Well said, Greg.

Greg,

What do you suggest we do to generate electricity for our homes and businesses, power our cars, power agricultural equipment, power the trucks that move products to market, and heat our homes? I suppose we could all drive Chevy Volts. But wait, those run on coal. And that's a fossil fuel. And they no longer make them because nobody wants to buy them.

I have not been able to find any evidence of direct subsidies paid to the oil companies. They have certain tax incentives and breaks like many other companies do, but I've found no direct subsidies. If you want to talk about direct subsidies, maybe you should talk about the farmers (also known as the new rich) who have received billions in direct subsidies from the taxpayers in the last few decades. Is it also bad if farmers are profitable?

Who do you think determines the price of gas at the pump? If you think the oil companies set the price, you're mistaken. If that were the case they would simply set the price at $10 and maximize their profits. Oil is bought and sold on the free market and subject to market influences like every other commodity.

Regarding the BP oil spill, who would you rather have drilling in the Gulf, US interests or the Chinese? Who do you think would have more incentive to prevent spills? Besides nature did a pretty good job of cleaning up the spill. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2066031,00.html

The world runs on oil. You gotta better idea?

Markus - Why should the people, communities and businesses in the Gulf, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Iraq, and many more places have to pay with their health, livelihood and well-being so we can drive gas-guzzling vehicles?

If there was ANY real commitment to reducing energy consumption (i.e., comparable government subsidies for the development of more efficient vehicles, mass transit, etc.) by Republicans, rather than this drill-baby-drill nonsense, you might have a point. But the fact is that Rep. Bachmann and her party are too busy cow-towing to the enormously powerful oil companies to focus on long-term solutions.

The massive tax breaks -- possibly $41 billion according to the Christian Science Monitor -- are unnecessary, inappropriate, and unpopular with Americans. A poll by NBC and the Wall St. Journal (not exactly liberal organizations) showed that 74 percent of Americans favor removing the tax breaks oil companies receive. And why shouldn't they? The oil companies are not hurting, in fact they're making record profits. And if, like you say, they aren't responsible for gas prices, the subsidies and tax breaks they receive are indeed pointless. (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0309/Budget-hawks-Does-US-need-to-give-gas-and-oil-companies-41-billion-a-year)

Obviously we could go around an around on this, but Ms. Bachmann is not doing Americans today or in the future any favors with her short-sighted opinions and policies.

Markus,
Your comments regarding the Chevy Volt are narrow-minded and naive. Production was temporarily stopped because of a surplus. Sales had slowed because of bad press regarding a faulty battery. That's bad engineering not a lack of desire for something better. Coal may be the main electricity source in Minnesota but not everyone. Some of us are embracing clean energy like wind.

@ Kevin Farnsworth,

I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that it takes 26.6 years for the Chevy Volt to make up for the cost difference from the Chevy Cruze Eco in gas savings.

Have you ever driven through northern IA or sw MN? Those thousands of windmills are the biggest blight on the landscape I've ever seen. Iowa would need 7 times as many as they have now to power the state literally covering the state with windmills. They would need one ever two square miles to power the state. Ick. That's with a population of 3 million. How are you going to power California with 55 million people?

Now if you built nuclear plants to power your Volt, I might go along with you.

@ Greg,

You never answered my question. What's your idea?

How am I going to get to White Bear Lake from Stillwater to work on mass transit without wasting half my day?

Christine,

You may not have a problem with high fuel prices. Our business is highly dependent on the ability to deliver our product to our customers and higher gas prices have a huge effect on our bottom line. Fuel is one of our largest expenses. Your myopic view of gas prices is kind of silly. And I smelled Mrs. Bachmann's breath just the other day and it definitely was not stanky.

"Oil comes from the ground and is naturally dispensed when dumped onto the earth."

Incoherent, much?

Renee, oil is being dumped onto th earth every day of the year. It's oozing from the bottem of the Gulf of Mexico every day of the year with NO assistance from humans.

This natural dumping of oil results in some natural pollution but no different than manmade oil spills.

