The Republicans roll-out of their Obamacare replacement bill has gone about as well as anybody remotely paying attention to healthcare policy over the last half decade could have predicted. Nobody likes the bill. The right sees it as Obamacare Lite, which they oppose because they don't want Obamacare at all; the left sees it as Obamacare Lite, which they oppose because it doesn't make much sense to replace a bill with a shittier version of the same bill. You can read more about the bill at Vox or from Jonathan Chait or Paul Krugman, but my basic understanding of it is that it's a huge shift of the burden of the cost of healthcare from the young, rich, and healthy to the old, poor, and sick. It's all shrouded in typical Republican nomenclature about "freedom" and "choice" and "small government." (In one hilarious bit of theater that could honestly pass as an SNL sketch if Melissa McCarthy were in frame, Sean Spicer makes the case for the new bill based solely on how many sheets of paper it is. Governance by word count!) But it seems as if nobody, not even other conservatives, are falling for it. There have already been many Republican members of both the House and the Senate who have adamantly come out in opposition to the bill, and most the major "conservative" think tanks are against it as well.
One part of me really wants it to become law. The Dems have been saying one thing about healthcare; the Reps have been saying something else. We got an idea of how the former's plan plays out in practice, so now let's all see how the latter's works. It's a great chance to do an experiment. Also, a lot of the people who are likely to be negatively affected by this new law are people who voted for Trump, so it's only fair they get what they voted for. If their premiums skyrocket or their insurer's marketplace goes into a death spiral or they no longer qualify for the same subsidies they did under Obamacare, then they would have nobody to blame but themselves and the party for which they voted.
But a much bigger part of me doesn't want it to become law because there would be a lot of collateral damage if it did. Many people who opposed Trump would also find healthcare unaffordable, and that's too big a price to pay for an experiment. Plus, the Trump voters hurt by this law probably would not blame themselves or the GOP. They would still find a way to blame Obama and the liber-tards. Sure, the Republicans wrote the bill and they control the presidency and both chambers of Congress, but if you believe that millions (millions!) of people illegally voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election, if you believe that Trump won in an electoral landslide, if you believe that Obama illegally tapped the phones in Trump Towers based on nothing, then surely you will believe that liberals are somehow responsible for the Republicans' healthcare bill. The truest thing Trump ever said is that he could shoot somebody on the street and his supporters still would not abandon him. I now believe this literally, and it is quite scary.
Ultimately, what's going to happen with this bill? Who can say? Nothing would surprise me at this point. The majority opinion is that this bill is "dead on arrival," which, given how the GOP has conducted its business over the last few years, means that we can all expect it to be voted into law very soon.
That is, unless climate change doesn't get us first. I'm only half joking. In my last post of overrated and underrated things, I neglected to mention the most underrated thing of all: climate change. Certainly it is an important topic to many people, and it is covered in the media (the New York Times recently ran this distressing article), but considering the permanent damage anthropogenic global warming could do to human life as we know it, we aren't talking about it nearly enough. It was barely mentioned last year as a campaign topic, and people seem much more concerned with other horrific parts of Trump's presidency (the travel ban, healthcare, Russian ties) than they are with his steady dismantling of our environmental protections. Even the head of the EPA, saying, in so many words, that climate change is bullshit garners much less attention than the Obamacare replacement.
In a way, it's tough to fault people for this, as the terrible things I mention above do deserve attention, and with Lyin' 45 at the helm, tweeting something absurd every other day, it's difficult to keep up with and sort through all the nonsense. But without an environment that's suitable for human beings to live in, everything else becomes pretty much moot, don't ya think?
Recently I came across this interview of Bill Nye by Tucker "You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show" Carlson.
It's not a great segment content-wise but it does illustrate a few tactics that climate change skeptics frequently employ. First, they pretend they're having a good-faith, science-based discussion, but the truth is they want to "get" the other side much more than they want to uncover the truth. This is clear from the ominous, unflattering intro given to Nye. Skeptics seem to be of belief that climate change is something that can be solved by sticking it to the other side.
Second, they simply don't understand the usefulness of science. What science is good for is drawing empirical conclusions. It's about using the available evidence to come up with the most reasonable explanations for phenomena on our planet and in our universe. If you never draw any conclusions then science isn't of much use. Of course, it's good to always have an open-mind and question these conclusions, but at some point you have to roll with what you got or else -- what's the point? So when people say of climate change "we need more information" or "the science isn't settled," it's an indefinite stall tactic. Because for these people there will never be enough evidence to convince them. You can tell this is the case because they never offer what evidence could convince them. Skeptics never say I'll believe you if x because there is no x that will make them believe.
