“11/15/2009, 1:30pm EST”
Twit of the Day — 11/15/09
fanofhockey: UN used ‘climate change’ hoax to get more power over nations. Obama uses healthcare ‘crisis’ to grab more power over us. #tcot #tlot #ocra
(Strictly speaking, this was tweeted 5 days ago. Oh well.)
Dear fanofhockey,
Climate change? Not a hoax — no air quotes necessary when you speak about it. That’s the beauty of peer-reviewed empirical inquiry — the incentives bend towards discovering the truth. I realize such a thing must be very hard for you to understand, but there are people — unlike you, and unlike the people you must admire — who serve truth and thereby try to understand it, especially before spouting off without a clue.
As for the UN, you seem to have a deep misunderstanding of what it is. The UN is comprised wholly of member nations, and is thus incapable of getting “more power over nations” than it already has. Moreover, the UN’s climate change actions thus far have involved two types of activities: (1) commissioning scientific reports and analyses, and (2) booking glorified conference rooms so that said nations may work out agreements. To the latter, member nations have been asked to give input and come up with a common accord. This hardly describes a power grab. Your claim that member nations have “used” climate change to increase their own power over themselves is stupid enough; but it appears even worse when one considers the ineffectiveness of the meetings thus far. Private economic interests have been waging war against climate change measures, just as they have waged war against the common good throughout the history of civilization, and they have succeeded to this point.
Which brings us to healthcare reform in the US. Private interests are muddying the debate and hoping that people like you will give in to their prejudices about government, or liberals, or non-white people. Here is a dose of reality: the Congressional Budget Office, the non-political outfit that calculates projections on proposed congressional legislation, has projected that single payer (i.e. the most “extreme” public plan) costs the least of all possible insurance systems while accomplishing the most. Meanwhile, for the various plans put forth over the past few months, the closer they come to being single payer, the more efficient and effective they are. Of course, to thinking people, this makes perfect sense: health insurance is something we buy into collectively already, in order to reduce individual risk. The larger the pool, the lower the risk. If each and everyone of us buy into the same pool, the individual risk is lowest and the overall efficiency is highest (i.e. costs go down). This is not up for debate — this is how health insurance works. So tell me: why do you want to pay more for less effective insurance? Is it some mindless allegiance to corporations — corporations which would rather pump up their stock price than insure the people who have paid them for it? Is it some mindless allegiance to your own prejudices?
A parting thought: Those who would sacrifice the whole to indulge their own paranoid fantasies are among the lowest of the low. Mind your own honor, please.
Sanely yours,
Dan Mims
Never leave home without it.
