RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
AlexanderBuxton's comments:
on Controlling LNG
Just wanted to mention that I was reading through some old Vernonia Freedoms from the 1970s in which Paul Seamons wrote a series of articles about the drilling of the Mist natural gas wells outside of Mist, OR. In the articles I learned that the natural gas pumped from these wells is used for the production of fertilizers and is not used to heat peoples homes. This is just one source of natural gas I know of in Oregon that is not being utilized for heat, does anyone know of any others? Also, if the natural gas needs of this region are suppose to grow by around 1 billion ft3 in the region, we may want to think about conservation before we start on an unsustainable path of transporting natural gas half way across the world. Look at the globe, you can fit Asia, North America, Europe, Africa, South America, and the Atlantic into the Pacific Ocean. That is a very long distance to ship natural gas when we can produce it in Oregon.
Also, does anyone know how a LNG terminal would hold up to a magnitute 8.8 earthquake or 7.2 aftershocks?
posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
Again, I find myself disagreeing with you. Communicable diseases are not nessecarily easily controlled. Heart attacks or other life threatening diseases can effect families, friends, work, or you. I feel that universal health care will help protect me and those around me, just like car insurance. I do agree with you that we should eat better and excersise more, but I believe that the money should be spent in our schools to teach people how as it will be far more preventitive than trying to convince people to get out and excersise. I also agree that people will purchase health insurance if it is affordable, but our healthcare costs are estimated to grow in the future and not to decline. There are solutions that reduce all cost, standardizing forms for instance reduces administration costs for everyone.
posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context
on Saving Salmon
Also, farmed fish, at least those in the ocean, take up habitat and generate huge amounts of bacteria which are concentrated as they enter the water system.
Salmon is good for you though, and historically, everyone who lived here ate some sort of salmon, whether it be fresh or cured.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Saving Salmon
Dear OregonSean,
High partical transport is when you have a high number of particals transported downstream. It can be a mixture of both water and sediments. Sediments generally add more friction to the mixture and thus create more erosion as they move, adding more particals to the flow. The flow of streams and rivers around Mt. St. Helens shortly after the eruption in 1980 are examples of extremely high partical transport.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Saving Salmon
Decreasing high partical transport and increasing habitat will help salmon populations grow.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
Dear Datico,
"Anyone born nowadays has been privileged to live and not get aborted." You are idealising the past. There is not a general decision that happens today with parents of whether to abort their child or not. Sometimes it happens do to personal/medical choices, but that has been happening since the dawn of man as far as we know. This is God's world if that is what you believe, but it isn't a world that has slipped away from God and was once closer to God. You're right that fitness programs would help, but there are many other health problems besides obesity, but I tend to lean towards altruism, not predjudice and have a general wish that those around me should do the same. I think we do, but I also think there are a lot of misunderstandings, especially if I were to tell you you are wrong.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
I agree scottmil. You can build a public option on a local level through your city government if you get a number of people on board, but it needs to pass certain avenues to become a federal program. You're right, this will give insurance companies more business. The idea is, however, that premiums will go down with a larger pool of funds invested into insurance companies. I personally, don't think it will help the uninsurered unless the fed heavily subsidize the poor, which is expensive. It doesn't curb costs, it just provides more investment.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on A Conversation with Bill McKibben
Dear Tom,
Right, life as we know it, as an example, if it weren't for our prehistoric methane atmosphere we wouldn't have all those stinky cow farts.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on A Conversation with Bill McKibben
Dear David,
Right, I just meant that you missed environmentalism as the original term. Funny how language evolves. I suppose I'm just being a prescriptionist (in the liguistic use). I do think our understanding of things is being muddled by the terms.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
Dear Datico,
Hmmm . . . there is always a point at which a population consumes more resources than a given area can sustain, so no, I don't think banning abortion will cause human population to keep growing. Yes, we will run into problems in the future, especially if our coasts dissapear due to rising sea levels.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on A Conversation with Bill McKibben
Dear David,
Don't the greenhouse effect, global warming, and climate change all mean three diffent things though? The greenhouse effect refers to gasses in the atmosphere that cause warming. Global warming refers to the overall warming of the planet, particularly near the poles. Climate change refers to changing climates over time, something unavoidable when you have plate techtonics, convection, etc. Shouldn't we just call what is referenced by all three "The Human Effect"? I think you missed one in your list, environmentalism.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
Err, forgot to say that we can all be wrong at times :)
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
A nice message about single payer from Canada:
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
