Andrea Castillo
Pat yourselves on the back and create a fan page on Facebook; your student government is about to save the planet. There has been raucous debate that spans from community discourse all the way to an international summit in Copenhagen concerning the health of our planet and humanity's role and degree in contributing to its harm. But don’t worry, FSU SGA has all the answers and is here to save the day. They have proposed a new “Green Fee” which will help promote sustainability on campus.
The best news? SGA’s proposal will only cost you 50 cents more per credit hour. That is, of course, after the $9.97 per credit hour Activities and Service Fee, the recently-established $2 per credit hour increase to help fund the fancy new health center that probably won't be built until after you graduate, the $6.77 per credit hour Athletic fee that helps fund the various gym and sports complexes that you may or may not actually use, and the $7.40 per credit hour Transportation fee to help subsidize the bus fare for the students that actually ride the bus, among other things. But don’t worry, our wise student representatives see important uses for more of your money—or at least that’s what they want us to believe.
Instead of buying into the green fee, and SGA’s good intentions, we should all question the wisdom in appropriating more fee money for a new cause when SGA already wastes so much money.
If our Student Government is the judge, jury, and executioner of where and when our funds will be spent, the results will be as disastrous as they are unabashedly wasteful. Far from representing the "student body's interest", our representatives appear to be united in their quest to serve their own individual interests with vigor. I implore every reader to make at least one trip to a Senate meeting to see firsthand the problem about which I speak – they meet every Wednesday at 7PM in the 3rd floor of the Union (look for the room with the big comfortable-looking leather chairs, you can't miss it). How can we expect a body, like our Student Senate, that accepts a weekly bribe from Aramark Food Services (a generous buffet complete with chicken strips, gourmet cookies and punch) and celebrates itself with SGA Senate Appreciation Day, to know the first thing about conservation of anything? If people in student government desire sustainability, perhaps they should work with the money they already have, cut some perks, trips and budgets, and get serious about the plight of the average student.
Few people will object to the stated goals of green initiatives; we all live on the same planet and benefit from not having to worry about being pelted by acid rain every time we step outside. On a more specific level, even fewer people would probably object to the Florida State University campus taking positive cost-conscious steps towards improving our campus's efficiency while identifying and eliminating potential sources of waste.
The easiest and most effective way that FSU can decrease the size of our carbon footprint would also alleviate the strains of the state-wide education budget cuts: hire an outside professional auditing agency to review FSU's budget and identify sources of waste and redundancy. The money that the school would save could then be channeled towards investments in green technology that would save the school money on energy costs. Just because something is called "green" does not necessarily mean it is a positive good for all parties involved; professionals should be consulted to pinpoint which specific devices would promote sustainability and be economically beneficial for our campus. This solution would put a stop to current waste while allowing for investment in environmentally-conscious technology, and it wouldn't cost you or I one cent more than what we are currently paying.
Though the proponents of this green fee may lead you to believe otherwise, their stated objectives towards environmental harmony are far from pure and selfless. On the contrary, if our student leaders and the real-life politicians that are supporting them were really genuine about environmental protection, their plans would not involve self-serving student body politics and opportunities to put your name on a new solar panel installation. Ultimately, I implore all students to scrutinize any platform or stated goal of any politician; be it Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner on the national level or the kid who sits next to you in Biology class on the campus level. Any idiot can promise you "green initiatives" and "job creation" but it is doubtful that such initiatives will provide worthwhile solutions to real life problems.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Global Warming: Shifting the Debate
Matthew Allen Miller
Many arguments for government action resemble the following non sequitur: “X is a problem; therefore government action is necessary to address X.” Unfortunately, the validity of these kinds of arguments often goes unquestioned, even by those who disagree with whatever the conclusion happens to be. Instead, many focus only on the premise: they debate whether X is actually the case, or whether X is even a problem. Few, it seems, are concerned with whether the conclusion (that government action is necessary) logically follows from the premise.
