[Nuclear1]

Healthcare: well, that's your opinion. But when we have thousands of Americans who can't pay for their healthcare themselves, it's a sign that we need reform.  I'm not going to let another person die because they couldn't afford a vital organ transplant just because you think "we should all pay for our own healthcare! oh, they can't? well then they didn't try hard enough to make money to pay for it! screw the poor!" Don't deny it, because I don't see you meaning anything else by supporting an outdated system that screws the poor.

Military: yes, we need a strong military. We DON'T need to be spending billions of dollars all by our lonesomes developing weapons we don't necessarily need right this minute. We have military alliances for a reason: so that multiple countries can bear the burden of defending each other. Stop believing that if we don't build 20 more F-22s the Chinese, Communists, and terrorists will overthrow our democracy. That simply is not true. I'm sure it was a US president and a general that warned a permanent arms industry was detrimental to the safety of the republic, and we're simply proving him right.

As I'm not particularly knowledgable in energy, I'm not going to address that.

[iamzack]

Corn ethanol is inefficient to produce, mostly because of transport costs. Brazil uses sugar cane ethanol IIRC, but we don't grow that here and we've got tariffs on imported sugar. Oh, also, corn for ethanol isn't the same corn people eat. It's not the corn that's not feeding people, it's the land that the corn is growing on. If it's growing on land that would be used for tobacco, well, then there's no food shortage, just a tobacco shortage, and **** tobacco.

Anyway, Liberator, there are no death panels. The rumor did, in fact, come from nowhere. Insurance companies and Medicare already do what's in the bill that people are misinterpreting, and that's covering a consultation on end-of-life care. That's not about euthanasia, that's about things like DNRs. Euthanasia for the elderly won't be mandated while it's still illegal in 48(?) states for a doctor to assist a patient with a terminal illness in suicide. Death panels have been screamed to death, and it makes me nauseous to see how many people really believe this bull****. It just makes no logical sense.

[Turambar]

Maybe I don't want Obama dinging the rich to pay for my medical care, ever consider that?  Maybe I think I should be the one paying for my medical care.  And I happen to think a strong military is essential to freedom, as a military can be useful for protecting the citizens of a free nation.

Dance, puppet, dance!

[General Battuta]

SpardaSon, if you don't want the rich getting dinged to pay for health care, then, um, why are you worried? Obama hasn't touched taxes for the rich, except to roll back the Bush tax cuts (at least last I heard.) And the Bush cuts were irresponsible, coming as they did just as Mr. Bush decided to throw the country into huge debt.

As for the military: spend smarter, not harder. If you were really worried about the War on Terror you'd be all for current military cuts; we need armored jeeps, not Raptors, and simple prop planes and drones, not next-generation destroyers.

[Akalabeth Angel]

Fission power is extremely effective, is extremely clean, yet the environmental lobby is opposed to it.  I hate to say it, but fossil fuels are the best choice we have for power in the near future.  Solar, wind, and geothermal just aren't that effective, and fission power is widely opposed.

Ever heard of Hydro buddy?

[headdie]

And those newer, cleaner fuels aren't all that clean.  Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides, is just as polluting, and requires vast tracts of land, land that could instead go towards growing food for consumption.  Since ethanol production in the U.S. requires corn, all that corn used for ethanol isn't used for feeding people.  Supply of food is reduced, and prices go up.  Wind doesn't provide all that much power for the space it takes, it is only available in certain areas, birds can hit the turbine blades and get maimed, and solar is only effective during the day.  Geothermal energy is rare.  Fission power is extremely effective, is extremely clean, yet the environmental lobby is opposed to it.  I hate to say it, but fossil fuels are the best choice we have for power in the near future.  Solar, wind, and geothermal just aren't that effective, and fission power is widely opposed.

