2014 -- woo hoo!
2014 — woo hoo!

by James A. Bacon

Despite awakening this morning with a hangover resulting from a fabulous New Year’s celebration last night, I was curiously and uncharacteristically upbeat about the year ahead. I still have grave reservations about the fiscal future of this country and I still believe Boomergeddon is in our future. But for some odd reason, I have been dwelling today upon the positive.

Internet of Things. The next wave of technology innovation, the contours of which are just now coming into view, will be as breathtaking and transformative as the World Wide Web and the wireless revolution and, in fact, represents the extension of those technologies into new domains. It goes by many names but the one that seems to be catching on is the Internet of Things (IoT). Prices are plummeting for sensors, wireless connectivity, data storage and data processing power, with the result that virtually all man-made things will be capable of being connected over the Internet, will be capable of sensing their environment and communicating with other things, and will generate massive amounts of data that can be mined for tremendous gains in productivity and energy efficiency. In so doing, the IoT will spawn a new array of cool products and services. As a bonus, the new wave of innovation will not be as focused on Silicon Valley as previous technology revolutions. The innovation will be more dispersed geographically and the resulting wealth creation will be more broadly shared.

Energy revolution. Say good-bye to Peak Oil, at least for two or three more decades. The fracking revolution has unleashed a bounty of fossil fuel production in the United States that seemed unimaginable only five or 10 years ago. Energy production is booming and the long-sought dream of North American energy independence is fast becoming a reality. The energy sector is spawning millions of jobs, directly in energy production and indirectly in industries that supply the trucks, the pumps, the pipe and, increasingly, the IT that supports energy production.

Manufacturing revival. The Internet of Things, also known as the “industrial internet,” will inspire another wave of productivity-enhancing innovation in the manufacturing sector, while inexpensive natural gas and electricity will create a tremendous competitive advantage for energy-intensive, U.S.-based manufacturers. These tectonic shifts in competitive advantage are occurring at the very same time that rising labor costs overseas are undermining the logic for off-shoring manufacturing capacity. In fact, the “reshoring” movement is gaining momentum. The revival of energy production and manufacturing augurs well for the blue-collar workforce and creates the prospect of increasing jobs and rising wages for a segment of America that has been badly battered over the past 20 or 30 years.

Illegal immigration. The effects of the energy revolution and reshoring movement will be felt even more dramatically in Mexico, which is undergoing the most profound economic liberalization in its history. The combination of a falling birthrate, shrinking labor surplus and unprecedented opportunity for Mexican workers will dry up the largest source of illegal immigration into the United States. Declining illegal immigration is good news for multiple reasons. First, it defuses a contentious social issue and it clears the way for immigration reform that will allow the admission of more legal immigrants, especially those with education and skills that will benefit the economy. Second, plugging the gusher of poor, ill-educated immigrants into the U.S. will mean less competition for low-paying jobs. Wages for unskilled and semi-skilled labor are far more likely to rise, creating better opportunity for the economically dispossessed.

Global warming. How else can I say this? The Global Warming  hysterics have been proven wrong. While true believers still cling to their conviction that runaway human-caused global warming will propel temperatures ever higher and unleash wave upon wave of environmental calamity, it is becoming obvious to everybody else that the worst-case scenario is not happening and will not happen. While carbon dioxide emissions may push temperatures modestly higher than they otherwise would have been, global temperatures have been stable for a decade and a half, confounding computer-model predictions that positive feedbacks in the climate system would lead to out-of-control warming. The most heartening story of the past month has been that of the scientists studying Global Warming getting trapped by Antarctic ice that was supposed to be melting! To explain the non-warming, climatologists have speculated that aerosols from Chinese air pollution are reflecting sunlight and heat or that the heat is hidden undetected in the ocean depths. Either way, the theory must be revised, the science is not “settled” and it is becoming impossible to bamboozle the American people into panicking over impending environmental doom. If calamity is not lurking around the corner, there is no justification for re-engineering the U.S. economy according to the specifications of know-it-all progressives…. which is very good news for the U.S. economy.

Teen pregnancies. There are positive social developments as well. Teen pregnancies, perhaps the primary cause of poverty in the United States, continue their dramatic decline. Teen girls are delaying sexual activity, and they are more likely to use birth control when they do have sex. Delaying motherhood increases the odds that young women will graduate from high school and find jobs that will lift them out of poverty. And it reduces the number of children growing up in households headed by baby mamas who are ill equipped to raise them. If the reservoir of U.S. poverty is not continually replenished through teen births and illegal immigration, eventually, it will become far less intractable. 

I could go on. The genomic revolution portends great advances in health care. Medicine will be increasingly personalized, tailoring treatments to the patient’s genetic make-up. The urban revival is bringing vitality back to the urban core of American metropolitan regions. So many cool things are happening. Just speaking from my narrow personal experience here in the Richmond region, the City of Richmond has much more to offer than it did when I came here 25 years ago — it’s a great place to live. New technology, including online learning, offers the prospect of shaking up our moribund educational system. The coupling of digital technologies or “smart cities” with smart growth and the emerging discipline of fiscal analytics (see “Fiscal Analytics and the Next Municipal Revolution”) portends a golden age for local government.

True, the federal government remains unreformed. The national debt has surpassed $17 trillion and interest payments on that debt will, at some point, become unbearable. The sequester has bought us time, but no one is talking seriously about entitlement reform. Indeed, Obamacare represents a spectacular step backwards — locking Americans into greater dependence for health care upon a fiscally irresponsible federal government that has no chance of keeping all of its promises. Meanwhile, unchastened by their failures, liberals and progressives remain as intent as ever to impose their fevered visions upon a reluctant nation. So, yes, there are many reasons to be pessimistic. But the United States is a great nation. There is much vitality within us. Many things are going our way. We will persevere.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

35 responses to “Six Reasons to Feel Good about 2014”

  1. one to add… drones… not only drones..but “connected”drones… networked drones… to the point you could call it similar to the internet of things.. the drone of things….

    crop dusting, speeding on the interstates, license plate scanning from drone, your tag and your picture captured as you go 80mph and pulled over at the next ramp by a trooper looking for you plate with his scanner….

    drones dispatched to where an alarm sounds…. and on-site transmitting pictures while the police are enroute…

    drones with sensors… for air pollution monitoring… or running up a river picking up fish with sensor tags, etc, etc, etc… so many uses that we cannot even conceive of all of them.

    re: the debt and deficit.. entitlements… and national defense.

    we currently take in about 1.3T in income taxes and we spend a trillion on national defense – which is DOD + homeland security, NASA military satellites, DOE nuke weapons and ship reactors, the VA, Coast Guard, CIA, NSA, etc… we have segregated national defense spending into smaller segmented categories that make it look smaller than it really is. We have to confront that reality in addition to the entitlements reality.

    We simply cannot be spending a trillion out of 1.3T on National Defense and remain a solvent country. We also cannot spend a trillion out of 1.3T for entitlements either.

    we need to cut mortgage deductions to one median price house, period. we need to cut subsidized flood insurance, tax-free employer provided insurance, and giving MedicAid subsidies to people so they can retain their assets instead of using their assets to pay for the care they want.

    we need to charge more than 100.00 a month for guaranteed no-lifetime-limit health insurance for seniors who make 85k in retirement income.