This seems to be true of the debate about anthropogenic (“man-made”) global warming (AGW). Now, I’m hardly competent to judge the relevant science, and I doubt most involved in the debate are either. But it seems to me that the science is where too much of the debate is focused. That is, skeptics question the truth of AGW and the science meant to support it. While I certainly have my doubts about AGW, for practical purposes I choose to remain agnostic. This is partly due to my above-mentioned scientific incompetence. But it is also because I believe it is more important and productive to place my skepticism elsewhere. What I prefer to argue is that, even if AGW is true, it hardly follows that we ought to empower government to take measures to reverse it.
Logic tells us that, in order to reach this conclusion, at least both of the following must be true: (1) Human planning has a good chance of reversing the climate trends of planet Earth. (2) Government is the best candidate for successfully designing and implementing the plan.
One might argue for (1), stating that “we started the trend, so surely we can reverse it.” But this neglects the important distinction between unintended results of mere human action, and intended results of human designs or plans. If AGW is true, it is the unintended result of billions of humans acting in pursuit of their interests. But no one planned it. However, reversing the climate trends of planet Earth must be designed or planned. But the plan to reverse AGW would necessarily run against the grain of those countless human actions which are said to be responsible for AGW in the first place. Think of the measures which would have to be taken, and the resistance they would face. This conflict casts significant doubt on whether any plan to reverse AGW can successfully be implemented.
This doubt should increase when we consider (2) that the plan to reverse AGW is to be designed and enforced by government. This is the same institution running the post office, the DMV, and Amtrak (to name just a few); the workings of which cannot compare to the efficiency of private enterprise. An important reason for this is the problem of incentives. If those in the private sector fail, they lose profits and go out of business. But if a government agency fails, the likely result is that it will get more tax dollars and more power. Those in government have little incentive to get things right. But they do have the incentive to stay in power, and thus to please those who will help keep them there. This means, for example, pleasing those in big-business and heavily-unionized industries. But these interest groups are often involved in activities that are said to be responsible for AGW in the first place. How can we expect those in government to please these folks and reverse AGW at the same time? It is doubtful that they can.
The lessons to take home are the following. First, humility and honesty demand that we recognize our limited capacity to engineer a reversal in the climate trends of planet Earth. Second, a realistic understanding of the true nature and workings of those in government suggests that we should be suspicious of government solutions to AGW. Both points directly challenge those who want to empower government to take action. But the above ideas also challenge AGW skeptics to recognize that, in addition to arguing against the science, a more obvious and compelling case can be made against the idea that government is capable of solving the problems presented by AGW.
Many arguments for government action resemble the following non sequitur: “X is a problem; therefore government action is necessary to address X.” Unfortunately, the validity of these kinds of arguments often goes unquestioned, even by those who disagree with whatever the conclusion happens to be. Instead, many focus only on the premise: they debate whether X is actually the case, or whether X is even a problem. Few, it seems, are concerned with whether the conclusion (that government action is necessary) logically follows from the premise.
This seems to be true of the debate about anthropogenic (“man-made”) global warming (AGW). Now, I’m hardly competent to judge the relevant science, and I doubt most involved in the debate are either. But it seems to me that the science is where too much of the debate is focused. That is, skeptics question the truth of AGW and the science meant to support it. While I certainly have my doubts about AGW, for practical purposes I choose to remain agnostic. This is partly due to my above-mentioned scientific incompetence. But it is also because I believe it is more important and productive to place my skepticism elsewhere. What I prefer to argue is that, even if AGW is true, it hardly follows that we ought to empower government to take measures to reverse it.
Logic tells us that, in order to reach this conclusion, at least both of the following must be true: (1) Human planning has a good chance of reversing the climate trends of planet Earth. (2) Government is the best candidate for successfully designing and implementing the plan.
One might argue for (1), stating that “we started the trend, so surely we can reverse it.” But this neglects the important distinction between unintended results of mere human action, and intended results of human designs or plans. If AGW is true, it is the unintended result of billions of humans acting in pursuit of their interests. But no one planned it. However, reversing the climate trends of planet Earth must be designed or planned. But the plan to reverse AGW would necessarily run against the grain of those countless human actions which are said to be responsible for AGW in the first place. Think of the measures which would have to be taken, and the resistance they would face. This conflict casts significant doubt on whether any plan to reverse AGW can successfully be implemented.
