For one thing, so we can have this discussion:A sizable contingent of congressmen now have introduced H.R. 9 “to direct the President to develop a plan for the United States to meet its nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement, and for other purposes.”
There is little trend in the number of “hot” days for the period 1895–2017; 11 of the 12 hottest years occurred before 1960. Global mean sea level has been increasing for thousands of years; it may or may not be accelerating. The Northern and Southern Hemisphere sea ice changes tell very different stories. US tornado activity shows either no trend or a downward trend since 1954. Tropical storms, hurricanes, and accumulated cyclone energy show little trend since satellite measurements began in the early 1970s. The number of US wildfires shows no trend since 1985. The Palmer Drought Severity Index shows no trend since 1895. US flooding over the past century is uncorrelated with increasing GHG concentrations. The available data do not support the ubiquitous assertions about the dire impacts of declining pH levels in the oceans.And this discussion:
Note that the Paris agreement “requires” (again, there is no enforcement mechanism) each signatory to “update” its NDC every five years. This is an obvious acknowledgment that any given NDC might not be met; accordingly, the reasons to believe the updated promises, and the ones five years later, ad infinitum, are far from clear. What is clear is that this international UNFCCC/NDC game has little to do with GHG emissions or climate phenomena or environmental quality at all. It is instead a long-term full-employment program for the international climate bureaucracy, with endless COPs, meetings, financial support from governments and foundations, and conferences in upscale resorts and banquets at pricey restaurants. A solution to the purported problem of anthropogenic climate change is the last outcome actually preferred by this industry; only a permanent crisis can justify its existence.It's a bit like letting Bernie Sanders' Medicare for All get a full hearing, so people can understand that it amounts to the government putting the health insurance industry out of business and that it's going to involve tax hikes like we've never seen.
Let's make the lefties talk consequences.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat if you consider your health insurance premium a tax? Then tell me how much our new net taxes will be.
ReplyDeleteA health insurance premium goes to a private organization, not to the government. By definition, it can't be a tax.
ReplyDeleteAdd it to your taxes though and it becomes something quite other than "taxes like you've never seen."
ReplyDeleteAs the national debate about health care kicks off ahead of the 2020 presidential election, we’re going to be hearing a lot about the costs of increasingly popular progressive proposals to provide universal health care, like Bernie Sanders’s Medicare for All plan.
ReplyDeleteOne common refrain on the right and the center-left alike: Since the rich can’t foot the bill alone, are middle- and working-class supporters of a more socialized health care system really ready to pay as much for it as people do in some of the high-tax nations that have one?
The problem is, we already do, and we often pay more.
It’s true that by conventional measures, taxes on workers’ wages in the United States are comparatively very low and even very progressive, affecting the lowest-earning workers the least and taxing those who can afford it more.
But these measures obscure an important fact of American life: Unlike workers in many other countries, the vast majority of American employees have private health insurance premiums deducted from their paychecks.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/29/opinion/medicare-for-all-cost.html
They sure do. And that's just fine.
ReplyDelete