    In short, all of us need to give back some of the subsidies we are now receiving and help pay down the debt we have accumulated by giving those subsidies to start with.

    more later….

  2. Here’s a big reason why we need to fear 2014. http://theweek.com/article/index/254564/the-hidden-costs-of-obamacare

    Larry, why isn’t this the fault of Obama and the Democrats that controlled Congress in 2009? The D’s had 60 votes in the Senate for a time and a strong working majority in the House. What about the 39 Democrats in the House who voted against the ACA? (Some, such as Dennis Kucinich, wanted it to go further, but most opposed the bill.) If the GOP had a duty to fix the bill, what about the Ds who voted against it? What differentiates them from the Republicans?

    The ACA extends health care subsidies to the most costly patients and does so largely on the backs of the middle class. They are the ones to whom Obama and many other Democrats lied to by telling them they could keep their insurance if they wanted to do so, when in reality, they were being pushed into paying for much of the subsidies.

    Larry, how is the dishonest mistreatment of these millions of people being on the right side of history? How does giving away their money to extend health care constitute good public policy?

    I do agree, however, that the US defense budget has become a giant vat of pork and needs to be reduced. We can protect the nation and its interests without spending what we do.

    1. ” Larry, why isn’t this the fault of Obama and the Democrats that controlled Congress in 2009? The D’s had 60 votes in the Senate for a time and a strong working majority in the House. What about the 39 Democrats in the House who voted against the ACA? (Some, such as Dennis Kucinich, wanted it to go further, but most opposed the bill.) If the GOP had a duty to fix the bill, what about the Ds who voted against it? What differentiates them from the Republicans?”

      anyone D or R who opposes this legislation and does not want to amend it.. wants to repeal it and has no alternative legislation has zero skin in the game and is 100% invested in the disastrous status quo system.

      For instance, those who oppose these “awful” problems .. COULD call for amendments to improve it and make it better instead of using every flaw as a pretext for total repeal.

      The minimum standard policy provision is a mistake given the magnitude of the other changes.. it would have been a better approach if both sides had agreed to an incremental , gradual phased-in parts but when one side totally opposes the basic concept the side with the majority just sees the phased-in approach as a way to make repeal much easier …

      both sides have some blame here… but I accept principled objections that are partnered with amendments – as opposed to using a laundry list as a mandate to repeal it all.

      “The ACA extends health care subsidies to the most costly patients and does so largely on the backs of the middle class.”

      until you acknowledge how it is funded, I just consider this statement to be a partisan one without a foundation.. propaganda. You have to at least admit and recognize the funding for ACA.

      then you also should admit that you and other middle class already benefit from subsidies that greatly benefit you – and that you opposed similar to be given to others. That’s pretty bad .. it basically says “I’ve got mine, too bad for you”

      People with employer-provided insurance receive 5, 10 15 thousand and more in compensation without paying one red cent of tax on it.

      AND the middle class has additional opportunity that the poor do not have in writing off out-of-pocket expenses via itemized deductions.

      the older middle class received guaranteed health insurance with no lifetime limits for $500 a month and $400 of that – a subsidy.

      AND .. they can write their 100.00 a month premiums off on their itemized also.

      you have a system that provides significant subsidies to the middle class and virtually nothing equivalent to those in the lower tiers.

      ” They are the ones to whom Obama and many other Democrats lied to by telling them they could keep their insurance if they wanted to do so, when in reality, they were being pushed into paying for much of the subsidies.”

      you mean like others pays for the subsidies they have but they don’t want others to have? those kinds of subsidies?

      “Larry, how is the dishonest mistreatment of these millions of people being on the right side of history? How does giving away their money to extend health care constitute good public policy?”

      people who already have employer-provided and Medicare already get significant subsidies themselves … yet those same people getting subsidies oppose others who are less well off than them getting equivalent subsidies?

      you tell me what is dishonest.. taking subsidies then claiming it’s wrong to give others similar subsidies?

      I’ve got mine.. s__ew you!

      I do agree, however, that the US defense budget has become a giant vat of pork and needs to be reduced. We can protect the nation and its interests without spending what we do.

    2. re: ” I do agree, however, that the US defense budget has become a giant vat of pork and needs to be reduced. We can protect the nation and its interests without spending what we do”

      Both Defense and entitlements need to take a hit.

      AND – we need to trim the subsidies and tax preferences – to pay down our debt.

      I think we need to get rid of the tax-free employer-provided healthcare tax preference and allow people to take the money in compensation and go find their own insurance.. Get employers out of the insurance business the same way we got employers out of the pension business.

      let people be job mobile – have their own pensions and their own health care and let companies hire without being fettered by health insurance “benefits”. That one thing has pretty much ruined health care in this country as well as creating an enormous divide between haves and have-nots…

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    “The Internet of Things” has been a buzzword for about 15 years. Last iteration was the RFID craze of 2004-2005. Just another buzzword.

    Maybe call it:

    “The Internet of Bacon”
    That sizzles!

  4. I guess my bottom line is, given the starting place, it is not possible to extend health insurance on the terms contained in the ACA and to the extent intended, without creating great harm and loss to the middle class. There simply are not enough “rich” people to fund the expansion. There were also too many “guarantees” made to interest groups (e.g., Pharma, hospital holding companies, insurance companies) that prevent significant cost savings that could have been used to fund at least some of the expansion without creating the same level of burden on the middle class. This includes the “inability” to pass through any savings caused by reducing uncompensated care at a level that would be make the increased burdens on the middle class more tolerable.

    The American public supports the concept of expanding health care, but is generally unwilling to pay the added costs to fund it. The producers are also unwilling to accept a reduction in revenue sufficient to fund the expansion of coverage. The GOP is generally happy watching Obama and supporters sink in quicksand. The Democrats are not willing to stand up and tell the middle class to suck it up and pay what it costs to fund the expansion or to undo the deals made the producers either support or not oppose the ACA.

    A prosperous Mexico is the best thing that could happen to low-income Americans. Mexicans will have opportunity in their country to better themselves, and South and Central Americans will start migrating to Mexico. The lack of unskilled labor willing to work for very low wages will push up wages for Americans. The biggest losers will be those who want to pay workers next to nothing and the American Caring Class who needs dependent people for their living.

    1. “I guess my bottom line is, given the starting place, it is not possible to extend health insurance on the terms contained in the ACA and to the extent intended, without creating great harm and loss to the middle class.”

      if you call taking away SOME of their subsidies to share with others….”harm”.

      tax employer-provided health insurance and let employees get the money instead and go bye their own and see what happens. is that “harm” ?

      let those who don’ have employer-provided insurance write off 100% of their own costs … how about that? a refundable tax credit – like we give the middle class for education and energy efficiency.