This doubt should increase when we consider (2) that the plan to reverse AGW is to be designed and enforced by government. This is the same institution running the post office, the DMV, and Amtrak (to name just a few); the workings of which cannot compare to the efficiency of private enterprise. An important reason for this is the problem of incentives. If those in the private sector fail, they lose profits and go out of business. But if a government agency fails, the likely result is that it will get more tax dollars and more power. Those in government have little incentive to get things right. But they do have the incentive to stay in power, and thus to please those who will help keep them there. This means, for example, pleasing those in big-business and heavily-unionized industries. But these interest groups are often involved in activities that are said to be responsible for AGW in the first place. How can we expect those in government to please these folks and reverse AGW at the same time? It is doubtful that they can.
The lessons to take home are the following. First, humility and honesty demand that we recognize our limited capacity to engineer a reversal in the climate trends of planet Earth. Second, a realistic understanding of the true nature and workings of those in government suggests that we should be suspicious of government solutions to AGW. Both points directly challenge those who want to empower government to take action. But the above ideas also challenge AGW skeptics to recognize that, in addition to arguing against the science, a more obvious and compelling case can be made against the idea that government is capable of solving the problems presented by AGW.
Climate-Gate: All About Science or Just Money?
Amar Ali
What is the climate really? What are people talking about when they say “the climate” or “climate change”? In all the arguing and back and forth about global warming and climate change, we may have lost sight of an underlying concept which is central to grasping this widely discussed issue.
The definition of climate is “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.”1
So what we think of as the climate is essentially a running average of the weather. Similarly, climate change is basically a conclusion reached by looking at trends in the historical record.
The conclusion that climate change and global warming is occurring was reached by a bare simple majority of scientists (not climate experts) who claimed that there was a rise in the world’s average temperature. They argued that this rise is clearly attributed to a rise in carbon dioxide or CO2 level in the atmosphere, which, in turn, is directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels by humans.
Now if you have taken a statistics or econometrics class or you’re just a sports enthusiast, you know the enormous room for miscalculation and manipulation that exists when calculating averages. Imagine for example, if you looked at the batting average for any run of the mill rookie and averaged in Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire’s record blowing, once in a life time averages in the 1998 season (during their heyday). The addition of Sosa and McGwire’s averages would certainly throw off the average of all rookies. This would seem suspicious to say the least. Yet that is exactly what climate scientists have been caught doing.2 But its not just inflating the numbers. If we only looked at Sammy Sosa’s batting average for 1998 and said that was the average for his entire career, which would be a completely unsubstantiated claim.3
Recently, evidence has been uncovered that shows that advocates of the theory of global warming have manipulated the data in order to support their assertions. They have lost data and hidden evidence, downplayed previous non-human induced warming cycles, and covered up evidence which suggests that there has been no global warming since 1995. The data, unfortunately for the global warmers, did not go along with their theory.4
So what explains this manipulation and fabrication of data? Why would someone knowingly lie and continue to do so when they knew the opposite was true? As a cynic once advised, we should follow the money for people’s true motivations. Fear and hysteria can lead people to act differently than they normally would, including giving billions to fear-mongerers and snake oil salesmen who insist that only they know the problem and the solution.5
What is worse is most people’s ignorance of science leads them to shift the debate away from the faulty science and manipulation by agenda and greed driven scientists. Many people forget basic facts taught in their high school biology classes: that the so-called pollutant, CO2, is a byproduct of all life on earth, whether humans are breathing it out or plants taking it in during photosynthesis.6 The lack of scientific knowledge leads many people to accept global warming and enter into a useless discussion about who can or cannot best solve the problems brought on by climate. But why solve a problem that doesn’t exist? The only problem here is fraud, lack of transparency and most importantly, greed.7
1.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate
2.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
3.Ibid
4.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
What is the climate really? What are people talking about when they say “the climate” or “climate change”? In all the arguing and back and forth about global warming and climate change, we may have lost sight of an underlying concept which is central to grasping this widely discussed issue.