Third, they effectively denounce all science because it's carried out by humans and humans are not omniscient and infallible. This is the line Carlson mostly sticks to in the clip above. He asks Nye "simple" questions that are actually things nobody could possibly answer exactly, and then uses that fact in an attempt to discredit anything else Nye has to say on the matter. The true answer to the question, "What percentage of climate change is caused by humans?" is "We don't know." Nye knows this, but he doesn't want to say it, because he (rightly) understands that it will immediately be (unfairly) throw in his face.
I applaud Nye for going into a very biased environment. I think people need to use any forum they can to warn about the dangers of climate change. It's true that the vast majority of people watching won't change their mind about anything, but with the country divided nearly 50-50 politically, any movement is good. I don't think it was a great performance for Nye, but I don't think it was a terrible one either. The thing I think people need to do with climate change is analogize it to sickness. Here's how I would handle it.
Interviewer: So you think the science on climate change is settled, right?
Me: In the sense that humans are hurting the environment by putting too much carbon into the atmosphere and heating the planet, yes, I think that is settled. If you mean that we know everything there is to know about climate change, and can answer every question on it with 100% accuracy, then of course not. No science is every settled in that way.
Interviewer: What percentage of climate change is caused by humans?
Me: It's impossible to say exactly. But we do know that it's large enough that we would be very wise to do change our behavior.
Interviewer: So it sounds like it isn't settled science -- you can't answer a very simple question about climate change!
Me: Let me give you analogy. Suppose a heavy-drinker goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with liver failure. The doctor obviously would say, "stop drinking." We all agree that that's good advice. Now, the doctor doesn't know exactly what percentage of this person's liver problems is caused by drinking; the doctor doesn't know exactly what would have happened if this person never drank; and the doctor doesn't know exactly what will happen in the future if this person does or doesn't stop drinking. But what they do know is that the drinking causes liver problems, and so this person should stop. That's where we are with climate change. The scientists are the doctors telling us we're making the environment sick, and we're not listening to them.
Interviewer: Yeah, but that's medicine. The difference is that climate change science is so political now.
Me: Not really. The science is science. It's just that people don't like the results so they say it's political to muddy the waters. By the way, people do this on the left too with things like GMOs. The difference is that the fallout from these things and the urgency doesn't remotely compare to climate change.
Interviewer: Okay, then. We are out of time, but you've totally convinced me, and I'm going to donate $100 to Earthjustice after the show, and I'm going to vote against any climate change skeptics in the future elections. Thank you!
Me: My pleasure.
Until next time...
One part of me really wants it to become law. The Dems have been saying one thing about healthcare; the Reps have been saying something else. We got an idea of how the former's plan plays out in practice, so now let's all see how the latter's works. It's a great chance to do an experiment. Also, a lot of the people who are likely to be negatively affected by this new law are people who voted for Trump, so it's only fair they get what they voted for. If their premiums skyrocket or their insurer's marketplace goes into a death spiral or they no longer qualify for the same subsidies they did under Obamacare, then they would have nobody to blame but themselves and the party for which they voted.
But a much bigger part of me doesn't want it to become law because there would be a lot of collateral damage if it did. Many people who opposed Trump would also find healthcare unaffordable, and that's too big a price to pay for an experiment. Plus, the Trump voters hurt by this law probably would not blame themselves or the GOP. They would still find a way to blame Obama and the liber-tards. Sure, the Republicans wrote the bill and they control the presidency and both chambers of Congress, but if you believe that millions (millions!) of people illegally voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election, if you believe that Trump won in an electoral landslide, if you believe that Obama illegally tapped the phones in Trump Towers based on nothing, then surely you will believe that liberals are somehow responsible for the Republicans' healthcare bill. The truest thing Trump ever said is that he could shoot somebody on the street and his supporters still would not abandon him. I now believe this literally, and it is quite scary.
Ultimately, what's going to happen with this bill? Who can say? Nothing would surprise me at this point. The majority opinion is that this bill is "dead on arrival," which, given how the GOP has conducted its business over the last few years, means that we can all expect it to be voted into law very soon.
[Apropos of nothing, here are some desserts S and I got on date night last Saturday. They were $35 because it was at some chichi bistro in downtown DC. I can't really complain though. We at dinner at Qdoba for about $15 combined. Also, the desserts were f*cking amazing! I felt like Vince Vaughn in "Pulp Fiction" drinking the $5 milkshake. The best thing was the dish at the top right. It was a mocha flavored mousse that was absolutely heavenly.]