      ” There simply are not enough “rich” people to fund the expansion. There were also too many “guarantees” made to interest groups (e.g., Pharma, hospital holding companies, insurance companies) that prevent significant cost savings that could have been used to fund at least some of the expansion without creating the same level of burden on the middle class. This includes the “inability” to pass through any savings caused by reducing uncompensated care at a level that would be make the increased burdens on the middle class more tolerable.”

      either give everyone the same subsidies or take them away from everyone.

      defending you benefiting from subsidies by opposing others from getting the same subsidies, is morally bankrupt.

      The American public supports the concept of expanding health care, but is generally unwilling to pay the added costs to fund it. The producers are also unwilling to accept a reduction in revenue sufficient to fund the expansion of coverage. The GOP is generally happy watching Obama and supporters sink in quicksand. The Democrats are not willing to stand up and tell the middle class to suck it up and pay what it costs to fund the expansion or to undo the deals made the producers either support or not oppose the ACA.

      A prosperous Mexico is the best thing that could happen to low-income Americans. Mexicans will have opportunity in their country to better themselves, and South and Central Americans will start migrating to Mexico. The lack of unskilled labor willing to work for very low wages will push up wages for Americans. The biggest losers will be those who want to pay workers next to nothing and the American Caring Class who needs dependent people for their living.

      1. Larry, so let’s see Mark Warner introduce legislation that will remove all the breaks and subsidies that are the subject to your complaint. He can tell Virginians that it’s the right thing to do to extend health insurance by “reducing” the subsidies the middle class are receiving. Let’s see him tell the health care industry that it needs to give up the financial incentives contained in the ACA. Let him tell federal employees that they need to give up their health benefits and join the ACA exchanges. Ditto for those Virginians in the private sector that have insurance funded in part by their employers. And Warner can speak to the AFL-CIO and tell them their members need to pay income tax on their health care plans that their unions have negotiated.

        Mark Warner is not stupid. He would not do this. Nor would most other Democrats in Congress. Why, because they know the American middle class is NOT willing to fund expansion of health care. It is not willing to give up what it has even if called subsidies. The health care industry is not going to give up what it negotiated either. You can say this is wrong, immoral and unfair, but it’s also the truth.

        After the stupid federal government shutdown, there was a big shift in public opinion in favor of the Democrats. But after the ACA website failures, the exposure of Obama’s big lie, and the massive cancelations of millions of insurance policies for the middle class, public opinion has swung strongly in the other direction. Bottom Line: the Middle Class will not willing to fund expansion of health care. And the Middle Class does not believe that, if health care coverage was expanded and uncompensated care costs dramatically reduced, those cost savings would be large enough both the cover the expansion of insurance and reduce the cost of health insurance for the Middle Class (at least in real terms). It’s a safe bet Mark Warner will stay away from this one as much as possible. And he won’t be alone.

        1. re:

          ” Larry, so let’s see Mark Warner introduce legislation that will remove all the breaks and subsidies that are the subject to your complaint. He can tell Virginians that it’s the right thing to do to extend health insurance by “reducing” the subsidies the middle class are receiving. Let’s see him tell the health care industry that it needs to give up the financial incentives contained in the ACA. ”

          Warner has chosen the path of extending subsidies already benefiting people to others not so benefited.

          that’s legitimate. it’s better than those who oppose everything and promise gridlock if they donj’t get their way.

          “Let him tell federal employees that they need to give up their health benefits and join the ACA exchanges. Ditto for those Virginians in the private sector that have insurance funded in part by their employers. And Warner can speak to the AFL-CIO and tell them their members need to pay income tax on their health care plans that their unions have negotiated.”

          None other than Mitt Romney, John McCain and New Gingrich have said that tax-free employer provided health insurance unfairly benefits some and penalizes others..

          Warner and company want to equalize the subsidies. The opponents, OTOH, want to keep the subsidies for some and oppose the very same subsidies to others.

          that’s morally bankrupt.

          “Mark Warner is not stupid. He would not do this. Nor would most other Democrats in Congress. Why, because they know the American middle class is NOT willing to fund expansion of health care. It is not willing to give up what it has even if called subsidies. The health care industry is not going to give up what it negotiated either. You can say this is wrong, immoral and unfair, but it’s also the truth.”

          Mark Warner is willing to support SOMETHING to help those who do not get the same subsidies as others.

          What are the opponents proposing? to protect the recipients of the current subsidies and continue the unfair treatment of others?

          “After the stupid federal government shutdown, there was a big shift in public opinion in favor of the Democrats. But after the ACA website failures, the exposure of Obama’s big lie, and the massive cancelations of millions of insurance policies for the middle class, public opinion has swung strongly in the other direction.”

          and the opponents are going to squander it like they have before – because in the end – they have no solutions – only opposition. they use the missteps of the Dems …not to produce a better approach.. but rather an ammunition to further gridlock.

          ” Bottom Line: the Middle Class will not willing to fund expansion of health care. And the Middle Class does not believe that, if health care coverage was expanded and uncompensated care costs dramatically reduced, those cost savings would be large enough both the cover the expansion of insurance and reduce the cost of health insurance for the Middle Class (at least in real terms). It’s a safe bet Mark Warner will stay away from this one as much as possible. And he won’t be alone.”

          bottom line: the current recipients of subsidies are selfish greedy people who oppose others getting the same subsidies they already get.

          Warner is in favor of equal subsidies…what is the other side in favor of?

          this time next year TMT – your horse in this race is going to finish dead last because it’s a Nag…

          you cannot win an issue by doing nothing and gridlocking the country.

          people who support that have no right to anything because they are in favor of nothing…for anyone but themselves.

          we have a Middle Class that has enormous subsidies that it benefits from – from mortgage deductions, education and energy deductions, tax-free health insurance, subsidized health care and flood insurance.. even subsidized long-term nursing care.. from MedicAid – and that same group opposes equivalent subsidies for others not as well off as they are.

          look at this slide presentation TMT:

          http://mirc.virginia.gov/documents/06-17-13/Medicaid%20Overview%20and%20Financing.pdf

          look at the fact that 7% of seniors get 33% of Medicaid.. money meant for the poor but given to middle class folks to preserve keeping their homes… while those who can’t even afford a home – are denied medical care.

          that’s the system we have.. and it’s wrong and instead of being ashamed.. these folks are defiant.

          we have a system of winners and losers – and the winners want to keep the losers to keep on losing.

        2. TMT – here’s what it sounds like:

          The people who already have subsidies (paid for by others) do not want similar subsidies to others who don’t have them if they have to help pay for them.

          so they want others to pay for their subsidies… but they don’t want to do the same for others?

          and you say that Obama screwed up by trying to reform health care so that subsidies are more equal and fair…..

          and the opposition.. has no alternative ideas .. lest they themselves also get indicted for trying to make the system more fair?

          how does this help the country?

          1. Let’s get real. Any subsidies received by the Middle Class are largely paid for by the Middle Class, including the Upper Middle Class. The poor don’t pay income taxes and get more from, than they pay into, Social Security. The people too poor to pay for health insurance aren’t paying any subsidies to the Middle Class. Are we in agreement here? If you don’t pay a dime in Income Tax, it’s pretty hard to argue a tax break received by someone else cost you anything. Correct?

            The wealthy pay a huge amount of taxes, but there still isn’t enough rich people to fund a big expansion of government – be it defense spending or expanding health care. To do anything big, Uncle Sam needs to nail the Middle Class. And he does.