The definition of climate is “the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.”1
So what we think of as the climate is essentially a running average of the weather. Similarly, climate change is basically a conclusion reached by looking at trends in the historical record.
The conclusion that climate change and global warming is occurring was reached by a bare simple majority of scientists (not climate experts) who claimed that there was a rise in the world’s average temperature. They argued that this rise is clearly attributed to a rise in carbon dioxide or CO2 level in the atmosphere, which, in turn, is directly linked to the burning of fossil fuels by humans.
Now if you have taken a statistics or econometrics class or you’re just a sports enthusiast, you know the enormous room for miscalculation and manipulation that exists when calculating averages. Imagine for example, if you looked at the batting average for any run of the mill rookie and averaged in Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire’s record blowing, once in a life time averages in the 1998 season (during their heyday). The addition of Sosa and McGwire’s averages would certainly throw off the average of all rookies. This would seem suspicious to say the least. Yet that is exactly what climate scientists have been caught doing.2 But its not just inflating the numbers. If we only looked at Sammy Sosa’s batting average for 1998 and said that was the average for his entire career, which would be a completely unsubstantiated claim.3
Recently, evidence has been uncovered that shows that advocates of the theory of global warming have manipulated the data in order to support their assertions. They have lost data and hidden evidence, downplayed previous non-human induced warming cycles, and covered up evidence which suggests that there has been no global warming since 1995. The data, unfortunately for the global warmers, did not go along with their theory.4
So what explains this manipulation and fabrication of data? Why would someone knowingly lie and continue to do so when they knew the opposite was true? As a cynic once advised, we should follow the money for people’s true motivations. Fear and hysteria can lead people to act differently than they normally would, including giving billions to fear-mongerers and snake oil salesmen who insist that only they know the problem and the solution.5
What is worse is most people’s ignorance of science leads them to shift the debate away from the faulty science and manipulation by agenda and greed driven scientists. Many people forget basic facts taught in their high school biology classes: that the so-called pollutant, CO2, is a byproduct of all life on earth, whether humans are breathing it out or plants taking it in during photosynthesis.6 The lack of scientific knowledge leads many people to accept global warming and enter into a useless discussion about who can or cannot best solve the problems brought on by climate. But why solve a problem that doesn’t exist? The only problem here is fraud, lack of transparency and most importantly, greed.7
1.http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate
2.http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
3.Ibid
4.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html
The Environment Protected by Private Property Rights
Alex Boler
The environment is threatened by polluting industries, poachers, trash and more trash, and a long list of other things, all caused by man. The solution is simple: more government regulation. Right?
Well, no. There is a better alternative: bolstering private property rights and privatizing public spaces is a better solution to preserving the environment and valuable property.
Private property rights ensure that if one person (or business) violates another’s property with pollution, the harmed party is able to recoup damages (through the legal system). Should your neighbor pour some chemicals on your lawn, and it causes damage to you or your property, you can sue for restitution and recompense. This offsets the damage to your property, plus it punishes the polluter. Under a system where property rights were expanded, and public lands were privatized, polluters would be much less inclined to take action that would damage another party’s property and the environment.
However, in our current system, many polluters are able to pollute public spaces because there is no private owner inclined to protect that space. In our current system it is more cost effective to pollute than innovate. If public spaces were privately held, industry would need to be more responsive to the damages they were causing other property owners. Under such circumstances, industry would be more likely to innovate, and as a result the environment would benefit.
We can also protect endangered species by reinforcing private property rights. Poaching of endangered species mostly occurs in the public lands. If poaching occurred on private property it would simply be trespassing, destruction of property, and theft. Hunting on private lands is often managed by the owner in order to preserve the value of the property.