Jim,

The small amount that oozes from the bottom of the gulf has no impact on wildlife. It was the massive man-made spill that continues to kill thousands of dolphins.

" no different than manmade oil spills."

Natural spilling of oil is hugely different from manmade oil spills in environmental impact. AND we can control the manmade pollution, as we should.

Yes. The President really wants $6 a gallon gas... That's why he is pushing for higher fuel standards and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Unreal. Get out of the bubble sir.

All I can say is that I hope, as in hope and change, that our president gets his $6/gal gas prior to the 2012 election, that WILL ensure he won't get elected.

In fact when gas goes over $4/gal this summer and peoples credit card bills come in the mail and they have no money to buy food because of the price of gas, they will not be supporting a guy who welcomes $6/gal gas.

It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out if oil supplies rise prices will go down and the Keystone pipeline would have increased supplies in the USA going forward.

"It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out if oil supplies rise prices will go down and the Keystone pipeline would have increased supplies in the USA going forward."

It doesn't take one brain cell to realize that the Keystone pipeline will proportionally add one drop to the bucket and have almost no impact on gas prices. Get the facts. That data is showing that this isn't the answer.

Jim,

According to republicans and the healthcare debate, driving a car is a choice and gas is a freely regulated by markets, which in turn has nothing to do with Obama or government intervention. A question, as I am guessing you are not for Obama or big government, how do you reconcile your obviously opposing views on the subject of the role of government?

OK all you "NO DRILLING" Obama supporters, keep on locking down oil supplies.

We'll see how much love the workers in the USA have for the President this fall.

One thing is clear, No drilling means lower supplies, More drilling means more supply.

Understand? I thought it was pretty clear even to those with only one brain cell.

"One thing is clear, No drilling means lower supplies, More drilling means more supply."

You don't get it. That boat has sailed. We're facing a crisis of epic proportions. Drill baby drill is too little, too late and at a high environmental cost. Focusing effort and resources on a few drops more and it's contribution to mass extinction is a dead end. Literally.

The same old, same old won't work. There's something about that definition of insanity and doing the same thing and expecting to get different results . . . we won't get different results by drilling more . . . same crisis, just prolonged, and a waste of time and resources that could have been spent solving the problem. Our great grandkids (if the planet survives to sustain them) will slap their foreheads and say, "What were they thinking?"

That's the scenario we face. Business as usual won't be the answer because we are past peak oil. Everyone who has read the data knows this. Maybe even Bachmann (but I doubt it -- she isn't very bright) but she is playing politics -- dangerous politics, because this is about our grandkid's lives. She doesn't care because her only concern is getting re-elected, not doing the right thing for humanity.

They believe what they hear from Rush and Hannity and think it is true. Jesus could fly down and tell them the truth and they would tell him that he is a hippie and to get a job....

One thing very clear, Obama is making deals with the Russians and others to be consumated after he is reelected. Any of you comfortable with that?

Iskra,

So when should we start drilling? After we run out of oil? Then wait 10 years to get it? Shall we put a limit on speculating on Apple stocks or corn futures as well?

The price of Apple stock has no bearing on the price of the products they sell. None whatsoever. Corn, on the other hand, is another matter . . . and people do have to eat.

You speak the truth...but that script does not help the hate-filled right wing propaganda talking points....too bad....because that script keeps many Americans ignorant and hurts our efforts to move the country forward....too bad for all of us and our children!

Saying the US has only 2% of the world's oil reserves is a bit disingenuous. That is proven reserves and does not include ANWR, shale oil we know to exist in Federal lands not available for lease, federal waters of the coasts, part of the Gulf of Mexico to name a few. Proven oil reserves are a tiny fraction of the oil we know is available, but the government won't allow exploration. We could have a huge effect on oil prices if we started exploring and producing our own oil, plus it would cause an economic boom. Been to North Dakota lately? It's like the gold rush, they can't build houses fast enough. Laborers are making $45 an hour for unskilled labor and working 14 hours a day 7 days a week. ]

That example alone should make us sit up and take notice. You've got to start sometime. It's pretty simple economics. Even Canada has figured this out.

