Lynn Mueller: On climate change and health-care reform
Last Updated on 3/20/2010
Published on 6/30/2009
By Lynn Mueller
For individuals, families, communities and government, it is always wise to clearly define the problem to be solved before entering a discussion as to what the solution to the problem might be.
As we observe the ongoing debate and various legislative and executive proposals from the Congress and the White House, this prescription of problem to be solved first and then solutions would be a wise approach for our nation.
The two current policy questions being discussed with legislative solutions tied to them are Energy Independence/Cap & Trade, just passed by the House of Representatives and Health Care Reform.
With respect to the energy discussion, America has been pursuing with little success "energy independence" since 1974.
The current discussion and proposals are driven by two assumptions. The first is that humans are contributing negatively to climate change, which until recently was called "global warming." The second component is to move America to non-carbon based energy production to reduce over time, American's contribution to the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.
While there is growing skepticism by academic studies and climatologists worldwide as to the source of climate change, the assumption of human contribution continues to drive the underpinnings of the need for at least a Cap & Trade mechanism. If one assumes that human activity is negatively impacting the global climate and accept the current federal proposal, by their own definition, the result if passed as presented would modify global temperatures by merely hundredths of a degree by 2050 and literally no more than two-tenths of a degree by the end of this century. The cost for the American economy to achieve this end objective on the most conservative side amounts to almost $800 per year in 2009 dollars, for a family of four ... not a particularly attractive cost/benefit equation!
If one accepts the underlying premise of the human role in climate change, it truly then becomes a global problem. By all definitions, Americans are an extremely small percentage of the problem. China and India account for one-third of the world's population. There is no evidence of either nation taking any substantial steps to participate in reducing their carbon emissions. In fact, both were exempted from the original Kyoto Accords.
Therefore, it seems clear that if in fact this is a problem, a global solution, with all nations participating is the only sane approach. In fact, if we as a nation believe we need to show leadership by passing the current legislation, its implementation should only be triggered by a worldwide commitment and action that parallels the various component parts of our action.
With respect to healthcare, the over whelming majority of Americans are currently covered by some form of healthcare provided by either the private sector, the federal government or various state healthcare options. There are currently 58 million individuals who according to the proponents of the healthcare bill who are not covered.
If one analyzes that number and breaks it down, it is estimated that between 30 and 35 million people who are not covered are in America illegally. Of the remainder, many are young people who can afford to purchase healthcare, but choose not to because of their age and general good health. It therefore seems clear that defining who it is we are attempting to cover and addressing that issue should be separated from the larger discussion of remaking the entire healthcare delivery system and how it is funded.
There are multiple proposals from think tanks and experts on healthcare that have been crafted but unfortunately, generally ignored. I would recommend that a little on-line research would be useful to all who care about this subject. It is interesting to note, that in its ongoing analysis of this entire discussion, the Washington Post concluded "the Administration's fixation on a public plan is bizarre and counterproductive."
In both energy and healthcare, we need to be careful as we move forward. We need to be sure that the solution is at least close to addressing the problem presented.
LynnMueller lives in Georgetown and worked in government, politics and businesss.
|
Lynn: Thanks for your keen insight on these issues. Gone are the days common sense determines rationale. We are living in an era of blind sentiment. When the Republican Party addresses the issues of global warming (or is it global cooling, since the libs can't make up their mind, now its called climate change) and univeral health care as you have, we will see the tide shifting. This nation is still the greatest nation on this earth. We got that way by open and honest dissent. That seems to be missing today in our nation. Even the liberal reporters in the Whitehouse are seeing this being stifled by an administration that rigs its media briefings. I believe this scripted liberal media biased reporting and this teleprompter dog and pony show is just about over. Even so, the left has been very effective in presenting their vision for America. They have presented socialism in such a way many have accepted it as a needed change. We need to, as you have done, explain our differing views in such a way that it defies argument. I read your letters to the editor and I am always amazed that their is no response from the tree huggers and liberal do gooders in our area. It is not because they don't read what you write. Rather it is written in such a way that I believe challenges their baseless and erroneous positions on these issues. Maybe this response will challenge some of the chatterboxes and allow these very important issues to be further debated. Keep up the good work. Posted by Mike Goude on 7/3/2009 |