            You make a good argument that, if the tax exemptions were eliminated, the tax rate could be lower. Middle Class tax breaks are largely funded by Middle Class taxes. They sure aren’t funded by those who don’t pay taxes.

            So if Joe Middle Class doesn’t pay income tax on his employer’s contribution to Joe’s health insurance, the fact that Pete Poor Guy, who doesn’t pay income tax, isn’t getting free health insurance is not some gross transfer of wealth from Pete to Joe. It just means Pete isn’t getting something else free from Uncle Sam a/k/a the Middle Class. What you are arguing is that the Middle Class has a bigger obligation to pay subsidies to those who make less money. That’s what you are really saying when you argue the Middle Class should pay income tax on the value of their employer’s contribution to health insurance. You could make the same argument against the tax deferral of Joe’s employer to his 401K. Pete doesn’t likely get a 401K. Applying your logic, Pete is subsidizing Joe because Joe gets a tax deferral on his 401K.

            Wages for lower income workers have been flat for many years. Why? There’s a global economy. Pete competes against workers in Mexico, Honduras, China, etc. Pete also competes against workers from those countries who have come to the U.S. illegally and who will work for less than Pete. And we have big and inefficient governments and regulations designed not to protect the public, but to protect Acme Widgets against competition and to provide jobs for those who work for the bigger government. Those costs are levied on Acme Widgets, but the CEO passes them along to Joe in the form of a smaller raise and by hiring workers who will accept less than Pete. Why isn’t this this biggest unfairness in the system?

  5. kindler Avatar

    So sorry to see that you’re getting your climate science from FoxNews as opposed to from, say…climate scientists. Climate deniers like to cherrypick their data, especially from the extremely hot year of 1998, and then ignore all other trends just so they can claim it’s “cooling” — even though the 2000s was the hottest decade ever recorded — http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html — and we just keep breaking records.

    It’s understandable that deniers, like most people, don’t understand complexity, and therefore expect all recorded temperatures on Earth to respond precisely to every CO2 input like your TV does when you’re hitting the remote, but due to the enormous number of factors that influence climate, from the rotation of the planet to ocean currents, atmospheric-oceanic interactions like El Nino, and yes, aerosols, it’s not that cut and dried.

    But the vast majority of scientists agree that the warming is continuing, and it’s due to human-caused greenhouse gases. No amount of propaganda purchased by the Kochs and fossil fuel industry can change the facts of science. If you care about actual science, then read the science and talk with actual scientists, don’t just parrot right wing talking points delivered to you by Rupert’s self-interested corporate sponsors.

    1. The advocates of the “scientific consensus” have made a series of predictions regarding global temperatures, snow cover, frequency of major weather events, ice cap extent, etc. They have attached specific dates by which these GW indicators would manifest themselves. In case after case, they were proven wrong. Yet, like the witch doctor who engages in a secondary elaboration to explain why his charm didn’t work — “you should have put ground-up pig bone in the potion, not ground-up chicken bone” — the GW hysterics start invoking complexity, El Nino cycles, ocean currents, aerosols and mysterious reservoirs of heat in the ocean deep to explain why their predictions did not come true.

      What amazes me is your utter lack of humility. Rather than concede that maybe your knowledge is less than perfect, you double down in your ad hominem attacks against those who have the temerity to point out that your predictions didn’t come true.

      1. Jim Bacon…

        do me a favor.

        Look at this:

        http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

        and tell me you think these are lies.

        do you think this data is wrong, fabricated, etc?

      2. here is the problem that Jim Bacon and others like him have:

        look at the graphic:

        http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/sandy-historical-tracks.jpg

        Jim says that because not one model correctly predicted the track that the science is bogus…

        that’s the problem Jim and others have.

        in order for them to “believe” – the “science” has to be dead on 100% or it’s a lie.

        1. Larry, Try understanding my argument before attacking it: “Jim says that because not one model correctly predicted the track that the science is bogus…”

          That’s NOT what I said. I said because not one model predicted the track that the *models* are flawed. In the scientific process, you make hypotheses and predict results. When you get different results from what you predicted, you go back and revise the hypothesis. The climate models did not accurately predict the real-world results that have occurred.

          Rather than concede that the models may be flawed, climate hysterics are sticking with their original hypothesis and coming up with secondary elaborations to explain why they are still right. The real “deniers” are the GW hysterics who cannot deal with the 15-year flat-lining of global temperatures.

          As for what the data shows…. Here’s what I see. After peaking in 1998, global temperatures have gone down for 14 years (15 if you include 2013 data, which is not on the chart). The data is consistent with steadily but gently rising temperatures over the long run, which is consistent with my statement, which is consistent with my statement in the blog post that “carbon dioxide emissions may push temperatures modestly higher than they otherwise would have been.”

          My position is not, and never has been, that temperatures are not rising — it is that the pace of that rise is far slower than the hysterical, doom-mongering scenarios posed by the more extreme advocates of climate change.

          That brings me to another point, the infantile recitation of the statement that 98% of all climate scientists believe in human-caused climate change…. That’s an insipid statement. The scientific question is not whether human activity, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, affects temperatures — there is no disagreement that the greenhouse effect is real — it’s (a) to what extent that influence is magnified by positive feedback loops in the climatic system, and (b) whether other factors, such as cycles in solar radiance, play a major role. There is NO 98% agreement among scientists that the worst-case, Al Gore-style temperature scenario will play out. Unfortunately, public policy is predicated upon the worst-case scenario being true.

          1. ” Larry, Try understanding my argument before attacking it: “Jim says that because not one model correctly predicted the track that the science is bogus…”

            That’s NOT what I said. I said because not one model predicted the track that the *models* are flawed. In the scientific process, you make hypotheses and predict results. When you get different results from what you predicted, you go back and revise the hypothesis. The climate models did not accurately predict the real-world results that have occurred.”

            and I pointed out that every hurricane model is likewise “flawed” because it did not give you a exact prediction but you’d be dumb to not believe the general trend that such models predict.

            right?

            you’re saying if the predictions are not 100% accurate that not only they are “flawed” – they are wrong about any/all of it, right?

            “Rather than concede that the models may be flawed, climate hysterics are sticking with their original hypothesis and coming up with secondary elaborations to explain why they are still right. The real “deniers” are the GW hysterics who cannot deal with the 15-year flat-lining of global temperatures.”

            using words like “hysterics” to describe about 98% of the scientists including those at NASA and NOAA is anti-science.

            you’re cherry-picking SOME non-scientists political folks.. and attributing it to science… right?

            “As for what the data shows…. Here’s what I see. After peaking in 1998, global temperatures have gone down for 14 years (15 if you include 2013 data, which is not on the chart). The data is consistent with steadily but gently rising temperatures over the long run, which is consistent with my statement, which is consistent with my statement in the blog post that “carbon dioxide emissions may push temperatures modestly higher than they otherwise would have been.”