Headdie on energy

Ethanol - Dead end tech for many of the reasons listed
Wind Turbines- True about it being limited in application, don't know about US but in the UK we are starting to stick them in the North Sea which is proving promising
Solar- the bulk of human energy demands is daytime so no biggie there
Geothermal - but provides significant energy when set up
Fission - Is not clean, though it don't produce greenhouse it leaves a highly toxic and radioactive byproduct that takes thousands of years to decay to safe levels. Also after about 5 percent of the rod has reacted the rod is no longer able to be used. - Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_power#High-level_radioactive_waste
Fossil Fuels - are almost spent - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel#Levels_and_flows and are changing the planet
Fusion - the famous box has finally been constructed and small scale tests have been successful so now it is a matter of learning how to control industrial scale applications and as a plus to fission the only radioactive byproduct is the reactor when its burned out and its anticipated to be much smaller making Fusion power the tech I am watching for future power of industrialized nations

[Mefustae]

And those newer, cleaner fuels aren't all that clean.  Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides, is just as polluting, and requires vast tracts of land, land that could instead go towards growing food for consumption.  Since ethanol production in the U.S. requires corn, all that corn used for ethanol isn't used for feeding people.  Supply of food is reduced, and prices go up.  Wind doesn't provide all that much power for the space it takes, it is only available in certain areas, birds can hit the turbine blades and get maimed, and solar is only effective during the day.  Geothermal energy is rare.  Fission power is extremely effective, is extremely clean, yet the environmental lobby is opposed to it.  I hate to say it, but fossil fuels are the best choice we have for power in the near future.  Solar, wind, and geothermal just aren't that effective, and fission power is widely opposed.

Birds. Birds? Excuse me for stating the blatantly obvious here, but who gives a flying **** about birds?! Granted, eco-nutters like PETA, but let's be rational about this. Wind turbines are useful. They're not that effective, but used efficiently they can really ease the burden on other energy sources. Yes, birds fly into them and get insta-mulched. Tough **** for them. Natural selection in regions containing wind-farms will eventually weed out the birds who fly at the level of the turbine, and life will continue as  normal.

Fission... you've got a point, there. It's been demonised something fierce, but there is a potent risk there. Disasters have happened, and will continue to happen. It's not something to be taken lightly. But I do agree, it may not be the salvation of mankind it was made out to be in the late 40's/50's, but further evolution of the technology could result in major benefits for humankind. That said, it's not extremely clean. When you factor in the pollution created by the entire process: the mining of fissile materials, construction, operation and decommission, it simply can't be considered "extremely clean." Not to mention the inevitable waste products, and the economic and political capital required to invest in making it a worthwhile energy source.

[NGTM-1R]

Ever heard of Hydro buddy?

Not practical for many reasons. Hydroelectric power is actually environmentally ruinous, and there aren't many places where it can be reasonably built left either.

[Spicious]

Maybe I don't want Obama dinging the rich to pay for my medical care, ever consider that?  Maybe I think I should be the one paying for my medical care.

Good, you can pay for yours. Just please stop preventing everyone else in your country from getting it.

And I happen to think a strong military is essential to freedom, as a military can be useful for protecting the citizens of a free nation.  Nations with weak militaries haven't lasted that long traditionally.

Decadent nations don't tend to do all that well either.

Remember the saying "If you want peace, prepare for war."?

That's a bit different from what you've done, which falls more along the lines of "If you want money, invade oil producing countries and then fail to exploit them."

Despite what Obama says, we really are engaged in a War on Terror.

No, it's over.

While I may not happen to approve of the way Bush prosecuted it through his warrantless spying, I do think the U.S. military needs to be prepared to deal with outside threats of any kind.

Wait, what does this have to do with healthcare?

And those newer, cleaner fuels aren't all that clean.  Ethanol takes more energy to produce than it provides,

Of course it does. Thermodynamics!

is just as polluting, and requires vast tracts of land, land that could instead go towards growing food for consumption.  Since ethanol production in the U.S. requires corn, all that corn used for ethanol isn't used for feeding people.  Supply of food is reduced, and prices go up.

Perhaps, but it's mainly a stopgap solution made necessary by the pathetic lack of leadership on alternative fuels.