@ Richard Rickert "Other nations pay much higher prices because of the rarety created by American waste"

That seems like a silly notion considering the fact that in the US gas taxes average roughly 12%, in Canada gas tax averages roughly 33%. Do the math. Nuff said.

Make that "without regard to facts." She's a disgrace.

Naw, she'll just shake the etch-a-sketch and make it go away.

Renee, that was hilarious, thanks for sharing!

There is no doubt the sky IS falling.

At this rate we might as well all bend over stick our heads between our legs and kiss our sweet arses goodbye.

Impressive that over 13K records were set for all time high temps. Why not designate 435,745,356,764,854,124,457,435,858,324,697,687,097,756,345 points where temps are checked and then that huge number of records would have been set?

How long has the earth existed?

How far do records go back?

Last Friday the weather forecasters, the Paul Douglas types, were forecasting a sunny Saturday and a 80 degree Sunday. Well we all know how close they got to that forecast. And those forecasts were a mere 24 hours, and you want to listen to Paul Douglas??

What happened to this winter, it was forecast to be as snowy and cold as last.

You may trust weather forecasts, not I.

It's about the longer-term trend, Jim, not the day-to-day weather.

Climate isn't the same as weather.

"How long has the earth existed?"

For Michele Bachmann the answer is 6,000 years. That's what the Bible says.

Renee,

So the earth is how old? A million years maybe.

So man has climate records for how many of those years? 150 years of climate records.

150 out of a million is a grain of sand in a desert. The sun is acting up and some "Experts" say it's a normal climate cycle we are seeing.

Nature has a lot of power and man isn't a huge impact. You realize Volcano Kilaeua has been erupting for years causing VOG constantly? And now other volcanos are erupting?

Meanwhile climate forecasters can't forecast short term climate changes.

It's anyones guess what the climate will be and not up to mankind to change it.

"So the earth is how old? A million years maybe."

You're off by just a bit. But again, the people in charge of making decisions that affect the future of our race (Michele Bachmann) believe the earth is just 6,000 years old. They don't believe in science, so the argument here is useless.

For your future reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

"So man has climate records for how many of those years? 150 years of climate records."

Get to know your local paleoclimatologist . . . talk to a few of them.

Jim, your comments are a grating example of how science education has failed us, horribly.

"Meanwhile climate forecasters can't forecast short term climate changes."

They seem to be doing a good job of it. I can't remember a spring this warm in my lifetime.

"It's anyones guess what the climate will be and not up to mankind to change it."

Human activities ARE already changing it.

Glad to see you are using the scientific method before spouting these platitudes . . .

Renee,

If this is global warming, er.. um climate change, I like it!

Regarding Shawn Otto's opinions that apparently mirror Paul Douglas', he uses March record temperature to "prove" we are going through climate change, but fails to mention the long streak of record breaking cold temperatures in Alaska and Europe.

If there's any thing constant about the climate it is that it changes. What about the ice age? What about the impending ice age forecast by the same doom and gloomers in the 60's? I won't argue the climate doesn't change, but the "solutions" being forced upon us in the form of cap and trade and other schemes are not solutions at all but creative ways for government to fleece us and the elite to enrich themselves. Namely Al Gore et al.

There are scores of scientist who don't agree that there is a consensus on the causes of global warming. Maybe rather than looking at the correlation between CO2 and warming, maybe we should be looking at the correlation of who's predicting climatological catastrophe and who receives government funding for their "research".

"maybe we should be looking at the correlation of who's predicting climatological catastrophe and who receives government funding for their "research"."

Are you suggesting that all government funding for climate and weather research should be ended? Maybe we should end government funding for cancer research as well, because those guys must be lying to get more money too. Oh, and we should end government research for new weapons too, because those guys are lying about whatever weapons we might (or because they are lying to keep the money coming) or might not need.

We should cut government funding for doctors too, because they are treating people with fake diseases, just to get the money.

Yes, we should cut government funding for everything, because once you give funding for anything it automatically becomes a corrupt operation.