            I’m inclined to go back and quote you over several different blog posts – on the issue but I will not but I will provide you with this and ask you two questions:

            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

            1. – do you disbelieve the OBSERVATION data? (some people do)

            2. – when you look at that chart – do you see periods of years when temperatures went down..???? do you think it’s possible for us to
            be in one of those down periods but the longer turn trend is up, i.e. there IS Global Warming going on?

            “My position is not, and never has been, that temperatures are not rising — it is that the pace of that rise is far slower than the hysterical, doom-mongering scenarios posed by the more extreme advocates of climate change.”

            again – do you agree there have been down periods in the past and that we may well be in one right now?

            “That brings me to another point, the infantile recitation of the statement that 98% of all climate scientists believe in human-caused climate change…. That’s an insipid statement. The scientific question is not whether human activity, particularly the emission of greenhouse gases, affects temperatures — there is no disagreement that the greenhouse effect is real — it’s (a) to what extent that influence is magnified by positive feedback loops in the climatic system, and (b) whether other factors, such as cycles in solar radiance, play a major role. There is NO 98% agreement among scientists that the worst-case, Al Gore-style temperature scenario will play out. Unfortunately, public policy is predicated upon the worst-case scenario being true.”

            what I thought you said was that you did not believe the earth is warming …. no?

            so how about this:

            you say what you do believe.. and what you don’t.

            98% of scientists say the overall trend is warming and that there will be worldwide consequences if it continues and some of them will be ice melt, more and unpredictable weather events – in summer and winter, ocean rise and flooding.. and a calculable cost for every foot of rise…

            Sandy was ocean rise… no big wind damage.. just a huge storm tide and look at what it did.. look at how many tunnels that had never been flooded – got flooded and had to shut down and now there are billions of dollars of repairs required.

            What happens if we start to see more Sandy-type storms?

            can you honestly deny that possibility if the oceans are going to rise that coastal cities and barrier islands are not going to be tremendously impacted?

            the problem with the Global Warming issue is that there are all kinds of “skeptics” who do not hold the same view. Some are mild skeptics but believe some of it while in that same group at the end are people who deny climate science, evolution, etc…

            but you put yourself in that group when you’re not explicit about where you really are… be explicit.

      3. kindler Avatar

        Yeah, conservatives sure do have the advantage when it comes to humility — it’s hard to think of more humble, Mother Teresa-like figures than, say, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, George Will, etc., etc., etc.

        On climate, again, if you look at the actual science, what you see are climate models spitting out a range of scenarios. All of them show long-term warming, but due again to the enormous numbers of variables that influence climate, those predictions are within large ranges.

        Of course, we could make policy based on the rosiest scenarios. Imagine if we did the same on defense and homeland security — it would require assuming that other nations and terrorist entities will be nice to us for the forseeable future. Working off such assumptions could save us an enormous amount of money as we shrink our defense establishment to Swiss levels.

        What’s lost here is the concept of insurance — i.e., even as you hope for the best, you plan and prepare for the possibility that the catastrophic scenario could well happen. The next question, of course, is always: what does the insurance cost and is it better than just taking my chances?

        The idea that reducing greenhouse gases will bankrupt us is absurd, based on the talking points of the dinosaur industries that are desperate to maintain their current advantages. In fact, instituting much greater energy efficiency and investing in newer, cleaner energy sources is the height of common sense, innovation and competitiveness.

        1. ” What’s lost here is the concept of insurance — i.e., even as you hope for the best, you plan and prepare for the possibility that the catastrophic scenario could well happen. The next question, of course, is always: what does the insurance cost and is it better than just taking my chances?”

          the rejection of insurance as a concept from the right – spans several areas beyond just science… but yes..

          it’s not that one might doubt predicted outcomes… or be skeptical of predictions…

          it’s that they absolutely positively DENY that such out comes are possible are all… therefore.. nothing needs to be done .. because the whole idea that something MIGHT happen is totally bogus..

          we see the same behaviors in people who won’t buy auto or health insurance… or would not buy homeowners or flood insurance if the mortgage company did not require it.

          the problem with that mindset is that other people end up with the costs …. and with climate change.. is if the seas do rise and cause massive damage.. we’re all going to pay ..and ironically.. it will be the kids who we fret about inheriting “unfunded liabilities” which apparently the insurance doubters do believe in.

          Odd.

        2. I remain uncertain on climate change. It seems possible that greenhouse gases could affect the climate. But we’ve had major differences in climate in the past without the greenhouse gas emissions. I don’t hear scientists addressing that fact. It makes me suspicious. I also remember the same class of scientists were predicting a new ice age in the 70s. I don’t hear scientists addressing that fact. I am skeptical of any group looking for more federal money. I don’t see scientists any more or less honest than defense contractors.

          On the other hand, the electric utilities and other businesses invested in fossil fuels are incentivized to preserve the status quo. When Dominion refuses to trim trees in compliance with industry standards, I’m skeptical about their defense of fossil fuels.

          The alternative energy people are generally just self-justified scolds. You must change your life as I direct. They need to think outside the box. They need to be disrupters and come up with cheaper and more reliable energy than can Dominion and Shell Oil. And not through tax breaks. Where are the Thomas Edisons? Henry Fords? We have a zillion wireless apps that provide little value. But if we can innovate in the communications industry, why can’t we do the same in energy? Why cannot someone bring LEDs to the market at price below incandescent bulbs? Do they want to?

          I’d say the ball is in the court of those seeking change. I’m not confident they are capable of success without heavy assistance from government.

  6. re: climate science…

    actually the right has falling over the anti-all-science cliff…

    Poll: Most Republicans Reject Evolution

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-most-republicans-reject-evolution/

    70 Percent Of Georgia Republicans Believe In Creationism: PPP Poll

    many other examples… the GOP has large swaths of it’s base “invested” in willful ignorance…

    it’s becoming an article of faith with the right.

    you cannot be a legitimate part of the right these days if you believe the earth is warming… tantamount to being a RINO.

    1. I’m an atheist, and I do believe in evolution, so I regard the material you site as a distraction from the subject at hand. Essentially, you’re making a guilt-by-association argument. A majority of Republicans don’t believe in Global Warming. A majority of Republicans don’t believe in evolution. Ergo, Republicans don’t believe in science and their arguments on Global Warming can be dismissed as nonsense.

      Actually, your syllogism takes a second step. Republican arguments on Global Warming can be dismissed as nonsense. Jim leans Republican. Ergo, Jim’s argument’s on Global Warming can be dismissed as nonsense.

      Sorry, Larry, that doesn’t cut it. Try actually addressing the facts and arguments I cite in my post.

      1. well.. it IS guilt by association when you align yourself with the ignorant on issues…

        98%+ of the world’s scientists have incontrovertible data that the earth IS warming but it’s a decade/centuries long process where there are periods of cold but the trend is clearly up. What the scientists do not agree on is precisely the mechanisms for the increase and how much of it is due to nature versus man-made causes.

        take a look at this:

        http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

        there are clearly periods where temps go down or pause but the overall trend is up.

        to deny that is dumb.. you’re essentially saying that NASA and NOAA are fabricating data. That would sound preposterous except some of the same people who are saying this do not believe in evolution and do believe in creation and do believe the earth was created in 6000 years.

        these are elected officials that people in the GOP vote for.

        there are consequences to that.. way beyond guilt by association.

        there is a political party that has a good number of anti-science people in it
        voting for laws and regulation in Congress – based on their beliefs.

        when we have lawmakers in Congress that do not believe in evolution and believe that NASA and NOAA employ lying scientists.. and want to defund those agencies.. there are consequences… it’s much more than guilt by association.

        all due respect..