Right, however our own ignorance is what kills us. It takes two to tengo, but we seem to be stuck in an eye for an eye. How does H1N1 spread? In circles or in squares? Does it dance or does it sit still? Or does it do all those things? I really can get lost at times when time and language are all a blurr. I suppose I have a fan in my attic that has blown the right words right out of my mouth right in time. I've always been a big fan of that fan, it leaves me with a good expression. One that knows what to say.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
Yes DonnaL, but regardless of who gets taxed, the CBO estimates that it will cost us $1,042 billion dollars over the 2010-2019 fiscal years. What guarantee do we have that tax law will not change during that time and the rich hand us the bill? None, and we really shouldn't have that guarantee so we can change tax law when we feel we need to during that time. Generally we should pay for things by changing tax law, get them done, and move on, but in the case of healthcare, we should build a system that will guarantee our well being. Single payer is a system that does that (Not so keen on the English system though, would shake things up too much if the government took over the hospitals). Thus, I find a single payer system the only option right now that that will pay for itself without factoring in who has to pay, but I am open to other suggestions that are proven to work. Multipayer systems for instance. We need not to be too greedy. Rich people are people too, and while payment should be based on a percentage of annual income, so we can afford subsidize those who can't afford healthcare, the rich should not have to pay unfair share.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
Taken from Wiki about Canada's single payer system, their sources aren't sited, but I believe this to be accurate:
Fees for doctors, hospitals and other providers are set by negotiations among doctors' associations, provincial or regional governments, and the national government.[citation needed] Global budgets eliminate the high potential costs (as is the case in the U.S.) of billing individually for huge numbers of products and services.[citation needed]
Check out this link that has a summary of reports about the projected savings from single payer systems to the federal, and various state governments:
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2669
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
I agree. Profit is exponential in that sense. I also agree that the other plans being preposed are wasteful and don't take us any closer to the goal of universal coverage. They merely distract us and create a ton of work. Think about a carpenter who works all the time to cover his son's healthcare costs, he would like some time off too.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
SanityCheck is right here. President Bush enacted Medicade Part D that will last through the 2015 fiscal year. It was estimated in the Congressional Budget Office's report from February 9, 2005, that it will cost American's $558 billion dollars more between the 2004-2013 fiscal years than the cost would have been had it never been enacted. Merely a patch poised to suck in more votes from seniors by Bush. All too common among politians in my opinion. Cost us a bunch and encourages a great deal of growth in cost between those years that we as users of the medical health care system have to deal with, aka our per capita cost. Under the single payer system, not only the federal government, but also state governments would have lower per capita costs to tax payers. That means you and I both pay lower taxes. That is a good thing, then we can spend our money elsewhere and generate jobs for people. That is also a good thing. Single payer will also reduce the cost to schools for my mother's medical insurance. Then they can pay her more, or hire someone in addition to her to get more done. With more getting done in our schools, we can give more people opportunities that will help carry them through life. Madates aren't necessarily a bad thing by the way, they help us keep the things we have, but what we have costs us too much and we feel the pressure.
Check out this link for CBO, state, and various other sourced reports on single payer cost:
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2669
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
Dear SanityCheck,
This is taken from Wikipedia:
Single-payer health care insurance is a public service financing the delivery of near-universal or universal health care to a given population as defined by age, citizenship, residency, or any other demographic. Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees and then pays for all services through a single government (or government-related) source. In wealthy nations, this kind of publicly-managed health insurance is typically extended to all citizens or legal residents. The fund can be managed by the government directly or as a publicly owned and regulated agency.[2] Australia's Medicare, Canada's Medicare, and healthcare in Taiwan are examples of single-payer universal health care systems. The term 'single payer' refers to funding and does not imply a socialized medicine system. A socialized medical system is one "in which all health personnel and health facilities, including doctors and hospitals, work for the government and draw salaries from the government," an example being the U.S. Veterans Administration, while U.S. Medicare is a single payer system which is not socialized medicine.[3] In Canadian Medicare, which is a single-payer insurance available to all citizens, doctors may work in private practices or for public or private hospitals, each of which is in turn paid by government health insurance. Under the United Kingdom's National Health Service, which also uses a universal single-payer fund, the public owns the health systems and facilities. The term single-payer thus only describes the funding mechanism—referring to health care being paid for by a single public body—and does not specify the type of delivery, or who doctors work for.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
on Rx: Responding to Obama
Plus, it is expensive to figure out who is who, and the cost to us can come later in the emergency room if something goes untreated. I think illegals should be covered by a portion of a government fund that is allocated for tourists who run into trouble here. We can always manage these things later if they become too much of a cost.
posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context
