Thursday, October 17, 2019

We Only Have 12 Years To Save Medicare For All

After reading through some summaries of the latest Democrats' debate, something puzzled me. If we only have N years to save the planet, why are we talking about Medicare for all? If we get the Medicare thing right, but starve the global salvation effort of funds to do it, won't that be a bad thing? It seems to me like destruction on a planetary scale would make hospital wait times longer.

And what will drowning coastal cities do to prescription drug prices? You'd think they go up just because all the drugs would have to be dried off.

If the Earth bakes in a carboniferous furnace, won't emergency rooms be overwhelmed with patients no matter how we pay for their care?

These are things that ought to be asked, but are not. If an asteroid was sliding into a collision orbit with us and astronomers could show how we had 12 years before it hit and obliterated us all, would we be talking about Danish-style socialized medicine? I don't think so.

It's almost like the whole Global Warming Climate Change thing is just another tool to grab more money and power for the State.

Did I hear that right? Around 0:50, she says that the ice could melt in as little as 1,000 years. A thousand years? Like, at that point, who cares? By then, we'll be having group sex with transgendered, robotic donkeys who use the pronouns glarb/florek/her. And what's with the piano? Does that help or hinder Global Warming Climate Change?

Note: I love that I could find this video via Blogger YouTube search, but Gad Saad's hilarious video from yesterday was invisible. YouTube: A platform for sharing videos that conform with Google's corporate point of view.


tim eisele said...

I am kind of quietly amused by the way that so many people have a pet disaster scenario that they decide is going to be The End Of The United States/Western Civilization/The Human Race In General, but then somehow come to the conclusion that every *other* disaster scenario is for some reason completely implausible and most likely just a conspiracy to panic people into handing over power.

It's not a competition. There is more than one way to break things.

K T Cat said...

I'd believe this one more if it looked like they were serious. It's not the way I'd act or talk if I thought it was real, not even close.

For instance, what is the contingency plan to deal with a stubborn China and India? If they tell us to get stuffed on CO2, nothing we do will even matter. Under the asteroid scenario, if China and India were actively sabotaging our anti-asteroid efforts, what would you do? Send Greta Thunberg to NYC to shout at Americans? Really?

Ilíon said...

"Imagine that over the course of the next several decades, we burn all the remaining deposits of coal, oil and natural gas on earth."

I guess 20+ counts as "several".

"Well, that's exactly what one new study has done, and the results have been surprizing even for the climate [shysters]."

They did exactly what? Imagined?

Shoot! If these people are so concerned about mankind "burn[in] all the remaining deposits of coal, oil and natural gas on earth", why are they so opposed to the use of nuclear power generation?

I mean, even in the Star Trek universe, they don't get their power from "renewables", but rather by mining "deposits" ... of an imaginary element.