This makes so much sense!

"Are you suggesting that all government funding for climate and weather research should be ended?"

I'm suggesting that the results from government funded research should maybe be taken with a grain of salt when said results give the government another reason to stick their hands in our pockets. Some of the results we got from certain research we found through the "climategate" scandal were inaccurate. Why? It seems to be apparent that there was something to gain from those with an axe to grind.

The age old adage of "follow the money" comes in to play more often than not. I would challenge you to name me one organization receiving government funds that does not continually lobby for more.

I used to give money to the American Heart Association until I found out that a large percentage of the donations they receive go toward lobbying the federal government to forcibly take my money to give to them. Kinda like when the local school district uses my tax money to continually lobby the community for more via unending levy requests. Quite a conflict of interest in my not so humble opinion.

Good Point Markus, I agree 100+%.

"I'm suggesting that the results from government funded research should maybe be taken with a grain of salt when said results give the government another reason to stick their hands in our pockets"

That would explain why so many private industries are also funding climate research, right? Including the oil industry . . . I know climate scientists who are being funded by big oil companies and the fishing industry, for starters. Why do you think they would do that if they don't believe it's real?

The conspiracy theory doesn't stick on this one, as it would require thousands of scientists (worldwide) to be co-opted worldwide (including those who run the Chinese government -- they don't argue about whether or not global warming is happening -- they accept it as truth).

Besides, it's much easier (and a lot less costly) to manipulate the American public with simple lies that don't require tens of thousands of co-conspirators -- by saying that their are WMDs in Iraq, for example, when there is no evidence of it. That's much easier than trying to get the brightest minds in the world to buy into a conspiracy that lacks evidence . . . remember, climate scientists are among the most intelligent of scientists . . . these were the people who chose to take the hardest courses in college (physics, high level math, chemistry, biology). They weren't the business majors looking for the Wall Street scam to make a fortune. These are people who are dedicated to finding the truth.

I just recalled some Global Warming facts from down under.

A friend of mine traveled to the Antarctic to work. While he was there he mingled with scientists and asked a number of them if they thought Global Warming was occuring. They all said they all supported the concept because if they didn't they would not get a Government grant to travel to the Antarctic to study it.

So our Government (taxdollars) are used to bribe the "Scientists" to support Global Warming.

Jim,

Can you provide a link for the "bribed" scientists in Antarctica?

Meanwhile, here's yesterday's data (visual, satellite photos) of the shrinking Antarctic ice shelf:

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/satellite-captures-dwindling-antarctic-ice-sheet

Renee, verbal communications is obviously not verifiable. But the person providing the information is 100% trustworthy and himself a follower/supporter of the Global Warming concept. So for him to say the professionals are influenced by the grants they get is factual.

As far as melting icepacks etc, do you suppose is you were able to look back 500,000 years there was ever a poiint in time when icepacks melted before?

Just saying.

"Renee, verbal communications is obviously not verifiable."

Hearsay, otherwise known as BS, doesn't hold up anywhere. Don't drag it in here. It only cuts your credibility to zero.

"As far as melting icepacks etc, do you suppose is you were able to look back 500,000 years there was ever a poiint in time when icepacks melted before?"

If you have to ask me that question (because you're not capable of doing the research yourself) then you aren't qualified to take part in the debate.

Critical thinkers needed. Not blowhards.

Renee,

I don't think one can credibly argue that we have not had a period of warming. One can credibly argue the cause of global warming and whether it has happened before and even that climate change is cyclical. Scores of credible scientists disagree with the "consensus" that CO2 is the cause of global warming. I'm not a scientist (but I play one on the internet), but I have reasonable cause to be suspicious about the so called solutions being proposed by us by government and those who are in positions to benefit from those "solutions".

As much as you would like to believe in a Utopia where government (left wing of course) is pure and only cares about the people, you would be wise to be skeptical of those in positions of power and how they can affect your life and your pursuit of happiness, Republicans or Democrats.

We have a local paleoclimatologist?

"We have a local paleoclimatologist?"