A good example of this can be seen in Africa, where in many places wild animals on public lands were being poached to the extent that many were coming dangerously close to local extinction. This changed in certain areas, when local tribes were given property rights and allowed to harvest the animals as a resource. The tribes saw that it was important to protect these animals. The tribes guarded the animals, and the poachers were able to turn to a more efficient legal enterprise. As a result, in some areas wild animal populations have rebounded.
In the United States, bison were once an endangered species, but property rights and the profit motive have helped their numbers grow. Ted Turner, the largest private landowner in the United States, raises bison on several of his ranches. He now serves bison meat in his restaurants. Because of this, bison, now a resource, have become more plentiful.
Fundamentally, when a person places greater value on property rights, he also places greater value on the environment. His preferences are affected such that he is less likely to harm the environment when making rational decisions. Harm to the environment is viewed as a cost. One of the best ways to decrease a person’s likelihood to harm the environment is to increase his valuation of it. This can be done by education, so that individuals like and enjoy the environment, but the most direct way is to privatize public spaces. In a system where private property rights dominate all spaces, harm to the property of another will be punished in arbitration.
Legislation created by a group of power-hungry politicians, and enforced by a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats, is very unlikely to do any net-good. In the end, private property rights are the better alternative. They ensure that the incentives necessary for human prosperity are in place, and such rights create a situation in which the environment can be protected legally and fairly.
The environment is threatened by polluting industries, poachers, trash and more trash, and a long list of other things, all caused by man. The solution is simple: more government regulation. Right?
Well, no. There is a better alternative: bolstering private property rights and privatizing public spaces is a better solution to preserving the environment and valuable property.
Private property rights ensure that if one person (or business) violates another’s property with pollution, the harmed party is able to recoup damages (through the legal system). Should your neighbor pour some chemicals on your lawn, and it causes damage to you or your property, you can sue for restitution and recompense. This offsets the damage to your property, plus it punishes the polluter. Under a system where property rights were expanded, and public lands were privatized, polluters would be much less inclined to take action that would damage another party’s property and the environment.
However, in our current system, many polluters are able to pollute public spaces because there is no private owner inclined to protect that space. In our current system it is more cost effective to pollute than innovate. If public spaces were privately held, industry would need to be more responsive to the damages they were causing other property owners. Under such circumstances, industry would be more likely to innovate, and as a result the environment would benefit.
We can also protect endangered species by reinforcing private property rights. Poaching of endangered species mostly occurs in the public lands. If poaching occurred on private property it would simply be trespassing, destruction of property, and theft. Hunting on private lands is often managed by the owner in order to preserve the value of the property.
A good example of this can be seen in Africa, where in many places wild animals on public lands were being poached to the extent that many were coming dangerously close to local extinction. This changed in certain areas, when local tribes were given property rights and allowed to harvest the animals as a resource. The tribes saw that it was important to protect these animals. The tribes guarded the animals, and the poachers were able to turn to a more efficient legal enterprise. As a result, in some areas wild animal populations have rebounded.
In the United States, bison were once an endangered species, but property rights and the profit motive have helped their numbers grow. Ted Turner, the largest private landowner in the United States, raises bison on several of his ranches. He now serves bison meat in his restaurants. Because of this, bison, now a resource, have become more plentiful.
Fundamentally, when a person places greater value on property rights, he also places greater value on the environment. His preferences are affected such that he is less likely to harm the environment when making rational decisions. Harm to the environment is viewed as a cost. One of the best ways to decrease a person’s likelihood to harm the environment is to increase his valuation of it. This can be done by education, so that individuals like and enjoy the environment, but the most direct way is to privatize public spaces. In a system where private property rights dominate all spaces, harm to the property of another will be punished in arbitration.
Legislation created by a group of power-hungry politicians, and enforced by a bunch of incompetent bureaucrats, is very unlikely to do any net-good. In the end, private property rights are the better alternative. They ensure that the incentives necessary for human prosperity are in place, and such rights create a situation in which the environment can be protected legally and fairly.
Don’t Squash the Litterbug
Tom Laughlin
Have you ever seen someone just drop a piece of litter in front of you? Have you ever missed the trash can when practicing your three-pointers? As an onlooker of either of these events, it’s hard not to cringe at seeing another piece of refuge join its nomadic relatives found in public parks, along interstates or in just about any public venue you can imagine.
