The universal health care debacle: you will now be fined

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="SamusFreak"]

I have seen many links to terrible situations. I have heard many good things from peopel I actually know. there are horrors stories everywhere, including the US. my brother is one of them. he had Viral Meningtious( I know that isnt spelled right) and the idiots at the hospitol we went to wrongly diagnosed him and blue it off basically. he was 16 hours from dieing. our doctor( we were on vactaion in missouri when it happened) recongized it right away. and lucky sazed his life.

sSubZerOo

Then you didn't bother reading the link. It links you to a site that, albeit briefly, provides additional links to articles that summarize the systems of several major European nations as well as the United States. No horror stories to invoke an emotional response, just plain facts.

And which groups would those be? And when?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Adults make choices in life. At some point they know that health care will be an issue. If they don't want to buy it...then debt is their choice.

LJS9502_basic

There are also more academic reasons - a lot of young healthy people do not buy insurance, meaning that the pool of consumers is smaller than it should be - meaning higher premiums for everyone who has insurance because young people didn't want to buy insurance. One of the things about insurance is that everyone who pays into it uses it - and whatever is being insured is being financed largely by the people who don't need their insurance. In the case of health care, that is the healthy, and when not all the healthy want to buy insurance, everyone else who does suffers because of it.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] That sir is IMMORALVandalvideo

That is immoral, you care about more your personal gain even if it costs innocent lives of people who simply can not afford it.. Or worse they could afford it if they didn't have a pre-existing condition which basically makes insurance too expensive or not even capable of getting.sSubZerOo

There are various number of ways. One example is rather anecdotal - person A doesn't buy health insurance even though he can afford it, gets in car accident, is seriously injured and is rushed to the emergency room and cannot afford the care. The cost of that care is shifted to the health insurance companies, and that cost is then further shifted to its costumers- ie higher premiums.

There are also more academic reasons - a lot of young healthy people do not buy insurance, meaning that the pool of consumers is smaller than it should be - meaning higher premiums for everyone who has insurance because young people didn't want to buy insurance. One of the things about insurance is that everyone who pays into it uses it - and whatever is being insured is being financed largely by the people who don't need their insurance. In the case of health care, that is the healthy, and when not all the healthy want to buy insurance, everyone else who does suffers because of it.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Health care is less worthy? Obviously our school systems and infrastructure are in dire need of attention, but health care is just as worthy, if not more, not only because health care literally deals with life and death, because of the immediate economic hell that would be brought upon this country if health care did take a back seat.

If health care is given a back seat, there will no longer be any more money for defense, there would no longer be any more money for education, there would no longer be any more money for our infrastructure- because all the money will be going to health care, not because of an aging population on medicare, but because of the rise in health care costs. Our population could be getting younger and it wouldn't make one damn difference. That's why we cannot literally afford to point health care to the back seat, because the more we wait, more people die for no real reason, more people go file for bankruptcy because of medical bills, more people are denied coverage, and the closer we will move to fiscal hell where the federal budget is dedicated to nothing but health care.

A tyrannical government is one that limits freedom. Real freedom, not pseudo freedom like the ability to choose one crappy insurer over another crappy insurer, or to needlessly be in debt for the rest of ones life because of a stupid mistake made at a young age, but the freedom to be able to change jobs, without having to worry about health coverage. The freedom to go see a doctor when they are sick and not have to go the emergency room 3 years later and find out they have some disastrous chronic disease because of the cost of health insurance.

Cops stalk the roads for drunk drivers because they might get in an accident and take someone elses life or their own life. The justice system sends criminals to jail, to punish and/or reahbilitate them yes, but to first and forremost get them out of society for the time being because they indanger it. Why shouldn't the government mandate health insurance, not only because of the risks that it poses on themselves but the risks that it poses on everyone who is entwined in the health care system.

tycoonmike

I'm not saying health care isn't a worthy cause, I'm saying that there are other causes out there that one could make the argument are just as worthy, if not worthier, than health care.