University of Minnesota has many paleo people in the geosciences. Start with the limnology lab -- one of the top 2-3 in the world. Maybe you could go on a campaign to eliminate funding for them . . . because heck, we don't need to know nothin' about climate, right?

"Scores of credible scientists disagree with the "consensus" that CO2 is the cause of global warming."

They are the 1%. 99% (and growing, as the evidence just becomes stronger with more data from groundbreaking research) disagree with the deniers, many of whom are not credible as scientists when you peel back the layers. Most are shills bought by the oil industry.

Ten years from now this debate will be over. The evidence just keeps mounting.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/

Good luck holding onto your position . . . you are in the minority, and more so as time and evidence accumulate.

Have a nice day.

Those who think the shifting seasons brought about by climate change are a good thing need to consider the mass extinction events this creates:

http://www.pri.org/stories/science/environment/scientists-turn-to-natural-world-for-clues-of-shifting-seasons-9350.html

Even if implement the most drastic measures to slow carbon emissions, it doesn't seem like we'll get much of a net gain.
http://www.masterresource.org/2009/05/part-i-a-climate-analysis-of-the-waxman-markey-climate-bill%E2%80%94the-impacts-of-us-actions-alone/

Markus,

So now you're admitting that it's real but postulating that there's nothing we can do about it at this point? You're saying we're doomed already, so we might as well go on burning fossil fuels until we play out the mass extinction scenario and destroy the planet? End timer, much?

You know, this befuddles me. The same people who think abortion is a bad thing are quite willing to risk loss of 3 or 4 billion lives due to climate change and the ensuing food shortages and disease.

Very strange.

You misunderstand me. I'm not admitting anything. As I said before there is not a consensus among climate researchers that CO2 is/was (since temperatures have been for the most part static for the last 10 years) causing warming. There are other schools of thought proposing that activity on the sun could be causing warming. I said a few posts back warming was not arguable, causes were.

Why implement drastic measures that will cause energy prices to rise dramatically and restrict the use of fossil fuels causing economic and personal malaise among other consequences, when even the proponents of those actions admit there will be very little effect on temperatures if indeed CO2 is causing the warming?

Your gloom and doom scenario is based on mostly speculation, not science.

For now the world runs on oil. Without it the economy would grind to a halt. Technological advances will most likely give us fantastic alternatives to oil in the next 100 years. Those advances will most likely be driven by the market, not by government. Government has a poor record of picking winners and losers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhgGbRA6Hk&feature=player_embedded

You'll find this interesting. Will the market solve this problem, or will it require a partnership between government and business? Agriculture, in the US and elsewhere, requires heavy government involvement (land banks, subsidies, financing, extension services, etc). Do you think government should completely back out of the ag business ?

"since temperatures have been for the most part static for the last 10 years"

Not true. March was much warmer than average . . . in Minnesota it was 18 degrees higher than average. That is NOT static.

"Your gloom and doom scenario is based on mostly speculation, not science."

Science in action -- check it out:

http://climate.nasa.gov/

Most interesting is when you identify "Weather Patterns" trending one way or the other as they do. People say you must consider "Climate" not weather.

So now we are to think NASA or NOAA can produce "Climate" trends.

How long has NASA been in existance?

How long has the earth been in existance?

What does the age of NASA have to do with anything? Scientists can now collect climate data from hundreds of thousands of years ago. It just keeps getting better and more accurate -- really quite amazing. Check this out:

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/climate.html

"Glacial ice can range in age from several hundred to several hundreds of thousands years, making it valuable for climate research. To see a long-term climate record, an ice core is drilled and extracted from the glacier. Ice cores have been taken from around the world, including Peru, Canada, Greenland, Antarctica, Europe, and Asia. These cores are continuous records providing scientists with information regarding past climate. Scientists analyze various components of cores, particularly trapped air bubbles, which reveal past atmospheric composition, temperature variations, and types of vegetation. Glaciers literally preserve bits of atmosphere from thousands of years ago in these tiny air bubbles. This is how scientists know that there have been several Ice Ages. Past eras can be reconstructed, showing how and why climate changed, and how it might change in the future.