We’ve grown up under constant pressure to pick up after ourselves and recycle at every opportunity we get. But, why is it that, even after the wide-spread campaigns and community service efforts of your local penal institution, we can still find litter in any public area?
Consider first the definition of the word ‘litter’. Litter is often defined as waste that is unlawfully disposed of on public lands. This might seem like subtle matter to most people, but litter is different than trash, because it can only exist in the public domain. Although trash in its various forms does exist in private establishments; it is not considered litter. When you leave a messy plate and crumpled napkins at a table in a restaurant, you haven’t littered. Likewise, in the pristine, sterile laboratories of a microchip manufacturer, hair or oil from skin left behind isn’t considered litter either.
After all, these are all examples of types of waste, so what’s the difference? The difference is that in these private sector examples, the demands of consumers regulate the health of the environment. In a laboratory or hospital where sterility is next to godliness, waste will contribute to product malfunctions or a patient may become infected. Either case is detrimental to the bottom line of the establishment for obvious reasons. In fact, the owner of a trashed restaurant, a grimy ER room or a dusty lab will soon find himself in bankruptcy and removed from
inconveniencing or harming anyone at all. Fundamentally, the profit motive is a direct incentive to keep trash, even trash at a microscopic level, clear of earning the ire of a population.
The fact of the matter is that people, for sake of their flawed humanity, will inevitably continue to leave garbage, trash, skin cells and other refuge wherever and whenever they choose. The private sector will make due with this unsavory revelation in accordance with what is tolerable to all of us consumers.
In the end, we do still have the problem of litter existing in public places. If not for the charitable nature of volunteers and others, we would likely find our roadways, water and parks covered in litter. So what should we do about this perpetual problem? Enacting new bureaucracies or enacting new laws to try to counter human nature seems less than enticing, as well as ineffective. If we really care about the environment and if we are tired of seeing it littered and polluted, then we should shift stewardship and ownership of public lands to the people who will best take care of it: private land owners.
Have you ever seen someone just drop a piece of litter in front of you? Have you ever missed the trash can when practicing your three-pointers? As an onlooker of either of these events, it’s hard not to cringe at seeing another piece of refuge join its nomadic relatives found in public parks, along interstates or in just about any public venue you can imagine.
We’ve grown up under constant pressure to pick up after ourselves and recycle at every opportunity we get. But, why is it that, even after the wide-spread campaigns and community service efforts of your local penal institution, we can still find litter in any public area?
Consider first the definition of the word ‘litter’. Litter is often defined as waste that is unlawfully disposed of on public lands. This might seem like subtle matter to most people, but litter is different than trash, because it can only exist in the public domain. Although trash in its various forms does exist in private establishments; it is not considered litter. When you leave a messy plate and crumpled napkins at a table in a restaurant, you haven’t littered. Likewise, in the pristine, sterile laboratories of a microchip manufacturer, hair or oil from skin left behind isn’t considered litter either.
After all, these are all examples of types of waste, so what’s the difference? The difference is that in these private sector examples, the demands of consumers regulate the health of the environment. In a laboratory or hospital where sterility is next to godliness, waste will contribute to product malfunctions or a patient may become infected. Either case is detrimental to the bottom line of the establishment for obvious reasons. In fact, the owner of a trashed restaurant, a grimy ER room or a dusty lab will soon find himself in bankruptcy and removed from
inconveniencing or harming anyone at all. Fundamentally, the profit motive is a direct incentive to keep trash, even trash at a microscopic level, clear of earning the ire of a population.
The fact of the matter is that people, for sake of their flawed humanity, will inevitably continue to leave garbage, trash, skin cells and other refuge wherever and whenever they choose. The private sector will make due with this unsavory revelation in accordance with what is tolerable to all of us consumers.