  7. I have a prediction for the NSA conundrum that if it turns out will further roil the concerns about the NSA.

    Most people realize that cell phones these days have GPS on them. They also know that these phones talk to cell towers. What they may not appreciate is that when you drive down a highway – the cell towers are handing off your phone from one to the next one as you go out of range of one and into the range of another.

    This information is transmitted back to a database that holds your location at any given time.

    If you think about it – if someone calls you on your cell phone and you are moving down I-95 – how does the cell company know which cell tower you are currently in contact with?

    well.. that information is in that database and that database is updated in real time as you get handed off from one cell tower to the next.

    well guess who probably has access to that data?

    so if you’re worried (or not) that the NSA sees your number on a meta-data database in real time – think about them tapped into a database that shows where you are – in real time.

    of course if you are not a criminal you should not worry – right?

    I mean the police never make mistakes SWAT teams never break into the wrong house or shoot the wrong people, right?

    at any rate – there is one more prediction.

    no one with half a brain that understands the potential of the NSA to follow you via your cell phone is going to agree to put a GPS in their car that the govt .. strenuously promises (sic) to _only_ check your mileage for tax purposes.

    the VMT recorder in your car “idea” is deader than a Red state Dem supporting ObamaCare!

  8. ” Let’s get real. Any subsidies received by the Middle Class are largely paid for by the Middle Class, including the Upper Middle Class. The poor don’t pay income taxes and get more from, than they pay into, Social Security. ”

    Again – you’re confusing the ACA Exchanges with the MedicAid Expansion. The expansion is for the poor..the exchanges for people who can afford insurance but cannot get it.

    you conflate these two in your arguments which is incorrect.

    make the argument but keep it true to which part of the law.

    the poor get medical care. We guarantee it AND we ALREADY pay for it.

    we pay 2-3 times for it what it should cost because we let them get sick or injured and refuse to treat them until they show up at an ER.

    this about being niggardly and dumb at the same time…..not about giving something additional away. this is spending dumb and refusing to spend smart.
    It’s also apart advocating letting a child die because you’re afraid he might get something from you that you don’t want to share. morally repugnant that is in addition to the fiscally dumb problem.

    “The people too poor to pay for health insurance aren’t paying any subsidies to the Middle Class. Are we in agreement here? If you don’t pay a dime in Income Tax, it’s pretty hard to argue a tax break received by someone else cost you anything. Correct?”

    they pay taxes, if not income taxes and they pay out of pocket medical expenses that they cannot write down like you and I can. but again, you are ALREADY paying for them just like you pay for uninsured motorists or subsidize flood insurance, etc.

    “The wealthy pay a huge amount of taxes, but there still isn’t enough rich people to fund a big expansion of government – be it defense spending or expanding health care. To do anything big, Uncle Sam needs to nail the Middle Class. And he does.”

    The CBO says it’s NOT an expansion of govt in terms of cost. And it’s not if you at least look at how it is funded long enough to stop believing propaganda.

    “You make a good argument that, if the tax exemptions were eliminated, the tax rate could be lower. Middle Class tax breaks are largely funded by Middle Class taxes. They sure aren’t funded by those who don’t pay taxes.”

    you’re basically saying that it’s okay to have a different country for the middle class -in effect, correct?

    “So if Joe Middle Class doesn’t pay income tax on his employer’s contribution to Joe’s health insurance, the fact that Pete Poor Guy, who doesn’t pay income tax, isn’t getting free health insurance is not some gross transfer of wealth from Pete to Joe.”

    correct.

    ” It just means Pete isn’t getting something else free from Uncle Sam a/k/a the Middle Class. What you are arguing is that the Middle Class has a bigger obligation to pay subsidies to those who make less money.”

    no. I’m saying they are ALREADY paying…. and the issue is do you want to be fiscally responsible about it?

    ” That’s what you are really saying when you argue the Middle Class should pay income tax on the value of their employer’s contribution to health insurance. You could make the same argument against the tax deferral of Joe’s employer to his 401K. Pete doesn’t likely get a 401K. Applying your logic, Pete is subsidizing Joe because Joe gets a tax deferral on his 401K.”

    If what you say is totally true – then cutting out the subsidies does nothing more than pay down the debt and after that lower the tax rate, correct?

    but then you’d still be paying for the poor because of EMTALA, correct?

    “Wages for lower income workers have been flat for many years. Why? There’s a global economy.”

    how come the low income in every single industrialized country on the planet get health care and everyone pays 1/2 what we do for that to happen?

    “Pete competes against workers in Mexico, Honduras, China, etc. Pete also competes against workers from those countries who have come to the U.S. illegally and who will work for less than Pete.”

    1. – which is why the middle class ALSO needs to PAY to better educate the sons and daughters of those who currently receive entitlements unless you want the problem to get even worse.

    2. with regard to immigration.. we only have illegal workers because we allow companies to hire illegal workers. The GOP refuses to support a law that would enact severe penalties for hiring illegals – as they have done in Canada and they have seasonal migrant workers that return home – because if the companies try to hire them – they companies get in trouble, not the illegals.

    this is how we – the US does business these days …we’re wrong on immigration, we’re wrong on health care and we’re wrong on subsidies while we run deficits.
    the poor in this country are just collateral damage.

    “And we have big and inefficient governments and regulations designed not to protect the public, but to protect Acme Widgets against competition and to provide jobs for those who work for the bigger government.”

    designed to look the other way for Middle Class employers…the big companies don’t hire illegals. They hire contractors who hire illegals…

    ” Those costs are levied on Acme Widgets, but the CEO passes them along to Joe in the form of a smaller raise and by hiring workers who will accept less than Pete. Why isn’t this this biggest unfairness in the system? ”

    it’s not unfairness.. it’s feckless leadership that basically looks the other way for businesses that hire illegals… pretends we don’t already pay for medical care for those who can’t get insurance … and gives subsidies to people that we cannot afford as we continue to run deficits and debts.

    the thing to keep in mind about MedicAid is that this is basic level care, not Cadillac care. It’s care that detects cancer and diabetes and treats them, cures them, manages the condition BEFORE they become hugely expensive and cost other taxpayers even more … this is one reason why our health care costs are doubling every decade and we already are more than twice as much as other countries.

    we could do like 3rd world countries and not cover the poor and just have large numbers of poor living in cardboard boxes on hillsides and the like… so we do have to make a choice.

    most industrialized countries choose not to do that. But some in this country think we can – not cover the poor – and not get hillside slums.. and they are fine with that if we can pull it off and some of them are fine with that if we cannot and end up with people living in cardboard boxes.

    it’s okay to make those choices. I do not agree with them but I’m one vote and we do live in a country where we ultimately vote for these things.

    but what I’m object to is willful ignorance on the issues as to what choices we are in fact, making.

    there is no free lunch on this as long as we have EMTALA. EMTALA says that you will pay but it allows to pay DUMB if you so choose – and we do .