Wind doesn't provide all that much power for the space it takes, it is only available in certain areas, birds can hit the turbine blades and get maimed,

Not that you actually give a **** about birds but wikipedia owns you:

However, preliminary studies estimate that wind turbines kill approximately 20 times fewer birds per unit of energy generated compared to fossil fuel power plants; 14.5 million birds were killed by fossil fuel power generation in the USA in 2006, compared to around 7000 killed by wind turbines.

and solar is only effective during the day.

Utter bull****.

Geothermal energy is rare.

which is no reason not to use it where available...

Fission power is extremely effective, is extremely clean, yet the environmental lobby is opposed to it.

I would support fission but it still has problems (limited supply, time to build power stations and more).

  I hate to say it, but fossil fuels are the best choice we have for power in the near future.

Which is why alternatives shouldn't be investigated or attempted for the further future.

  Solar, wind, and geothermal just aren't that effective, and fission power is widely opposed.

This does not lead to your conclusion. In summary, you clearly have severely limited knowledge on this topic, are misrepresenting the truth in order to further your argument or both.

[Slasher]

A better energy grid and more efficient transmission system would at least partially mitigate the difficulties posed by those problems.  As the sun sets/wind dies down in one area we could direct power in from another.  With the right storage mediums we could lessen the impact of night on PV and solar thermal plants.  Also, the amount of energy that goes into the production and manufacture of steel wind turbines is less than the energy they will produce during their operating lifetime.  The avian-vs-blades thing is being addressed, and while sad, our squishy faced Persian friends maim and kill many more birds per year than wind turbines.  


This guy kills more birds than that windmill outside.

Hydroelectricity is nice where it is workable, but you can only dam rivers up so much before you stop contributing an appreciable amount of power to the grid for each new facility you set up.  There are a number of major rivers in the United States that could not reasonably sustain a new hydroelectric site.  There's also the fish factor.  Dams cut off migratory fish from their spawning sites, with loss of stream habitat and urbanization making things even worse.  Still, fish ladders can aid in getting some fish back to their native streams, and I guess you can always plant more trees to restore the streams?


Salmon at Bonneville Dam.  I'm gonna guess it's either Chinook or Steelhead but I'm probably wrong.  Why do I live here?

Nuclear is clean as far as carbon output goes but it is not completely emission free, and I'm not referring to the spent fuel issue.  That said, all groups opposed to it should probably get over themselves if they want to maintain our current living standards after Peak Oil.  Breeder reactors can theoretically be used to extend our supply of fissile/fissionable material, and further studies of thermal plumes and their effect on aquatic environments will hopefully yield practical remedies to that problem.  


All that hot water has gotta go somewhere.

And that's my opinion on the UK's opinion of the US's opinion on healthcare.  

[karajorma]

What's really funny is the number of people who have fallen for this blatant attempt to change the subject away from one that the people who are against health care reform know they can't win.

[Colonol Dekker]

I noticed as well. I may not be involved much in the deep discussion. But i'm happy to keep it on track.

[Scotty]

and solar is only effective during the day.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/storing-solar-power-in-salt/
http://pesn.com/2008/02/21/9500472_Abengoa_worlds_largest_solar_plant/
http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~shih/succeed-2000/roadmap/solar%20power%20plant.htm
http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarthermal/NSTTF/salt.htm

Need I go on?

Fission... you've got a point, there. It's been demonised something fierce, but there is a potent risk there. Disasters have happened, and will continue to happen. It's not something to be taken lightly. But I do agree, it may not be the salvation of mankind it was made out to be in the late 40's/50's, but further evolution of the technology could result in major benefits for humankind. That said, it's not extremely clean. When you factor in the pollution created by the entire process: the mining of fissile materials, construction, operation and decommission, it simply can't be considered "extremely clean." Not to mention the inevitable waste products, and the economic and political capital required to invest in making it a worthwhile energy source.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA378.html
http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm
http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrBerkeley.htm
http://goneri.nuc.berkeley.edu/jiw-ntas/Speaker%20Presentations/Olander.pdf (starting at pg. 26 for the most part.  Feel free to read the rest though)

This was actually my debate case last year, so I have researched this extensively.