In the end, we do still have the problem of litter existing in public places. If not for the charitable nature of volunteers and others, we would likely find our roadways, water and parks covered in litter. So what should we do about this perpetual problem? Enacting new bureaucracies or enacting new laws to try to counter human nature seems less than enticing, as well as ineffective. If we really care about the environment and if we are tired of seeing it littered and polluted, then we should shift stewardship and ownership of public lands to the people who will best take care of it: private land owners.
Readers Response: Healthcare
Patients First
Andrew Hautau
After going to a church retreat about a month ago, I soon discovered that it was perhaps unwise to have played ultimate frisbee in the cold and rain. The next day I came down with the flu, and by mid week I was scrambling to find a walk-in clinic that might provide some help. I decided to go to one of the many "Patients First" walk-in clinics in town, as it seemed convenient enough. After giving the receptionist my insurance information and waiting for an hour, I was turned away because that particular office would not accept either of my insurance plans. I am covered twice over as a dependent, and I was still not accepted at this particular office. Over the flu.
I was pointed to another "Patients First" clinic on the other side of town that would accept my insurance. As I waited to see the doctor, I was dismayed to see what might arguably be the culmination of what I see as wrong with a capitalist health care system. Gift cards. Yes, you read correctly. A sign, apparently for the holiday season, hung over the cards that said something to the effect of "For that special someone this holiday season." The card is labeled as "Care Ca$h", as though one were buying the equivalent of a card from Best Buy.
If you find this as laughable, please pause for a moment and ask yourself, why is this so funny? The "Care Ca$h" gift cards at the "Patients First" clinics here in Tallahassee are only the logical culmination of a health care system that is built around profit. This system is built around distributing health care as a product or service, just as many conservatives and libertarians espouse as the solution to all problems. In fact, as the argument goes, government only stands in the way of real solutions to all the problems of the system. In a single payer system, there would be no need for "Care Ca$h" cards, and "Patients First" would become more than a pithy name. While greed and profit may be an excellent motivation for other aspects of our economy, it should have no place in dictating public health. Alexander Hamilton once said, "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments." We desperately need that moderation.
***If you would like to respond to any article please go to thefreepressfsu.blogspot.com or e-mail us with a 300-400 word response.
Andrew Hautau
After going to a church retreat about a month ago, I soon discovered that it was perhaps unwise to have played ultimate frisbee in the cold and rain. The next day I came down with the flu, and by mid week I was scrambling to find a walk-in clinic that might provide some help. I decided to go to one of the many "Patients First" walk-in clinics in town, as it seemed convenient enough. After giving the receptionist my insurance information and waiting for an hour, I was turned away because that particular office would not accept either of my insurance plans. I am covered twice over as a dependent, and I was still not accepted at this particular office. Over the flu.
I was pointed to another "Patients First" clinic on the other side of town that would accept my insurance. As I waited to see the doctor, I was dismayed to see what might arguably be the culmination of what I see as wrong with a capitalist health care system. Gift cards. Yes, you read correctly. A sign, apparently for the holiday season, hung over the cards that said something to the effect of "For that special someone this holiday season." The card is labeled as "Care Ca$h", as though one were buying the equivalent of a card from Best Buy.
If you find this as laughable, please pause for a moment and ask yourself, why is this so funny? The "Care Ca$h" gift cards at the "Patients First" clinics here in Tallahassee are only the logical culmination of a health care system that is built around profit. This system is built around distributing health care as a product or service, just as many conservatives and libertarians espouse as the solution to all problems. In fact, as the argument goes, government only stands in the way of real solutions to all the problems of the system. In a single payer system, there would be no need for "Care Ca$h" cards, and "Patients First" would become more than a pithy name. While greed and profit may be an excellent motivation for other aspects of our economy, it should have no place in dictating public health. Alexander Hamilton once said, "Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments." We desperately need that moderation.
***If you would like to respond to any article please go to thefreepressfsu.blogspot.com or e-mail us with a 300-400 word response.