The problem with your theory is that health care costs are rising all over the world, not just in the US. Indeed, in one of the later links I provided (link), there are powerpoint presentations and other such documents that list several of the problems with European health systems, chief among which is the rising costs of insurance and care. Germany, especially, is called out for having an incredibly expensive system in place.

What problems? We've had this system for at least 25 years and haven't had any major problems with it (or at least none I can make out) until Obama got elected. Indeed, when I joined this forum, it didn't seem like there were threads upon threads for health care reform. It was all about how Bush was an idiot. That and the neverending religious threads. Why now, all of a sudden, is health care a major issue when it hadn't been before Obama? Perhaps because it never was a major issue to begin with? Now, don't get me wrong, there are definite problems with our system. Universal health care isn't the solution, given what our situation is, though.

And by restricting that choice, you restrict freedom. Restriction of choice, whether as mundane as choosing one "crappy insurer over another" or as serious as choosing one presidential candidate over another, simply opens up the floodgates for the government to curtail freedoms, "in our best interests." To use our liberties against our liberties. Case and point: the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act allowed for the government to do such things as tap our phone lines without a warrant, even if you had no prior criminal record, in the name of our liberties. What would stop the government from deciding what's best for us? The Constitution? Nothing more than a 250 year old piece of parchment that would be fairly easily amended with a supermajority. The military? Under the command of the government. The people? Possibly, if not for the fact that we wouldn't stand much of a chance against an Abrams tank.

Simple: in the examples you gave, it's one person causing harm to another. If I were to crash my car into a tree without harming anyone else but me, and I don't have health insurance, that was my risk to take, not yours. I took that risk, knowing (or not knowing, as the case may be) that I could easily end up destitute because of medical bills.

But when everyone is not insured, the people with insurance see a needless rise in their premiums just for the fact that not everyone is insured. And yes, health care costs are rising all around the world, but none are rising at the rate that they are in the U.S. We are number one in that regard. The other health care systems around the world vis-a-vis costs are problematic, and in some rare cases may be approaching a crisis down the road. We are way beyond that. We have living in that crisis and we are looking at fiscal Armageddon directlyin the eye.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Then you didn't bother reading the link. It links you to a site that, albeit briefly, provides additional links to articles that summarize the systems of several major European nations as well as the United States. No horror stories to invoke an emotional response, just plain facts.

And which groups would those be? And when?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] That is immoral, you care about more your personal gain even if it costs innocent lives of people who simply can not afford it.. Or worse they could afford it if they didn't have a pre-existing condition which basically makes insurance too expensive or not even capable of getting.Vandalvideo

But when everyone is not insured, the people with insurance see a needless rise in their premiums just for the fact that not everyone is insured. And yes, health care costs are rising all around the world, but none are rising at the rate that they are in the U.S. We are number one in that regard. The other health care systems around the world vis-a-vis costs are problematic, and in some rare cases may be approaching a crisis down the road. We are way beyond that. We have living in that crisis and we are looking at fiscal Armageddon directlyin the eye.

-Sun_Tzu-

And health care reform is going to solve this "fiscal Armageddon?" It might be part of the problem, yes, but it sure as hell isn't going to solve all of our problems. The primary reasons why we're in the problems we're in are threefold:

1. Creditors providing substandard ARMs to people who couldn't afford them.

2. Industrial practices (especially in the automotive industries) that aren't competitive with the rest of the world.

3. Increases in military-industrial complex spending, coupled with two very unpopular wars.

How much is the Democrat's health care plan projected to save us? If I remember the CBO referendum I quoted earlier, about -$200 billion over ten years. I don't see how increasing spending will decrease our deficit.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] All health care systems have their horror stories.. My personal favorite is medical groups that are non profit to help people who are not fortunate COME here to help people.. These are groups that were originally ment to be used in THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES.. But in the nation that people constantly blurt out is #1 these groups are finding mass amounts of people in need of such services.. Clearly there is something wrong.sSubZerOo

And which groups would those be? And when?

Um, isn't there a massive wildfire out there burning as we type?