Scientists are also finding that glaciers reveal clues about global warming. How much does our atmosphere naturally warm up between Ice Ages? How does human activity affect climate? "

It's not just glaciers -- they are using coral reefs, tree rings, lake bed cores, etc. The earth reveals it's climate history.

The amount of time everything NASA is studying has been around is a very short period of time in reationship to the time the earth has existed.

The volume of oil on earth, yes it exists on earth as a normal substance, will be totally consumed in how many years? Maybe 100 years. So IF man is warming the earth by burning oil and other fossil fuels the heating will end very soon, in earth time.

Enjoy driving a car and flying around while you can it will be over soon.

"The volume of oil on earth, yes it exists on earth as a normal substance, will be totally consumed in how many years? Maybe 100 years. So IF man is warming the earth by burning oil and other fossil fuels the heating will end very soon, in earth time.

Enjoy driving a car and flying around while you can it will be over soon."

Jim, you ought to frame these words to pass down to the grandkids, so they'll know how much you thought of them. They'll be so proud of your legacy . . .

"So IF man is warming the earth by burning oil and other fossil fuels the heating will end very soon, in earth time."

One last thing. The heating doesn't end when we stop burning fossil fuels. Google "carbon cycle feedbacks". "arctic methane release", "methane release from permafrost peat bogs", "rainforest drying", and "desertification", just for starters.

Read a few books on climate, for starters.

Renee,

I trust you: don't drive a car, don't use plastics, don't fly, don't heat your house with oil based fuel, don't use electricity generated by burning oil or coal, don't eat food delivered by an oil/coal powered vehicle, don't use the internet (get out of that one), don't live in a house built with power equipment, don't use water delivered by an electric pump, don't use a sewer system powered by electricity, don't ride public transportation, don't use anything powered by coal or oil.

IF you use anything powered by oil or coal YOU are the problem!

Renee,

I watched this video you linked to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJhgGbRA6Hk&feature=player_embedded

So while the UofM (a government agency) is essentially telling us agriculture is bad, government has also payed farmers billions and billions of dollars to grow corn to sell to the ethanol plants and subsidized the production of ethanol (aka the zero sum game fuel) to the tune of $20 billion and then forces us to burn it in our cars.

Ethanol plants use inordinate amounts of water (which according to the video is in scarce supply) to make a fuel that doesn't work. At last even the Democrats have figured this out and stopped subsidizing it at least. They also burn a lot of natural gas to make the stuff.

The USDA is in bed with Monsanto encouraging farmers to grow as much corn as possible to make sure the food industry has enough corn to be in 70% of the products on the shelves at the grocery store mostly in the form of high fructose corn syrup. Then the government tells children they can't eat sugar in school while they feed them pink slime and foods sweetened with corn. (You have to make it tasty somehow) Take a look at the school menu sometime. I wouldn't feed my kid that garbage.

The government you put so much faith in is nothing but a bunch of hypocrites who only know how to feather their own nests while fleecing the citizens and telling them how to run their lives. They can't have it both ways.

"Is Obama not spending money on fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? And Libya? He's not obligated to because Bush did. It's his choice now."

Obama is only responsible for those actions taken place under his control.

Obama cannot blame others for decisions he made, correct?

Did Obama make any decisions after he was sworn into office?

Those decisions can be listed if you'd like. He ran on hope and change, change he made and we now have no hope going forward.

I'll blame George W. Bush, I'll blame Clinton, I'll blame Bush 1, I'll even blame Ronald Reagan, but Obama has doubled down on Bush's spending and foreign policy, so I'll also assign him his share of blame.
CBO projections are just that. Projections. And they are often wrong. They also projected Social Security and Medicare would cost about 1/5 of what they do now. Fat lot of good those projections did for us. I find it interesting that tax cuts are lumped in there. If the projections were supposedly accurate then the Bush tax cuts should have been inconsequential anyway. It can be argued the Bush tax cuts actually increased revenue to the federal government. Spending is the problem. Spending is always the problem. We don't have a revenue problem.