A DIFFERENT TAKE
Gore Children Sit Upstairs Frightened After Dad Ruins Another Family Dinner
G.T. Johnson
Nashville, TN-- The four children of former Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore sat nervously in their bedrooms Tuesday evening as their parents engaged in a heated fight in the downstairs kitchen. Daughters Kristin, 32, and Sarah, 31, were visiting Al and Tipper Gore after a skiing trip in Gatlinburg, while eldest daughter Karenna, 36, was in town with her husband Dr. Andrew Schiff. Albert III, 26, made a rare appearance from his parents’ basement to join the family for dinner.
Joined by Dr. Schiff, the family exchanged in pleasant conversation over their meal until a comment by Tipper on the weather created an uncomfortable moment at the table. “Were you able to park in the garage? It sure is cold outside.” The children stopped eating, knowing how much their father hates when anyone mentions the cold. They slowly looked up from their meals and nervously glanced over at their dad who was staring across the table at their mom. They sunk down in their seats, fearing another overreaction.
“Kids, why don’t you go to your rooms,” said Al Gore as he moved his fingers along the toothed blade of his steak knife.
Dr. Schiff’s mother offered reporters a comment on the situation. “Andrew called me at about 7:30 last night. He said that Karenna’s mom and dad were fighting in the kitchen and that he was really scared. When I went to go pick him up I could hear screaming from the kitchen and blood was coming out from under the door.”
Tipper stood in the corner weeping frantically while Al inexplicably plunged his knife into the flesh of their cat, skinning it alive while he yelled at his wife for trying to undermine proven science in front of their children. At the top of the stairs, Karenna held her arms around her crying sisters as she listened to the sounds of her howling mother and shrieking kitten. Karenna hated for her younger siblings to hear their parents fight, and tried to reassure them that mom and dad were not getting a divorce. In the basement, young Albert hid under his bed while covering his ears with his hands.
When leaving the house early Wednesday morning to go pick up her husband and drive back home, Karenna offered to tell reporters, “Dad tends to get really angry sometimes. It scares us a little, but we’re used to it. I just don’t understand why he always has to slaughter one of our pets. That’s all I have to say on the matter.”
G.T. Johnson
Nashville, TN-- The four children of former Vice President and environmental activist Al Gore sat nervously in their bedrooms Tuesday evening as their parents engaged in a heated fight in the downstairs kitchen. Daughters Kristin, 32, and Sarah, 31, were visiting Al and Tipper Gore after a skiing trip in Gatlinburg, while eldest daughter Karenna, 36, was in town with her husband Dr. Andrew Schiff. Albert III, 26, made a rare appearance from his parents’ basement to join the family for dinner.
Joined by Dr. Schiff, the family exchanged in pleasant conversation over their meal until a comment by Tipper on the weather created an uncomfortable moment at the table. “Were you able to park in the garage? It sure is cold outside.” The children stopped eating, knowing how much their father hates when anyone mentions the cold. They slowly looked up from their meals and nervously glanced over at their dad who was staring across the table at their mom. They sunk down in their seats, fearing another overreaction.
“Kids, why don’t you go to your rooms,” said Al Gore as he moved his fingers along the toothed blade of his steak knife.
Dr. Schiff’s mother offered reporters a comment on the situation. “Andrew called me at about 7:30 last night. He said that Karenna’s mom and dad were fighting in the kitchen and that he was really scared. When I went to go pick him up I could hear screaming from the kitchen and blood was coming out from under the door.”
Tipper stood in the corner weeping frantically while Al inexplicably plunged his knife into the flesh of their cat, skinning it alive while he yelled at his wife for trying to undermine proven science in front of their children. At the top of the stairs, Karenna held her arms around her crying sisters as she listened to the sounds of her howling mother and shrieking kitten. Karenna hated for her younger siblings to hear their parents fight, and tried to reassure them that mom and dad were not getting a divorce. In the basement, young Albert hid under his bed while covering his ears with his hands.
When leaving the house early Wednesday morning to go pick up her husband and drive back home, Karenna offered to tell reporters, “Dad tends to get really angry sometimes. It scares us a little, but we’re used to it. I just don’t understand why he always has to slaughter one of our pets. That’s all I have to say on the matter.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)