And although I agree that the people who were marked as "had healthcare" should have been turned away unless they had life-threatening injuries, the fact of the matter is that the RAM mission statement says the following:

"The Remote Area Medical (RAM) Volunteer Corps is a non-profit, volunteer, airborne relief corps dedicated to serving mankind by providing free health care, dental care, eye care, veterinary services, and technical and educational assistance to people in remote areas of the United States and the world."

I didn't realize the world simply consisted of the third world...

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

But when everyone is not insured, the people with insurance see a needless rise in their premiums just for the fact that not everyone is insured. And yes, health care costs are rising all around the world, but none are rising at the rate that they are in the U.S. We are number one in that regard. The other health care systems around the world vis-a-vis costs are problematic, and in some rare cases may be approaching a crisis down the road. We are way beyond that. We have living in that crisis and we are looking at fiscal Armageddon directlyin the eye.

And health care reform is going to solve this "fiscal Armageddon?" It might be part of the problem, yes, but it sure as hell isn't going to solve all of our problems. The primary reasons why we're in the problems we're in are threefold:

1. Creditors providing substandard ARMs to people who couldn't afford them.

2. Industrial practices (especially in the automotive industries) that aren't competitive with the rest of the world.

3. Increases in military-industrial complex spending, coupled with two very unpopular wars.

How much is the Democrat's health care plan projected to save us? If I remember the CBO referendum I quoted earlier, about -$200 billion over ten years. I don't see how increasing spending will decrease our deficit.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And which groups would those be? And when?

tycoonmike

Um, isn't there a massive wildfire out there burning as we type?

Its based upon need, their resources are not infinite.. And they have found a staggering amount of need with in the United States.. The United States is suppose to be the "best nation", the richest nation.. Why in the end do we have need of resources from non profit groups that usually always were ment to provide aid for third world countires.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

But when everyone is not insured, the people with insurance see a needless rise in their premiums just for the fact that not everyone is insured. And yes, health care costs are rising all around the world, but none are rising at the rate that they are in the U.S. We are number one in that regard. The other health care systems around the world vis-a-vis costs are problematic, and in some rare cases may be approaching a crisis down the road. We are way beyond that. We have living in that crisis and we are looking at fiscal Armageddon directlyin the eye.

sSubZerOo

And health care reform is going to solve this "fiscal Armageddon?" It might be part of the problem, yes, but it sure as hell isn't going to solve all of our problems. The primary reasons why we're in the problems we're in are threefold:

1. Creditors providing substandard ARMs to people who couldn't afford them.

2. Industrial practices (especially in the automotive industries) that aren't competitive with the rest of the world.

3. Increases in military-industrial complex spending, coupled with two very unpopular wars.

How much is the Democrat's health care plan projected to save us? If I remember the CBO referendum I quoted earlier, about -$200 billion over ten years. I don't see how increasing spending will decrease our deficit.

exactly, hes thinking short term. of coarse its going to cost money, its a broken beaten system. but its something( among others, such as the inevitable switch to renewable energy) that has to be done at some point. it will cost money now just like it will later, but later it will be more dire and more expensive( amybe eve ntoo late)

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

But when everyone is not insured, the people with insurance see a needless rise in their premiums just for the fact that not everyone is insured. And yes, health care costs are rising all around the world, but none are rising at the rate that they are in the U.S. We are number one in that regard. The other health care systems around the world vis-a-vis costs are problematic, and in some rare cases may be approaching a crisis down the road. We are way beyond that. We have living in that crisis and we are looking at fiscal Armageddon directlyin the eye.

sSubZerOo

And health care reform is going to solve this "fiscal Armageddon?" It might be part of the problem, yes, but it sure as hell isn't going to solve all of our problems. The primary reasons why we're in the problems we're in are threefold:

1. Creditors providing substandard ARMs to people who couldn't afford them.

2. Industrial practices (especially in the automotive industries) that aren't competitive with the rest of the world.

3. Increases in military-industrial complex spending, coupled with two very unpopular wars.

How much is the Democrat's health care plan projected to save us? If I remember the CBO referendum I quoted earlier, about -$200 billion over ten years. I don't see how increasing spending will decrease our deficit.