[Liberator]

Nuclear1, I'm gonna quote something here and highlight the important part.  The source is rushlimbaugh.com, not because it's from a Right Wing Pundit, but because I can count on him to have the ENTIRE quote and not just some except that seems to make his point.  This is taken from a transcript located at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_072209/content/01125107.guest.html

One member of the audience, Jane Sturm, said, "My mother is now over 105.  But at 100, the doctor said to her, 'I can't do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.'  I said go for it, she said go for it, but the specialist said no, she's too old. When the other specialist saw her, saw her joy of life, so on, he said, 'I'm going for it,' that was over five years ago.  My question to you is, outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who's elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?" 

I can't believe somebody is actually asking this question of the president of the United States in this country, but it happened.  A woman asks the president, "Would you let my mother live?  Would you take into account her joy of living?  Would your plan let my mother live?" Can you believe that we're even asking that question?  Sadly, it was asked, and here's his answer.

OBAMA:  I don't think that we can make judgments based on people's spirit.  That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making.  I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people.  End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to have to make.  But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another.  If they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made by private insurers.  At least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what, maybe this isn't going to help.  Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking the painkiller.

So that's part one of "It didn't come from nowhere"

Part two is as follows
John Holdren, the Science Czar(we're up to 32 now, BTW, unelected cabinet level officals who report to no one except the President) wrote a book in 1977  "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment"  The book reportedly includes this statement: "population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution."  I'm going to find this book and read it and report back here if it includes this statement or not.  His office, not himself, just his office, has claimed that he is not now, nor has he ever been for compulsory abortion or other fertility limitations.  Though if he isn't, why did he write such a damning sentence?

On a separate note, does anyone know the birthrate required for a culture to maintain itself for more than 25 years?  Also, what is the historical point of no return ?

[General Battuta]

Oh my God. Seriously?

 

It takes some serious desire for conspiracy to find any hints of eugenics in health care plans. Nor is anybody going to be killing the elderly. Obama's quote there says exactly that: 'these decisions are already being made, every day, by private health care.'

[iamzack]

Did you miss this? "I think we have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality care for all people."


Anyway, the painkiller vs surgery bit: for example, my exboyfriend's grandfather had ALS. That's a disease that leads to a very slow, potentially painful death. My ex's grandfather decided to sign a DNR when he didn't have a lot longer to live. That is, he decided to tell the doctors to allow him to die even if they could save (and extend) his life.

It's not an easy decision, but people do actually choose the painkiller over the surgery sometimes, and it's not always anything to do with money.

Nobody but the wingnuts are suggesting the government will start making this decision for people because it just isn't true.

[SpardaSon21]

Well GB, the supposed point of government medical care is to give better care than private care.  If it ends up providing the exact same level of care, but at increased cost due to all the extra bureaucracy, why do it?

Also, under today's medical care system you can decide to pay out-of-pocket for stuff like this if insurance turns you down.  Will Obama's health care plan allow for out-of-pocket payments for medical care if insurance refuses to cover it?  I'm not talking immediately after implementation, I'm talking 5+ years after when government health care has metastasized to a single-payer system.

The main concern people have is that the government plan will metastasize and squeeze out private insurers and private choice, forcing a single bureaucrat-run system of medical care on people.  Those concerns aren't unfounded given the nature of government programs.

[General Battuta]

Given that European health care is apparently far cheaper and far more effective than that in the USA (Rian just took a really long class on health care and came away a bit dumbstruck by US policy), I don't see how that'd be a problem.

[Liberator]

Nobody but the wingnuts are suggesting the government will start making this decision for people because it just isn't true.

iamzack, how do you know they won't?  Once they get this level of control, THEY CAN DO ANYTHING THEY WANT.  My concern is not motivated by a desire to maintain the status quo, the medical industry needs a revamp, but this isn't a revamp.  This is a power grab by a bunch of your hated "plutocrats".

[Sushi]

Can we merge the healthcare threads yet? I still don't know why we have two of them...

I think that if the U.S. is going to go for a national single-payer plan, it should do so directly instead of pretending not to and instead setting up a system that is likely to ultimately lead to it. Just do it directly and stop beating about the bush.

That said, I'm uncomfortable with the idea for several reasons I already listed on the other thread.