…is a wonderful hybrid vehicle that still isn’t good enough but it’s a start for Other People, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is Barking Moonbat EWS, with a post wondering if Sen Chris Murphy will be tested for Coronavirus, since he just came back from Iran.
Read: If All You See… »
Has anyone told CNN that pretty much every Democrat’s Medicare for All (government run health insurance) scheme is similar? Of course, Comrade Bernie iw the leader in all this, and his plan is putting the comrade in Comrade
Here’s what Bernie Sanders’ ‘Medicare for All’ proposal actually says
Sen. Bernie Sanders has been pushing a single-payer health care system for decades. It’s the centerpiece of his vision for a more democratic socialist America. There are several such proposals for a single-payer system, but what’s below is from the 100-page draft bill most recently introduced, with tweaks, by Sanders in 2019.
That CNN is deciding to fisk the plan now shows how concerned they are with the potential for Comrade Bernie to be the Democrat nominee
The Medicare for All plan would leave intact the current infrastructure of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, but nationalize the health insurance industry. Nearly all the money individuals and employers currently pay into the system as well as much of the money states pay would, under Sanders’ plan, instead go through the federal government.
Here are the most important elements:
They start at page one with excerpts, then offer some commentary. Here’s the first commentary
The first thing to note is that Sanders’ proposal has only 14 co-sponsors in the Senate. That’s not even a majority of Democrats. That’s less than a third of the 60 votes usually required to overcome a filibuster and pass major legislation, although he has said he would use budget rules to maneuver around the practice of the filibuster in order to get Medicare for All passed.
Well, that’s not good. Just 14. Then we learn
In Sanders’ proposal, everyone who is a US resident, including undocumented immigrants, gets coverage. That would be a likely point of contention with this plan. There is a prohibition on traveling to the US for free medical care.
That’s right, you get to pay for the healthcare of people banned from being in the country per federal law. We then learn that abortion on demand will be enshrined in federal law, and Other People will get to pay for irresponsible people to have abortions. Citizens will also be automatically enrolled in Comrade Bernie’s scheme.
Further, his scheme will ban all private insurance. All. Even nations like Canada and Great Britain allow some private insurance. So, that would put around 2.5 million people out of work, and kill numerous companies. The only exclusion would be for those few things not covered by Comrade Bernie’s scheme, like cosmetic surgery.
This is the most controversial element of this bill. Sanders would make it illegal to sell private health insurance that covers the benefits offered by Medicare for All. This provision would certainly be subject to lawsuits. A subsequent section says additional benefits not covered by Medicare for All (cosmetic surgery, for instance) could be covered by a supplemental insurance plan.
This is the nationalization of an industry in an unprecedented way. It’s important to note here that about one-third of the American seniors who currently get Medicare get it through private Medicare Advantage plans offered by health insurance companies. Those plans would go away.
“Nationalization of an industry.” There’s no way to not make those words sound like Big Government authoritarianism.
One last thing to note is how much power is given to Health And Human Services and other agencies
This would be a massive new federal bureaucracy, replacing, by some estimates, 2 million US insurance and health industry jobs. Setting up, enforcing and evolving a health care system for about 320 million people and transitioning more than 200 million from a private system to a public one would be a gargantuan undertaking. Sanders’ proposal imagines a regional administration system that would coordinate individual states and filter up to the HHS secretary, who would be in charge of setting policies. An official ombudsman would collect and hear grievances.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ie, Obamacare, gave HHS and the IRS massive new powers and abilities to make rules (the contraceptive mandate was created out of thing air, as it is not actually in Ocare). That’s nothing compared to the rule making ability in Comrade Bernie’s scheme.
By replacing the entire health insurance industry, the government could displace 2 million workers, according to some estimates. Some of those would find jobs in the new government systems. Others could be eligible for up to five years of temporary assistance.
The nationalization of an industry. Of course, there is way more not being touched on, because it’s not in the bill, such as how this will all be paid for, and how people will respond to the Government controlling their health insurance by being their insurer. And how much this will mess up the actually health care providers due to low payments.
Read: Even CNN Is Not Enamoured With Comrade Bernie’s Medicare For All Plan »
Hey, good news, this is rather a new one from the Cult of Climastrology, at least in positioning it this way. But, hey, like any doomsday cult, the CoC has to continuously find new points of Doom to keep the fear going
Beach bummer: Half of world’s sandy coastlines may vanish this century
Half the world’s sandy beaches may be wiped away by the end of the century due to rising sea levels and other climate change effects, with Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, China and the United States among the hardest hit, researchers said on Monday.
Many beaches that attract frolicking vacationers may be turned into rocky remnants as rising seas, changing weather patterns and other factors erode sandy shorelines that now account for more than a third of global sea coasts, they added.