:| Our system is "dying" because of idiot creditors, idiot industrialists, idiot government employees, and the people who bought into their blatant lies. Not because of the problems in our healthcare system. Although fixing them will help, it's merely a drop in the bucket considering what the banks and industries did.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And health care reform is going to solve this "fiscal Armageddon?" It might be part of the problem, yes, but it sure as hell isn't going to solve all of our problems. The primary reasons why we're in the problems we're in are threefold:

1. Creditors providing substandard ARMs to people who couldn't afford them.

2. Industrial practices (especially in the automotive industries) that aren't competitive with the rest of the world.

3. Increases in military-industrial complex spending, coupled with two very unpopular wars.

How much is the Democrat's health care plan projected to save us? If I remember the CBO referendum I quoted earlier, about -$200 billion over ten years. I don't see how increasing spending will decrease our deficit.

:| Our system is "dying" because of idiot creditors, idiot industrialists, idiot government employees, and the people who bought into their blatant lies. Not because of the problems in our healthcare system. Although fixing them will help, it's merely a drop in the bucket considering what the banks and industries did.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Remote Area Medical occured in LA just recently, that is ment for THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES.... Stan Brock headed it the founder of Remote Area Medical, and it was PACKED with people in need.. It included people that were under "had healthcare" but the health care they had did not allow them ot have glasses, or dentistry or numerous other things.sSubZerOo

Um, isn't there a massive wildfire out there burning as we type?

Its based upon need, their resources are not infinite.. And they have found a staggering amount of need with in the United States.. The United States is suppose to be the "best nation", the richest nation.. Why in the end do we have need of resources from non profit groups that usually always were ment to provide aid for third world countires.

Which further begs the question: if RAM is supposedly for the Third World only, why were they deployed in rural California? And why does their mission statement explicitly say "by providing [assistance] to people in the remote areas of the United States and the world?"

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] It will fix a system that is dieing right now, that would cost us far more if we didn't do anything about it a decade or two from now..sSubZerOo

:| Our system is "dying" because of idiot creditors, idiot industrialists, idiot government employees, and the people who bought into their blatant lies. Not because of the problems in our healthcare system. Although fixing them will help, it's merely a drop in the bucket considering what the banks and industries did.

So fixing healthcare will fix the banks and our industries?

S[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

Um, isn't there a massive wildfire out there burning as we type?

Its based upon need, their resources are not infinite.. And they have found a staggering amount of need with in the United States.. The United States is suppose to be the "best nation", the richest nation.. Why in the end do we have need of resources from non profit groups that usually always were ment to provide aid for third world countires.

Which further begs the question: if RAM is supposedly for the Third World only, why were they deployed in rural California?

Because they found a massive amount of people in need of medical aid due to our failing health care system?sSubZerOo

How many did they find that were covered for the services they wanted? I want numbers.

Immoral as in against our values as a nation or Christian values for people out there.. How much clearer can person be, people are against paying money, alittle extra money, which may save people lives.. Instead they would rather these people are flat out refused and kicked out with no aid what so ever.. Lets start doing this for the Police department, and Fire Department for the people who can't pay for the taxes that they shouldn't help those people.. How is that not immoral and against values.. People constantly cry out about how great humanitarian the United States are.... Because its greed and selfishnessat the price of human life?sSubZerOo

Actually punishing people for not buying health insurance, be it the public option or private insurance, would be the only way of actually ensuring that everyone gets health insurance.

Of course, I dont agree with universal healthcare because the moral arguments for it, and most other social welfare programs, are fallacious.

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

That's because, by Pelosi's and Reid's own words, it will be. They claim that no one will be put on waiting lists, and yet in all the comparable programs in Europe and Asia thousands are put on government waiting lists for operations that could save their lives or save a lot of pain and agony. If even one person is put on a waiting list, then by the leading Democrats own words, it will be a failure.