That is, unless climate change doesn't get us first. I'm only half joking. In my last post of overrated and underrated things, I neglected to mention the most underrated thing of all: climate change. Certainly it is an important topic to many people, and it is covered in the media (the New York Times recently ran this distressing article), but considering the permanent damage anthropogenic global warming could do to human life as we know it, we aren't talking about it nearly enough. It was barely mentioned last year as a campaign topic, and people seem much more concerned with other horrific parts of Trump's presidency (the travel ban, healthcare, Russian ties) than they are with his steady dismantling of our environmental protections. Even the head of the EPA, saying, in so many words, that climate change is bullshit garners much less attention than the Obamacare replacement.
In a way, it's tough to fault people for this, as the terrible things I mention above do deserve attention, and with Lyin' 45 at the helm, tweeting something absurd every other day, it's difficult to keep up with and sort through all the nonsense. But without an environment that's suitable for human beings to live in, everything else becomes pretty much moot, don't ya think?
Recently I came across this interview of Bill Nye by Tucker "You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show" Carlson.
It's not a great segment content-wise but it does illustrate a few tactics that climate change skeptics frequently employ. First, they pretend they're having a good-faith, science-based discussion, but the truth is they want to "get" the other side much more than they want to uncover the truth. This is clear from the ominous, unflattering intro given to Nye. Skeptics seem to be of belief that climate change is something that can be solved by sticking it to the other side.
Second, they simply don't understand the usefulness of science. What science is good for is drawing empirical conclusions. It's about using the available evidence to come up with the most reasonable explanations for phenomena on our planet and in our universe. If you never draw any conclusions then science isn't of much use. Of course, it's good to always have an open-mind and question these conclusions, but at some point you have to roll with what you got or else -- what's the point? So when people say of climate change "we need more information" or "the science isn't settled," it's an indefinite stall tactic. Because for these people there will never be enough evidence to convince them. You can tell this is the case because they never offer what evidence could convince them. Skeptics never say I'll believe you if x because there is no x that will make them believe.
Third, they effectively denounce all science because it's carried out by humans and humans are not omniscient and infallible. This is the line Carlson mostly sticks to in the clip above. He asks Nye "simple" questions that are actually things nobody could possibly answer exactly, and then uses that fact in an attempt to discredit anything else Nye has to say on the matter. The true answer to the question, "What percentage of climate change is caused by humans?" is "We don't know." Nye knows this, but he doesn't want to say it, because he (rightly) understands that it will immediately be (unfairly) throw in his face.
I applaud Nye for going into a very biased environment. I think people need to use any forum they can to warn about the dangers of climate change. It's true that the vast majority of people watching won't change their mind about anything, but with the country divided nearly 50-50 politically, any movement is good. I don't think it was a great performance for Nye, but I don't think it was a terrible one either. The thing I think people need to do with climate change is analogize it to sickness. Here's how I would handle it.
Interviewer: So you think the science on climate change is settled, right?
Me: In the sense that humans are hurting the environment by putting too much carbon into the atmosphere and heating the planet, yes, I think that is settled. If you mean that we know everything there is to know about climate change, and can answer every question on it with 100% accuracy, then of course not. No science is every settled in that way.
Interviewer: What percentage of climate change is caused by humans?
Me: It's impossible to say exactly. But we do know that it's large enough that we would be very wise to do change our behavior.
Interviewer: So it sounds like it isn't settled science -- you can't answer a very simple question about climate change!
Me: Let me give you analogy. Suppose a heavy-drinker goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with liver failure. The doctor obviously would say, "stop drinking." We all agree that that's good advice. Now, the doctor doesn't know exactly what percentage of this person's liver problems is caused by drinking; the doctor doesn't know exactly what would have happened if this person never drank; and the doctor doesn't know exactly what will happen in the future if this person does or doesn't stop drinking. But what they do know is that the drinking causes liver problems, and so this person should stop. That's where we are with climate change. The scientists are the doctors telling us we're making the environment sick, and we're not listening to them.
Interviewer: Yeah, but that's medicine. The difference is that climate change science is so political now.
Me: Not really. The science is science. It's just that people don't like the results so they say it's political to muddy the waters. By the way, people do this on the left too with things like GMOs. The difference is that the fallout from these things and the urgency doesn't remotely compare to climate change.
Interviewer: Okay, then. We are out of time, but you've totally convinced me, and I'm going to donate $100 to Earthjustice after the show, and I'm going to vote against any climate change skeptics in the future elections. Thank you!
Me: My pleasure.
Until next time...
No comments:
Post a Comment