A large proportion of shoreline in densely populated areas is projected to be lost.
“Touristic areas which have sandy beaches as their main selling point will probably face strong consequences,” said coastal oceanographer Michalis Vousdoukas of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy, lead author of the study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. (snip)
A rise in global sea levels has accelerated in recent decades, with the major causes seen as thermal expansion – water expands as it warms – and melting of land-based ice such as glaciers and ice sheets.
Would this be an acceleration from the completely average sea rise of the 20th Century, with no real scientific proof that the averageness was mostly/solely caused by Mankind’s carbon pollution? Would this be an acceleration where we are never told exactly what it is, or shown data? And why is this always positioned as “may”?
The researchers analyzed satellite images showing shoreline changes during the past three decades and applied these trends to two climate change scenarios looking forward, one envisioning a moderate mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change and the other envisioning high emissions.
Oh, that’s why. See, if we implement a tax and have the government take over your lives (do the Warmist scientists ever realize this will apply to themselves?), it may not happen
By 2050, the researchers projected losses of 13.6% to 15.2% of global beaches, amounting to 22,430 to 25,172 miles (36,097 to 40,511 km) of lost sandy shorelines. By 2100, they projected losses of 35.7% to 49.5% of beaches spanning 59,068 to 81,862 miles (95,061 to 131,745 km).
They should project what it will be in 5 to 10 years, that way we can properly evaluate their scaremongering prognostications. Because no one is really going to remember this prognostication in 2050 and 2100. That’s kind of the point, though. Scare people without having to put their money where their mouths are.
Read: Everybody Panic: Half The World’s Beaches May Possibly Perchance Disappear »
NBC News’ Joe Cabosky is making a point that he probably regrets
Homophobia hurt Pete Buttigieg — as much as America wished it didn’t
It seems so long ago that the first openly gay candidate won the Iowa caucuses. Mere weeks later, the Pete Buttigieg campaign is now past tense, as the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, announced Sunday that he was dropping out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Wherever that leaves Buttigieg and his future political prospects — or any future LGBTQ candidate — this moment affords us an opportunity to ask ourselves where the nation as a whole really is in terms of acceptance of LGBTQ candidates.
To be clear, I’m not arguing that Buttigieg was unsuccessful only because of homophobia. But lessons from this cycle do allow us to be honest about the challenges that LGBTQ candidates face. While these issues may not have gotten a lot of attention in 2020, Buttigieg’s campaign demonstrates how many problems of homophobia still remain.
After Buttigieg won Iowa, I often heard things akin to homophobia not mattering much anymore. Sure, there were Rush Limbaugh’s homophobic remarks. Sure, there was the Buttigieg voter in Iowa asking to have her vote back upon learning he was married to a man. But these were isolated incidents, no?
All cycle, a Gallup poll was used as an example of how accepting Americans have become, with 76 percent of those surveyed saying they’d vote for a gay person for president. While that sounds high, that still means one-quarter of the country admits that it’s a nonstarter. That’s a lot of votes lost right off the bat.
Now, despite Joe mentioning Rush a few times, and going through “realities of homophobia” and stuff, who, primarily, was voting in the Democratic Party primaries?
That’s right. Democrats. Democrat voters. The same ones who drove out the black people running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, along with most of the women, have now driven out Mayor Pete because they are, apparently, homophobic. Despite yammering about the 2012 NC gay marriage constitutional amendment, bigotry, and so forth, it was Democrats who knocked Mayor Pete out of the race.
And they come from within the LGBTQ community as well. The sad irony was that Buttigieg was also attacked for not being “gay enough.†These criticisms came from the more progressive or activist left of the LGBTQ population, creating a conundrum for candidates from minority backgrounds who hold more moderate positions — ones that can be crucial in general elections.
Yeah, these were Democrats
Thus, for every step forward that Buttigieg’s campaign made for future candidates, it also exposed how far America needs to go in its acceptance of LGBTQ leaders.
Democrats knocked him out.
Read: Bummer: Mayor Pete Dropped Out Of Democrat Race Due To Homophobia »
Tom Nelson has a better idea
The Greta Thunberg Foundation should pay for the environmental damage resulting from her #ClimateCult event. https://t.co/2CtdSusMwl
— Tom Nelson (@TomANelson) March 2, 2020
From the article
Hundreds have called for the organisers of a Greta Thunberg climate change rally to pay for damage caused to green space.
Around 15,000 people are believed to have attended Friday’s Bristol Youth Strike 4 Climate rally, churning up College Green and angering many.
A fundraiser was set up for repairs, which then resulted in calls for rally organisers to cover the costs.
The organiser said people had done their best in the muddy conditions. (snip)
The combination of thousands of people and heavy rain turned much of the grass into mud, angering some.