    The American people will not willingly choose to repeal EMTALA; I’ve not heard a single politician promise to repeal it – not even the wacko birds because they know if they did – they’d never get elected.

    so the American people have already chosen but they pretend we don’t pay for the poor already… it’s like we’re being stupid on purpose. “We don’t pay for the poor so we don’t have to worry about fiscal responsibility”. “We can have subsidies for the middle class and not worry about the poor”… etc, etc, etc..

    it’s a morally bankrupt and fiscally irresponsible argument.

    1. “I’m saying they are ALREADY paying…. and the issue is do you want to be fiscally responsible about it?”

      Larry, this is one of the key areas of disagreement with your argument. In concept, I am on board with you. But I don’t trust the federal government or the health care industry to deal with it correctly. 1) Quantify it. 2) Identify it specifically in prices for health care services and insurance premiums. 3) Set forth a specific plan that replaces those some of costs with specific surcharges to expand health care coverage to the un- and under-insured; and 4) refund the rest to consumers.

      But it’s not going to happen. What will happen is that most of these costs will in the system. Health care usage by the formerly un- and under-insured will increase beyond what costs are driven out of the system or refunded to the Middle Class. They will be paying more and getting less.

      We live near the filthiest city in the world – Washington, D.C. – where legislators of both parties work to please lobbyists. The Middle Class is getting screwed, and I intend to continue arguing for them. Obama made a deal with the Devil (the health care industry) and gave them assurances their revenues will be protected in exchange for silence on the ACA. Meanwhile, he told the Middle Class it would be held harmless (you can keep what you have), while herding them into the pen of paying more, and getting less — just so Obama can be viewed as the Second Coming by giving away the Middle Class’s money. There’s a special place in Hell for Obama. And he won’t be alone. He’ll be joining some other American presidents who have preceded him.

      1. Larry, this is one of the key areas of disagreement with your argument. In concept, I am on board with you. But I don’t trust the federal government or the health care industry to deal with it correctly. 1) Quantify it. 2) Identify it specifically in prices for health care services and insurance premiums. 3) Set forth a specific plan that replaces those some of costs with specific surcharges to expand health care coverage to the un- and under-insured; and 4) refund the rest to consumers.

        TMT – do you trust them to do Social Security, MediCare, MedicAid,Chips, TRICARE, the VA, etc?

        because our health care system is already dysfunctional, the transition is not going to be easy.

        what you’re doing is defending a dysfunctional status quo with a weak excuse – to do nothing.

        “But it’s not going to happen. What will happen is that most of these costs will in the system. Health care usage by the formerly un- and under-insured will increase beyond what costs are driven out of the system or refunded to the Middle Class. They will be paying more and getting less.”

        so we continue paying 1000 dollars for an MRI that costs $280 in France?
        we pay 3 times… one for ourselves and twice more for those who can’t pay.

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/high-cost-of-medical-procedures-in-the-us/

        this is your preferred solution?

        “We live near the filthiest city in the world – Washington, D.C. – where legislators of both parties work to please lobbyists. The Middle Class is getting screwed, and I intend to continue arguing for them. ”

        the middle class get subsidies out the wazoo… TMT…. you say they pay for them themselves but we have a huge deficit.

        who pays for the $400 a month we subsidize the seniors? the middle class?
        how about the 1000.00 a month that MedicAid pays for nursing home care for people who own their own homes?

        “Obama made a deal with the Devil (the health care industry) and gave them assurances their revenues will be protected in exchange for silence on the ACA. Meanwhile, he told the Middle Class it would be held harmless (you can keep what you have), while herding them into the pen of paying more, and getting less — just so Obama can be viewed as the Second Coming by giving away the Middle Class’s money. There’s a special place in Hell for Obama. And he won’t be alone. He’ll be joining some other American presidents who have preceded him.”

        just as FDR made a deal with the devil over social security and LBJ did with Medicare? is that what you believe? How about in 1798 when Congress created health care for sailors?

        how come every other industrialized country on the planet can do health care and we cannot?

        what you are advocating is continuation of a broken system.. one that was failing before ObamaCare and yet you offer no alternatives other than to continue the trend of more and more people either losing their health care in an increasingly job mobile world or for the “lucky” ones.. they keep their employer-provided but it escalates in cost in lockstep with productivity increases such that every penny of increased productivity at the country and individual level goes into a healthcare system that ranks 25th in the world in terms of life expectancy and infant deaths.

        the people that have it do quite well. the people that don’t either live tortured lives, goes bankrupt or die.

        and you support that… apparently… right?

  9. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Consider this an ad hominem attack on Jim Bacon. Details on request.

    1. here’s one …apparently…

      http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp

      apparently citing NASA data as factual is an Ad Hominem to skeptics,…..

  10. re: ” Wages for lower income workers have been flat for many years. Why? There’s a global economy.”

    More than that. wages for most everyone have been flat because any increase in labor productivity is immediately sucked up by increased health care costs.

    Every January for most folks – means a letter from your health insurance company ending your previous policy and offering you another one with different terms that often involve higher premiums, less coverage, higher co-pays and exclusions.

    Why are health care costs in the US going up so fast and so high?

    how come when you go to the ER with a bad knee sprain or broken finger.or similar… the bill goes to 15K ?

    How come an MRI costs thousands of dollars in this country and a couple hundred dollars in Japan and Europe?

    Who is getting all this money spend on health care?

    Singapore not only covers all of it’s people, but they live longer than us and they pay 1/3 what we do for health care.

    why is that?

    Japan covers all of it’s people and they live longer than us and they pay 200-300 for an MRI while we pay thousands… why?

    Australia covers all of it’s people and live longer than we do and pay less for health care than we do. why?

    Why do we in this country depict segments of our population as undeserving of health care when every other industrialized nation and many developing countries don’t make that distinction and cover everyone for less than we do?

    why do we advocate for a system that is more like 3rd world countries where not everyone is covered and people have much shorter life expectancies than us?

    why is that our health care model that we advocate for?

    No one in Singapore, or Japan or Australia talk about those who are in the lower economic tiers are undeserving of health care or that the upper tiers are subsidizing the lower tier healthcare.

    why in this country do we say that healthcare for the folks in the lower tier will bankrupt the country or unfairly penalize the middle class and every other industrialized country – on the planet – does not have that problem?

  11. re: ” Let’s get real. Any subsidies received by the Middle Class are largely paid for by the Middle Class, including the Upper Middle Class. The poor don’t pay income taxes and get more from, than they pay into, Social Security. ”

    and the Middle Class – right now – today – is paying for health care for the poor and they’re paying for it at about 3 times what they would for ER-type care rather than Primary Care …

    You think you’re not paying and are opposed to paying.

    but the reality is – you’re already paying – 3 times as much for an MRI than other countries because when you pay for your MRI – you’re also paying for 2 more for people who don’t have insurance.

    it’s not a question of you paying. It’s a question of do you want to pay in a more cost effective way?