I also find it interesting now that they Keystone pipeline could be popular politically, Obama is considering changing his mind regarding his decision to block that project, however he's waiting until after the election to make up his mind. How dictatorial of him.

"How can we get the price of gas down?"

These are short term solutions that will buy possibly another 10 years at a high cost. Pennywise and pound foolish.

The better question is, "how can we move to a sustainable energy model that reduces our use of fossil fuels?"

Instead of taking the 10 year view, we need to take the next 1,000 year view when attacking this problem.

Without a long term strategy we are just kicking the can down the road. A severe crisis will hit our grandkids. Is that what we want to leave them?

She's blaming Obama for giving my kids a health insurance option that doesn't kill our family budget, so hey, why not?

Edward,

You mean the health insurance option that your kids will be paying China for when they grow up since the government is currently borrowing the money to pay for it from them? Or do you mean the health insurance option that I get to pay for and you get for free?

I would say that the part of ObamaCare that we use (and will probably lose) - my 19 year-old son is still able to be on his dad's health insurance while he attends school and works part-time, doesn't cost you anything, and I don't believe my son will be paying a debt for that to China in the future.

So forcing insurance companies to cover "children" up to 26 doesn't cost anything? Any mandate on insurance companies including that one increases premiums for all. When I was 26, I was married, owned a home, my wife stayed home with our daughter and I had started my second business all with no help from anyone. Hardly a child. Considering 26 year old's dependents is another classic government overreach that once again punishes producers and expands the dependency class.

First, there is a huge difference between 19 and 26. Second, he is on his father's health insurance through his employer, so his father and the company are paying the premium, not the state or federal government. Lastly, I will say that paying for younger healthier people to be on insurance helps offset the costs of insuring those who are older and may use the health care system more.

I (somewhat) understand your Libertarian views, and don't need another lesson, but our health care system is seriously flawed, and this is a private (for-profit) industry. The rich can stay healthier because they can afford to pay for it - even the middle class is struggling with this, so it is not just the poor or lazy taking advantage of "the system". Someone who has just graduated from high school and is working part-time and going to school can not always afford to pay for a premium themselves, and I believe this part of the Affordable Care Act should not be so controversial.

As far as the mandate goes, it looks as though it may be found unconstitutional which would then strike down the entire law, which I think is unfortunate.

Susan,

We've all heard the argument that young people can't afford health care coverage. What's interesting is virtually every young person seems to be walking around with a smart phone (roughly the cost of a health insurance premium) these days. It seems apparent this is a issue of priorities, not of affordability. Does your son have a smart phone?

You say the health care system is seriously flawed. It's not the health care system that's flawed, we have the best health care system in the world. It's how we pay for it that's flawed. It suffers from the classic "third party payer" syndrome and massive government involvement. Market based delivery of health care without interference and intervention from government coupled with real doctor/patient relationships including the ability to contract with one another would solve virtually every problem we have with health care delivery in this country today.

Yes, he has a smart phone, which could be argued as almost a necessity for school and work, along with his car and computer.

He is not hurting the health insurance industry, or costing anyone (other than his father and his father's employer) anything. In fact, if he were to be uninsured and have some accident or illness he would most likely cost the system something.

You are correct in your statement about my reference to the health care system. I should have said health insurance industry, and billing practices of the health care facilities for those without insurance. No company should be allowed to say no to a procedure that a doctor (or maybe two) have recommended. No facility should be able to turn a patient away because they can not pay immediately, many times forcing them to go to the emergency room. And no family should be put through financial devastation because a member can not get insurance because of a pre-existing condition.

"And no family should be put through financial devastation because a member can not get insurance because of a pre-existing condition."

Then it ceases to become insurance and becomes essentially pre-paid medical care. Insurance is based on the risk being spread across a pool of people mostly who are healthy. Why do you think insurance companies charge more for insuring a home in a flood plain or higher rates for those who have had multiple car accidents? Actuaries determine the risk and the rates based on risk.