Gavin Mountjoy commented on Facebook: “Oh the irony, hundreds of people turning up to talk about our planet dying end up destroying a green area.”
Meh, the damage was really linked to ‘climate change’
Bullshit. The poor weather from the numerous storms we’ve had in the last few weeks contributed. Perhaps cause by……. climate change
Greta Thunberg Bristol strike: Row over College Green damage https://t.co/osLARTOpR0
— Hampshire magician (@Sean_Boon) March 1, 2020
Read: People Want Organizers Of St. Greta’s Climate March To Pay To Repair Greenspace »
…is an ocean that will very soon rise up and swamp all the land, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on today’s Daley Babes in lingerie.
Read: If All You See… »
Cultists just can’t help injecting their cult into every topic, can they? They’re like that person you know who always has to interject their favorite topic into every conversation. You know that person
Coronavirus and climate crisis: nothing will be the same again
The pounding and discomposed mobilization of politicians and media against the coronavirus reminds of Peter and the Wolf: what could we ever do to communicate a real emergency, when the climate crisis at the gates will begin to have a serious impact on our lives (as it is already doing on those of millions of other human beings), now that everyone sees that the wolf is not there, or is not a wolf? (snip)
This is how the right (in tune, though denied, with the centre and left-wing establishments, whether they are aware of it or not) is preparing to face by force of arms the consequences of the climate crisis: mass migrations in and from the rest of the world, and struggles against the disruption of living and working conditions and of the territories within each country. Continuing to squeeze gas and oil from the belly of the Earth pumping CO2 into the air. (snip)
The climate and environmental crisis will upset all of them. From now on, and whether you like it or not, things will change for the worse: the weather will no longer be predictable, and sometimes not even bearable; work may be missing because the markets that supported it will disappear; shops and supermarkets will not always be full and we will have to give up many things; we may find ourselves without a car or without gasoline, or with trains that are seven hours late; the light may no longer come on every day, water may no longer run off the tap for hours, houses may remain cold, holidays may fade because planes no longer depart and illnesses from unknown viruses may multiply. And all these things will have to be remedied together with those who suffer with us. But above all we must anticipate them, identifying, taking and imposing new paths, because if we wait for those who govern us to do so, those who continue to think only of building high-speed rail links, pipelines, Olympics games and giant stadiums, while “our house burnsâ€, we will end up burned with it.
This was translated out of Italian. I suspect it reads worse in the original language.
Read: Nothing Will Ever Be The Same From Coronavirus And ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »
Amy Harder may very well have a point
Big climate change policy unlikely no matter who wins the White House
Don’t hold your breath for big climate policy changes — even if a Democrat wins the White House.
Why it matters: Congress is likely to remain gridlocked on the matter, leading to either more of the same with President Trump’s reelection or a regulatory swing back to the left no matter which Democrat wins — but far short of a legislative overhaul.
The big picture: Climate change is reaching a new high water mark as a political concern for American voters, and Democratic presidential nominees are promising aggressive policies.
Really, we know that if Trump wins, you won’t get any sort of authoritarian, big government, big taxation legislation passed or policies enacted. Heck, even small ones will not happen. Now, if a Democrat wins
All Democrats have aggressive climate plans, but it’s an open question whether any would first push climate legislation over other priorities — especially health care.
Sanders, for instance, has campaigned more on Medicare for All than he has on the Green New Deal.
- We could face a rerun of 2009, where newly inaugurated President Obama chose to first pursue a health care bill before climate change.
- Running out of political capital after that grueling fight was one of many reasons the climate bill failed.
Amy even breaks it down as to what happens if a Progressive (nice Fascist) Dem wins and if a “moderate” Dem wins. Regardless, she says you just won’t see a big bill or policy. The one thing she’s missing is that there are enough Democrats out there who realize that passing this type of legislation which would dramatically increase the cost of living for Americans would mean an utter blowout of the Democrat party in the next election cycle, much like happened to the Labor Party in the 2012 Queensland, Australia election. This is why the Democrat run House refuses to vote on AOC’s Green New Deal. Why the Dems failed to pass any significant Hotcoldwetdry legislation when they controlled Congress in 2009 and 2010.
The intrigue: A path to passage of, say, a clean energy standard or a carbon tax would require a grand bargain-type bipartisan compromise, like we saw in 2015 when Congress paired renewing clean-energy subsidies with lifting a ban on oil exports.
It won’t happen.
