Daily Archives: July 30, 2012

Mitt Romney In Favor Of Obama Care – For Israel

Talking Points Memo has the article Romney: Socialized Health Care Good For Israel, Not For U.S..

During a trip to Israel, Mitt Romney hailed the nation’s health care system for holding down costs and broadening coverage more effectively than the U.S.

The irony: Israel contains costs by adopting a very centralized, government-run health care system — anathema to Romney’s Republican Party.

“Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? Eight percent. You spend eight percent of GDP on health care. You’re a pretty healthy nation,” he said Monday at a breakfast fundraiser, according to the New York Times. “We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care, 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, compare that with the size of our military — our military which is 4 percent, 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways — not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to fund and manage our health care costs.”

Israel’s health care system is an instructive exercise in all that rankles American conservatives — replete with government mandates, price controls and centralized payments funded mostly by high taxes.

Why does Romney hate America so much?  Or is it just Americans that he doesn’t like?

Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans

The BBC has the story Ex-sceptic says climate change is down to humans. The following quote has a certain ironic synchronicity with a conversation that a friend and I have been having.

The team argues that the good correspondence between the new temperature record and historical data on CO2 emissions suggests human activity is “the most straightforward explanation” for the warming.

I am not a climate change denier, and I am not disagreeing with the finding of these scientists, however I must point out that though ‘human activity is “the most straightforward explanation” for the warming’, being the most straightforward does not prove it is the correct explanation.

The strength of their conclusion depends on how rigorous and thorough the scientists were in testing a large universe of other possible explanations.   From this article, we have no idea how this study stacks up under that criterion.

As an engineer, the way that I think it would be proper to proceed on trying to ameliorate the effects of global climate change would be to always ask “If we are wrong about climate change, what would be the effect of the proposed policy change?”  If you can honestly say that the new policy were a good one and a cost effective one even if we are wrong about global climate change, then you have a policy change that you can feel very comfortable about proposing.

Even if humans are not the major cause of climate change, it would still make sense to lessen our impact on the problem so as not to make a natural phenomenon even worse.  In times of drought, we try to conserve water even though humans are not the cause of the drought.