    1. It would be easier to change the orbit of the earth so that the sun rises in California and sets in Maine than to cause a reduction in the charges for MRIs. What do you think would happen if the feds said to the radiologists, if you agree to reduce your prices for MRIs to X (from three X), we will guarantee your uncollectible rate would be no more than 5% of your billed charges calculated at the lowest rate you give any insurance company? Radiologists don’t want to charge X. They want to charge more than X. They have lobbyists who work so that they can charge more than X.

      Which nation pays the highest price for drugs? What if the feds said to big Pharma if you agree to reduce your price for Y to the lowest price you sell in an OECD nation, we will guarantee your uncollectibles to no more than the amount of sales of Y at the preferred customer rate? Big Pharma would not agree. Pharma doesn’t want to charge the lowest price in the US and has lobbyists to make sure that doesn’t happen.

      I’ll be happy to support your plan if it guarantees the savings after expansion will go back to the consumers. But I submit both of know that will never happen. The ACA is just another way to screw the middle class so Obama can be the Second Coming. But it’s blowing up.

  12. Right Larry, implementation of the ACA and expansion of Medicaid will reduce costs and pass-through fees for uncompensated care. The Obama Administration is trustworthy and the federal government is competent with money and administering programs. Gee, Governor Markell, we thought you’d save money, just like we thought people happy with their existing insurance could keep it. http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20140102/NEWS02/301020034/Medicaid-expansion-costing-Delaware?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

    My dad was a Navy in WWII and Korea. He died in January 2011, with a pending claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs. It’s not a lot of money, but, for very last part of his life, he qualified for some VA reimbursement for his care. The frigging claim is still pending as the VA keeps concluding his claim was not eligible for payment. The VA lost his paperwork, which demonstrates his qualification for support, several times and, despite two letters from my Dad’s member of Congress, the VA just cannot process the claim. But maybe he didn’t deserve it, as he left some money for my three brothers and me.

    Unless and until the American people see a written commitment to reduce their insurance premiums and charges from health care providers, and the amounts thereof, there is no reason to assume the Middle Class will get anything except the shaft from the ACA.

    And will we get a guarantee expansion of health care will reduce infant mortality (gee pregnant women and children already have coverage) and extend life expectancies? Or maybe that has something to do with diet, exercise, drugs, alcohol, etc. We already spend more money on K-12 education than most other countries but large segments of our population reject the opportunity for education.

    I’ve already laid out a possible course that, if taken, would flow the savings back to the middle class and prove your argument correct. But it will never happen. Even if there are savings, the money will never come back to the middle class. The ACA is just another robbery of money from the average American.

  13. ” They have lobbyists who work so that they can charge more than X.”

    how come it does not work that way in every other OECD country?

    “Which nation pays the highest price for drugs? What if the feds said to big Pharma if you agree to reduce your price for Y to the lowest price you sell in an OECD nation, we will guarantee your uncollectibles to no more than the amount of sales of Y at the preferred customer rate? Big Pharma would not agree. Pharma doesn’t want to charge the lowest price in the US and has lobbyists to make sure that doesn’t happen.”

    the drug companies don’t have “uncollectibles”.. they will either sell you the drugs for an agreed to price or not…

    “I’ll be happy to support your plan if it guarantees the savings after expansion will go back to the consumers. But I submit both of know that will never happen. The ACA is just another way to screw the middle class so Obama can be the Second Coming. But it’s blowing up.”

    how would you _NOT_ think that about ANY proposed reforms?

    “Right Larry, implementation of the ACA and expansion of Medicaid will reduce costs and pass-through fees for uncompensated care. The Obama Administration is trustworthy and the federal government is competent with money and administering programs. ”

    any more or less than prior POTUS?

    “Gee, Governor Markell, we thought you’d save money, just like we thought people happy with their existing insurance could keep it. http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20140102/NEWS02/301020034/Medicaid-expansion-costing-Delaware?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

    how come we are told that Medicare reimbursements are so low that doctors won’t take it? We hear that also about Medicare, right?

    “My dad was a Navy in WWII and Korea. He died in January 2011, with a pending claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs. It’s not a lot of money, but, for very last part of his life, he qualified for some VA reimbursement for his care. The frigging claim is still pending as the VA keeps concluding his claim was not eligible for payment. The VA lost his paperwork, which demonstrates his qualification for support, several times and, despite two letters from my Dad’s member of Congress, the VA just cannot process the claim. But maybe he didn’t deserve it, as he left some money for my three brothers and me.”

    so this “problem” has been going on long before ObamaCare and only now it is a problem?

    “Unless and until the American people see a written commitment to reduce their insurance premiums and charges from health care providers, and the amounts thereof, there is no reason to assume the Middle Class will get anything except the shaft from the ACA.”

    you still have not told me how ObamaCare is funded.. do you know?

    “And will we get a guarantee expansion of health care will reduce infant mortality (gee pregnant women and children already have coverage) and extend life expectancies? Or maybe that has something to do with diet, exercise, drugs, alcohol, etc. We already spend more money on K-12 education than most other countries but large segments of our population reject the opportunity for education.”

    we do spend more on education but it’s not double like it is with health care.

    “I’ve already laid out a possible course that, if taken, would flow the savings back to the middle class and prove your argument correct. But it will never happen. Even if there are savings, the money will never come back to the middle class. The ACA is just another robbery of money from the average American.”

    then you’re happy with your insurance premiums continuing to go up to pay for those without insurance?

    there are no guarantees because the system is so dysfunctional that it’s hard to predict.. dumb to attempt to predict.

    but we know this. if you stick with the current system – costs are going to double again in another decade.

    so that’ okay with you as long as “the middle class does not get screwed”?

    you have a funny idea of what “screwed” means!

    If you are average – your health care premiums have doubled in the last decade… do you not feel like you’re getting screwed?

  14. Do you really think the ACA will control the cost of health care? http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/01/02/oregon-mother-i-cant-afford-obamacare-for-myself-1-year-old-son/

    Obama made deals with the providers, protecting them and their revenue streams in exchange for support/lack of opposition. Let’s assume we get broad coverage (90%+) in insurance or Medicaid. Do you really think this will drive down the costs of health insurance? This is a country that cannot close a unneeded military base without special rules. This is a country where Uncle Sam forces school districts to spend at least as much money on Special Ed as it did the year before even if the schools make cuts elsewhere. This is a country where the Senate didn’t pass a budget for six years. This is a country where cuts in Medicare spending are balanced by adding coverage for people that is paid for by higher insurance payments by most who already have insurance? With all due respect, your suggestion that broad coverage will result in savings for anyone isn’t going to happen.

    If health care reform is really going to help the U.S. get control over health care costs, why didn’t Congress mandate premium cuts or freezes? If Medicaid expansion is going to reduce the growth in uncompensated care, why did a very knowledgeable state senator oppose any mechanism that returned the savings to taxpayers or the insured?

    Unless the ACA dies of its own weight, the U.S. will have broad coverage at much higher premium rates than the rest of the world. What does Obamacare do to bring the cost of an MRI to the price in Japan? I simply don’t have the blind faith in the federal government to do anything in a cost-reasonable basis. That would require shutting down the spending machine.

Leave a Reply