Umm, I don't have a goal of a single payer system, and never have had such a goal. It's not at all necessary, if the current system works.
And in 2 years the federal Medicaid payments drop from 100% to 90%, so no state should be on the hook to pay the full cost themselves - unless they decide to not accept the Medicaid money at all, and want to be responsible for the whole thing themselves.
I my state there was just a single insurer available on the state Obamacare website. There were many complaints because many doctors and hospitals were not covered by that single insurer. Next year it looks like there will be 3 or 4 insurers to chose from. Most al doctors and hospitals will be covered, and there will be more competition, too.
It looks like the same thing is happening in many state, except, perhaps some of those red states that have still not accepted the federal Medicaid support.
Actually it is a valid example - of something. What about states like Nevada, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, which all get much less back from the feds than they pay in taxes. Like New Mexico and Mississippi, they are all relatively rural, and they have many fewer big corporations, when compared with states like California and New York.
There are a couple of important difference between the states that take more than those that pay more. 1. the states that take more usually have more military bases. 2. they also tend to have more elderly people collecting social security., and 3. they tend to have a lower education level. Many red states fall on the wrong side of all of these criteria, so they do collect more federal money that they pay in taxes.
Roler: "left out big chunks of data, such as the MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD"
Do you mean the hockey stick shaped graph that you can find in the Wikipedia article for "MEDIEVAL WARMING PERIOD", that dates back 2000 years , from year 1 to the present, showing 10 different methods of measuring the temperatures?
We did the same thing last summer, during a much needed remodel of 3 or 4 rooms and a couple of hallways. We installed about 20 recessed LED light canisters, many dimmable, in the ceilings. They use 12W, and replace 65W lights. They cost about $20 each, and they are advertised to last 50,000 hours. That's somewhere between 20 and 30 years! Lighting costs for much of the house has fallen by 75% with those lights, and I never need to buy another light bulb , at least for those lights. New programmable thermostats for the electric heat also help control electric use a lot, as well.
We considered using an iphone ap to control the heat and light, but cost and technology was a bit more than we really wanted this time. But for new construction, that's certainly the way many will go now.
roler/c8: " The challenge was to have the top scientists/representatives on the globe have publicized year long debates"
And right there, you have already lost. If you limit the debate to the top scientists than they will all be on the same side of the issue. The debate will quickly reduce to an attempt to answer the question, "What do we do about human caused global warming in order to slow it down, and combat it's effects."
But, remember, this is Alabama, a state that has refused the federal subsidies. Alabama now seems to be yet another state caught between a rock and hard places. They either need to accept the federal ACA subsidies, or they need to pay (or not pay) for their employees' widows themselves. It's still their choice. As Spring says, will they make the right choice before the elections in Alabama?
Obama seems to understand that he doesn't need a war on coal. Most power company owners now understand that almost any form of generation is cheaper and less risky than coal. Electric demand is now flat to dropping, and when a new power plant is considered, it's almost always a replacement of an old coal plant with something newer and cheaper, like gas or wind.
But there may be a solution to some of the problems with coal. I hear that Springer has now said that he would be happy to store a few million tons of coal ash in his back yard, and sludge in his basement! Good for him!!
Yes, the price of electricity rose a total of 1.8% last month. That's a fairly big increase. Probably due a combination of a growing economy, with increasing demand fo electricity, and a colder than normal winter.
But, the more important question is how much is the average family paying for their electricity now, and how much has that changed? The reality is that most families are paying the same or less for electricity as they are using less electricity now. Current LED lighting draws 1/6 as much electricity as the old filament bulbs did. A new refrigerator uses half as much electricity as a 20 year old refrigerator does. Because of changes like these the US is producing and using less electricity now than we did in 2007, and reduction in the use of electricity continues. 2007 was the year we reached a maximum in our generation and use of electricity. Since then our use of electricity has dropped by about 2%, even though the US population has grown by about 20 million people.
So, even though the price has risen by 1.8%, the total amount used by many families has dropped by 10% or more, if they have switched to LED lighting, or bought a new refrigerator or other appliance recently. (As lighting accounts for 20% - 25% of electricity use, a simple switch to LED lighting can cut total costs by 15%, alone)
It's capitalist society, so you should expect that electric companies will increase prices if they need to in order to preserve their income stream, regardless of the amount of electricity they sell.
Why is the first fall frost a month later here now than it was 25 years ago? Back in the 80's the first fall frost was always sometime the end of September here. For the past decade or so, it's now at the end of October. Similarly, the last frost in the spring is about a month earlier.
I say that the dates of the first and last frost have moved here and just about everywhere at similar latitudes (both north and south) because of global warming.
You say the reason is what, if it's not a general warming of the globe?