If we are going to require insurance companies to insure a pool of mostly sick people the rates would be astronomical. As it stands, if Obamacare is fully enacted, the rational thing to do would be to wait until you become sick then buy insurance because they can't deny you. That is tantamount to buying car insurance after you have had an accident.

You can argue that the government should require someone with a pre-existing condition to be treated, but you can't call it insurance because it's not.

"Yes, he has a smart phone, which could be argued as almost a necessity for school and work, along with his car and computer."

Phone.
Car.
Computer.
Health.

Which are necessities and which are "almost a necessity"? We all prioritize our needs and find ways to fund our priorities without the need of government.

"We all prioritize our needs and find ways to fund our priorities without the need of government".

Who is going to tell the person using the emergency room for health care, and then having the system pay for it, that health insurance is a need?

"If we are going to require insurance companies to insure a pool of mostly sick people the rates would be astronomical. As it stands, if Obamacare is fully enacted, the rational thing to do would be to wait until you become sick then buy insurance because they can't deny you. That is tantamount to buying car insurance after you have had an accident."

Which is why the mandate is needed....and here we have the constitutional issue.

Exactly why the government should be completely out of health care. If someone shows up at the emergency room and doesn't pay, the hospital has legal remedies to collect. Those using the system need to be held accountable to pay for their use of the system. Personal responsibility and accountability is a lost virtue in this society. But we've let it happen because of so-called compassion. It's really laziness among the citizenry because they don't want to enforce the idea of being personally responsible for anything including providing for themselves and their families.

Markus, I think it is a huge leap to say that those without insurance (especially in this economy) are lazy "because they don't want to enforce the idea of being personally responsible for anything including providing for themselves and their families".

It seems you have worked hard, and been able to provide for your family, however not everyone has had your exact circumstances. Lumping everyone together, and not seeing that people and their lives are different, sometimes because of no fault of their own, is not seeing the entire picture.

In summary, I believe that there should be a safety net (welfare, health care, etc) in government, but I think it should be based on need, limited in time (unless there is some sort of permanent disability), and one should be required to better themselves for the job market while using that safety net.

What I said was "laziness among the citizenry because they don't want to enforce the idea of being personally responsible". God forbid we should tolerate any sort of unfairness. That might make somebody uncomfortable. We have equality of opportunity, we want equality of outcomes. Life isn't fair. Get over it. When you make government the great equalizer, there are consequences of mass proportions we are now witnessing.

Charities and churches used to take care of the indigent. They did pretty good job of it too. The free market delivery of health care worked pretty good too. People paid when they went to the doctor and if they were responsible, they bought a hospitalization policy to cover catastrophic emergencies. Now we require private hospitals to treat anyone who shows up at their door and of course they pass the cost on to the other users or the government.

Edward and Susan think it would be nice to make sure everybody is taken care of by our benevolent government. The problem is, someone has to pay for it unwillingly. That violates the principle of a free market and the right to keep the fruits of your labor and is an illegitimate function of the Federal Government.

The main problem with government bailing everyone out of every conceivable circumstance they find themselves in is it always introduces moral hazard. There is no incentive to be responsible if you know the government will come to your rescue.

The government subsidizes flood insurance so people build in flood plains. The government subsidizes hurricane insurance so people continue to rebuild and wait for the next big wind to blow. The banks know the government will bail them out so they take more risk than they would normally. The government prints money to meet its obligations and the politicians continue to spend what they don't have. The government extends unemployment benefits and those who could work decide it's easier to not work or work for cash on the side. The government subsidizes food, housing, health care, heat, automobile repairs which enables people to engage in risky sexual behavior resulting in out of wedlock births. I could go on an on here.

Government intervention in health care introduces the same type of moral hazard.

more...

If you want to argue that we need a safety net then let's go back to the days when the counties took care of the truly indigent. We can cooperate at the local level to provide for those who truly cannot provide for themselves. Our definition of need is subjective at best. Let's define what need really is and act on it. Most people including conservatives and libertarians are compassionate and are not willing to simply turn people out in the street or deny them medical care. There are better ways to handle it than by central government fiat however.