And, not to mention, that when those long lines do form, it won't matter if they last for a year, a week, or even a day. If the general population sees them, they'll cry foul, lowering the already falling public opinion for universal health care. And, as history should have taught us, the more a population dislikes a policy the more they'll complain until finally the government is forced to stop it once and for all.

tycoonmike

Incorrect. Only 15% of those using Britains's national health care system are put on wait lists of over 6 days. In the United States, it's 25%. I realize that Canada is the example that many conservatives cite as having lackluster care (the wait times are supposed to be at 33%), but we're not talking about doing what Canada's doing. Obviously, the number of wait lists will increase once we get everyone covered, but only temporarily. The livelihood of 46 million Americans, remember, is more important than money (in my opinion...yours may differ).

Even though, according to a BBC article, the majority of British people sorely underestimate the time they would be on waiting lists for operations?

Not to mention that, according to the UK Department of Health (follow the links on the provided page for the spreadsheet files), the number of people put onto waiting lists, both for inpatient and outpatient treatment, has been steadily rising since this past April.

Furthermore, an UK organization states that it can often take upwards of four weeks for people diagnosed with cancer to begin radiotherapy because of a shortage of the machines and personel required to operate them.

Can you really deny these figures? What you've said doesn't challenge my point, that being according to Pelosi's and Reid's own words if even one person is put on a government waiting list for treatment the program will be a failure. They think they can make lead into gold when not even the examples they hold in high regard are able to do so.

The livelyhood of 46 million may be important, but the livelyhood of 300 million is even more important. Whether temporarily or not, putting the lives of every single man, woman, and child deliberately at risk is unacceptable, and if these waiting lines to appear (as I predict they will), that is exactly what will happen.

Not to mention that, generally speaking, those 46 million uninsured Americans seem to be doing just fine without insurance. Why should those who don't desire insurance have to pay for it? Because the government mandates it?

Ha! There are no hard numbers anywhere in there, aside from a poll of a measly 1,000 people. I'm not going to base my entire outlook on this issue on a tiny biased poll...

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

I agree with you, but many Americans are ardently against helping others, be it through healthcare reform or being witness to a crime and doing nothing.

MarcusAntonius

This is sheer nonsense. People have no problem helping others. We'd just appreciate it if it weren't done via coercion with a gun to our heads. Your matter of fact context here is appalling. It's easy to be big-hearted when you're doing it with other people's money. Ever heard of private charities?

Considering the fact that humans are social animals, and research into the human brain done by prominent psychologists, it has been concluded that individualism is unnatural, unhealthy, and most of all, unnerving. The Libertarians/Republicans who are against all forms of supporting their societies, and therefore their countries, are stuck in the past, and unfortunately contradict themselves to a disturbing degree. They call themselves 'individualists,' but then go online and engage in groupthink on their conservative discussion forums - supporting each others lopsided, deluded thinking. That's collectivism, the opposite of individualism. Conservatives/Libertarians just won't face the facts, and it saddening to see such a large gap between the rich and poor as a result. I just don't want the United States, which had such promise, to turn into a third world country, where the poor live in slums with no government benefit programs to help them through their daily struggle, as the fat cats on Wall Street continue to rake in the cash. :?

Hot-Tamale

Aren't generalities and stereotypes fun? Oh yeah, I love how you lump Conservatives and Libertarians together. As if other points of view don't exist?:lol: Prominent psychologists? Like who? Post the links. I like seeing fradulent "experts" further discredited.

I don't think you know what you're talking about here... Libertarians and Republicans both oppose Obama's hc plan for pretty much the same reason - they don't want to have to pay for anything. Of course, the proposal will save vast amounts of money in the long run, but that isn't the issue here. As for prominent psychologists who have researched individualism and proven it to be unnatural: Donald Campbell, Saul Kassin, Willhelm Reich, and Carl Hoveland come to mind, and arguably Sigmund Freud himself. Of course, this thesis has crossed into the political realm as well, with such brilliant political figures as Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone is a godly book) and even Keynes, to an extent (yes, the unparalleled economist).

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

[QUOTE="Hot-Tamale"]

Incorrect. Only 15% of those using Britains's national health care system are put on wait lists of over 6 days. In the United States, it's 25%. I realize that Canada is the example that many conservatives cite as having lackluster care (the wait times are supposed to be at 33%), but we're not talking about doing what Canada's doing. Obviously, the number of wait lists will increase once we get everyone covered, but only temporarily. The livelihood of 46 million Americans, remember, is more important than money (in my opinion...yours may differ).