Read: Axios: No Matter Who Wins, Big ‘Climate Change’ Policy Won’t Happen »
One of the president’s jobs is to attempt to keep Americans, and, really, the world, from freaking out. Freaking out won’t help the situation. No one slammed Obama for attempting to calm fears when Ebola broke out (they did slam him for failing to have strong enough quarantines). Democrats, and the media, on the other hand, are trying to stoke fears, which is where Trump’s “hoax” comment came from
One of my people came up to me and said, “Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia. That didn’t work out too well. They couldn’t do it. They tried the impeachment hoax that was on a perfect conversation. They tried anything. They tried it over and over. They’ve been doing it since you got in. It’s all turning, they lost, it’s all turning. Think of it. Think of it. And this is their new hoax.â€
He didn’t call Coronavirus a hoax, he called the Dem and media response the hoax in fearmongering and slamming Trump, for making is political. And they prove him right, like here and here. Meanwhile, Trump will continue to attempt to calm things
Trump seeks to quell fear as first U.S. coronavirus death is reported
President Trump sought to ease rising fears about the coronavirus epidemic on a day when the first U.S. death from COVID-19 was reported and more cases were reported on the West Coast.
Trump said that a “medically high risk†woman in Washington state had died from the virus but added no other details about her case. State health officials, in their own statement, said a middle-aged man with underlying health problems had died of the virus.
Dr. Robert Redfield, director of the Centers of Disease Control, tweeted later in the day that “CDC erroneously identified the patient as a female in a briefing earlier today with the President and Vice President.â€
Trump said he hoped that Americans would not curtail their daily lives because of the virus and portrayed the risk as minimal.
“So, healthy people, if you’re healthy, you will probably go through a process and you’ll be fine,†Trump added.
The president said he had put in place “the most aggressive actions taken anywhere in the world,†although China has confined millions of people to their homes, and other countries, including Japan and South Korea, have taken strong measures including closing public schools.
Wait, is the media saying they want Trump to round people up and confine them? Obviously, if he ordered that, they would slam him. This is why Trump called them a hoax.
Obviously, Trump is wrong for not scaremongering, right?
Amid global panic around the spread of coronavirus, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director-general of the World Health Organization (WHO), called on global markets to “should calm down and try to see the reality.”
“We need to continue to be rational. Irrationality doesn’t help. We need to deal with the facts,” Ghebreyesus said Sunday during a panel discussion at the King Salman Humanitarian Aid Center’s International Humanitarian Forum in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, according to CNBC.
He’s right. But, the media is always about “if it bleeds, it leads”, and looks to freak people out for ratings. And, of course, to hurt Republicans.
Meanwhile, wash your hands and do not touch your mouth or eyes. Perhaps don’t travel to the Islamist nation of Iran.
Perhaps someone should explain to them how much government is controlling their lives and will be taking out of their paychecks. And then how much more government will be controlling their lives and taking from their paychecks if the policies they advocate for are passed. That’s, if they can find a job thanks to the policies the Cult of Climastrology pushes, along with all the other Statist stuff
Climate change is not only worrying kids; it’s also making them angry
Parents aren’t getting it, and that’s a problem.
“Hey, Mom,†Cyan Cuthbert, 15, asked one day after class at Walter B. Saul High School in Roxborough. “Did you know we’re gonna die because people like to litter?â€
Like a lot of youngsters, Cuthbert, a freshman, is obsessed with climate change, a big topic at the school, which specializes in the study of agriculture and the environment. Grown-ups, she said with astonishment, are simply not scared enough of melting polar ice caps and acidifying oceans.
“It’s not registered in our parents’ heads yet,” Cuthbert continued. “I want a job, a house, kids someday. But I can’t have that if the Earth is on fire, and my children won’t ever know what an elephant is.â€
While no precise data exist on how climate change manifests itself in children’s behavior, it’s becoming clear that kids’ perpetual presence on social media and the internet stoke zealous preoccupation and incite a woke attitude that can’t be extinguished.
The crime rate for Philly is not as bad as many big cities, being an 8, meaning it is safer than 8% of US cities (100 is best). Their property crime is actually not that bad, but, their violent crime rate is three times the Pennsylvania rate. Maybe the kids should worry about that.
“Kids are freaked out and terrified,” said Washington, D.C., psychiatrist Lise Van Susteren, who served as an expert witness in Juliana v. the United States, a lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court in Oregon in 2015 by young people claiming to have a constitutional right to be protected from climate change. The case was dismissed in January.
“Some are unraveling, and the little ones have no coping mechanisms,” she said. “One 4-year-old believes his family dog will become extinct and die. Some older kids are wondering why they should even bother going to college. Many fear having children of their own.
You can blame the adults for this: it’s simply child abuse the way they have made mental messes out of children for political purposes. There’s lots and lots more crazy in the article, so, let’s end with this
Youth agency over climate change is apparent throughout the Philadelphia area, according to Maria Stroup, director of Impact Center in Haverford, a nonprofit staffed by former educators who connect socially conscious youngsters with dozens of community organizations.
“Kids are p—ed,†Stroup said. “Battling climate change is not an adult movement; it’s kids’.”
OK, if they feel that way
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