Honest debate. Your turn.
Why do you say that global warming is causing land to subside? I've never heard anyone anywhere say such a thing! What in the initial message or it's title make you think that warming would cause land to sink? Maybe someone can help you!
Well, yes, Springer. The House should ask the IRS why any political group has been given a 501c3 status. But for some reason they don't seem very interested in doing that.
The possibility of using the IRS to silence anyone might be an issue, if that had actually happened. The real issue is why was the existing law not followed. In reality, the law was broken in order to allow some political groups to hide their donors. Why was the law broken, and who allowed it to happen is the important question that still needs to be answered.
Now to change the subject..
Yes, the NSA is a worry, and stronger congressional oversight is needed. Who's going to do that in Congress?
We've already spent trillions fighting a proxy war in Iraq, so a similar proxy war with Russia is a fear. But, a war with Russia would be much more difficult. Russia is much, much stronger. We can't easily get there. and Russia seems to have already shot themselves in the foot. They shot themselves in the food because they have taken away the pieces of Ukraine that most wants close ties with Russia, so the new smaller Ukraine is freer to create closer ties with Europe, and maybe NATO. That's exactly what Russia did not want.
Russia is as large as all of North America, but it's population is less than half of the US population, and it's GDP is about the same as Italy's. Although Russia is very strong, an attempt to invade and overtake all of Ukraine would destroy Russia. It would turn into a war much like their war in Afghanistan, with free Ukraine insurgents conducting a gorilla war for many years. Russia's only big export is oil and gas to Europe. Europe could survive and work around a cutoff of their Russian oil, but Russia would be hurt badly by such a stop in sales.
The biggest problem is that Russia has had a sort of inferiority complex for a long time. They want to be treated as a major world power, but they also fear that they are being ignored and discounted. This won't help them with that at all.
True, that said, the question remains, why did she take the fifth amendment instead of testifying?
I wonder if the real reason for Lerner's refusal to testify is the simple fact that in her management position at the IRS, she has allowed many political groups to get 501c3 status, which is in reality against current tax law. This could be very bad for her, if it could be shown that she knew that she was doing something that was against current tax laws. It would also explain both why her lawyers told her to take the 5th, and why GOP leaders in the House have not pushed her to really testify, to strike a deal to get her to testify, or to be held in contempt.
If that's the case, then forcing her to testify would probably not be very good for her, but it would be much, much worse for the GOP and their many political 501c3 groups.
Amoulits1, thank you for providing the next set of facts that springer will certainly chose to not believe!
It is good news that the construction industry is growing, but it is also good that it is growing relatively slowly. It would not be good for the economy for construction to zoom ahead and reach a point like their position just before the recession. At that point construction had grown way too much, creating a bubble with more being built than anyone wanted to buy. Keeping growth on the slow side will help to keep the economy on the positive side for a longer period of time, and make sure that we only build what we can use.
That sounds like a rather harsh method to put Walmart and McD's out of business! ;)
I suspect that a big part of that number is due to the hard winter this year. not many people want to buy a house with the yard and roof covered with snow, so they can't see what they are buying. A more important statistic may the fact that construction jobs continue to grow.
And certainly people like the Chinese, and Donald Trump will continue to buy cheap real estate. Buying low and selling high is how you make money, and they certainly know that there is now money to be made in real estate.
We will not see anything like the situation 4 years ago when there were 10 times as many foreclosures as house sales. And i expect that over the summer there may very well be considerable growth in house sales, maybe even a boom in some areas.
Lang, i don't think this is correct: "Science can only be conducted when all variables that affect an outcome are known."
In fact, science happens just when we don't know what variables affect an outcome. The science is doing experiments, and creating theories that show which variable actually do affect an outcome. Her's a couple of examples.
1. Centuries ago we had no idea what caused diseases. so scientists did lots of experiments, made lots of measurements, tested lots of possibilities. And the scientists discovered what caused some diseases. But there are still many diseases that we don't understand and don't know how they happen. So, the science continues, a we look for the other variables that contribute to some diseases.
2. Centuries ago scientists did not understand the dynamics and organization of the solar system. (They even though the sun revolved around the earth). Again they did not understand all the variables. Gravity was not even "discovered" for anther couple of centuries. But, again, they collected data, made measurements, created theories, and studies what they could see. They discoed which variables were significant, and which variables controlled the motions of the planets. But, even without any knowledge of gravity, they discovered the elliptical orbits of the planets around he sun.
So, the best science happens when all the variables are not known, or understood, and scientists do the work to discover which variables are important, and how they combine to form the measured outcome.
At least that's the way I see it. YMMV, though ;)
Where in the Constitution does it say that the House of Representatives can have anyone jailed?