceutical companies with the best lobbyists will get legislators to favor their products and their treatments, despite what is truly needed and indicated for individuals using the government's health care. This is just one side-effect of the ill-advised proposal.
There are some better alternatives being proposed. One is phasing out employer provided health care (which also favors major corporations at the expense of small businesses and individuals) and encouraging private individual health care. Another is allowing a greater amount of tax-free health care savings in HSA's. Both of these options would empower individuals to take their personal health into their own hands. It would eliminate the expensive middle-men and increase competition, which would in turn decrease prices and encourage doctors to provide free or reduced services to those unable to pay.
Public education is a socialist idea. Karl Marx was a big proponent of public education. We can all see how well public education is working out, but it won't even touch what public health care could turn into. Want a crystal ball to see what public health care could be like? Look at the VA hospitals.
Soup331, I agree that healthcare should be reformed. But Obama's plan will only create more of the same problems. It would be treating the symptoms not the problem. As a few others have already stated, only the pharmaceutical companies will benefit from this healthcare legislation. Their lobby will dictate what and how illnesses are covered. This new legislation will make each individual's health a matter of national interest. It will take even more control from the hands of individuals. I doubt that's what any American, Republican or Democrat really wants. What would be more effective, would be to further encourage American's to take back individual control of their health care. This could be accomplished by switching from employer provided health care to individual private health care and by allowing more tax-free savings in Health Spending Accounts. The government needs to make it easier and more comfortable for Americans to see to their own individual needs.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper