Monday, September 21, 2009

The 'Man Made' Climate Crisis

Authors note: This is a repost from an older blog of mine.

The debate surrounding Manmade Climate Change is said to be over; I would beg to differ. In all the science that has been purported as proving manmade climate change there seems to be a plethora of counter science and counter arguments. Although there appears to be a great consensus in the mass media and in governments, it is just that: an apparent consensus.

Over the last few years there have been many scientific reports and some not so scientific conclusions drawn from those reports. Along with non-scientific alarmist documentaries, which stem from the policy driven political conclusions, there are also very scientific reports and documentaries proving the opposite of the so-called consensus.

In order to understand what this debate is really about, I believe it is important to first define what climate change and global warming are.

Climate change “Refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Climate change may result from natural factors, natural processes or human activities.”

Where as global warming is “An average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth's surface and in the troposphere. According to the EPA, ‘in common usage, global warming often refers to the warming that can occur as a result of increase emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities.’" (Crapo)

Using these definitions, it is easy to look at the science and arguments from both sides and determine whether or not Climate change is happening and whether or not it is manmade. Unfortunately, only one side of the debate has been given a fair shake in the media and in scientific circles: the pro-manmade climate change theory.

Science is supposed to be a fair and open forum for the exchange of ideas and theories. That is until research and evidence shows one side to be correct, and even then there is supposed to still be room for alternative theories and dissent without the risk of professional consequences. In the global warming debate (the one that is over), there has been a decided effort to silence those who oppose the “consensus” by intimidation and ad hominem attacks.

“Heidi Cullen, climatologist at the Weather Channel, suggested disagreement should mean a loss of meteorological certification: ‘if a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.’”

“Ellen Goodman, from the Boston Globe, wrote: ‘Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.’” (Beck p.2)

This, of course, comes from those same people that can’t even predict the weather a day in advance 50% of the time. Another area that one must be wary of when considering the science of manmade global warming is the underlying social and political motives for a climate crisis.

“Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world. No matter if the science is all phony, there are still collateral environmental benefits [to global warming policies].” – Christine Stewart, Canada’s former environmental minister.

“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” – Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

These few quotes—and there are many more—show that there is more than just science behind the conclusions drawn by scientists—scientists that usually work for and are paid by the government in one way or another. If one were to look into the policies that surround climate change, it would become painfully obvious that the Kyoto protocol and carbon offset/ trading policies do more to redistribute wealth than they do to regulate the climate. By regulating the carbon emissions, multi-national governments seek to control not only the economy of nations but the sovereignty of them as well. Just pay attention to what world leaders are saying “[Kyoto is] the first component of an authentic global governance.” – Jacques Chirac (2000)

It seems that most environmentalists see CO2 as a bad thing, even though the link between CO2 levels and global temperatures has not been proven. In fact, the evidence that had once been used to suggest the link has been thoroughly refuted.

“A team led by professor Michael Mann of the University of Virginia published a chart in Nature magazine in 1998 purporting to reconstruct global temperatures showing a stable climate for six hundred years. In 1999 Mann extended the reconstruction to cover 1,000 years, showing temperature as having been stable throughout. This miraculously did away with well-established climatic phenomena known as the Medieval Warm Period, followed by a Little Ice Age. These phenomena, it turned out, actually did appear in his data, but didn’t find their way into his representation. The result was the “hockey Stick” graph. This confirmed what the climate alarmists hoped for. It was touted as the ‘smoking gun’ for manmade global warming by establishing that, until human influence, climate was largely stable.” (Horner p.120)

Of course, this Hockey Stick graph has since been proven false based on the poor science that was behind it, science undoubtedly driven by politics more than the scientific method.

This misunderstood belief about the effect of CO2 on climate gained wide spread attention when the graph appeared in Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” along with the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report. From these misrepresentations of the facts, many laypersons were led astray in the what was then called the Global Warming debate.

This brings up another interesting point in the history of the long-standing climate crises that have been reported in the media for over a century. Within the last year, the crisis has changed—much like it did from the 70’s when scientists were calling for detrimental global cooling. A year ago the problem was Global Warming; now the crisis is Climate change. Why the change in terms? Well, as you can see from the definitions mentioned above, Climate change is something that goes both ways. Any weather anomaly can be easily associated with it, unlike Global Warming, which scientists seemed to have had a hard time with when explaining away how the world could “have a fever” and be having record cold spells and snow storms. The change in terms allows for the extremes of nature on both ends of the thermometer which means that no matter what the weather or the natural disaster, politicians could some how use it to their advantage in the political debate.

The other issue that is brought up by the “Hockey Stick” fallacy is that CO2 is seen as a pollutant.

“Now the global warming advocates point to the increase in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. Its up, way up; no argument about that. Our modern civilization, powered by fossil fuels, sends tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere as we generate electricity to power our lights, furnaces and air conditioners, computers, television sets, cell phone and ipods and as we drive gasoline powered cars and fly in airplanes. Our modern standard of living is absolutely linked to CO2. And it has increased in our atmosphere from around 218 parts per million in 1900 to about 375 ppm today. You need to understand immediately that CO2 is a naturally occurring trace element in our atmosphere. For one thing, we humans produce it every time we breathe. Plants and trees must have it grow. So CO2 was already in our atmosphere before we discovered oil. CO2 is not a pollutant.” (Coleman)

The misconception that CO2 is a pollutant aids the carbon trading lobby—of which Al Gore is a large player in and considerable benefactor—and in doing so compels law makers to put forth policies that discourage the use of conventional fuels and the conventional way of producing energy as well as wealth.

“Now the really good news: The increase in our atmospheric carbon dioxide during the 20th and early 21st centuries has produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. There is absolutely no correlation between the increase in CO2 and average worldwide or US temperatures. And, predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and resulting increases in minor greenhouse gases such as CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge or have any scientific basis. On the other hand, increased carbon dioxide has markedly increased plant growth. Forest growth and farm crop output per acre have grown proportionally with increased atmospheric CO2 that is a key to photosynthesis in plants.” (Coleman)

Of course, what does this mean about policies that discourage the use of carbon emitting energy sources? These policies are against the environment! And not only the natural environment but also the human environment. Not only will there be less CO2 (plant food) but the policies also encourage the use of bio-fuels—policies that are supposed to stop the famines that are said to be in the future if the climate increases on its current trend—which have adverse effects on the prices of food for not only Americans, but the world. Third world countries are especially in danger of the rise in food costs, especially foods such as corn, rice, grain, sugar, and soy.

“As a result of the subsidies, farmers are shifting production of wheat, soy and other crops to corn instead. Last year alone, an additional 78 million acres of corn ere planted. There will be more than 90 million planted this year…Growing more corn means that other crops will be in short supply and their prices will rise.” (Topol)

In a twist of irony man made climate change policies are causing that which they were designed to prevent. Even more ironic is that the policies that look to stopping problems in the future have really just expedited the process of famine and death. Keep in mind The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman once said, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

According to Ted Turner by the year 2040 the world’s crops will be dead. “Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state like Somalia or the Sudan…most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals.” (WorldNetDaily 2008) This is of course more alarmism about climate change and the future, but who is raising the alarm for the atrocities that are already taking place due to the policies that our leaders have implemented.

As the science community becomes more scrutinized by other media and free thinking organizations that don’t care about the bad PR in the press new information has been coming to light that seems to put the final nail in the coffin of man made climate change.

“A twelve-month long drop in world temperatures erases global warming. Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snow cover in 50 years…All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously…The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C—a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years.” (Global Cooling)

Although this and other evidence seem to point directly in opposition to a warming planet, Climate Alarmists still want to have their cake and eat it too. “Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said…when you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year, you should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.” (Harrabin 2008) Even in the face of evidence to suggest the contrary, those who are invested—literally, with carbon trading companies and green initiatives—in climate change are willing to contradict their own philosophies. That is why people like Al Gore have to use incorrect data and lies to sell their product.

“Gore misrepresents the way CO2 actually contributes to the ‘greenhouse effect.’ In mathematical terms, the CO2-green-house effect relation is logarithmic, not linear. That is, each molecule has less of a greenhouse impact than the molecule before it. A doubling of the amount of CO2 in the air has the same effect as the previous doubling. In short, even global warming theory holds that Man’s emissions are insufficient to have caused the one-degree warming since the Little Ice Age ended.” (Horner p. 217)

Gore has even admitted that it is perfectly fine for him to lie to the public about climate change and its effects. “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on ho dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.” (Horner p. 209)

But what happens if you take the advice to look at long trends? What does the evidence show? The evidence shows an undeniable link between sun activity—namely sunspots—and global climate. The evidence shows that climate is cyclical—medieval warm period, little ice age. The evidence shows that we still don’t know that much about our own climate to predict a week ahead of time, much less 30+ years into the future like Teddy Turner wants to do. The evidence shows that “combustion emissions contribute about 2% of greenhouse gases currently keeping out atmosphere habitable…manmade greenhouse gases are a tiny fraction of one factor…Most greenhouse gases are produced by ‘natural’ processes.” (Horner p. 69)

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic). Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate. (Hieb 2003)

But when the logical arguments fail and science is no longer the crutch holding up your meager theory the opponents turn to ad hominem arguments. The symbol of this is the Polar Bear.

By using pitting fuzzy animals—Polar Bears—against real killers—Oil Executives—it is hard for the side with all the evidence to win. The media paints a picture of humans as a menace to the environment and to society—the society of animals that is. The narrative the media chooses to use appeals to the emotions of every boy, girl and parent who has ever had a stuffed animal or has seen a coca-cola Christmas commercial. The media show ice falling into the ocean while discussing global warming and then talk about isolated cases where polar bears have died. In reality, polar bear populations are growing, not falling! “Of the twenty subpopulations of polar bears, more than half are stable, one or possibly two are decreasing and two are actually increasing.” (Burguiere 2008) This is the same argument used against those oil companies that want to drill in ANWR or off the coasts of America. “Stories about a 17% decline among polar bears in Canada’s Hudson Bay have been everywhere…In reality, the decline they talk about is only accurate if you specifically measure it from 1987. If you measure it from 1981 to today, the population has increased by 90%.” (Burguiere 2008) Not only do those alarmist stories give a false view of polar bears—people must think they are horrible swimmers!!—but it also destroys any chance of becoming energy independent without starving third world countries. “Dr. Daniel Fine of MIT reported that 750 billion barrels worth of oil shale have been discovered in Colorado alone.” (Loris 2008) This oil is, of course, discouraged from being tapped by the oil companies for it would endanger wildlife and only promote climate change. Thus, we are still not energy independent and there are no real solutions available for us within the near future.

Since we have no other fuel that is as dependent or as easy to use as gas, we can't really get rid of gas yet. “Corn based ethanol is a net energy loser. As Tom Mast has explained, approximately 131,000 BTUs are needed to produce a gallon of ethanol, which then has an energy value of 77,000 BTU…growing corn and distilling the ethanol takes about 1.7 times as much energy as the finished ethanol will produce.” (Topol) The transition to alternative fuels is going to have to be a long one. An economy can't just uproot everything. Let the market decide what is best. Government intervention in the market is dangerous and to think that it could mandate such a thing as getting rid of gas is dangerous. The world needs to use alternative fuels, yes. The funny thing is, the same people who want us to use alternative fuels do not want the ones that are proven and available. So many are against nuclear power and for reasons that don't stand up to scrutiny—3-mile island, it’s dangerous, nuclear waste. If anything, the nuclear plants that are old pose way more of a problem than any new ones would for obvious reasons—They are old!

If the green movement wants to really have an impact on climate—which is debatable that that’s a good thing, I mean change is bad right? So wouldn’t they be changing the climate too? Of course, our climate is the best it could possibly be right now, right? We don’t have crops lost to spring frosts or an inability to grow crops in the majority of Canada right?—they should stop with the word games and the empty promises and start moving toward real solutions and in a realistic time frame. Use nuclear energy and clean coal; use the resources we have now, while looking for new means.

All in all, I believe, after looking at the evidence, that Manmade climate change is real and they let onto their own trickery in the name…Manmade—the whole thing is a sham, and it is manmade, man-dreamt, man-created. The theory is made up out of politics to further an agenda with science made up to support it.

Is the Earth warming? I’d say it has been. “Approximately 0.74 degree Celsius (+/-0.18 degree) in the last 100 years—0.74 +/- 0.18, that’s a 26% margin of error!” (Beck p. 4) but it also has been cooling. By looking to the evidence one can see that it does both. To make a crisis about a natural event and call it climate change is utterly ridiculous. Of course the climate changes! What’s so bad about that? Why should we try to stop something that has been happening for thousands of years? “The medieval warm period was warmer than today…we have just emerged from the Little Ice Age…” (Horner p.111)

To look at the science is reason enough to question the supposed consensus on climate change, but to look at the policies and to see how little they would accomplish to solve a climate crisis makes even a firm believer in manmade climate change stay off the policy bandwagon. “An entire continent [Australia] being forced to use fluorescent light bulbs will reduce world emissions by 0.003%.” (Beck p.7) Other policies are just like this one; having little to no effect on the global climate, they severely change the economic climate. I guess from that point of view you could say that it is manmade climate change…manmade [economic] climate change.


Beck, G. (2007). An Inconvenient Book (1st ed.). New York: Threshold Editions.

Burguiere, S. (2008, May). Polar Bears (heart) Global Warming. Fusion, 3, 10., p. 14.

Coleman, J. Comments on Global Warming 2008. 7. 37 p.

dailytech. Temperature Monitors Report Worldwide Global Cooling. Retrieved February 26, 2008, cooling/article10866.htm

Harrabin, R. Global Temperatures 'to decrease' BBC News, April 8, 2008. 1-2. 2 p. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from

Hieb, M. Water Vapor Rules The Greenhouse System.Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers.Retrieved April 28, 2008, from

Horner, C. C. (2007). The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism(1st ed.). Washington DC: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

Loris, N. Omnibus Prohibits Oil Shale Development.The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved February 12, 2008,

Mike Crapo United States Senator Idaho. Climate Change. Retrieved April 27, 2008, from

Topol, A. (2007, November). The Myth of Ethanol.Fusion, 3, 5., pp. 8-9.

WorldNetDaily. Ted Turner Predicts chaos, 'mass cannibalism' in U.S. Retrieved April 8, 2008, from

Sunday, September 20, 2009

The 307,471,666 Payer System: The Fallacy of the Single Payer system

The government proposes that the best way to combat rising costs and the rising rates of uninsured in the healthcare system is to use a single payer system. This means that the government will be the sole supplier of healthcare to the masses. Now this alone can cause one's stomach to turn for the implications of a government run healthcare system are anything short of good (that would mean, bad, horrible, disastrous, hell on earth), But what strikes me as odd is the fact that the name alone, not to mention the policies, is a flat out lie.

Healthcare costs in America used to be reasonable, and in many ways they still are—people pay substantial sums of money yet get the best care in the world. If you expect Cadillac like care, expect to pay Cadillac like prices. But over the last half century, Americans and those around the world, have seen healthcare costs rise substantially. Now, great things have come from this rise in cost. There has also been a huge rise in quality. If one were to compare the rise in costs to the rise in quality he/she would see that the rise in quality far outweighs the rise in cost. It wasn't that long ago that people were dying every day from diseases that are now not even considered a threat.

  • In 1909, Paul Ehrlich in a pursuit to cure sleeping sickness, found the cure to a deadly disease known as syphilis.

  • In 1922, two men, Canadian surgeon Frederick Banting and his assistant Charles Best, discovered insulin which made diabetes treatable.

  • In 1928, Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin which is responsible for saving millions of lives from what are today, minor infections.

  • In 1954, the first successful Kidney transplant was conducted between identical twins and with addition of advanced immunosuppressants, such as cyclosporine, in the 1980's transplants have become routine surgery, instead of the thing of myths. (

    • In 1986 alone, for example, nearly 9,000 kidney transplants were performed in the United States, with a greater than 85 percent survival rate for the first year.” (

These new treatments did not just spring up out of mid air, they took time, money, and ingenuity to create. 30 years ago almost any diagnosis of cancer was a death sentence, nowadays most people have a fighting chance and many survive. Back in the early 1900's Polio was a deadly disease that wreaked havoc on the population, even bringing down a US president. Now polio is a relic of times past.

These advancements in science and medicine have not only prolonged the average life span of everyone, rich and poor, but it has elevated the standard of living for all.

  • More than 4/5ths of Americans have central heating and air in their house in the 1990's as opposed to 1/3rd in 1970.

  • Only 38% of households owned a color TV in 1970, but by the 1990's 98% of American households had at least one.

  • In 1950, the male median retirement age was 66.9 years, while the life expectancy for males was 65.5 years. This equals no years of retirement on average. In 2005, the male median retirement age was 61.7 yeas with a life expectancy of 75.2 years. That is an average of 13.5 years in retirement.(Economist Thomas Sowell)

    • Not only are people working for less time, and retiring for longer periods, but they are wealthier and healthier throughout the process.

Thanks to the capitalist system and free enterprise, Americans have enjoyed the largest, wealthiest and healthiest middle class ever in recorded history, and our medical advancements have played no small part in that.

Now onto the fallacy of the single payer system. Back when most people did not have health insurance they had to pay for all healthcare out of pocket (yes, healthcare did exist without insurance), and it was cheaper and more obtainable by most. The reason for this is because when someone has to pay out of pocket, full price, they are a lot more careful with their money than if they are paying only some, or using someone else's money. Consumers are more likely to shop around and find the best bang for their buck (price). The downfall comes when a third party steps in. Price and cost are closely related. Price reflects cost, but price is subject to change via fiat, costs are not.

If I own a lemonade stand and it costs me 10 cents to make a glass of lemonade I can sell it for 10 cents plus 1 cent and turn a profit—albeit a very small one, certainly not enough to survive off, and definitely not enough to prosper from. If I charge more, than I earn more and that is how businesses are able to afford hiring more people and paying better wages, thus increasing the standard of living for everyone. But if I charge 2 dollars for my glass of lemonade and the kid a block down charges 50 cents, then the consumer, using his/her own money, will go to the kid down the block. I will be forced to lower my price or go out of business. The price is set based on what a consumer is willing to pay, and the amount and quality of competition (if the kid down the street made bad lemonade then I could still charge 2 dollars for mine and have customers i.e. Starbucks).

Now even though the price has changed for this product, the cost has remained the same, 10 cents, and that cost is based off of the price of my supplies such as lemons, sugar, water, and other various items, and the cost of those is tied to the price of their supplies, so that at every step a consumer has to make a decision on what is the best quality product for the least amount of money.

Now if the kid down the street buys great lemons for a price that still keeps his costs at 10 cents a glass, then he can charge his lower price and take my customers. But, if I am able to find comparable quality lemons for cheaper I can lower my overall costs so that a glass of lemonade only costs me 8 cents to make. Now I can undercut the kid down the street and still make the same amount of profit.

This is how the market works. Good stuff stays, bad stuff dies, and competition breeds better quality and lower prices. Now If I throw in a third party to this system, the market becomes skewed.

Imagine the same setting as before, but instead of the customer paying the full price of the lemonade, he only has to pay for a tenth of it. If the consumer only has to pay a tenth of the price then he/she is less concerned about the price. In fact I would say that they are 1/10th as concerned. Meaning the price can rise 10 times higher before they are discouraged from buying the lemonade.

Since this third party has come in and distorted the buyer's view of the price he/she is less likely to discriminate against pricier producers (even though the costs have not changed, the price given to the consumer has been greatly reduced). Once producers realize they can make more money off of the same product without raising the cost to themselves they will, it is essentially free money.

So jumping back to the healthcare issue. When people did not have subsidized healthcare, whether it be from insurance companies or government programs, they were very careful in how they spent their money on that service, and healthcare providers were very careful to not raise the price beyond the limit that most people were willing to pay for their service. The market worked and was stable. Once subsidized insurance entered the market, the price of healthcare soared, for consumers who had insurance were willing to pay more (even though they still paid a small amount out of pocket, the rest was covered by the third party). The result was that those who didn't have insurance, which is a relatively small amount 3-7% of the total population had to pay the same price that was being charged to the third parties. This price, was now severely inflated, for the majority of the market was covered by insurance, and was able to pay (or didn't care about paying) the higher prices, even though many costs stayed the same. The true fallacy comes in when we recognize the function of a third party that allows this to happen.

In a third party system for a service that is not needed constantly by everyone involved (i.e. Healthcare) everyone pays a little all the time but only a small percentage are taking out at any given time. Thus, the insurance company has a hugh surplus of funds from which to pull—not much unlike a ponzi scheme. Each person under the third party system has the supposed buying power of the aggregate, or whole, at any given time. So, the healthcare providers can charge much higher fees and prices for the same service that if in an undistorted market would cost mere pennies on the dollar. Add on top of that the added cost of the third party agent itself and you have an even bigger increase in price.

Insurance companies and government alike have operating costs. They need to pay their employees and cover the overhead costs such as paper, internet, and other items that are necessary to function. So when you pay your monthly premiums to your insurance company you are not only paying for the healthcare service but also the service of the insurer themselves. This could cost anywhere from a small fraction of your premium to up to half. So a portion of your premium is actually going towards nothing in terms of you and your health. Government is the same way, except, government has less of an incentive to lower the cost of its own operating costs since it has a seemingly endless supply of money, from people who can't choose whether or not they want their service (aka – A Monopoly).

Is it little wonder that medical costs for the uninsured are becoming astronomical? They are a very small portion of the population, and some are even very wealthy, but when compared to the sum total of all the insured people's wealth and their combined buying power, even Bill Gates looks like Oliver Twist.

It seems that the problem here isn't that too few people have health insurance, it's that anyone has it at all. And with the prospect of a government run insurance plan, the aggregate of those paying in the distorted market mindset will grow even greater, and costs will not fall, not stay the same, but rise even higher, making it near impossible for anyone who the government denies for care to be able to pay for it themselves.

The single payer solution is really the 307,471,666 payer solution. Although only 136 million filed taxes in 2006 (, the government, unlike private businesses, can and almost always runs a deficit. So even those too young to pay taxes yet will pay for this eventually. Even extrapolating that a little further, the amount of people that will have to pay is really endless since there is no cap on reproduction (yet). So the true number is infinite.

Everyone will pay a little sounds good, but really the price does not go down, it's just been spread out over a large number of people. The price will continue to rise and the government will go more and more into debt. The result will be raising taxes, and trust me the rich will not put up with being the scapegoat forever. The country will eventually and inevitably go broke. And as bad as that sounds just imagine what will happen to you when you are denied care by the government, which they will do to plenty of people who don't obey their rules—smokers, obese, or just those that are too old or sick to justify the extra expense—and that cost which is being covered by millions (and is potentially infinite) at only a fraction of a percent a piece falls on you and your family at 100% of the true price, the undistorted price. The cost of that is far greater than any value we complain about today.

Share on Facebook