Hot-Tamale

Even though, according to a BBC article, the majority of British people sorely underestimate the time they would be on waiting lists for operations?

Not to mention that, according to the UK Department of Health (follow the links on the provided page for the spreadsheet files), the number of people put onto waiting lists, both for inpatient and outpatient treatment, has been steadily rising since this past April.

Furthermore, an UK organization states that it can often take upwards of four weeks for people diagnosed with cancer to begin radiotherapy because of a shortage of the machines and personel required to operate them.

Can you really deny these figures? What you've said doesn't challenge my point, that being according to Pelosi's and Reid's own words if even one person is put on a government waiting list for treatment the program will be a failure. They think they can make lead into gold when not even the examples they hold in high regard are able to do so.

The livelyhood of 46 million may be important, but the livelyhood of 300 million is even more important. Whether temporarily or not, putting the lives of every single man, woman, and child deliberately at risk is unacceptable, and if these waiting lines to appear (as I predict they will), that is exactly what will happen.

Not to mention that, generally speaking, those 46 million uninsured Americans seem to be doing just fine without insurance. Why should those who don't desire insurance have to pay for it? Because the government mandates it?

Ha! There are no hard numbers anywhere in there, aside from a poll of a measly 1,000 people. I'm not going to base my entire outlook on this issue on a tiny biased poll...

:| So then you're not going to trust the figures the British government gave in the second link? That's about as close to "hard numbers" you're going to get.

I don't think you know what you're talking about here... Libertarians and Republicans both oppose Obama's hc plan for pretty much the same reason - they don't want to have to pay for anything. Of course, the proposal will save vast amounts of money in the long run, but that isn't the issue here. As for prominent psychologists who have researched individualism and proven it to be unnatural: Donald Campbell, Saul Kassin, Willhelm Reich, and Carl Hoveland come to mind, and arguably Sigmund Freud himself. Of course, this thesis has crossed into the political realm as well, with such brilliant political figures as Robert Putnam (Bowling Alone is a godly book) and even Keynes, to an extent (yes, the unparalleled economist).

Hot-Tamale

It's all well and good to go around dropping names. Do you have literature to back up your claims?

exactly, hes thinking short term. of coarse its going to cost money, its a broken beaten system. but its something( among others, such as the inevitable switch to renewable energy) that has to be done at some point. it will cost money now just like it will later, but later it will be more dire and more expensive( amybe eve ntoo late)

SamusFreak

OK:

First of all, I'm thinking far more in the long term than any of you seem to be. You're all focused on health care when the facts of the matter are that we're in the mess we're in because of a multitude of factors, one of which is, granted, our crap health care system. Like it or not, fixing health care will not be end all cure for our economy, though it will help. If you really want to fix our economy, focus on more than just health care.

Second of all, until we develop either reliable fusion energy, super-efficient solar panels, or develop the technology necessary to build solar farms in outer space and beam the electricity back to Earth, we will NEVER be able to run our industries, much less our houses, on green energy alone. It works on the small scale, say the size of a small city, but if you try to propose a factory build a wind farm or solar farm on its property to cut down on costs, you'll be laughed out of the room for the simple fact that the technology is horribly inefficient and atrociously cost-inefficient for large scale use.

The Nellis Solar Power Plant, for instance, occupies 140 acres of land and is only able to supply Nellis AFB with 25% of its required electrical input, or about 25 million kilowatt/hours. In comparison, New York City uses approximately 55 billion kilowatt/hours per year. (link, search for "energy use" in the top right hand search bar, it should be the first article (can't post it because it contains the word $tyle)). Or about 1/2200th the required electrical input for the whole of the city.

The most sensible solution, frankly, is to encourage the production of nuclear power plants. They're relatively clean, the more modern reactor designs, like the AP1000, can store the waste on site rather than require a massive storage facility like that which was planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, it's safe (so long as you know what you're doing and don't hire fools and charlatans), and provide a hell of a lot more power than any proposed and presently viable green alternative.